How high are PS engines winding now?

[swervin]

Maybe because they were never offered on a American made car. (my opinion).

Either were air shifters but they made it to PS. I think the main reason they were removed was because of some using automation to shift them(cheating, allegedly)

Would it be worth the change with such a large difference in RPM operating range from F1 to PS or does it simply come down to a much more efficient way of operating the valve and it has to be better?

I wonder what would be saved by going to the pneumatic lifters....less costly rockers since you dont have to control the valve anymore. Save on camshaft blanks because you dont need the larger stiffer blanks? I dont know if all the PS blocks come with the huge cam tunnels but if not maybe another saving there. I am not sure if the pricey lifters would go away since most of the blocks have no lifter bores machined in them.

Interesting topic, I would love to hear what Nicks theory would be on how it would change the PS engine as we know it. Forget the cost, just how it would change things.

Bob

 

[Bill]

>>>>"Would it be worth the change with such a large difference in RPM operating range from F1 to PS or does it simply come down to a much more efficient way of operating the valve and it has to be better?<<<<"


The "worth" of this change, irrespective of any operational improvements (due to better control of the valve due to less of a problem with harmonic-induced misbehavior) would be simply all the dollars that would NOT have to be spent on mega-buck valve springs that destroy themselves, just doing their job. I don't know if such a system (pneumatic spring setup for big, heavy valves like the ones in these 500 cubic-inch engines) even exists, but if it does, it might be a large one-time cost, but those air springs probably don't wear out like a metal spring does.


>>>>"I wonder what would be saved by going to the pneumatic lifters<<<"

There are no "pneumatic lifters"... only springs. Think of this system as exactly like the ones currently running today in PS, with ONE CHANGE: The metal valve springs are replaced by a cylindrical "spring" that is full of compressed air... and that's the whole change. Same cam, same lifters, same pushrods, same valves... just different springs to close the valves.



>>>>"....less costly rockers since you dont have to control the valve anymore. Save on camshaft blanks because you dont need the larger stiffer blanks? I dont know if all the PS blocks come with the huge cam tunnels but if not maybe another saving there. I am not sure if the pricey lifters would go away since most of the blocks have no lifter bores machined in them."<<<<

None of that is relevant to this discussion, because nothing changes but the springs, themselves; every other part continues in service as though nothing had changed.

>>>>"Interesting topic, I would love to hear what Nicks theory would be on how it would change the PS engine as we know it. Forget the cost, just how it would change things."<<<<

I don't think it would change much at all, beyond the teams not having to continuously spend a small fortune on replacing broken valve springs.

However, it likely will never happen because, although NHRA steadfastly contends that it is making every effort to keep the cost of racing down, it sure doesn't seem that way, when they ban these springs that use cheap gas and don't break, instead of short-lived, expensive conventional springs.

Once again, the emperor has no clothes...

Bob[/QUOTE]

 

[haagar]

There are no "pneumatic lifters"... only springs. Think of this system as exactly like the ones currently running today in PS, with ONE CHANGE: The metal valve springs are replaced by a cylindrical "spring" that is full of compressed air... and that's the whole change. Same cam, same lifters, same pushrods, same valves... just different springs to close the valves.

These springs may not be without their own set of problems. The F1 springs leak air throughout the course of a race and there is a system in place to make sure they are at the right pressure. You will occasionally see a team have to refill the air tank during a pitstop if they have an issue with one of the springs and there is more leakage than expected. Not sure how this would translate over to a minute long PS run (I am including the burnout and staging).

 

[The Counterfeiter]

The "worth" of this change, irrespective of any operational improvements (due to better control of the valve due to less of a problem with harmonic-induced misbehavior) would be simply all the dollars that would NOT have to be spent on mega-buck valve springs that destroy themselves, just doing their job. I don't know if such a system (pneumatic spring setup for big, heavy valves like the ones in these 500 cubic-inch engines) even exists, but if it does, it might be a large one-time cost, but those air springs probably don't wear out like a metal spring does.
However, it likely will never happen because, although NHRA steadfastly contends that it is making every effort to keep the cost of racing down, it sure doesn't seem that way, when they ban these springs that use cheap gas and don't break, instead of short-lived, expensive conventional springs.

Bill - if someone makes a reasonably priced pneumatic valve spring for this application, I can't find them. I did find Del West Engineering, which claims to offer "The only commercially available design and manufacturing team for pneumatic spring systems.". The web site warns that there are "significant" costs to apply such a system. If we are talking Formula 1 level significant costs, you could probably could fund every NHRA P/S team for a year for less money than developing systems for three different motors.

