Seems like there were a bunch of hurt motors this year. I’m curious why as years past weren’t nearly this bad. Interested to hear your thoughts on why this may have happened.
Quinn
Printable View
Seems like there were a bunch of hurt motors this year. I’m curious why as years past weren’t nearly this bad. Interested to hear your thoughts on why this may have happened.
Quinn
building to the outer limits with Chinese parts
just saying
Quinn,
Not having run Road America, I have some questions:
1. I assume people are running short boxes with a 1:22 3rd? Was anyone running long box?
2. I see 116 as the best trap speed and 110 as an "Average" trap speed in the draft (105-106 single car?)
Just watched your 2020 video - almost as fast, if not faster, into Canada!
3. This works out to 6700 (116) and 6400(110) approximately with a short box, but don't know what RPM is being run around other parts of the track- stretching 3rd etc. (I saw a lot of calculated 6800 in 3rd in your video)
Not know what failed - it would be difficult to point to a particular part without some more information, but I wonder how RA compares to other tracks with average RPM per lap.
ChrisZ
Yes, short boxes with a 1.22 third. I ran a long box in 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by FVRacer21
There is nothing new with anything inside the engines if we are talking about blown bottom ends. The bearings available for FV engines are made for street/stock applications. They are soft to absorb debris where as racing bearings are harder and not concerned with debris. So in general our bottom ends can be subject to glitches because of this.
I would question your observation. Your team has had bottom end issue recently that maybe color your observation. There is no formal information gathering system to record competitor engine problems. You are simply hearing word of mouth.
Lastly, there is always the issue of where these failures stand statically based on history. Could have been just a bad event.
Brian
Not exactly word of mouth when I have spoken with several drivers who had motors get hurt. Straight from the horse’s mouth maybe, but not word of mouthQuote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
I cannot speak to this years race, but I know guys have been pushing engine development a bit more lately again, and less people are using long boxes there due to better valve train parts & larger manifolds making less of a disparity between gearboxes. Couple all of that with more & more guys running faster than ever, we are simply holding the engines at higher RPM longer.
1) The engines builders are always saying that they have developed something new. It is just a pitch to make the customers happy. Nothing has changed since the introduction of super manifolds and bee hive valve springs. The latest pitch was from Carr with a claimed new crankshaft and rod combination that made more power. Just blowing smoke with no more power to show. For the last several years the Whitston engines continue to finish ahead of the Carr engines with only one exception. The engine builders are pushing BS, not engine development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Clark
2) While bee hive springs can lower power absorption they do not increase rpm limits. The intake is really what controls the upper limit of the power band. The performance of the 'best' manifolds is little change over the last decade. Well with the limits of test equipment measuring tolerance.
3) I am not sure the 'guys' are running any faster. Look at the RA qual times, the range and picking order pretty much the same as past years. Note: at RA the most time is spent in the 5500-5800 rpm range. Very few seconds spent at 6700+ going into Canada corner. The long box would be handy for Canada, but the rest of the track requires the short box. If you are racing for the win up the front straight like this year, you must have the short box.
So the blown engines this year remain a statistical anomaly until proven otherwise.
Brian.
Brian,
You live in your own "island" out there in Cali & online here. You don't know who has been doing what.
I will only address 2 things quick, because I don't feel like a pissing contest yet again.
"While bee hive springs can lower power absorption they do not increase rpm limits"
That is flat out dumb to even say. When we float valves with stock pieces, then suddenly don't with an upgraded valve train, RPM limits are very much increased. I can personally show at least 600-700 rpm increases from doing that alone.
As far as my point about guys running faster than ever, I was referring to the quantity overall, not just the lead handful at the Runoffs. We are seeing it all over in NEFV, Challenge Cup & DriverZ Cup. There are a LOT of really competitive cars now, and we have seen people slowly upgrading to this point. The gap from Regional to National has shrunk a ton the past 5 years on the East Coast.
Plus, I literally talk to some of the builders & chat about what they are doing & seeing. Same for gearboxes. It's an arms race again, and tiny details are critical again after years of not really needing it.
Curious, with no cooling fans, what cylinder head and oil temps are people running?
Possibly dumb question, out of sheer curiosity:
With the new pavement, are exit speeds out of three higher now and pushing revs up all the way to 5?
Same question for 14 exit, and of course all the way to 12…
I looked, and noticed Pole this year was about 1.3 seconds below the Pole for 2020 — but doubt all that was just from fresh pavement.
My oil temp runs from 165 F to about 220 F on Mychron 5S data, depending on track and ambient temp/humidity/drafting traffic. Mostly around 190-200, which I consider perfect in my BRD.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrh3
I don't monitor CHT on my data, and presently can't see the gauge(Mychron is covering it), but it was typically less than 300F when I could see it.
