Landracing Forum Home

Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SpeedWeek 2017 => Topic started by: 4-barrel Mike on August 30, 2017, 10:13:24 AM



Title: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: 4-barrel Mike on August 30, 2017, 10:13:24 AM
http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2017/03/powerhouse-pinto-engine-makes-3-26-ponies-per-cube/ (http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2017/03/powerhouse-pinto-engine-makes-3-26-ponies-per-cube/)

 :cheers:

Mike


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ronnieroadster on August 30, 2017, 02:51:32 PM
Pretty interesting wonder where the engine is now.  Burton ran a diesel in the liner at Speedweek this year setting a record.
 Ron


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on August 30, 2017, 03:24:40 PM
Ronnie, the engine will be in John Goodman's new lakester at World of Speed.  :cheers: :cheers:
http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,15567.msg285560.html#msg285560


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: trimmers on August 30, 2017, 08:53:00 PM
I'll be doing Tech again at WoS, so I look forward to seeing this!  In the pictures in the article, I see just 4 exhaust pipes, so is this a 12-port (8 intake and 4 exhaust), arrangement?

Jeff in Boise


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: SteveM on August 31, 2017, 07:22:30 AM
...and Burton put a junkyard-fresh Mercedes OM606 engine into his streamliner, fitted it with a Goran Lindren supplied Dieselmeken injection pump and some "hot side" pieces from Luke Dale at DieselPump UK.  Burton got himself into the 200 mph club at Speed Week with that setup.

Steve



Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ronnieroadster on August 31, 2017, 07:30:11 PM
...and Burton put a junkyard-fresh Mercedes OM606 engine into his streamliner, fitted it with a Goran Lindren supplied Dieselmeken injection pump and some "hot side" pieces from Luke Dale at DieselPump UK.  Burton got himself into the 200 mph club at Speed Week with that setup.

Steve





 Bet the mad scientist in all of that was Sid      :cheers:


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Milwaukee Midget on August 31, 2017, 10:23:06 PM
Considering the engine and drivetrain changeout Burton did, the installation was remarkably clean and well conceived.

He's getting pretty damned good at this.


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: kiwi belly tank on August 31, 2017, 11:37:38 PM
...and Burton put a junkyard-fresh Mercedes OM606 engine into his streamliner, fitted it with a Goran Lindren supplied Dieselmeken injection pump and some "hot side" pieces from Luke Dale at DieselPump UK.  Burton got himself into the 200 mph club at Speed Week with that setup.

Steve





 Bet the mad scientist in all of that was Sid      :cheers:

Hey.... I resemble that remark! :roll:
Chris is right, Burton & the other cheese-heads did a really good job stuffing all that crap in there, I just brought the potatoes along in the 11th hour.
  Sid.


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Stainless1 on September 01, 2017, 09:09:55 AM
We started the engine in John Goodman's car a couple of days ago, looks cool and sounds really good.  Getting the wiring finished today... still on track to make WoS.... in thrash mode now
 :cheers:


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ronnieroadster on September 01, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
...and Burton put a junkyard-fresh Mercedes OM606 engine into his streamliner, fitted it with a Goran Lindren supplied Dieselmeken injection pump and some "hot side" pieces from Luke Dale at DieselPump UK.  Burton got himself into the 200 mph club at Speed Week with that setup.

Steve





 Bet the mad scientist in all of that was Sid      :cheers:

Hey.... I resemble that remark! :roll:
Chris is right, Burton & the other cheese-heads did a really good job stuffing all that crap in there, I just brought the potatoes along in the 11th hour.
  Sid.




 Ah yes cheese and potatoes the victory dinner of champions just add salt.   :cheers:


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on September 02, 2017, 08:59:28 AM
I'll be doing Tech again at WoS, so I look forward to seeing this!  In the pictures in the article, I see just 4 exhaust pipes, so is this a 12-port (8 intake and 4 exhaust), arrangement?

Jeff in Boise

http://www.engineprofessional.com/EPQ2-2015/index.html#p=60


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: BurtonBrown on September 05, 2017, 10:31:10 PM
I regret not getting to fully see the potential with the 2L John Stowe engine that is now in John Goodmans Lakester it really can have some huge potential..... we just got off on the wrong foot with some of the drivetrain stuff and we didn't ever fully recover. We learned a lot but it also cost a lot to learn..... I hope John will make it happen with his Lakester...I dont know what the G/GL record is but I think John will have his name on it with that engine...Hope its got some good suspension too......

