Comparison of Jim Schmidt to Jim Comstock valve springs without bias.

I apologize if anyone got upset over my previous valve spring comparison post. I was completely taken by surprise when I found out that my #2 spring and Comstock’s springs are identical and I wasn’t careful enough in my post. I checked with Jerry Doe and he said it would be OK to clear things up. Here are the bare facts with no politics or bias:

The part number of the #2 JS spring is #221434 by Manley.
The part number of Comstock’s spring is #221434 by Manley.

Comstock did not copy my spring to have it manufactured. The whole point of this post is to help everyone understand that one spring is not better than the other – that would be impossible because they are one and the same.

See the link below where Jim Comstock tested both the JS#1 spring and the JS#2 spring in 2015.

Post#200
https://www.accessnorton.com/NortonCommando/about-time-for-the-spintron.18787/page-10

The video below shows JS retainers that have been correctly machined to fit the 8 degree Norton valve collets.



I hope this clears everything up.

Like I said Jim, not really surprising to me that two experts in the same field looking for solutions for the same problems, find the same solutions!

Well, not everything!

As I understand it:

JS #2 spring retainers are for a modified valve stem, cut to raise the valve lock and allow for the longer than stock Norton springs. (or is that only true for JS #1?)

Comnoz' retainers are for an unmodified valve stem.

So to be clear: same spring different retainer?

Yes, same spring, different retainer.

Both the JS #1 and #2 spring and valve kits come with modified valve stems that locate the retainer higher to keep the longer springs from coil binding. The Comnoz spring is the same as the JS#2 spring but he uses a longer deeper retainer with a thicker wall so the collets can be located lower in the retainer - thus raising the retainer to prevent coil binding while using stock unmodified valve stems.

JS retainer on left, Comnoz' on right

Hi there,

Im not a camshaft or valve train expert, but would like to know why the, judging by the packaging size, ford 5.0 beehive springs are so popular given the fact that double friction dampened springs exist with somewhat (if memory serves me right) smaller sizes similar specs and higher resonance rpm's (think it was the v-rod spring)
This is in no way ment as a critic its just i always refrained from/was hesitant to use the beehives as they supposedly still show harmonic knots at certain frequencies and hence valve bounce.

Thanks and kind regards

Christian

Christian

We have had the double springs for many years and know their limits. But now the beehive springs seem to be outperforming them. For example an ultra short stroke was revving to 8500 RPM with popular dual racing springs. But now its getting 9000 with the beehives. Its the lightweight character of the Beehives that make them work and the taper at the top helps with harmonics. The small diameter at the top allows a smaller lighter retainer - all positives. Plus the wire has an oval cross section that dual springs don't have. There are some very good Indy racing league dual springs that give high RPM but you have to be careful about the pressure and the weight because the mass resistance increases with the RPM. When you have high pressure and too much weight you get cam flex in the long unsupported Norton cam which pushes back on the valve train and can bounce the valve off the seats several times. If it bounces too high the opening intake valve crashes into the closing bouncing exhaust valve and there goes your carefully prepared motor.

hi jim,

your statement regarding the deflection of the unsupported camshaft makes now a lot of sense.
I did not consider that, new lesson learned

kind regards

Christian