the DV Live Now post

[David Vizard]

Guys,
I have just gone through the 'DV live' post started by Tom68 and all those negetive comments, which are mostly based on incorrect suppositions, that are are so prevelent in that thread.Talk about doubting Tom's.

I suspect that there are three major things many of you are overlooking. My age (just shy of 80) my severer physical health issues due to a number of life threatening operations and - now, and this is about the most important, motoring journalists do not write or report on a guy who is outperforming them by a country mile and strictly speaking is not even a journalist( can't spell worth a darn and have limited literary skills) but with all the success I have had with patents and consulting I know I am at least a well above average reasearch engineer.

Let's take a few indisputable facts here. In 1989 I was consultant to the worlds #1 race winning engine building company. On my second engine I took their championship race winning engines from 244 hp the 277. On the track the extra power and equally important, the extended rpm band, made for a totally dominent race car.

I have been a consultant to F1 teams(plural) as well as factory teams and on every occasion, produced very positive results. Unlike most consultants, I guarentee results or forfit payment, Never lost a cent in nearly 50 years of hi-tech consultantcy. Think about this - if I get a lot of return business from this grade of clientel what makes any of you think I cannot make your engines better? Consider this - those F1 rteams trusted I would produce results but seemingly most of you don't!!!!

Now let me ask any of you critics out there how may of you could build an engine of a type you had never seen before and outpower what could, by virtue of the totally dominent race performance, be considered the #1 builder of this type of engine. Not bad for a guy who, according to so may of you, has little idea of what's what to get an engine too perform.

Heres another example. This racer called me up from Trinidad. He wanted to run a big time event in the US and hopefully win it. The engine concerned was a 1986 2 litre Mitsubishi Lancer. Over the phone and in person I told him what he needed in the way of an engine build and I made sure that I was very specific. I also ported a new head for him( to replace the head ported by a top pro) having my patented PolyQuad design. This was a turbo motor and, leaving from Trinidad, the car was shipped to Miami.

From Miami, the team (all two of them) drove accross country - to LA county racewway at Palmdale for the 2004 import finals in (I think) Dec.
When he and his one man crew pulled up into their alotted spot in their 1500 truck, with a somewhat rickety two wheel trailor that had seen way better days days, the surrounding racers with their hi-buck tansporters, thought he was a joke. Why? Well ask yourself what a cash strapped 21 year old racer, from Trinidad of all places, would know about building a really fast drag racer. Well it turns out this guy was smart, He made one move that sealed the fate of his competiton. What was that move?

He was smart enoungh to consult me and showed that worth by literally ablitorating the opposition. None of those other guys were laughing after that demonstation of tech know-how.
For those doubting Tom's this event and the driver interviews were televised and the driver gave me a great thank-you.

I have won 4 championships by winning every race in the series. 2 of those championships were for Chrysler in the British Saloon(sedan)Car Championship(BSCC). Is this international series targeting unbelievabley hi-buck teams enough for whoever commented, anything I won must be small fry? I moved them from a typical 4-5th palce to a none challengable 1st place almost overnight! If you think you could do that for a pro team, just sign up to do this seminar and tell us (especially me) how to accomplish such a deal.

OK, a question for all those concerned who have any doubts about what I can or cannot do or teach.

If I said I would pay you a $1000 a day for a 7 hour day how many of you would volenteer to do a seminar to pro grade engine builders (including cup car, F1, and pro stock championship grade guys? ( I will bet not one of the folk who posted on the 'DV Live' would!) At present, even after my brain surgury, I can pull off a 20 hour seminar without the need to even look at notes and double that with reference notes with 5 mins notice!

There are a few provisiose here that you need to know before volenteering for this challenge.

Firstly, I will cover your air fare/travel and accomadation expenses even if you are coming from as far away as Tibet.

Other aspects concerning your lecture delivery. If you make three (yes just three) mistakes that I can CONCLUSIVLY PROOVE, then no $1000 a day and no travel/acomadation expenses plus a grand from the challenger for wasting my time. I am challenging all you critics in the spotlight just like I do in my numerous university seminars so let's see how many of what I see as groundless critisems hold water.

Let me interject here.