 

[Bill]

Bill - if someone makes a reasonably priced pneumatic valve spring for this application, I can't find them. I did find Del West Engineering, which claims to offer "The only commercially available design and manufacturing team for pneumatic spring systems.". The web site warns that there are "significant" costs to apply such a system. If we are talking Formula 1 level significant costs, you could probably could fund every NHRA P/S team for a year for less money than developing systems for three different motors.

Well, that's a good point, but it begs the question, if there is not a system available, maybe it's because there's no market for it... thanks to NHRA's banning the things before anyone gets one built. Nobody wants to sink R & D money into something they can't sell (because racers are not allowed to use it).

I mentioned earlier that I had heard that Warren Johnson had designed such a system, and it apparently was viable, if we are to believe, like someone else pointed out, that MoPar went to NHRA and got it disallowed; didn't want to run against it, the story goes.

I can't see why NHRA would ban something in other classes. though, just because somebody complained about it in Pro Stock. What would MoPar care if these were used in Comp Eliminator, for instance?

Re: "leakage:"
A small, onboard, presurized tank could be plumbed to "top off" whatever amount of leakage occurred, through a pressure regulator feeding the springs, but if these F-1 engines can run hundreds of miles with these springs (and, they do), I don't think a minute's worth of usage on a P/S car is going to have a significant problem with "air" to supply the springs. The tank could be topped off after every run.

Since these pneumatic springs will fit in place of the conventional metal springs, I don't understand why three separate systems would be necessary to work on the three different P/S engines. Do they have different (conventional) valve springs for those three engines, now? If they do, it's probably just adjustments for installed height and seat diameters, not something that would use up a lot of R & D design time with the air springs.

I think if NHRA called Del West Engineering tomorrow, and said, "We are going to allow pneumatic springs on our race cars, across the board (TAD's, TA/FC's and Pro Stock would be the most likely candidates); are you interested in providing a supply for them?" they'd get a positive answer right away.

But, if what Nick said ("Never gonna happen") is true (and I have no reason to dis-believe him; he obviously knows something I don't,) we'll never know.

My original question was, "Why are they banned?"

Nobody has supplied a rational, believeable, logical, answer to that question, though one guy came close.

I really appreciate all the input, comments, link, and explanations. This has been a very interesting discussion, in my opinion.

Thanks for all the replies!!!

Bill

 

[sdwarf36]

Who says racing is about inovation? Why would a class with STOCK in its name come out + develop something that the auto makers don't even utilize? Hell-NHRA won't even allow fuel injection.
What if they did allow it? Is it allowed-or mandated? car company A is all for it while company B wants nothing to do with it. A starts run 6.30's right off the bat-company B cries foul. Add weight to A? Look how good that works for PS/B. If I were NHRA, I wouldn't change P/S-full fields covered by the blink of an eye works just fine.

Here is a question: Does the pnumatic spring just replace the coil spring --or is it an accuator? (meaning in actually opens + closes the valve eliminating the need for a camshaft ,lifters,rockers,timing belt etc.?)

 

[none]

Nick,

We had so many intake maifolds we could have had a yard sale. The only problem was each manifold was matched to a set of heads, and we weren't selling them! LOL We could have sold the used cams if anyone needs a good tire club that may be a use for them. And most of you have no idea how many changes are made that work on the dyno, but when you put it in the car it's not as fast as the old stuff. Those parts go on the shelf to be tried again someday. Nick knows very well that you can make changes to an engine that will show an increase in power at 9200 RPM (just to pick a number) but the engine won't recover after the gear change, so it's useless for the racecar. Hence the age old saying "We don't race dynos."

I wonder how many of you know that a PS cam rides on nine cam bearings? The only thing they can be used in is a PS block. You couldn't even sell them to a bracket racer because they wouldn't work in his engine.

Back to the pnuematic springs. I know they work in F1 but is there such a thing as a pnuematic spring that would be compatible with what a PS engine needs? Over an inch of lift? Over 10,000 RPM? I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm asking if it is.

One more question, what happens when you invest whatever the amount is and find out that like our "Magic Springs" they aren't as fast on the track. That's another pile of money in the dungeon,

Alan

 

[haagar]

Here is a question: Does the pnumatic spring just replace the coil spring --or is it an accuator? (meaning in actually opens + closes the valve eliminating the need for a camshaft ,lifters,rockers,timing belt etc.?)

The pneumatic systems just replace the spring.

 

[sdwarf36]

I wonder how many of you know that a PS cam rides on nine cam bearings?

I didn't! If its not a secret, can someone post a pic of the block with this?

