Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
How high are PS engines winding now?
- Thread starter 5.0 Junkie
- Start date
Back to where we were going on Piston Speed and RPM. That is where you have to help the engine in order to get more RPM (safely)… The issue is with the current rules you can’t get the cranks much shorter so you’re going to have stupid high piston speed.
Here are some rough numbers from a few years back…
Engine Stroke Peak Power RPM Peak Piston Speed (FPM)
Cosworth 1.566" 19,250 RPM 8,265 FPM
500" P/S 3.570" 9.650 RPM 10,147 FPM
358" Cup 3.250" 9,100 RPM 8100 FPM
IHRA P/S 5.625" 8,000 RPM 12,650 FPM
It’s all about competition… P/S as a class (regardless of where you watch it or race it) is about running the tightest competition within a given set of rules. Changing a rule to allow a new or innovative product in that just forces teams to spend more money and just moves the entire classes ET or MPH doesn’t improve the racing.
Same goes for other classes, some work well as mixing types of power adders but others do not. P/S did not work on the weight to cubic inch rule as some cars were always faster than others.
Here are some rough numbers from a few years back…
Engine Stroke Peak Power RPM Peak Piston Speed (FPM)
Cosworth 1.566" 19,250 RPM 8,265 FPM
500" P/S 3.570" 9.650 RPM 10,147 FPM
358" Cup 3.250" 9,100 RPM 8100 FPM
IHRA P/S 5.625" 8,000 RPM 12,650 FPM
It’s all about competition… P/S as a class (regardless of where you watch it or race it) is about running the tightest competition within a given set of rules. Changing a rule to allow a new or innovative product in that just forces teams to spend more money and just moves the entire classes ET or MPH doesn’t improve the racing.
Same goes for other classes, some work well as mixing types of power adders but others do not. P/S did not work on the weight to cubic inch rule as some cars were always faster than others.
Bill
Nitro Member
Doug said, " Changing a rule to allow a new or innovative product in that just forces teams to spend more money and just moves the entire classes ET or MPH doesn’t improve the racing."
Doug, if you're talking about pneumatic valve springs, it makes me wonder how much of this admittedly-long thread you have read.
The whole idea of pneumatic valve springs in P/S is to spend LESS money, not more. The performance potential involved in changing from metal springs to pneumatic ones is an unknown factor and would not necessarily be the reason for the change.
This has been hashed out (in theory), in detail, in previous posts of this thread.
The cost of running a P/S car is enormous, everyone agrees, and a significant part of that outpouring of dollars is the ongoing replacement of expensive titanium (sometimes) valve springs, which have a very short service life in these high-rpm motors. Emphasis on "very short."
It was reported that a pneumatic spring setup MIGHT be feasible that could possibly eliminate that expense to some degree, by replacing the metal springs with pneumatic ones, which, ostensibly, might last a lot longer.
This contention is all just theory and conjecture, especially, since NHRA has seen fit to mandate a total ban on any and all pneumatic springs on any race vehicle in NHRA competition, regardless of class.
My original question, the one that generated all this very interesting discussion, was, "WHY did NHRA create this "ban?".
I am not necessarily a proponent of pneumatic springs. I don't know enough about them to be a proponent, but the idea seems feasible, to me. Worth investigating, anyway....
So far, nobody seems to know "WHY" the ban... A couple of people have contended that at some point, "MoPar" complained about the possible advent of pneumatic springs, and NHRA banned them. They may be right, but...
That doesn't make much sense to me, that NHRA would ban something on motorcycles, for instance, or Bracket cars, just because Mopar doesn't want to run against them in Pro Stock. Where's the connection???
If we're lucky, at the Brainerd race, Alan Rinehart will get to talk to Warren Johnson, who allegedly produced a pneumatic spring system for Pro Stockers at one time in the past. If Alan can get W.J. to talk about it off the record, maybe we'll find out something concrete.
I have my own ideas about why this situation exists, but I'm probably wrong. I'll just wait and hopefully, get the answers "from the horse's mouth!"
If your statement, " Changing a rule to allow a new or innovative product in that just forces teams to spend more money and just moves the entire classes ET or MPH doesn’t improve the racing." was NOT in relation to pneumatic valve springs, then I apologize for all this verbiage...
Bill
Doug, if you're talking about pneumatic valve springs, it makes me wonder how much of this admittedly-long thread you have read.
The whole idea of pneumatic valve springs in P/S is to spend LESS money, not more. The performance potential involved in changing from metal springs to pneumatic ones is an unknown factor and would not necessarily be the reason for the change.
This has been hashed out (in theory), in detail, in previous posts of this thread.
The cost of running a P/S car is enormous, everyone agrees, and a significant part of that outpouring of dollars is the ongoing replacement of expensive titanium (sometimes) valve springs, which have a very short service life in these high-rpm motors. Emphasis on "very short."
It was reported that a pneumatic spring setup MIGHT be feasible that could possibly eliminate that expense to some degree, by replacing the metal springs with pneumatic ones, which, ostensibly, might last a lot longer.
This contention is all just theory and conjecture, especially, since NHRA has seen fit to mandate a total ban on any and all pneumatic springs on any race vehicle in NHRA competition, regardless of class.
My original question, the one that generated all this very interesting discussion, was, "WHY did NHRA create this "ban?".
I am not necessarily a proponent of pneumatic springs. I don't know enough about them to be a proponent, but the idea seems feasible, to me. Worth investigating, anyway....
So far, nobody seems to know "WHY" the ban... A couple of people have contended that at some point, "MoPar" complained about the possible advent of pneumatic springs, and NHRA banned them. They may be right, but...
That doesn't make much sense to me, that NHRA would ban something on motorcycles, for instance, or Bracket cars, just because Mopar doesn't want to run against them in Pro Stock. Where's the connection???
If we're lucky, at the Brainerd race, Alan Rinehart will get to talk to Warren Johnson, who allegedly produced a pneumatic spring system for Pro Stockers at one time in the past. If Alan can get W.J. to talk about it off the record, maybe we'll find out something concrete.
I have my own ideas about why this situation exists, but I'm probably wrong. I'll just wait and hopefully, get the answers "from the horse's mouth!"
If your statement, " Changing a rule to allow a new or innovative product in that just forces teams to spend more money and just moves the entire classes ET or MPH doesn’t improve the racing." was NOT in relation to pneumatic valve springs, then I apologize for all this verbiage...
Bill
Last edited:
Nick Name
Nitro Member
The Honda S2000 does almost that.
Paul
Nitro Member
Bill, I wouldn't agree with that statement that the performance advantage of pneumatic springs is unknown. They provide a significant weight reduction in the valvetrain and this weight reduction would allow a higher RPM range before valve float occurs. This is why they came into use in F1 engines.
There would be a lot of camshaft development required to make best use of pneumatic springs along with a lot of cylinder head and intake manifold work to take best advantage of the higher RPM range.
It would be pretty cool to watch as this development by the engine builders occurred and the ET's dropped down, Pro Stock racing would go through a pretty exciting period.
But its unfortunately a pipe dream now with our current economic situation, and I don't think allowing pneumatic springs but putting limitations on them to limit their performance in order to save overall costs is practical or economically feasible.
Last edited:
Bill
Nitro Member
Paul, first you say that, " I wouldn't agree with that statement that the performance advantage of pneumatic springs is unknown." Then you say that, "There would be a lot of camshaft development required to make best use of pneumatic springs along with a lot of cylinder head and intake manifold work to take best advantage of the higher RPM range."
If "the performance advantage of pneumatic springs is (NOT)unknown." then why would "a lot of camshaft development required to make best use of pneumatic springs along with a lot of cylinder head and intake manifold work" be necessary?
Nobody's been down this road with a 500 cid motor that I am aware of. It's uncharted territory, as of right now, as far as we know. I contend that it IS an unknown, at least, to a large degree. Otherwise, why would all that R & D be necessary?
Also, your statement that, "They provide a significant weight reduction in the valvetrain and this weight reduction would allow a higher RPM range before valve float occurs. This is why they came into use in F1 engines." Is in error, at least, partially, I think. Everything I've been able to dig up on pneumatic valve springs RE: F-I talks about the fact that the F-I engineers couldn't find a metal valve spring that would LIVE for the extended period that these cars are run (compared to a drag car.) They needed a spring that would, yes, allow 20,000 rpm, but just as importantly, last the whole race, which could be HOURS of running time at top rpm's. Metal gives up...
It wasn't just for RPM's...
But, your contention that the necessary developmental costs that would undoubtedly occur as teams started pushing the RPM envelope with these new springs (camshaft profile design, etc.) is probably dead-on... I can't disagree with that at all. That was an eye-opener, for me.
But, the springs, themselves, should save the users a ton of money, if what I've read is true. It's all the other stuff that would follow that might make the whole program impractical from an expense standpoint.
Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't really thought that through...
I appreciate the insight and input!
Bill
Last edited by a moderator:
BrettV
Nitro Member
BrettV
Nitro Member
Re: How high are PS engines winging now?
Sorry to bring this up from way back on page 2 but of what use would it be to a competitor to know what RPM you leave at? (Keep in mind I'm not a mechanic or anything like that.) If for example you discovered that competitor A leaves at 8400 rpm and competitor B leaves at 8600 rpm, what would you do with that information? Would you then do something different when facing competitor A than when facing competitor B? I can't imagine how that information would help you. I'm not trying to be picky I'm just curious.
Sorry to bring this up from way back on page 2
but of what use would it be to a competitor to know what RPM you leave at? (Keep in mind I'm not a mechanic or anything like that.) If for example you discovered that competitor A leaves at 8400 rpm and competitor B leaves at 8600 rpm, what would you do with that information? Would you then do something different when facing competitor A than when facing competitor B? I can't imagine how that information would help you. I'm not trying to be picky I'm just curious.
clwill
Nitro Member
Re: How high are PS engines winging now?
To use your numbers: if you left at 8400 and were always beaten by competitor B at 8600, wouldn't you at least consider a change?
Sorry to bring this up from way back on page 2
To use your numbers: if you left at 8400 and were always beaten by competitor B at 8600, wouldn't you at least consider a change?
Bill,
My statement was not specifically towards the pneumatic springs. Just parts in general.
Doug
No problems. If you look at what the guys spent to go from 9800 to 10400 (or so
) in the past few years you can clearly see it.
BrettV
Nitro Member
Re: How high are PS engines winging now?
If I was consistently being beaten then yes I would change something but the change may be something besides my leaving RPM. I am assuming my team chose to leave at 8400 because we thought it was best for OUR configuration (motor, clutch, suspension, etc.) and that team B chose 8600 as best for THEIR confiuguration. Again making assumptions I would think that we chose 8400 as best based on testing, experinece, etc. thus simply changing to 8600, without changing anything else, would be worse.
Of course I guess knowing the RPM a competitor leaves at COMBINED WITH OTHER INFORMATION may be useful, but not in and of itself.
If I was consistently being beaten then yes I would change something but the change may be something besides my leaving RPM. I am assuming my team chose to leave at 8400 because we thought it was best for OUR configuration (motor, clutch, suspension, etc.) and that team B chose 8600 as best for THEIR confiuguration. Again making assumptions I would think that we chose 8400 as best based on testing, experinece, etc. thus simply changing to 8600, without changing anything else, would be worse.
Of course I guess knowing the RPM a competitor leaves at COMBINED WITH OTHER INFORMATION may be useful, but not in and of itself.
clwill
Nitro Member
Re: How high are PS engines winging now?
Like the piston-wall clearance, or head clearance?
I think he was just saying "can't comment on any specific technical details"...
Like the piston-wall clearance, or head clearance?
I think he was just saying "can't comment on any specific technical details"...
none
Nitro Member
Starting line RPM is not a constant, it is changed run to run depending on conditions. Many times it is changed based on what happens in front of you. It is the last possible thing you can adjust before a run, and is often changed at the last moment. But there is no "set" number for lauch RPM.
Alan
Alan
Bill
Nitro Member
Alan,
Do you think it might be beneficial to talk face-to-face with Warren about the valve spring deal? You got us SOME information on the phone awhile back, and that was great, but maybe he'd elaborate a little more in a one-on-one with you.
Not trying to push you into anything; I'm just asking. What he told you was great information, but not very specific insofar as how NHRA came to ban them (air-springs) in ALL classes, and what he thinks the future might hold for them.
Thanks for all you do...
Bill
Do you think it might be beneficial to talk face-to-face with Warren about the valve spring deal? You got us SOME information on the phone awhile back, and that was great, but maybe he'd elaborate a little more in a one-on-one with you.
Not trying to push you into anything; I'm just asking. What he told you was great information, but not very specific insofar as how NHRA came to ban them (air-springs) in ALL classes, and what he thinks the future might hold for them.
Thanks for all you do...
Bill
Man get over it. Do you think there is some high level conspiracy going on or what? There are alot of parts not allowed in all classes.
Bill
Nitro Member
Toby said, "There are alot of parts not allowed in all classes."
Really? Are they parts that could eliminate a lot of the excessive expense by way of an alternative methodology, if used?
Tell me about them.
I don't think there's anywhere in my 2009 NHRA rulebook that mentions any engine part, specifically, and says "prohibited in all classes" like it spells it out for pneumatic valve springs.
I am not advocating that anyone run them; I don't even think they exist, in a format that would serve say, Pro Stock... I just want to know why NHRA would ban them
Don't you have any natural curiosity about why things like this ban exists?
I do... If that bothers you, then I'm sorry... but, like the dirt-bag staring down the 357 Magnum's barrell in Clint Eastwood's hand in Dirty Harry, "I gots to know!!!"
Click!
Really? Are they parts that could eliminate a lot of the excessive expense by way of an alternative methodology, if used?
Tell me about them.
I don't think there's anywhere in my 2009 NHRA rulebook that mentions any engine part, specifically, and says "prohibited in all classes" like it spells it out for pneumatic valve springs.
I am not advocating that anyone run them; I don't even think they exist, in a format that would serve say, Pro Stock... I just want to know why NHRA would ban them
Don't you have any natural curiosity about why things like this ban exists?
I do... If that bothers you, then I'm sorry... but, like the dirt-bag staring down the 357 Magnum's barrell in Clint Eastwood's hand in Dirty Harry, "I gots to know!!!"
Click!
