Some thoughts on the reasons for existing NHRA rules... (1 Viewer)

[Bill]

Alan,

Thanks for the comments; I never thought that your (VERY interesting) story about the mysterious valve springs was an attempt to answer the "ban" question... I only brought it (the "ban") up because, after considerable discussion among several posters here, it seemed that I wasn't much closer to a viable answer than I had been, starting out,.

Insofar as parts-attrirtion goes, my own conception (DUH!) of one way to do this would be to simply replace the steel spring with a small piston, runnning in a stand-alone "cylinder," with the top of the piston positioned on the bottom of the retainer (just like the original spring) and have that piston fitted with steel "compression rings" like the full-sized piston that drives the crankshaft... source the cylinder that the little piston runs up and down in with compressed nitrogen at the appropriate presssure, and not much else would be needed, I think.. There would be no lateral force on the piston; just downward-pressure from the rocker arm when the valve was actuated. The aluminum piston/steel ring setup should last awhile, I would think. Maybe I am missing something, but from where I sit, (a seat of profound ignorance,) there doesn't seem to be much to destroy that ring-seal if the metalurgy is correct on the cylinder wall/ring interface. There is nothing here to "wear out" like the steel springs do. I realize that the walls the rings ride against would eventually wear, but it should be gradual... and, slow. Plenty of time for analysis/replacement. Of course, you'd need a "reservoir" from which to feed the cylinder/springs, an adjustable pressure-regulator and nitrogen might not be the best choice for this application... I have NO IDEA, of course. As a final thought, a super-fine oil "mist" could be introduced with the nitrogen to lubricate trhe "cylinder-walls."

I think a company named "Del Webb" makes all te pneumatic springs for F-1. That is old information, though, and may not be true, anymore. I thought that if a pneumatic spring was ever deemed viable for the Alcohol motors in NHRA, the Del Webb's engineering department would have a huge "head-start" on developing it, because they have been making F-1 springs for many years, now.

Virgil, you make good points, and it makes me wonder what I am missing. But, those blown alcohol motors do have a every expensive appetite for valve springs... SOMETHING needs to be done.

Bill

 

[ironpony]

Just thinking out loud here, maybe it is because it is a known limitation restricting power output. Imagine the power they could make if everything worked perfect. Although Alans example is a very good point sometimes working perfect doesn't work well.

also at that stage of development why not eliminate the cam and push rods and go to an all air or hydraulic or air over hydraulic activated system?? electric solenoids have been done to open and close valves!! Instant open/close no ramp, no broken camshafts, no bent push rod, think of all the rotational mass that can be eliminated.

If you really want to eliminate all the problems go electric motors, talk about crazy fast.

Goodyear does not like the speeds over 300 mph they worry about the tires coming apart.
JFR did testing a few years back at Wright Patterson Air Force base, they spun the tires up to speed and then continued to see where they would explode, very interesting. the base has the test equipment for testing aircraft tires under simulated load. it is called the landing gear test facility, the company I am with was doing work there when they were doing the testing.
this was right after Erics accident.

 

[Bill]

Ken.

Though the changes you are suggesting would surely result in a more efficient, much faster car, they would require extensive (and probably,expensive) developmental time with major redeigns of existing systems. What I am advocating would require none of that and could be instituted with a basic installation of an already-existing part (the F-1 valve spring, redesigned for bigger loads.) If that wouldn't work, perhaps what I have suggested in my previous email could be tried. It's simple, unobtruisive, and has only one moving part. The engineers at Del Webb coud probably do it in their sleep.

But as long as it's "banned," it's not going to happen.

That was my point.

Bill

 

[ironpony]

I agree with your point, the overall point is where does it end?
the classes are already out of control, hence the restricting rules.
We do not want spec cars and want them all to be different, yet we are trying to contain costs to limit development, we cant have both.
let them go, cost will limit what is done, return on investment, will work itself out.
Already seeing it in pro stock 14 car fields, how many multi car teams?,
There is already no little guy left, adjust or go the way of the dinosaur.
What if JFR, DSR lose funding? half the field is gone. Barely full fields now.
Slow them all down by requiring the body to be recognizable, lose the aerodymanics.
Pro stock factory body panels, FC has to look like a factory body, TF go for it.
Kinda sounds like nostalgia racing to me.
Yes, I am "old".

