Pro Stock Tech - Page 395 - Yellow Bullet Forums
;

Go Back   Yellow Bullet Forums > Technical Section > Naturally Aspirated - Uratchko Racing Engines

Naturally Aspirated - Uratchko Racing Engines

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-20-2019, 11:15 AM   #5911
goneracin
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
goneracin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Nick
Im going to disagree with using the real springs for figuring max lift and ill explain why



Every single spintron trace ive seen, the valve gets back to theoretical lift when the parts "unwind" at rpm. At lower rpm not necessarily, but at higher rpm, it gets to theoretical or beyond as everything lofts and unwinds.


So if you set the springs say .100 from bind, and you had .040 deflection due to the real springs, when everything unwinds up high, you are now .060 (im just pulling numbers out of my ass for demonstration purposes)



this is why we are doing it now with a soft spring and getting the actual real lift at the valve, and the actual true ratio of the rocker, because i want to account for the "pole vault" action of the parts as they unwind. We are probably farther from bind than i think with the sportsman stuff, but its working great.



Again, this is just how i do it, and my rational behind doing it this way. YMMV, but since we have adopted this several years back things seem to be much happier out in the real world.


Carry on
__________________
The king of the internet forum billy badass bullshit
goneracin is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-20-2019, 12:59 PM   #5912
Warp Speed
Senior Member
Smoked Another SBC
 
Warp Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,249
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGNBLDR View Post
I'll add one other thing about trying to set up proper coil bind that I don't think was mentioned. First off, NEVER go off your cam card using whats printed as max lift based off of their calculations. Also, you really never should figure out max lift using just math. Meaning, lift times ratio minus lash... That doesn't work!

I'm not trying to say this to bash Bob with his above comment on the two failures and learning the hard way. But if you are truly trying to set up bind to a specific number those two failures would of never happened.

First off, I have never seen any rocker arm (not that I have checked them all) that has the same ratio as stamped. Most and I believe all rocker arms have more ratio than what is stamped. The extra ratio is not included to accommodate flex but is there because of motion loss due to it being exactly what it is called, a "rocker arm". Through physics a rocker arms motion is an arc which has motion loss. If you truly made an arm with a 1.7 ratio and then actually calculated out what the true ratio is, you would get less than 1.7. I believe most manufactures add a half ratio to compensate for that loss of motion. So by adding ratio when you check the arm it's now much closer to a 1.7 ratio.

The true and I feel the only way to set up coil bind is to mock up the system using all the same parts as you would when its going together for the final time. I will use shim instead of trying to crush a head gasket to make that part easier. I will put the cam in, snug down the head using shim stock to replace the head gasket and put the valve train all together. Again, using all the same parts as you would when if goes together for the final time. Meaning, I don't use "soft" springs or mock-up pushrods. Keep in mind to find max lift, you do not need to go through the process of degreeing in the cam. Unless you are also trying to figure out P2V, then you would have to. I've actually made a tool, so all I assemble is a cam, head and valve train with no crank in the block. I can just turn the cam with the tool I made. You also only have to do just one cylinder so don't mock up the entire engine to do this. You can do one side at a time which can make it easier to do. So set the valve lash accordingly and then put he dial indicator on the spring or retainer and make sure it's on a flat spot. Set zero and rotate the cam and physically see what you have for max lift is.

Then to set you installed height, now it's just math. You then take you bind height of the spring plus your gross valve lift plus your desired coil bind clearance and you have now very accurately come up with a "true" installed height for your engine. If you do it that way, you will never have a coil bind issue. The biggest variable is in the spring itself. Like mentioned above, all springs have a spec bind number. Some manufactures are pretty good being within +/- .010 which is still within tolerance. I have seem some be plus .040 which then would affect things if installed to tight. Hopefully everything above made sense and hopefully to some have a better understanding on the process...

Nick
I agree!
__________________
Research and Development is allot like life in general...........................it's all about managing disappointment!

