Landracing Forum Home
April 20, 2019, 07:35:09 AM *
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 ... 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 [123] 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 ... 164   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Getting ready for Bonneville(rebuild)  (Read 801289 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Frankie7799
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Age: 47
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 457





Ignore
« Reply #1830 on: October 16, 2012, 05:52:50 PM »

John, well I guess you guys had better get a fix for 281+ and above because we all know once you get these gremlins sorted out you guys will get that elusive 300 on the time slip and not just on the computer screen  grin

Its too bad that El Mirage cant handle your power heck of alot closer to you than Bendover 

Looking foward to reading more updates as they come
Logged
robfrey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 53
Location: Butler, PA
Posts: 1137



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1831 on: November 10, 2012, 06:36:29 PM »

Who makes a steel rod strong enough?  I haven't seen any advertised that can handle mid to high hp motors.  Give u's some hints. grin
For what its worth, We've been using Oliver Bros exclusively for about 8 years and have never had a problem. Their hp rating is very conservative. We regularly make 2300+ hp on these rods.
I believe turbo engines to be a bit easier on rods than blower though. Ex back pressure may cushion the load at tdc on ex stroke?
Logged

496 BGS
carbinitelsr.com
carbiniteracing.com
carbinite.com
Paul Powell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 45
Location: Red Oak, NC (outside of Rocky Mount)
Posts: 57


Just too slow to go


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1832 on: November 19, 2012, 03:32:04 PM »

I am going with bvillercr on this.
We have been using Oliver and Carrillo(CP) rods in our engines at the salt for 15 plus years.
I personally like the Oliver rods better and have several engines that put over 2300 to the tire and 9000+rpm with zero failures.
I can also say that I build lots of turbo drag engines and use both aluminum and billet (plate) steel rods. Lots with over 2500-3000 hp no failures of the rods.  Rods normally fail for a few reasons bearing failures (easy to see), detonation (can break the rods, cause bearing failure, split rod, crack wrist pins, fail pistons,.........), and over speed pull them in half (easily seen from necking in the rod at the failure).
I do not like aluminum in land speed applications but have used them as they do a great job of acting as a shock to keep from hurting the crank (but you need to check them after every pass like we do in drag racing, looking for bearing issues and cracks in the rod joint)
Aluminum has an issue with fatigue and if you do have detonation the rod is more likely to fail with the heat increase in the rod beam versus a steel (but you may get a bearing).
Also remember that Pro-charger takes about 700-800 to drive at 40 +psi so the rod is experience HP at the crank plus 700-800 hp.
By the way why do you need that kind of power in a land speed car?  Our old Buick could easily make 2000 plus but aero limited us and anything over 1300 was wasted.
Paul Powell
 
Logged

Paul Powell
Paul Powell Performance L.L.C.
5073 Barnhill Farm Road
Battleboro, NC 27809
(252) 452-4998
tauruck
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: N/A
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 4870





Ignore
« Reply #1833 on: November 20, 2012, 10:34:00 PM »

I'm glad I read this post. I've never built a turbo motor before and rods were a question mark but on this info I'll be buying Oliver for sure. Thanks man.
Logged

jl222
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Clovis calif.
Posts: 2665




Ignore
« Reply #1834 on: November 24, 2012, 08:22:01 PM »

I am going with bvillercr on this.
We have been using Oliver and Carrillo(CP) rods in our engines at the salt for 15 plus years.
I personally like the Oliver rods better and have several engines that put over 2300 to the tire and 9000+rpm with zero failures.
I can also say that I build lots of turbo drag engines and use both aluminum and billet (plate) steel rods. Lots with over 2500-3000 hp no failures of the rods.  Rods normally fail for a few reasons bearing failures (easy to see), detonation (can break the rods, cause bearing failure, split rod, crack wrist pins, fail pistons,.........), and over speed pull them in half (easily seen from necking in the rod at the failure).
I do not like aluminum in land speed applications but have used them as they do a great job of acting as a shock to keep from hurting the crank (but you need to check them after every pass like we do in drag racing, looking for bearing issues and cracks in the rod joint)
Aluminum has an issue with fatigue and if you do have detonation the rod is more likely to fail with the heat increase in the rod beam versus a steel (but you may get a bearing).
Also remember that Pro-charger takes about 700-800 to drive at 40 +psi so the rod is experience HP at the crank plus 700-800 hp.
By the way why do you need that kind of power in a land speed car?  Our old Buick could easily make 2000 plus but aero limited us and anything over 1300 was wasted.
Paul Powell
 


  Hi Paul... got a few questions what kind of engines were these rods in, and what were the rods length?

