Extended sump question

[robert]

John,

My comment regarded oil starvation due to on track gyrations. Oil is not available at the pump pick up at all times, but the pump is still sucking . . . at those times it is sucking air, or at best a mix of oil and air. Those are the times that oil pressure drops even though the motor is at racing rpm, not dropping to idle. The pump is sucking like mad at whatever is available at the pickup. It appears that the sump extension and baffles do not eliminate starvation at the pickup.

Has nothing to do with the precharge in the accusump, which as you point out is physically separated from the oil.

I have this idea that the lubricating and heat carrying qualities of oil is diminished when the oil is foamy.

On the sump extension, I think the rule makes little sense. Full flow systems are permitted, with external plumbing to filters and non VW coolers, and baffling seems unrestricted. Carb mods and ultra expensive intakes are OK, removal of fans and generators OK, accusumps allowed, and all manner of massaging parts, yet a sump extension of more than 250cc violates the spirit of the class? Seems there are even varying opinions as to what constitutes a legal design for a sump extension.

[FV80]

On the sump extension, I think the rule makes little sense. Full flow systems are permitted, with external plumbing to filters and non VW coolers, and baffling seems unrestricted. Carb mods and ultra expensive intakes are OK, removal of fans and generators OK, accusumps allowed, and all manner of massaging parts, yet a sump extension of more than 250cc violates the spirit of the class? Seems there are even varying opinions as to what constitutes a legal design for a sump extension.

I agree with this quote and the one from Brian above. Loosing engines is NOT a good thing for the class...
So why doesn't (don't) one (or more) of you request a rule CHANGE to make the sump extension "FREE"? One of the reasons it hasn't been changed is that (to the best of my knowledge) no one has ever ASKED for it !

Steve

[hardingfv32-1]

Steve

Any need to go to the Vee Committee or just directly to the CRB?

Formula Category
9.1.1.C.5.D.29

Any oil sump may be fitted utilizing the stock oil strainer cover plate mounting surface on the crankcase. The oil pickup pipe may be modified. Accumulators (Accusump) may be fitted.


Comments? Any performance enhancement issues seen?

Brian

[fv195]

I agree with the "free sump" rule, but I'm not going to fit a 3qt. monster like I have on my VW thing. vees don't need that much oil, and who needs/wants the weight of it. my thing has an 1835cc monster in it and the extra oil really helps with cooling. a full qt. of extra oil would be nice I think a bigger mushroom shaped sump. so the oil stays in it under cornering g's. would save us some motors, and $$$. maybe I'll draft a letter for the the allowance of a bigger sump. there would be no proformance advantage to it. would add weight.
my thoughts on it.
THOR
really running FV#70 in the SE

[SR Racing]

Jim,
Thanks for your earlier response. Regarding the Accusump, aside from the extra oil that's dumped out from having no front seal, and perhaps the complicated plumbing if you wanted to run the system both ways, what problems have you seen where they are not doing their intended job or causing problems?

John, When installed correctly I don't know of any other problems with the accusump. I have no idea if it has saved any engines, but in theory it should.
I have seen one that was a homemade that probably caused more engine failure than helped, but that wasn't a accusump issue per' se.
Since dry sumps are not allowed an accusump could be a positive. But some development work needs to be done to prevent the oil mess I have seen in every case.

IF the rule regarding the existing sump volume is changed, an accusump would not be needed and would be several hundred dollars less cost.

We charge $40 for the extended sumps and I think our CB 1.5 quart sump (same depth but wider) is under $100.

[jpetillo]

Robert, yes, I misunderstood your comment, and thanks for clearing it up. I also share some of your other concerns.

John

[jpetillo]

Jim, Thanks for the comments. I agree that the Accusumps could use some development, and even the sumps could use some thought.

John

[jpetillo]

Steve

Any need to go to the Vee Committee or just directly to the CRB?

Formula Category
9.1.1.C.5.D.29

Any oil sump may be fitted utilizing the stock oil strainer cover plate mounting surface on the crankcase. The oil pickup pipe may be modified. Accumulators (Accusump) may be fitted.

Comments? Any performance enhancement issues seen?

Brian

Brian, this suggestion is hard to argue with - looks good. Let me suggest that it still may be too restrictive - but don't know enough yet to give you an intelligent suggestion. Let's keep the dialogue going and perhaps we can get it completely flushed out with the forum. I need to know more about the internals and the geometry before I say something stupid.

John

[cendiv37]

Brian,

Just submit a letter to the crb making your request. This is something I have always found to be a silly rule left over from a time when the class was not allowed external oil coolers, oil filters, etc. and the engines lasted a race or two at most. Why a larger sump wasn't allowed when the other oiling system mods were allowed escapes me.

Just to keep people from going crazy, we might want to limit the volume or possibly limit the size to remain roughly within the perimeter of the engine's original crank case. This should be plenty to help with oil pressure loss.

The only drawback I can see with allowing additional oil capacity is that we Vee's have a penchant for oiling down the track with leaky valve covers, broken head studs, etc. Personally. I'd like to see a lot more mechanical black flags for fluid leakage. The leaking can really mess up the track and the race not to mention the unfair advantage gained by spraying oil all over the following driver's visor. The additional sump capacity should actually allow us to run a lower oil level thus reducing oil loss though the breathing system and front pulley. Of course this is just speculation at this point.

[jpetillo]

Bruce, hmm, I need to think about this more. It's not obvious to me that simply having a larger sump volume allows us to run lower oil levels. I do believe that it will allow the oil to recover faster when the G-forces subside.
John

[billinstuart]

Been following this thread. To me it's all about the ABILITY to pick up oil. The extended 250cc sump with extended pickup allows oil to be picked up, even if there is only a couple ounces of oil in the sump. It's that 1/2" or so of space under the pickup that matters. In a stock VW sump, the last quart or so of oil simply can't be picked up by the oil pickup because of the space under the pickup.

In most Vees, the sump extension is very vulnerable to damage because it's so close to the ground. Some Vee's won't accommodate a larger extension anyhow.

[SR Racing]

Bill,

When using a sump extension you always extend the pick-up tube to insure usage of the extra oil.

There are available aftermarket sump extensions that have "wings" on the side that aren't any deeper than the existing extended sump, but can hold 3/4 to 1.5 more quarts. You could also fabricate a sump that would be wider.

[hardingfv32-1]

Deeper is best, but as stated, you have ground clearance issues.

If we use a wide 2 qt sump, the pick up tube lowered to the floor of the sump, and assume it is full when we enter the turn ... then we should have access to 1 qt before the pickup is starved for oil. Is my thinking correct?

The elimination of oil starvation in turns is our main design objective. The extremely rare occurrence, relative to the number of turns we see, of loosing a valve cover or going off coarse (damaging the sump) warrant almost no design consideration.

Brian

[Matt King]

You could also fabricate a sump that would be wider.

And if you had more space to work with, you could probably incorporate swinging trap doors into the sump to retain oil near the pickup.

[hardingfv32-1]

**** Rev B - Extended sump ****

Formula Category
9.1.1.C.5.D.29

Any oil sump may be fitted with a max exterior dimension of 10.0" wide and 11.0" long and max capacity of 2.0 quarts. The oil pickup pipe may be modified. Accumulators (Accusump) may be fitted.

Comments?
Brian

[cendiv37]

Brian,

I like that better. The dimensions should be specified as exterior so they are easily measured and no one with an "over-creative" mind can "interpret" them as otherwise

That said, we may want to let the 10 x 10 float until we can get some real dimensions of the existing commercially made sump extensions. I think setting the dimensional limits slightly larger than the VW case sump (but with real dimensions like your 10 x 10 proposal) should work.

Jim,

Do you have any X-Y dimensions of the sumps you sell?

[SR Racing]

The slimline is 10.5" long (front to back) and 9.5" wide at the widest points. For manufacurer's tolerances a rule should probably be 10.6 by 9.6 eg.

It is slightly under 2" at it's deepest point.

The unit is heavilly finned for cooling, which probably helps.

It is a good 1/2" inside the sides of the case. (Inside the lower tabs that were used for tin mounting.)

[SR Racing]

.. Is my thinking correct?

I think it is correct.

The extremely rare occurrence, relative to the number of turns we see, of loosing a valve cover or going off coarse (damaging the sump) warrant almost no design consideration.

With a unit like the slimline the extra oil probably makes no difference at all in the event of a valve cover loss. The extra quart is in the lower sump extension and most gets retained there.

If someone is interested, I could post a picture of this unit as an example..

[clutch]

I'd like to see the picture.

[Matt King]

EMPI has two different finned slimline sumps; one is 1.5 quarts (probably the one Jim is referring to) and the other is 3.5 quarts and about twice the size.

[flat tappet]

EMPI has two different finned slimline sumps; one is 1.5 quarts (probably the one Jim is referring to) and the other is 3.5 quarts and about twice the size.

http://www.empius.com/2009_catalog/empi2009_pg41.html


Matt....Here's the URL for the sumps you mentioned. Does the smaller one meet the physical size(not oil capacity size) specced in the GCR?

Thanks!

Bruce

[problemchild]

Here is a pic of the 1.5 quart which I used for a season on my FST car. Please note that this is illegal for FV.
I bought it 2nd-hand (but probably never used) on ebay. It was a nice unit and I had no problems with it or my engine oiling. I also had no problems with the smaller FV style sump and much more primitive internal baffling which I used previously.
[ external image ]
I was told by some technical-know-it-alls that it would be a problem. That was not the case, but I did not feel that it was any magical solution. Oil supply issues are a very complex challenge which always seem more common with some builders than others. I believe there are many more critical factors within the engine case itself.
Since I had the pic, I posted it.
Cheers!

PS .... I had clearance issues to my lower frame cross-member under the bell-housing .... which required grinding and welding. The rear pressure relief valve cannot be accessed with the sump on.

[SR Racing]

None of the above sumps are the one I was referring to. Here is the one we gave the dimensions I descibed above:

(10.5" long (front to back) and 9.5" wide at the widest points. It is slightly under 2" at it's deepest point.)

Note that we tapped a hold for a standard drain plug in the bottom plate. Normally this full plate has to be removed to change oil. This "slimline" sump seemed to be the best option since it is not as deep as those shown above. The same thing is available in the 2 quart version but it is over 2" deep. It may not be an option for some frames.

[ external image ]
[ external image ]

[SR Racing]

Windage will always remain an issue. Both in it's proper usage (keeping oil away from the rotating assembly) and ACVW usage (keeping oil in the sump). An extention like this one would allow better windage designs.

[Mad Dog Racing]

Seems like this could help clean up the dirty little buggars too. Couldn't we run a quart lower level on the dip stick if we had a quart more +/- at the pickup? Same amount of oil in the engine, just less at the front and rear seals and sloshing into the vent. Or is that where the windage comes in and I have to defer to the engine builder because oil level affects too much other stuff besides pump suction?