Will Race 4 Food

</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>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.

W.O.T:
Have the dyno here in Sydney, whenever your over I'll pernonally show you. Can strap in a small block (old school) 358 cid engine that puts out 850 hp at the flywheel, NA. (Thats if the dog likes you!LOL)

Quote:
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</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">W.O.T:
This is for solid roller set-up, not hydraulic, as no-one has bought that up until now. We don't do hydraulic set-ups in any of our engines. So hydraulic you would have to look at the bleed down characteristics of that lifter, & oil PSI.
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

<small>[ June 19, 2002, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Will Race 4 Food ]</small>

Will Race 4 Food

</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> </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.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">W.O.T:
NOT SO!!!
If you have, for this debate's sake, a cam with an approach ramp of 22.5 degrees up to 0.050", and a departure approach of 45 degrees (yikes!), to make it simple to understand anyway, then at any given time during cam rotation, the lifters are going to be riding on the approach ramps only one at any particular time (22.5 X 16 approach ramps = 360 degrees), whilst the more gentle closing ramp of 45 degrees will have two lifters going down on the closing ramp at any one particular time (45 X 16 = 720 degrees = 2 lifters). See what I mean??
like I said before, don't believe me then, I'm not a computer specialist (I build race engines).
Go seek out a cam manufacturer like Comp Cams, Crane, Isky, etc. Or one of the race engine shops in the USA as I said previously.
Cheers.
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Jantzer98SS

iTrader: (54)

Well I don't care what anybody tells me. There is power lost from frictional losses. If you're losing power elsewhere from not being able to keep the lifters on the lobe, then maybe you're using the wrong lobe. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Seriously, it may not necessarily be a matter of gaining/losing HP. You have to remember that dyno HP etc. doesn't necessarily equate to ET. Just like head flow numbers don't. An engine is an air pump etc. and has quick demands placed on it. The quicker you get air in (velocity) the quicker you may rev and in turn go faster. Just like the lighter your valvetrain the quicker you can rev. I don't care if it's the valvesprings, valves, or even the locks.

The weight will cost you something whether it shows up on a dyno or not. The dyno doesn't tell the story, the engine under load in real conditions is a better indicator of what the motor really likes.

Will Race 4 Food

</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> </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.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">W.O.T:
You said above, "Oh no SSBlue, your right again! LOL"
That was parating myself. Hence a bit back.
BTW, that comment was NOT directed at you or SS00Blue, that was because Terry Burger usually has quite a few negative comments directed toward him on this board, but however I have to agree with him on most of them, even though I might not post myself on some of them.
Cheers

Will Race 4 Food

</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>[QUOTE]
You're acting like the valve train was a perpetual motion machine, well there is no such thing.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">W.O.T:
For every action their is an EQUAL but opposite reaction. Input in = output out. Perpetual motionn machine. Like I said before, keep it technical and to the point.
Have a nice day <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Will Race 4 Food

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jantzer98SS:
<strong>Well I don't care what anybody tells me. There is power lost from frictional losses. If you're losing power elsewhere from not being able to keep the lifters on the lobe, then maybe you're using the wrong lobe. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Jantzer98SS:
-Frictional losses = power lost. TRUE.
-Wrong lobe: Thats not quite what we are debating about here, but valid point.

Quote;
Seriously, it may not necessarily be a matter of gaining/losing HP. You have to remember that dyno HP etc. doesn't necessarily equate to ET.

Janzter98SS:
No, but dyno HP/torque reading point you in the correct direction. How the car is set up after that, including hood scoop/ram air design, etc does affect it. If dyno's meant #$%@, then no Pro Stock team or race engine shop would shell out the big dollars for them, don't you agree?

Quote:
Just like head flow numbers don't.

Janzter98SS:
VERY TRUE! Head flow numbers are NOt to be relied upon by themselves. we have had heads that should have shown the best HP for a particular engine cid NA, but they have been way off on the dyno. Same results at the track. Go figure. Total combination of parts is the key.