The junkyard Diesel engine and new drivetrain (lots of it from Ebay  :-D) all worked out pretty well without any real failures.....I know its quite interesting going from a pretty high buck engine to a free junkyard engine but that's what makes this S!#T so much fun....Really. Thanks Chris for the nice words too. It really is cool to get compliments from fellow racers because they really know what it takes to get it done. We did use the Turbo we got from Luke Dale but not the header, unfortunately it didnt fit and we ended up being fortunate enough to get the guys from VL performance in Appleton on board and they built a beautiful SS header, mounted the turbo behind the engine and also helped with the intake build and charge air piping along with other welding that needed to be done on the car. Aaron Saltsman from VL Performance is quite a talented fabricator.
Its just too bad it really is coming to an end at Bonneville for all of us. The writing is on the wall....IN REALLY BIG LETTERS.... That is part of the reason I pushed so hard to get the thing done and get it out there this year. Wow was it rough though. No suspension in the liner and if you watch the in car from the 3rd run you will all offer a ride for me to the funny farm cause I realized it really was crazy trying to go ANY speed in the liner with those conditions. Sid mentioned he saw the whole liner in the air a few times... I have no idea how even 1 end with suspension could make that much difference but if I had to pick which end it would be rear suspension trying to keep it more in contact with the ground.....Don't know how much suspension that the Speed Demon has or Danny Thompson's car but they gotta have some because their in car cameras don't show the same fun ride I had. The liner is completely capable of 300MPH+ if there ever is a smooth enough place to run on.

Anyway enough complaining about S!#T that isn't going to change......

Real thank you's to all of the sponsors who helped out (all listed on my website) and volunteer pit help, couldn't have done it without EVERYONE and yes Sid was a huge part of our success. He was there doing stuff and helping train guys with what needed to be done and what was important and what wasn't. He saved us at the line when I got in for the return run and my arm restraint decided to get hooked on the parachute pull and i accidentally deployed one of the chutes. Sid calmy fixed it and did a wonderful job pushing me off through the plowed field  :-D. Watching the rear camera it looked like it was fun trying to keep the pushbar lined up. He kept Sheri in the loop of what was going on and somehow kept her calm and had her sit in the front with him in the van. Good move Bud I know she really appreciated that. There was probably a dozen other things he helped with at key moments Ill never hear about because Sid has the experience to just do the right stuff without even thinking about it. Instinct.
So yeah thanks for bringing the potatoes Sid  :cheers:


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: thefrenchowl on September 23, 2017, 04:42:41 AM
Hi,

This 2 ports/1 valve arrangement has been done at least twice in the sixties:

The URS 500 4 engine drawn/made/built by Helmut Fath for sidecar racing, he got a world championship with it:

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/d2/c0/1e/d2c01e505cd18170b04a3c76aef0bb3d.jpg)

That head (he also raced the std arrangement, 1 port/1 valve...) was inspired by Fath's visit to the French "Sorcier" Jean Nougier who built, amongst load of other things, a DOHC 50cc racer a few years earlier with the same arrangement:

(http://www.elsberg-tuning.dk/nougierheadr.jpg)

(http://www.elsberg-tuning.dk/nougier2.jpg)

Patrick


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Stainless1 on September 23, 2017, 08:53:57 PM
Patrick.... I think the motor is 1 port and injector per valve, 2 intake valves per cylinder, so 2 injectors per cylinder.  The 2 exhaust valves share a common port.  Motor ran strong in the lakester....


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on September 24, 2017, 10:07:13 AM
It is a four valve head. Forget the exhaust side it is conventional two ports into one. Each cylinder has two intake valves and two injectors. The 'normal' inlet position and first injector splits into two ports to feed each intake on ONE side of the valve. The vertical port and injector then feeds the other side of the valve that would have been fed by the other 'normal' bifurcated split inlet, [sorry I just had to use that word]. These intersecting ports are arranged tangentially - not in-line - which differentiates this concept from the original Fath design and a few others that followed. Study this picture and the ones in my article to see if it helps. Even when you see it in person you may have to scratch both ends to finally get it!  :-o :-D

John Stowe wrote three articles on his cylinder head development for Race Engine Technology: Mar/Apr 2006, June 2006 & Dec/Jan 2010.


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: thefrenchowl on September 24, 2017, 04:25:18 PM
Exactly what I said, 2 intake ports per 1 valve...

You have 2 intake valves per cylinder in that motor = 4 ports...

So, done before... if not with 2 intakes ; O )

Patrick


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ggl205 on October 02, 2017, 06:51:23 PM
Exactly what I said, 2 intake ports per 1 valve...

You have 2 intake valves per cylinder in that motor = 4 ports...

So, done before... if not with 2 intakes ; O )

Patrick

Patrick, you are correct to the point that pre Stowe designs used two intake tracts per cylinder. But what differentiates Stowe from all others is what Woody said i.e., the two intake tracts Stowe uses are offset one from the other per cylinder. It is not much of a change but makes all the difference in the world.

John


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ggl205 on October 02, 2017, 07:17:00 PM
I regret not getting to fully see the potential with the 2L John Stowe engine that is now in John Goodmans Lakester it really can have some huge potential..... we just got off on the wrong foot with some of the drivetrain stuff and we didn't ever fully recover. We learned a lot but it also cost a lot to learn..... I hope John will make it happen with his Lakester...I dont know what the G/GL record is but I think John will have his name on it with that engine...Hope its got some good suspension too......

Burton, first, let me congratulate you on entering the 200 mph club. You definitely deserve it. Looking forward to seeing you enter the 3 club chapter as well.

As Stainless mentioned, the engine ran flawlessly the entire WOS meet. We did find a little spring used to center the transaxle's sequential shift fork barrel that prevented us from accessing 3, 4 and 5th gears. We found and removed the useless spring allowing us to shift smoothly. Truly a case of a 50 cent part preventing success.

