Fullauto Cylinder Head

Clanger said:

Which is 'all' Einstein did. Have you actually read his stuff? I don't mean skimmed an index ?

Click to expand...

No comparison. Einstein was in a completely different universe....

But in the world of engines,
Walter Kaaden was the genius that recognised the potential, and made it work.
Ricardo earlier laid the groundwork.
Prof Blair applied the mathematics.

In the world of Nortons, Joe Craig took a new design and refined it over decades to performing beyond what the theory then said it could do. Without a computer in sight, it must be said, just patient trial-and-error and many many experiments - and dyno runs.....

I'd still suggest that modelling/simulating what the FullAuto head is capable of,
without a dyno being involved, is just a little fanciful... ??

Perhaps a lap time might be a better way of measuring improvement than a dyno ?

acotrel said:

Perhaps a lap time might be a better way of measuring improvement than a dyno ?

Click to expand...

Absolutely, although they are sort of complimentary in some respects.
But for us road riders, a lap time doesn't mean much....

There was some interesting technical stuff in The Motorcycle (was it ?) back in the early 1950s, with some MotoGuzzi race bikes - both 350cc singles. Guzzi then had a long stroke single cylinder race bike, and came out with a new short stroke single cylinder, with quite a few more ponies. Since they had quite a team then, the new and old bikes raced alongside each other. They found the old long stroke could still beat the newer bike on some circuits, and the new short stroke could blitz the old bikes on other circuits.
Thats where your "torque wins races" comes into it.
Although all engines have torque all through the rev range....

I mention this because Guzzi gave the journalists access to the info and riders (some of whom were Brits).
Nortons were not publicity shy with the press, but hp on factory bikes didn't get a lot of mention then.
Nor all the experimenting that went on behind the scenes.

For the same displacement, a shorter-stroke, bigger-bore engine can rev higher (reduced piston speed) and flow better (more valve area) but the longer-stroke, smaller-bore version will have more low-and midrange torque, all other things being equal (which they never are). I'm sure the Guzzi short-strokes beat the older, long-strokers on the higher-speed circuits while the short-strokes may have held some advantage on the tighter, more technical tracks.

Never argue with an idiot. He'll wear you down and beat you with experience.

Please, nobody say anything nice about my heads again. It keeps turning to shit.

I make a product. A world class product. No complaints yet. But that's not good enough for some.

Fullauto said:

Never argue with an idiot. He'll wear you down and beat you with experience.

Please, nobody say anything nice about my heads again. It keeps turning to shit.

I make a product. A world class product. No complaints yet. But that's not good enough for some.

Click to expand...

Oh no no no; no self-flagellating here. You make a world class product and I have yet to hear of a complaint. Some just like to keep on digging.

Clanger said:

Which is 'all' Einstein did. Have you actually read his stuff? I don't mean skimmed an index ?

For my money Blair is a genius, just his work on Time Area analysis on 2 stroke engines demonstrates that.

Click to expand...

Well stated. My perspective is that the mathematics and science was all in place many decades ago, the evolution of which is evidenced by Taylor, Ricardo, Heywood, Irving, Bell, NACA publications going back to about 1915 and many others. Prof. G. Blair was well founded in the math and science and provided the most integrated approach; integrating the individual models of each pertinent phenomena in an IC engine.

In my opinion, you could say the same about Einstein (one small aspect of his overall work) where the equations for motion and energy (classical physics) were established well before Einstein. Einstein brought new context; definitely a gross oversimplification on my part.

Gordon Blair published Design and Simulation of Four Stroke Engines around 1999, and Design and Simulation of Two Stroke Engines around 1995. He continued to consult (NASCAR and others) and publish till near his death.

It's painfully evident that some have the ability to look at the cover of a book or chew on a page then the willingness to expound on the subject.

Using computer analysis to wake up an old engine design sure worked well on the Vincent.
Terry Prince did this via Fritz/Egli Jr who was lead engineer on the Mercedes Formula One team. The Mercedes race team has a very expensive computer program for cam design. Terry gave Fritz Jr. all of the Vincent valve train data and Fritz loaded that into the program.
The result is a design of cam and follower that looks nothing like any of Irving's designs, Terry's many previous designs or any other Vincent cam design, such as Megacycle. And it makes more power than any of them. A lot more.

