Real Fiero Tech

Posted: **Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:32 am**

Yes teemlseep 13, this and more will be demonstrated and discussed at the seminar.

Also related to this issue, I expect that "engine masters" dave storien, will explain the advantages, mechanical forces at work, and crevis volumes that increase HP when an intake valve and its timing is deliberately set up to chase the piston with very close proximity as it passes TDC.

Posted: **Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:47 am**

And that reminds me!
Dave Storlien has a built fiero that he is proud of so he understands this fiero worship.

Posted: **Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:14 am**

Lol... Are you here for tech discussion or advertising?

Posted: **Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:17 pm**

The Dark Side of Will wrote:Lol... Are you here for tech discussion or advertising?

Seriously....

Any elaboration? Just trying to get a little hint...

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:22 am**

There are things being discussed at the seminar that you wont find in books and I am told not to post on forums and also attendees are advised to do the same. I know it sounds silly but it is also the wishes of the other paying participants. Yes I did give some clues but only because of the absurdity weather david knows cams and spread of internet missinformation. Also in responce, yes I'm telling people about the seminar on this and other forums and since im big block fiero, you would expect to see me here. Not on Old Europe tho since I was banned from there for my controversial technical disscussions.

Posted: **Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:32 pm**

Only six seats left FYI.

Posted: **Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:45 pm**

The Dark Side of Will wrote:
bigblockfiero wrote:The EFI rules are ment to prevent a guy from jacking his fuel pressure to the moon, then using the injecter to artificially aspirate the engine. That would certainly not be fair unless others could install a supercharger power adder or ????
This way everybodys V.E. is gotten honestly by clever flow technologies and timing.
I have no idea where you got that bit about fuel pressure, but it's utter nonsense. Injection at 500 psi will inject *fuel* into the engine, but no more air (and no more fuel) than running 45 psi of fuel pressure. What 500 psi of pressure will do is give EFI mixture quality (droplet size) better than that of the best carbs. Running that much pressure is pretty difficult and expensive, though, which is why almost no one does it in motorsports generally and no one at all does it in EMC. Usually that much fuel pressure is used with direct injection, which puts any out-of-cylinder method of fuel delivery utterly to shame.

How's this for fair?

If your engine of choice is a Cadillac 472/500, and you run it with a carb, you can use the high rise Edelbrock intake manifold (or whatever you want as long as it mounts a 4 barrel). However, if you want to run EFI, you have to use a manifold that puts the throttle in the same position as the stock squashed manifold that's so low the runners come *UP* to the ports. The carb gets to run a much better manifold than the EFI. That's not fair at all.

That's based on my reading of a previous years' rules. If the modern rules are different/better, I'd be glad to hear about it, but it doesn't affect my life enough for me to go look them up.

I notice you never got back to me about this.
That means I'm right.
It also means you know absolutely nothing about EFI.

I'm ready to prune this thread so it's more tech and less free advertising.

Posted: **Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:55 pm**

Emc209i wrote:Planning on missing it..

Posted: **Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:47 am**

Emc209i wrote:Planning on missing it..

I have the same plan.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:02 am**

The fuel pressure comment refers to those savy individuals who would use a larger cam profile advantage to up the peak HP without sacraficing the lower RPM performance capabilities. They would do this by offsetting low RPM intake reversion pressures with multi-port sequential injector timing that crashes into the reversion wave thereby keeping the cylinders full as the intake valve closes.

If you guys ever host a performance seminar of your own someday I would certainly attend and keep any of my conflicting thoughts to myself as I just take in information and consider for myself what I want to believe. Im sure I would find somethings usefull and thats all the motivation I need to attend.

Everybody at the seminar had to sign a legally binding disclosure duccument so you wont find any of its info for free on the internet but I can say for your intrest and not being specific that in summary, the king of fuel injection "Miron Cotrell" - the guy that created the LS TPI castings that edlebrock manufactures, said that if you have a well designed carborator intake - it will surpass fuel injection. If not the fuel injection can correct any cylinder to cylinder inefficiencys and then be supeirior. I have decided to believe him and all the other experts in the room saying the same thing.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:29 pm**

bigblockfiero wrote: I would certainly attend and keep any of my conflicting thoughts to myself as I just take in information and consider for myself what I want to believe. Im sure I would find somethings usefull and thats all the motivation I need to attend.

Bingo. Your first post had all the info we needed, I wasn't available that day, but we appreciate the invite. Let us know next year.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:32 pm**

bigblockfiero wrote:The fuel pressure comment refers to those savy individuals who would use a larger cam profile advantage to up the peak HP without sacraficing the lower RPM performance capabilities. They would do this by offsetting low RPM intake reversion pressures with multi-port sequential injector timing that crashes into the reversion wave thereby keeping the cylinders full as the intake valve closes.

I'm curious about test results for this, because it still doesn't make sense as stated.
The mass of fuel injected is about 1/12 of the mass of air flowing through the port. Since the intake valve duty cycle is 30-40% range, and injector duty cycle can get up to 85% or a little more, the actual flow rate of fuel at any given time is going to be 1/24 to 1/36 of the air flow rate. In the absense of data, I'm going to assume that the fuel velocity is equal to or lower than the average air velocity. I've also been talking about the average velocity of the airflow. The instantaneous velocity at the reversion point is probably going to be higher.
IOW, I don't think that the fuel flow has anywhere close to enough energy to materially affect the airflow. You're welcome to post test data or a sound argument regarding why or why not.

bigblockfiero wrote: the king of fuel injection "Miron Cotrell" - the guy that created the LS TPI castings that edlebrock manufactures, said that if you have a well designed carborator intake - it will surpass fuel injection. If not the fuel injection can correct any cylinder to cylinder inefficiencys and then be supeirior. I have decided to believe him and all the other experts in the room saying the same thing.

