Future of head porting

[GARY C]

My fear is that (superiority thinking) about modern programs will hinder the future of critical thinking in the automotive world just like social media has hindered critical thinking about everyday life.

Look at the studies of reduced brain activity with something as simple as GPS.

I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of how CFD works and what it does.

Do you think that the program tells you what to do or designs it for you?

Can you explain what you think it does and how that would "hinder critical thinking"?

I do understand it and know it does nothing for designing a port beyond what one could do with a homemade flowbench and velocity probe and that is my point.

How it hinders critical thinking is that some people thinks it makes them superior to others, so they fail to do and learn the necessary R&D on the dyno, track and street to produce the best product.

[hoffman900]

My fear is that (superiority thinking) about modern programs will hinder the future of critical thinking in the automotive world just like social media has hindered critical thinking about everyday life.

Look at the studies of reduced brain activity with something as simple as GPS.

I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of how CFD works and what it does.

Do you think that the program tells you what to do or designs it for you?

Can you explain what you think it does and how that would "hinder critical thinking"?

I do understand it and know it does nothing for designing a port beyond what one could do with a homemade flowbench and velocity probe and that is my point.

How it hinders critical thinking is that some people thinks it makes them superior to others, so they fail to do and learn the necessary R&D on the dyno, track and street to produce the best product.

Gary, you’ve been told this multiple times before by myself and others, but that is not how it works or what happens.

If you want to learn how Hendrick does it, watch this:
https://www.engineering.com/story/live- ... technology

[Ken_Parkman]

Poor guys. They use PLM

[bob460]

What's the future if this happens........

https://www.sema.org/epa-news

[GARY C]

I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of how CFD works and what it does.

Do you think that the program tells you what to do or designs it for you?

Can you explain what you think it does and how that would "hinder critical thinking"?

I do understand it and know it does nothing for designing a port beyond what one could do with a homemade flowbench and velocity probe and that is my point.

How it hinders critical thinking is that some people thinks it makes them superior to others, so they fail to do and learn the necessary R&D on the dyno, track and street to produce the best product.

Gary, you’ve been told this multiple times before by myself and others, but that is not how it works or what happens.

If you want to learn how Hendrick does it, watch this:
https://www.engineering.com/story/live- ... technology

Yes, many years of real life R&D has provided good info to build a data base so that they can do future real life R&D... If any of these programs would build a winning NASCAR team then why don't new teams perform better than they do?

[GARY C]

What's the future if this happens........

https://www.sema.org/epa-news

It's already happening,
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2020/0 ... ice-makers
https://www.motortrend.com/news/epas-re ... termarket/
https://www.thedrive.com/news/23833/epa ... at-devices
More here!
https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZSBR ... ess+by+EPA

[WeingartnerRacing]

According to the article they were pursuing this in 2019 when trump was in office not Biden. I guess neither party cares about racing.

[hoffman900]

According to the article they were pursuing this in 2019 when trump was in office not Biden. I guess neither party cares about racing.

Yep.

And don’t think SEMA isn’t playing both sides of this to drum up support and empowering themselves as a lobby group. They did this when they tried to undercut non member organizations by using the EPA against them. A bit of a “joins us and we’ll protect you”.

I found this. You can agree or disagree, but hints at the murkiness of it.

The Clean Air Act makes crystal clear the illegality of tampering with a motor vehicle’s emissions control system. SEMA claims to care about hobbyist racers, but all it would take to protect racers and the racing industry would be clear guidance from EPA on converting a motor vehicle into a competition-only vehicle. EPA already has such rules in place for imported cars and off-road dirtbikes—having Congress direct the agency to find a similar path for decertification of a motor vehicle to exclude it from highway travel would have been the obvious strategy. Instead, SEMA is seeking a blanket exemption without any such verification or protection, because it knows quite well that it is seeking not to protect racers, but instead to protect manufacturers who wish to sell products to both legitimate racers and the folks who are going to install them in their daily drivers to pollute the air we all breathe.

Back on topic,

Gary, you don’t have an idea of how any of this works despite being told multiple times over the years. I think a few of us when responding to you aren’t even trying to convince you anymore but help people who are reading these threads.

[johnef]

I'm a hobby engine builder/porter, and agree with most that Speedtalk is a wealth of information. As it pertains to the future of combustion Engines Vs Electric debate, one comprehend's the old timers are afraid. But let me bring up some light, with electric cars one needs more electric infrastructure. There are already power outages with the current structure, not to mention remote locations. And no, Solar and Windmill wont suffice, hence nuclear.

Combustion engines are here to stay and can co-exist with Electric, Hydrogen and what have you.

People make it a versus thing, while over looking a co-existing thing.

And Tesla burns through cash more than an alcohol dragster.

Im not trying to politicise it, rather draw some light.

As for NWA or whatever people want to call it, its the IMF.
One can unwind the tape, but this wouldn't be the appropiate forum.
For anyone delving, research HJR192 there lies all your answers.

[Tom Walker]

I believe electrification for transportation will have to be gradually implemented for at least 2 reasons.
1. Infrastructure will not tolerate a massive number of people plugging in their cars everyday. Already brown outs in California in the summer, simply not ready for the increased demand yet, and try to get a new power plant built and on line in this day and age and let me know what that will cost and how long it will take.
2. Taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel pay billions of dollars into the economy. Until the government figures out ways to tax more on "road use and mileage taxes" there is a hole in the revenue stream, which they are not willing to give up.
I believe there will be piston pushers going down the road for a long time. Being in the over the road trucking business, electric trucks can not come close to competing commercially. We get paid to haul freight, not batteries to power our vehicles for a few hours before needing recharged.
Local commuting can be electric if gradually implemented, but will co-exist with the internal combustion engine for a while to come in my opinion.
Hot rodders and racing enthusiasts will need services and machining skills for years to come I believe. The flat head Ford is somewhat still seen at the car show and appreciated, the small block Chevy would probably survive a global thermonuclear event!

