427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Locked
NewbVetteGuy
Pro
Pro
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:11 pm

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by NewbVetteGuy » Fri May 11, 2018 12:33 am

So... Where can someone go to read the full 128 rule and calculations in one place?

I've read a LOT of pages on here and one of the other 128 threads and I can't find the information through the sea of comments.
I've found the really quite simple calculation to get to LSA, but that's it really.

Threads like this need to be curated and have the good tidbits of information summarized back into the first post after the circus finally leaves town; this what usually happens with "sticky" threads on other boards. It's painful to find the nuggets of wisdom on ST because the forum is so basic in functionality and is lacking curation.


Adam

SchmidtMotorWorks
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9604
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
Contact:

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by SchmidtMotorWorks » Fri May 11, 2018 12:34 am

statsystems wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 12:18 am
And I agree...warp has a bunch of one liners but I've yet to see him say anything worthwhile technically speaking. You'd think he was working on top secret shit.
A guy in WarpSpeeds position has to be very careful what he posts.
If his employer believes that they own the data behind any advice he gives, it could be harmful to his career.

He is exposed to some of the best motor-sports related engine development in the USA.
You would be wise to listen to whatever he posts.
http://www.schmidtmotorworks.com Aerospace Machine Work: Prototypes, Tooling, Molds.

plovett
Expert
Expert
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:49 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by plovett » Fri May 11, 2018 12:41 am

GARY C wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 12:33 am
plovett wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 12:09 am
fastblackracing wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:46 pm


He will be back to fill in the details.....he already stated that once the haters cool of a bit he will
post up.
David makes Speedtalk into a circus. David does this. Consistently. Blaming the people who point it out is a diversion.

JMO,

paulie
If you go back and read his 128 threads you will see his post are tech related as with most of his threads, it was the clowns that turned it into a circus!
If people don't like the way he frames his threads they don't have to click on them.
Strangely people think he should post the way they do or thats wrong also.
Personally I would like for him to post the way I want him to and I have told him so in phone calls but I am not him and he is not me and he has told me he doesn't like the way I post at times... thankfully we can give and receive constructive criticism and not feel pressured to bow down to another, freedom of speech and friendship goes a long way.
I've read the 128 threads. I will state my opinion and not be pressured to bow down to the "big name" guy.

JodyB
Member
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by JodyB » Fri May 11, 2018 12:43 am

Lol, monkeys throwing poo:)

SchmidtMotorWorks
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9604
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
Contact:

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by SchmidtMotorWorks » Fri May 11, 2018 12:58 am

B Original wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:32 pm
wonder if Jon aka SchmidtMotorWorks and some of the other haters on here has a fraction of this much testing under his belt for the proof of concept for their alternate theories and programs
My way of looking at engine development brought me to employment at Daimler (Mercedes) R&D in 2016 and 2017.
If you think I am challenging, those Germans would send you home in tears.

The theory behind the software I posted is similar to that of Gordon Blair in the article linked below:
I extended it to include head flow data rather than area.
If you want to read from a real master of engine development, start there.
You will notice that he shows the math from the ground up.
A competent 9th grader could do the math.

http://www.profblairandassociates.com/p ... basics.pdf
Last edited by SchmidtMotorWorks on Fri May 11, 2018 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.schmidtmotorworks.com Aerospace Machine Work: Prototypes, Tooling, Molds.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4344
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by GARY C » Fri May 11, 2018 1:04 am

SchmidtMotorWorks wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 12:58 am
B Original wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 11:32 pm
wonder if Jon aka SchmidtMotorWorks and some of the other haters on here has a fraction of this much testing under his belt for the proof of concept for their alternate theories and programs
My way of looking at engine development brought me to employment at Daimler (Mercedes) R&D in 2016 and 2017.
If you think I am challenging, those Germans would send you home in tears.

The theory behind the software I posted is similar to that of Gordon Blair in the article linked below:
If you want to read from a real master of engine development, start there.
You will notice that he shows the math from the ground up.

http://www.profblairandassociates.com/p ... basics.pdf
Just curious how would you relate Blair's low RPM airplane engine experiments to today's high RPM modern design engines?

SchmidtMotorWorks
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9604
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
Contact:

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by SchmidtMotorWorks » Fri May 11, 2018 1:12 am

GARY C wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:04 am
Just curious how would you relate Blair's low RPM airplane engine experiments to today's high RPM modern design engines?
Based on your question, I don't think you know what his work was. (That is quite telling)
http://www.schmidtmotorworks.com Aerospace Machine Work: Prototypes, Tooling, Molds.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4344
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by GARY C » Fri May 11, 2018 1:16 am

SchmidtMotorWorks wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:12 am
GARY C wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:04 am
Just curious how would you relate Blair's low RPM airplane engine experiments to today's high RPM modern design engines?
Based on your question, I don't think you know what his work was. (That is quite telling)
Then could you show us how his work will help those having to use a traditional platform SBC engine?