Quote:
An engine is an air pump etc. and has quick demands placed on it. The quicker you get air in (velocity) the quicker you may rev and in turn go faster. Just like the lighter your valvetrain the quicker you can rev. I don't care if it's the valvesprings, valves, or even the locks.

Janzter98SS:
Very Very true.

Quote:
The weight will cost you something whether it shows up on a dyno or not.

Janzter98SS:
We were debating spring pressure, not weights of individual valvetrain parts.

Quote:
The dyno doesn't tell the story, the engine under load in real conditions is a better indicator of what the motor really likes.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Janzter98SS:
NOTHING beats the drag strip for that. BUT, you cannot always (hardly ever) get repeatability in A-B-A tests on a drag strip, and strip testing costs more $$ than dyno work does (for us anyway!). BUT, the drag slip times rule, correct! BTW, we have proven this in our race cars over the years on the track.
Cheers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

SS00Blue

</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:
<strong>[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.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is an example of how increased spring pressures make it proportionally harder to get a reciprocating assemly to turn. YOU may not see the relevance, but others probably do. It doesn't lend much credibility to YOUR argument that you DON'T see the relevance.

</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:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by SS00Blue:
[qb]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!!!! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd like to keep this civil, so please don't act condescending. The statement was made to indicate that the engineering behind the beehive shape was to allow LESS (read MINIMUM) seat pressure and LESS (read MINIMUM) open pressure to maintain proper valvetrain action, compared to traditional valvespring designs (like the old, yet weak, 70 LT1 springs). The beehive allows reduced spring pressure, reduced weight at the valve.

I don't know if it is acceptable to accuse others of lacking substance in a factual argument without actually providing any, by Aussie standards, but in the US it is considered hypocritical. I've yet to see any "proof" from you other than you seem to think you have ALL the answers. My proof is out there, credible, real-world, documented by factory designs and reasonable by engineering (in which I AM degreed) standards.

SC

<small>[ June 19, 2002, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>

SS00Blue

</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:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wide Open Throttle:
For every action their is an EQUAL but opposite reaction. Input in = output out. Perpetual motionn [sic] machine.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's an IDEAL model, or didn't you know that. In the REAL world FRICTIONAL LOSSES prevent this relationship from being unity.

To quote you: "Keep it technical and to the point."

SC

SS00Blue

WOT-

We're wasting our breath on WRFF. He apparently doesn't wish to acknowledge sound engineering principles, or even the very quote he posted from Reher prooving beyond any doubt that frictional losses, and therefore horsepower losses, are greater with an increase in spring pressure.

SC

<small>[ June 19, 2002, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>

Max@Cartek

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> If you have, for this debate's sake, a cam with an approach ramp of 22.5 degrees up to 0.050", and a departure approach of 45 degrees (yikes!), to make it simple to understand anyway, then at any given time during cam rotation, the lifters are going to be riding on the approach ramps only one at any particular time (22.5 X 16 approach ramps = 360 degrees), whilst the more gentle closing ramp of 45 degrees will have two lifters going down on the closing ramp at any one particular time (45 X 16 = 720 degrees = 2 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is at a breif given point. Besides that, the combined pressures of bopth springs on the donward push still don't sum up to the single pressure of the springs resistance to riding up the lobe. If the two closing ramps have less of a ramp angle than the open ramp, the two "lesser" pressures of the closing springs will have less mechanical advantage then the amount of force fighting it on the opening ramp.

If what you had stated above where true, you should be able to spin the valve train by hand, or it would magically spin itself.

Max@Cartek

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Input in = output out. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What happenned to the real world. There is always an efficiency issue. There are heat losses as well as frictional losses.

Max@Cartek

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is for solid roller set-up, not hydraulic, as no-one has bought that up until now. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most LS1's are hydraulic, at least from the factory, and in a majority of racing applications. But that is besides the point. You still see a loss with a mechanical setup do to the frictional losses of the added spring pressure.