  700-800 hp seems way more power to drive a big Pro-charger as I understand a 14- 71 top fuel blower, that you can't even turn by hand takes around 1000 hp. Our Pro-charger spins easily by hand.
  Where did you get those numbers?

  Bville racing is not like drag racing. In drag racing its full throttle from start to finish accelerating 2250 lbs
to 320 +mph in 4.8 sec or less, loading the engine and using the 8000 hp [now 10,000 hp] to the max.
 We have reached a top speed of 294 in the 1st timed mile with a 318 mph top speed at the end of that mile
but it took well over 10 times as long to get up to that speed and not full throttle untill high gear.

  What engine was in the Buick and how fast did go? how did the aero limit the speed. Did you need more weight or downforce?
Or did you need wider tires tongue 

  Guess you have never heard of the 911 roadster. 1st roadster over 300 mph, engine similar to top fuel, and roadster way up on the aero drag scale compared to the the 222 Camaro and way over 2300 hp.
  You actually wonder if 2300 hp is needed in a land speed car?

  Tauruck...Oliver rods might be the best for your engine but make sure your not comparing apples to oranges.

          JL222



   
Logged
robfrey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 53
Location: Butler, PA
Posts: 1137



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1835 on: November 26, 2012, 12:36:47 AM »

In my previous occupation, I worked with our chief engineer to fatigue test aluminum parts. We tried just about everything to make it live as it would have been a huge financial and weight benefit but we eventually had to give up on the aluminum tooling parts. I got to witness this up close and personal. We came to the conclusion that even the highest grades of aluminum will fatigue probably much quicker than you realize.  Also, the failures were much more random than we would have guessed. This is why some guys get away with running aluminum rods and others have failures.
 My 2cents - Aluminum rods have no place in any endurance engine and Bonneville racing requires an endurance engine.
Btw, titanium rods also do not belong.
It's hard to beat high quality tool steel.
Logged

496 BGS
carbinitelsr.com
carbiniteracing.com
carbinite.com
SPARKY
Global Moderator
Hero Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 76
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 6645




« Reply #1836 on: November 26, 2012, 08:05:42 AM »

one down side---OLIVERS are much harder on blocks than alum or h-beams -- if one's stupidity can lead to pin and bearing issues  cry
Logged

Miss LIBERTY,  changing TKI  to noise, dust and RUST!!!

The # 1 issue is: TO KEEP THE REPUBLIC      
   Center for Self Governance            tncsg.org     mrspowell.org

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."   Helen Keller
Paul Powell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 45
Location: Red Oak, NC (outside of Rocky Mount)
Posts: 57


Just too slow to go


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1837 on: November 26, 2012, 10:21:54 AM »

I am going with bvillercr on this.
We have been using Oliver and Carrillo(CP) rods in our engines at the salt for 15 plus years.
I personally like the Oliver rods better and have several engines that put over 2300 to the tire and 9000+rpm with zero failures.
I can also say that I build lots of turbo drag engines and use both aluminum and billet (plate) steel rods. Lots with over 2500-3000 hp no failures of the rods.  Rods normally fail for a few reasons bearing failures (easy to see), detonation (can break the rods, cause bearing failure, split rod, crack wrist pins, fail pistons,.........), and over speed pull them in half (easily seen from necking in the rod at the failure).
I do not like aluminum in land speed applications but have used them as they do a great job of acting as a shock to keep from hurting the crank (but you need to check them after every pass like we do in drag racing, looking for bearing issues and cracks in the rod joint)
Aluminum has an issue with fatigue and if you do have detonation the rod is more likely to fail with the heat increase in the rod beam versus a steel (but you may get a bearing).
Also remember that Pro-charger takes about 700-800 to drive at 40 +psi so the rod is experience HP at the crank plus 700-800 hp.
By the way why do you need that kind of power in a land speed car?  Our old Buick could easily make 2000 plus but aero limited us and anything over 1300 was wasted.
Paul Powell
 



  "700-800 hp seems way more power to drive a big Pro-charger as I understand a 14- 71 top fuel blower, that you can't even turn by hand takes around 1000 hp. Our Pro-charger spins easily by hand.
  Where did you get those numbers?"