[David Redszus]

In short what I am saying is that the thought that the OEM and people that swear by said programs are some how superior clearly discount the aftermarket and in many cases the achievements of no name engine builders that prove my point.

The people that use superior technology do produce superior results; and always have. There is very little that the aftermarket has produced that was not known for many years before.

Your F1 example is a good one, all though extreme these days, but if one has studied the history of F1 or NASCAR advancement you see the fact of what the race world has brought to the production car via real world R&D, not the other way around.

I'm afraid you have that quite backwards. The race world has always been supported by OE manufacturers, above board or below. Most of NASCAR development (both Ford and GM) was done by the factory, not by the race teams. This applies to engines, chassis, aerodynamics, etc. The real R&D is performed by technically advanced companies and their technical partners. Who has developed the cylinder heads, blocks, cranks, pistons, electronics that found their way into high level racing? Not the race teams.

My fear is that (superiority thinking) about modern programs will hinder the future of critical thinking in the automotive world just like social media has hindered critical thinking about everyday life.

No, modern programs will have the opposite effect. With advanced design tools, new areas of inquiry can be explored inexpensively. There is no need to build 10 prototypes of anything for evaluation and testing. The emphasis has shifted from the cost of hardware and testing to the cost of knowledge and imagination. Critical thinking about engines now goes far beyond power output or fuel economy. It includes weight reduction, increased durability, reduced wear and vibration, improved thermal control, reduced manufacturing cost including warrantee costs.

I do understand it and know it does nothing for designing a port beyond what one could do with a homemade flowbench and velocity probe and that is my point.

A flowbench for engine development is similar to using a sun dial as a stopwatch. By comparison to current CFD capabilities, a low pressure bench and a velocity probe are a large waste of time. The only useable information from a low pressure flow bench is estimating flow coefficients. And many engine assemblers do not understand even that much.

Racing has devolved from an area for research and development of new ideas and a test bed for new technology to mere entertainment for both the fans and amateur racers. It may be fun, but it is a long , long way from cutting edge.

As Roger Penske said long ago, "No team can afford to do development using their own budget."

[RevTheory]

I've seen these types of arguments play out probably hundreds of times. I'm pretty sure that the guy who's been behind a flowbench for 30 years and was really good at it won't listen to a guy with an expensive computer program and vise-versa.

A brand new engine platform, absolutely! Something already known that needs to be optimized for an application, give me a guy who's really good with a bench and probe.

Either way, the wheels on this particular bus will continue to go round and round.

[David Redszus]

I've seen these types of arguments play out probably hundreds of times. I'm pretty sure that the guy who's been behind a flowbench for 30 years and was really good at it won't listen to a guy with an expensive computer program and vise-versa.

A brand new engine platform, absolutely! Something already known that needs to be optimized for an application, give me a guy who's really good with a bench and probe.

Either way, the wheels on this particular bus will continue to go round and round.

I see where you are coming from. But it does not have to be an either/or situation.
To me it makes sense to use every available tool in order to accomplish more with less time.
Cost does not matter: time is the only non-renewable resource. Something every racer knows.

Empirical testing, no matter how it done, will not provide an understanding of the governing principles.
A low pressure bench and probe will never provide the real insight necessary to make serious
improvements, only incremental changes.

Empirical testing usually involves one segment or function at a time.
But engines are a series of inter-connected sub-systems, each of which must be optimized.
There is no such thing as changing only one thing at a time. Every small change results in
numerous downstream effects, many of which are not obvious. Especially thermal effects.

Simulations of connected components provide a better insight than testing of each separately.
Improved port flow is only a small part of the solution. Upstream manifold design, valve seat
design, cylinder and piston crown design, combustion chamber shape are equally important once
the total system is understood. Prototyping of new designs is expensive, time consuming, and
limits the number of options that can be examined. Bench or dyno testing still require prototypes
to evaluate.

If a CFD model of an existing design is constructed, it becomes possible to quickly explore the
available possibilities and limits of multiple new designs. Once we know what air (mass) flow
really looks like, and where the constrictions, turbulence, separations and re-circulation areas
actually are, we are better prepared to make effective changes.

Progress based on empirical testing is a slow, shallow sloped, process. There is very little that
we know about engines that was not known almost 100 years ago.

I am much too old to wait around while we take baby steps forward.

[RevTheory]

I don't have a dog in this fight and I can clearly see both sides of the argument and you made a good one. Thanks for responding.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Gary, you’ve been told this multiple times before by myself and others, but that is not how it works or what happens.

If you want to learn how Hendrick does it, watch this:
https://www.engineering.com/story/live- ... technology

That is an excellent video.

I worked at Siemens for 22 years developing the software that Hendrick Motorsport uses.
I spent the first12 years developing methods to model the shapes and much of the rest developing applications to model specific things with automation.
When I started in 1997, there were about 400 working on it, today there are more than 10,000 people adding to it.
It is nice to see that the projects that were funded by aerospace, military and automotive OEM are used in motorsport.

One of the impressive things about that video is how much Hall knew about the details, that is unusual for someone in executive management.

There was a point made at somewhere about 0.4 of the way through about "Tube Milling" that relates to the future of porting.
As he said, now it is possible to program a head in a 2-3 hours.