Quote:
Originally Posted by lun40119 View Post
My name isn't Jake........and I don't have a red chevelle. I am a keyboard junkie, in my mom's basement, with no pants on.
Warp Speed is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 06:39 PM   #5913
NGNBLDR
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
NGNBLDR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: West Valley City, UT
Posts: 3,199
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by goneracin View Post
Nick
Im going to disagree with using the real springs for figuring max lift and ill explain why



Every single spintron trace ive seen, the valve gets back to theoretical lift when the parts "unwind" at rpm. At lower rpm not necessarily, but at higher rpm, it gets to theoretical or beyond as everything lofts and unwinds.


So if you set the springs say .100 from bind, and you had .040 deflection due to the real springs, when everything unwinds up high, you are now .060 (im just pulling numbers out of my ass for demonstration purposes)



this is why we are doing it now with a soft spring and getting the actual real lift at the valve, and the actual true ratio of the rocker, because i want to account for the "pole vault" action of the parts as they unwind. We are probably farther from bind than i think with the sportsman stuff, but its working great.



Again, this is just how i do it, and my rational behind doing it this way. YMMV, but since we have adopted this several years back things seem to be much happier out in the real world.


Carry on
Sorry, I guess we can agree to disagree on this one... I myself have done hundreds of sweeps on the Spin-tron. One thing that is for sure is, you can't always predict what is going to happen and that's with testing just one combination. How in the world can you predict what is going to happen with each and every combination that is out there? There are several "what ifs" in Spin testing and to try and predict what is actually going to happen and set up for it I feel is completely asking for problems ahead. There are hundreds of combinations to test with and each will have it's very own traits. So I feel the best thing to do for most people is to stick with the basis which won't break parts and try and test from there...

Nick
__________________
Nick Ferri Racing
5x NHRA Pro Stock Champion Engine Builder
Dealer for CFE, Jesel, The Holley Group, CP/Carrillo, Manley, HPL Lubricants and many others...
NGNBLDR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 06:46 PM   #5914
NGNBLDR
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
NGNBLDR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: West Valley City, UT
Posts: 3,199
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

I also meant to say that if you have a system that seems to be working for your applications then that's great too....
__________________
Nick Ferri Racing
5x NHRA Pro Stock Champion Engine Builder
Dealer for CFE, Jesel, The Holley Group, CP/Carrillo, Manley, HPL Lubricants and many others...
NGNBLDR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 08:07 AM   #5915
3V Performance
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
3V Performance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Denver, N.C.
Posts: 1,158
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by goneracin View Post
Nick
Im going to disagree with using the real springs for figuring max lift and ill explain why



Every single spintron trace ive seen, the valve gets back to theoretical lift when the parts "unwind" at rpm. At lower rpm not necessarily, but at higher rpm, it gets to theoretical or beyond as everything lofts and unwinds.


So if you set the springs say .100 from bind, and you had .040 deflection due to the real springs, when everything unwinds up high, you are now .060 (im just pulling numbers out of my ass for demonstration purposes)



this is why we are doing it now with a soft spring and getting the actual real lift at the valve, and the actual true ratio of the rocker, because i want to account for the "pole vault" action of the parts as they unwind. We are probably farther from bind than i think with the sportsman stuff, but its working great.



Again, this is just how i do it, and my rational behind doing it this way. YMMV, but since we have adopted this several years back things seem to be much happier out in the real world.


Carry on

Agree. We take it a step further and started spinning on our spintron at a low " 250-500 rpm " with a very very light inner spring only to have the laser trace the valve lift curve without deflection in the system affecting it. That's how we figure max lift with actual components being used. Stand installed height, push rod length, adjuster cup height, etc all change the ratio.
__________________
Tom
Proud Dad of a US Marine

3V Performance
"ENGINES WITH AN ATTITUDE"
Custom race engines
Full machine shop
Dyno service
Combustion Analysis Testing
75HP Spintron
3D Laser Printing
5 axis CNC
828-302-4088
Facebook 3V Performance
3V Performance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 08:28 AM   #5916
Chris Uratchko
Moderator
Smoked Another SBC
 
Chris Uratchko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: In the shop....
Posts: 35,141
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by goneracin View Post
The 500 depending on the cam design and a few other factors, anywhere from .090 to .145. .
The internet said you can't do that, and has produced a wide road of people who believe it.
Chris Uratchko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 08:29 AM   #5917
Chris Uratchko
Moderator
Smoked Another SBC
 
Chris Uratchko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: In the shop....
Posts: 35,141
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Clevenger View Post
Thank you, appreciate your comments. I do compress the springs to coil bind and measure. Never what the box claims. I think I will add some additional space in there. Thanks again.
Sorry I didn't get to respond to your pm soon enough.

