Posted at that "other" place... No Pressure Line Necessary!

[vbgagnon]

Use higher % nitro? I've read of people using 40%, maybe thats it.

 

[Lessen]

Man Derek, I'm sorry I brought it up!

SCREW THAT! Do you know how lame this place has been lately???? (sorry guys)

I'm with Eddy, this is the kinda stuff I love. I'm always hopin there something to actually "discuss" around here.

Use higher % nitro? I've read of people using 40%, maybe thats it.

yeah, but I don't think you could get an extra 7 grand... maybe... I wouldn't know. But I'm trying to figure out the device... it's the part about top end power and huge rpm gains that has me stumped

 

[Monkey Wrench]

I read the article as well.

To begin, I wouldn't necessarily call it an article per se. It's really a paragraph, so it's not like there's a lot of depth to the issue. The article quotes Adam Drake as the one that uses this modification the most. I'm in no way bashing the magazine or the relevance of the article, but it's presented more like a "Pit Tip" than a true analysis of the benefits.

The article states that, "An engine without pressure will slightly increase the bottom end power, but this isn't the main advantage according [to] Adam. When you don't run a pressure line, the bottom end transitions its power more linearly, making your vehicle easier to drive [then references the graph]. Furthermore, it reads, "This lag can make your truck difficult to drive because you have to wait for the engine to make power. By removing the pressure line, your engine's output goes up linearly, so response time is reduced."

At the end of the paragraph/article, it states that this modification is more commonly used in 2WD ST's where traction is minimal and too much power is already there and may only be useful on high traction surfaces.

I personally would've benefited more if the graph had labeled the vertical axis. The horizontal is RPM's, but the vertical (unless I'm missing it) isn't labeled, so I don't know if it's time or horespower. I'd be interested to see the time aspect, to visually see the difference in time it takes a pressurized engine to spin up to the same RPM's as a non-pressurized engine.

The concept itself, in my opinion, is an interesting one, but having been primarily a basher over the last 8 years or so and just now getting into racing, frankly, my primary racing goal (as Jetmech can attest to) is to actually make it around the track more than a lap before breaking something and keeping the "rubber side down." If I get to a level of racing similar to Drake, I may consider trying this, but until then, I think I'll just focus on mastering the basics of, say, driving!

 

[DerekB]

yes, I understand all that. I probably wasn't clear.

But in order to get higher RPMs you need to make a stronger detonation. A more powerful combustion will create a faster revolution of the crankshaft, thus faster engine speeds. I understand that a more powerful detonation will be had if the air/fuel mixture is changed to contain less fuel and more air. That is obtained by leaning ou the HSN (since we are talking about the upper range the LSN is ruled out becaue it is not really in play, the way I understand it). On the other hand, if you don't want to use less fuel you would need to up the ante on the air part of the mixture.. a la forced induction.. but we all know how that goes. I do understand that the faster the engine runs the more fuel it needs, that's obvious... but if you have already found the best possible mixure for top speed in a given enviroment, how can you possibly gain more power and more RPMs by increasing fuel in the mixture. The basics tells me that that would simply create a less powerful detonation unless you could significantly increase the amount of air in the mixture... I dunno, I can't figure it out.. guess I should have finished school..

as far as not having a pressure line at the bottom end but bringing back a pressurized enviroment at a set point... it seems to me one might be able to obtain that by creating a small check valve and placing it in the pressure line.. kinda like how you would install an inline fuel filter. It would stay spung close untill the forces behind it were consistant and strong enough to keep it open. Just a theory...

Correct, when tuned with pressure the engine produces it's best performance. When tuned with out pressure it produces better low end power, better idle and a slightly lower high end. If you look at that graph you can see that it was still a little lean at the top, but that's because the removal of pressure does that. So adding fuel in that condition actually will produce more power and allow the engine to rev.

It can be used with ALL engines because the principals are the same. The article wasn't really a theory or how engines work it was testing a known (or not well known) thing some racers do and racers have done in the past. It also was meant to get people talking and trying it to see. I think the grpah explains just about all we really need to know. If you assume that the engine is tuned wrong where it's lean then I can understand the confusion, but it was testing a technique and it proved what all the people I talked to said it would.

I read the article as well.

To begin, I wouldn't necessarily call it an article per se. It's really a paragraph, so it's not like there's a lot of depth to the issue. The article quotes Adam Drake as the one that uses this modification the most. I'm in no way bashing the magazine or the relevance of the article, but it's presented more like a "Pit Tip" than a true analysis of the benefits.

The article states that, "An engine without pressure will slightly increase the bottom end power, but this isn't the main advantage according [to] Adam. When you don't run a pressure line, the bottom end transitions its power more linearly, making your vehicle easier to drive [then references the graph]. Furthermore, it reads, "This lag can make your truck difficult to drive because you have to wait for the engine to make power. By removing the pressure line, your engine's output goes up linearly, so response time is reduced."