The new car is suspended front and rear. We still had problems getting the suspension set right. We got close before spinning the car and damaged the undercarriage. Lyn and I did manage to get our "B" and plan on getting that "A" license and run for record next year.

John


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: wobblywalrus on October 02, 2017, 07:24:05 PM
The Stowe design intends to create beneficial swirling turbulence in the combustion chamber? - WW in Virginia


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ggl205 on October 02, 2017, 07:57:52 PM
Exactly, WW.

John


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: BurtonBrown on October 02, 2017, 09:38:53 PM
John,

Thanks for the nice words.....I really think we can get in the three club as well with the same combo if its ever smooth again but i'm starting to doubt it ever will be. We really never made any boost until the last pass and we went from 185-212 from the 2-2 1/4 in third gear at about 4000RPM. The course was just too rough to hang onto it and I figured we can come back again if it ever gets better. We will plan on going to Elmo next year and see what we can do there.

Was that spring in the trans when I had it here? I really only had problems in the lower gears and I think now looking back at it I probably caused some of it myself with the push truck and me..... not calculating what RPM I needed to leave the truck.......Concrete and not enough RPM = Broken 1st gear  :dhorse: :dhorse:
But when i did leave correctly then it went through 3-4-5 all great.....


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ggl205 on October 02, 2017, 10:31:54 PM
Burton, the offending spring was in the trans when you used it but didn't cause the problems you experienced. I did find a couple of things in the box that may have contributed to first gear failures but really hard to say for sure. No matter, it works OK now.

Having suspension really helped plant power but it did take some time to get adjustments sorted that affect handling. Those final adjustments will be taken care of before we run again.

If you can, book time in the Darko wind tunnel (Ogden, Utah). You will find out a great deal about the car, especially if you plan to go 300+ mph. Money well spent.

John


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: fordboy628 on October 02, 2017, 10:37:53 PM
The Stowe design intends to create beneficial swirling turbulence in the combustion chamber? - WW in Virginia

Perhaps a bit of history can help everyone visualize what is taking place in the "Stowe" type 4 valve cylinder head.

If we jump back to the mid to late 1950's, racing engines of the period typically were 2 valve crossflow or hemi designs.   The engineering dogfight was between the more efficient combustion of the wedge type crossflows,  and the increased valve area available to the hemi design.   Combustion analysis was just beginning to be understood.   Engine engineers knew that the hemi, with its' poor combustion chamber shape, required higher total ignition timing to realize proper burn and develop the best bhp.   The problem, then as now, is that high total ignition timing robs the working cylinder.   It does this because the high initial timing requirement detracts from output when the piston/rod/crank assembly has to fight its' way to TDC, prior to performing any useful work.   Engineers, designers and tuners of the period knew this and attempted to avoid this.   The problem was that the prevalent thinking of the period, deemed turns in ports to be "bad" design, the "straight shot into the cylinder" theory, if you will.   SO, for a "straight shot", valve included angles were very high.   Some examples of this thinking: Jaguar hemis; Coventry Climax F1 hemis; Ferrari road & F1 hemis, etc.  Port angles vary widely on these examples, but the BMEP's achieved were all similar @ around 185 psi.

When the first 4 valve Coventry Climax F1 engines appeared, they still used the high included angle, straight shot approach and the total timing required was still very high, limiting potential output.   BMEP remained around 185 psi proving that combustion had not improved.   BUT, these guys were not stupid, and they were aware that 2 valve OHV "wedge" engines could be built to achieve 185 psi BMEP, and they could achieve that figure with less total ignition timing, thereby inferring enhanced combustion efficiency.    Combined with data from the SOHC 2 valve designers, where the valves needed to be offset from the centerline of the chamber, the supposed "ideal", these engine designs also required less total timing to achieve the same BMEP levels.   This was where the idea that the inlet mixture "swirled" into the cylinder formed.   It was idealized as a mini "tornado" of inlet gases, promoting homogeneous mixing of the air and fuel prior to the compression stroke.   "Swirl" along with her brother "Squish" became the sought after components of efficient combustion.

And yet, the lure of increased valve area tempted the talented designers and engineers of the early 60's.   Many designs were tried, many were less than stellar, but some showed promise.    As the included valve angle went down, turns had to be incorporated into the inlet designs, but the specific outputs went up.   It was Keith Duckworth who has to be considered the father of the modern 4 valve.    His clever "pent-roof", center spark plug design was dismissed by the engineering giants of the time because it had no "swirl".    And yet, it outproduced other designs, and achieved it with a low total ignition timing requirement, thereby proving efficiency.   Duckworth theorized mixture motion into the cylinder as "barrel roll", a theory he did not share until years later.    Afterward, "barrel roll" was labeled "tumble", and was thought to supplant, and be superior to: swirl.   As we know now, there is a delicate "balancing act", between cylinder axis, valve angles (in both planes . . . ) and port axis angles.

As engineers and designers seek ever higher specific outputs from their "babies", all sorts of combustion aids have been, and are being tried.    For 2 valve wedge racing engines (think NASCAR) "swirl" and "squish" were never abandoned.  Some of the current combustion chamber designs go to great lengths to "centralize" the "swirl" and "squish" effects.

