FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: hwoods on July 05, 2018, 08:43:57 PM
-
anybody running Beehive valve springs on a FE Motor? Benefits?
-
Beehives, tool steel retainers. Just a street car. Can’t say if it’s better as I don’t have another
Comparable engine laying around. For me it was a “gee why not” kinda deals.
-
Lots of beehive and conicals here these days. Almost everything that leaves here has them now, unless it is a small budget flat tappet or a big solid roller. Everything in between those two descriptions gets 'em. Lots of benefits to those styles over conventional springs.
-
Yep, here too.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1769/42016145295_e2e3bc8b3c_c.jpg)
-
Are we going to get to see how those trick flows stack up anytime soon?
-
I'll be odd man out...as usual...but not a fan of beehive springs. They're OK on certain applications with light weight and stable valve trains, but they have zero noticeable benefit over a traditional valve spring on something like an older FE. If you ever break one, good luck. At least with a single/damper or traditional dual spring, there is something to keep the valve from falling and hitting a piston. Too much "monkey see monkey do" with these...
JMO
-
I have two pairs here to go on engine builds. One build is just waiting on the thrust surface of a crankshaft to be tweaked. The other is waiting on a new engine block to arrive.
Should have a set on a running engine pretty soon.
-
I'll be odd man out...as usual...but not a fan of beehive springs. They're OK on certain applications with light weight and stable valve trains, but they have zero noticeable benefit over a traditional valve spring on something like an older FE. If you ever break one, good luck. At least with a single/damper or traditional dual spring, there is something to keep the valve from falling and hitting a piston. Too much "monkey see monkey do" with these...
JMO
Beehives and conicals work on just about everything. Robert Pond runs PAC springs on his Stock Eliminator FE engine with over 500 lbs open pressure. Never has broken one.
I put them in Cleveland’s, Windsor’s, and FEs....street, drag race, and some road race. Never had a problem.
The benefit is in the shape of the coil cross section, weight of the spring and the weight of the valve spring retainer. Works great on FE hydraulic roller setups.
-
I've used them several times now with good results. I still suffer from that "pucker factor" with only a single spring in play - having torn down engines and found a broken inner or outer a couple times I will admit to being nervous. But the upside of light weight and they seem to RPM really well for their rate makes them a good pick otherwise.
-
I'll be odd man out...as usual...but not a fan of beehive springs. They're OK on certain applications with light weight and stable valve trains, but they have zero noticeable benefit over a traditional valve spring on something like an older FE. If you ever break one, good luck. At least with a single/damper or traditional dual spring, there is something to keep the valve from falling and hitting a piston. Too much "monkey see monkey do" with these...
JMO
I haven't used a set, but how I wish you would have left the last sentence off this post.
I sure don't get my feelings hurt much, but I have watched our guys on this forum actually test these and start finding some RPM with hyd rollers. These guys are getting to the point that I think we may be able to start controlling some hyd roller lobes with a bit quicker ramp, unlike only a few years ago when hydrailic rollers had a tough time meeting the RPM you turned. Other forums, or weekend bench racers may be monkey-see/monkey-do, and likely what you were pointing out, but I wouldn't say that about the guys on this forum
I do agree with you though, as others do, that it takes a little guts to trust them, but one of my next 462s, planned for a fall build, will be going this route with a cam only slightly more duration than your 390. We'll see if I get bit by the bug too
-
I'll be odd man out...as usual...but not a fan of beehive springs. They're OK on certain applications with light weight and stable valve trains, but they have zero noticeable benefit over a traditional valve spring on something like an older FE. If you ever break one, good luck. At least with a single/damper or traditional dual spring, there is something to keep the valve from falling and hitting a piston. Too much "monkey see monkey do" with these...
JMO
Beehives and conicals work on just about everything. Robert Pond runs PAC springs on his Stock Eliminator FE engine with over 500 lbs open pressure. Never has broken one.
I put them in Cleveland’s, Windsor’s, and FEs....street, drag race, and some road race. Never had a problem.
The benefit is in the shape of the coil cross section, weight of the spring and the weight of the valve spring retainer. Works great on FE hydraulic roller setups.
"Beehives and conicals work on just about everything"
So do traditional springs.
Benefit over what? Do you really push a traditional spring past it's limits, or is this just "theoretical" and "cool"?
Lot of people followed the crowd on this, and quickly switched back to traditional springs. You have to go a LONG way before you actually realize any benefit.
-
I'll be odd man out...as usual...but not a fan of beehive springs. They're OK on certain applications with light weight and stable valve trains, but they have zero noticeable benefit over a traditional valve spring on something like an older FE. If you ever break one, good luck. At least with a single/damper or traditional dual spring, there is something to keep the valve from falling and hitting a piston. Too much "monkey see monkey do" with these...
