Heavy valve springs don't use more HP
06-18-2002, 06:48 PM
#22
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Will Race 4 Food on behalf of David Reher:<strong>"valvetrain dymanics more than offsets whatever additional power is required to overcome the springs resistance"</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The question is whether it takes more power when using stiffer springs. The statement above absolutely proves this, though, as he said it MAY be offset by valvetrain stability! He only states that he is willing to trade power loss due to spring pressure for gain in high RPM stability. So keeping the valvetrain stable is worth the trade off in LOSS OF POWER!
He unequivocally admits here that it takes more power when using stiffer springs, and states only that it is offset by other circumstances. All here probably are aware that the closing ramp is radically different than the opening ramp, and this dynamically affects the offset of the spring closing a valve vs. a spring opening a valve. They are not even and therefor they do not cancel out one another.
The bottom line is that it does in fact require more horsepower to drive a valvetrain with stiffer springs.
SC
PS - No one on this board could possibly advocate the use of 300/900lb triple springs with a flat wound damper for a stock LS1 roller cam. The losses would be astronomical in magnitude... PAAAAALLLLLEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEE!!!!!!
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
He unequivocally admits here that it takes more power when using stiffer springs, and states only that it is offset by other circumstances. All here probably are aware that the closing ramp is radically different than the opening ramp, and this dynamically affects the offset of the spring closing a valve vs. a spring opening a valve. They are not even and therefor they do not cancel out one another.
The bottom line is that it does in fact require more horsepower to drive a valvetrain with stiffer springs.
SC
PS - No one on this board could possibly advocate the use of 300/900lb triple springs with a flat wound damper for a stock LS1 roller cam. The losses would be astronomical in magnitude... PAAAAALLLLLEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEE!!!!!!
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
06-18-2002, 06:56 PM
#23
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> It appears you are naive enough to believe that all the energy that went in to compressing the springs just disappears in to heat. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have missed what my point was. My point was that the added force of the springs creates more friction. And that the springs that are helping(valves closing) may or may not be at a mechanical disadvantage in relationship to there counter part(valves opening). That's right they are 95% efficient, but so what. that's only relative to itself(the spring). What effects does that spring have on the rest of the valve train. The extra force that is. Look at the whole picture, not just the spring.
If it takes 100 pounds to compress the spring, then it exerts 95 pounds on the return. 5 pounds are left waisted and not in use to help. Now take that same 95% and apply it to a 300 pund spring, 15 pounds are left not to be aided in. More work is required to spin the valve train. so as a heavier spring is added, the more work is required to spin the engine.
This doesn't even take into account the fact that pressures of a spring near the end of it's cycle aren't equal to that of it near fully compression.
While the differences may be minimal, they are there, and will show.
If it takes 100 pounds to compress the spring, then it exerts 95 pounds on the return. 5 pounds are left waisted and not in use to help. Now take that same 95% and apply it to a 300 pund spring, 15 pounds are left not to be aided in. More work is required to spin the valve train. so as a heavier spring is added, the more work is required to spin the engine.
This doesn't even take into account the fact that pressures of a spring near the end of it's cycle aren't equal to that of it near fully compression.
While the differences may be minimal, they are there, and will show.
06-18-2002, 07:00 PM
#24
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP I completely agree with SS00Blue.
The reason you may not see a loss is because of the increased valve train stability at higher revs. This will offset the loss of power from the stiffer springs.
Never the less there still is a loss.
The reason you may not see a loss is because of the increased valve train stability at higher revs. This will offset the loss of power from the stiffer springs.
Never the less there still is a loss.
06-18-2002, 07:05 PM
#25
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Wide Open Throttle:
<strong>The reason you may not see a loss is because of the increased valve train stability at higher revs. This will offset the loss of power from the stiffer springs.
Never the less there still is a loss.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's the trade off that masks the reality. The outstanding fact is that Will Race For Food thought that he was proving otherwise, but apparently didn't read his own quote. He's proven the opposite, and it was HE that needed to "keep on learning and take advise [sic] from those that have the experience"!
SC
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>For every spring that is being compressed by a lifter there is another spring that is forcing a lifter back down. In other words the work springs do always cancels out, regardless of the force it takes to open those springs.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course, if this TRULY was the case, there would be a nice smooth 720 degree rotation of a 90 degree V8 with ABSOLUTELY NO kickback. The observation is entirely flawed, to say the least.
