Ed Pink builds replica of LSR Flathead Ford

[fordboy628]

For Ford Flathead fans, and anyone who is interested in "new" technology Vs "old" . . . . .


The latest issue of Race Engine Technology, #118, has a multi-page article on this re-creation of a 1950 (?) LSR record holding engine.

It's an in depth look, focusing on how components have changed over the decades.   Some components from both versions are compared.


Sorry, I couldn't find a link to the article, just a synopsis of the issue's content.    You will have to purchase the issue to get the whole story.    But anybody serious about racing engines should have a subscription to this magazine.

https://www.highpowermedia.com/p/1289/race_engine_technology_-_issue_118


There is also an article in the same issue featuring the Jesel 427 cubic inch "Equal Eight".   Soon to be raced in an unspecified LSR entry . . . . .

This magazine is usually available from larger Book stores with a large magazine section.     Or it can be ordered online at the site above.

 
Fordboy

[Seldom Seen Slim]

Fordboy said:  "...There is also an article in the same issue featuring the Jesel 427 cubic inch "Equal Eight".   Soon to be raced in an unspecified LSR entry . . . . ."
It's gonna go in MM's Midget, right???

[jacksoni]

https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/the-equal-8-inside-dan-jesels-new-clean-sheet-12000-rpm-v8/

[fordboy628]

https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/the-equal-8-inside-dan-jesels-new-clean-sheet-12000-rpm-v8/

Jack,

Thanks for adding the link to the excellent article, pretty much the same as the one in RET, with perhaps more technical information.

For a dissertation on "stupidy" though, read the comments added after the article.    This is why I'm retiring:

A/   The average potential client is too stupid to understand what engineers actually do,
2/   The "smart" guys don't need our help,
d/   The "smart and wealthy" guys can afford to hire the "right people".   The ones at the top of the "smarty list" . . . . . .
z/   Fly fishing is actually relaxing.   And fly tying is even more relaxing.

    
Frustratedbystupidyboy

[fordboy628]

Fordboy said:  "...There is also an article in the same issue featuring the Jesel 427 cubic inch "Equal Eight".   Soon to be raced in an unspecified LSR entry . . . . ."

It's gonna go in MM's Midget, right???

Uhhmm, in a word, NO.


Can't afford it.    2019's technology is way beyond what Chris can tolerate.    Heck, 1980's technology was a wallet stretch!     

    
Poorboy

[ronnieroadster]

For Ford Flathead fans, and anyone who is interested in "new" technology Vs "old" . . . . .


The latest issue of Race Engine Technology, #118, has a multi-page article on this re-creation of a 1950 (?) LSR record holding engine.

It's an in depth look, focusing on how components have changed over the decades.   Some components from both versions are compared.


Sorry, I couldn't find a link to the article, just a synopsis of the issue's content.    You will have to purchase the issue to get the whole story.    But anybody serious about racing engines should have a subscription to this magazine.

https://www.highpowermedia.com/p/1289/race_engine_technology_-_issue_118


There is also an article in the same issue featuring the Jesel 427 cubic inch "Equal Eight".   Soon to be raced in an unspecified LSR entry . . . . .

This magazine is usually available from larger Book stores with a large magazine section.     Or it can be ordered online at the site above.

 
Fordboy

  Ed Pinks recreation flathead similar to the one he built for his car way back then {before i was born} was actually done to power his original 1936 Ford coupe now owned and restored in the car collection of Ross Meyers Three Dog Garage.

[panic]

IIRC popular wisdom in the day began with what is still valuable today: if you can't fill the cylinder, squeeze the %}&@# out of it.
The other part was an analysis of the VE vs. static CR argument: flatheads need "transfer" area between the seat and the bore to allow charge flow which increases chamber volume (duh), but in some engines the best CR is 5.5:1 (1968 Harley KR: 45", 58 HP). The trend was to favor 9:1 or more in Ford drag engines (since VE is terrible), but 7 or 8:1 in LSR since peak power was more valuable.
Anyone remember this?

[CNC-Dude]

I know Ken Kloth set a few records with his Flathead after doing endless flowbench testing and found his records were consistently with low compression in the area of 6 or 7:1. But you are correct panic, reducing the transfer area smothers a Flathead and goes against the OHV thinking that smaller chambers and higher compression is better.

[ronnieroadster]

I know Ken Kloth set a few records with his Flathead after doing endless flowbench testing and found his records were consistently with low compression in the area of 6 or 7:1. But you are correct panic, reducing the transfer area smothers a Flathead and goes against the OHV thinking that smaller chambers and higher compression is better.