What Mr. Stowe has done with his unique 4 valve design, is to add a "swirl" component to the existing "tumble" mixture motion known to exist in 4 valve racing engines.   I'm sure that most other designers considered his approach "over-complicated", in terms of efficiency payback.    Only time will tell if the "payout" is worth the "complexity" for an OEM manufacturer.    For individual hand built racing engines, I think he has proved his point.

 :cheers:


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ggl205 on October 03, 2017, 06:46:23 AM
John Stowe freely admits mistakes made in the engine I have in the lakester. He is almost apologetic about it and has a list of improvements he would like to make. But it should be mentioned that this is the first 2 liter version he made with no development done past this first iteration. Pretty good start for a 14.5:1 compression engine with 26 degrees of total lead. As good as this engine is, even with identified improvements, John would like to use the YB family of engines with better cylinder spacing and his cylinder head. John reckons 400 hp is very possible given facility for larger valves, improved piston domes, improved combustion chamber and bigger cams. Stowe may yet build this engine but no clear path to date.

John


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: thefrenchowl on October 03, 2017, 12:56:45 PM
2 liters and 400 bhp, I wonder what's happened between this and the 1925 Miller straight eight, 1.5 liter and 300 bhp, in Frank Lockhart's racers... 2 valves and about 120 degree included angle!!!

Patrick, flogging a  :dhorse:


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Stan Back on October 03, 2017, 04:07:41 PM
Same fuel, no pressurized air?


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Marcroux on October 04, 2017, 01:44:47 AM
Try 285 Hp for Frank Lockhart's blown 1500 cc Miller race car per The Golden Age of the American Racing Car by Griff Borgeson. My second question how accurate is a 1920's dyno? Best numbers for a 1500 cc F1 (Honda and BMW) during the Turbo Era 1500 Hp during qualifying, the current motors are restricted by rules. 400 Hp for a 2 liter NA four banger motor not bad (better that the first DFV Cosworth @ 375 Hp). It is at the magic number of 100 Hp per cylinder and uses a Pinto block. A pure race version is something to consider.   


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: fordboy628 on October 05, 2017, 05:16:17 AM
2 liters and 400 bhp, I wonder what's happened between this and the 1925 Miller straight eight, 1.5 liter and 300 bhp, in Frank Lockhart's racers... 2 valves and about 120 degree included angle!!!

Patrick, flogging a  :dhorse:

Patrick,

Once you start reviewing historical numbers, it becomes obvious that not as much progress has been made, as one might presume.    In fact I would submit that most of the "improvements" in output have been as a result of improved materials and increased rpm levels.

And if you are "flogging" a flahead, become a disciple of C.R. Axtell.    My personal advice is: Flow test, flow test, flow test.   And then, base the rest of your build design on the idea of "fulfilling" the flow-demand.    Re-structure your build geometry, if required, based on fulfillment of the demand.

 :cheers:


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: fordboy628 on October 05, 2017, 05:35:12 AM
Try 285 Hp for Frank Lockhart's blown 1500 cc Miller race car per The Golden Age of the American Racing Car by Griff Borgeson.

My second question how accurate is a 1920's dyno?

Best numbers for a 1500 cc F1 (Honda and BMW) during the Turbo Era 1500 Hp during qualifying, the current motors are restricted by rules. 400 Hp for a 2 liter NA four banger motor not bad (better that the first DFV Cosworth @ 375 Hp). It is at the magic number of 100 Hp per cylinder and uses a Pinto block. A pure race version is something to consider.   

If it was an eddy current dyno, probably pretty accurate.

If it was a friction brake with a torque arm hooked to a mechanical weight scale,   +/-  up to 10%

Early water brakes?    ???

Keep in mind that those guys were not stupid.    They just used the measurement technologies of the times.     And in some instances, they INVENTED the measurement technology.

What is interesting to me is:

That if you start with the likes of Miller, Duesenberg, Lockhart, Offenhauser, etc, etc,
and then proceed to Warbird engines, (both WW1 and WW2),
and then to post WW2 Formula One and USA racing,
and then to the "modern era" of racing, both here and in Europe,

There is pretty much a direct line, not only of ideas and technologies, but also of the men who implemented them.

"Great minds think alike."

go figure . . . . . . . .

 :cheers:
Thinkyboy


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: thefrenchowl on October 05, 2017, 02:56:38 PM
Quote
My second question how accurate is a 1920's dyno

The Great White (or Sand...) Dyno is always accurate... Lockhart's 172mph with open wheels and tallish body at Muroc circa 1927!!!

There's also Duray's 1 hour duration 144mph record in his front drive 91ci... That's not too shabby even by today's standards...

Like the old teeshirt said... Miller dreamed it, Goosen drew it, Offenhauser built it

It all started in France before WW 1... Henry even gave us this Peugeot 8 valve vertical twin cam 500cc bike in 1914...

(http://thevintagent.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/8-Peugeot-Pean-1914-Vintagent-image-8.jpg)

(http://thevintagent.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/9-Peugeot-1914-DOHC-Driveside-Vintagent-Image-9.jpg)

Patrick


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Stan Back on October 05, 2017, 03:44:55 PM
Henry Ford?


