Advanced Tech Advanced tech discussion. Major rebuilds, engine theory, etc.
HIGH-END DISCUSSION ONLY - NOT FOR GENERAL TECH INFO

The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 11:26 AM
  #121  
OldSStroker's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Originally Posted by Zero_to_69
I'm thinking a minimum tire pressure would regulate tire expanision for "effective gearing".

Is that what helps to limit the speed?

From a launch point of view, it would be about getting the most contact surface
between tire and ground. With more air pressure in the tire, will that prevent
the tire from achieving a greater tire diameter at the top end?

Tire growth is HUGE on a TF/FC. That actually gives them a variable gear ratio. I believe there is a fixed (3.20) ring and pinion ratio they must run. My guess is that the new tire might have a little growth limiting, but I think the min. pressure is for retention in the rim. Tire construction determines growth, not pressure. These are most certaily not steel belted tires.

Heat from flexing of the tire cords and rubber is what fails tires, and TF tires go thru some horrendous contortions as well as 320+ mph, but the good news is they only turn about 200 total revolutions under power and maybe the same for shutoff but just coasting.

I can't see tire pressure changes having much to do with starting line traction. Min TF pressure is now 7.0 psi. Jeeze, I wonder what thery were running before the new rule?

My $.02
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 02:27 PM
  #122  
Ponyhntr's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 946
From: Lees Summit, MO
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Originally Posted by OldSStroker

I can't see tire pressure changes having much to do with starting line traction. Min TF pressure is now 7.0 psi. Jeeze, I wonder what thery were running before the new rule?



My $.02
Actually, pressure has a big impact on starting line traction. Too much pressure, and the car would seem to get up on the tire too quick and cause tire shake, and too little pressure would cause it to be lazy off the line. This new tire is probably much different in terms of how it reacts to pressure, so with the new limits, teams will have to tune the engine and clutch differenty to compensate.

We ran tire pressures in the 5.5-7.5 range on the 'old' tire (beginning of this season), depending on conditions. This was on a Funny Car.

Last edited by Ponyhntr; Jul 21, 2004 at 02:31 PM.
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 02:51 PM
  #123  
OldSStroker's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Originally Posted by Ponyhntr
Actually, pressure has a big impact on starting line traction. Too much pressure, and the car would seem to get up on the tire too quick and cause tire shake, and too little pressure would cause it to be lazy off the line. This new tire is probably much different in terms of how it reacts to pressure, so with the new limits, teams will have to tune the engine and clutch differenty to compensate.

We ran tire pressures in the 5.5-7.5 range on the 'old' tire (beginning of this season), depending on conditions. This was on a Funny Car.

Thanks. Of course you are correct. 0.5 psi is a big % of change change on a 6.0 psi inflation. How sensitive is the tire to pressure? Do you adjust in 0.1 psi increments or more like 0.5 psi? I think FC min is 6.5 psi for the new tires.

Are both rear tires the same inflation pressure?

How many runs does a tire last? Does shake harm the tire (eg: irregular wear, cupping or the like?)

Do you balance the wheel/tire assembly? Seems like a dumb question, but with the gyrations the tire goes thru and the standing distortion wave behind the contact patch, my thought is that tire uniformity, or consistent construction and thickness around the tire, would be more critical than static balance. I think a driver might feel a "bad" tire the first time he ran it, or maybe even during a burnout.
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 06:32 PM
  #124  
Zero_to_69's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 655
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Please tell me tire pressure has some impact on tire expansion?

If I think of air like the fluid that it is, wont the tire have more difficulty "displacing"
the air within the tire to shape itself?

For lack of a better comparison, if we were to fill the tire with water completely,
wouldn't the structure of the tire itself become more rigid and not allow as much
expansion?

Or, will the water just move to where the force is taking the tire since volume
is pretty much equal no matter how the tire shapes itself?

P.S. By "shape" I mean, expanding like it will does during a burnout as opposed
to stretching to achieve the effective gearing (Centrifugal > tire OD).

When you guys are referring to expansion, are you inferring that the compound
will stretch to a greater volume as well?

I bet with the downforce of the spoiler at mid track, these tires don't
balloon up like they do during a burnout

Last edited by Zero_to_69; Jul 21, 2004 at 06:35 PM.
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 08:01 PM
  #125  
Steve in Seattle's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,445
From: Seattle, WA
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

air's not a fluid, it's a gas. As such, heating the air has a substancially larger pressure or volume increase than any fluid would show.

Your concern about "displacing air" is actually more of "compressing air".

While the MASS of air inside the tire stays relatively constent (although most slicks leak a bit) the pressure and volume are dependant on temperture of the air and shape the tire takes on (ie. pressure drops if the tire hops in the air and the carcass expands... and increases when the tire wrinkles and the volume decreases).
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 08:07 PM
  #126  
Zero_to_69's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 655
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Thanks for the reply Steve. With every clarification, there comes confusion.

Not to get off topic, but...

I've heard and read so many times when people talk about Fluid Dynamics,
they refer to air as a fluid. What are they talking about?
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 09:35 PM
  #127  
Jimmy17's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 116
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Originally Posted by Zero_to_69
Thanks for the reply Steve. With every clarification, there comes confusion.

Not to get off topic, but...

I've heard and read so many times when people talk about Fluid Dynamics,
they refer to air as a fluid. What are they talking about?

as a nerd who's taken some fluid dynamics and chemistry classes..... allow me to let somebody else explain it

fluid
noun

1. A substance, such as a liquid or gas, which can move about with freedom and has no fixed shape.

Thesaurus: liquid, vapour, solution.
adj

Thesaurus: adaptable, changeable, flexible, mutable, unstable.
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 09:38 PM
  #128  
OldSStroker's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,931
From: Upstate NY
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Originally Posted by Zero_to_69
Thanks for the reply Steve. With every clarification, there comes confusion.