Glen

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Clanger said:

Which is 'all' Einstein did. Have you actually read his stuff? I don't mean skimmed an index ?

For my money Blair is a genius, just his work on Time Area analysis on 2 stroke engines demonstrates that.

Click to expand...

Well stated. My perspective is that the mathematics and science was all in place many decades ago, the evolution of which is evidenced by Taylor, Ricardo, Heywood, Irving, Bell, NACA publications going back to about 1915 and many others. Prof. G. Blair was well founded in the math and science and provided the most integrated approach; integrating the individual models of each pertinent phenomena in an IC engine.

In my opinion, you could say the same about Einstein (one small aspect of his overall work) where the equations for motion and energy (classical physics) were established well before Einstein. Einstein brought new context; definitely a gross oversimplification on my part.

Gordon Blair published Design and Simulation of Four Stroke Engines around 1999, and Design and Simulation of Two Stroke Engines around 1995. He continued to consult (NASCAR and others) and publish till near his death.

It's painfully evident that some have the ability to look at the cover of a book or chew on a page then the willingness to expound on the subject.

Click to expand...

Good to know someone agrees with me. As you say Blair did a good job of tying things together. I actually followed his research and put it into practice when tuning an old Villiers engine. What Time Area analysis enabled me to do was analyse Inlet, Transfer and Exhaust porting and identify bottlenecks. In this case I suspected the transfer ports were too small, but Blairs method indicated that the Inlet porting was the problem. And so it proved in practice. I got the result I wanted without a Dyno in sight. Without Blairs methodology I would not have acheived a synergisitc porting strategy.

Mr Fullauto, I think everyone respects your product and the work and heartache involved. If I was doing what you are doing I would want to make a good baseline product that can be taken wherever the user wants (and I think you ARE doing this ) - some will be road users and some will be racers and everyone is going to be aiming for different result and use a completely different mix of parts in their build. Dyno data from end users will be interesting to see and hopefully the heads will help them acheive their disparate aims.

About this comment :
'I'm sure the Guzzi short-strokes beat the older, long-strokers on the higher-speed circuits while the short-strokes may have held some advantage on the tighter, more technical tracks.'

I think the reverse might be the truth. A gentle torquey motor with a good close ratio box is better on short tight circuits than a nasty top end motor. With a short stroke motor it is more difficult to get the power down smoothly, so you lose in the corners and make up at the ends the straights. With a short stroke motor it is better to ride in long sweeping curves than try to turn under other riders and get the run on them.
The first race meeting I ever attended was at Fishermans' Bend in Victoria in 1954. Geoff Duke had two four cylinder Gileras there and all of our fast guys were on methanol-fuelled Manxes. All Duke did was blast around the outside the rest of the field in long sweeping curves as they approached the corners

One thing I would say - please don't take any of my comments as being relevant to riding your bikes on public roads. On a road race circuit, there are usually no solid objects and everyone is going in the same direction. Most of the guys around you are well-practiced and trying hard. So the whole process is inherently safe. These days I don't usually ride a road bike - my mentality is not suited to it

worntorn said:

The result is a design of cam and follower that looks nothing like any of Irving's designs, Terry's many previous designs or any other Vincent cam design, such as Megacycle. And it makes more power than any of them. A lot more.

Click to expand...

Thats hardly surprising - the HRD when it came out was 55 hp/litre, when a manx at the time was more like 90 heading towards a 100 . And that is pretty small beer compared to current outputs.
Cam design has moved on, a LOT, in the past 70 years.

worntorn said:

Using computer analysis to wake up an old engine design sure worked well on the Vincent.
Terry Prince did this via Fritz/Egli Jr who was lead engineer on the Mercedes Formula One team. The Mercedes race team has a very expensive computer program for cam design. Terry gave Fritz Jr. all of the Vincent valve train data and Fritz loaded that into the program.

Click to expand...