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: thefrenchowl on October 05, 2017, 04:30:23 PM
LOL...

This one, Ernest Henry who drew the 1st ever 4 cylinder twin cam 4 valves per cylinder...

(http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9021389z/f1.highres)

(http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9021038m/f1.highres)

Patrick


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: fordboy628 on October 05, 2017, 05:41:35 PM
EXACTLY my point.

Kudos to you for digging that stuff out.  One can learn quite a bit from some historical research . . . . . . . .

And it plays into one of my favorite conundrums:  What is knowledge?  Is it knowing what works?   Or sometimes is it, knowing what does not work?   You be the judge.


The design elements of cutting edge racing engines really have not changed that much over the decades.   Some refinement to be sure.   But the big advances have come with material science, and the increased rpm better parts allow.

Just my 2Ę

 :cheers:
Historyboy


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Marcroux on October 06, 2017, 02:24:32 AM
  First, I was not saying that those guys were not stupid (I think of them as my heroes) but that Frank Lockhartís engine were supercharged and quoted at a smaller horsepower that was stated.  Lockhartís engines are considered to be the most powerful of the 91 cubic inch era of Indy cars.

   Second as to my question how accurate is a 1920's dyno?  This is my problem with dyno horsepower numbers, a dyno is a comparison measurement device not an absolute measurement device! What I mean by this a dyno is used to measure losses and gains in a power curve. Different dynamometers (and operators) will read out different numbers on the same engine but generally the shape of power curve should be the same. A correction (SAE) factor needs to be apply to the numbers to remove the influence of weather so different runs results from different times on the same dyno can be compared. How were these numbers measure? Are they good numbers? I donít know. There are better people on this forum who can explain how to use a dyno to do engine development. My problem is people saying this engine makes X amount horsepower on a dyno. The question that a dyno will answer is, am I gaining or losing power with my mods to engine?  Not some magic maximum number that would be different on some other dyno! 

   Harry Millerís dyno in the twenties was most likely a friction brake with a torque arm hooked to a mechanical weight scale (I think I have a picture of it in a book). Eddy current dynos were patent in 1931 so they did not have one of those. Water brakes predate motor vehicles but during twenties I think only big motor manufacturers had them.


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: thefrenchowl on October 06, 2017, 04:33:50 AM
Harry's water brake with his 1928 last 91ci on it:

(http://www.speednik.com/files/2015/10/2015-10-13_05-50-40-640x427.jpg)

Patrick


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: thefrenchowl on October 06, 2017, 04:38:13 AM
 :-D and a quartet of proper engine designers..., Chevrollet, Miller and the brothers Duesenberg...

(http://images.forum-auto.com/mesimages/431238/1921%20indy%20500%20-%20louis%20chevrolet,%20harry%20miller,%20fred%20&%20augie%20duesenberg.jpg)

Patrick


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: fordboy628 on October 06, 2017, 04:43:37 AM
  First, I was not saying that those guys were not stupid (I think of them as my heroes) but that Frank Lockhartís engine were supercharged and quoted at a smaller horsepower that was stated.  Lockhartís engines are considered to be the most powerful of the 91 cubic inch era of Indy cars.

   Second as to my question how accurate is a 1920's dyno?  This is my problem with dyno horsepower numbers, a dyno is a comparison measurement device not an absolute measurement device! What I mean by this a dyno is used to measure losses and gains in a power curve. Different dynamometers (and operators) will read out different numbers on the same engine but generally the shape of power curve should be the same. A correction (SAE) factor needs to be apply to the numbers to remove the influence of weather so different runs results from different times on the same dyno can be compared. How were these numbers measure? Are they good numbers? I donít know. There are better people on this forum who can explain how to use a dyno to do engine development. My problem is people saying this engine makes X amount horsepower on a dyno. The question that a dyno will answer is, am I gaining or losing power with my mods to engine?  Not some magic maximum number that would be different on some other dyno! 

   Harry Millerís dyno in the twenties was most likely a friction brake with a torque arm hooked to a mechanical weight scale (I think I have a picture of it in a book). Eddy current dynos were patent in 1931 so they did not have one of those. Water brakes predate motor vehicles but during twenties I think only big motor manufacturers had them.


Marcroux,

Just so we are on the same page here, I was not thinking you were saying "those guys were stupid".   It was intended as a blanket statement.    Many times, when historical photos and documents are examined, more recent knowledge can reveal an "imperfection" in the building or testing methodology.    It's a case of hindsight being 20/20 vision, perhaps unlike vision "in the moment".

I can answer some of your questions about dyno development.    Eddy current dynos are VERY accurate, that's the reason many manufacturers use them.    But it is important to remember that accuracy is tied to efficiency, and all dynos have some losses, ie: bearing drag, etc.   And for acceleration runs, one of the current standard test methodologies, the moment of inertia of the test mechanism must be taken into consideration.   In terms of "efficiency", I think that eddy current dynos top the list, followed by water brakes, followed by friction brakes.   Manufacturers consider eddy current dynos to be "absolute" measuring devices, and water and friction brakes to be "less so".

