(Note: Donations are not tax deductible)




Forum's been "upgraded".
Things will look a bit different.
A *few* posts might have gotten lost in the crossover.
PM bobc with problems, or post in "Website Suggestions".

Author Topic: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners  (Read 774642 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7238
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele Wichita, Kansas
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2325 on: February 25, 2016, 08:49:49 PM »
Bo, we try to start a run with the oil in the 120-130 range and it finishes below 185, no oil cooler, but water cooled engine with piston squirters. Water ends around 200, sometimes a little warmer depending on what engine and induction we are using.
Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, MSA Bockscar Lakester with a little N20 
MSA Bockscar Lakester #1000 my fastest mile 245 and change, 84 ci turbobusa motor... but Corey's 233 MPH H/BFL record is still 3MPH faster than mine.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4939
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2326 on: February 25, 2016, 09:48:52 PM »
Thanks, Stainless.  My best guess is if the oil is this cool it never gets above 300 degrees F at the case mating face right next to the main bearings.  The Loctite engineering rep asked me about this.   

Offline fordboy628

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2231
  • GONE FISHIN' . . .
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2327 on: February 26, 2016, 06:01:14 AM »
Thanks, Stainless.  My best guess is if the oil is this cool it never gets above 300 degrees F at the case mating face right next to the main bearings.  The Loctite engineering rep asked me about this.   

Bo,

I have used a product called Tempilaq to analyze temperature related issues.   It could be used on the outside of the case/head/whatever, to give some indication of the metal's temperature.   This presumes that the metal's temp is uniform throughout the thickness.   I'm not sure if the product is "oil resistant", but if so, it could be used inside the case.  I included the link to the manufacturer:

http://www.tempil.com/tempilaq-indicating-liquids/

BTW Bob, those oil temps are pretty cool for the lowest oil drag.    Do you need to be that cool for reliability or another issue?

 :cheers:
Fordboy
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

Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7238
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele Wichita, Kansas
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2328 on: February 26, 2016, 06:53:13 PM »
Youroilshouldbewarmerboy,
We work with a balance... water temps and oil temps, and an hour or less to be ready for a record run.  Once our 5 gallons of water goes above 200 it seems to heat way faster... no more cooler water behind the 180 thermostat. The blown motors really pushed the envelope for water temps.
I guess we could get one of those magnetic oil pan heaters to get the oil warmer... seen any of those aluminum magnets around  :roll:

Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, MSA Bockscar Lakester with a little N20 
MSA Bockscar Lakester #1000 my fastest mile 245 and change, 84 ci turbobusa motor... but Corey's 233 MPH H/BFL record is still 3MPH faster than mine.

Offline 4-barrel Mike

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2967
  • Any fool can drive a V8
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2329 on: February 26, 2016, 06:56:42 PM »
As I'm sure you know, Bob: http://www.summitracing.com/parts/MOR-23996

Mike
Mike Kelly - PROUD owner of the V4F that powered the #1931 VGC to a 82.803 mph record in 2008!

Offline fordboy628

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2231
  • GONE FISHIN' . . .
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2330 on: February 26, 2016, 07:43:35 PM »

Youroilshouldbewarmerboy,
We work with a balance... water temps and oil temps, and an hour or less to be ready for a record run.  Once our 5 gallons of water goes above 200 it seems to heat way faster... no more cooler water behind the 180 thermostat. The blown motors really pushed the envelope for water temps.
I guess we could get one of those magnetic oil pan heaters to get the oil warmer... seen any of those aluminum magnets around  :roll:


Yeah, I figured it was something like that.   Chris is going to have the same problem now with an aluminum sump.    Might fit a 110v oil heating element into the sump pan.   Is this a possibility for you?

 :cheers:
Fordboy
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

Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7238
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele Wichita, Kansas
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2331 on: February 26, 2016, 07:57:01 PM »
No room inside.  Would have to be removable... sump in the wind, saw the one Mike pointed out had a possibility of hook and spring attachment, stick on would slow us down a lot more than thick oil...
seems to be working so far... no oil failures with the lakester motors
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 07:59:20 PM by Stainless1 »
Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, MSA Bockscar Lakester with a little N20 
MSA Bockscar Lakester #1000 my fastest mile 245 and change, 84 ci turbobusa motor... but Corey's 233 MPH H/BFL record is still 3MPH faster than mine.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4939
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2332 on: February 28, 2016, 11:43:33 AM »
The entire engine is apart and available to inspection.  The bore /stroke ratio is 1.41.  This means there is quite a bit of force on that big piston area when the mixture lights off.  The stroke is relatively short so the crank pins are not far from the crank centerline.  This means the pressure exerted by the rods on the crank does not have a lot of leverage to turn the crank.  This all adds up to some big pressures on the rod big and little ends.

One option I am looking at is having some titanium rods made.  This material is more elastic than steel and it can absorb some shock to reduce bearing loads, like aluminum rods.  Ti has good fatigue resistance properties.  Aluminum does not.

The rod/stroke ratio is 1.79 and this is low.  What this means is the rod is sorta vertical and in a position to produce a lot of downward force, with less sideways force, when the crank pin is close to TDC.  Unfortunately, the crankpin is in a less than optimum position to turn the crank at this point.  The rod is at a relatively large angle when the crankpin is at better position to turn the crank.  All of this adds up to an engine that produces a lot of side loading on the pistons, wears the main journals on the sides, and is a bad actor under the demands of fuel combustion.

