Beehive valve springs on FE Heads ??

[blykins]

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?

[blykins]

Aren't there dual conical springs?

There sure are.

[Barry_R]

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.

[scott foxwell]

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?

.

[WConley]

- 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.

[andyf]

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

[machoneman]

I think beehives are the bee's-knee's ( ) for hydro-roller applications where one needs a lesser weight to improve hi-rpm operation.