An important point that has not been discussed is that there is a difference between "accuracy" and "repeatability".    Obviously, any development engineer would want to have both.    But depending on the age, condition and maintenance of the test equipment, "something" might be sacrificed.    The only recourse any "customer" or "enthusiast" has, is in the choice of facility utilized.    I would caution potential users to: "Choose wisely".   Think about that for a moment.    Having been a development engineer for a number of years, I consider repeatability more important than "absolute accuracy" for the potential client of a test facility.    It is extremely important that the facility you choose can repeat runs or pulls and generate comparable data to within a small fraction of a percentage.   If the facility of your choice can not accomplish this, the data you generate is: junk.   For this reason alone, potential users should want the facility of their choice to utilize computerized data accumulation.   It removes the "human element".    When you consider that most dyno development is accomplished by "slogging out" improvements of 1 or 2 percent at a time, or less, a data accuracy rate of +/- 1% can create serious questions about the validity of the data and insert unanswerable questions into the data analysis process.

Let's consider the ubiquitous water brake dyno for a moment.    In a typical situation, you are correct in saying that these are comparison measurement devices.    It would depend on the maintenance and calibration of the unit or units in question.    I know of several facilities that have more than one water brake dyno and test cell, and for the most part, the data generated is consistent from test cell to test cell.   These units are all well maintained and calibrated.    In the case of a facility with only one test cell, with unknown maintenance and calibration, the user should attempt to judge if the other users are satisfied with their data.    This can be difficult.

For further reading on this subject I suggest you pick up a copy of Harold Bettes' book: Dyno testing and tuning written in conjunction with Bill Hancock.  Harold is a member of this forum and may check in with his own thoughts on this subject, if we are lucky.    Mike LeFevers (Dynoroom on this forum) also has extensive dyno testing experience and we would be lucky for him to check in with his thoughts.

 :cheers:
Fordboy


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: wobblywalrus on October 06, 2017, 06:33:02 PM
This is the big change I have noticed since the late 1960's.  The knowledge of how to build engines and hop them up was not widespread.  A few people knew it.  The information age with computer design, forums, and lots more information on the i-net brings sophisticated engine design to the average person.


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: thefrenchowl on October 07, 2017, 04:41:48 AM
I would tend to aggree with you, Walrus,

But you won't find many of the new designers with the breath of understanding of the old guys like Goosen or Offenhauser...

They are now in teams with each guy in charge of a really small portion of the project and a top guy trying to make it all fit together... Not ideal and why these days, all engines look the same unattractive lump where you can't find any hints in the design of the main thinker behind...

Plus I do hate robot welding AND solidworks cause they tend to work towards the most common denominator, ie not too high... and smooth all traces of personnality/originnality out...  :dhorse:

Patrick


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Old Scrambler on October 07, 2017, 10:26:14 AM
Knowledge is wonderful...........I'm always ready to learn........but where will the $$$ come from to pay for the modern parts? I had not planned for this addiction before retirement :-(


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ggl205 on October 07, 2017, 08:30:48 PM
I had not planned for this addiction before retirement :-(

Few of us do, OS. The dreaded sickness can strike at any age but as a retiree, find my resistance to be particularly low.

John


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Marcroux on October 09, 2017, 04:34:41 PM
  I should have said something about repeatability, you are right about that but it had slipped my mind when I wrote my post. I did find a better picture Harry Millerís dyno and it is a water brake type. (On the photo that was posted you canít see the water brake only the test bed)

  I am mainly interested in race bikes, in that sport the range of dynos used in engine development goes from the eddy current dynos of factory teams in Japan to some guy in Denmark hopping up his moped testing the results on a dyno he build using a rotor out of a ten horse electric motor (He use the rotor like the drum on a dynojet, check him out on U-tube).  The amount of BS I have heard over the years about horsepower numbers has taught me to take what I told with a grain of salt.

  Consider this the Coventry Climax FPE ďGodivaĒ, this 2.5 liter DOHC 90 degree steel cross plane crank V8 engine was built in 1954 for Formula One.  Coventry Climax  had technical problems adapting the engine to fuel injection however the  FPE initially showed 240 bhp using Weber carburetors, but the press at the time reported the rumored fuel-injected Mercedes 2.5L GP engine is quoted as producing more than 300 bhp, and a corporate decision was made not to release FPE in light of the lack of proper fuel injection, leaving the Kieft F1 project, as well as other prospective users, HWM and Connaught, high and dry.
 
 There were reports to the effect that the engine was not run because of fears about the rumored power of other 2.5L GP engines, but shortly after 2.5 era of formula one ended, John Cooper brought a race-winning, works Maserati F1 engine he had on loan into Coventry Climax, where it produced 225 bhp running on the same dynamometer upon which the FPE had made 264 bhp after some development. The FPE never ran in a car.

 Or the Honda NR500 (500cc) a race bike that millions yen were spent on than was slower that a stock TZ350 (90 Honda horses vs. 65 Yamaha horses). The TZ350 raced in a lower class (350cc GP) the Honda raced against 500cc Yamaha and Suzuki.