Just know from the amount of fuel required to make the HP.  Most if not all of our cars have flow meters or they have electronic fuel injection so we know the amount of fuel going into the motor.  If you do the math (compare the numbers from a turbo, nitrous, of NA combination) you can see there is 700-800 hp (at 40 plus psi of boost) of fuel going into something that is not coming out of the crank (measured on both engine or chassis dynamometers or at the track)

 "Bville racing is not like drag racing. In drag racing its full throttle from start to finish accelerating 2250 lbs
to 320 +mph in 4.8 sec or less, loading the engine and using the 8000 hp [now 10,000 hp] to the max.
 We have reached a top speed of 294 in the 1st timed mile with a 318 mph top speed at the end of that mile
but it took well over 10 times as long to get up to that speed and not full throttle untill high gear."
I understand that very well as I grew up in the drags and only started LS racing 10 years ago (I can tell you a long story on my first engine for the salt way more HP and too aggressive for traction had to back it down to levels I had never tried before)

 "What engine was in the Buick and how fast did go? how did the aero limit the speed. Did you need more weight or downforce?
Or did you need wider tires tongue"
SBC (basically) canted valves (pro stock truck like a mini DRCE) 370 ci turbocharged on Methanol (no Nitro)  Car was 5500 lbs and tried MT Bonneville tires and Daytona and short track tires.  Basically when you got over 250 the amount of power to increase in speed was sick and tire spin became a huge problem.  Wide tires by the way seemed to hurt us more then help us.  Seemed like they floated at speed. Also down force with a wing causes WAY TO MUCH DRAG!!!!!!!!!

  "Guess you have never heard of the 911 roadster. 1st roadster over 300 mph, engine similar to top fuel, and roadster way up on the aero drag scale compared to the the 222 Camaro and way over 2300 hp.
  You actually wonder if 2300 hp is needed in a land speed car?"

I can tell you that pass and any close to that speed takes huge HP and the salt to be perfect.  I would be surprised if they came close to using 3000 plus hp.  Having it an using it are two different things  Just for reference
A car with a drag Coefficient of .7 (roadster territory) with 18 ft^2 frontal area at 7000 lbs only takes about 2325 to go that fast.

As a another reference our car was about a .32 Cd and had ~26 ft^2 frontal area at 5500 lbs and 275 the calculated hp should be about
1300 hp.  My fuel at speed right before the tries would spin was hovering at 1500 lbs/hr if you assume a BSFC of about 1.1 to 1.2 (alcohol without intercooler) that puts you at about 1250 to 1360 hp.  Works out pretty good in my experience.

a typical camaro (late 80's to mid 90's)
FA = 22 (could be less with mirrors deleted and dropped)
CD = ~.28 (in race trim)
assume 5000 lbs
300 mph speed
it only takes just less then 1300 hp to do 300 mph

That is the reason we built a new car, ours was just not going to be competitive in the class (if anyone built a car to the rules)

We moved to MS
and if you look at what someone just did in that class 380 + and a record over 360

The numbers required for that are
cd .22 ( bet they are better then this at least mine is)
FA = 13 (yes a Berkeley can be that small)
Weight 4500
MPH 380
it takes about 1350 hp to do that!

Size matters! cheers

Paul Powell

 
Logged

Paul Powell
Paul Powell Performance L.L.C.
5073 Barnhill Farm Road
Battleboro, NC 27809
(252) 452-4998
jl222
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Clovis calif.
Posts: 2665




Ignore
« Reply #1838 on: November 26, 2012, 02:13:12 PM »

  Well Paul... Guess the 911 roadster answerd your own question ''do you really need that much hp for land speed racing?''  AND that speed was in the 4th mile not the last shocked  Fuel tank not big enough to go farther.
 
  As far as the 222 Camaro we had a 21/4 time of 280+mph and 294 mph average in the 1st mile [mile 3] from start with a data log indicated top speed of 318 and 2 more miles to go.

  BNI now gives a time in the 2nd mile from start and we had a time 9 mph faster than on our 294 mph pass the day before on a tune up pass.

 I have a Bonneville Pro computer program which I inputted 2400 hp and it indicates it should take 8 sec to go
from 6500 rpm to 7000 rpm and we did it in just over 4 sec.

  I tested the accuracy of the program against the CD-frontal area and hp '' guessed weight at 6000 lb'' of the Golden Rod  and it was right on. What does your program come up with?
 