I would like to see JOHNATHON SCHMITD volenteer for this but he is far short of the intellectual capability to even remotely pull it off. Why the guy can't answer a 'yes' or 'no' question (right John?) nor can he even design a tunnel ram intake without leaving some valuble design moves on the table.

Let me say what I am looking for here as a possible contender:

Now you don't have to meet these criteria exactly but be acceptable close. What I want is someone who has:-

1 Written 35 books with five publishers best sellers with 95% of the material coming from their own shop
2 Written over 4000 MAJOR magazine articles making them one of, or at least close too, the most widly published automotive tech writer on the face of the planet.
3 Must have their name on at leasat 40 patents.
4 Must have set track records on all the major road race tracks in UK ( I failed this on just one track as it was always wet however I won every time)with cars that they not only built virtually from the ground up (including bodywork, paint, suspenion, brakes, and aero) and also drove it to pole positions. Show me somwthing equivilent if you live in the USA and that will be fine.
5 What's your cylinder head experience? Among many other things DV head technology (PolyQuad) has been on indy and F1 engines. If you can match that with your accompishments you are in the game but I will bet just that has drastically cut the number of volenteers I will see.
6 I am getting tired here because this list far from finished but I can almost guarentee it's eliminate almost all critics here.

If you want to get some real facts about what I can offer you why don't you elect a spokesman to give me a call and do a long long interview?

If I had to make a choice here based on what I have read it would be Tom68. If that suggestion is OK just PM me.

If JOHNATHAN SCHMIDT would care to call I would be more than willing to discuss our tech difference but John, if you do so, please rid your mind of pre-concieved ideas and notions and discuss with an open mind. If you want to take up this offer then PM me. if not then rest assured you will, by having by less than logical reasoning, be further feature material for my youtube channel which has been relaunched as 'David Vizard'.

I eagerly await for any critic to take up my challenge - all you need do is PM me.

A really disapointed David Vizard.

PS why we did not do better in the race engine challenge in the next thread I post.

[Tom68]

Biblical, doubting Thomas.

[Tom68]

David you should know I'm Tom Smith on Youtube, and I'll come up in the comments.

I'm a generation behind you but will have crossed paths with a small number of your connections, we had the 1987 WTCC on my caravan doorstep at Calder Park just out of Melbourne Victoria where I was working with Kiwi Racer Graeme McRae.

[David Vizard]

David you should know I'm Tom Smith on Youtube, and I'll come up in the comments.

I'm a generation behind you but will have crossed paths with a small number of your connections, we had the 1987 WTCC on my caravan doorstep at Calder Park just out of Melbourne Victoria where I was working with Kiwi Racer Graeme McRae.

Great place Australia and chock full of motorsport talent.

DV

[skinny z]

Good to see you here DV. You've been gone a while.

Now, as one of your supporters here, at least so far as bringing the 128 formula or Torque Master into the conversation is concerned (and that can be an uncomfortable position in and of itself) I have to ask something specific about Torque Master.
The true intent of what it's supposed to provide appears to be lost on many. Myself included.

If I were to choose a cam based on the TM results, and I have dozens of TM created profiles to choose from, what am I to expect?
The most TQ per CID for a given cylinder head and compression ratio? Most TQ as in peak? The most TQ as an average? Or both?

Thanks in advance and I hope you have the opportunity to answer this. As you know, it can stir up some fairly lively debate.

Kevin

[digger]

No disrespect here, but rather than telling us how good you are i would have thought the best way to prove something was with a comprehensive set of undisputable test data that supports your position.

[gunt]

Hi David

it may be hard to read thoes comments , but in reality you should let them over your head , and as the list of required cradentionals , and you would have a fair idea of thoes who fall in that catagory and only take note of their views / comments , i have spoke with many over the years and trew your name in the conversation , only to hear back a silly comment and even some i have seen on youtube , it never takes long watching or in a conversation to hear that these can be very off on some topics letting me know they do not have a well rounded education / experience in what they are talking about , and it has even become obvious that they are reguratating some one elses views experience .

it is too the modern era , i have suffered alot with this on a much lower level nothing even on your level , but theres so much keyboard warriors , and for some reason they will ignore fact based evidance and take the word of other worriers , tha sad fact , i didn't think it would be here as mostly every one hear should have some experience of what it take to do something let alone achieve what you have , and no insult intended , but in the era in which you did , the hard way

best of luck ,

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

David, none of what you posted validates your 128 gimmick.

