REC Seminar content'

[GARY C]

Yes it seemed that regardless of how complicated the entry got it never gave you a different cam selection and in regards to a SBC you could use DV's 128 or his 90's version of cam masters to end up with the same cam. Now CI want info that most people don't have so that it can give you the same cam you would have got in it's original form???

That is a remarkable story. I'm not sure what info you are talking about that most people don't have. Maybe you can tell us. Have you even ran the CI 2020 software? You obviously don't understand what the Controlled Induction 2020 software does or how it works. If you did you would realize just how ridiculous your post is.

You mean the one that I would have to get another pass key for in order to tell you what I disagree with? If you knew half of what you think you do then you would at least know that I am the only one that was willing to call out it's issues in the beginning and as you should know (being as smart as you are) there has been change after change since the original that I questioned!

But what do I know.

[GARY C]

I have had so many updates to fix problems with that program that I no longer know which one to use... I have at least 5 different versions since the original... Don't get me started on that!

X2, and because of that I just don't feel comfortable with it's outputs.
I have much better experience with Performance Trends EA program
and DV's 128 formula.

Engine Analyzer does not do what Controlled Induction 2020 does nor does DV's deal. I don't think you have actually used Controlled Induction 2020, especially version 3.02. If you had, you would feel plenty comfortable with the outputs.

Why I raised my early concern... If you "ACTUALLY" knew what the program was feeding you,You would not feel comfortable with it's outputs!!!!!


Gary Collander <gcollander@yahoo.com>
To:valvemotion@yahoo.com
Dec 9, 2015 at 5:09 PM
I was wondering how your program deals with the difference of low and mid lift flow with the program only accepting one data point?
In my case it ask for flow at .520 lift, the two different heads below both flow 273 cfm @ .520
2.08" intake valve 50* vs 45* -1.55" ex valve 50* seats on both.
50*
lift-----cfm vs 2.08" 45* seat
.050----36 36
.100----67 72
.150----76 109
.200---123 142
.300---184 201
.400---236 244
.500---267 268
.600---288 289
.650---291 296

EX.
.050----18
.100----38
.150----60
.200----97
.300---133
.400---176
.500---200
.600---209_W/pipe 230
.650---211_W/pipe 232

Rick Jones <valvemotion@yahoo.com>
To:gcollander@yahoo.com
Dec 9, 2015 at 7:49 PM
Hi Gary,

This is one of the places where imperfections in the method of using the mean values for calculating results have their faults. The math uses the lift at which the valve curtain area is the same as the valve area (.25 * valve diam). From this flow, the math assumes the intake port flow curve to be a at least a direct proportion of the flow at, in this case, .520, which it is. It suggests that every .25 degrees of piston motion creates motion at the valve, then through the port, and every point in the induction system effects every other point, for the following .25 degrees. It's more about the complete opening curve, not one point in the process.

I would think that better low lift flow would help fill the cylinder and allow for more ramming effect. But would you alter the valve motion because it flows better at low lift? And what would you do with it? Make the duration shorter, so you have less time at low lift? And because the port flows better at low lift does it now decrease the negative pressure in the cylinder for the coming .25 degrees? This is why no one has successfully created a correct working model of the induction process using instantaneous calculations. This is also why most of the engineering fraternity will not accept this method being accurate.

It is deterministic chaos, when looking at every point in the port, instantaneously during the intake cycle.

I hope this helps.

Rick

Here is where he is wrong, DV's program, even the early version from the 90's does address this change!

[paulzig]

Here is where he is wrong, DV's program, even the early version from the 90's does address this change!

If you already have access to DV's program and you deem it fit for your purpose why did you buy CI?

Do the recommendations with CI disagree with the other program? Is this why you say it is wrong?

[GARY C]

That is a remarkable story. I'm not sure what info you are talking about that most people don't have. Maybe you can tell us. Have you even ran the CI 2020 software? You obviously don't understand what the Controlled Induction 2020 software does or how it works. If you did you would realize just how ridiculous your post is.

You mean the one that I would have to get another pass key for in order to tell you what I disagree with? If you knew half of what you think you do then you would at least know that I am the only one that was willing to call out it's issues in the beginning and as you should know (being as smart as you are) there has been change after change since the original that I questioned!

But what do I know.

So you have proved you have the 5 year old programs before Rick combined the potential VE theory to his fathers math. And that you have the setup files for one of the older versions of 2020 which you have not got a passkey for. What process in the method and/or math are you questioning? Could you explain any of the math....no you can't because you don't have a clue. Prove yourself!

If thats what you got from my posts then I can't help you... I have all of what he has released, the email I posted was one of 28 starting back when it was first released.


NOTE the word Another!

[GARY C]

Here is where he is wrong, DV's program, even the early version from the 90's does address this change!

