408 hyd roller, too much spring pressure?
- Thread starter Swede408
- Start date
-
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
You knew what?
Seriously, I still don't know who you are but you come across just like you sound.
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
Why are you going to dig this up and take sides.
You had a good point, one shared.."beehives have there place"..
The rest is piss .
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
"Last post 2018"
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
I don't have time for a drama debate. Someone asked for real-world info on beehive springs, which I provided. I noticed that the one person who was calling other people names and rubbishing the idea of beehive/conical springs was the same person who didn't appear to even know how valve springs worked, let alone had any real experience with them. Thinking that seat pressure rides the cam lobe "continuously" proves this (hence my point).
So caveat emptor. Listen to the people who have used them, or listen to those who haven't. But name-calling is uncalled for – especially by those who do not appear to be in a position to call names.
And the fact that three of the people here arguing the merits of beehives all happen to be from Australia (which I have only just noticed myself) is simply a coincidence. Tarring an entire nation because you got called out simply shows what type of person you are.
Aftermarket head manufactures put budget "one-size fits all" springs in their heads because they know that many engine builders will remove them and replace them with their own springs matched to their choice of cam. Even "premium" head manufactured do this.
There are many advantages to running beehive/conicals, and I'm not about to list them all, but here are a few:
Rocker-retainer clearance
Longer component life through reduced weight and spring pressures (think cam lobs, valve seats, reduced lateral loads on valve guides etc)
Less heat
Reduced harmonics with better valve control
Reduced cost of complimentary components – no need to use to Ti retainers/valves or heavier rockers/pushrods etc where sprung weight can be reduced with the beehive spring and smaller steel retainer
Reduced complexity and set-up time/cost (fewer moving parts = fewer things that can break)
On the subject of single vs double springs, having a double spring is no guarantee of saving your piston and valve if a spring breaks because if it happens at high rpm, the inner spring and/or damper are not going to control the valve, which is likely going to hit the piston anyway.
But don't listen to me, listen to those who design and build these things for a living:
“There are some very knowledgeable engine builders who don’t understand how a single coil spring can be better than a dual conventional spring,” stated Thomas Griffin Head valve spring engineer for COMP Cams.
“The fact is the beehive springs, by virtue of the ovate spring shape and a variety of internal upgrades is compatible with virtually any application where a dual spring is used. That includes some engines with mechanical roller camshafts. The key is to review the required camshaft load and assess the aggressiveness of the camshaft.”
Beehive Springs Sound Great, But Will They Work For You? - EngineLabs
So caveat emptor. Listen to the people who have used them, or listen to those who haven't. But name-calling is uncalled for – especially by those who do not appear to be in a position to call names.
And the fact that three of the people here arguing the merits of beehives all happen to be from Australia (which I have only just noticed myself) is simply a coincidence. Tarring an entire nation because you got called out simply shows what type of person you are.
Aftermarket head manufactures put budget "one-size fits all" springs in their heads because they know that many engine builders will remove them and replace them with their own springs matched to their choice of cam. Even "premium" head manufactured do this.
There are many advantages to running beehive/conicals, and I'm not about to list them all, but here are a few:
Rocker-retainer clearance
Longer component life through reduced weight and spring pressures (think cam lobs, valve seats, reduced lateral loads on valve guides etc)
Less heat
Reduced harmonics with better valve control
Reduced cost of complimentary components – no need to use to Ti retainers/valves or heavier rockers/pushrods etc where sprung weight can be reduced with the beehive spring and smaller steel retainer
Reduced complexity and set-up time/cost (fewer moving parts = fewer things that can break)
On the subject of single vs double springs, having a double spring is no guarantee of saving your piston and valve if a spring breaks because if it happens at high rpm, the inner spring and/or damper are not going to control the valve, which is likely going to hit the piston anyway.
But don't listen to me, listen to those who design and build these things for a living:
“There are some very knowledgeable engine builders who don’t understand how a single coil spring can be better than a dual conventional spring,” stated Thomas Griffin Head valve spring engineer for COMP Cams.
“The fact is the beehive springs, by virtue of the ovate spring shape and a variety of internal upgrades is compatible with virtually any application where a dual spring is used. That includes some engines with mechanical roller camshafts. The key is to review the required camshaft load and assess the aggressiveness of the camshaft.”
Beehive Springs Sound Great, But Will They Work For You? - EngineLabs
Cal Tonsley
Well-Known Member
So just one question, if you’re claiming an advantage in running Beehive springs is longer life and lower spring pressures, why are you running 170 on the seat as that’s way beyond Cranes original recommendation for that cam?