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
<strong>The reason you may not see a loss is because of the increased valve train stability at higher revs. This will offset the loss of power from the stiffer springs.
Never the less there still is a loss.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's the trade off that masks the reality. The outstanding fact is that Will Race For Food thought that he was proving otherwise, but apparently didn't read his own quote. He's proven the opposite, and it was HE that needed to "keep on learning and take advise [sic] from those that have the experience"!
SC
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>For every spring that is being compressed by a lifter there is another spring that is forcing a lifter back down. In other words the work springs do always cancels out, regardless of the force it takes to open those springs.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course, if this TRULY was the case, there would be a nice smooth 720 degree rotation of a 90 degree V8 with ABSOLUTELY NO kickback. The observation is entirely flawed, to say the least.
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
06-18-2002, 07:37 PM
#27
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Wide Open Throttle:
<strong>Oh No, SS00Blue you're right again!!
LoL</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks, WOT.
LoL
SC
<strong>Oh No, SS00Blue you're right again!!
LoL</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks, WOT.
LoL
SC
06-18-2002, 10:52 PM
#28
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP [QUOTE]Originally posted by SS00Blue:
[qb]I've found that higher seat and open pressures make it WAY harder to lash valves.
SS00Blue:
Thats not the topic here on this thread, of how hard it is (or isn't) to lash valves.
Quote;
That's also the reason they use the beehive geometry, for a lighter seat pressure and heavier open pressure.
SS00Blue:
ALL valve trains have lighter seat pressure and higher open spring pressure!!!!
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Will Race 4 Food ]</small>
[qb]I've found that higher seat and open pressures make it WAY harder to lash valves.
SS00Blue:
Thats not the topic here on this thread, of how hard it is (or isn't) to lash valves.
Quote;
That's also the reason they use the beehive geometry, for a lighter seat pressure and heavier open pressure.
SS00Blue:
ALL valve trains have lighter seat pressure and higher open spring pressure!!!!
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Will Race 4 Food ]</small>
06-18-2002, 10:56 PM
#29
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP [QUOTE]Originally posted by NoGo:
It is common knowledge that increasing the weight of your valvetrain (no matter where you do it) is going to make it more difficult for the valve to accuratly follow it's intended motion.
NoGo:
Increasing the weight of your valve train does make it harder to keep the valvetrain together at higher RPM's. I agree. BUT that statement has NOTHING to do with this thread, which is heavier (not weight) pressure valve springs.
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
It is common knowledge that increasing the weight of your valvetrain (no matter where you do it) is going to make it more difficult for the valve to accuratly follow it's intended motion.
NoGo:
Increasing the weight of your valve train does make it harder to keep the valvetrain together at higher RPM's. I agree. BUT that statement has NOTHING to do with this thread, which is heavier (not weight) pressure valve springs.
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
06-18-2002, 11:06 PM
#30
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP [QUOTE]Originally posted by Wide Open Throttle:
[QB]I've seen as much as a 7 rwhp loss going from one spring type to another.
Wide Open Throttle:
That statement says nothing. Going to heavier seat pressure? Lighter seat pressure? Heavier or lighter open pressure? What??
Quote:
The theory of one spring pushing up while another is being compressed will work if there is one lobe for another lobe at a given time working in conjuction with the other(there still is a effeciency loss). And that the lifters are in similar respects to its "paired up" other at a given point on the lobe as far as position, but that isn't the case. (for example both lifters being at the midpoint of the lobe or at the end of there opening and closig cycles for each verse one lobe nearing it's end of closing while it's supposed other is only halfway through the lift cycle).
W.O.T:
Their are 16 lobes, and they all go through the cycles, every 22.5 degrees of camshaft rotation, or 45 degrees of crankshaft rotation, their is a lifter on top of a cam lobe, etc.
Quote:
Also have to figure in ramp rate differences and the differnce in exhaust lobes to intake lobes. The lobes aren't perfectly like each other nor are they always similar in opening verse closing rates within the same given lobe.
W.O.T:
Very true, however, if a particular cam lifter has not 'hit' the opening ramp of the cam that is quick in ramp design, and another follower is still coming of the ramp of another more gentle closing ramp (fast opening, slower closing ramps), then the spring is 'assisting' the engine to turn!!