If you already have access to DV's program and you deem it fit for your purpose why did you buy CI?

Do the recommendations with CI disagree with the other program? Is this why you say it is wrong?

I purchased it to see if it was as great as they claimed and to see if it would shed new light on cam specs, I have no problem paying for programs and info to learn new things.

I think most people that have or buy CI will be happy with it, I just don't find any use for it.

[paulzig]

I purchased it to see if it was as great as they claimed and to see if it would shed new light on cam specs, I have no problem paying for programs and info to learn new things.

I think most people that have or buy CI will be happy with it, I just don't find any use for it.

Fair enough, but did you try a cam specced by it or did you dismiss it instantly because it disagreed with COS cam or the other program?

[GARY C]

I purchased it to see if it was as great as they claimed and to see if it would shed new light on cam specs, I have no problem paying for programs and info to learn new things.

I think most people that have or buy CI will be happy with it, I just don't find any use for it.

Fair enough, but did you try a cam specced by it or did you dismiss it instantly because it disagreed with COS cam or the other program?

In many cases it gives you the same cam that DV's 90's program gives, so nothing new, in other cases it gives a cam that past experiance tells me it's not what would work best and just looking at some current builds vs what it specs it's off by a good bit. I am sure it is like most programs where if you use it enough you can learn to cheat it but by then you know enough that your just getting it to tell you what you already know.

I don't know if it is still based on a 80% I/E ratio or not but that would cause defaults in the past that would not account for things like actual valve size.

If you guys like it you should use it.

[digger]

Vizards cam program ( full one ) has limits on bore size that preclude more than the typical domestic being used which is unfortunate.

[GARY C]

Vizards cam program ( full one ) has limits on bore size that preclude more than the typical domestic being used which is unfortunate.

Is that due to constraints or a flaw he is not aware of?

[digger]

Vizards cam program ( full one ) has limits on bore size that preclude more than the typical domestic being used which is unfortunate.

Is that due to constraints or a flaw he is not aware of?

by design

[pastry_chef]

Does the Torque Master program have inputs for flow values? I thought it was only valve sizes.

[David Vizard]

Vizards cam program ( full one ) has limits on bore size that preclude more than the typical domestic being used which is unfortunate.

DIGGER,
I am assuming you have Torque Master for small blocks. This has a bore size limit if about 4.2 inches. I am currently working on the BB part of the program and will have this up and running before the REC date.
It will be a free upgrade for all registered Torque Master programs.
DV

[David Vizard]

Does the Torque Master program have inputs for flow values? I thought it was only valve sizes.

TorqueMaster takes care of flow by using a typical discharge coefficient curve starting at 0.71 and finishing at 0.6. The 0.71 CD at low lift caters for a well prepped 3 angle 45 degree valve seat.

I am doing a module that will allow the input of the flow in the 0.0 to 0.300 range when I get to do that particular upgrade. This will take are of the required changes from any valve seat angle from 30 to 55 degrees. For now Torque Master accurately covers way better than 90% of the cases it may be called upon to predict a cam for.

DV

[pastry_chef]

Does the Torque Master program have inputs for flow values? I thought it was only valve sizes.

TorqueMaster takes care of flow by using a typical discharge coefficient curve starting at 0.71 and finishing at 0.6. The 0.71 CD at low lift caters for a well prepped 3 angle 45 degree valve seat.

I am doing a module that will allow the input of the flow in the 0.0 to 0.300 range when I get to do that particular upgrade. This will take are of the required changes from any valve seat angle from 30 to 55 degrees. For now Torque Master accurately covers way better than 90% of the cases it may be called upon to predict a cam for.

DV

Thank you David.
I was considering Torque Master. An option for manual inputs would be a worthy addition, it would be nice to have it output target cam specs for Pontiac V8. I would not be concerned with the suggested part # aspect, just getting valve timing suggestions would be great!

[David Vizard]

Does the Torque Master program have inputs for flow values? I thought it was only valve sizes.

TorqueMaster takes care of flow by using a typical discharge coefficient curve starting at 0.71 and finishing at 0.6. The 0.71 CD at low lift caters for a well prepped 3 angle 45 degree valve seat.

I am doing a module that will allow the input of the flow in the 0.0 to 0.300 range when I get to do that particular upgrade. This will take are of the required changes from any valve seat angle from 30 to 55 degrees. For now Torque Master accurately covers way better than 90% of the cases it may be called upon to predict a cam for.

DV

Thank you David.
I was considering Torque Master. An option for manual inputs would be a worthy addition, it would be nice to have it output target cam specs for Pontiac V8. I would not be concerned with the suggested part # aspect, just getting valve timing suggestions would be great!

Mike,

PM me your contact details - I may be able to help you here.
DV