Vizard vs Foxwell
Moderator: Team
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
With respect to designing lobe profiles, do the cam companies that use a CNC grinder have the ability to easily modify existing lobes they may have in their lineup?
Could make things interesting, not that this is ever going anywhere. The joys of self-quarantine
Could make things interesting, not that this is ever going anywhere. The joys of self-quarantine
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4821
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
Jon,SchmidtMotorWorks wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:32 am 9That wasn't really a complete cam design software.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:15 pm If my memory is off, I am sure David will correct this. I believe David went to Harvey Cranes cam school and has / had Harvey's cam lobe design software.
Stan
It had no functionality for valve-train dynamics.
The process was so slow and tedious, it would prevent anyone from doing any significant optimization.
Sort of like pushing something with a string.
I suspect the original coding was probably done by Richard Moser, but he never talked about it much.
He had just previously written the cam design software used by Chrysler to design cams for the 1960's B engines (Wedge and Hemi), he also designed the race Hemi heads etc.
He gave me a copy of the code (in FORTRAN) altogether it was less than 1,000 lines.
A competent software today, would be 10,000 lines at least.
Could go 10x long that if it had good simulation.
Not sure how old you are. But back in the '70's when people were paying hundreds of dollars (remember a dollar was worth much more in '70 than today) an hour to use someone else's mainframe which were rated in "KOPS" (Thousands of operations per second). Some one could only do some much ($$$$$) computing for each lobe design.
How much code in today's program is for the GUI. Back in the mid '70's when I visited Crane if I remember correctly they just had a TTY that was used for both input and output.
Stan
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
To comment on the David Vizard sub-forum , you need to be a HotPass member.
Since this is not Engine Tech, and we don't have a Drama category, I will move it to General Tech
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
Jones Cam Designs' HotPass Vendors Forum: viewforum.php?f=44
(704)489-2449
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
Jones Cam Designs' HotPass Vendors Forum: viewforum.php?f=44
(704)489-2449
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4821
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
Gary,GARY C wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:40 amIsn't Harvey who David did the vast cam test program with?Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:15 pm If my memory is off, I am sure David will correct this. I believe David went to Harvey Cranes cam school and has / had Harvey's cam lobe design software.
Stan
Yes Harvey is who David did those 1000's of dyno test for.
Stan
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
The CNC grinder doesn't make it any easier to modify a lobe design. It just cuts out the step of making a master.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
Jones Cam Designs' HotPass Vendors Forum: viewforum.php?f=44
(704)489-2449
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
Jones Cam Designs' HotPass Vendors Forum: viewforum.php?f=44
(704)489-2449
-
- Vendor
- Posts: 11003
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:30 am
- Location: CA
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
There wasn't much to the software, he gave it away if you would pay for him to drive his motor-home to visit you and explain it.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 11:07 amJon,SchmidtMotorWorks wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:32 am 9That wasn't really a complete cam design software.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:15 pm If my memory is off, I am sure David will correct this. I believe David went to Harvey Cranes cam school and has / had Harvey's cam lobe design software.
Stan
It had no functionality for valve-train dynamics.
The process was so slow and tedious, it would prevent anyone from doing any significant optimization.
Sort of like pushing something with a string.
I suspect the original coding was probably done by Richard Moser, but he never talked about it much.
He had just previously written the cam design software used by Chrysler to design cams for the 1960's B engines (Wedge and Hemi), he also designed the race Hemi heads etc.
He gave me a copy of the code (in FORTRAN) altogether it was less than 1,000 lines.
A competent software today, would be 10,000 lines at least.
Could go 10x long that if it had good simulation.
Not sure how old you are. But back in the '70's when people were paying hundreds of dollars (remember a dollar was worth much more in '70 than today) an hour to use someone else's mainframe which were rated in "KOPS" (Thousands of operations per second). Some one could only do some much ($$$$$) computing for each lobe design.
