Rocker Geometry Question - Page 2 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:32 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 218
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72 View Post
True, but neither gives max lift. There's only a gnat's fart in difference between midlift and max lift but it is there. Max lift requires a hair shorter pushrod than midlift, but the difference is very very small.
Ap72, in your experience do you think the difference between the max lift and mid lift methods is more or less than the difference caused by pushrod flex, rocker arm flex, rocker stud flex, etc under actual operating conditions?

I ask this because I can't really think of a better way to find max lift than simply setting up a dial indicator and measuring each valve independently, and using educated trial and error until you get each valve just right. Even using real springs, this wouldn't accurately account for the dynamic effects I mentioned above.

I agree with the above poster that chasing "perfection" is fun (and educational). I just want to know if I am deluding myself.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 10:55 AM
Silver Surfer's Avatar
More machine than man
 

Last journal entry: bwaahhaahahaaahhaa
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Age: 36
Posts: 806
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 91
Thanked 60 Times in 50 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72 View Post
You'll see max lift when the line through the fulcrum and rocker tip is exactly perpendicular to the valve stem at peak lift, not midlift. The difference is really really small but its there.
I disagree. Do you have an article or math or something to corroborate this assertion?

The method you mention is "under rotating" the rocker (less lift is achieved at the open/close events). The Comp Cams method is "over rotation" (less lift is achieved at max lift event) . Either way, the arc of motion transmits the same linear motion to the valve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 11:03 AM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 8,990
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 17
Thanked 315 Times in 295 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofearengineer View Post
Ap72, in your experience do you think the difference between the max lift and mid lift methods is more or less than the difference caused by pushrod flex, rocker arm flex, rocker stud flex, etc under actual operating conditions?

I ask this because I can't really think of a better way to find max lift than simply setting up a dial indicator and measuring each valve independently, and using educated trial and error until you get each valve just right. Even using real springs, this wouldn't accurately account for the dynamic effects I mentioned above.

I agree with the above poster that chasing "perfection" is fun (and educational). I just want to know if I am deluding myself.
Its probably about the same. You're talking a few thousandths or less.

As for math its all just basic geometry. The "mid lfit method" is aptly named because the ratio is highest at midlift. Making the ratio highest at peak lift will give you the maximum lift and least sideloading at peak lift. BUT the midlift method gives you the lowest average side loading thus it minimizes guide wear. Using the maximum lift method would have more sideloading than midlift off the seat.

Its really all just basic geometry and if you draw out the motion its pretty obvious.

Notice none of this has anything to do with a centered pattern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 11:04 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 218
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
All of this is academic if the push rod cup isn't perpendicular to the push rod at both min and max lift. A "straighter" tip path might actually produce less net lift if it's multiplying a smaller base lift due to improper push rod cup geometry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 11:13 AM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 8,990
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 17
Thanked 315 Times in 295 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofearengineer View Post
All of this is academic if the push rod cup isn't perpendicular to the push rod at both min and max lift. A "straighter" tip path might actually produce less net lift if it's multiplying a smaller base lift due to improper push rod cup geometry.
It won't be perpendicular at both min and max. What will make the difference on the pushrod side is the distance from the contact point to the fulcrum, simmilar to the valve side, but with the pushrod side you're not as concerned with lateral movement and pressure- there's no guide to wear. It can impart bending stress but that's what thicker pushrods are for. Though imperfect its the accepted way to manage valvetrain geometry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:00 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 6,764
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 4
Thanked 426 Times in 365 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofearengineer View Post
I know much has been made here about the way to properly set up rocker geometry; i.e. smallest pattern vs. centered on the tip. My brain is firmly in the "smallest pattern" camp.

My question is, since Comp Cams continues to suggest the "centered" method as correct (showing right now on their website ), what exactly does that say about their cam patterns? Were they designed and tested using the "centered" geometry? If so, what effect will using the "smallest area" method have? Will "doing it right" actually cost performance? (I would think it would be very small, but if we're pursuing perfect geometry, still significant.)
If you want optimum geometry you want to find a set of Mr. Miller's Mid Lift rockers. Given that Jim has, at least for the time being, retired from the rocker manufacturing business youíre stuck with finding new old stock somewhere or locating a used set.

There are several issues going on with rocker geometry but the cam patterns used by Comp or anyone else has little to no influence upon the issues of rocker arms.

Mr. Millerís designs attempt to gain the best copy of the cam's profile at the valve. Albeit the difference is a small percentage of lift for the point in duration but this has a pretty large impact when it comes to competition engines. It is at least as significant as running long rods is to horsepower and is usually a bit more; it is measurable and repeatable on the dyno so it's real. For whatever reason the Mid-Lift rocker never caught on as well as it should have, goes on my large "beats me" pile.

The Comp recommendation has a lot to do with centering the forces that actuate the valve over the desire of the spring to close it. For a street application with a high performance cam and stiff springs this is certainly the default position for the least amount of side-load between the guide and stem, thus the least amount of wear. Wear between the guide and stem causes several problems that result from the clearance opening up from wear: 1) the increasing wear "breaks" the stem oil seal letting excess oil down the guide where it bakes onto the back side of the valve increasing its operating temperature and obstructing flow past the valve. 2) Oil gets into the combustion space which encourages detonation. 3) The valve orbits (rolls about) the seat instead of directly closing on it, this results in lost compression and encourages burning of the seats from leakage of high temp, high pressure combustion gasses.

For a competition engine that will see frequent inspections and rebuilding/replacement of wearing parts centering the rocker contact point on the stem is less of an issue than with a street engine that is expected to gain several tens of thousands of miles between inspections and overhauls. For a competition engine you can push for the geometry that minimizes the sweep on the valve stem regardless of location short of rolling off the edge.

Obviously the best of both worlds is to have a narrow sweep that is mostly centered. The higher the lift and the greater the rocker ratio, the more difficult this is to achieve. This is controlled with push rod and valve stem length, which will also drive on the height of the rocker on its stud or shaft above some reference point on the head. To this end adjustable push rods are available for use in determining the optimum load placement and sweep on the valve stem for the application. Along with these push rods are lash caps that can be tried to find the optimum stem length. So it is possible to play a lot of optimization games to locate the best push rod and valve stem lengths before assembling the final engine configuration.

To a large extent the more engines you build the easier this gets because of improving personal knowledge, increasing part availability, and that the shop's product tends to settle around fewer non-standard builds so there becomes an element of repeatability where you already have a good idea of what the answers will be. However, when building high performance and competition engines a lot of time gets used in mocking up the engine with trial fits to be sure the machining tolerances are producing expected results. There are probably close to 10 different machining operations on the block, heads, and valve train component parts that can affect how the rocker tip addresses the valve stem. So the variances between parts need to be checked for each engine.

Bogie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:31 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 218
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72 View Post
It won't be perpendicular at both min and max. What will make the difference on the pushrod side is the distance from the contact point to the fulcrum, simmilar to the valve side, but with the pushrod side you're not as concerned with lateral movement and pressure- there's no guide to wear. It can impart bending stress but that's what thicker pushrods are for. Though imperfect its the accepted way to manage valvetrain geometry.
Oops, you're right about that. But I mis-spoke. I should have said "perpendicular at mid lift". But the angle at min and max lift from perpendicular should be the same, just one the negative of the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:39 PM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 8,990
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 17
Thanked 315 Times in 295 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofearengineer View Post
Oops, you're right about that. But I mis-spoke. I should have said "perpendicular at mid lift". But the angle at min and max lift from perpendicular should be the same, just one the negative of the other.
depending on the rocker design. Which is why Millers are designed differently. Even then its not going to be perfect, the incorrect movement is always shifted to the pushrod side as the pushrod can better handle forces in the perpendicular direction to movement- until they bend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:43 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 218
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72 View Post
depending on the rocker design. Which is why Millers are designed differently. Even then its not going to be perfect, the incorrect movement is always shifted to the pushrod side as the pushrod can better handle forces in the perpendicular direction to movement- until they bend.
Gotcha. Makes sense. Man, they sure make things complicated by having the valve stem, rocker stud, and push rod all at different angles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 08-07-2012, 01:09 PM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 8,990
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 17
Thanked 315 Times in 295 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofearengineer View Post
Gotcha. Makes sense. Man, they sure make things complicated by having the valve stem, rocker stud, and push rod all at different angles.
The ford 2.3l engine I built only has the cam and a follower, yet it is just as much of a pita to set up. Same for my datsun l28. Direct acting ohc with buckets are pretty simple, but shimming gets tedious and you're much more limited on valve motion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Achieving Proper Rocker Arm Geometry beertracker Engine 67 08-11-2012 06:50 AM
need help figuring out setting up rocker arm geometry inkfreak1976 Engine 16 08-08-2012 11:34 PM
SBC Rocker Arm Geometry radracer43 Engine 7 07-16-2005 10:44 AM
1.65 sbc rocker geometry question???? btp76 Engine 8 02-15-2005 10:38 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.