  Something to remember is that the problem with race engine development it is rare that you get a chance to compare a competing engine.
The reason I wrote my first post is people are quoting numbers without giving any meaning or context to them. I hope both Harold Bettes and Mike LeFevers give their optionsí about this thread.

 Maybe my dream of a hundred horsepower single cylinder motorcycle is not stupid  if  the Burton Brown head works.


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: tortoise on October 09, 2017, 05:02:09 PM
The design elements of cutting edge racing engines really have not changed that much over the decades.   Some refinement to be sure.   But the big advances have come with material science, and the increased rpm better parts allow.Historyboy

Aren't motors flowing lots more now through the same size ports at the same RPM?  CFD and all, ya know?


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ggl205 on October 11, 2017, 11:36:27 AM
Maybe my dream of a hundred horsepower single cylinder motorcycle is not stupid  if  the Burton Brown head works.

Just to keep things correct, the cylinder head on my lakester is designed and manufactured by John Stowe. Stowe holds the domestic and international patents. So, Marcroux, if you want a Stowe head for your single cylinder MC engine, give John a call. His number is 860-308-2122 ext. #2. He will be happy to discuss what is possible.

John


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: fordboy628 on October 12, 2017, 06:29:04 AM
The design elements of cutting edge racing engines really have not changed that much over the decades.   Some refinement to be sure.   But the big advances have come with material science, and the increased rpm better parts allow.Historyboy

Aren't motors flowing lots more now through the same size ports at the same RPM?  CFD and all, ya know?

Well . . . .  NO, not lots more.   SOME improvements, yes, but at any given, sensible gas speed and pressure differential, only so much air can flow through a given orifice size.

For normally aspirated engines, let's use the ubiquitous small block Chevy as an example.   If you set the standard at the old design, double hump, straight plug, 2.02 "fuelie" iron cylinder heads, even the next series, the iron, angle plug, no heat crossover passage, 2.02 turbo head consistently outflows the baseline and produces more bhp.    Newer designs from AFR, Brodix, Dart, etc, whether in iron or alloy, flow even more air.   But ALL fall short of the potential flow of a theoretically perfect valve at a given diameter.   That's just the nature of the "poppet" valve.

So how did the improvements come about?
A/  Well, CFD development of port shapes played a part,
2/  Reduction of valve angle to bore centerline is huge, ie: reduce angle from 23 degrees to ? ? ?
d/  Valve "cant", in some instances can increase flow, but it also can add "swirl",
y/  Alteration of the port entry angle to bore centerline is also huge,
z/  etc, etc . . . . .

I'm not saying that the improvements are not significant, because they are.    The "new" designs are better because the old designs were pretty bad, based on what we know NOW.

BTW, the "old" designs were not "purposely" bad.    It is important to note that the designers were working on a production engine, not a "clean sheet" racing engine.    They were constrained by a variety of factors such as "packaging space" and "cost considerations".

 :cheers:
Fordboy


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: fordboy628 on October 12, 2017, 07:12:12 AM
  I should have said something about repeatability, you are right about that but it had slipped my mind when I wrote my post. I did find a better picture Harry Millerís dyno and it is a water brake type. (On the photo that was posted you canít see the water brake only the test bed)

  I am mainly interested in race bikes, in that sport the range of dynos used in engine development goes from the eddy current dynos of factory teams in Japan to some guy in Denmark hopping up his moped testing the results on a dyno he build using a rotor out of a ten horse electric motor (He use the rotor like the drum on a dynojet, check him out on U-tube).  The amount of BS I have heard over the years about horsepower numbers has taught me to take what I told with a grain of salt.

  Consider this the Coventry Climax FPE ďGodivaĒ, this 2.5 liter DOHC 90 degree steel cross plane crank V8 engine was built in 1954 for Formula One.  Coventry Climax  had technical problems adapting the engine to fuel injection however the  FPE initially showed 240 bhp using Weber carburetors, but the press at the time reported the rumored fuel-injected Mercedes 2.5L GP engine is quoted as producing more than 300 bhp, and a corporate decision was made not to release FPE in light of the lack of proper fuel injection, leaving the Kieft F1 project, as well as other prospective users, HWM and Connaught, high and dry.
 
 There were reports to the effect that the engine was not run because of fears about the rumored power of other 2.5L GP engines, but shortly after 2.5 era of formula one ended, John Cooper brought a race-winning, works Maserati F1 engine he had on loan into Coventry Climax, where it produced 225 bhp running on the same dynamometer upon which the FPE had made 264 bhp after some development. The FPE never ran in a car.

 Or the Honda NR500 (500cc) a race bike that millions yen were spent on than was slower that a stock TZ350 (90 Honda horses vs. 65 Yamaha horses). The TZ350 raced in a lower class (350cc GP) the Honda raced against 500cc Yamaha and Suzuki.

  Something to remember is that the problem with race engine development it is rare that you get a chance to compare a competing engine.
The reason I wrote my first post is people are quoting numbers without giving any meaning or context to them. I hope both Harold Bettes and Mike LeFevers give their optionsí about this thread.

 Maybe my dream of a hundred horsepower single cylinder motorcycle is not stupid  if  the Burton Brown head works.


