Landracing Forum Home
November 20, 2017, 05:38:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
BACK TO LANDRACING.COM HOMEPAGE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  


(Note: Donations are not tax deductible)







Live Audio Streaming and Archives of Past Events
Next Live Event: TBD
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Engine Builder Mag: Burton Brown  (Read 5209 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Stan Back
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: San Berdoo
Posts: 4758





Ignore
« Reply #30 on: October 05, 2017, 03:44:55 PM »

Henry Ford?
Logged

Member of the San Berdoo Roadsters Ė California's most-exclusive roadster club.
Celebrating 65th anniversary of racing on the salt.
thefrenchowl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 66
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 220



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #31 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...





Patrick
Logged

Flat Head Forever
www.harleykrxlrtt.com
...What exactly are we trying to do here?...
fordboy628
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Koozebane
Posts: 1839


GONE FISHIN' . . .




Ignore
« Reply #32 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
Logged

I used to be a people person.  But people changed that relationship.

"There is nothing permanent except change."    Heraclitus

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."     Albert Einstein
Marcroux
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Location: Chico, California
Posts: 36





Ignore
« Reply #33 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.
Logged
thefrenchowl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 66
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 220



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #34 on: October 06, 2017, 04:33:50 AM »

Harry's water brake with his 1928 last 91ci on it:



Patrick
Logged

Flat Head Forever
www.harleykrxlrtt.com
...What exactly are we trying to do here?...
thefrenchowl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 66
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 220



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #35 on: October 06, 2017, 04:38:13 AM »

 grin and a quartet of proper engine designers..., Chevrollet, Miller and the brothers Duesenberg...



Patrick
« Last Edit: October 06, 2017, 05:01:58 AM by thefrenchowl » Logged

Flat Head Forever
www.harleykrxlrtt.com
...What exactly are we trying to do here?...
fordboy628
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Koozebane
Posts: 1839


GONE FISHIN' . . .




Ignore
« Reply #36 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
Logged

I used to be a people person.  But people changed that relationship.

"There is nothing permanent except change."    Heraclitus

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."     Albert Einstein
wobblywalrus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 64
Location: backwoods Oregon
Posts: 4442





Ignore
« Reply #37 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.
Logged
thefrenchowl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 66
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 220



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #38 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...  Dead Horse

Patrick
Logged

Flat Head Forever
www.harleykrxlrtt.com
...What exactly are we trying to do here?...
Old Scrambler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 70
Location: Plymouth, WI
Posts: 629


Going Fast - Slowly




Ignore
« Reply #39 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 sad
Logged

2011 AMA Record - 250cc M-PG TRIUMPH Tiger Cub - 82.5 mph
2013 AMA Record - 250cc MPS-PG TRIUMPH Tiger Cub - 88.7 mph
2016 AMA Record - 750cc M-CG HONDA CB750 sohc - 130.7 mph
2016 AMA Record - 750cc MPS-CG HONDA CB750 sohc - 137.7 mph
Chasis Builder / Tuner: Dave Murre
ggl205
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 70
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 356





Ignore
« Reply #40 on: October 07, 2017, 08:30:48 PM »

I had not planned for this addiction before retirement sad

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
Logged
Marcroux
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Location: Chico, California
Posts: 36





Ignore
« Reply #41 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.
Logged
tortoise
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 75
Location: Sequim, WA
Posts: 545




Ignore
« Reply #42 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?
Logged
ggl205
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 70
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 356





Ignore
« Reply #43 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
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 11:41:16 AM by ggl205 » Logged
fordboy628
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Koozebane
Posts: 1839


GONE FISHIN' . . .




Ignore
« Reply #44 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
Logged

I used to be a people person.  But people changed that relationship.

"There is nothing permanent except change."    Heraclitus

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."     Albert Einstein
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page October 30, 2017, 11:29:25 AM