JMO
I haven't used a set, but how I wish you would have left the last sentence off this post.
I sure don't get my feelings hurt much, but I have watched our guys on this forum actually test these and start finding some RPM with hyd rollers. These guys are getting to the point that I think we may be able to start controlling some hyd roller lobes with a bit quicker ramp, unlike only a few years ago when hydrailic rollers had a tough time meeting the RPM you turned. Other forums, or weekend bench racers may be monkey-see/monkey-do, and likely what you were pointing out, but I wouldn't say that about the guys on this forum
I do agree with you though, as others do, that it takes a little guts to trust them, but one of my next 462s, planned for a fall build, will be going this route with a cam only slightly more duration than your 390. We'll see if I get bit by the bug too
All I can tell you is do a little OBJECTIVE research outside this page.
I push hyd rollers with upper .700 lift to 8000rpm...BB Chevy stuff...heavy stainless valves. I understand hyd rollers. Beehives have their place and can work, but like everything else, do your own research. My motor has .640 lift and a traditional inexpensive dual with damper and went well past 6500 on several pulls.
-
You built a really nice engine. Now build 100 more like it and then you can have the authority to come back on here and tell us what we should and shouldn’t do.
Your first unedited post would have been plenty. If you don’t like beehives then it is your prerogative to not use them. However, a lot of us do use them and don’t have issues. I have turned 6500 RPM as well with a small dual spring and a lazy lobe like you have. However, when you use a more aggressive lobe it is easier to pull rpm’s with lighter valve train.
You screwed up when you went and edited your post and proceeded to call us all a bunch of monkeys… You will never learn how to work well with others.
-
[ll I can tell you is do a little OBJECTIVE research outside this page.
I push hyd rollers with upper .700 lift to 8000rpm...BB Chevy stuff...heavy stainless valves. I understand hyd rollers. Beehives have their place and can work, but like everything else, do your own research. My motor has .640 lift and a traditional inexpensive dual with damper and went well past 6500 on several pulls.
Scott, nothing I dislike more than a forum leg-lifting contest, but what would ever make you think I would not research, spec, and build my own?
Most importantly, I am not discounting your use of standard springs, because I use them too, but it doesn't make other techniques foolish any more than your own.
I also see Ti retainers on yours, which many would say have no place on a street engine, but you did things to make your setup work. I applaud that, as I applaud the harmonic resistant and lighter retainers of a beehive when someone wants to try something new.
I can't speak for everyone, but for me, I just don't like the absolutes. Beehive, conical, desmodronic, I don't care what spring you use, if a guy can "plan the flight and fly the plan" and tries to find ways to outmaneuver physical limitations, I say test and try.
-
I probably use as many hydraulic rollers on FE builds as anybody does.
I usually use a dual spring on most of my street stuff and build them to peak between 5800 and 6000.
No need for anything fancy at that level.
The beehive has lower mass at the working end of the valve and will definitely get you another couple hundred RPM compared to a low dollar dual when using normal chrome-moly retainers on both, and with the same cam. You can see it in the data and hear it in the cell. Put a tool steel or TI retainer on the dual and the advantage goes pretty much away and the cost equalizes. The TI retainer on a beehive seems like small gains due to the small size of the retainer.
In all honesty I have never seen a broken beehive, so anybody wanting to run them can proceed with confidence.
-
You screwed up when you went and edited your post and proceeded to call us all a bunch of monkeys… You will never learn how to work well with others.
LOL...seriously? Now where did I do that?
You can never resist the temptation to make things personal, can you. How 'bout you just don't respond to my comments. EVERYONE will be better off.
-
Personal? Scott, I wasn't the one who used the phrase, "monkey see, monkey do" when a few of us talked about using beehives. I guess that was supposed to have been a compliment?
Why wasn't your initial post good enough? This isn't Yellow Bullet, where you have to take a dig at everyone when you post.
-
In all honesty I have never seen a broken beehive, so anybody wanting to run them can proceed with confidence.
Call AFR. They tried switching their SB Chev stuff to beehive when this was first all the rage. Guess what...you won't see any now. Too many broken spring failures. The marine industry did the same. Figured the beehive had to be a better option for endurance stuff...wrong. Ever see what happens to a marine engine when it drops a valve under power? "Manufacturers warranty" didn't like that at all. Broken springs cost them a lot of money. They learned their lesson. There is a big world out there of plenty of examples of broken beehive springs.