 

[Bill]

Who says racing is about inovation?

How do you think we got from 140 MPH in the quarter-mile to 335?
For a long, long, time, NHRA's motto was 'INGENUITY IN ACTION." Innovation was the whole rationale for that motto.[/

Why would a class with STOCK in its name come out + develop something that the auto makers don't even utilize?

Oh really? When did automakers utilize Holley Dominator carburetors and the "HEMI" engine that currently lives in MoPar Pro Stockers?

Hell-NHRA won't even allow fuel injection.
That's right, and that flies in the face of your argument that "automakers don't even utilize." They haven't "utilized" carburetors for over twenty years...

What if they did allow it? Is it allowed-or mandated? car company A is all for it while company B wants nothing to do with it. A starts run 6.30's right off the bat-company B cries foul. Add weight to A? Look how good that works for PS/B. If I were NHRA, I wouldn't change P/S-full fields covered by the blink of an eye works just fine.

It would just be allowed; anyone who wanted to use it, could. A simple change of how the pressure is applied to close the valve isn't going to make any earth-shaking performance changes in the way these cars perform. That's not the reason for doing it. It's just a way to get around the monstrous bills for valve spring replacement. Metal springs wear out incredibly quickly, and they're not cheap! Air never wears out... the egregious and ongoing valve spring expenses that P/S teams are enduring with the current setup would diasappear, along with the maintenance nightmare that metal springs create.

Here is a question: Does the pnumatic spring just replace the coil spring --or is it an accuator? (meaning in actually opens + closes the valve eliminating the need for a camshaft ,lifters,rockers,timing belt etc.?)

It is simply a spring made of a cylinder that is approximately the size of current metal springs, and contains pressurized air, that's there to close the valve; nothing more.

This isn't about performance increases; it's about money.

 

[tcrawf]

Have you seen the crowds at an IHRA race? Muchless how many watch an IHRA PS session versus NHRA?

what kind of ridiculous baseless questions are these?

surely you are not seriously putting the blame of the IHRA woe's on their Pro Stock division are you?

Why don't you bring up ADRL's extreme pro stock?!?

Why didn't you bring up a relevant comparison like "Which series has a larger percentage of the people attending a race watch Pro Stock?"

I bet hands down its ADRL.

You simply cannot make a decent comparison of IHRA vs NHRA because no one goes to those races period, not just because of Pro Stock.

Adding available parts to increase performance to PS isn't going to increase many things other than teams choosing to race elsewhere. Hell whats the point?

I thought the point of Pro Stock was the performance ie. extreme attention to detail in maximizing the motor and minimizing the parasitic losses.

Pro Stock fans watch because the racing is decided by thousandths of a second.

Well heck I believe you just saved the NHRA and Pro Stock teams thousands of dollars.

Give em some briggs and stratton flatheads with a big shell and they'll be side by side the whole way down the track for even a LONGER amount of time.

Shoot, if thousandths of second is the standard then how about thousandths of a second over 25 seconds?!?

 

[haagar]

It would just be allowed; anyone who wanted to use it, could. A simple change of how the pressure is applied to close the valve isn't going to make any earth-shaking performance changes in the way these cars perform. That's not the reason for doing it. It's just a way to get around the monstrous bills for valve spring replacement. Metal springs wear out incredibly quickly, and they're not cheap! Air never wears out... the egregious and ongoing valve spring expenses that P/S teams are enduring with the current setup would diasappear, along with the maintenance nightmare that metal springs create.

It is simply a spring made of a cylinder that is approximately the size of current metal springs, and contains pressurized air, that's there to close the valve; nothing more.

This isn't about performance increases; it's about money.

Do any of us *know* that this will save money?

Eliminating the weak link that is limiting the RPM could certainly allow for major performance changes. Air may not wear out but it isn't as if there aren't moving parts in these that will. How many sets of valve springs can you buy for the price of a set of these and how do the life expectancies compare? How much performance can be had from varying the wall thicknesses of the various parts of the pneumatic springs to control how the react? Making the seals smaller? How much will the big dollar teams spend developing them trying to gain an advantage?

While you may be right about it just being a simple swap out, it is far from a certainty.

 

[Toby]

I think you are missing the point. Lets try this again. If fan appeal was based solely on speed and acceleration, the alcohol classes would be more popular. A couple of the import classes were faster than the PS class, we all know whats happened to the Imports. By no means am I saying the aforementioned classes are inferior.

Just changing the class rules to decrease ET's isn't innovation. Innovation is found when ET's decrease while within the same rules.

