HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock Tech
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2015, 06:04 PM   #71
Billy Nees
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,221
Likes: 3,093
Liked 6,782 Times in 1,521 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland View Post
Not exactly a complete analysis. While "not enough" valve spring pressure can cause failures as you describe because of lack of control, I would also have to say that the allowed increased spring pressure has promoted running the engines at a much higher rpm range and demanded much more radical camshaft dynamics which have contributed to more failures than not enough valve spring pressure. The stresses on valve train components increase geometrically with the rpm, which contributes to parts failure more than the "not enough" spring pressure as you point out. Also, without the increased spring pressure, having to resort to parts like the ceramic lifters or tool steel lifters would not have been necessary. The camshaft manufacturers are smart guys and will produce profiles that work with whatever pressures are available, so you think that they are not pushing the limits of design to take advantage of the increased pressures and increasing engine speeds and ramp events accordingly? They also pushed limits in the same way when we ran OEM valve spring pressure, but the spring pressure limitation kept the engine speeds lower and camshaft dynamics softer so parts were not stressed nearly as much. The snowball effect of the consequences of that one rule change has escalated the cost of stock eliminator more than any other, and it simply was not necessary.
Hooray!!!!!!!
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS

World's greatest Under-Achiever!
Billy Nees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2015, 09:23 PM   #72
Dan Lattimore
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Beaverdam, Va./ Port St. Lucie,Fla.
Posts: 362
Likes: 177
Liked 158 Times in 38 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

Thank you ! Mr. Southerland
__________________
66W30POST
Dan Lattimore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2015, 09:44 PM   #73
SSDiv6
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 693
Liked 1,457 Times in 543 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland View Post
Not exactly a complete analysis. While "not enough" valve spring pressure can cause failures as you describe because of lack of control, I would also have to say that the allowed increased spring pressure has promoted running the engines at a much higher rpm range and demanded much more radical camshaft dynamics which have contributed to more failures than not enough valve spring pressure. The stresses on valve train components increase geometrically with the rpm, which contributes to parts failure more than the "not enough" spring pressure as you point out. Also, without the increased spring pressure, having to resort to parts like the ceramic lifters or tool steel lifters would not have been necessary. The camshaft manufacturers are smart guys and will produce profiles that work with whatever pressures are available, so you think that they are not pushing the limits of design to take advantage of the increased pressures and increasing engine speeds and ramp events accordingly? They also pushed limits in the same way when we ran OEM valve spring pressure, but the spring pressure limitation kept the engine speeds lower and camshaft dynamics softer so parts were not stressed nearly as much. The snowball effect of the consequences of that one rule change has escalated the cost of stock eliminator more than any other, and it simply was not necessary.
Dwight is correct.
SSDiv6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2015, 10:04 PM   #74
JHeath
Senior Member
 
JHeath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 788
Likes: 2,890
Liked 370 Times in 102 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

Exactly, Dwight !!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Jerry Heath
I/S '93 Cobra
FS/J 2010 Mustang "Ebay CJ"
JHeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2015, 11:19 PM   #75
Dan Fahey
VIP Member
 
Dan Fahey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 1,078
Liked 180 Times in 110 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

Thanks Dwight.
I am not having valve train fracture problems in Pure Stock.
Basically early Stock rules.
IMHO be a good idea to moderate the spring rule.
Get back to a NTE rating.
NASCAR cams are a different breed.
Stocker cams are physically smaller.
Shorter lift and massive duration never intended.
150 lb closed and 400 open is a good start.
Some ratio for Valve size.

Just putting it out there.
D
Dan Fahey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2015, 09:16 AM   #76
Mike Taylor 3601
VIP Member
 
Mike Taylor 3601's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somerset,Ky
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 198
Liked 116 Times in 48 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

I agree if stock pressure spring rule was left alone in 87 wouldn't need tool steel,ceramic lifters and everything that came after that,was just putting out there the effects of not having the spring pressure to control the valvetrain, if you want to run the aggressive lobes and crank up the RPM then you have to have the spring pressure.
The stockers I build have plenty of spring pressure,they make more runs and require less maintenance than my pure stocker with stock spring pressure does,there valves,guides,spings,valve jobs will last twice as many runs as my pure stocker does..
Mike Taylor 3601
Mike Taylor 3601 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2015, 12:14 PM   #77
Dwight Southerland
VIP Member
 
Dwight Southerland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything.
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 52
Liked 724 Times in 177 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Taylor 3601 View Post
The stockers I build have plenty of spring pressure,they make more runs and require less maintenance than my pure stocker with stock spring pressure does,there valves,guides,spings,valve jobs will last twice as many runs as my pure stocker does..
Mike Taylor 3601
Not to pick on you or be confrontive, but I raced a '67 Z28 Camaro on stock spec valve springs for four years, set three national records, won one national event, two points races, class at national events eleven times, logged over 300 runs, and broke one pushrod and one rocker arm. Shifted between 7000-7200 and cleared the lights at 7500. Then I raced an A-B/Stock 396-375 with stock valve springs for four years, set five national records, won class 13 times, quarter finals at three national events, and broke one retainer and shattered two keepers, shifting between 6800-7200 and 7400 in the lights. Before all that, I raced various 283-220 equipped rides with stock valve springs for six years, set umpteen records, won many races, logged over 1200 runs. Broke one retainer, one lifter while leaving the the starting line as high as 8300 rpm, shifting at 6800-7000 and at least 7000 in the lights. Then I raced an SS/C 427 Corvette that had Billy Badass valve springs, roller lifters, Jesel, etc. etc. In 87 runs I broke multiple lifters, pushrods, valve springs and rocker arms. Left the line at 7500, shifted between 7200 and 7600, and ran 8300 in the lights. So my experience tells me the obvious.
__________________

Last edited by Dwight Southerland; 10-23-2015 at 12:17 PM.
Dwight Southerland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2015, 12:58 PM   #78
Dan Fahey
VIP Member
 
Dan Fahey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 1,078
Liked 180 Times in 110 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

Hmmm interesting..
Moderating Spring Pressure is a good answer.
I like racing..not fixing broken stuff.
Using super high springs pressure creates larger catastrophic messes.

Someone mentioned they could not even get it off the Dyno.
Then required a new rotating assembly.

This does not happen anywhere often with Bracket Engines.

xHRA's need consider this.
Especially the RIO..
Fewer breakdowns during qualifying and competition.

D
Dan Fahey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2015, 01:30 PM   #79
Bill Diehl
Member
 
Bill Diehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 311
Likes: 2
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

If you have canted heads with 120+ gram valves and crooked pushrods you are going to need valve springs....you inline valve guys with tiny valves and straight pushrod geometry should never break a dam thing.

Its as simple as that

1 spring rule for everybody is not a cure all.... guys that race,.not bracket race the combo will always push the limit

watch how much "breakage" Prostock is going to have with a 10,500 rpm limit...should have left that alone also
__________________
__________________
Bill Diehl B200 C/D STK

Last edited by Bill Diehl; 10-23-2015 at 01:33 PM.
Bill Diehl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2015, 01:32 PM   #80
Mike Taylor 3601
VIP Member
 
Mike Taylor 3601's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somerset,Ky
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 198
Liked 116 Times in 48 Posts
Default Re: Schubeck lifters

Dwight,
I didn't take your post as confrontation or picking on me.
Mike Taylor 3601
Mike Taylor 3601 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.