postal14

iTrader: (8)

If you research up on the net you can find stuff promoting beehive valve springs like from comp. I seen a video of a 360 pound beehive out doing "I think" a 500 pound dual spring. So if pound per pound a beehive does a better job at controlling your valve train then why arent there any nastier ones? For example if low 400 pound over the nose is ok for hydraulic rollers then why arent there any drop in LS beehives with a little over 400 over the nose?

TIA: Jason

Ethan[ws6]

iTrader: (13)

spring rate is spring rate.. if a spring is 400lbs, that's that. it's design doesn't make it do that 400lbs/in more efficiently or some bullshit like that. the inner spring on a dual spring is insurance. If the main spring breaks, the second spring is there to keep your valve from shooting into the engine.

Melkor

Well, there are a few beehives with 400 over the nose. Believe PAC makes a few.

The reason you don't see any with more, is that beehive design means, one spring and that's it. Where as a cylindrical spring can be double, triple, etc..

You don't "need" as much spring if you use lightweight components, with a beehive. You already have reduced valvespring and retainer mass due to the design, so up to a point, they're a good call.

Anything more aggressive leaves you looking for a double spring or better though...

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

they arent there to hold the package together (if something breaks, it just ends up that way), theyre there to offer more pressure. itd be interesting to see what the main spring pressures are for the popular dual springs and for the inner springs.

postal14

iTrader: (8)

Yeah I wasnt thinking about the fact that there is only one spring. Its probably harder to get one spring to have that much pressure. I have seen a couple that go over 400 lb, pac has one that goes over 500 lb. Those where only a couple of sets and none of them are drop in LS springs. They are like BBC 1.45" diameter at the base. Since the bases are bigger then so are the tops. Off hand I am thinking the tops on these wind up being sized about half way in between a normal LS beehive and dual.

Just for argument sake......

Lets say you have a 1.300" dual, then a beehive with a 1.550" base and a 1.300" top. In this scenario doesnt the beehives supposed advantage really drop off due to same size tops?

Ethan[ws6]

iTrader: (13)

I wasn't saying that that was the only purpose, just saying it is a really important one to consider.

Sales2@Texas-speed

iTrader: (5)

Don't forget the second (and third) spring also offer dampening against different frequencies which can become very important in valvetrain! It's over my pay-grade, but there are engineers and such that make big money analyzing and designing the springs for different harmonics and such. Duals are better about saving engines when a breakage occurs, but I wouldn't say that's the only reason they are built and used!

Ethan[ws6]

iTrader: (13)

Right, beehives were originally designed with harmonic dampening in mind lol. That was one of the big benefits to them. And again, I wasn't saying that was the only reason they were built/used lmao. Just a very good side benefit that the beehive design does not offer.

Mell00

Actually, the original reason the beehive spring was created for was to allow increase lift capability for the spring in a performance application. Beehives were first invented to replace the old small block chevy springs as they were very limited on space to install a stock style spring. Even high pressure race style springs that installed the same as the stocker was limited on lift due such a small spring package. The beehive, by design, allows more valve lift in the spring from the difference in coil stack up. The beehive gave an additional .025"-.040" lift or so in the stock iron head small chevys. Only after the fact was it realized some of the other benefits of the beehive like smaller retainer, harmonic differences etc.
Nowadays cylinder head valve spring packaging is much more wide open allowing just about anything you want to put in a head for the application.

the beehive, though, is not a particulary proper design for all out or pro racing series (high lift/high rpm) engines for many reasons. It does, however, work very well for hi perf street strip autos and perf v-twin engine applications. That and a single spring is much more economical then a similarly processed dual or triple spring.

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

for duals, is there some sort of industry standard ratio to the spring pressures for the duals? i mean if the second/third springs are the stop harmonics, theres some sort of "set" ratio. ie: if the main spring is 300lbs and the second spring is 150lbs then the third (if there is one) is 75... a 4:2:1 ratio. anyone have incite on that?

SweetS10V8

iTrader: (4)

Ive seen some "nasty" beehives...haha, wouldnt fit our engines though.

Mell00

No, there is no specific ratio as a rule for dual of triple spring configurations. The possibilities are quite open for that type of spring at the most high levels of racing. Most all teams at pro levels (i.e. NASCAR, Indy car, Prostock, top fuel etc) have there own springs designed and made specifically for their engine and valve train combinations. Diffent VT theories will dictate how the spring engineers design springs for those custom apps. At the "everyone else" level the springs that are available are of tried and true designs since most VT combos and setups are typically based off the original OEM VT theory. The spring mfg's do spend time on new spring desgns for "everyone else" to try and keep up with what the Saturday night guy is trying to achieve. Each mfg. may have there own set of "rules" when doing initial designs for mass market use.

kingtal0n

iTrader: (1)

Having lighter spring pressures and lighter components can help reduce wear and tear. Minimize friction please, and get the job done.