As far as the ADRL, I have only been to three races last year and two this year. The place was packed before and after the Pro Stock class was brought in. BTW, did you know ADRL PS rules mirror IHRA rules? Why is that? Because in order to get a bunch of PS teams to race at the ADRL, the PS teams wanted to race at a new venue yet not have to develop a new combo.

Allowing any new part/idea/combo might sound appealing. The PVRS is for sure appealing. Eliminating a valve spring bill is really nice. Yet look at the big picture/long term view of it. Going to PVRS will for sure raise the RPM level to make peak power and like mentioned earlier harmonics are changed to a much higher level. The harmonic change allows a higher RPM power band.

So every team is faced with an engine with PVRS that makes power at a higher RPM. I can imagine the current favorite cam grind is not the optimum so fire up the dyno. Money is spent R&D'ing new cams. Then once the cam is optimized for PVRS, guess what happens next? The car setup needs to evolve. The gear box and rear end need to be changed. Of course many other variables too are not a given anymore. So besides alot of dyno time, race track time testing has increased.

Currently the PS field is damn close. Changes to the rules will really only highlight the have vs have/nots concerning R&D money. You have many guys on the fence wondering if the investment in the class is worthwhile. You give them PVRS and it changes the dynamics completely. A guy on the fence thinks "Well I have five sets of heads that need $7500 each for a newly legal PVRS system. How much will I have to spend testing the engine on the dyno and the car on the track with this new engine?"

Eliminating the valve spring bill sounds nice..yet there are alot of other expenses brought into the mix. As much introducing something else to make PS 'faster' would be the same.

I have been involved with PS teams since 1997. This is the first year I have not been traveling. I really like not having my ass in a seat on United for sure, I miss the racing though. If EFI, PVRS etc. was legalized I would be getting alot of phone calls. Yes it would be good for me, yet really for the class probably not. PS is a class with a hell of alot of rules, the fans of PS appreciate the ET's and the innovation in spite of the rules. Teams show up every weekend because they want to haul ass with the rules that are in state now.

what kind of ridiculous baseless questions are these?

surely you are not seriously putting the blame of the IHRA woe's on their Pro Stock division are you?

Why don't you bring up ADRL's extreme pro stock?!?

Why didn't you bring up a relevant comparison like "Which series has a larger percentage of the people attending a race watch Pro Stock?"

I bet hands down its ADRL.

You simply cannot make a decent comparison of IHRA vs NHRA because no one goes to those races period, not just because of Pro Stock.



I thought the point of Pro Stock was the performance ie. extreme attention to detail in maximizing the motor and minimizing the parasitic losses.



Well heck I believe you just saved the NHRA and Pro Stock teams thousands of dollars.

Give em some briggs and stratton flatheads with a big shell and they'll be side by side the whole way down the track for even a LONGER amount of time.

Shoot, if thousandths of second is the standard then how about thousandths of a second over 25 seconds?!?

 

[Bill]

Toby,

If the increases in spending that you mention, to take advantage of pneumatic valve springs' ability to make possible higher rpm's, are going to be such a negative factor in the switch to "air" springs, then maybe they could scotch it at the outset by requiring rev limiters on the engines using "air springs."

It's not like this NHRA-mandated, "rev limiter" capability doesn't exist; they use them on T/F and F/C motors currently, don't they?

Seems to me that such a rule would nullify all the reasons you mentioned that these new "air" springs would add to the cost of racing in Pro Stock. They were all rpm-related, were they not?

And, they could dodge the current high tab for metal springs without suffereing the R & D expenses that were going to be related to increased RPM levels with the "air" springs.


Could that work?

Pro Stock isn't the only place these springs could be used to advantage. I don't know what the cost is for a season to supply valve springs on an Alcohol Funny Car like Ace Manzo's, (or, a TAD) but I'll bet it's astronomical.

A lot of Comp Eliminator cars also run stratospheric RPM's, but I don't know how viable these "air" springs might be on those engines.

Lots of questions; not many answers...

Sorry...

Bill

 

[AAFA-Freak]

Alan,
All that stuff for PS how about the Comp Classes that the brothers ran?
How about the Nascar guys also man they use the stuff in LOTS not just cases.

At least some of the Nitro guys stuff can be sold used.
It just a little used

Nick thanks for the responses on the Piston weight. forgot they limit all those parts now.

 

[tcrawf]

Just changing the class rules to decrease ET's isn't innovation. Innovation is found when ET's decrease while within the same rules.

So why aren't we all running flatheads?