How much code in today's program is for the GUI. Back in the mid '70's when I visited Crane if I remember correctly they just had a TTY that was used for both input and output.
Stan
It ran on DOS.
With regards to lines of code...
I'm am talking specifically about the code to simulate the dynamics.
To do that on a par with modern standards is beyond what one person could code unless they dedicated their life to it.
Now that there are so many good commercial simulation codes for dynamic mechanisms, it doesn't make sense to do for a niche software.
Helping to Deliver the Promise of Flying Cars
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
There was no simulation in Harvey's software.SchmidtMotorWorks wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 2:27 pm
With regards to lines of code...
I'm am talking specifically about the code to simulate the dynamics.
To do that on a par with modern standards is beyond what one person could code unless they dedicated their life to it.
It was just for designing a lift curve. It couldn't tell you how that lift curve would act. It couldn't tell you where it would make power to. It couldn't tell you what RPM it would keep the valvetrain stable to. You could give it limits(max Velocity, max acceleration, seating velocity), but you had to rely on your own experience on setting those limits.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
Jones Cam Designs' HotPass Vendors Forum: viewforum.php?f=44
(704)489-2449
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
Jones Cam Designs' HotPass Vendors Forum: viewforum.php?f=44
(704)489-2449
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4821
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
Jon,SchmidtMotorWorks wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 2:27 pmThere wasn't much to the software, he gave it away if you would pay for him to drive his motor-home to visit you and explain it.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 11:07 amJon,SchmidtMotorWorks wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:32 am 9
That wasn't really a complete cam design software.
It had no functionality for valve-train dynamics.
The process was so slow and tedious, it would prevent anyone from doing any significant optimization.
Sort of like pushing something with a string.
I suspect the original coding was probably done by Richard Moser, but he never talked about it much.
He had just previously written the cam design software used by Chrysler to design cams for the 1960's B engines (Wedge and Hemi), he also designed the race Hemi heads etc.
He gave me a copy of the code (in FORTRAN) altogether it was less than 1,000 lines.
A competent software today, would be 10,000 lines at least.
Could go 10x long that if it had good simulation.
Not sure how old you are. But back in the '70's when people were paying hundreds of dollars (remember a dollar was worth much more in '70 than today) an hour to use someone else's mainframe which were rated in "KOPS" (Thousands of operations per second). Some one could only do some much ($$$$$) computing for each lobe design.
How much code in today's program is for the GUI. Back in the mid '70's when I visited Crane if I remember correctly they just had a TTY that was used for both input and output.
Stan
It ran on DOS.
With regards to lines of code...
I'm am talking specifically about the code to simulate the dynamics.
To do that on a par with modern standards is beyond what one person could code unless they dedicated their life to it.
Now that there are so many good commercial simulation codes for dynamic mechanisms, it doesn't make sense to do for a niche software.
That would have to close to 10 years after I was down at Crane in Hallandale Fl. At that time they were time sharing on a Mainframe using a TTY. Sounds like they just ported the same code to DOS.
Stan
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
I didn't get the impression this was about cam design but with that said.hoffman900 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:38 amIt would have been interesting to hear Harvey’s take on that testing. Good or bad.GARY C wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:40 amIsn't Harvey who David did the vast cam test program with?Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:15 pm If my memory is off, I am sure David will correct this. I believe David went to Harvey Cranes cam school and has / had Harvey's cam lobe design software.
Stan
My guess on comments Harold has made in the past, that he would have a field day commenting on this whole thing.
Doesn’t mean you can design (or should) design a lobe. David used Crane cams early on, as well as other companies. I know he has said he has had Mike Jones as well as others grind cams for him. I am not aware of a single “David Vizard lobe design” and not sure why he would venture down that path.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:15 pm If my memory is off, I am sure David will correct this. I believe David went to Harvey Cranes cam school and has / had Harvey's cam lobe design software.
Stan
Anyway, so to get the full story out there; Scott Foxwell, Jay Wiles, and Chris Uratchko disagreed with David on FB and David now thrown down a challenge and posted it everywhere?