The plan is to have longer ti rods made and to install a plate between the engine and the cylinders to move the head up.  The plate thickness is a multiple of the cam chain pitch so the valve timing is not made goofy.  The cams, valves, and everything else need to be modeled in a much more powerful program than PipeMax to verify it will work.  A rod/stroke ratio around or a bit more than 2.0 is what I need.  The piston will linger a bit more at TDC to allow for better cylinder filling, too, and this is another big help.  This is a long term plan and it hopefully will be in the 2017 motor.  I cannot up the nitro content unless I address these structural issues.

As per the 2016 engine, the main journal clearances are .0016 to .0021 using the formula the expert gave me.  The sloppiest shells I have are the white ones and they are a bit tight.  The shells I am using are microbead blasted white shells.  The bead impacts compress the soft coating on the inner faces and this increases the running clearance a smidgen.  The blasted surface has texture and it holds oil better.  The clearances are .0015 on all four journals.  A bit tight, but the best I can do.  This is not the first time I have done this little trick and it worked in the past.

Offline fordboy628

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2231
  • GONE FISHIN' . . .
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2333 on: February 28, 2016, 02:58:28 PM »
The entire engine is apart and available to inspection.  The bore /stroke ratio is 1.41.  This means there is quite a bit of force on that big piston area when the mixture lights off.  The stroke is relatively short so the crank pins are not far from the crank centerline.  This means the pressure exerted by the rods on the crank does not have a lot of leverage to turn the crank.  This all adds up to some big pressures on the rod big and little ends.

One option I am looking at is having some titanium rods made.  This material is more elastic than steel and it can absorb some shock to reduce bearing loads, like aluminum rods.  Ti has good fatigue resistance properties.  Aluminum does not.

The rod/stroke ratio is 1.79 and this is low.  What this means is the rod is sorta vertical and in a position to produce a lot of downward force, with less sideways force, when the crank pin is close to TDC.  Unfortunately, the crankpin is in a less than optimum position to turn the crank at this point.  The rod is at a relatively large angle when the crankpin is at better position to turn the crank.  All of this adds up to an engine that produces a lot of side loading on the pistons, wears the main journals on the sides, and is a bad actor under the demands of fuel combustion.

The plan is to have longer ti rods made and to install a plate between the engine and the cylinders to move the head up.  The plate thickness is a multiple of the cam chain pitch so the valve timing is not made goofy.  The cams, valves, and everything else need to be modeled in a much more powerful program than PipeMax to verify it will work.  A rod/stroke ratio around or a bit more than 2.0 is what I need.  The piston will linger a bit more at TDC to allow for better cylinder filling, too, and this is another big help.  This is a long term plan and it hopefully will be in the 2017 motor.  I cannot up the nitro content unless I address these structural issues.

As per the 2016 engine, the main journal clearances are .0016 to .0021 using the formula the expert gave me.  The sloppiest shells I have are the white ones and they are a bit tight.  The shells I am using are microbead blasted white shells.  The bead impacts compress the soft coating on the inner faces and this increases the running clearance a smidgen.  The blasted surface has texture and it holds oil better.  The clearances are .0015 on all four journals.  A bit tight, but the best I can do.  This is not the first time I have done this little trick and it worked in the past.

Bo,

Are these numbers for the 4 valve?

F/B
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

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4939
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2334 on: February 29, 2016, 09:46:00 PM »
Yes, it is one of the newer Bonnevilles.

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4939
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2335 on: March 01, 2016, 08:33:46 PM »

Offline wobblywalrus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4939
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2336 on: March 01, 2016, 08:47:30 PM »
All of my home made ti fasteners and other goofy bolts, nuts from various sources are taken off of the critical parts of the engine and chassis.  I ordered carbon steel OEM bolts and nuts to replace them.  Triumph use good quality metric grade 10.9 for most fasteners.  All existing bolts were held up to a light next to a new bolt to look for any traces of fretting or distortion.  Any that showed this were tossed and replaced by new OEM ones.  The torque readings vs clamping force relationships are sensitive to bolt material and head type, i.e. flange or no flange.  I made sure to use ones that matched the ones the specs applied to.  All nuts were assumed to be distorted and were replaced by OEM ones.  I need to make sure the clamping force vs torque relationship is what I need.  Nuts are OEM and intended to be used on the bolt where they will be applied so the hardness relationship between the two is correct.  The previous presentation sorta explains why I went to such drastic and expensive measures.   

Offline Frank06

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
Re:
« Reply #2337 on: March 02, 2016, 03:13:27 AM »
Excellent article - thank you for posting the link.

Offline tauruck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4883
Re: Team Go Dog, Go! Modified Partial Streamliners
« Reply #2338 on: March 02, 2016, 07:19:41 AM »
Bo, your attention to detail is always a pleasure.

When you said you were replacing the bolts with OEM only
you made me think about my 1977 125 Suzuki RMA.
The factory used Phillips head screws on all the covers and
we youngsters always wrecked them by using the wrong screw driver.
I used to take 3 screws at a time to my bolt supplier and get Allen bolt
replacements. Why 3 at a time?. Didn't want to get the lengths mixed up. :-D :-D :-D

These days "we" are sharper. We make a cardboard template. :cheers:

Offline Speed Limit 1000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
John Gowetski, red hat @ 221.183 MPH MSA Lakester, Bockscar #1000 60 ci normally aspirated w/N20