Reference?
Don't forget that the world of pushrod V8's is a pretty small one relative to the motorsport world generally. Has this guy ever worked in Formula 1? If not, I'd be pretty hesitant to call him the "king of fuel injection". Got a link showing these TPI castings?

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:51 am**

http://www.tpis.com/pages/whatsnew

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 am**

Altho succesfull and well attended, there will likely never be another vizard seminar in minnesota. Davids tenative itinerary for the next year incudes a seminar in california and india and judging the first carborator shootout and PRI show in orlando.

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:46 am**

will wrote:
I'm going to assume that the fuel velocity is equal to or lower than the average air velocity. I've also been talking about the average velocity of the airflow. The instantaneous velocity at the reversion point is probably going to be higher.

And so I ask you to wonder:
At the instant that fuel velocity is equal to air velocity, how good can the atomization be without collideing fuel droplets into air molecules? If you install your NOS carb under plate correctly, the spray bar shoots upward, not downward for better atomization, atomization being more benificial then airflow in this example.
And,
what does the average velocity of the airflow have to do with reversion?
And,
isn't the instantaneous velocity at the veversion point going to be zero?
Reversion by definition is that time when the air flow mass reverses dirrection then goes backward and so the injector flow forward would be higher then the air flow reverting backward, and so collideing fuel droplets into air molecules will help keep them from reverting/escapeing the cylinder before the intake valve closes.. For clarity Im/were not talking about the reflection of a sound wave.

Will, might you rephraze or redirrect the topic or better yet, have a seminar!

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:53 pm**

-Your original statement said essentially that someone using EFI could increase his fuel pressure to the point that the injection would counter end of intake cycle reversion.
-I've outlined why this won't work. The flow energy of the fuel isn't close to high enough to counter the flow energy of the reversion.
-You have not refuted my argument

You have not stated what you're trying to show, but I suspect that it's going to be something to do with the relative atomization properties of carburation and EFI. I have already stated that a race carburator delivers better mixture quality than production based EFI.

However, comparing a race carburator to production based EFI is as silly as comparing race EFI to a production carburator.

And by "race EFI" I mean something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_QyUD6V5_I

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:00 pm**

bigblockfiero wrote: what does the average velocity of the airflow have to do with reversion?

Average flow velocity is a baseline. Using physics based arugments, we can estimate whether reversion flow velocity would be greater or less than the average. Test data showing or inferring flow velocity, power gains, etc. would trump the theoretical argument, but neither of us has that--or at least if you have it, you haven't shown it.

bigblockfiero wrote: isn't the instantaneous velocity at the veversion point going to be zero?

In the reversion scenario, there will be a point when the velocity is zero. This also occurs when the valve is closed.

My thought is that to minimize cycle-to-cycle variation *DUE TO REVERSION*, the injector should be *OFF* during the reversion period. My mind would be easily changed by test data showing the affect of changing injection timing on power output and mixture requirements.

bigblockfiero wrote: Reversion by definition is that time when the air flow mass reverses dirrection then goes backward and so the injector flow forward would be higher then the air flow reverting backward, and so collideing fuel droplets into air molecules will help keep them from reverting/escapeing the cylinder before the intake valve closes.. For clarity Im/were not talking about the reflection of a sound wave.

I've laid out above why I think this won't work... I think that the fuel flow does not have enough energy to combat reversion.

I don't have enough test data to give a seminar.

Posted: **Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:20 am**

Will wrote:
I've outlined why this won't work. The flow energy of the fuel isn't close to high enough to counter the flow energy of the reversion.
-You have not refuted my argument.

And:
My mind would be easily changed by test data showing the affect of changing injection timing on power output and mixture requirements.

And so we can all agree this subject has given reason to wonder and altho I dont have a dyno sheet handy im just saying it is why the engine masters rules seem so unfair.

Posted: **Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:10 am**

"I wonder" is not the same as "I start from first principles and arrive at this conclusion. Here's the experiment that would confirm or refute this hypothesis". I said the latter, not the former.

I don't believe the reason you've stated for the reasons I've stated. The fuel pressure idea wasn't even relevant to my gripe about EFI manifolds being restricted to production injector and throttle placement.

I think it's far more reasonable to think that the restrictions in place on carbed and EFI'd engines drive the competition to use the types of parts that the sponsors produce. FAST produces EFI intake manifolds that put the injectors and throttle in approximately the stock locations. Sponsoring a competition in which their products would lose to an Australian throttle-per-cylinder system that costs 5 times as much doesn't make any sense to them.

What's far more open for debate is that the EMC is an irrelevant farce. There are some well built engines competing and some not-so-well built engines, but as Atilla's noted elsewhere, it degenerates into a competition to see whose engine can stand the most detonation as the builders squeeze every last .01 of compression they can out of the fuel to increase their scores. That's what drove Potter to use reverse flow cooling under the exhaust ports of his Cadillac, etc.

Real Fiero Tech

David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.

Re: David Vizard seminar in Chaska Mn.