SchmidtMotorWorks
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9604
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
Contact:

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by SchmidtMotorWorks » Fri May 11, 2018 1:33 am

GARY C wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:16 am
SchmidtMotorWorks wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:12 am
GARY C wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:04 am
Just curious how would you relate Blair's low RPM airplane engine experiments to today's high RPM modern design engines?
Based on your question, I don't think you know what his work was. (That is quite telling)
Then could you show us how his work will help those having to use a traditional platform SBC engine?
Begin by reading any of the articles linked here:

http://www.profblairandassociates.com/RET_Articles.html

Most important relative to specing a cam read the paper I linked previously:

Here it is again.

http://www.profblairandassociates.com/p ... basics.pdf

If anyone finds it difficult to read, I would give my very strongest urging that you redouble your efforts to understand it.
It is really worth the effort.

If the math looks hard to you at first, try doing some of it, before you know it, you will be saying "is that all it is?"
If you got at least C's in high school, you can do the math.

If you find yourself hungering for more the two major books that he authored authored are a life time of reading alone.

If you want still more, the software he developed (or a derivative of it) is used by every serious engine development operation that I know of, including every OEM and racing team. Software like Dynomation, EngMod 4T, Eng Mod 2T, Engine Analyzer Pro, are all based on his work.

He has been a consultant at every OEM that I have worked at, every racing engine engineer that has met him, drops his name in a conversation.

His work is still supported by his associate Hans Herman, he consulted on a project that I worked on this year.
http://www.schmidtmotorworks.com Aerospace Machine Work: Prototypes, Tooling, Molds.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4344
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by GARY C » Fri May 11, 2018 1:37 am

SchmidtMotorWorks wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:33 am
GARY C wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:16 am
SchmidtMotorWorks wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:12 am


Based on your question, I don't think you know what his work was. (That is quite telling)
Then could you show us how his work will help those having to use a traditional platform SBC engine?
Begin by reading any of the articles linked here:

http://www.profblairandassociates.com/RET_Articles.html

Most important relative to specing a cam read the paper I linked previously:

Here it is again.

http://www.profblairandassociates.com/p ... basics.pdf

If anyone finds it difficult to read, I would give my very strongest urging that you redouble your efforts to understand it.
It is really worth the effort.

If the math looks hard to you at first, try doing some of it, before you know it, you will be saying "is that all it is?"
If you got at least C's in high school, you can do the math.

If you find yourself hungering for more the two major books that he authored authored are a life time of reading alone.

If you want still more, the software he developed (or a derivative of it) is used by every serious engine development operation that I know of, including every OEM and racing team. Software like Dynomation, EngMod 4T, Eng Mod 2T, Engine Analyzer Pro, are all based on his work.

He has been a consultant at every OEM that I have worked at, every racing engine engineer that has met him, drops his name in a conversation.

His work is still supported by his associate Hans Herman, he consulted on a project that I worked on this year.
Your assuming me and others haven't read his work or used those programs... That wasn't my question!

SchmidtMotorWorks
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9604
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
Contact:

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by SchmidtMotorWorks » Fri May 11, 2018 1:51 am

GARY C wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:37 am
Your assuming me and others haven't read his work or used those programs... That wasn't my question!
Your question about low RPM airplane engines told me that you didn't know about his work.
(or you were trying to mislead people into thinking his work was irrelevant).

The "Back to basics" article explains how to spec a cam and understand the reasoning behind it.
If you had read it, you would know that.

You would also have seen an example of what a polynomial data fit looks like.
There is a more detailed explanation of it in his 4 stroke book.
http://www.schmidtmotorworks.com Aerospace Machine Work: Prototypes, Tooling, Molds.

User avatar
Stan Weiss
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3566
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by Stan Weiss » Fri May 11, 2018 2:04 am

I OK I have done the math. Without build the engine and getting a BMEP what do I do with the TA's? If I do the math using a known BMEP and calculate the STA segments who will create a cam for me from these numbers?

Stan

Code: Select all

Bore_=_4.0_____Stroke_=_3.25_______________Rod_Length_=_5.7_
Wrist_Pin_Offset_=_0.0_____________________Number_of_-_Intake_Valves_=_1_-_Exhaust_Valves_=_1
Intake_Valve_Size_=_2.12___________________Exhaust_Valve_Size_=_1.6