Quote:
I still think that higher spring rates are going to hurt power. And how much power loss is related to the type of cam you are running as well as the spring rate.
W.O.T:
Not so. Track tests, and engine dyno's, including electric motor driven engine assembly (don't ask)
'dyno's' prove otherwise. Read David Rehers comment for that also.
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Will Race 4 Food ]</small>
[QB]I've seen as much as a 7 rwhp loss going from one spring type to another.
Wide Open Throttle:
That statement says nothing. Going to heavier seat pressure? Lighter seat pressure? Heavier or lighter open pressure? What??
Quote:
The theory of one spring pushing up while another is being compressed will work if there is one lobe for another lobe at a given time working in conjuction with the other(there still is a effeciency loss). And that the lifters are in similar respects to its "paired up" other at a given point on the lobe as far as position, but that isn't the case. (for example both lifters being at the midpoint of the lobe or at the end of there opening and closig cycles for each verse one lobe nearing it's end of closing while it's supposed other is only halfway through the lift cycle).
W.O.T:
Their are 16 lobes, and they all go through the cycles, every 22.5 degrees of camshaft rotation, or 45 degrees of crankshaft rotation, their is a lifter on top of a cam lobe, etc.
Quote:
Also have to figure in ramp rate differences and the differnce in exhaust lobes to intake lobes. The lobes aren't perfectly like each other nor are they always similar in opening verse closing rates within the same given lobe.
W.O.T:
Very true, however, if a particular cam lifter has not 'hit' the opening ramp of the cam that is quick in ramp design, and another follower is still coming of the ramp of another more gentle closing ramp (fast opening, slower closing ramps), then the spring is 'assisting' the engine to turn!!
Quote:
I still think that higher spring rates are going to hurt power. And how much power loss is related to the type of cam you are running as well as the spring rate.
W.O.T:
Not so. Track tests, and engine dyno's, including electric motor driven engine assembly (don't ask)
'dyno's' prove otherwise. Read David Rehers comment for that also.
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Will Race 4 Food ]</small>
06-18-2002, 11:11 PM
#31
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP [QUOTE]Originally posted by Wide Open Throttle:
[QB]Think of it kinda like an uneven seesaw where one side is shorter than the other. take two kids of identical weight and place them on either end, and it won't balance out. Sorta kinda like that, lol, but not.
W.O.T:
The cam lobes are not like that. As said before, you will always have MORE cam lifters coming down on the closing ramps than going up on the (sharper) opening ramps. Check out a 'Cam Doctor' spec sheet and you will see what we mean.
Quote:
If spring rates didn't hurt, than why do most engine builders live by the rule of thumb, that the best spring pressure is just enough. If that isn't the case then we should just slam in the heaviest spring we can find, and whalla no more valve float for anyone.
W.O.T:
Breaking valve train parts has a LOT to do with that, plus the maximum size of the spring (and best material you can make it out of) has a lot also. If the spring seats were bigger, you would see bigger springs, however that also increases the weight of the retainer, so.... See what I mean?
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
[QB]Think of it kinda like an uneven seesaw where one side is shorter than the other. take two kids of identical weight and place them on either end, and it won't balance out. Sorta kinda like that, lol, but not.
W.O.T:
The cam lobes are not like that. As said before, you will always have MORE cam lifters coming down on the closing ramps than going up on the (sharper) opening ramps. Check out a 'Cam Doctor' spec sheet and you will see what we mean.
Quote:
If spring rates didn't hurt, than why do most engine builders live by the rule of thumb, that the best spring pressure is just enough. If that isn't the case then we should just slam in the heaviest spring we can find, and whalla no more valve float for anyone.
W.O.T:
Breaking valve train parts has a LOT to do with that, plus the maximum size of the spring (and best material you can make it out of) has a lot also. If the spring seats were bigger, you would see bigger springs, however that also increases the weight of the retainer, so.... See what I mean?
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
06-18-2002, 11:18 PM
#32
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SS00Blue:
The bottom line is that it does in fact require more horsepower to drive a valvetrain with stiffer springs.
SS00Blue:
Well engine dyno's, and track testing positively proves otherwise. Read posts above.