The fact that the following variables influence the ideal LSA, and that your 128 formula does not take them as input, is all one needs to know to understand that the 128 formula is not comprehensive.

Throttle size
Intake manifold
Port flow maps
Chamber flow trajectory
Intended RPM range
Valvetrain stiffness
Valvetrain mass
Valve acceleration
Header diameter, steps, collector dimensions
Exhaust system
Drivability requirements
Emissions requirements

[David Vizard]

David, none of what you posted validates your 128 gimmick.

The fact that the following variables influence the ideal LSA, and that your 128 formula does not take them as input, is all one needs to know to understand that the 128 formula is not comprehensive.

Throttle size
Intake manifold
Port flow maps
Chamber flow trajectory
Intended RPM range
Valvetrain stiffness
Valvetrain mass
Valve acceleration
Header diameter, steps, collector dimensions
Exhaust system
Drivability requirements
Emissions requirements

Jon,
I totally expected a responce along these lines.

To use an old English saying 'you are as slippery as a greased pig' As usul you are not reading or even (apparently)comprehending my posts on this subject. I believe a USA term for something like this is 'Bone Headed'.

Out of shear exasperation here I will say for the umpteenth time that my master program takes care of details such as you are putting forth above and the 128 'gimick' as you call it is a very simple & HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL means of getting the LCA for a SBC with 2'02/1.6 valves and a 10.5/1 CR. It produces results way way better than the cam companies desk jockey's. All the simple corrections for other CR's, Rocker ratio's etc are in my book 'How to Build HP" (available amazon.com).

Here, once again you have failed for Lord knowes how many time to absorbe what I have said.

Your sentance above starting with 'The fact that the following variables -------
truly demonstates you totally lack of any ability to actually read and correctly absorb what I have said.

Still I should not complain. Your near zero ability to answer any of my questions (not even several simple yes/no ones) or even vaugley absorb the full context of what I am putting over has given me all the ammunition I need to do a 3rd maybe even 4th (it's almost up to you) video about you. While I am using up your time that in no way is benifical to you, the fact you make good video content means all this silly debating of yours is earning me money.

Instead of hiding in the pages of a forum you could call me (I called you last time) and I will be more than happy to straighten you out. Would you care to do that??
Simple answer - YES OR NO?
DV

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

David, none of what you posted validates your 128 gimmick.

The fact that the following variables influence the ideal LSA, and that your 128 formula does not take them as input, is all one needs to know to understand that the 128 formula is not comprehensive.

Throttle size
Intake manifold
Port flow maps
Chamber flow trajectory
Intended RPM range
Valvetrain stiffness
Valvetrain mass
Valve acceleration
Header diameter, steps, collector dimensions
Exhaust system
Drivability requirements
Emissions requirements

Jon,
I totally expected a responce along these lines.

To use an old English saying 'you are as slippery as a greased pig' As usul you are not reading or even (apparently)comprehending my posts on this subject. I believe a USA term for something like this is 'Bone Headed'.

Out of shear exasperation here I will say for the umpteenth time that my master program takes care of details such as you are putting forth above and the 128 'gimick' as you call it is a very simple & HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL means of getting the LCA for a SBC with 2'02/1.6 valves and a 10.5/1 CR. It produces results way way better than the cam companies desk jockey's. All the simple corrections for other CR's, Rocker ratio's etc are in my book 'How to Build HP" (available amazon.com).

Here, once again you have failed for Lord knowes how many time to absorbe what I have said.

Your sentance above starting with 'The fact that the following variables -------
truly demonstates you totally lack of any ability to actually read and correctly absorb what I have said.

Still I should not complain. Your near zero ability to answer any of my questions (not even several simple yes/no ones) or even vaugley absorb the full context of what I am putting over has given me all the ammunition I need to do a 3rd maybe even 4th (it's almost up to you) video about you. While I am using up your time that in no way is benifical to you, the fact you make good video content means all this silly debating of yours is earning me money.