I think if you're seeing that much variance in CB.... that is certainly a quality control problem. What exactly could cause the variance if the coils are the same dia spring to spring? Has to be a wire quality issue and that's not a good indicator to the rest of the spring.....

PSI Springs do not vary like that.
Chris Uratchko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 08:35 AM   #5918
Chris Uratchko
Moderator
Smoked Another SBC
 
Chris Uratchko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: In the shop....
Posts: 35,141
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGNBLDR View Post
Sorry, I guess we can agree to disagree on this one... I myself have done hundreds of sweeps on the Spin-tron. One thing that is for sure is, you can't always predict what is going to happen and that's with testing just one combination. How in the world can you predict what is going to happen with each and every combination that is out there? There are several "what ifs" in Spin testing and to try and predict what is actually going to happen and set up for it I feel is completely asking for problems ahead. There are hundreds of combinations to test with and each will have it's very own traits. So I feel the best thing to do for most people is to stick with the basis which won't break parts and try and test from there...

Nick

I haven't seen anyone mention Loft yet unless I missed it.

I haven't seen a healthy spintron trace that didn't show loft.... at least not with my stuff. I don't believe you can set up a spring without accounting for some kind of theoretical amount of loft even without spin data.

And you certainly don't want the spring to stack.......
Chris Uratchko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 09:52 AM   #5919
BBF612
Senior Member
Smoked Another SBC
 
BBF612's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 7,279
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

TTT



Quote:
Originally Posted by goneracin View Post
Nick
Im going to disagree with using the real springs for figuring max lift and ill explain why



Every single spintron trace ive seen, the valve gets back to theoretical lift when the parts "unwind" at rpm. At lower rpm not necessarily, but at higher rpm, it gets to theoretical or beyond as everything lofts and unwinds.


So if you set the springs say .100 from bind, and you had .040 deflection due to the real springs, when everything unwinds up high, you are now .060 (im just pulling numbers out of my ass for demonstration purposes)



this is why we are doing it now with a soft spring and getting the actual real lift at the valve, and the actual true ratio of the rocker, because i want to account for the "pole vault" action of the parts as they unwind. We are probably farther from bind than i think with the sportsman stuff, but its working great.



Again, this is just how i do it, and my rational behind doing it this way. YMMV, but since we have adopted this several years back things seem to be much happier out in the real world.


Carry on
BBF612 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 09:56 AM   #5920
novafornow
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
novafornow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Central Ca.
Posts: 1,257
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

This conversation is a great example of the best of these forums. Giants of the industry discussing the hows and whys of the trade. It is fascinating to me that as hugely successful these guys are, they still have some different theories and procedures. Absolutely wonderful stuff guys. I personally can't thank you enough.
novafornow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 10:26 AM   #5921
PanzerrayHemi
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Springtown Pa
Posts: 1,178
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by novafornow View Post
This conversation is a great example of the best of these forums. Giants of the industry discussing the hows and whys of the trade. It is fascinating to me that as hugely successful these guys are, they still have some different theories and procedures. Absolutely wonderful stuff guys. I personally can't thank you enough.
X2

Spent 3 days combing through this thread , lots of great info and respectful banter.
__________________
1963 Thunderbolt (clone) 496FE(no times yet)
1968 Mustang slow a$$ 428 FE
1971 Boss 351 Mustang [email protected]
1993 Lighting 10.61 @ 129mph 408Ci A3 headed NA
2001 Lighting [email protected] 148MPH 5.4 Mod Motor
2010 Challenger 10.30 @ 132MPH 408CI G3ci NA
2018 Hennessey HPE1000 Demon [email protected]
2019 Lighting
6'5" M.A.G.A hat wearing Black Man...Deal with it.
PanzerrayHemi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 05:20 PM   #5922
Ron Clevenger
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Central California
Posts: 3,618
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Uratchko View Post
Sorry I didn't get to respond to your pm soon enough.