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
The Crane recommendation assumes 1.5 rockers with .528" lift and a much higher spring rate (438lb) with a double spring.
170lb starting pressure on the seat is going to end up around 160-165lb or so after cycling. I also worked backwards with my installed heights, starting with .050" from coil bind on .584" total lift on the intake to dampen the springs at full lift (the exhaust side is .603" so their seat pressure is slightly lower).
The 1.65 T&D rockers I use are heavier and more aggressive than typical 1.5 alloy roller rockers (but they were what I had). I also have slightly heavier 2.05" valves and pushrods. The increased lift, opening and closing rates and heavier rocker, valve and pushrods all require more spring pressure to control (on top of the heavy hydraulic roller lifter). So I removed weight where I could, namely the spring and retainer.
I also had experience with a set of Pac 1218X beehive springs that were 10lb lower on the seat and about 35lb lower at full lift (313lb rate vs 353lb), and they didn't cut it. So I knew I had to step it up slightly to control the valve train. What I ended up with was a modest increase in seat pressure and open pressure and the correct springs for the job.
If I had used a double spring, then I would have required even more pressure over the nose. So I used what worked with the minimum amount of spring pressure required.
Incidentally I picked up 30rwhp by going to a 2.05" valve and 1.65 rocker being the only changes (with minor blending to suit the bigger valves). The engine makes 440 at the wheels and is nice to drive on the street.
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Here's a similar cam to mine by Hughes: https://www.hughesengines.com/Index...&level2=SHlkcmF1bGljIFJvbGxlcg==&partid=30765
They recommend 145lb on the seat and 308lb rate – which is also much higher seat pressure (and a much lower spring rate) than Crane recommends. The PAC 1218X springs I first used were based around similar figures, but those springs didn't work, so I had to step it up. Sometimes in the real world things don't work out how you expect. I note that the above spring pressures were recommend for 1.5-1.6 rockers. If you saw how meaty the the T&Ds are, you would understand why they need a bit of spring to control. If the question is why am I using those rockers in the first place, then it's because I got them for a good price and wanted to see what they would do. I was also considering stepping up to a solid roller at the time.
They recommend 145lb on the seat and 308lb rate – which is also much higher seat pressure (and a much lower spring rate) than Crane recommends. The PAC 1218X springs I first used were based around similar figures, but those springs didn't work, so I had to step it up. Sometimes in the real world things don't work out how you expect. I note that the above spring pressures were recommend for 1.5-1.6 rockers. If you saw how meaty the the T&Ds are, you would understand why they need a bit of spring to control. If the question is why am I using those rockers in the first place, then it's because I got them for a good price and wanted to see what they would do. I was also considering stepping up to a solid roller at the time.
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Mate, it sounds like you guys have a bit of history. But to someone like me just entering this thread to look for info, it also sounded incredibly rude. I think some people forget that the valve spring not only controls the entire valve train, but it also has to control itself, as each coil has weight and inertia, and stores kinetic energy. If you can lighten the spring itself – as well as the retainer – then that helps. It's also the premise for running as close to coil bind as you can.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Did you other to read the whole thread? If you want to use a BH spring go ahead. But if you use a BH spring to gain spring to retainer clearance you are a FOOL. You have a geometry issue, not a clearance issue.
The BH isn’t the do all, be all, end all. And yes, I’ve used them. And failed them. They may be ok for street stuff, but for racing applications I’ve yet to see a BH I’d use.
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but I must have missed your contribution to this thread when I first started reading it. Can you link me to your post? While you're at it, can you point to the part where I said beehives are "the do all, be all and end all"?
So what you are saying is that in every single case where a rocker touches a retainer that the problem is the rocker geometry and not, say, a set of .050" plus locks? Or a larger diameter spring/retainer combo? Etc.
With due respect, only a "FOOL" thinks he knows the answer to every scenario. Of course, I am generalising. As were you, I assume.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
I’m saying go back and look through a bunch of threads where BH springs are talked about. You’ll see the same guys telling people who have springs hitting retainers to just drop a set of BH’s on there and send it.
That’s a bullshit thing to do, because 99.999% of the time they hit because the geometry is wrong. The correct fix is to unscrew the geometry, not to change the spring.
Of course, the dudes that always say to use a BH spring never say to fix the problem. They just tell people to cobble their **** up.
Do a search. You’ll find it for yourself.