WELL, yes, there is lots of "smoke" about engine bhp numbers.    ALWAYS has been, ALWAYS will be.

As a "student" of engine design history, I am well aware of the FPE.   I consider Walter Hassan and Harry Mundy to be some of the great I/C engine minds of the 20th century.  Their track record speaks for itself.

Depending on the type of racing, getting a look at a "competitor's stuff" is not that hard, except for "pinnacle" formulas.    I'll remind everyone that before Toyota moved up to the Cup Series, they bought (through a team) one each of all their competitor's engines.    Took them apart, and then went to Nascar with a "proposal" for "their" engine design.     A bit on the "tricky" side, but also smart.    They knew what they were up against.

Don't think that good engineers don't work on track performance backwards to determine engine bhp numbers, because we do.    It's just math . . . . .

 :cheers:
Fordboy


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: ggl205 on October 12, 2017, 09:00:53 AM
It's just math . . . . .
 :cheers:
Fordboy

And physics.

John


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: WOODY@DDLLC on October 12, 2017, 02:02:51 PM
It's only physics - everything else is just stamp collecting!  :-o :-D
Google it - not my original thought - just confirming the sentiment!  :cheers:


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Marcroux on October 14, 2017, 03:50:55 AM
   Boy, go away for a few days and I have explain more things I said. No I am not building a 100 Hp 500cc four stroke single. That dream died due to the recession, my pending retirement and the ending of and current lack of any meaningful series for it to race in. On the other hand John thank you for John Stowe contact information however what I need is a phone number of someone willing to pay for it because that what holds back the project.  I think such an engine is possible; it is just waiting for someone to build it.

 The current crop of moto 3 engines are similar to what I have in mind but the engines are restricted by bore diameter (81mm max),spec engine management system, rev limits (13,500 rpm max) and valve train drive (you limit to chain drive and only one gear stage reduction by the rules. In fact all the classic Italian racing singles made in the fifties are illegal by the rules). This engine would not be limited by these restrictions.  My point is I think the Stowe has merit and deserve study.     

  The decision not to race FPE was most likely made by upper management not by the Coventry Climax engineers.   

  On the Toyota NASCAR engine I have a different opinion.  First NASCAR unlike most pro racing bodies wants their teams to make a living. Second one way to do this is control costs. Third they have a history of not letting a manufacturerís new engine race. Remember the SOHC Ford and DOHC four valve Chrysler?  So you bet Toyota are going to look at what everybody else is doing. It a strange case of not making an engine better that everyone else but making an engine that was at the level as everybody else.   
More later


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: thefrenchowl on October 15, 2017, 05:37:22 AM
Quote
Marcroux: The current crop of moto 3 engines are similar to what I have in mind but the engines are restricted by bore diameter (81mm max),spec engine management system, rev limits (13,500 rpm max) and valve train drive (you limit to chain drive and only one gear stage reduction by the rules. In fact all the classic Italian racing singles made in the fifties are illegal by the rules).

The mind boggles... Reminds me of "non capacity" rules in early French voiturettes racing... rule book bore of say 70mm and they made cars with 70 bore and say 200mm stroke, resulting in engines that tall they look like locomotives on the road with pilot and mechanic hanging over the side to check progress...

Peugeot voiturette racer before the Ernest Henry revolution:

(http://www.antiqbrocdelatour.com/Les-collections/voitures-anciennes-doc/2g-photos-originales/Peugeot%20-%20Coupe%20des%20voiturettes%20-%20Voiture%20de%20course%20en%201910.jpg)

What bothers me most with modern racing is that design is not governed by intelligent guys, but by bunches of lawyers finding the best way to bend the stated rules to the max...

Hence why I try to do Bonneville Salt Flat racing, I have a more or less free rein to indulge in my fantasies!!!

Patrick





Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: wobblywalrus on October 16, 2017, 08:36:38 PM
The FIM has classes for single cylinder engines in about any size and configuration.


Title: Re: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown
Post by: Marcroux on October 18, 2017, 12:55:26 PM
I am thinking of changing my forum name to erratum, because I keep making errors in what I write.

1.    Moto 3 bikes are 250cc maximum displacement, single cylinder four stokes motors. In World MotoGP there are three classes, MotoGP have 1000cc max displacement four cylinder four stoke motors, Moto 2 have  600cc leased spec Honda motors and the above Moto 3. Both MotoGP and Moto 3 are the restricted by 81mm max bore diameter rule. Which means the most extreme bore and stoke you can run in an engine and still have max displacement is 81mm x 48.5mm.  (there were some V12s built in the sixties with this bore and stoke for F1)  I forgot that not everyone on this forum knows motorcycle road racing rules like I do. I did not want to a forum reader  to think  Moto 3 did not have "non capacity" rules.

2.   I did not stop work yesterday on the single but in the early nineties.

3.   Wobblywalrus I know the FIM has classes for single cylinder engines in about any size and configuration. However this is a fairly recent change to the rule book. I looked at my copy of the 2004 FIM rule book and there is only one displacement class for singles is showed. In the thirteen years that the motorcycle speed trials have run the FIM have made huge changes to record setting classes. I have an old race single engine that lately I have been thinking of running however there are a few things I have work out first.