I think if you're seeing that much variance in CB.... that is certainly a quality control problem. What exactly could cause the variance if the coils are the same dia spring to spring? Has to be a wire quality issue and that's not a good indicator to the rest of the spring.....

PSI Springs do not vary like that.
I think you mistook or I didn't explain it well. No variance issue. And I do run the PSI and occasionally the Manely NexTek. Thanks.
__________________
Creekside Racing Ministry...John 14:6
Now testing new Travis Quillen Motorsports Engineering Methanol boost referenced high pressure MFI system
Easy tune and killing power......6.02 @ 229 ([email protected])
Steve Morris www.stevemorrisengines.com
Ron Clevenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 07:13 PM   #5923
NGNBLDR
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
NGNBLDR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: West Valley City, UT
Posts: 3,199
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3V Performance View Post
Agree. We take it a step further and started spinning on our spintron at a low " 250-500 rpm " with a very very light inner spring only to have the laser trace the valve lift curve without deflection in the system affecting it. That's how we figure max lift with actual components being used. Stand installed height, push rod length, adjuster cup height, etc all change the ratio.
Tom,

I don't get, so explain why you would want to do all of that? What you said above is completely contradictory. You first said you spin stuff at 250-500 rpm with a very very light inner spring. Then in the next sentence you said, that's how you figure out max lift using actual components. That doesn't make sense to me!?!?!?!? Using a very very soft spring isn't one of the actual components???? Ya, I agree that all those components you listed above do change ratio. But all those components need to be setup right when designing and building an engine from the start.

I understand everything that your guys are trying to do but what I can't figure out is why? I guess I can make a rocker arm so stiff for measuring purposes so there is no deflection. I'll make a solid pushrod made out of beryllium so I know I have absolutely no flex. I'll take out my Ti valves and stick in steel valves to eliminate any deflection on the stem and I'll then tighten up my guide clearance for a more accurate measurement. So after doing all of that and now mocking everything up and measuring my gross net lift. What do I do then? I then will realize that my new found no flex system has lets say .030, .040 or even .050 more lift than the actual parts that I am realistically going to run. So what do I do with that information?

I know that there is a "pole vault" or "spring board" affect going on in my system. I know I will have loft in my system. But trying to figure out information that I admit is there, as you listed. I just don't see how to make that useful and here's why. Everyone knows you can't run a spring at zero coil bind or parts will break. The thing is not every application will run the same clearance from bind as other applications. My guess is that an everyday street car probably have very minimal bind cause a street car doesn't have or have very minimal "spring" affect in the system and or loft. Warp can verify this or not but I believe some NASCAR stuff has as minimal as .030 bind clearance. I've seen drag stuff vary from .070 to .150 and each spec all depends on the application. So I don't understand how is the time useful figuring out stuff that isn't practical in a running engine using all the parts that are in the engine.

Some rockers are much stiffer than others and same with the pushrods and that would even include cam cores. So why not just put the assembly together and see where the "pole vault" effect comes into play and see where surge comes in and where and how much loft is in the system? Then you change parts and bind clearances to see what combination works the best for that particular combination, right?

So back to my original question, how does doing all of stuff you guys describe change my end result?

Nick
__________________
Nick Ferri Racing
5x NHRA Pro Stock Champion Engine Builder
Dealer for CFE, Jesel, The Holley Group, CP/Carrillo, Manley, HPL Lubricants and many others...
NGNBLDR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 07:55 PM   #5924
goneracin
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
goneracin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Nick
without spinning every single change a person makes, there is some guesswork involved obviously.


My feelings fwiw. Every spintron trace ive seen got back to "theoritical" lift or beyond. Theoretical being lobe lift X true rocker ratio - lash = theoretical.


So i know that when the motor is running at higher rpm, i will get to that amount of lift at the valve. I dont really care where in teh whole thing the pushrod/rocker,etc all unwind. I just know it does. So i set my shit up for "maximum theoretical lift" as i truly feel i will get there at some point, so i have to account for it.


say i have a .565 lobe with a true (measured at the valve with soft springs) 2.05 rocker i know im going to get to that lift at the valve at high rpm. so i have to set up my valvetrain to make sure im never solid there. Agree 100% that there is deflection, and ill never be close to that until i get the parts to unwind, and loft.