-
[ll I can tell you is do a little OBJECTIVE research outside this page.
I push hyd rollers with upper .700 lift to 8000rpm...BB Chevy stuff...heavy stainless valves. I understand hyd rollers. Beehives have their place and can work, but like everything else, do your own research. My motor has .640 lift and a traditional inexpensive dual with damper and went well past 6500 on several pulls.
Scott, nothing I dislike more than a forum leg-lifting contest, but what would ever make you think I would not research, spec, and build my own?
Just going off what you said;
I have watched our guys on this forum actually test these and start finding some RPM with hyd rollers. These guys are getting to the point that I think we may be able to start controlling some hyd roller lobes with a bit quicker ramp, unlike only a few years ago when hydrailic rollers had a tough time meeting the RPM you turned. Other forums, or weekend bench racers may be monkey-see/monkey-do, and likely what you were pointing out, but I wouldn't say that about the guys on this forum.
So this forum is special, and these guys are different? This is what I get tired of around here.
I was turning BB Chev hyd rollers 6500rpm 15 yrs ago when everyone said "that's impossible". That's not leg lifting, but you guys push me into corners where I feel I have to defend myself. I guess I have to build a hundred FE's to be legitimate? ::)
Carry on. I'm done.
-
Personal? Scott, I wasn't the one who used the phrase, "monkey see, monkey do" when a few of us talked about using beehives. I guess that was supposed to have been a compliment?
Why wasn't your initial post good enough? This isn't Yellow Bullet, where you have to take a dig at everyone when you post.
Put a sock in it Brent. You know exactly what I was saying and it wasn't directed at anyone, it was a BIG generalization, mostly about the whole "beehive spring" subject. I should have known better.
But hey, if the shoe fits... ;)
-
Personal? Scott, I wasn't the one who used the phrase, "monkey see, monkey do" when a few of us talked about using beehives. I guess that was supposed to have been a compliment?
Why wasn't your initial post good enough? This isn't Yellow Bullet, where you have to take a dig at everyone when you post.
Put a sock in it Brent. You know exactly what I was saying and it wasn't directed at anyone, it was a BIG generalization, mostly about the whole "beehive spring" subject. I should have known better.
But hey, if the shoe fits... ;)
This isn't the first time your "BIG generalizations" have ruffled feathers. Maybe you can learn from that?
Oh, BTW, the only one that backs you into corners is yourself. No one had backed you into a corner on this thread when you, for some reason, got triggered about beehives....
-
What is this, pissing contest day?? First there's FElony and cammerfe, and now you guys? PLEASE lighten up, I don't want to lock a bunch of threads... >:( >:(
-
Sorry, Jay.
I will confess that I've been in a horrible mood for the past week and a half and things have been grinding on my nerves.
On June 27th, I was cutting duct tape off of a bar of aluminum and slipped with a very sharp pocket knife. Cut completely through a tendon on my left pointer finger. Had surgery that day. Was in a full arm cast until yesterday. With engine work piling up, I found myself struggling to work with one hand. I hunkered down and assembled (and shipped) a SBF short block last weekend. It took me 2 days working with one hand, but I got it done.
Needless to say, it's been nothing but frustrating and my nerves have been raw because of it.
No excuse for coming undone, but the monkey comment in conjunction with the "wizard" comment totally wiped me out of patience and being able to just turn the computer off and walking away.
-
Better your finger than your.... :o
-
Better your finger than your.... :o
....toe?
-
Better your finger than your.... :o
I use my fingers way more often nowadays, and nowhere near an equal purpose :'(
-
What is this, pissing contest day?? First there's FElony and cammerfe, and now you guys? PLEASE lighten up, I don't want to lock a bunch of threads... >:( >:(
Don't look at me. I was bein' all fun and stuff for weeks until Sheffer awoke from his drug-induced stupor to play his BS game yet again. Ban or suspend him. Stop being Jeff Sessions.
-
Aren't there dual conical springs?
-
I'm going to stick my "toe" into the water. (Feel better Brent!)
There's another advantage to beehives and conicals vs. standard springs. They have built-in damping, without the added mass and heat generation of an internal damper (or second spring) rubbing on the inside. Since the coils taper as they go up, each free coil has a different resonant frequency. Add that to the mass savings up top and you've got a real benefit.
I've watched beehives and standard springs at work on my spin test machine. The beehives stay in control very well through typical rpm our engines will see. Coil surge is the real spring killer, and you just don't see it with this new stuff.