  Build your modified sport with 1350 hp your competitors will be delighted.

  I put your CD and frontal areas for the Black Salt modified sport in my Bville Pro computer program and it
coputes 2100 hp to go that speed. I posted about this after Black Salt ran 280 with different CD and frontal area
 '' just estimating'' and came up with 2500 hp. It could have more with the amount of wheel spin they had and still have that speed. But just guessing on CD- frontal area and weight.

  If you ever watched there videos you can see that if they ever get more traction it's  going to possibly go over
400 mph shocked  BUT not with 1350 hp.

  So what was your rod length and gearing to get 9000 rpm at 275 mph?

  You know apples and oranges.

            JL222

  
« Last Edit: November 26, 2012, 02:51:52 PM by jl222 » Logged
robfrey
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 53
Location: Butler, PA
Posts: 1137



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1839 on: November 26, 2012, 08:56:05 PM »

After reading my post, it made me sound a bit like a "know it all". Not my intention. I do apologize for my choice of words.  I will shut up now! smiley
Logged

496 BGS
carbinitelsr.com
carbiniteracing.com
carbinite.com
Peter Jack
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Age: 75
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3587





Ignore
« Reply #1840 on: November 26, 2012, 10:17:13 PM »

Rob, contributions like that are constructive and allow a person to look at things from another angle. Whether one chooses to accept or reject the information submitted it certainly broadens ones perspective and that's good.  cheers cheers

Pete
Logged
jl222
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Clovis calif.
Posts: 2665




Ignore
« Reply #1841 on: November 27, 2012, 01:05:28 PM »

In my previous occupation, I worked with our chief engineer to fatigue test aluminum parts. We tried just about everything to make it live as it would have been a huge financial and weight benefit but we eventually had to give up on the aluminum tooling parts. I got to witness this up close and personal. We came to the conclusion that even the highest grades of aluminum will fatigue probably much quicker than you realize.  Also, the failures were much more random than we would have guessed. This is why some guys get away with running aluminum rods and others have failures.
 My 2cents - Aluminum rods have no place in any endurance engine and Bonneville racing requires an endurance engine.
Btw, titanium rods also do not belong.
It's hard to beat high quality tool steel.

  Rob and Paul The rods we use were made from a special aluminum alloy developed by Boeing. Billett aluminum plate then forged. These rods are used in top fuel and blown alcohol engines, Some alcohol engines shifting at 10,000 rpm shocked WHY do they use aluminum rods?
  I suspect, among other things, its the weight of a steel rod pulling it apart.
Obviously 4340 chromemoly is way stronger than any aluminum. Never seen an aluminum crank used.
 
  The point is don't compare a short stroke motor with a 6'' long rod to our 7'' rods.

    JL222
Logged
Paul Powell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Age: 45
Location: Red Oak, NC (outside of Rocky Mount)
Posts: 57


Just too slow to go


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1842 on: November 27, 2012, 02:40:23 PM »

JL222,
As for only bringing 1350 hp that is not even close to the output we can make.  That is all we could use(in the Buick).  More boost just caused wheel spin.  But since that was way less then 15 psi boost I am sure we can cover what we need.

As far as the Black Salt car I would assume much less then 2100 hp to get that speed.  Even the video shows lots of in and out of throttle and still making that speed and averaging about .2 g's acceleration most of the way.

If we could get traction then records would fall very fast!  Since we run both ECTA and the Salt I can tell you traction is the key.
Look at Speed Demon.  The records he has recently set was with a C engine with 2200 hp.  As for durability they still have issues.
But from what I see they are still unable to put down the power (or at least most of it). and from my calculations is says he needs about 1850-1950 hp for these speeds ~480 mph. 

I just think that most cars have real trouble getting 2000 plus hp to the ground at the Salt.  Most I have experience with just spin the tires and are a hand full to drive.  (Scary even)  This whole conversation was about the rods so I will get back to that.
Looking at the pictures provided I think the tune (wrong A/F mixture or to much timing) that killed it.  my experience says that a tune-up that is maxed out (like I run on 95% of my customers and my cars) will do this in a pedaling condition (driver in and out of the throttle) because you cannot get everything correct when it is changing rapidly.  Again this is not about the true tune being wrong.  It comes from the engine conditions changing and timing and fueling already being delivered.  I see this in drag racing on quick pedaling with tire spin the fuel is there (with EFI or CF injection) the throttle closes, so the air is no longer there and the cylinder hammers rings, second they get back on the throttle and the fuel has yet to catch up but the air gets there and causes a lean condition.  This is only compounded by the fact the timing can change also instantly (between fueling and combustion event).  We have dealt with this on OEM cars for emissions by going to electronic throttle.  This makes sudden changes controllable (since you control the throttle!!!)