 

[none]

Bill,

I don't think you realize just how much experimentation of unapproved or banned stuff goes on. No one is stopping a team from trying a pneumatic valve controller. You could run them on a Dyno or in testing without NHRA approval or permission. If it works they can petition NHRA to allow it. When I was with Nickens we tried a TON of stuff in testing that wasn't "Approved" for competition, that's why we did it in testing. We learned things that we could apply in the real world.

I could give you a hundred examples of things that teams tested that were not approved. Here's just one, what if the centered iron and steel clutches could be replaced with carbon? Would it be better? Might be. And Cheaper? Absolutely! It would also be 75 lbs off the back of the crankshaft. Certainly better engine life. Less rotating weight should make the car faster, even lighten the semi by a thousand pounds not having to carry all those clutch packs down the road. Everybody wins! But it's not legal for use in competition. Jim Head thought it was worth the investment to see if it would actually work, and then present it to NHRA for approval. He had parts custom made, and tested them. It didn't work, so he refined the design bought more parts and tried again, didn't work. Tried again, guess what? Still didn't work. But if tomorrow NHRA said "Carbon clutches are approved" There would be a lot of money spent, and for what?

When DSR built and tested the enclosed cockpit, it wasn't approved for competition. After they perfected and tested the design it was presented for approval, and ultimately approved. That's how the system works.

Let's just say for example, that tomorrow NHRA says, "Pneumatic valve control legal in all classes." What happens next? Everyone who can afford it is going to buy them tomorrow. And buy a lot of them. Now they begin testing, if they are indeed better then now those who can't afford them have to buy them as well. What if (like my magic springs) they make the cars slower down the track? Then after spending the cash to buy these parts, the new stuff goes in the trash and everyone still has to buy valve springs.

One of the oldest, and truest sayings in NHRA is "We don't race Dynos." Everyone who has done anything at all with race engines can give you an example of something that should be better in theory or showed better on the Dyno but was slower on the racetrack.

The theory may be good, but how do you KNOW that it would work in our environment? As big and heavy as the parts are in an Alcohol burning HEMI what works in F1 isn't going to be big enough to handle it. What if the pneumatic controller won't fit where the spring now resides? Do we redesign the head? Or the rockers? Bigger valve covers to clear everything? Are we still saving money?

You say that all is needed is something that to quote you
"could be instituted with a basic installation of an already-existing part (the F-1 valve spring, redesigned for bigger loads.)"
So you build the new unit and install it for testing, first run, piston hits valve KA-BOOM! Huh, I guess they need to be even bigger, one motor junk. Build a bigger unit, and another motor, Hope this works, nope KA-BOOM! Again, maybe the third time will be the charm, maybe not.

If you are convinced that it will work and it will be better, then by all means, spend your money and prove it. Then take your findings to NHRA and ask for approval. But to make a blanket statement that if NHRA would allow this it would be wonderful and everybody would save a fortune without any data to back it up, is simply a theory. It's not anywhere close to being a fact.

Alan

 

[Bill]

Bill,

I don't think you realize just how much experimentation of unapproved or banned stuff goes on. No one is stopping a team from trying a pneumatic valve controller. You could run them on a Dyno or in testing without NHRA approval or permission. If it works they can petition NHRA to allow it. When I was with Nickens we tried a TON of stuff in testing that wasn't "Approved" for competition, that's why we did it in testing. We learned things that we could apply in the real world.

I could give you a hundred examples of things that teams tested that were not approved. Here's just one, what if the centered iron and steel clutches could be replaced with carbon? Would it be better? Might be. And Cheaper? Absolutely! It would also be 75 lbs off the back of the crankshaft. Certainly better engine life. Less rotating weight should make the car faster, even lighten the semi by a thousand pounds not having to carry all those clutch packs down the road. Everybody wins! But it's not legal for use in competition. Jim Head thought it was worth the investment to see if it would actually work, and then present it to NHRA for approval. He had parts custom made, and tested them. It didn't work, so he refined the design bought more parts and tried again, didn't work. Tried again, guess what? Still didn't work. But if tomorrow NHRA said "Carbon clutches are approved" There would be a lot of money spent, and for what?