 Are you SURE of that? Might not be correct any longer but I will never tell 

[CNC-Dude]

I know Ken Kloth set a few records with his Flathead after doing endless flowbench testing and found his records were consistently with low compression in the area of 6 or 7:1. But you are correct panic, reducing the transfer area smothers a Flathead and goes against the OHV thinking that smaller chambers and higher compression is better.

 Are you SURE of that? Might not be correct any longer but I will never tell 

It was according to the section in Tex Smith's Flathead book at the time it was published. Unless it was total misinformation, but I doubt they would have wasted so many pages printing it if there wasn't at least some kernel of truth in there somewhere. At least for his records and experience it worked for him.

[fordboy628]

This is not intended as criticism of anyone's opinion or point of view, and it is not directed toward any specific person.    It's just a "brain dump".    I do it less often now, as the "brain bucket is nearing empty" . . . . .


I don't know much, but I do know one thing for certain:


ANYTHING that impedes fulfillment of "piston demand", in any normally aspirated engine, decreases power produced.    It is as simple as that, back to the "air pump" analogy.

Worst example analogy, from an empirical point of view:    If the "transfer area" of a flathead engine is completely "blocked", there is NO FLOW.

Increasing the "transfer area" then, increases flow, up to the point of "diminishing returns".   Where this point of "diminishing flow returns", intersects with compression ratio could be modeled with various formats, (such as CFD) but in the finish would need to be verified by dyno testing.

This, in and of itself, is NOT news.   This concept is well known and well documented.   Re: the Harley work by C. R. Axtell is one source, and there are others.    It pays to "dig up" older research and investigate the results.    If for no other reasons, than to prevent "re-invention of the wheel" . . . . . .       Older engine engineers were not "dopes".     Almost without exception, they were very clever and insightful guys who had some sort of limitation placed upon them.     Financial, material spec, delivery period, etc.     Those guys did the best they could, with what they had.    Pretty much the same as today, for engineers who are "passionate" about their work.    Physics does not change, it is our understanding of physical application that, evolves, mostly due to "changing of limitations", or perhaps "clarity of understanding".

Applying concepts to various engine types is simple.    Any barstool racer can present any theory or opinion.    It is the precise, and effective, application of theory, backed up with test data, that is the "difficult and expensive" part.   Which is why these things are not done more often, and why persons who "invest" in "testing theories" are less than willing to share their results with the average barstool racer . . . . . .

  

[panic]

The "floor" of the Ford chamber (the deck surface) was better than any H-D engine, including the KR in at least one respect: the valves were tilted toward the bore, making the chamber volume increase to unmask the proximate edge of the seat relatively small.
The H-D 4-cam engines were crippled by inheriting the 1929 Model D valve gear, which angled the stems in the fore-aft (wheelbase) plane w/r/t the bore axis, creating a useless volume, but parallel to the bore in the cross-plane. The WLDR/WR/K/KR partially cured this by tilting all 4 valves toward the bore in the cross-plane as well, but flow leaving the intake seat still had to defeat the existing shapes.
Of the automotive engines, some followed the Ford model (Pontiac 239 L6) and some had the valves parallel in both axes (Chrysler Spitfire and Ply-Do).
What puzzles me is why so little attention is paid to the shape of the "roof" (containing both the transfer area and the quench surface) which is the controlling surface directing flow into the bore?

[CNC-Dude]

What puzzles me is why so little attention is paid to the shape of the "roof" (containing both the transfer area and the quench surface) which is the controlling surface directing flow into the bore?

That's a good point panic, I gave Joe Abbin a good practical exercise that was shared with me by some Nascar engine builders I know and he didn't see how it would be a benefit to his thinking that the roof is unimportant in a Flathead. But if you had just indulged his curiosity, he might have found something that previous Flathead experts missed. But he chose to be uninterested and could have taken credit for the most revolutionary discovery in modern times regarding the Flathead.

[panic]

I have this mental picture of flow leaving the intake seat, rising toward the transfer curve, and following this shape more closely than the deck surface down into the bore, sort of like the Schneurl loop in a 2-stroke.
Blair's model has no pop-up, and what appears to be very narrow transfer area at the bore edge: ??

[Dynoroom]

There is an interesting video floating around YouTube with a large Briggs single cylinder engine with a clear lexan cylinder head so you can watch combustion. If you look closely you can see the air fuel enter, the spark igniting the mixture, & the burnt exhaust leaving when the valve opens.
Pretty cool.