- Bill
-
Ahh Mr. Conley....... back on the original subject. I started to explain a little, but you nailed it, as usual. I call it "the wiggles"......with conventional springs, the resonance comes and goes, like turning a switch on and off, getting worse with rpm, until finally, the wiggle becomes violent and the spring goes out of control. The way to prolong the enevitable used to be to add tension, and dampers, and springs wound in the opposite direction, etc. Especially with conicals, and still with dome-shaped " beehives ", there are never two coils of the spring that are upset at the same time. The net resulting " rule of thumb" is that it takes about 15% less spring pressure to control a given combo. This can be a wonderful thing if you have a flat tappet that would want.....say a 400 lb open pressure. What if you can control it with 340 open instead? Even a monkey can see the benefit. Or what if we want a hydraulic roller hot rod to LAST awhile, dependably......rockers, shafts, pushrods, and lifters can all benefit when a 220@.050 mild hydraulic roller can operate with 300 open pressure, it's a WIN situation.
I don't do anything to an engine anymore only because I saw someone else try it. I'm no Einstein, and I'm no Bill Conley either, but I've done this for a long time now...seriously about 40 of my 48 years......and there are some applications where springs with varying coil diameters are always a plus.
I have used 530 open pressure on some high end flat tappets with conventional springs, that HAD to have 530. Then, controlled the same combo to higher rpm with 470 open conicals. It just plain works.
No intent to be pissy with folks.......just trying to have a civil technical discussion of the original topic. Always glad to see Mr. Conley comment.
-
I'm going to stick my "toe" into the water. (Feel better Brent!)
There's another advantage to beehives and conicals vs. standard springs. They have built-in damping, without the added mass and heat generation of an internal damper (or second spring) rubbing on the inside. Since the coils taper as they go up, each free coil has a different resonant frequency. Add that to the mass savings up top and you've got a real benefit.
I've watched beehives and standard springs at work on my spin test machine. The beehives stay in control very well through typical rpm our engines will see. Coil surge is the real spring killer, and you just don't see it with this new stuff.
- Bill
Bill, I usually aim to set my dual/triple springs up on hipo applications with about .050-.060 coil bind clearance to try to stay away from spring surge. When you say that you don't see a spring surge with the conical/beehive springs, are they less dependent on coil bind clearance?
-
Aren't there dual conical springs?
There sure are.
-
I was doing the .050ish coil clearance a few years ago having heard about it from some pretty sharp builders - and "floated" the idea to Mr. Conley while he was testing Cammer springs and rockers. I think he saw the benefits there.
He also tested an adjusterless SOHC rocker around the same time and proved the value of removing weight from the swinging end of the valvetrain while uncoupling the rocker from the valve tip with a roller. The beehive/conical spring deal help on the weight deal, mitigates the surge, and leaves us a better package - - and a nervous engine builder without that inner spring for insurance against the bad things that happen.
-
Bill, I usually aim to set my dual/triple springs up on hipo applications with about .050-.060 coil bind clearance to try to stay away from spring surge. When you say that you don't see a spring surge with the conical/beehive springs, are they less dependent on coil bind clearance?
.
-
- Bill
[/quote]
Bill, I usually aim to set my dual/triple springs up on hipo applications with about .050-.060 coil bind clearance to try to stay away from spring surge. When you say that you don't see a spring surge with the conical/beehive springs, are they less dependent on coil bind clearance?
[/quote]
Yup. Setting conventional springs up tight (.050" or so) makes a HUGE difference. You're essentially getting a damping pulse on every lift event, like the soldiers all need to line up in formation again. I've seen that conicals and beehives can live fine with a bit looser setup (but a tight setup is always beneficial). One way to look at it is, with a beehive spring, you have a little more latitude with your shims to hit a target seat pressure, knowing you're still pretty safe from coil surge.
-
Aren't there dual conical springs?
Here is an article I did recently for Car Craft on the dual conical springs. I don't see any downside to the dual conicals other than cost. They worked just fine at 7000+ rpm with a super aggressive QRI roller lobe. The QRI is more aggressive than anything I'd put in a real car, it is basically a super stock type of lobe. I've used the dual conical with other lobes and they work just fine. The engine will buzz as hard as you want. Just finished up some dyno testing with a big block Mopar that sounded like a buzz saw on the dyno with dual conical springs and a Mike Jones inverse flank cam.
As for beehives, I've used them for years with hyd roller cams. I have beehives with a hyd roller in my daily driver. Nice and smooth but pulls hard up past 6500 rpm. Not bad for a 500+ inch big block with cast iron exhaust manifolds.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/dyno-tested-dual-conical-valve-springs/
Andy
-
I think beehives are the bee's-knee's ( ;)) for hydro-roller applications where one needs a lesser weight to improve hi-rpm operation.