When DSR built and tested the enclosed cockpit, it wasn't approved for competition. After they perfected and tested the design it was presented for approval, and ultimately approved. That's how the system works.

Let's just say for example, that tomorrow NHRA says, "Pneumatic valve control legal in all classes." What happens next? Everyone who can afford it is going to buy them tomorrow. And buy a lot of them. Now they begin testing, if they are indeed better then now those who can't afford them have to buy them as well. What if (like my magic springs) they make the cars slower down the track? Then after spending the cash to buy these parts, the new stuff goes in the trash and everyone still has to buy valve springs.

One of the oldest, and truest sayings in NHRA is "We don't race Dynos." Everyone who has done anything at all with race engines can give you an example of something that should be better in theory or showed better on the Dyno but was slower on the racetrack.

The theory may be good, but how do you KNOW that it would work in our environment? As big and heavy as the parts are in an Alcohol burning HEMI what works in F1 isn't going to be big enough to handle it. What if the pneumatic controller won't fit where the spring now resides? Do we redesign the head? Or the rockers? Bigger valve covers to clear everything? Are we still saving money?

You say that all is needed is something that to quote you
"could be instituted with a basic installation of an already-existing part (the F-1 valve spring, redesigned for bigger loads.)"
So you build the new unit and install it for testing, first run, piston hits valve KA-BOOM! Huh, I guess they need to be even bigger, one motor junk. Build a bigger unit, and another motor, Hope this works, nope KA-BOOM! Again, maybe the third time will be the charm, maybe not.

If you are convinced that it will work and it will be better, then by all means, spend your money and prove it. Then take your findings to NHRA and ask for approval. But to make a blanket statement that if NHRA would allow this it would be wonderful and everybody would save a fortune without any data to back it up, is simply a theory. It's not anywhere close to being a fact.

Alan

Alan,

Thanks for your reply. I do apprexiate the time and effort you have put into these explanations. I went for literally YEARS, trying to get information on this, with little or no results. Your thoughts are a breath of fresh air!

No, I don't KNOW that pneumatic springs will work in "our environment." But, they work in F-1 doing exactly the same job, with changes only in the matter of scale, and that seems to indicate that if it works there, it should work here. The "cylinder"-design would need to be no larger than a conventional "battleship" valve spring, I would think, and, would displace the original spring as a simple replacement. At least, that's the desired plan.

Pneumatic valve springs were not always "illegal." Some guy (a Ford racer, if I remember right,) used to sell his design, years ago, for Sportsman cars (Gassers, etc.) but that went down the tubes with the advent of the ban, I believe. I never saw that system, but, I saw it advertised in magazines.

IF the idea just won't work, (and, I don't think it has been proven, yet, to be un-workable,) then why would NHRA ban it; are these racers so naive that they will spend mega-dollars (out of a Sportsman-budget,) if it's not a viable system, and NHRA is just preventing that? I somehow,have troiuble believing that. NHRA is a lot of things, but, benevolent is not one of them.

As long as this inexplicable ban is in place, I don't think the idea of a pneumatic valve spring will be a factor in NHRA racing. Still, I can't help wondering "why?"

Thanks again for all the interesting posts! They have opened my eyes to lots of different perspectives/possibilities.

 

[none]

Bill,
Go ask the racers if they think pneumatic valve control is a good idea. Then ask them how much they would be willing to invest to prove it. Then ask them why they haven't? NHRA has changed many rules and allowed many things after they have been shown to be viable and submitted for acceptance.

Nobody has done that yet, so they must not believe it to be as big a cost saving or performance advantage as you do.
Alan

 

[Bill]

Alan,

I don't know any of the alcohol racers on a conversational basis any more. I used to be good frriends with Vern Moats, when I lived in Des Moines ('til 1980,) but have only seen him once since then. When we met, (1965) he was racing his 327-powered 1955 Chevy... LOL!

But, your idea is a good one, and, I'll give it some thought. The hard part will be finding alcohol racers who are at all familiar with the concept of pneumatic valve springs, they are such a low-profile item. The "ban" has been on for a long time (sometimes, I forget how old I am...). But, the expense of these things (egregious!) is enough to generate interest in an affordable alternative, I think.

Here's a picture I took of Vern at a Noble, Oklahoma points race in about 2006. I think, maybe, he retired shortly thereafter (he and I are the same age; 77.)

Bill

 

[none]

Another thought on the subject, NHRA is not the only place where high RPM engines are used. If pneumatic valve control was all that you think it is, why don't the boat racers use them? Or the tractor pullers? Or Outlaw Pro-Mods? Or any number of other venues that run the same type of engine but don't follow NHRA rules and regulations.

It seems to me that if Del Webb (or whoever makes the part) thought there was a viable market they would make and market the part. Business 101

If the racers believed it would be better and cheaper, they would be lobbying hard for the part to be made and they would run it wherever it was allowed. Racing 101

Since neither of those things are happening, what do you think the reason is? I'll give you a hint, it's not because of the NHRA rules, there are plenty of other places they could be sold and used.
Alan

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

Good points, Alan. Plus, if WJ has in fact explored the idea and it was worthwhile, I have a hard time that he, of all people wouldn't have pushed for it.

Sean D

 

[ironpony]

OK so I have been doing some reading on pneumatic valves and there are quite a few manufacturers that use them. F1 as stated, also Honda Yamaha GP motorcycles, Koening? complete V8 engine.
The one thing that seems to me to be the problem with NHRA use is, they still use a spring to close the valve, air only opens it. So you would still need the heavy stressed spring to close the valve, what would be the benefit? Am I missing something here?

 

[Gordon]

This has easily been the most interesting thread I've read on this website in a very long time. Thank you to all who've contributed.

NHRA has changed many rules and allowed many things after they have been shown to be viable and submitted for acceptance.

Does anyone know why the mono-strut wing was never authorized for use on Top Fuel cars? It may have been covered here at one time, but I missed it.

 

[Bill]

Ken said: "The one thing that seems to me to be the problem with NHRA use is, they still use a spring to close the valve, air only opens it."

Ken, I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The last time I looked at a hemi in an alcohol dragster, the ROCKER arrn (pushrod actuated, from the lifter, via the camshaft) opened the valve.

Do you know something I don't?

Bill

 

[ironpony]

I guess my explanation is a little confusing.
On an pneumatic valve system, air opens the valve but a spring is still needed to close it, so you still need a heavy spring on the intake side which negates the advantage on a TF engine. The pressure behind the valve is about 55 psi i believe, which is alot. The exhaust could be a lighter spring because there is less pressure behind the valve trying to open it.
This is probably why it works well on small valve naturally aspirated engines.

 

[Bill]

Another thought on the subject, NHRA is not the only place where high RPM engines are used. If pneumatic valve control was all that you think it is, why don't the boat racers use them? Or the tractor pullers? Or Outlaw Pro-Mods? Or any number of other venues that run the same type of engine but don't follow NHRA rules and regulations.
They don't have the need for F-1-type air springs in most other engines...
Blown alcohol dragsters and Funnies (all Chrysler-design hemis) are the only place where the mass and weight, (plus the length... exhaust side) are enough to cause inertia issues of the rocker arm... Why do you think those engines "eat" valve springs to the extent that they do? Those rocker arms stretch al the way across the cylinder head; the only engine in popular use that does. That design takes its toll...

It seems to me that if Del Webb (or whoever makes the part) thought there was a viable market they would make and market the part. Business 101
Business 101 probably also stresses that you not spend the money to build and manufacture a part if it were "banned" in the only market with a crying need for it, in the hope that "MAYBE" the ban would come off at some time. Lotsa luck...

If the racers believed it would be better and cheaper, they would be lobbying hard for the part to be made and they would run it wherever it was allowed. Racing 101
The only reasons I can think of, for their inaction would be, Drag Racing is steeped in the "That's the way it's always been" mentality (see "TRUSTART", a change that has ben needed for 33 years and still hasn't been implemented across -the-board,) and that NHRA's irrefutable track record for making (needed) changes from member-requests, has not been good, ever since they had the membership vote to allow them to make unilateral decisions on matters like this, many years ago. That gave them the autonomy to do whatever they so chose... so, they do. They ARE "the boss."