I did mention earlier that Merc have a VERY sophisticated setup for their F1 Team.
The best in the business, currently, by far.....
As yesterday at Silverstone proved, yet again.
Whoever programmed their computer had to know what a good cam operates though, and could have done it on the back of a copious supply of envelopes - in a few lifetimes...
Probably just selected a current NASCAR cam profile and valve train ?!

Rohan said:

Thats hardly surprising - the HRD when it came out was 55 hp/litre, when a manx at the time was more like 90 heading towards a 100 . And that is pretty small er compared to current outputs.
Cam design has moved on, a LOT, in the past 70 years

I did mention earlier that Merc have a VERY sophisticated setup for their F1 Team.
The best in the business, currently, by far.....
As yesterday at Silverstone proved, yet again.
Whoever programmed their computer had to know what a good cam operates though, and could have done it on the back of a copious supply of envelopes - in a few lifetimes...

Click to expand...

The Manx and the 55 HP Vincent don't compare well, they are built for very different purposes. Someone here had a Manx on the road for a few years and commented that it was pretty much gutless and difficult to operate as a road bike.
The 55 hp Vincent still is a fantastic and powerful touring bike to use.
If you want to compare the Manx race bike to a Vincent, compare it to racers like the 206 MPH Burns and Wright Lightning, which ran with Irvings Lightning cams, or to Gunga Din, the first Lightning.


Your last four words sum up what I ( and others) are saying about using computer programs to improve upon an old design vs the trial and error method of design.

"programmed their computer"

Very quaint! :lol:

A good friend and fellow racer did the first analysis for the 750 ultra short stroke Norton we built using Gordon Blair's integrated system. This fellow was at the time, a recently retired mechanical engineer from Hamilton Sundstrand who churned out maybe six or eight sheets of analysis and a graph of time area on graph paper and came within 3 RWHP of what we initially achieved. I think he took a day and a half to do it. He is one hell of an engineer.

Just think what you could do with a laptop or desktop computer and a relatively inexpensive engine simulation software if you know what you are doing.

worntorn said:

The Manx and the 55 HP Vincent don't compare well,

Click to expand...

I knew when I penned that that I should have used a Goldstar as the other comparison.
And, every Goldstar came with its own dyno sheet from the factory !!
And was a pushrod....

Note that I added that subsequent line about NASCAR cams and valve train.
Big and heavy and slow revving....
Be seriously interesting to compare the Merc specified cams with them.

Funny ? story with Mercs and NASCAR too.
The aussie V8 Supercar race guys basically use NASCAR engines, but with strict 7000 rpm redline.
Few years ago, Merc and Nissan joined the fray, with that 7000 redline imposed.
The Merc team used german sourced engines - and they were woeful.
Merc said thats our best engine to those specs.
The locals shipped em a Ford prepped V8, with 650 bhp under the hood.
Apparently the mercs were only 550 ponies, and were stunned the Ford could do 650

We diverge from world class FA heads - even if they don't have a dyno sheet to prove it...

Dances with Shrapnel said:

"programmed their computer"

Very quaint! :lol:

Click to expand...

Someone who seriously knows what they are doing has to program it.
Or that garbage in garbage out becomes all too terribly true....

Dances with Shrapnel said:

A good friend and fellow racer did the first analysis for the 750 ultra short stroke Norton we built using Gordon Blair's integrated system. This fellow was at the time, a recently retired mechanical engineer from Hamilton Sundstrand who churned out maybe six or eight sheets of analysis and a graph of time area on graph paper and came within 3 RWHP of what we initially achieved. I think he took a day and a half to do it. He is one hell of an engineer.

Just think what you could do with a laptop or desktop computer and a relatively inexpensive engine simulation software if you know what you are doing.

Click to expand...

Old school, nothing like it.
Phil Irving didn't use that 'Slide Rule' moniker for nothing.

I have serious reservations about that 'inexpensive engine simulation software" though.
Its a complex subject, and simplified down and cheap its precisely that - just too simple for its own good.

A lot of new engine designs initially perform nowhere near as expected, its only the patient trial-and-error approach that gets them up to scratch ?? Perhaps more so in yesteryears than today....