Back to the rods.  I use Aluminum in 90% of the engines I build.  I also turn most of them over 9000 rpm. I will actually be out Saturday with one a twin turbo BBC promod.  And we turn it 9800 and don’t have rod failures.  But on land speed I think the cycles are too long and can cause failures.  I use forged AL rods as well as plate but both have issues with fatigue.  My experience is aluminum gives me a fuse in the engine that allows me to step over the line with the tune around come back for another pass.  They crush bearings and compress before failing.  I see this in bearings after the pass as well as rods when we take them out.  With steel rods I kill bearings with detonation and can kill the engine in 1 pass!!!!

As for rod length “short”.  I like to keep my deck heights low, rods short, piston short (with enough for a real ring pack).  As you mentioned a real long rod and high piston weight don’t help anything and are made worse with high RPM!!!
I am sure you have more experience with this then I do but on my record engines this is what I have found.  Also on all of my 15000 + rpm engines we have never been successful with anything but steel or Ti.   But we were unable to stuff AL rods in a 600-1800 cc engine and make a full pull.  Plus the beams are too wide to fit in most cases (motorcycles).  From an engineering stand point I think Steel can fit your needs and be reusable!! 

I also think that if you changed the tune to be a little more forgiving (less boost, more fuel {Less Power}) you can get away with the parts you have. 

By the way I do enjoying debating things like this as I only get more knowledge and experience.   cheers

Paul Powell
Logged

Paul Powell
Paul Powell Performance L.L.C.
5073 Barnhill Farm Road
Battleboro, NC 27809
(252) 452-4998
jl222
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Location: Clovis calif.
Posts: 2665




Ignore
« Reply #1843 on: November 29, 2012, 02:47:34 PM »

 Paul... you asked if we needed that kind of power [2300 at the wheels] in a land speed car and said 1350 was the most you could use in the buick, as if you could'nt apply the power nobody else could.
  Now you wonder why I mention it, and that you can use more in your new land speed car? Looks like you learned something.
 
  Guys... I hope this is a lesson about believing everything someone post. Paul talks about his use of steel rods
at Bville at 9000 rpm for 15 yrs but spins the tires at 275 mph. Why would someone gear a  2000 hp car so low
 [9000 rpm at 275?] Bville pro shows 3O3 with 2.35 and 29 in. tires 22 sq ft frontal area and .32 CD.
  Or was that 9000 rpm a shift point not a sustained rpm on the way to 9000 rolleyes
  Notice that Paul does not answer how long his rods are. I see the Buick was interred in C class, an indication his rods are way shorter than our 7 in. long rods. Remember guys apples and oranges.
  Got to think why Diesels are red lined at so low an rpm Dodge with more stroke than Ford with less [3300 for my Ford].

  Then Paul gives advice on how to tune our car. One that has gone faster at the 21/4 than the Buick in the 5th mile.

 Paul were not following one bit of your advice. We have it handled.

  You should be asking advice from the 911 guys on how they were able to apply more than 1350 hp to  [your .7 CD claim for their roadster]

               JL222

  
« Last Edit: November 29, 2012, 03:11:30 PM by jl222 » Logged
Bob Drury
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 72
Location: Vancouver,Wa.
Posts: 2559




Ignore
« Reply #1844 on: November 29, 2012, 05:12:02 PM »

  John, by weighing 6200 lbs. courtesy of a 2 1/2 inch plate steel belly pan and feathering the throttle.
  Why do you take everyone elses opionions as critisism?
  You, like me, seem to have a history of not making it down the track under power.
  Also, You like me are not afraid to try something new which I have applauded You and Troy for many times.
  I do not, however, aplaud you for trying to vilify anyone who has the balls to state his or her opinions on what may have caused or contributed to Your's or My engine problems.
  If you don't want peoples oplinions, save yourself some grief and quit posting.
                                                                                                              Bob Drury
Logged

Bob Drury
Pages: 1 ... 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 [123] 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 ... 164   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 February 14, 2019, 08:28:23 AM