Milwaukee Midget

[Seldom Seen Slim]

MM said:  "... Mrs. Midget and I are celebrating her 26th birthday again.

We've been doing this every 26 years..."

Let me ask for a clarification:  You've been celebrating her 26th every 26 years?  If you've done that more than a few times that'd make for quite a record, dear centenarians. 

No matter how it's sliced, Many Happy Returns of the day, darlin'.

[fordboy628]

Minor Update:

Despite the absence of our "FFL", "oiling squirrel" chips away at the work list . . . . .
moose is slaving tirelessly somewhere in the hinterlands of Sconnie Nation Human Resources . . . . . .

OK, moose made it south of the "cheddar curtain" on Wednesday the 21st.    I kinda think it was the lure of "dollar tacos" coupled with access to machine tools that can cause grievous bodily injury . . . . . .

The day went along with moose slavishly attending to gas tank and fuel pump mounting, ie: neutering of some components and surgery, fabrication and "eastern vegetarian incantations" performed on others.

The squirrel concentrated on machining the oil suction pipe, minor neutering of the new engine bolt ladder to fit the oil suction pipe at a proper height, and fabrication of the new oil pan "bottom".

No time for posting the "evidence" now.   Picture "porn" later . . . . .  Boris only, no Natasha . . . . . . .

 
RocketJSquirrel

Update: Confessions of an Oil Inlet Pipe Mohel . . . . . .

     or . . . .

Oil Suction Pipe Porn! ! ! !

Gentle readers who have been patiently awaiting the promised porn photos of "Boris" (sorry, no Natasha) are just gonna hafta make do with this post . . . . . . .

Originally accomplished on Wednesday, 2/21/2018.    I've been too dam* busy until today to get this posted.     The oil pan "circumcision" had been previously finished and only the welding of the new bottom part remained to be finished.   I wanted to get the oil suction pipe modified and fitted prior to welding the new bottom onto the oil pan, since proper measuring would be much easier with an "open" oil pan.


OK, so clipping the oil pan for ground clearance was something we documented at some earlier point, some pages back.    This made a need for a "modification" to the original oil inlet pipe, which was now too tall to fit inside the sectioned oil pan.   So the main bearing ladder (girdle) was bolted up to the vertical mill, and the main bolt/head bolt ladder was added.   The oil pipe attaches to this ladder, so it was a part required for fitment.

Once the oil pipe was attached, the modified pan was attached to use as a reference plane.    Milling of the thermoplastic pipe commenced, with the result shown.    Unfortunately, the maximum milling of the oil pipe, into the screen section, was not enough to provide the needed clearance to the new oil pan bottom.



So the decision was made to also modify the new, upgraded, bolt ladder.    Shown at the start:



Modifications to the bolt ladder:





Some strategic counterboring of the oil pipe mounting bosses:




Some minor reliefs to the upper portion of the oil pipe were also done, but are not shown.   All I used was a medium mill bastard file and a machinist's deburring tool.    I'm going to reinforce the exposed screen area on the edge with some JB Weld.    Probably not required, but I'm a worrywart . . . . . . .


This allowed an additional lowering of the oil suction (inlet) pipe, providing 3/16ths of an inch clearance between the new bottom of the oil pan and the modified oil pipe, as shown in these photos:




3/16ths tool steel bit shown between the oil pipe and the straight edge:





The next step will be the fitting up of the new bottom and welding it into place.


That's all for today.


    
Millyboy

[fordboy628]

Dry sump Vs wet sump
This is an unknown, but 3/5 bhp is reasonable.
Conjectureboy

Mark, I assume you are indicating that the dry sump may be worth 3/5 bhp more than the wet sump system in the "Gernade".
(if not don't bother reading the rest)  

In one of Smokey Yunicks sb chevy books he states "Make no mistake, switching to a dry-sump will cost some power".

He says in the sb chevy "at least 8 to 10 HP or more over a wet-sump".