With respect to beehive springs, the different coil diameters tend to NOT resonate like straight/regular coils, thereby increasing rpm, because the valve movement is better controlled before spring float. This is documented.
I have a very good knowledge of what the engine builders are doing. Engine development is my hobby so I make a point to keep on top of things. I am interested in the knowledge, not selling anything. There is no one that does or has done more current engine development than me, with the possible exception of M Ferguson. Because of the restrictive rule set and lack of any new hardware/materials, all my development almost always fails to show any improvement on the dyno. What all my development does provide is a clear understanding of what is possible for our FV engines at this moment in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Clark
So feel free to challenge me, maybe I can learn something. This is a tech discussion, not a pissing contest.
1) Valve springs: Before bee hive springs, you could achieve any RPM you wanted using a standard shaped high quality racing spring. Just required high seat pressures. With the bee hive and subsequential lower valve train weight, less seat pressure was required. So less power required to operate the valve train. Unfortunately this power savings barely exceeds the measurement tolerance of the dynos we use.
2) Arms Race of BS. They are just blowing smoke at you to sound like they know what they are doing. Same goes for transmissions.
Challenge me, pick any part or subassembly and I will tell you the development restrictions that part has.
Brian
Cool beans. Air-cooled opposed engines are literally my job, for 20 years now (note my location).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
And you think Mitchell is the only one playing (engine or gearboxes)? That's laughable.
"Challenge me"? Literally the pissing contest I said I wasn't going to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E1pix
1) I THINK, all the straights are long enough so that you reach terminal velocity way before the braking points. Power and aero drag not modified by exit speed.
2) This years pole time was an anomaly. There are two types of drafting: two cars tow around together or you pass draft past a car on the straight. The pole times were made by the Whitstons while running back in the pack. They had three straights to pass cars. I would speculate that they ran together AND made some timely passes on the straights during their best laps.
The Whitstons lap times were no better than everyone else during the race. The lap times in general for the race were quite unremarkable.
Brian
Your job is not FV engines. That is the big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Clark
So what engine or gearbox 'things' are being played with? Be specific and I will give you the restriction that area of development faces.
I'm up for learning something. A tech discussion to have fun with.
Brian
I dont know about the others but my dads engine was blown due to an oil block issue (the oil filter block wasnt plugged by a prior builder like it should have been, ultimately our fault and not in any way Chris's) the engine itself was fine prior to that.
Mine i hurt due to an oil line coming loose in testing (my fault). I know Mike Lawernce had an issue, not sure about Scaler.
Brian
I wasn’t blaming any builder. Heck, my motor blew on Thursday and I have no idea why at this point. I just noticed there were a lot of motor issues this year and I wondered why. That’s all.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Farnham
I do think it's the RPM we're seeing in the draft puts a lot of stress on the engines, if everything is balanced properly it shouldn't be an issue though.Quote:
Originally Posted by fv9
And just wanted everyone to know Chris did a great job and has really taken care of us.
What happened to you in the race?
Brian
It was a RACE - did you watch it?? There were lead changes into every corner - thus, you aren't going to see qualifying lap times. Is that concept completely lost on someone like you who doesn't actually race, but sits at your keyboard and shoots down everybody's opinion? Sometimes I wonder if you even think about the stuff you write or if you just can't go a day without making a moronic, argumentative post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
There is no doubt we've been blowing more engines for the last decade and a half, mostly due to the stupid (formerly ILLEGAL) manifolds that YOU contributed to. If Frank Shulteis had still been the Vee czar when that nonsense was adopted, there's no way he would have ruled it legal. The only reason it was forced on us is because too many people had too much invested at that point. I don't care if I get banned, I'm so tired of your antagonistic comments, theories, and statements. You blow more smoke than anyone I know, and you're taking shots at engine builders?? Manifolds, as you stated, are the contributing factor. We weren't turning these asinine RPMs before that.
James
Back up motor was way down on power. Was last on lap 2 so came in. Could be as simple as not getting full throttle, although we set it correctly, but don’t know yet. $hit happens. I’m ok with it now. Was still a great week and Ganassi isn’t calling any ofQuote:
Originally Posted by B Farnham
us this week.
FWIW, the engine I used at the Runoffs (Chris Cox) now has 38 sessions on it. I ran the June Sprints, Cat major and the Runoffs (20 RA sessions) with a 1:22 short box, no engine issues.
Smoke? Stop ranting and make some substantial or factual challenges to my statements. No one learns anything from ranting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agitator
This is a boast not an advertisement: I believe my manifolds have been used by of 11 of the last 15 Runoffs winners.
Brian
Sorry to hear that, I figured it was something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by fv9
Brian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Adams
I'm not a runoffs guy, but my engine has 26 sessions on it so far and is running great. I have done regular oil changes and valve adjustments(and there are minimal changes there at that). NER/NEFV tracks plus the Glen and Summit Main.