Max@Cartek

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We're wasting our breath on WRFF. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know.

Terry Burger

iTrader: (4)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
For you physics nuts I know you lose 4-5% in heat and noise, I'm just making a general observation.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This was the second post I made to this thread. I can't believe WOT is arguing the nominal efficiency loss, because I ALREADY CONCEEDED IT BEFORE YOU GOT HERE! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

You get 90-95% of what you put in to the springs back out again. That is a pretty high efficiency rating, and enough to say spring pressure in and of itself has a minimal effect on an engines power.

Someone also said well why not run 1200# springs then. Too much pressure will put unnecessary stress on the valve seats, lifters, rockers, pushrods, and other related components. It will make less power because everything will break, not because of parasitic losses. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Jantzer98SS

iTrader: (54)

It seems pretty similar to comparing two crankshafts to me, one lighter than the other. It takes more power to get the heavier crank turning (same with stiffer springs), although it may be somewhat effecient once it's already turning at a "steady state rpm" if properly balanced etc. But in the real world, it's not steady RPM. It's up and down. Heavier and/or stiffer valvesprings will slow valve acceleration in either direction. And the lighter crank obviously will help throttle response and make you quicker similar to a lightweight flywheel.

But obviously the weight savings from a crank/flywheel would be considerably more than the valvesprings.

XtraCajunSS

iTrader: (2)

Once again, Terry is right...

There are nominal losses due to increased friction and its resultant heat plus the heat generated by the springs themselves. From a physics standpoint any of the energy in the system has to go somewhere. In the case of the valvespring it is heat and heat alone. This energy is very small in comparison to the total energy in the system (which is being converted to mechanical energy and waste heat through the radiator and exhaust systems mainly.)

The only reason not to use heavier valvesprings is due to increased stresses on the valvetrain, valve seats and spring pockets. It is always better to go a little larger/heavier in this case to avoid the severe power loss and damage potential of valve float. This is not debated and is not a mystery to any competent engine builder.

Wow, I guess all those years of Mechanical Engineering courses may have finally paid off...

Shane

<small>[ June 19, 2002, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: XtraCajunSS ]</small>

Slart

"Never argue with a fool. People will forget who is the fool."

I wrote a 2 page reply explaining that there is more drag and where it's distributed, then I erased it because I realized it would do no good. Perfectly valid explanations have already been thrown back and forth yet nobody's coming to an agreement.

Rather than try and explain it scientifically and get shot down by someone with half an understanding of the situation, I'll leave it at this: Anyone who's built an engine knows that when you put rockers on an engine it gets much harder to turn over. This is clearly a result of friction added by the springs, so more spring pressure clearly increases the friction.

Will Race 4 Food

</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>[QUOTE]
Someone also said well why not run 1200# springs then. Too much pressure will put unnecessary stress on the valve seats, lifters, rockers, pushrods, and other related components. It will make less power because everything will break, not because of parasitic losses. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">XtraCajunSS
[Quote]
The only reason to not use heavier valvesprings is due to the increased stresses on the valvetrain, valve seats and spring pockets [Quote]

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

<small>[ June 20, 2002, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: Will Race 4 Food ]</small>

Max@Cartek

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I can't believe WOT is arguing the nominal efficiency loss, because I ALREADY CONCEEDED IT BEFORE YOU GOT HERE!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So what if I'm argueing that point. It's true isn't it. Wouldn't you think it contradicts your argument. And it's not the only contributing factor to a loss of power. I've argued other points as well(example: friction, and bleeding down of the lifter, etc.).

Besides, since the efficiency is a percentage value, as you increase spring rates, the difference between input verse output increases also. So you have more to fight on the spin.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> It will make less power because everything will break, not because of parasitic losses. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Correction, if it breaks, it makes no power. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Parasitic losses are proportional to the added friction involved.

Max

Max@Cartek

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wow, I guess all those years of Mechanical Engineering courses may have finally paid off...
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe you should go back to community college and take the courses over again. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />