FORMULAVEE.ORG

Anyone running the beehive valve springs and if so where did you get them? Thanks

Dave

I'd recommend not using them. Existing bee hive springs are made with much higher tension rates than we use and are designed to resist vibration at higher rpms than we see. With the mild cam profile and heavy components we use it doesn't pay to upgrade. The cylinder heads will have to be machined to reduce spring pressures to avoid excessive wear and I'm not convinced the GCR allows significant modifications to the spring pockets.

Care to define "significant" for us? Are we allowed to clean them up or "true" them? If what you say is true, does it apply to other areas likewise. such as resurfacing the cyl. seats on the case, the sump seat, oil pump seat, rocker box surface? I thought previously machined surfaces were free. How about facing the head surface to clear the top cyl. fin?

MIke, you have been at this long enough to understand that tortured interpretations of the rules just leads to more confusion and rules. All one needs to do is recall the manifold debacle to understand what I'm saying.

The VW manuals reference clean up procedures on several surfaces and those factory procedures have long been recognized as legal for the class. Changing the position or function of a surface has never been considered legal. Changing the angles or significant changes in depth of spring pockets, are not discussed in VW procedures and could be challenged in a protest. Resurfacing of existing mating surfaces is designed to compensate for wear, not alter the relationship of the components. For example, VW procedures allow for the resurfacing of the compression chambers to repair for wear or pounding of the cylinders into the squish areas. The GCR controls this process by having a minimum compression chamber volume. i.e. 43 cc's. This rule avoids someone raising compression ratio beyond stock and calling it refinishing. The same applies to intentionally countersinking the squish area to allow the cylinders to plunge into the squish area; raising the effective compression ratio; and calling it repair of existing wear.

GCR C.1.B paragraph6 " Engine components shall be assembled in standard configuration. Exceeding wear limits specified in the VW manual or other official VW guides is allowed provided that tolerances, dimensions and specifications stated in the GCR are met."

I'm no lawyer, but I read that statement to say that one CANNOT exceed factory tolerances unless the GCR specifically spells it out. I don't recall anything in the GCR allowing the relocation of spring pockets.

Mike, and everyone else that thinks the "previously machined surface" concept applies to just about anything on a Vee engine, let alone anything on a Vee: Please reread the rules. That terminology appears only in one section, 9.1.1.C.5.D.6, specific to achieving the correct compression ratio. By the written rules, it is not applicable to anything else on a Vee engine. I've heard many people cite this as justification for all manner of modifications, none of which are valid per the written rules. If there is some kind of longstanding "understanding" that the rules are not really the rules as written, please let us know so we can change the rules. If we really need the concept to apply to more surfaces, lets make it so.

Bruce

I apologize if I have misread the section we have been talking about but I see no reference to compression achievement. It's listed in the general guidelines not specific issues.

Brian,
You are right. I was over simplifying. It also applies to achieving correct bore and stroke. None the less, I do not think it applies generally to all machined surface of the engine, only to the items within that specific section. Here's the whole section:

6. The following standard dimensions and tolerances of engine
components are included as information and shall be observed:

a. Maximum bore: 3.040 inches
b. Stroke: 2.520 inches +/ 0.005 inch.
c. Minimum capacity of combustion chamber in head: 43.0cc
(Polishing and/or tooling is prohibited.)
d. Minimum depth, top of cylinder barrel to top of piston:
0.039 inch.

The above dimensions may be achieved by machining any
previously machined surface, provided that the total surface
is machined on the same plane as the previously machined
surface. The above dimensions shall be the average of all four
(4) cylinders.

As I read this, any other machining of engine parts needs to be specifically authorized, item by item elsewhere in the rules.
Maybe this is not the intent. Or worse, maybe its not the long term "interpretation" of this passage. Either way, if we want this concept to apply generally to all engine surfaces then we need to make it read that way in the rules. And if it is supposed to apply generally, then I agree with Mike, valve spring seats are fair game. If its to be applied generally, you can't have it both ways by picking and choosing which machined surfaces it applies to.

Bruce

Brian and Bruce,
I thank you both for sharing your opinions. I would still appreciate your opinion(s) on what constitutes cleaning up such a surface as the spring pocket or any of the others that I mentioned, and what constitutes a significant amount. I would also appreciate knowing any factory dimensions and/or tolerances that apply to this area.
Additionally, I am wondering why you would not favor shortening the spring and/or modifying the valve stem locks, as I have to think that you would agree with me that they are fasteners which are considered to be free. Your thoughts?
Last thought for now.....In reading your comments, do you see any problem with modifying the valve guides by shortening them or blending them into the ports? My VW factory manuals don't seem to cover that area either.
Thanks again,
Mike

While we're at it.....
If we take the GCR C.1.B. paragraph statement referring to "standard configuration" literally, does anyone have a problem with not using a gasket or using 2 gaskets in an application such as the oil pump cover, or not using a gasket between the case and the cylinder? How about exceeding the clearance on fitting a cam/crank gear? Anyone ever get bounced for exceeding the factory specs for flywheel endplay? Or using a crankshaft that is ground smaller or larger than what the factory specs. are?
Just curious.

I would offer that machining parts to achieve minimum weight also applies.

Regarding other items that have been mentioned like gaskets, fasteners and reconditioning surfaces, I think the "reasonable man" concept used in law applies. The first standard that should apply is: has the purpose of the parts been altered? secondly, is the "reconditioning" or alteration commonly used? Finally, has the reconditioning process been used to facilitate non-compliant parts?

In some cases, like cam gears, alternative cam gear sizes are no longer available and generally new cams need to be fitted to achieve proper clearance. It could be argued that the rule allowing porting includes the guides as well.

We can split hairs or torture the interpretations all day long, the rule I personally use, "am I trying to accomplish something that is not in the spirit of the class?" There are many tempting things I'd like to try, but in all truth, they're just cheating under the guise of rule reading. I live by my own rules and have never had a need to protest anyone to prevail on the track. I offer my opinions and that's all they are. At one time, Frank Schultheis was the word on legality and I often ask myself, "what would Frank say?" Several classes struggled in the Runoffs shed this year. Some for mistakes and others for clearly cheating. I think all of us could do better.

The problem with relying on "spirit" of the rules as a self limiter is that like beauty, "spirit" is in the eye of the beholder. It's completely unenforcible.

IMHO, the rules need to be updated any time what becomes accepted practice is in conflict with the assumed "spirit" or the literal interpretation of the rules. We need to either stop practices that are not in the spirit of the rules or rewrite the rules to make those practices explicitly legal. Letting things go to fester like has been done all too often over the last 40 years is what got us uncontrolled enlargement in the bends of manifolds and more recently the confusion over what are and have always been "fairings" on the rear locating arms.

I have no problem with evolving rules that reflect a new reality as long as that evolution is documented by approved rules changes. I have a big problem with letting things go via some kind of "gentlemen's agreement" or unwritten interpretation of the rules that is in clear conflict with the obvious intent or worse yet a literal interpretation of the rules.

brian wrote:"am I trying to accomplish something that is not in the spirit of the class?" There are many tempting things I'd like to try, but in all truth, they're just cheating under the guise of rule reading….. Several classes struggled in the Runoffs shed this year. Some for mistakes and others for clearly cheating. I think all of us could do better.

A bunch of BS.

Your DQ is a 'mistake' and all the other DQ's are cheating? Does DQ equate to cheating? The SM head mods were based on a valid interpretation of the rules by more than one competitor. Tech just had different interpretation.

If the drivers make faulty decisions on the track, then so can the mechanics in the shop.

Brian

I agree with Bruce regarding the evolution of rules. As part issues arise, or circumstances change, the rules need to reflect that. We have far too many departures from the GCR to cover everything, but maybe we could start with the H-beam. For years, Citations have a welded a bell crank bracket on the H beam. Since it has been going on for years, is it legal? Not according to the GCR because it is not specifically authorized. I'll let the pundits figure that one out but it illustrates Bruce's point perfectly.

Brian, if you go back and really read my post, you will see that I did not imply any particular competitor in my statement but made the statement that DQ's are a result of different actions. Some are mistakes and some are intentional actions in violation of rules.
Take our manifolds for example. I was told by a competitor, since the facts are never released by tech, that their manifold violated a dimension by .001. Since that could easily be caused by thermal expansion, maybe it was unintended or as I said, a mistake. If someone intentionally lightens a manifold under the 24 oz.: then welds brass on to make weight I would call that an intentional act of cheating.

I'm impressed that you are able to make such a statement regarding this year's SM issue given the facts have never been published. In spite of my formal cylinder head training and experience, I plan to wait for a formal update during the December BOD meeting before drawing conclusions.

cendiv37 wrote:Mike, and everyone else that thinks the "previously machined surface" concept applies to just about anything on a Vee engine, let alone anything on a Vee: Please reread the rules. That terminology appears only in one section, 9.1.1.C.5.D.6, specific to achieving the correct compression ratio. By the written rules, it is not applicable to anything else on a Vee engine. I've heard many people cite this as justification for all manner of modifications, none of which are valid per the written rules. If there is some kind of longstanding "understanding" that the rules are not really the rules as written, please let us know so we can change the rules. If we really need the concept to apply to more surfaces, lets make it so.

Bruce

Bruce,
I would sincerely appreciate you informing us as to which of the surfaces I mentioned causes you to become concerned. If I find a case is prone to leaking at the oil pump surface, usually due to someone in the past prying at the seam to separate the halves, do you object to my re-facing that area?
How about the sump area when I find that the halves have shifted and now one side is several thousands different than the other? I defy anyone to show me a spec or tolerance in these areas.
Do you have a problem with trimming cylinders or facing the mating surface on the case? If so, I doubt that there is a single legal engine out there.
And while I feel the same about finding a spec or tolerance on valve spring seats, especially in the light of there being several suppliers of heads in different countries,we can forget about that issue as far as I am concerned, as I don't find messing with that area necessary, regardless of which spring I choose to use. Brian's initial comment was just so far off the mark that I couldn't resist jacking with you guys. I apologize if this rains on your parade, or should I say witch hunt.
Again, please enlighten me on those specs and tolerances.
As to any engines of mine that were torn down after winning the Runoffs, the comment I generally received was "It's nice to see one entirely legal for a change".
Thank you in advance,
Mike

brian wrote:Brian, if you go back and really read my post, you will see that I did not imply any particular competitor in my statement but made the statement that DQ's are a result of different actions. Some are mistakes and some are intentional actions in violation of rules.

I'm impressed that you are able to make such a statement regarding this year's SM issue given the facts have never been published. In spite of my formal cylinder head training and experience, I plan to wait for a formal update during the December BOD meeting before drawing conclusions.

a) Your statements regarding legality are pretentious. The track winner of the FV race was disqualified for too much valve lift. He was not cheating just because you built/prepped the engine? Everyone involved with this car has been deemed righteous by some authority?

b) Everything has been well documented by competitors involved in the SM protest. Even the possible fixes being presented to SCCA.

Brian

sharplikestump wrote: As to any engines of mine that were torn down after winning the Runoffs, the comment I generally received was "It's nice to see one entirely legal for a change".
Thank you in advance,
Mike

What babble! How long ago did one of your engines win the Runoffs? Assuming your engine was in the second place car (final results), it was 3 seconds off the pole. Maybe you should spent time with development instead legality verification.

Brian

hardingfv32-1 wrote:

sharplikestump wrote: As to any engines of mine that were torn down after winning the Runoffs, the comment I generally received was "It's nice to see one entirely legal for a change".
Thank you in advance,
Mike

What babble! How long ago did one of your engines win the Runoffs? Assuming your engine was in the second place car (final results), it was 3 seconds off the pole. Maybe you should spent time with development instead legality verification.

Brian

Brian,
Did I say anything about this year? How do you even arrive at that when none of mine were torn down at Laguna? Last one was Jaques... won at Mid Ohio, as well as taking the Mark Donahue award. I'm not even saying that my engine deserved any of the credit. Jaques could have done it with yours just as easy. He was that good. What I stand by is that I was complimented on my engine being totally legal. Head of Tech was Fred Meller. Check with him. He made the same comment when Stevan Davis won with mine. Agreed.......it was a long time ago. When were yours?

I believe we need to get back on the topic:

anyone running the beehive valve springs and if so, where did you get them.

Legalities past, present, or future can either be another topic or discussed on another site.

Dietmar

Dietmar wrote:I believe we need to get back on the topic:

anyone running the beehive valve springs and if so, where did you get them.

Legalities past, present, or future can either be another topic or discussed on another site.

Dietmar

yup.

Look up "can of worms" in the dictionary and it would show this thread!

Go the PRI web site and look for spring suppliers. There are dozens that will provide what you're looking for. Comp Cams and Engle come to mind.

Have you tried them?

I did some research after seeing them in print and at the PRI. I decided that they weren't applicable for vee motors. Some of the reasoning is mentioned in my first posting.

The challenge with valve trains is to maintain integrity between the parts. Valve float is a bit of a misnomer, anytime any component releases from it's relative components float takes place and the valve may not even be involved. Separation between the cam, lifters, push rods and rocker assemblies causes damage and reduces performance. If you have a radical cam profile, things only get worse. High spring rates is generally how engine builders deal with the issue. Problem is as you increase spring rates, control of the spring becomes more difficult. Oscillations, or shaking of the spring, increase exponentially and will cause failure of the spring. The bee hive shaped spring resists this negative motion.

Vee cam profiles are very mellow and our RPM is relatively low, so the spring issues are not as pronounced. Plus, many of our components like lifters and valve steps don't wear very well against high spring pressures. Hope this helps.

^ This is why I check this forum ^

I was about to give up on formulate.org.

Thank you !

Forgot to mention something I like to do when adjusting valves. While not necessary every time, I remove the adjusting screw and inspect the contact tip. If you see chipping or pitting in the contact face, it's likely your getting too much float. If you are good at watching your tach, and not down shifting too soon, you may have a spring pressure issue. Depending on use, I set the springs to read from 75 to 95 lbs while resting on the seat. If the engine is going to see a lot of high rpm, like upcoming Daytona, I'll favor the higher number. You can go higher than 95 lbs.on spring pressure, but expect more wear on the valve stem and adjuster.

The adjusting screws come with a radiused tip. Often, engine builders will square off the radius to achieve max lift. As a result of creating an edge on the screw to raise lift, you'll see more wear on one point of the screw and sometimes the valve tip will be gouged a bit by this edge. I prefer not to grind the adjuster screws and use push rod length to get the lift.