So is this windage vs dry sump pumps?

What's your take on this?

I'm not questioning your knowlage on this, I'm just trying to increase mine.    

Thanks, Don

Warning Disclaimer:  Non Milwaukee Midget, non BMC, non Rover K16, historical, technical, footnote . . . . . . .      

Hi Don,

Sorry it took so long to answer this.   BTW, this info is based on my observations of dyno data from various engine types.    There is a certain "consistency" to that data.   And also, the "timeline of my memory" may have faded a bit as I have aged, and might be slightly "inaccurate".


Back in the "dark ages", (the early 70's ? ? ?) dry sump systems were looked upon with disfavor.   This was mostly as a result of Smokey's statements and writings, AND, the disdain Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins had for them.   AND, if you just bolted on a "standard" dry sump setup, and then tested it back to back with a "racing" wet sump, you might "lose" power.    Hence the pronouncements.

BUT, what was going on here?

You need to remember a few things here about the specifics of the situations:

A/   Drag cars only need "effective oil control" for a few seconds.    And it could be "managed" with deep, rear sump, wet pans.   Additionally, Jenkins was one of the first to exploit "crank scraper technology", a "feature" which added bhp.

2/   Oval racing, while longer in duration, again "pushed" the oil into a "controllable position", which could be "managed" with special oil pan/baffle construction.   Due to Jenkin's connections to certain Nascar Chevy teams, the crank scraper tech migrated to ovals, gaining bhp.   Yunick also started using crank scrapers around this time.    Some of this "technology migration" was due to the influence of the Chevy "Skunkworks" racing engineers.

d/   Meanwhile, down at Rattlesnake Raceway in Texas, dry sump oil control of SBC's & BBC's for "road racing" was "required" to get engines to live for a race duration.    Bhp losses, if any, were just "accepted", since without a dry sump, engine life was at best, a "crapshoot".

But then, 2 things happened.    Crank scraper technology migrated into road racing engines.    I'm uncertain who may have done it first, whether it was Hall, Weiss, Traco, or McClaren.    And it doesn't matter, because it was instantly copied by everyone, since bhp now went up.    And it created oil mass control issues, so additional scavenge stages were added, AND, bhp went up again.    Successful race engine builders are typically observant and clued-in guys, and the good ones exploited this information "to the max".  

Eventually, enough scavenge was used and "depression" was created in the crankcase.    This "created" other opportunities for potential exploitation.

And so on, brings us to today, where so little oil is allowed in the crankcase that "oil squirters" are required to get parts to live for the requisite distances.


Is it still possible to bolt on a basic dry sump system and lose bhp?     I don't think so, but, anything is possible.     BUT, I have never been disappointed by the dyno results from a "sophisticated" dry sump "system".     This is another situation where you get what you pay for.

It pays to remember that "evolution" in racing approaches the "speed of light" at the professional levels.    If you don't evolve, you get "left behind", and that brings on the expected consequences . . . . . . . . . .


"Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."    Please excuse my "liberal" interpretation of the G. Santayana quote.


     
Historyboy

[fordboy628]

OK MM,

Your turn at bat . . . . . . .

 
Overloadedboy

[Milwaukee Midget]

Thanks, Mark -

Okay, so part of the conversion to EFI requires an additional fuel line.  Stopped by and chatted with Mel at C&S.  Asked him to check status on my rods, but also picked up some stainless steel fuel line.  "Here's 16 feet, bring back what you don't use, and I'll charge you then".  

All I could say was "Wow".  It's times like this that I realize the real value of a long-term relationship with a really GOOD performance/speed shop.

DSCN0993 by Chris Conrad, on Flickr

I also picked up the appropriate compression fittings and P clips.

One of the issues I always felt uncomfortable about with the old fuel tank arrangement was the filler neck passing through the trunk.  It required 6 hose clamps, and the overflow check valve was there.  Seeing as I had the tank out anyway, I put a new aircraft style billet filler on it.  