Since neither of those things are happening, what do you think the reason is? I'll give you a hint, it's not because of the NHRA rules, there are plenty of other places they could be sold and used.
Yes, they could, but the degree of "need" is not so severe as it is in the blown alcohol classes where (critical) frequent spring changes drive up the cost of racing.
Here's another "hint:"
It has been sugestsed to me that, in a "what if" scenario, the valve spring manufacurers (as a group) who supply these "battleship" springs were to approach NHRA with the idea that it was worth money to them to completely eliminate the competition from their market, money could change hands on a continuing basis, (sub -rosa, of course,) since NHRA could guarantee that, and you'd have just what you have, now. A "captive" market for their springs. Guaranteed money. No "air" springs,in the rules, would provide that for now and in the foreseeable future. Like I said, this was only a suggestion to me.
Alan

 

[Bill]

I guess my explanation is a little confusing.
On an pneumatic valve system, air opens the valve but a spring is still needed to close it, so you still need a heavy spring on the intake side which negates the advantage on a TF engine. The pressure behind the valve is about 55 psi i believe, which is alot. The exhaust could be a lighter spring because there is less pressure behind the valve trying to open it.
This is probably why it works well on small valve naturally aspirated engines.

Welll, apparently, you DO know something I don't... what I thought was that pneumatic springs have no function different fom steel springs; they simply hold the valve closed, leaving the opening of the valve, to the cam. lifter.pushrod and rocker arm. Is this wrong? It never occured to me that AIR could be used to OPEN the valve. How does that work?
Bill (in the dark, here...)

 

[none]

Bill,

I believe that I and others have answered your questions, that fact that you don't agree doesn't mean that you are right.

Drag boats, tractor pullers and Pro-Mods use the same HEMI, some of the tractor guys have 5 of them. So there is a market outside of NHRA.

You have now gone from "They could design it in their sleep" to "Why would they spend the money" Either it's that easy, or it's a big headache. Which is it?

After that you go into the back helicopter theorys and I'm done with the discussion.

It was fun while it lasted,
Alan

 

[Bill]

Bill,

I believe that I and others have answered your questions, that fact that you don't agree doesn't mean that you are right.

Drag boats, tractor pullers and Pro-Mods use the same HEMI, some of the tractor guys have 5 of them. So there is a market outside of NHRA.

You have now gone from "They could design it in their sleep" to "Why would they spend the money" Either it's that easy, or it's a big headache. Which is it?

After that you go into the back helicopter theorys and I'm done with the discussion.

It was fun while it lasted,
Alan

Thanks for your comments and theories, Alan. It was interesting, for sure.

Bill

 

[none]

This has easily been the most interesting thread I've read on this website in a very long time. Thank you to all who've contributed.



Does anyone know why the mono-strut wing was never authorized for use on Top Fuel cars? It may have been covered here at one time, but I missed it.

The guy who drove it in testing (Hot Rod Fuller) almost crashed it. He felt like the whale tail made the car unsafe when it got out of the groove. He told the owner (David Powers) that he would quit before he drove it again. To my knowledge it hasn't been on the track since. I was told at one time but can't say for sure that the car and the whale tail live in Australia now. Maybe someone can confirm this?
Alan

 

[Reese]

Bill,

I believe that I and others have answered your questions, that fact that you don't agree doesn't mean that you are right.

Drag boats, tractor pullers and Pro-Mods use the same HEMI, some of the tractor guys have 5 of them. So there is a market outside of NHRA.

You have now gone from "They could design it in their sleep" to "Why would they spend the money" Either it's that easy, or it's a big headache. Which is it?

After that you go into the back helicopter theorys and I'm done with the discussion.

It was fun while it lasted,
Alan

Yea it was fun but I kept waiting for that "beating a dead horse" picture to show up. Thanks for all you do Alan and nice thread Bill.
And now for the next subject.