Not to get off topic, but...

I've heard and read so many times when people talk about Fluid Dynamics,
they refer to air as a fluid. What are they talking about?
To add to Jimmy's definitiion:

"By definition, a fluid is a material continuum that is unable to withstand a static shear stress. Unlike an elastic solid which responds to a shear stress with a recoverable deformation, a fluid responds with an irrecoverable flow.

"[noun] a continuous amorphous substance that tends to flow and to conform to the outline of its container: a liquid or a gas."

Although the first definition is probably more exact, the second is more intuitive and more obvious to me.

Of course some materials may exist as solids, liquids or gasses depending on temperature and pressure conditions. Water is a good example.

Originally Posted by Zero_to_69
Please tell me tire pressure has some impact on tire expansion?

In the range of 5.5 to 7.5 psi that we're discussing, probably not much.

If I think of air like the fluid that it is, wont the tire have more difficulty "displacing" the air within the tire to shape itself?

Probably not. The forces distorting the tire are much greater than the forces from the low air pressure. If you inflated a tire to 300 psi or more, like the main gear tires of a fighter which lands on a carrier deck, the compressed air resists the distortion of the impact with the deck.

For lack of a better comparison, if we were to fill the tire with water completely, wouldn't the structure of the tire itself become more rigid and not allow as much expansion?

Or, will the water just move to where the force is taking the tire since volume
is pretty much equal no matter how the tire shapes itself?

P.S. By "shape" I mean, expanding like it will does during a burnout as opposed
to stretching to achieve the effective gearing (Centrifugal > tire OD).

Some because the water is virtually incompressible, unlike air, so the internal volume couldn't very well decrease. As far as expanding the tire circumference, the H2O filled tire would probably expand MORE because of the the inertial forces due to mass of the H2O inside, which would be considerably more than the mass of the tire itself. IOW, the water would try to go to the outside of the tire near the tread and force it to expand even more.

When you guys are referring to expansion, are you inferring that the compound will stretch to a greater volume as well?
The cords in the tire don't elongate much, but the tire changes shape due to the inertial (centrifugal) and other forces. Think of the tire cord construction as a mesh which can change shape, but not actually stretch very much along the idividual stands of the cord. The stretched tire could have more or less volume depending on the shape it assumes.

I bet with the downforce of the spoiler at mid track, these tires don't balloon up like they do during a burnout.

Note the "standing wave" behind the contact patch at speed. Some of that is there in the burn out because the tire gets going pretty fast, but you are correct that the rolling radius at mid track (where tire rpm may be similar to burnout tire rpm) is probably less. Higher mph means more downforce of course, but also more inertial force trying to "grow" the tire. The top of the tire still balloons; downforce doesn't effect that, just the bottom.

My $.02
Old Jul 21, 2004 | 10:33 PM
  #129  
Zero_to_69's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 655
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors



Good stuff everyone. It's so difficult to think, "out of the box" when you were
raised "in the box".

I wish I had the engineering and physics background many of you have.

I think, "Peanut", you all think, "BaCl2(aq) + Na2 SO4(aq) ----> 2NaCl(aq) + BaSO4(s) "
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 07:54 AM
  #130  
lilredZ's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 34
From: Glen Burnie, MD
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Originally Posted by Zero_to_69


"BaCl2(aq) + Na2 SO4(aq) ----> 2NaCl(aq) + BaSO4(s) "
Formation of precipitate (fun stuff)

You're right, this has been a very informative post, although I haven't added anything to it, just wanted to say thanks for the knowledge everyone.

Last edited by lilredZ; Jul 22, 2004 at 08:00 AM.
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 09:52 AM
  #131  
Jimmy17's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 116
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Originally Posted by lilredZ
Formation of precipitate (fun stuff)

You're right, this has been a very informative post, although I haven't added anything to it, just wanted to say thanks for the knowledge everyone.
ditto, i love reading this forum, lots of intelligent guys here

i'd post more, but being a poor college student i've barely been able to put a wrench to my stock ls1 i can dream though
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 10:19 PM
  #132  
Zero_to_69's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 655
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Here are the pictures of the heads and TF team car I promised!

Check out the design of these heads. The tech was throwing these around
like rag dolls.

http://members.rogers.com/tdese739/promodheads.jpg

Other stuff
http://members.rogers.com/tdese739/topfuelvalve.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/tdese739/topfuelrods.jpg
http://members.rogers.com/tdese739/topfuelmagneto.jpg

This is the team that let me take video and pics (nice people!):
http://members.rogers.com/tdese739/topteam.jpg
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 11:33 PM
  #133  
AdioSS's Avatar
West South Central Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

you didn't get a picture of the chambers or the ports, did you?
Old Jul 22, 2004 | 11:52 PM
  #134  
wesman987's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 13
From: Simpsonville, SC
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Wow, thats a lot of reading. Did anyone mention that there are supposedly two lifters on the exhaust valve? I don't know if this is correct, but I have read where they place two lifters on top of each other on the exhaust valve. I guess to dissipate some load or something. Oh, and by the way, anyone who hasn't experienced a top fuel run has to go as soon as possible. I was in the pits when the Miller car was idling. Dick Laheye just barely cracked the throttle and unleashed this tremendous roar. Oh and by the way, standing 15 feet behind a nitro car isn't a good idea unless you want to start crying from the smell of nitro.
Old Jul 23, 2004 | 12:17 AM
  #135  
AdioSS's Avatar
West South Central Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Re: The Truth About Top Fuel Motors

Originally Posted by wesman987
...Oh and by the way, standing 15 feet behind a nitro car isn't a good idea unless you want to start crying from the smell of nitro.
At first it almost smells good, but then it really starts to get you!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 PM.