DSCN0992 by Chris Conrad, on Flickr

To access the filler, you simply open the access panel, fill the tank, seal it, and shut the door. The overflow check valve now is integrated into the turret I built for the  fuel pump.  As I don't run a fuel gauge, the ability to open up the tank and use a dip-stick to check fuel level is a bonus - provided I remember to do it under the watchful eyes of the ERC guys, and have it re-sealed.
 

DSCN0990 by Chris Conrad, on Flickr

This puts ALL fittings and fuel lines - other than the ones in the engine compartment - completely outside of the body.

Why don't you put the jackstand under the trunk floor and drop the car on it instead of on you?

At first, I chuckled.  But THEN, I gave that idea some SERIOUS THOUGHT!

I located my 3 ton jack under the area I needed to "dimple", heated it up from the top, and, with a #2 maul, pounded the car down around the jack!

BINGO!

DSCN0991 by Chris Conrad, on Flickr

GRAVITY IS YOUR FRIEND!    

[fordboy628]

Why don't you put the jackstand under the trunk floor and drop the car on it instead of on you?

At first, I chuckled.  But THEN, I gave that idea some SERIOUS THOUGHT!

I located my 3 ton jack under the area I needed to "dimple", heated it up from the top, and, with a #2 maul, pounded the car down around the jack!

BINGO!

GRAVITY IS YOUR FRIEND!

Uuhhmm . . . . . . .

Wouldn't that be gravity with a huge assist from repeated applications of "brute force"? ? ? ? ?

JMHO . . . . . .


BTW, nice dome!    Did you ever spend time as an all metal body and fender man?     Oh wait, the kind of fender you're most familiar with is a Fender with 6 strings . . . . . . . .

    
Gibsonboy

[Milwaukee Midget]

Wouldn't that be gravity with a huge assist from repeated applications of "brute force"? ? ? ? ?

It was definitely easier applying the brute force in a downward direction than fighting the gravitational pull while on my back on a cold, concrete floor.  

[Milwaukee Midget]

For Spridgets only -

Click on this link - this is some sharp work - and, of course, the guy's name is "Cooper" . . .

https://drc.libraries.uc.edu/bitstream/handle/2374.UC/744092/MET2016_Eastham_Cooper.pdf?sequence=1

I don't need anything quite this advanced, but I've discovered an issue that I'm going to address.

The camber on a stock Midget is non adjustable, with a factory nominal angle of 1 degree positive.

Yeah - right - as if Abingdon could actually hold a stamped steel monocoque to that kind of a tolerance.  That degree of accurateness in metalworking left Oxfordshire when the swordmakers guild folded.

I initially suspected some of the bump-steer I encountered on my backup run in '14 was due to the lowness of the car with respect to the lower A-arm angle and the angle of the steering rack.

Yesterday, I set the car to level and checked the angles.  At the height I race the car, the pivot points between the lower A-arm bolts where they attach to the chassis and the lower kingpin bolt were both at 7 1/2 inches - on both sides. 

Checking the steering rods, they ran dead parallel with the the axis of the lower kingpin bolts and the A-arm bolts.

The travel is limited to ~2"up and ~ 2" down from this point, so that's about as good as one could hope for.

The monkey in the works is the upper control arm/Armstrong shock absorber.  The travel radius is less than that of the A-arms or the steering rods, so as it sets lower, the inclination - no pun intended - tends to pull the camber negative.

So I decided to check the camber.

Right side - .44 degrees positive
Left side - 1.11 degrees negative

I really have no desire to follow Mr. Eastham's fine example of a re-engineering project, but I am going to purchase some offset trunnion bushings from Speedwell and get things at least closer to where they were intended to be.

https://www.speedwellengineering.com/suspension/suspensiondelrin-offset-front-suspension-bushings/

It might solve the problem, it might not, but it won't hurt.

 

[Peter Jack]

Yours looks like a good plan to me Chris.