It's good to know that the engines can last a long time between refreshes.
Don't know if these motor issues are the same but the majority of failures I have seen are the #2 rod bearing failure. Sharing oil with the main bearing I guess. Can't seem to find clevite 77 bearings in .020 under or .030 anymore. Have some .010 but no cranks to match.
Its racing! Every weakness that gets solved creates a new weakness down the line.
ftfyQuote:
Originally Posted by mmi16
"Its racing! Every weakness that gets solved creates a new and more expensive weakness down the line."Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hanushek
Which is why "Advancement is often an oxymoron"
And the "law of unintended consequences" is not to be underestimated.
All rules should have an "adjustment" clause after a two year evaluation - if needed.
ChrisZ
I'm just curious who's you built. I don't know at all just curious on the stat. I know you didn't build my dad's and I don't think you built Jennerjahn's 2020 one or any of Varacins'. As I assume the latter two are Kochanski being from the Midwest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
So the past 15 individuals Runoffs winners are: S. Whitston, A. Whitston, Farnham, Jennerjahn, Varacins, Shields, Siebenaler, Stout, Oseth, Loughead, Rufener, Lazier, Adams, Noble, and Davis.
Who's did you build?
"...the last 15 Runoffs winners...",
not "the past 15 individuals Runoffs winners".
This should yield a huge clue as to who they are.
All of Varacins FV wins. Generally my manifolds are used by competitors that build their own engines. It is hard for them to get the best manifolds from the other manifold suppliers. The processes I use allow all my manifolds to be equal or a little better than the 'best' from other suppliers. A 'little' better is 2-3% flow numbers. Not always easy to see on the average FV engine builders dynos.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamLoughead35
The major engine builders have tie-ins with manifold suppliers. They have a bias against my manifolds and have to date never have never found my manifolds as good on the dyno. This is completely understandable and this is why I alway warn potential customers to stay with what their engine builder is providing. The engine builder is only going to create doubt about the quality of the manifold I provide. I build manifolds to satisfy my ego not for income, so no need to push for a sale. 1-2 manifold sales per year at best.
My manifolds are a high performance piece. They will not last forever. For serious competitors only. I vary the etched thickness of the manifold walls. Certain sections of the manifold are more important than others to maximize flow. The thin sections are much thinner than what is found on normal FV manifolds. The manifolds must be mounted and treated with great physical care.
Brian
I know nothing of FV motors, but am curious. What is the relationship between a 2-3% increase in flow and (presumably) increased HP (or torque for that matter)?
Said differently, how correlated is that increase in flow to say those two outputs? I am guessing increased flow of 2-3% generates a less-than-that increase in HP/torque, but what is the difference
best
bt
Correct, 2-3% increase flow does not translate into 2-3% power increase. My work would indicate an improvement more on the order of .25 to at best .5 HP increase for this amount of flow improvement.
The correlation is difficult to develop because the test equipment, flow benches and common FV dynos, being used have a testing tolerance of 2% or greater. So these small improvements are well within the tolerance of the measuring equipment.
Brian
What initially triggered my interest in using bee hive springs back in the 80's was my building some Cosworth engines which were used in FA at the time. I was told the engines were good for somewhere around 11,000 rpm if they made it thru "the trouble zone" which was (as best I can now recall) in the low to mid 9,000 range. While at a conference that Superflow was putting on I brought it up to the rep from Comp Cams, suspecting it was a mid-range resonant frequency issue, which I suspected centered around the valve springs. He ignored my question, but I remembered on 4 cyl. Porsche engines we used inner and outer springs with a slight interference fit to cancel out the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
First, Vees are held to a single spring, and secondly the doubles would wear on each other and I surmised probably also generated heat. (there were also actually some triple springs which I never got in to). Next thing I knew was C.C. had bee hives. Maybe that is why he would not discuss the issue with me. Besides the reduction in valve train weight (just the retainers can be close to 2/3s lighter), that smaller retainer allows you to skip hogging away the underside of the rocker arm weakening a component that was designed for sub 4,000 rpm shift points. Another advantage, and possible proof of the R.F. issue is that I no longer see pushrods that are polished in the middle which I believe has to be caused by them flexing to the point that they are rubbing on the tubes. Besides the stress generated, there is the reduced lift while they are bowed. Does this make any sense?
I have not checked recently, but there was a Youtube vid that showed this, using a paint stripe on a spring and retainer that would start rotating in opposite directions when the R.F. kicked in. At that point it also looked to me like the valve train is beating the daylights out of itself. Comments welcome.
A question that has taken up room in my head for 30 or 40 years;Quote:
Originally Posted by fv9
Does anyone building trannies have a trannie dyno? Seems like it could be done using a fairly substantial electric motor to spin the trans at given rpm points and measuring resistance while imposing a measured load. Does that make sense? For instance, I've always wondered if there really is an advantage to using the ball style pinion shaft bearing vs. the roller style, how worn the syncros should be, or which is the best lube. Thoughts?