Want to use a BH spring? I couldn’t care less. But you don’t use one to cobble something together.
Plus, their performance is grossly overrated. I know they don’t like RPM. I’ve broken enough to know that 8k is their limit with an OHC and Ti valve.
They are grossly overrated & they don't like rpm? Another brain surgeon at work.
Speed Talk website, post started on Aug 3.
BH/Conical springs used:
- 0.900" valve lift using dual conicals
- BB Chev Twin Turbo 2.35: int valve, 0.750"lift, 7200 rpm, 135 lb on the seat.
- roller cammed engine, spinning to 8000 rpm
- BB Chev, 2.30"valve 135 ln on the seat, 750 lift, 27 psi of boost, 1800 whp, 7400 rpm.
I do not know how to link the post. If you know how, the date of the post on ST was Aug 3, this year.
There WAS a bad batch of Comp Cams BH springs about 15-17 yrs ago, which Comp acknowledged.
Speed Talk website, post started on Aug 3.
BH/Conical springs used:
- 0.900" valve lift using dual conicals
- BB Chev Twin Turbo 2.35: int valve, 0.750"lift, 7200 rpm, 135 lb on the seat.
- roller cammed engine, spinning to 8000 rpm
- BB Chev, 2.30"valve 135 ln on the seat, 750 lift, 27 psi of boost, 1800 whp, 7400 rpm.
I do not know how to link the post. If you know how, the date of the post on ST was Aug 3, this year.
There WAS a bad batch of Comp Cams BH springs about 15-17 yrs ago, which Comp acknowledged.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Are you calling dual conical springs beehives? I don’t.
I was using either PSI or PAC springs on that engine. In fact, it was a 2300 Ford and the cam grinder I used refused to grind cams for those junkers.
So I ended up buy a cam from another cam company. As I was getting off the phone with the dude, he asks me what I’m using for springs. I said I haven’t a clue yet. I’ll see where I end up for installed height and ****.
He says I’ll send you out the springs we designed the lobes for. So I’m thinking ok, saves me some work.
They show up beehives. I check them out and they seem a bit light on spring rate but this was a Ti valve deal so off we go.
On the dyno it broke a spring. I took the whole set off and sent them back. He sent out a “fresh” set. Back on the dyno and it lived, but the graph was weird. It had little dips and **** and we wrote it off as a “computer glitch”. I should have known better.
It made qualifying and almost half the main, and then it broke a spring, beat the **** out of a valve and broke the hell out of the rest of it.
We got to eat that one. So I called this cam grinder (who I will NEVER use again) and said who makes these **** springs. Today, I can’t remember if it was PAC or PSI. It was one of the two.
So I called them and told them what happened. He says “WTF are you running THAT spring for”??? So I tell him the cam dude says this spring is the **** for these lobes.
And the spring guy says “don’t use a beehive for THAT type of application”. And he sent out a set of double springs and his retainers.
I don’t know how many laps that engine went but it won a regional championship and two track championships IIRC.
I’ll go see if I can find the thread on ST and see if I can post it here. I may not be able to do it either.
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
You asked if I bothered to read this thread – not the entire forum!
And what do you expect me to find? Racers breaking beehive springs at 9000rpm or whatever? Is 8000+rpm a realistic goal for the average street-driven musclecar? Because if you are focussing purely on the hard-core racing community, you are missing the much bigger picture of all those people on the street trying to build what they can within their budgets to suit their daily or weekly driving habits with maybe a few squirts down the track each year.
Again, with respect, we are not all full-time (or even part-time) racers.
And just like 99.999% of us are NOT full-time racers with unlimited budgets for exotic titanium valve gear (or whatever), I wouldn't be bold enough to say that 99.999% of the time the issue of retainer to rocker clearance is rocker geometry, as there are always exceptions. I had one myself a few months ago where my machining instructions weren't listened to and I was forced to go to +0.050" locks because the only other alternative was to machine the spring pockets on an iron head to use the springs that I had matched to a custom cam.
There are many ways to skin a cat.
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
It's a matter of semantics. We are talking about the concept of the beehive/conical design and their advantages in relation to retainer weight and harmonics. You seem to be very narrowly focussed on a few niche areas that do not necessarily apply to the average guy on the street – likely including the OP of this thread, who appears to have a very similar build to my own.
Horses for courses. Blanket statements about springs or anything else are just that.
Rat,
Not calling dual conicals beehives. You must have missed the / in post #64: BH/conicals.