_______I__N__T__A__K__E
Rocker_Arm_Ratio_=_1.650_________Valve_Lash_=_0.0210

VALVE_____Lift______Opens___Closes__Duration
_________________Deg_BTDC__Deg_ABDC_____________Area
_________0.00000____47.69_|__84.37_|_312.05_|__61.01
_________0.00600____44.55_|__80.80_|_305.35_|__60.99
_________0.01000____42.73_|__78.67_|_301.39_|__60.98
_________0.02000____38.71_|__73.99_|_292.70_|__60.91
_________0.04000____32.32_|__66.84_|_279.16_|__60.69
_________0.05000____29.68_|__63.94_|_273.61_|__60.56
_________0.10000____18.96_|__52.59_|_251.56_|__59.70
_________0.15000____10.52_|__43.84_|_234.35_|__58.68
_________0.20000_____3.06_|__36.19_|_219.26_|__57.27
_________0.25000____-3.97_|__29.07_|_205.10_|__55.41
_________0.30000___-10.85_|__22.20_|_191.36_|__53.71
_________0.35000___-17.79_|__15.20_|_177.41_|__51.04
_________0.40000___-24.96_|___7.98_|_163.03_|__48.74
_________0.45000___-32.52_|___0.38_|_147.86_|__45.30
_________0.50000___-40.80_|__-7.88_|_131.31_|__41.46
_________0.55000___-50.19_|_-17.26_|_112.55_|__36.16
_________0.60000___-61.45_|_-28.50_|__90.05_|__29.76
_________0.65000___-76.72_|_-43.55_|__59.73_|__20.32
CAM
_________0.00600____56.01_|__92.95_|_328.96_|__39.04
_________0.01000____50.50_|__87.43_|_317.93_|__39.00
_________0.02000____41.86_|__77.65_|_299.51_|__38.83
_________0.04000____30.98_|__65.35_|_276.33_|__38.48
_________0.05000____26.89_|__60.95_|_267.84_|__38.29
_________0.10000____11.47_|__44.82_|_236.29_|__37.07
_________0.15000____-0.70_|__32.36_|_211.67_|__35.53
_________0.20000___-12.08_|__20.95_|_188.87_|__33.37
_________0.25000___-23.72_|___9.23_|_165.51_|__30.83
_________0.30000___-36.39_|__-3.48_|_140.13_|__27.21
_________0.35000___-51.53_|_-18.59_|_109.88_|__22.27
_________0.40000___-72.76_|_-39.65_|__67.59_|__14.31

_____RPM_=_6500
Intake_BTDC_(IVO_to_TDC)_=_4.785
Intake_Pumping_(TDC_to_BDC)_=_111.356
Intake_Ramming_(BDC_to_IVC)_=_16.783
Intake_Overlap_(IVO_to_EVC)_=_23.270

_____RPM_=_7500
Intake_BTDC_(IVO_to_TDC)_=_4.147
Intake_Pumping_(TDC_to_BDC)_=_96.508
Intake_Ramming_(BDC_to_IVC)_=_14.546
Intake_Overlap_(IVO_to_EVC)_=_20.167

_____RPM_=_8500
Intake_BTDC_(IVO_to_TDC)_=_3.659
Intake_Pumping_(TDC_to_BDC)_=_85.154
Intake_Ramming_(BDC_to_IVC)_=_12.834
Intake_Overlap_(IVO_to_EVC)_=_17.794
Stan Weiss / World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
Image
http://www.erols.com/srweiss/index.html

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4344
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by GARY C » Fri May 11, 2018 2:09 am

SchmidtMotorWorks wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:51 am
GARY C wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:37 am
Your assuming me and others haven't read his work or used those programs... That wasn't my question!
Your question about low RPM airplane engines told me that you didn't know about his work.
(or you were trying to mislead people into thinking his work was irrelevant).

The "Back to basics" article explains how to spec a cam and understand the reasoning behind it.
If you had read it, you would know that.

You would also have seen an example of what a polynomial data fit looks like.
There is a more detailed explanation of it in his 4 stroke book.
NO! This was my question.
Then could you show us how his work will help those having to use a traditional platform SBC engine?

SchmidtMotorWorks
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9604
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
Contact:

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by SchmidtMotorWorks » Fri May 11, 2018 2:11 am

Stan Weiss wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 2:04 am
I OK I have done the math. Without build the engine and getting a BMEP what do I do with the TA's? If I do the math using a known BMEP and calculate the STA segments who will create a cam for me from these numbers?

You choose a BMEP target for an engine before you start the build and design to it.

You can compute the timing from the values and find a shelf cam that matches it.
http://www.schmidtmotorworks.com Aerospace Machine Work: Prototypes, Tooling, Molds.

SchmidtMotorWorks
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9604
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
Contact:

Re: 427 SBC test debunks 128 debunckers

Post by SchmidtMotorWorks » Fri May 11, 2018 2:16 am

GARY C wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 2:09 am

NO! This was my question.
Then could you show us how his work will help those having to use a traditional platform SBC engine?
It works for every 4 stroke engine.

Remember when I was complaining about 128 not scaling?
That method scales from garden tools to racing engines.

If the work is too unpleasant for anyone, then, as I mentioned several times in this thread already, my advice in 2018 is that anyone that is involved in engine building should have a 1D software and use it to choose the dimensions of their engine. The cost of it is less than one mistaken component selection if you value your time.
http://www.schmidtmotorworks.com Aerospace Machine Work: Prototypes, Tooling, Molds.

Locked