Mike,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharplikestump
Might show up on a chassis dyno, but the margin of error would probably be too much.
but your last variable got me thinking. Since FV is supposed to be about driver ability rather than car prep, and since we are stuck at RA for the next two years, how about every car run a long box with a 1.26 3rd, and 2 hours before the race, every car line up and be filled with the same weight motor oil and tranny oil? Safe for longevity rather than best for speed. Maybe Valvoline could come back as a sponsor of the race.* I assume some people are playing with one race oils, and experimenting with all the new low viscosity oils.
*do it for the entire week to prevent qualification oil. :D
ChrisZ
"I assume some people are playing with one race oils..."
I was told by a top end runoffs competitor several years ago that he was using a one race oil (and a one race engine for that matter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharplikestump
Hey Mike - Long time...
I don't know the answer, but I think it would be useless to measure the input unless you were to load the "output" with the loading we see on the track. If I were designing such a system, I would use high quality brakes to control the load on the axle shafts simulating the cars loading, and have a load cell between a motor and the input shaft to measure the force required for a given output load. I have a feeling the difference between good tranny's and bad ones would be detectable, but probably a difficult to measure value for small changes. I have no idea if anyone uses such a setup. I recall that a fellow down in Colombia SC that built trannys 50 years ago would use a torque wrench to measure the resistance to turning the input, but his output loading was just VW drum brakes and not very reliable... Not to mention the slow speed turning by hand.
It's a good question. Maybe someone that knows will actually answer :)
Chris,Quote:
Originally Posted by FVRacer21
Your reply made me smile. Knowing this group, If you showed up in a brilliant white robe, sandals that are not quite touching the ground, and a halo that had no support wires attached, my guess is you might get 1/3 of our group to buy into your suggestion.
I do agree with your assessment of a chassis dyno though. Maybe if the average of 10 pulls per car were recorded.
Having done fewer than 100, (mostly VW with a few early Porsche mixed in) I consider myself a newbee, but compared to the pains that some of us take on engines, I feel that trannies are still pretty crude.
Even though I have the fixtures, many pieces and parts (new and used) I do not want to build any, (read; NONE). I am also probably too lazy to take the time to catalog all the stuff unless I know there is serious interest, which would make more sense than having it plowed into the hole on top of me, so I should probably look into mentioning it.
Not sure if it applies to other types of gearboxes, but SADEV USA in North Carolina offers gearbox dyno services at their rebuild shop.
KR
To properly dyno the FV trans requires that it be powered by approx 60 hp. That is a serious electric motor and measurement system. The internal loads have to be accurately applied inside the trans to learn anything.
Both the power source and axle outputs have to be measured with load cells. I would use a race engine for the power source. It would have to be on a gimbled frame to take a load cell measurement of its output. This engine cell is mounted on the trans test chassis. The axle outputs need to be controlled by water brakes and measured with load cells.
All this is doable at a reasonable price but would require a sizable test stand/chassis.
Brian
And if you are going to do that at normal max RPM then with the ratio required for a 4 pole electric motor of 1:2, you will need a 120hp motor and drive... Pretty pricey stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Yes, this is absolutely true if you want to understand the absolute power absorption of a transmission. If, however, the objective is only to make a comparison between two configurations an inertia dyno could be used and, assuming the input torque remains the same, a time to RPM plot of the transmission output would show which configuration has less drag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharplikestump
Ball style pinion bearings: Moot point. Unless you find NOS there are no ball bearings worth using. I have collected them for 30 years and have never found one that was not micro pitted or worse. A pitted bearing is not efficient. A correctly made NEW bearing is most efficient when new. All that loose bearing or trans axle setup stuff is a myth. New bearings and the thinnest oil you can find. Do not worry about wear in your racing life time.
Brian
He was blowing smoke! How in the world are you going to damage the syn oil in one event without first damaging the bearings from too much heat. How else do you damage the oil without 250 deg plus heat?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
One race engine: Could be some lose in cylinder sealing during one event depending on your setup.... in theory.
Brian
Pointless... What you have to control is the viscosity of the oils... the temps they are used at. Everything you mention does almost nothing compared to the use of the monster manifolds.Quote:
Originally Posted by FVRacer21
Brian
What was meant was the engine was only good for the one race using a zero weight oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
IF you can get the oil system correct, using zero weight oil would have very little effect on 'race' engine longevity. The big problem to solve is low rpm oil pressure. Our oil pumps do not pump enough volume at low rpm. Using a very high volume pump uses more power than the use of zero weight is saving. The OEM's use a variable output pump to solve this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
Brian
Yes, I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32