1) and people call millennials social media drama queens. The man drama has never been lacking in motorsports.
2) Jay obviously works in the NASCAR R&D world and Chris’s stuff is very competitive in the heads up world, so both obviously know their stuff. So David is trying to legitimize his position by saying NASCAR builders attend his seminar, but it’s a top NASCAR builder who disagreed with him? Okay.
3) the posting everywhere reeks of promotion. For what?
4) I’d still like to see this challenge happen, because why not? It’s a distraction, like any bad reality show.
"The result is much better drive ability in a very high performance cam. Developed by David Vizard and Kent Cams as a result of the ‘Megadyne’ test sessions"
https://www.kentcams.com/files/kent_cam ... 2019_1.pdf
Please Note!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:02 am
- Location: melfort saskatchewan Canada
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
I never read the yellowbullet stuff, but from past experience I'd like to ask - Does the main battle come down to wide vs narrow LSA ?
Brian
Brian
The Word of God is quick and powerfull
www.therocketshop.blogspot.com
www.therocketshop.blogspot.com
-
- HotPass
- Posts: 3472
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:42 pm
- Location:
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
That is in regard to "Scatter Pattern" cams, which David developed for the 5 port BMC A-Series engines. These engines have 2 intake ports (siamese) and 3 exhaust ports (Inline 4). The theory is that there is charge robbing and to compensate with different cam timing for the outside cylinders vs inside. However, the best BMC A-Series engines don't do this and instead use separate ignition curves. It doesn't fix the charge robbing, but that's hard to do with a camshaft. The ignition does fix other issues.GARY C wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:53 pmI didn't get the impression this was about cam design but with that said.hoffman900 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:38 amIt would have been interesting to hear Harvey’s take on that testing. Good or bad.
My guess on comments Harold has made in the past, that he would have a field day commenting on this whole thing.
Doesn’t mean you can design (or should) design a lobe. David used Crane cams early on, as well as other companies. I know he has said he has had Mike Jones as well as others grind cams for him. I am not aware of a single “David Vizard lobe design” and not sure why he would venture down that path.Stan Weiss wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 11:15 pm If my memory is off, I am sure David will correct this. I believe David went to Harvey Cranes cam school and has / had Harvey's cam lobe design software.
Stan
Anyway, so to get the full story out there; Scott Foxwell, Jay Wiles, and Chris Uratchko disagreed with David on FB and David now thrown down a challenge and posted it everywhere?
1) and people call millennials social media drama queens. The man drama has never been lacking in motorsports.
2) Jay obviously works in the NASCAR R&D world and Chris’s stuff is very competitive in the heads up world, so both obviously know their stuff. So David is trying to legitimize his position by saying NASCAR builders attend his seminar, but it’s a top NASCAR builder who disagreed with him? Okay.
3) the posting everywhere reeks of promotion. For what?
4) I’d still like to see this challenge happen, because why not? It’s a distraction, like any bad reality show.
"The result is much better drive ability in a very high performance cam. Developed by David Vizard and Kent Cams as a result of the ‘Megadyne’ test sessions"
https://www.kentcams.com/files/kent_cam ... 2019_1.pdf
-Bob
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
Yes, the point is that David was involved in cam design and testing long before coming to the US and meeting Harvey so maybe possible that he actually knows a little bit about the subject after 4 decades of engine building and testing. Just Saying.hoffman900 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:48 pmThat is in regard to "Scatter Pattern" cams, which David developed for the 5 port BMC A-Series engines. These engines have 2 intake ports (siamese) and 3 exhaust ports (Inline 4). The theory is that there is charge robbing and to compensate with different cam timing for the outside cylinders vs inside. However, the best BMC A-Series engines don't do this and instead use separate ignition curves. It doesn't fix the charge robbing, but that's hard to do with a camshaft. The ignition does fix other issues.GARY C wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:53 pmI didn't get the impression this was about cam design but with that said.hoffman900 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:38 am
It would have been interesting to hear Harvey’s take on that testing. Good or bad.
