Head flow testing.

Just editied it with a few more facts about the motor.

Now ask me why I rode an '85 GSXR at UK CRMC events last year when I really want to be riding that Norton again :?

Hope you are recovering well.

Steve

We now have a new record for airflow. Here is the Norton equivalent of the Boss 302. Ports big enough to fall into. Around 39mm straight with no throat. Large valves and a reshaped chamber for a 1007 cc motor. Lots of welding has created a very soft casting. Valve guides are trimmed off near the top of the ports. Not for a high mileage application. It has never been run yet.

The lower line is the old record-holder. The Maney stage 3.

Youre going to have to get rid of the ridge at the manifold joint , if you want MORE . :lol:

Length / Diameter ratio intresting .Looks like the finkley Bonne's go for short port lengths
for the Exhaust particularly , to avoid conductivity . As it seems to be all the rage .Hardly
look like Triumphs though .If youre looking at the detail rather than the sit .

' We Pressume ' youre going to have to go way up on the Ex port diameters too . Prattle on
Large Ex Pipe Diameters is in similar veign . The lack of friction in the pipes alowing you
to jet was up , for oomph , without the dangers of thermal impedament aft of combustion.

How Many R P M s is the one liter going to stay together at , if I may be so forward as to ask . :mrgreen:

Matt Spencer said:

Youre going to have to get rid of the ridge at the manifold joint , if you want MORE . :lol:

Length / Diameter ratio intresting .Looks like the finkley Bonne's go for short port lengths
for the Exhaust particularly , to avoid conductivity . As it seems to be all the rage .Hardly
look like Triumphs though .If youre looking at the detail rather than the sit .

' We Pressume ' youre going to have to go way up on the Ex port diameters too . Prattle on
Large Ex Pipe Diameters is in similar veign . The lack of friction in the pipes alowing you
to jet was up , for oomph , without the dangers of thermal impedament aft of combustion.

How Many R P M s is the one liter going to stay together at , if I may be so forward as to ask . :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I would say with the full on drag cam it has in it it would be good for about 9 grand-one time.

Matt, Do Not Assume Anything about anything that small in air path. I'm more than half mad more than half my motor life d/t surprise magic of little ridges and flow up setters, boundary layer re-energizer vortex generators that flow more faster.

I only know of one 1004 stroker engine states side. May The Force go with them.

One time KaPowie for a record attempt! Please have at least a key chain camera on the poor thing during its trying times.
56 cid makes exhaust enough a tubro would wake up to pack in the torque for Norton mind-head blower. Shaking head on the known ticking time bomb. What sort of life time of events is it hoped to survive? Will it be run to failure? Would there be any warning or monitoring to alert one its about done for? Would exterior head clamp downs be possible or helpful? hobot

Somebody'd better get this on Film . id say . running .

The old BonEvil actually had a iota of step that can cause cause for pondering .Figure it Valve floated at around 8500 at night

Aw Matt you are so easy to excite. Still stinging a bit off Jim Nitopropane hill climber. Those big jugs and mushrooms valves at even 7000 would strain my nerve. I want a few of course.

comnoz said:

I would say with the full on drag cam it has in it it would be good for about 9 grand-one time.

Click to expand...

Aw come on Jim; where we are eventually going with this thing, it will not need to spin too fast hehehe :twisted:

Worth a datapoint of information on the dyno for now.

Right now we are changing out the alloy rods to Jim Schmidtt steel rods and lightweight pistons. This build and another interesting build will be in a photo chronical (blog) at NYCNorton.com soon.

Rods are not the weak link in big jug long stroker, the piston acceleration is, trying to pull pistons apart, but less able too on JIm's stronger lighter offering.
The extra rod length may help the torque power though with a bit less piston jerk at TDC too boot. I'd guess about 110 hp/75 lb ft.

hobot said:

Rods are not the weak link in big jug long stroker, the piston acceleration is, trying to pull pistons apart..............

Click to expand...

For the benefit of everybody who wants to dabble in the 1,007cc engines, according to the people who manufacture, use, abuse and race the engine, aluminum rods ARE the weak link, not the pistons and acceleration. Just wanted to clear that up. :lol:

I do not believe factory Al rods are the weak link in 'mere' humongous torque power engines like Norton 360 crankshaft types but sure do if spun up too fast. Prove me wrong please I've no ego on being corrected and slapped around to be set straight as way cheaper than engine evidence. There may be a fatigue time limit in Norton rods with the big power stroker hits compressing them, but its the way the top fuelers that hydolock mixture to diesel @TDC go because the more elastic Al rods protect the rest of the power train, rod shells to crankshaft and switch out after a run or so. Main advantage of Jim's Carrello rods is longer length and lighter than factory rods. i've asked JIm about his piston spec's for acceleration tolerance but he has no manufacture data on that. Jim of course has drilled out his set even lighter to relieve crank and rods even more to spin faster w/o crank jump rope limit as soon.

I think you and me both wise to go with Jim's kit but not for the same reason, that Norton rods ain't up to it in anything the crank design can take. 40 yr old rods made me pensive and helped sway me to spend for the long term, but not d/t new Norton rods innate strength to take blown 920 power up to 7000 or so. Ms Peel got stuck throttle tested beyond 11,000 and rods took it fine for 2000 miles more but weakened pistons to come apart later just tooling around on Trixie Combat, and of course took out everything on ends of crank, cam chain and oil pump stalk and rotor alternator interface. Very revealing on indicating where and how much crank ends get out of line, ugh. Trixie has Peels old shot peened cyro compressed rods for ~7000 miles now.