Quote:
PS - No one on this board could possibly advocate the use of 300/900lb triple springs with a flat wound damper for a stock LS1 roller cam. The losses would be astronomical in magnitude... PAAAAALLLLLEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEE!!!!!![/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">SS00Blue:
Can't fit them on LS1/LS6 heads anyway!!!! LOL.
Come on, keep it technical and back up your opinion with valid tech research. we have been building drag race and performance engines for over 20 years. Give me a break!
Cheers
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
The bottom line is that it does in fact require more horsepower to drive a valvetrain with stiffer springs.
SS00Blue:
Well engine dyno's, and track testing positively proves otherwise. Read posts above.
Quote:
PS - No one on this board could possibly advocate the use of 300/900lb triple springs with a flat wound damper for a stock LS1 roller cam. The losses would be astronomical in magnitude... PAAAAALLLLLEEEEEAAAAASSSSEEE!!!!!![/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">SS00Blue:
Can't fit them on LS1/LS6 heads anyway!!!! LOL.
Come on, keep it technical and back up your opinion with valid tech research. we have been building drag race and performance engines for over 20 years. Give me a break!
Cheers
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
06-18-2002, 11:20 PM
#33
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP [QUOTE]Originally posted by Wide Open Throttle:
[QB][QUOTE]
If it takes 100 pounds to compress the spring, then it exerts 95 pounds on the return. 5 pounds are left waisted and not in use to help.
W.O.T:
Then you must be using magical springs. Seriously though, my digital spring tester does NOT confirm this. Just is not so.
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
[QB][QUOTE]
If it takes 100 pounds to compress the spring, then it exerts 95 pounds on the return. 5 pounds are left waisted and not in use to help.
W.O.T:
Then you must be using magical springs. Seriously though, my digital spring tester does NOT confirm this. Just is not so.
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
06-18-2002, 11:29 PM
#34
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SS00Blue:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Wide Open Throttle:
<strong>The reason you may not see a loss is because of the increased valve train stability at higher revs. This will offset the loss of power from the stiffer springs.
Never the less there still is a loss.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's the trade off that masks the reality. The outstanding fact is that Will Race For Food thought that he was proving otherwise, but apparently didn't read his own quote. He's proven the opposite, and it was HE that needed to "keep on learning and take advise [sic] from those that have the experience"!
SC
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>For every spring that is being compressed by a lifter there is another spring that is forcing a lifter back down. In other words the work springs do always cancels out, regardless of the force it takes to open those springs.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course, if this TRULY was the case, there would be a nice smooth 720 degree rotation of a 90 degree V8 with ABSOLUTELY NO kickback. The observation is entirely flawed, to say the least.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">SS00Blue,
The Horsepower 'not lost' that Terry started this thread with, was for HP at the crank (or wheels, whatever). So our statements, and that of others stands, you do NOT lose HP. Proven theory. Is factual. Go seek out Reher-Morrison, Nickens Racing, Jenkins Competition, Slawko heads, etc. Ask them and see what they say. Have you built over one hundred race engines yet? Have access to a dyno on a day to day basis? That's OK that you don't, but RESEARCH first. Then post.
If I want to find out about stock electronics or A-Tap, LS1 edit or something like that (which we don't), then I wouldn't know and would seek help on this board, from guys like both you and WOT. I would not post what I thought to be true and not have PROOF from experience/testing. Enough said.
This thread was started by Terry not to flame!! Lets keep it that way and back up what you say, and not with opinion, but with testing!
Good luck with both you guys and your cars. Sincerely.
Cheers!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Will Race 4 Food ]</small>
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Wide Open Throttle:
<strong>The reason you may not see a loss is because of the increased valve train stability at higher revs. This will offset the loss of power from the stiffer springs.
Never the less there still is a loss.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's the trade off that masks the reality. The outstanding fact is that Will Race For Food thought that he was proving otherwise, but apparently didn't read his own quote. He's proven the opposite, and it was HE that needed to "keep on learning and take advise [sic] from those that have the experience"!