IMO the reason we need to give more distance to bind with more agressive cams is a) spring surge when you excite the spring initially, and b loft. If we knew true loft in every application, we could set up tighter and help things out. I always build in some amount of error in my guess (im not spinning every thing we do, i cant afford it...lol) so ideally we may need to be .060 from solid, but i set up at .080 because i know ill never eat all of that up.


With the 500, its different because i will spend the time to adjust it .015 at a time to find its happy spot. Again, the sportsman stuff i cant do that. But I run the same basic lobe family in my peersonal motor i run in customer stuff, and i have worked that ideal distance on my shit, so i can get it close.



I allow a little bit for what i feel is a safety factor for loft, and send it...lol
for our sportsman shit, its proven very successful. i can run almost an inch of lift at 8200 rpm and go 250 laps without hurting springs, so i feel ive gotten it pretty good....


Again, dont think im saying what you do is wrong, you have obviously worked things out for your system. For me, and for what we do, we have had outstanding results with what we have developed.
__________________
The king of the internet forum billy badass bullshit
goneracin is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-22-2019, 09:56 AM   #5925
CFMCNC
Senior Member
Smoked another BBC
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2,727
Default Re: Pro Stock Tech

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGNBLDR View Post
I'll add one other thing about trying to set up proper coil bind that I don't think was mentioned. First off, NEVER go off your cam card using whats printed as max lift based off of their calculations. Also, you really never should figure out max lift using just math. Meaning, lift times ratio minus lash... That doesn't work!

I'm not trying to say this to bash Bob with his above comment on the two failures and learning the hard way. But if you are truly trying to set up bind to a specific number those two failures would of never happened.

First off, I have never seen any rocker arm (not that I have checked them all) that has the same ratio as stamped. Most and I believe all rocker arms have more ratio than what is stamped. The extra ratio is not included to accommodate flex but is there because of motion loss due to it being exactly what it is called, a "rocker arm". Through physics a rocker arms motion is an arc which has motion loss. If you truly made an arm with a 1.7 ratio and then actually calculated out what the true ratio is, you would get less than 1.7. I believe most manufactures add a half ratio to compensate for that loss of motion. So by adding ratio when you check the arm it's now much closer to a 1.7 ratio.

The true and I feel the only way to set up coil bind is to mock up the system using all the same parts as you would when its going together for the final time. I will use shim instead of trying to crush a head gasket to make that part easier. I will put the cam in, snug down the head using shim stock to replace the head gasket and put the valve train all together. Again, using all the same parts as you would when if goes together for the final time. Meaning, I don't use "soft" springs or mock-up pushrods. Keep in mind to find max lift, you do not need to go through the process of degreeing in the cam. Unless you are also trying to figure out P2V, then you would have to. I've actually made a tool, so all I assemble is a cam, head and valve train with no crank in the block. I can just turn the cam with the tool I made. You also only have to do just one cylinder so don't mock up the entire engine to do this. You can do one side at a time which can make it easier to do. So set the valve lash accordingly and then put he dial indicator on the spring or retainer and make sure it's on a flat spot. Set zero and rotate the cam and physically see what you have for max lift is.

Then to set you installed height, now it's just math. You then take you bind height of the spring plus your gross valve lift plus your desired coil bind clearance and you have now very accurately come up with a "true" installed height for your engine. If you do it that way, you will never have a coil bind issue. The biggest variable is in the spring itself. Like mentioned above, all springs have a spec bind number. Some manufactures are pretty good being within +/- .010 which is still within tolerance. I have seem some be plus .040 which then would affect things if installed to tight. Hopefully everything above made sense and hopefully to some have a better understanding on the process...

Nick
X3
__________________
Checkered Flag Machine & Ceralli Competition Engines
Racing engines and induction development
http://www.checkeredflagmachine.net/
CFMCNC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 0%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Yellow Bullet LLC
 

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.