4" stroke @ 7000 rpm = Mean Piston Speed 4648 Ft./Min and
Piston Acceleration 119,368 Ft./Sec^2 or 5707.52 x's piston mass G's force jerk.
https://www.msu.edu/~venkata1/gforce.ht ... =&TextBox=

F1 engines approach or slightly exceed this G jerk piston range but they have about half the stroke and supported cranks that don't flail like jump rope to bind wedge-leverage on the rod shells width and bearing races and tipping ends. I do love and respect those like you pushing the experimental envelopes beyond my means.

Hi Jim,

nice to see this thread still progressing. I've got another head I'd like to send to you for testing, but haven't managed to pull it off the engine yet

Do you have a velocity chart showing this head vs. the others that you could post?

Ken

hobot said:

I do not believe..............

Click to expand...

Now we are talking, arguing about religion versus facts and experience.

The manufacture of the 1,007cc engine components, Steve Maney, strongly advised against (basically said "don't do it") using aliminum rods. He has broken enough and/or seen enough broken that he now uses steel rods only in the 1,007cc engines when they start tipping 95 RWHP. They race them with steel rods and break them with aluminum rods; sounds like aluminum rods in this application is the weak link. Pistons have not been a problem....Hmmm, must be a different plane or universe we are talking about here. Please do not take my word for it As an added note, Dave Nourish at one time supplied his engines with aluminum rods but no longer does for some strange reason....hmmmm; makes me think.

This is really getting off topic. I suggest someone start a new thread on the merits of aluminum rods in a Norton if the thread does not already exist or if there is any interest. I understand what you are saying there Steve but from where I stand it looks a bit out of context. Yes, Norton rods have proven fairly durable and reliable in many Norton race applications but let's face it, a 1,007cc Norton engine is really a whole different league. We should then be discussing Norton aluminum rods in a 600 Cubic Inch Donavan race engine; different things start to happen. As for nitro and drag racing I think several on the list have missed the mark on the primary reason for alloy rods - resistance to buckling, but that's a different thread all together.

Jim,

When I get back to the home office I will make a point to copy and mail you data sheets for the various heads I have flowed, use the data as you wish.

lcrken said:

Hi Jim,

nice to see this thread still progressing. I've got another head I'd like to send to you for testing, but haven't managed to pull it off the engine yet

Do you have a velocity chart showing this head vs. the others that you could post?

Ken

Click to expand...

Hi Ken,
I did do a velocity run but I have been experimenting with a different way of charting it. I need to play around a bit before I will have data that will directly compare to what I had been doing.
The velocity readings on this head were very low. They peaked at 185 FPS at 10 inches pressure but it was measured with a different type of probe so I am not comfortable making a direct comparison. Jim

Dances with Shrapnel said:

Jim,

When I get back to the home office I will make a point to copy and mail you data sheets for the various heads I have flowed, use the data as you wish.

Click to expand...

I would like to see it. Jim

Alrighty Dances, I went steel too but mainly because I wanted to rev Hi now and then but if just trying for max power short life engine by pure torque pressure, ie: more boost, hotter fuel and NOS on top -but not over 6800-, I still *think* the Al rods could handle it. So agree if you intend to rev big block over 7000 better be steel & you offered the exciting evidence. Its a mute point even to me if the pistons can take it [yea] and the steel rods are lighter, duh. My religion sees rods being jerked apart from TDC on intake stroke, others may see them crushed down by combustion stroke is all. Both faiths break rods.
Back to crossing my fingers for a soften head not being a limiting factor.

hobot said:

Alrighty Dances, I went steel too but mainly because I wanted to rev Hi now and then but if just trying for max power short life engine by pure torque pressure, ie: more boost, hotter fuel and NOS on top -but not over 6800-, I still *think* the Al rods could handle it. So agree if you intend to rev big block over 7000 better be steel & you offered the exciting evidence. Its a mute point even to me if the pistons can take it [yea] and the steel rods are lighter, duh. My religion sees rods being jerked apart from TDC on intake stroke, others may see them crushed down by combustion stroke is all. Both faiths break rods.
Back to crossing my fingers for a soften head not being a limiting factor.

Click to expand...

What I have been told is that with the 1,007cc and upwards of 95RWHP the aluminum rods begin to split down the center of the web starting at the wrist pin hole. I am reasonably sure this is race applications. Steve Maney has alluded to the brute forces of an 83mm bore but I am not convinced that is the whole story. I am purely speculating here that another contributing cause could be wrist pin flexure which fatigue cracks the outer edges of the bottom of the wrist pin bore on the rod. Once these cracks start it is all down hill from there. From what Steve has told me the rods do not appear to be failing from buckling or tension. It also appears to be a function of 1,007cc power output and not rpm as you suggest.

hobot said:

My religion sees rods being jerked apart from TDC on intake stroke, others may see them crushed down by combustion stroke is all. Both faiths break rods.

Click to expand...

Yes! But it is truely the struggle between these two faiths that fatigues and breaks rods.

hobot said:

Back to crossing my fingers for a soften head not being a limiting factor.

Click to expand...

I say Blasphemy! I have spent many years studying the Book of Norton and have come to know a soft head is no match for a strong throttle wrist and special head gasket preparations and measures.

Interesting mechanisms of Al rod breakdown. I'm confused [sush up] going by past reports like TC engines lasting on essentially stock bottom ends and your reports.
Going by Maney and other reports Norton power trains drain less than 15%, closer to 10%, so 95rwhp implies like 110 hp at crank. But that's kick ass brute torque power so should stretch your wrists until it hits it hp limit. Any of us can tear em up so extra credit to those that can control the destructive forces just enough.
Congrates on the record breaking breather and pray its elementals hold on tight.