SC
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry Burger:
<strong>For every spring that is being compressed by a lifter there is another spring that is forcing a lifter back down. In other words the work springs do always cancels out, regardless of the force it takes to open those springs.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course, if this TRULY was the case, there would be a nice smooth 720 degree rotation of a 90 degree V8 with ABSOLUTELY NO kickback. The observation is entirely flawed, to say the least.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">SS00Blue,
The Horsepower 'not lost' that Terry started this thread with, was for HP at the crank (or wheels, whatever). So our statements, and that of others stands, you do NOT lose HP. Proven theory. Is factual. Go seek out Reher-Morrison, Nickens Racing, Jenkins Competition, Slawko heads, etc. Ask them and see what they say. Have you built over one hundred race engines yet? Have access to a dyno on a day to day basis? That's OK that you don't, but RESEARCH first. Then post.
If I want to find out about stock electronics or A-Tap, LS1 edit or something like that (which we don't), then I wouldn't know and would seek help on this board, from guys like both you and WOT. I would not post what I thought to be true and not have PROOF from experience/testing. Enough said.
This thread was started by Terry not to flame!! Lets keep it that way and back up what you say, and not with opinion, but with testing!
Good luck with both you guys and your cars. Sincerely.
Cheers!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Will Race 4 Food ]</small>
06-19-2002, 01:24 AM
#35
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP Will race for food,
Okay, where is your proof, your testing, your documentation. Show it. You've stated but have shown no quantitive data, then you go and crack down on people for providing qualitve data, very much so in the same fashion you had done in the last 5 or so posts of yours.
So if you got it, flaunt it. I'd like to see it. Because dyno testing has shown a power loss in going from one spring pressure to another. I saw this on a dyno that I do have access to on a daily basis.
There are many more reasons for a stiffer spring making less power. For example, when you have a hydraulic setup, the added force of the stiffer springs causes the lifters to bleed down more, resulting in less lift. just one more thing to work against by going to too heavy a spring.
Max
Okay, where is your proof, your testing, your documentation. Show it. You've stated but have shown no quantitive data, then you go and crack down on people for providing qualitve data, very much so in the same fashion you had done in the last 5 or so posts of yours.
So if you got it, flaunt it. I'd like to see it. Because dyno testing has shown a power loss in going from one spring pressure to another. I saw this on a dyno that I do have access to on a daily basis.
There are many more reasons for a stiffer spring making less power. For example, when you have a hydraulic setup, the added force of the stiffer springs causes the lifters to bleed down more, resulting in less lift. just one more thing to work against by going to too heavy a spring.
Max
06-19-2002, 01:28 AM
#36
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The cam lobes are not like that. As said before, you will always have MORE cam lifters coming down on the closing ramps than going up on the (sharper) opening ramps. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How is this so. For every one that goes up. You have one that comes down. So if you have more going down than up at a given point, then you must have more going up than coming down at another given point.
06-19-2002, 01:35 AM
#37
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> So our statements, and that of others stands, you do NOT lose HP </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes you will lose power if you go to too much spring pressure. You're thinking of when you go from a set of springs that allow the valve train to follow the lobes(barely) to a set of springs that have more pressure than that. When the actual original argument was whether or not a stiffer spring(obviously ones that are stiffer than ones that perform the job appropriately) will net you negative gains.
06-19-2002, 01:36 AM
#38
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can't fit them on LS1/LS6 heads anyway!!!! LOL.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know what he meant by that statement. Please don't act like a child.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know what he meant by that statement. Please don't act like a child.
06-19-2002, 01:41 AM
#39
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Very true, however, if a particular cam lifter has not 'hit' the opening ramp of the cam that is quick in ramp design, and another follower is still coming of the ramp of another more gentle closing ramp (fast opening, slower closing ramps), then the spring is 'assisting' the engine to turn!!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now reverse what you've said there. If the lifter is being pushed up and there is no lifter to assist with down pressure on a corresponding lifter. Then what, it requires power to spin the cam. And the more spring pressure you have, the more force is required to spin it.
You're acting like the valve train was a perpetual motion machine, well there is no such thing.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now reverse what you've said there. If the lifter is being pushed up and there is no lifter to assist with down pressure on a corresponding lifter. Then what, it requires power to spin the cam. And the more spring pressure you have, the more force is required to spin it.
You're acting like the valve train was a perpetual motion machine, well there is no such thing.
06-19-2002, 01:46 AM
#40
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Heavy valve springs don't use more HP </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This thread was started by Terry not to flame!! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I understand that. I've behaved <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />