How high are PS engines winding now?

[none]

Let's say that a six speed transmission would make a PS car a tenth of a second faster. If a six speed costs $5,500.00 then all the teams would be forced to buy them. Would it make the class better? Would it make the competition better? Would PS be more exciting?

When I was with David, we had 6 complete transmissions in the truck ready to go. And more extra gear sets than you can imagine. We would run different ratios on Friday night than we ran Saturday afternoon. There were times that on Sunday we would run three different ratio packages during the day! I don't remember ever running four different on Sunday but that may have happened as well. Jim, did you ever run four different on Sunday? The point being that if a new rule allowed a six speed, the cost to switch and get up to speed would be well over $200,000.00 per car for a front running team, but would it make PS better? I don't think it would. The competition right now is very close. The different brands are running very close so why would you make everyone spend the extra money?

There is no reason imho to make a rule change that would allow a team with a big budget to try a new part or a new technology if the end result would be every team having to spend the money, just to get back to where they were in the first place. if you allowed ceramic engine bearings for instance, performance would pick up. And after everybody in the field spent about a hundred grand, Mike and Allen would still be the fast guys, as they are right now. So why not save everyone the cash?

Back to the pnuematic springs, does anyone know if they exist in a form that would work in Pro Stock? And if they do, what the initial cost would be?

Alan

P.S. I'll get some camshaft pictures in Brainerd and post them unless Nick does it first.

 

[Toby]

Ask WJ about PVRS at BRD.

Let's say that a six speed transmission would make a PS car a tenth of a second faster. If a six speed costs $5,500.00 then all the teams would be forced to buy them. Would it make the class better? Would it make the competition better? Would PS be more exciting?

When I was with David, we had 6 complete transmissions in the truck ready to go. And more extra gear sets than you can imagine. We would run different ratios on Friday night than we ran Saturday afternoon. There were times that on Sunday we would run three different ratio packages during the day! I don't remember ever running four different on Sunday but that may have happened as well. Jim, did you ever run four different on Sunday? The point being that if a new rule allowed a six speed, the cost to switch and get up to speed would be well over $200,000.00 per car for a front running team, but would it make PS better? I don't think it would. The competition right now is very close. The different brands are running very close so why would you make everyone spend the extra money?

There is no reason imho to make a rule change that would allow a team with a big budget to try a new part or a new technology if the end result would be every team having to spend the money, just to get back to where they were in the first place. if you allowed ceramic engine bearings for instance, performance would pick up. And after everybody in the field spent about a hundred grand, Mike and Allen would still be the fast guys, as they are right now. So why not save everyone the cash?

Back to the pnuematic springs, does anyone know if they exist in a form that would work in Pro Stock? And if they do, what the initial cost would be?

Alan

P.S. I'll get some camshaft pictures in Brainerd and post them unless Nick does it first.

 

[Super Mod]

Bill;


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.

.

Maybe this is the time that this idea be revisited. Couldn't this be somewhat easily achieved/policed with a spec valve spring material? Is it really too late?

 

[squid]

Re: How high are PS engines winging now?

I don't know for sure but 10 yrs ago our D/A (290 ci) small block was going through the traps around 9500.... your 11000 sounds a little high.. although I have not been around those engines for a few years... but if I were to guess I'd guess 9000 - 9500 at the finishline...

I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me will pipe up...

Do you have any pic's of you car John?

 

[Saturday]

Re: How high are PS engines winging now?

I don't know for sure but 10 yrs ago our D/A (290 ci) small block was going through the traps around 9500.... your 11000 sounds a little high.. although I have not been around those engines for a few years... but if I were to guess I'd guess 9000 - 9500 at the finishline...

I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me will pipe up...

In the mid 80's I was involved in a second tier Pro Stock car. We ran a second hand Ness chassis and had 2 engines (one RM and one EPD) two third members, one Lenco, and two sets of carbs. We were competitive but never won an event, although we qualified at every race (except Firebird in 1986 where we had a crank trigger hang up on the last qualifying run and couldn't make a pass and were bumped out of the show).

Anyway, back then we launched at 8500 and shifted at 9200. We were turning mid 7's at mid 180's.

With all of the improvements in parts since then todays ProStock engines are are making about 300 more HP than we ever dreamed of and are turning 11000 (and in some cases more) with ease.

 

[Paul]

(re: Jim Yates suggestion of a 10,000 max RPM rule) Maybe this is the time that this idea be revisited. Couldn't this be somewhat easily achieved/policed with a spec valve spring material? Is it really too late?

Jack, limiting RPM by requiring a "spec" valve spring is an interesting suggestion, but it isn't workable for a couple of reasons.

Manufacturing valve springs has some "black art" elements, for example if the steel alloy being used drifts in composition a little, you would have a batch of springs a little better or worse than the last batch. It would be pretty expensive to have the springs manufactured so that they guaranteed pretty tight specification limits.

Limiting the spring would also cause the high dollar teams to start a very expensive chase to reduce the mass and inertial effects of the other valve train components, similar to what the NASCAR teams have done to allow 9000+ RPM engines with flat tappet valve lifters, so the net result might be more cost, not less.

Its extremely difficult to balance racing rules to allow a reasonable degree of innovation while also insuring that the areas of allowable innovation don't price out the lower funded teams.

A 10,000 RPM limit would likely keep costs down, and perhaps its time to think about a rule like that, but I think it comes at a pretty stern price of pretty severely limiting innovation in one of the few places its still possible.

Just for kicks, consider a different approach, I know it would never be accepted and probably isn't practical but its interesting to think about.

Some oval track series have an engine claiming rule. For a set price (perhaps $100,000. for PS?), after a race is completed, any of the other competitors who have qualified for the race can purchase the engine of the race winner.

The intent of the rule is to keep the higher funded teams from spending too much more on their engines than the lower funded teams, and also to allow lower funded teams to get access to a competitive engine for a reasonable price.

In practice the rules unfortunately generate a lot of hard feelings, under the table agreements between teams not to claim each other's engines, etc., and often the top teams spend high dollars on their engines anyway.

But to some degree the claiming rules do help keep costs down somewhat while allowing lower funded teams access to competitive engines.

From a marketing standpoint it could help generate more interest in PS racing, as it adds a whole new level of drama to the racing, ie claiming "wars", claiming threats, and its always real entertaining to see a team claim a winning engine and then still stink up the track at their next race.

Paul T.
Power Technology

 

[quarterpounder]

Re: How high are PS engines winging now?

In the mid 80's I was involved in a second tier Pro Stock car. We ran a second hand Ness chassis and had 2 engines (one RM and one EPD) two third members, one Lenco, and two sets of carbs. We were competitive but never won an event, although we qualified at every race (except Firebird in 1986 where we had a crank trigger hang up on the last qualifying run and couldn't make a pass and were bumped out of the show).

Anyway, back then we launched at 8500 and shifted at 9200. We were turning mid 7's at mid 180's.

With all of the improvements in parts since then todays ProStock engines are are making about 300 more HP than we ever dreamed of and are turning 11000 (and in some cases more) with ease.

Harry;

I guaranteeeeee you that at this time, no pro stock car engine is running near 11000RPM. on purpose.

jim

,

 

[haagar]

Some oval track series have an engine claiming rule. For a set price (perhaps $100,000. for PS?), after a race is completed, any of the other competitors who have qualified for the race can purchase the engine of the race winner.

The intent of the rule is to keep the higher funded teams from spending too much more on their engines than the lower funded teams, and also to allow lower funded teams to get access to a competitive engine for a reasonable price.

In practice the rules unfortunately generate a lot of hard feelings, under the table agreements between teams not to claim each other's engines, etc., and often the top teams spend high dollars on their engines anyway.

But to some degree the claiming rules do help keep costs down somewhat while allowing lower funded teams access to competitive engines.

Please no! We ran an oval class with a claimer rule and got claimed the fourth week out (after a fourth, second, win, second) because there was a rumor that we were running our engine from a different class we ran the year before. Truth was that it was the engine that came in the car we bought and we probably spent less money on the turn key car than most of the other people had in just their engine. We spent the entire week scrambling to get another engine together and basically assembled one out of donated parts. We probably had less money in that motor than we got from the claim and went on to win six more races and have a worst finish of second the rest of the year. This may not seem that bad, but we *still* don't like the people that claimed us eight years later (yeah we should get over it).

The claimer rule was the biggest reason we got out of that class. Most of the claims were grudge claims and the people with the big dollar motors kept their big dollar motors. The rule did nothing but make resentment within the class and drive people away from it.

I am sure it would be a little different in pro stock, but it still isn't something I would want to see.

 

[tcrawf]

Let's say that a six speed transmission would make a PS car a tenth of a second faster. If a six speed costs $5,500.00 then all the teams would be forced to buy them. Would it make the class better? Would it make the competition better? Would PS be more exciting?

personally, I think PS is a snore and the idea about going back to more similar cars that we see on the road was by far the best idea I have heard about Pro Stock. If you couldn't tell I think xtreme 10.5 is the best class out of any drag racing body given the large diversity . . . and the NHRA would do good to have one class where it can accommodate all types of setups not just cookie cutter cars that look and sound the same.

I still don't get your "trying to save money" argument . . . there will be people to run a class regardless of price as long as spectators are there to watch and sponsors are there to help.

 

[Bill]

Jim Yates said, "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."

I couldn't agree with you more.

The whole rationale for using pneumatic valve springs in Pro Stock is to save money, not spend it.

I have read each and every submission to this thread, and there are a lot of very smart, experienced people on here. Tons of eminently qualified opinions...

But...

Not one has any experience with, or firsthand knowledge of, pneumatic valve springs, that I could tell.

Yet, the whole thrust of their argument against them has been that it would be a more expensive system than what is currently in use (RE: titanaium springs that are expensive, and have very short service lives.)

I have no solid evidence of any kind that a compressed air spring system would be any cheaper than the metal springs now in use, but given the simple design of a cylindrical "spring" that has only one moving part (and, that part isn't very stressed) I can't see what kind of engineering forces would work on it that would keep it from lasting for a long time. The sealing could be by conventional rings, like a model airplane engine has on its piston, and could be easily and quickly replaced, if they became worn or broken. It wouldn't be necessary to replace the outer "cylinder," or the "piston." The outer "cylinder" could screw into place, and be changed out on a moment's notice. An onboard air-cylinder could feed the system and be topped off after every trip down the track.

Maybe I'm just so stupid that I can't see the potential for problems with such a system, but if Warren Johnson thought it was a good idea enough to spend time on developing it, it can't be THAT bad... I hope somebody who knows him will ask him about this...

So, say it costs $7,500.00, or so..

How long does it take to spend $7,500.00 on valve springs on a P/S car in competiton, and for dyno tests? What about the aborted runs because of broken springs??? This system, after a reasonable amount of development time, could be dead-reliable; air doesn't break...

No apparent reason why just one of these systems couldn't be used on multiple cylinder heads...


But, my original question remains virtually unanswered; why does NHRA ban these on EVERY CAR IN COMPETITION?

If they're not a viable competitor for metal valve springs, why would it be necessary to ban them? Nobody would use them, anyway...

Thanks for all your insight and information... I have learned a lot from this discussion!!!

Bill

 

[john]

If they're not a viable competitor for metal valve springs, why would it be necessary to ban them?

Perhaps because the technology has yet to see a production vehicle? It is after all, a "stock" class.

 

[Bill]

Well, I can't see that as a parameter for usage for two reasons:

1.. There are currently systems in use on Pro Stock cars that are nothing like any production vehicle, such as the transmissions they use, and in that vein, what production vehicle was available with a Holley Dominator? Also, the engine, for instance, in the Mopar P/S cars is like nothing that ever came out of Detroit... Try buying a component part (ANY componenet part!) for it at a Dodge dealership....

2. The pneumatic valve springs are banned across the board in NHRA racing, not just on Pro Stockers, so that rationale about them not being available on a "stock vehicle" wouldn't apply.... you can't use 'em in Top Alcohol Dragster, or Comp Eliminator, either...

Thanks for your comments; it's an interesting enigma, I think.

Bill

 

[sdwarf36]

The only place I known that the air spring are used is F1 cars + MotoGP bikes. And the reason they are used there isn't for cost savings-its because springs can't keep up with the speed the engines are turning (over 18,000 rpm). I'm sure the valves on those cars + bikes are very small + light-and the lift numbers are no where near what a 500 ci motor needs.

So IF someone were to try it-whos to say that you could even make an accuator that would handle over an inch of lift @10k with a big valve with 1500psi of open pressure? I'm thinking that a P/S car would the be just about the hardest testbed you could fine to try it.

More questions to those in the know: How big of a diameter are the pushrods?

 

[Bill]

Sherman,

It's not an "actuator." It's just a spring to keep the lifter in contact with the cam lobe. Simple. When the rocker arm pushes the valve open, it pusihes back... just like the metal springs do.

And yes, the F-I application is different in that the valves are much lighter, BUT they're also moving twice as fast, effectively doubling their (inertia) "weight". So, the forces being dealt with might not be as different as it might seem, at first blush...

I keep saying this, but I believe it: Warren Johnson is a very savy dude... if HE thought it could work, he must have believed in the concept to have spent some time on it to get it to the stage that NHRA said "NO!"

That's worthy of consideration, I think... if, in fact, it's true. I have heard that story several different places, but I haven't heard HIM say it.

Maybe someone who reads this stuff who knows him will ask him about it and let us know what he says. I'd hope so...

Bill

 

[none]

Bill,

I will ask WJ when I get to Brainerd, I too am curious. I will also inquire as to why it would be banned in COMP or TAD.

Sherman,

I guess in therory you could switch them back anr forth, I can't see it happening in practice. You would need a set for each engine and spares. I don't believe that anyone would want to change springs from engine to engine at the track if you had to do an engine swap.

Maybe I'm wrong, I will ask that question as well, but I would think the time requiered to swap them would be pretty close to the time to swap 16 springs. And swaping 16 springs is a pain even when you are taking them out of a box, not off another engine.

Alan

 

[quarterpounder]

The only place I known that the air spring are used is F1 cars + MotoGP bikes. And the reason they are used there isn't for cost savings-its because springs can't keep up with the speed the engines are turning (over 18,000 rpm). I'm sure the valves on those cars + bikes are very small + light-and the lift numbers are no where near what a 500 ci motor needs.

So IF someone were to try it-whos to say that you could even make an accuator that would handle over an inch of lift @10k with a big valve with 1500psi of open pressure? I'm thinking that a P/S car would the be just about the hardest testbed you could fine to try it.

More questions to those in the know: How big of a diameter are the pushrods?

Sheman;

I have worked on PS engines that used 5/8th inch diameter pushrods, and they were not light. But they could still make power enough to be shifted at 10200 RPM.

Jim

 

[Bill]

Alan,
That would be GREAT, if you could get Warren's "take" on this. I'm sure whatever he has to say about it will be like the picture that's worth a thousand words. If he says it's not "doable," technologically, or not feasible for financial reasons, you'll never hear another word out of me about it.

You go, guy!!!!


Bill

 

[Gary H]

Ok, I ran across this

So, they would need to add 32 regulators and check valves, two for each valve, 16 air lines and a nitrogen tank? All to run enough RPM to pull the pins out of the pistons? And where would the nitrogen be vented to?

 

[DaveRenk]

Ok, I ran across this

So, they would need to add 32 regulators and check valves, two for each valve, 16 air lines and a nitrogen tank? All to run enough RPM to pull the pins out of the pistons? And where would the nitrogen be vented to?

Looks like the regulators could be common to all spring chambers. The outlet check and regulator (vented inside the cam cover) looks to be a high pressure safety relief.

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

All this talk about replacing the springs has this ol' spring manufacturer feeling pretty down.

I understand the theory and/or concerns, but I sure hope they keep using springs.

Sean D