I do have a problem with the conversion featured in the attached article. The upper suspension arm has no link to prevent the Outer end of the upper arm from moving forward under braking and the inner end is way too narrow a base to provide adequate rigidity. The original shock provided at least some resistance. His first design was much closer to what he needs. It looks to me like there will probably be a great deal of caster change under braking and caster settings will be rather variable under any sort of dynamic condition the rest of the time. The Huffaker setup uses an upper A-frame to make the suspension work.

Looking at the date on the paper I'm sure he's found the limitations by now. He needs an addendum! 

Pete

[Milwaukee Midget]

I really like it when we delve into peer review.

Thank you, Dr. PJ!

[fordboy628]

midget,

I freely admit that I am not a suspension engineer, BUT, I share the same concerns as Peter Jack.

I think the setup in the link is too unsupported for "acceptable wheel control" in the rough surface environment of Bonneville.

I seem to remember that Winner's Circle, or perhaps one of the other SCCA-centric purveyors of Spridget suspension bits had a "kit" of "stuff" to minimize "bump steer" on cars with drastically lowered front suspension.   Whether the kit might be still available, I have no idea.    You might want to check with Dave Brown to see what he has been doing to his mostly stock front end.

Knowing Huffaker as I do, I'm sure that their suspension is very well designed, AND, very expensive.


I think all you need is:

A/   At one inch of bump or droop toe steer needs to be less than .015"/.020"
2/   At two inches of bump, toe steer needs to be less than .030"/.040"
d/   At two inches of droop, toe steer can be whatever, as the wheel is mostly unloaded at that point.


The goal should be, of course, zero toe steer in all conditions, but that is not achievable with stock suspensions, even heavily modified.    The bump curve should favor toe-in, as that is the more "controllable" dynamic condition and it is where the wheel/tire is most heavily loaded.      Droop can be allowed to toe out some, as the wheel/tire is being "unloaded".

I also know that some modifications need to be made, UNLESS, all you want to do is keep it between the fence posts at 130 mph . . . . . . . . . .


I would happily defer to those who might have more experience than I do in this regard.

    
HellIdon'tevenwearsuspendersboy

[Peter Jack]

Mark, PM sent.

Pete

[fordboy628]

Mark, PM sent.

Pete

Thanks.

 
M

[Milwaukee Midget]

I need to take a day next week, hang out at T&T, do what I can to help Mark on his end of the project, grab a few measurements, and eat some cheap tacos from the German pizza restaurant.  Wednesday, Mark?

Maybe we'll see pistons? 

I've got the Midget tentatively set to go to Rod and Comp up in Butler the last week in March to put in a new cross member and have the frame rails drilled and sleeved for the motor mounts.

I really wish I could weld . . .

[fordboy628]

I need to take a day next week, hang out at T&T, do what I can to help Mark on his end of the project, grab a few measurements, and eat some cheap tacos from the German pizza restaurant.  Wednesday, Mark?

Maybe we'll see pistons? 

I've got the Midget tentatively set to go to Rod and Comp up in Butler the last week in March to put in a new cross member and have the frame rails drilled and sleeved for the motor mounts.

I really wish I could weld . . .

What do you have planned for Saturday?      Karen has plans for most of the day, so I could be enticed to spending most of my Saturday at T&T.       Wednesday will work also.

Borrowed a cutter and arbor from Mike H.     For the purpose of cutting the needed new bearing tang notches into the block.    Probably be a complicated setup, but needs to get done.   I want to get the cam belt tensioner finished as well.     There are also a couple of other things we can knock out.

Let's set a goal of having a more or less complete mockup for you take to Rod & Comp sometime next week.    I think the mockup should include the water outlet, the thermostat housing assembly, the complete top end, the complete cam drive, exhaust flange and bolts, starter or blank out for the starter position, and at least a "blanked out" oil filter take off block.     Inlet manifold?    Anything else?

    
Limpyboy