My guess on comments Harold has made in the past, that he would have a field day commenting on this whole thing.
Doesn’t mean you can design (or should) design a lobe. David used Crane cams early on, as well as other companies. I know he has said he has had Mike Jones as well as others grind cams for him. I am not aware of a single “David Vizard lobe design” and not sure why he would venture down that path.
Anyway, so to get the full story out there; Scott Foxwell, Jay Wiles, and Chris Uratchko disagreed with David on FB and David now thrown down a challenge and posted it everywhere?
1) and people call millennials social media drama queens. The man drama has never been lacking in motorsports.
2) Jay obviously works in the NASCAR R&D world and Chris’s stuff is very competitive in the heads up world, so both obviously know their stuff. So David is trying to legitimize his position by saying NASCAR builders attend his seminar, but it’s a top NASCAR builder who disagreed with him? Okay.
3) the posting everywhere reeks of promotion. For what?
4) I’d still like to see this challenge happen, because why not? It’s a distraction, like any bad reality show.
"The result is much better drive ability in a very high performance cam. Developed by David Vizard and Kent Cams as a result of the ‘Megadyne’ test sessions"
https://www.kentcams.com/files/kent_cam ... 2019_1.pdf
Please Note!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm
- Location:
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
Bob --- would you care to elaborate on the above underlined???hoffman900 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:48 pmThat is in regard to "Scatter Pattern" cams, which David developed for the 5 port BMC A-Series engines. These engines have 2 intake ports (siamese) and 3 exhaust ports (Inline 4). The theory is that there is charge robbing and to compensate with different cam timing for the outside cylinders vs inside. However, the best BMC A-Series engines don't do this and instead use separate ignition curves. It doesn't fix the charge robbing, but that's hard to do with a camshaft. The ignition does fix other issues.GARY C wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:53 pmI didn't get the impression this was about cam design but with that said.hoffman900 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 9:38 am
It would have been interesting to hear Harvey’s take on that testing. Good or bad.
My guess on comments Harold has made in the past, that he would have a field day commenting on this whole thing.
Doesn’t mean you can design (or should) design a lobe. David used Crane cams early on, as well as other companies. I know he has said he has had Mike Jones as well as others grind cams for him. I am not aware of a single “David Vizard lobe design” and not sure why he would venture down that path.
Anyway, so to get the full story out there; Scott Foxwell, Jay Wiles, and Chris Uratchko disagreed with David on FB and David now thrown down a challenge and posted it everywhere?
1) and people call millennials social media drama queens. The man drama has never been lacking in motorsports.
2) Jay obviously works in the NASCAR R&D world and Chris’s stuff is very competitive in the heads up world, so both obviously know their stuff. So David is trying to legitimize his position by saying NASCAR builders attend his seminar, but it’s a top NASCAR builder who disagreed with him? Okay.
3) the posting everywhere reeks of promotion. For what?
4) I’d still like to see this challenge happen, because why not? It’s a distraction, like any bad reality show.
"The result is much better drive ability in a very high performance cam. Developed by David Vizard and Kent Cams as a result of the ‘Megadyne’ test sessions"
https://www.kentcams.com/files/kent_cam ... 2019_1.pdf
DV
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 2 months. My shop or yours. Contact for seminar deails - davidvizardseminar@gmail.com for details.
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
I know this will sound pretty radical,,,but why don't Vizard and Foxwell do a real engine shootout, not a talkout?
one engine, they each put their cam in it...run it.
im sure there is someone with a good healthy engine who would gladly let their engine be the guinea pig for it.
one engine, they each put their cam in it...run it.
im sure there is someone with a good healthy engine who would gladly let their engine be the guinea pig for it.
Re: Vizard vs Foxwell
I wonder if they were given the same off the shelf cam who would make more power.
Last edited by bob460 on Wed Mar 18, 2020 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.