Not aware of dual BHs, cannot see how they would work.
Dual conicals are available, & come as a pair......just like you would buy 'dual springs' which are an inner & outer parallel spring.
Not calling dual conicals beehives. You must have missed the / in post #64: BH/conicals.
Not aware of dual BHs, cannot see how they would work.
Dual conicals are available, & come as a pair......just like you would buy 'dual springs' which are an inner & outer parallel spring.
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
Trollin trollin trolling...keep them trolls going , wind them up control them Rawhide!
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope, and throw, and brand 'em
Soon we'll be wizzin in their eyes...
Lmao
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope, and throw, and brand 'em
Soon we'll be wizzin in their eyes...
Lmao
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
You had a bad experience with beehives. Fine. Englert Racing ran Comp beehives on a 2.3 Ford to 9200rpm without issue: Ford Lima 2300 cam help please - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk
On the subject of beehive vs conical rpm, there appear to be a few people out there getting decent rpm on beehives (see below).
I know you told me to do my research, but have you?
That's the trouble with talking in absolutes ("99.999% this, 8K that" etc) – you will always find an example that does not conform to your own experiences or opinion. Just sayin'
10K rpm on beehives here: How high can you REV on these Beehive valve springs? (9K+ fine?) - EvolutionM - Mitsubishi Lancer and Lancer Evolution Community
9K here: Beehive valve springs: benefits?
8-9K here: Single valve springs upgrade and rev limit
8+K here: Beehive spring performance ? - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk
cookietruck
Well-Known Member
DANG, comment from one of those threads...
look what a single change to the components did.
"We were experiencing valve float at 6500 rpm with 11/32 valve, 1.94/1.54 with CC beehive set up at 160#/394#, titanium retainers, Smith Brother's push rods, Harland Sharp roller rocker arms, tool steel lifters. Went to 5/16" valves, and increased rpm to 7100, but still nose dives. Going to dual springs next to see where the problem is. Joe-JDC"
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Yes, but if you read the follow-up comments by Mike Jones, Vizard and others there should have been more still to come.
David Vizard
"Joe,
The current CC 26918 spring is currently about my favorite street or street strip or basic C/track spring. Never had a failure since day one. Have now accumulated what must amount to several thousand hours total run time. There may still be some to learn here but my experience is to set them up so that only the top about 1-1/2 coils are short of coil bind.
Sometimes this results in seat pre-loads higher than might be needed but the spring performs best (as indicated by dyno figs) when it is run close to total coil bind."
Beehive spring performance ? - Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk
I did the same with my beehives – higher seat loads but better spring damping. In fact, Manley specifically suggests running as close to .050" coil bind as you can and not to go over .100" with their beehives for optimal results. If you've even seen the way coils wobble on a spintron, you'll understand why.
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
All Springs run best when ran close to coil bind*
Tiny light weight valves @9k , so impressive...
Tiny light weight valves @9k , so impressive...
MOPAROFFICIAL
Oogliboogli
Fruitless arguement.
Run what you want.
Everything has its place, and sometimes one is a better choice over the other...sometimes one last longer than the other...and there are examples of breakage for both...but as for production beehives aka beehives used in mass produced automobiles...the beehives have a very high breakage rate compared to the standard.
Couple dude butthurt cause they happen to prefer beehives. Ridiculous.
I think bewy does more attempts to correct people than actually share in purely helping.
Run what you want.
Everything has its place, and sometimes one is a better choice over the other...sometimes one last longer than the other...and there are examples of breakage for both...but as for production beehives aka beehives used in mass produced automobiles...the beehives have a very high breakage rate compared to the standard.
Couple dude butthurt cause they happen to prefer beehives. Ridiculous.
I think bewy does more attempts to correct people than actually share in purely helping.
B3422w5
Well-Known Member
I certainly wouldn’t be afraid to run beehives on a street strip deal. I did that very thing for the 4 years I raced( quite a bit) and street drove the motor below in a 71 Duster.
It saw 6400/6500 every pass it made.
Knowing nothing about beehives before this, I now know they are very capable to satisfy the needs of a great many, like myself, who race/ raced a piece at this level.
Iron-Headed Mopar 318 Magnum Engine- Popular Hot Rodding Magazine
It saw 6400/6500 every pass it made.
Knowing nothing about beehives before this, I now know they are very capable to satisfy the needs of a great many, like myself, who race/ raced a piece at this level.
Iron-Headed Mopar 318 Magnum Engine- Popular Hot Rodding Magazine
-
