Explain to me again, please

[Frank Castros]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

And that's an awful lot of flat tappet motors. What kind of an effect do you think that change will have on the rest of the motor? What else will need to be changed to take advantage of the ability to use more aggressive cam profiles without breaking a lifter or wiping a cam? Not to mention the higher RPM capability.
What we need is a valve spring rule.

When the Cam Duration and Valve Spring rules were changed many years ago that created a Domino effect that changed Stock Eliminator forever.

[KRatcliff]

Originally Posted by Frank Castros

When the Cam Duration and Valve Spring rules were changed many years ago that created a Domino effect that changed Stock Eliminator forever.

Just my opinion, but I think you are hitting on the reason for changes such as these. Simplification of tech because they have lost most everyone that could accurately measure cam duration. Almost every change looking back over the last few years has been to make it easier on the tech officials if they ever do look at something. Same thing with the lifter issue. Anyone can eyeball a roller vs flat and it is easier to measure lift without replacing the lifter with a solid if it is already solid.

Could be all wet, but this is why I think we see changes like these. This is not to be read as I agree with the simplification for them to do their job.

[Frank Castros]

You're correct about their ability to properly check Cam Duration and shame on the N.H.R.A. for that. Greg Xakellis had a great team then and it was not a D1 issue and I doubt it was a D3 or D4 issue either as they also had great teams as well. But the Valve Springs? Come on man, anybody can check spring pressure.

[Bill Bogues]

Put the "stock" back in "stock".... good start would be Pressure on valve springs.

[L.Fite]

The point, however, is that if a 750-850 HP, 358 CID, canted valve, flat tappet engine in a Cup car can run 500 miles at over 9000 rpm with a stock diameter solid lifter, then it's hard to imagine why it can't be done in a stocker that doesn't anywhere near that RPM and is raced a quarter-mile at a time.

You're still comparing apples to grapes...

The technology used to make a NASCAR engine live is so for advanced it makes a SS engine look like a high school mechanics class project.

[SBillinson]

Originally Posted by L.Fite

The point, however, is that if a 750-850 HP, 358 CID, canted valve, flat tappet engine in a Cup car can run 500 miles at over 9000 rpm with a stock diameter solid lifter, then it's hard to imagine why it can't be done in a stocker that doesn't anywhere near that RPM and is raced a quarter-mile at a time.

You're still comparing apples to grapes...

The technology used to make a NASCAR engine live is so for advanced it makes a SS engine look like a high school mechanics class project.

You're batting a thousand on being wrong. Apparently, you haven't seen the inside of a well-developed Super Stock engine. By the way, I have several Cup engines, so please stop embarrassing yourself.

[L.Fite]

Originally Posted by SBillinson

You're batting a thousand on being wrong. Apparently, you haven't seen the inside of a well-developed Super Stock engine. By the way, I have several Cup engines, so please stop embarrassing yourself.

Don't know who you are... don't care...
I know what I've seen...
I'm not interested in getting in a pissing match on the inter web...
I have more important things to worry with...
Have a nice day...

[SSDiv6]

Originally Posted by L.Fite

The point, however, is that if a 750-850 HP, 358 CID, canted valve, flat tappet engine in a Cup car can run 500 miles at over 9000 rpm with a stock diameter solid lifter, then it's hard to imagine why it can't be done in a stocker that doesn't anywhere near that RPM and is raced a quarter-mile at a time.

You're still comparing apples to grapes...

The technology used to make a NASCAR engine live is so for advanced it makes a SS engine look like a high school mechanics class project.

I worked for a period of time for the former engine shop director for Robert Yates, Penske Racing and later on, Richard Petty. He spent lots of time sharing tidbits of the technology used in NASCAR on racing engine building. The only aspects that I see are advanced in NASCAR is the machining processes, equipment and materials used in the parts for longevity. Of course, they also spend millions on R&D and testing, and yes, we run more radical camshafts. Nevertheless, some of the qualifying engine cams have radical profiles and spent lots of hours and days doing Spintron testing, learning to control the valvetrain that is one of the main keys for making power.

As regards to camshafts, the cores are billet and treated. The camshafts are not broken in th engine. Every camshaft is broken-in by installing the cam in a specific machine the simulates the lifter contact and load, and different RPM levels and temperatures, being sprayed with engine oil during the operation. After the camshaft was broken in, then it would go into the assigned engine. The choice of hardened steel solid lifters made by either Trend, PPPC, Isky and Crower.

The other key for making power in NASCAR is sealing the engine, spending lots of time testing hone finishes and piston ring materials and configurations. All the torque plates we had in the shop, were custom made. The thickness of the torque plates mirrored the height of the actual cylinder head, with all the fasteners and hardware having the same length and diameter as the ones used in the engine. They were not the normal thickness of torque plates used by most shops, and many of the torque plates had provisions for hot honing.

There is more to building a fast engine than putting a big cam and stiffer valve springs.

[Jeff Stout]

Originally Posted by SSDiv6

I worked for a period of time for the former engine shop director for Robert Yates, Penske Racing and later on, Richard Petty. He spent lots of time sharing tidbits of the technology used in NASCAR on racing engine building. The only aspects that I see are advanced in NASCAR is the machining processes, equipment and materials used in the parts for longevity. Of course, they also spend millions on R&D and testing, and yes, we run more radical camshafts. Nevertheless, some of the qualifying engine cams have radical profiles and spent lots of hours and days doing Spintron testing, learning to control the valvetrain that is one of the main keys for making power.

As regards to camshafts, the cores are billet and treated. The camshafts are not broken in th engine. Every camshaft is broken-in by installing the cam in a specific machine the simulates the lifter contact and load, and different RPM levels and temperatures, being sprayed with engine oil during the operation. After the camshaft was broken in, then it would go into the assigned engine. The choice of hardened steel solid lifters made by either Trend, PPPC, Isky and Crower.

The other key for making power in NASCAR is sealing the engine, spending lots of time testing hone finishes and piston ring materials and configurations. All the torque plates we had in the shop, were custom made. The thickness of the torque plates mirrored the height of the actual cylinder head, with all the fasteners and hardware having the same length and diameter as the ones used in the engine. They were not the normal thickness of torque plates used by most shops, and many of the torque plates had provisions for hot honing.

There is more to building a fast engine than putting a big cam and stiffer valve springs.

Just talking about valve train today at shop. What was done to control valve train when using a Spintron?
Pushrod deflection, particular valve sping pressure ect.

[L.Fite]

Originally Posted by Bill Bogues

Put the "stock" back in "stock".... good start would be Pressure on valve springs.

You are probably correct... But it's going to be awful hard to stuff that genie back in the bottle...