As far as the ADRL, I have only been to three races last year and two this year. The place was packed before and after the Pro Stock class was brought in. BTW, did you know ADRL PS rules mirror IHRA rules? Why is that? Because in order to get a bunch of PS teams to race at the ADRL, the PS teams wanted to race at a new venue yet not have to develop a new combo.

I don't know if they would want me saying this, but a few of those guys left IHRA because of the B.S. involved and thats almost verbatim for two of them. Most are seeing a dying ship over there and adrl is where the people are at.

But you still dodged my question

You would have to agree that by far a larger majority of the people attending the race watch pro stock in ADRL over the NHRA.

 

[quarterpounder]

Toby,

If the increases in spending that you mention, to take advantage of pneumatic valve springs' ability to make possible higher rpm's, are going to be such a negative factor in the switch to "air" springs, then maybe they could scotch it at the outset by requiring rev limiters on the engines using "air springs."

It's not like this NHRA-mandated, "rev limiter" capability doesn't exist; they use them on T/F and F/C motors currently, don't they?

Seems to me that such a rule would nullify all the reasons you mentioned that these new "air" springs would add to the cost of racing in Pro Stock. They were all rpm-related, were they not?

And, they could dodge the current high tab for metal springs without suffereing the R & D expenses that were going to be related to increased RPM levels with the "air" springs.


Could that work?

Pro Stock isn't the only place these springs could be used to advantage. I don't know what the cost is for a season to supply valve springs on an Alcohol Funny Car like Ace Manzo's, (or, a TAD) but I'll bet it's astronomical.

A lot of Comp Eliminator cars also run stratospheric RPM's, but I don't know how viable these "air" springs might be on those engines.

Lots of questions; not many answers...

Sorry...

Bill

Bill;

With the current state of the economy it does not make any sense to make a rule change that would increase the cost of racing.

In fact it is true that there are lots of ways to increase the performance of the current PS car without making new exotic expensive parts legal. And all it takes is MONEY!!!!!The teams that have the money to do R&D can find plenty of areas in the vehicle to spend their money,even with the existing rules.

If you have been following the class recently it is obvious that there is a big gap between the teams at the top of the class and the teams at the bottom.
At Sonoma this weekend there was a tenth of a second spread from top to bottom. This situation is only going to get worse if rules are made that continue to increase the areas where the teams with money can spend that money.

Two years ago ,at a Pro Stock Owners meeting I suggested that we put a 10,000 RPM limit on engine speed. I guess you know that the high profile teams did not support my idea. I can assure you that if NHRA would have passed such a rule the cost to race PS today would be much less, and there would be a couple of more teams on the circuit.

Don't get me wrong I am not blaming NHRA for this. I am sure that if the PS owners had gone to NHRA and asked for a rule change it would happen. After all NHRA did put an RPM limit on the fuel cars.

It all comes down to the "Golden Rule".....those with the Gold ----Rule....and the teams that have the money to invest in the new technology will continue to resist any restrictions on exploring that new technology.

 

[Tim5636sc]

Talked with many fans in Denver who were asking 'WHERE IS THAT JIM YATES feller?' hope things are good for ya Jim.

Bill;

With the current state of the economy it does not make any sense to make a rule change that would increase the cost of racing.

In fact it is true that there are lots of ways to increase the performance of the current PS car without making new exotic expensive parts legal. And all it takes is MONEY!!!!!The teams that have the money to do R&D can find plenty of areas in the vehicle to spend their money,even with the existing rules.

If you have been following the class recently it is obvious that there is a big gap between the teams at the top of the class and the teams at the bottom.
At Sonoma this weekend there was a tenth of a second spread from top to bottom. This situation is only going to get worse if rules are made that continue to increase the areas where the teams with money can spend that money.

Two years ago ,at a Pro Stock Owners meeting I suggested that we put a 10,000 RPM limit on engine speed. I guess you know that the high profile teams did not support my idea. I can assure you that if NHRA would have passed such a rule the cost to race PS today would be much less, and there would be a couple of more teams on the circuit.

Don't get me wrong I am not blaming NHRA for this. I am sure that if the PS owners had gone to NHRA and asked for a rule change it would happen. After all NHRA did put an RPM limit on the fuel cars.

It all comes down to the "Golden Rule".....those with the Gold ----Rule....and the teams that have the money to invest in the new technology will continue to resist any restrictions on exploring that new technology.

 

[willy]

I have to agree with Alan. This is REALLY one of the better threads I've seen in a long time. The input from people in the know is just awesome..and I for one appreciate it.

 

[kountryboy2]

This is the best thread that i've seen on here in a long time! I hope it keeps going. Thanks Jim Yates, Nick,Tody,Bill and Alan for your imputs