But look how many iterations of Fuel Injection systems it takes to get nice stable smooth performance.
Its even rumoured that the H*nda MotoGP Team had to poach a Yam Factory guy to get their engine management system into a winning mode....

Rohan said:

Someone who seriously knows what they are doing has to program it.

Click to expand...

No, the "program it" (coding) is already completed as part of the simulation software. One must only set up parameter files for the code to act on....but you should have known that.

A good example of individuals whining because they must set up parameter files and set them up correctly can be found here:

Rohan said:

Hmmmm
"I recently wasted my money on the crummy "Dyno 5 Sim" & "Desktop Dyno 5" software, and it isn't even close to being accurate."

http://www.chevelles.com/forums/13-perf ... tware.html

Click to expand...

I laughed out loud when I read the responses.

Rohan said:

Old school, nothing like it.
Phil Irving didn't use that 'Slide Rule' moniker for nothing.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh, also brings a tear to my eye. The good old days.........like before the polio vaccine and when we had the plague. :lol: I now understand where you are coming from.

Rohan said:

I have serious reservations about that 'inexpensive engine simulation software" though.
Its a complex subject, and simplified down and cheap its precisely that - just too simple for its own good.

Click to expand...

I can now understand your reservations but the "just too simple for its own good"? So what first-hand experience are you basing this assertion on? As best as I can tell, your assertion is based on conjecture.

Rohan said:

A lot of new engine designs initially perform nowhere near as expected, its only the patient trial-and-error approach that gets them up to scratch ?? Perhaps more so in yesteryears than today....

Click to expand...

The point is trial and error is so passe. This is where simulation, even a less than perfect simulation can give insight and direction to the next incremental step. If you are so fond of the pencil and paper approach then why not simulation before committing time and resources to an error - but you need to have understanding and insight. I suspect some of the posters on the Chevelle site you provided a link to may have been lacking a bit on the understanding and insight - speculation on my part.

As for the Full Auto cylinder head you appear to be belittling because there's no readily available before and after dyno data; even without Jim C's input to port design it is a superior product. As I see it, the belittling serves no purpose. People in the know realize the FA head is better than anything the factory produced and that Jim C's work is top notch.

Dances with Shrapnel said:

People in the know realize the FA head is better than anything the factory produced and that Jim C's work is top notch.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it is - so many folks have said so.
And I haven't been "belittling it", just questioning the validity of some of the statements made about it.
Including yours, about 'simulating' how good it is.
Until we see the dyno sheets, its conjecture on the part of those singing its praises as to how good it really is ?

BTW, how did you verify that mans calculations to "within 3 rwhp" ?
With a dyno ??

Rohan said:

Dances with Shrapnel said:

People in the know realize the FA head is better than anything the factory produced and that Jim C's work is top notch.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it is - so many folks have said so.
And I haven't been "belittling it", just questioning the validity of some of the statements made about it.
Including yours, about 'simulating' how good it is.
Until we see the dyno sheets, its conjecture on the part of those singing its praises as to how good it really is ?

Click to expand...

You don't need to simulate not having studs pull out of soft alloy or a better quality alloy or no porous castings. The simulation is a means to an end and I was thinking along the lines of performance, not something as simplistic as "how good it is". The "how good it is" are your words, not mine. Someone might be expecting more peak power whereas someone else might be expecting more area under the curve whereas someone else might be expecting more peak torque.

Rohan said:

BTW, how did you verify that mans calculations to "within 3 rwhp" ?
With a dyno ??

Click to expand...

Really? Load cells on my butt and a stopwatch ....but if you are still doubtful, then yes, a dyno. You fail to make a point here as the simulation confirmed direction as opposed to trial and error. And yes, note that it was a verification.

So how many engine simulations have you done or attempted to do that gives you all this insight to the insurmountable shortcomings and inadequacies of lower cost engine simulation software. Crickets?

Dances with Shrapnel said:

........You don't need to simulate not having studs pull out of soft alloy or a better quality alloy or no porous castings........

Click to expand...

This alone is worth the cost, IMHO, the valve angle, greater flow etc... is a bonus. I just think we are lucky that they are being produced and are available. Cj