Instead of hiding in the pages of a forum you could call me (I called you last time) and I will be more than happy to straighten you out. Would you care to do that??
Simple answer - YES OR NO?
DV

David,

I understand what you are saying; you are stuck in 1980's technology.

The most knowledgeable people in the field of engine development use 1D simulation and CFD, not linear formula.

Make all the videos that you want to, you only disgrace yourself while impressing only novices.

And to answer your question, NO, I am not interested in talking to you.
I have zero respect for someone that tells lies as you have.

Let's begin with the one you told about 128:

In a seminar promoting video, you claimed that you would teach...

"the most important number when spec'ing out a cam, is it lift, duration,
lobe centerline angle?
No I'll tell you the most important thing you can know about spec'ing out a cam, it's 128.
Don't bother to call the cam companies, they won't know about it"

This is word for work what you said.
Here is a link to the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_6qBG3XknM

Then later when I pointed out that it didn't scale, you backpaddled and said it was only for a narrow range of SBC.
Then in a video, you disgrace yourself by claiming that you said it was for SBC from the beginning, that's false.

The 128 formula has more problems than that, but it is already disqualified from using, so why bother?

The fact is you use gimmicks to get attention and cant stand it that I call you on it.

If you want to try to validate your 128 formula, explain the data you used with specifics.
Then how you derived and tested the formula.

Anything short of that is just blather and boasting as you spend most of your time doing.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

the 128 'gimick' as you call it is a very simple & HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL means of getting the LCA for a SBC with 2'02/1.6 valves and a 10.5/1 CR.

DV

It seems odd that now you stipulate the valve diameter but it is also a variable in the formula.

[skinny z]

Should anyone be interested, here's (what I believe to be) DV's original paper on 128's introduction.
IIRC, the 2.02" intake valve constant is derived from a typical valve job with valve of that diameter producing a CD of .7.
Most folks don't necessarily have that CD information, so the 2.02" valve is used as a substitute.
It's a long read.

[skinny z]

I believe I may have misrepresented some of the facts posted above.
I'm looking for a reference for the coefficient of discharge in the document posted but for whatever reason I can't find where .7 comes from.
My apologies for any confusion.

I'll wait for the man himself to step in should he wish to.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Should anyone be interested, here's (what I believe to be) DV's original paper on 128's introduction.
IIRC, the 2.02" intake valve constant is derived from a typical valve job with valve of that diameter producing a CD of .7.
Most folks don't necessarily have that CD information, so the 2.02" valve is used as a substitute.
It's a long read.

The article presents a false choice:
1. A rule of thumb
2. A desk worker or catalog

The better solution is to use a 1D simulations software such as EngMod4T or Dynomation.
There are many benefits to doing so.
Learning to do a 1D simulation teaches one more about how a hi-performance engine actually works than any other experience.
It is far better than a simple rule because the simulation can be fit to the details of your combination.
In doing the simulation, you can explore "what if" scenarios about changing other parts in your combination to develop a more compatible match.

[skinny z]

It appears we may have been responding simultaneously.
I've attached my text regardless although the closing line is only emphasized by your reply.
Thanks.

Found the reference to the .7 CoD.

From this we can say that the LCA = 128 - (CID/# of Cylinders/In Valve dia. in inches x 0.91). Putting some numbers into that we have for say a 355 inch SB Chevy that the required LCA =128- (355/8/2.02 X .91) which equals 108 degrees. So how accurate does that work out to be? Compare it to the graph a couple of posts ago – 108 is virtually spot on and so it will be for any parallel valve pushrod motor such as the SBC or similar (i.e. SB Ford & Chrysler) that has a CR around 10/1 and valve CD in the region of 0.7 (which most 3 angle valve jobs do).

If the intake valve has better than 0.7 CD average over the first 0.100 to 0.200 valve lift that 128 figure will increase and could go as high as 131 but only if the seats are really trick. If of course they are not and the CD is worse - then the key number could drop as low as 125.

Anyway, I'm genuinely hoping that DV steps in here.
Mr Schmidt has some very valid points to cover.