At the end of the paragraph/article, it states that this modification is more commonly used in 2WD ST's where traction is minimal and too much power is already there and may only be useful on high traction surfaces.

I personally would've benefited more if the graph had labeled the vertical axis. The horizontal is RPM's, but the vertical (unless I'm missing it) isn't labeled, so I don't know if it's time or horespower. I'd be interested to see the time aspect, to visually see the difference in time it takes a pressurized engine to spin up to the same RPM's as a non-pressurized engine.

The concept itself, in my opinion, is an interesting one, but having been primarily a basher over the last 8 years or so and just now getting into racing, frankly, my primary racing goal (as Jetmech can attest to) is to actually make it around the track more than a lap before breaking something and keeping the "rubber side down." If I get to a level of racing similar to Drake, I may consider trying this, but until then, I think I'll just focus on mastering the basics of, say, driving!

The graph should have been like every other one in the magazine. HP/TQ numbers on the Y-Axis and RPM on the X-axis.
And by looking at that graph you should be able to see the "time" since Horsepower is a factor of time. The more HP at a certain rpm the faster it spools. It's not a test of the engines time to spool, but HP can be used that way.

And again this is an advanced method of tuning and obviously if you're just playing it is of little importance, but I bet that there will be some good from seeing this power jump. Like I said Chris Tosolini (I think 7 or 8 time national champ will be using this idea at the Nats.)

SCREW THAT! Do you know how lame this place has been lately???? (sorry guys)

I'm with Eddy, this is the kinda stuff I love. I'm always hopin there something to actually "discuss" around here.



yeah, but I don't think you could get an extra 7 grand... maybe... I wouldn't know. But I'm trying to figure out the device... it's the part about top end power and huge rpm gains that has me stumped

I hate to pump or magazine so much but we did an article comparing nitro precentages on the dyno where you could see the difference in power and rev from 20-40% if I remember correctly.

 

[robmob]

I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night so I won't bother with getting into the discussion.

I have been meaning to subscribe to the mag and after reading this last night. it reminded me and I went to the site and signed up. So there you go Derek, at least one new subscriber out of this thread.

 

[Monkey Wrench]

The place where the pressure line helps is at high RPM where even with a pressure line more fuel is needed, which this is also explained in the article.

This is not mentioned in the article.

And again this is an advanced method of tuning and obviously if you're just playing it is of little importance

Would you please explain your meaning of this statement? The implication is that, because I am not a "racer" in the professional sense I am either incapable of understanding, "an advanced method of tuning" (which is bunk, you're taking a piece of fuel line off and plugging the nipple on the pipe) or because I am a novice racer the benefit is marginal, at best.

And by looking at that graph you should be able to see the "time" since Horsepower is a factor of time. The more HP at a certain rpm the faster it spools. It's not a test of the engines time to spool, but HP can be used that way.

I see your point, but since folks that race, pro and amateur alike, are awarded trophies based on the number of seconds it takes to go around a track versus how much HP their mill produces at a given RPM, it doesn't give me a true sense of how much (quicker/better/faster) this modification really is. I do see and understand the linear relationship the article mentions and clearly, the non-pressurized engine is quicker off the line. I guess, just looking at it from a layman's perspective, I'm asking myself, "how much quicker."

I can't tell you because the company is doing something nobody is and is doing the leg work of this. So instead of ruining their work I can just avoid who and what it is until they feel comfortable. It's a very simple idea, which works at this point, but they have to test it more. No use pumping something up until it's tested. We did that with this test, which is why I'm explaining why it works, and it's downside...which is not ruining your engine

Just so I, and everyone else here, understands. The article makes no mention of this "device" at all, correct? If it should, I am failing to see it.


Just to be fair, I do not think anyone here is out to prove you wrong, Derek, least of all me. This is actually healthy debate, and people that are taking it personally need to chill out a bit. The graph included with the article is crystal clear in the sense that you can see the linear throttle plane of the non-pressurized engine. My only point of contention is in the perceived assumption that because I am a novice racer, I am either a novice tuner or incapable of understanding the tuning concept. I'm sure that was not your intention, which is why I asked for a little clarification on your statement. Considering that, in my opinion, 80% or more folks involved in the hobby are in it for the "playing" aspect of it, I'm guessing this modification may not be of any real intrinsic value to 80% of the people that read the article?

I will say, in all sincerity, it was an interesting read and did make me think (which, I try to avoid at all costs!)

Again, thanks for a terrific magazine, Derek! I will say, unlike those assclowns at Integy, your customer service is stellar! There was a mix-up with my 'script, you guys fixed it and extended my 'script for two months. I didn't ask for that! Keep up the great work and kudos on the "model" quality! The one holding some engine (like I care what engine she's holding) on the cover of the May issue is, ahhhhhh, ummmmmm, attractive.

 

[Lessen]

I havn't seen the article but from what I understand by Dereks posts the "device" is a product of the results of the experiment and didn't have anything to do with the experiment itself.

 

[Monkey Wrench]

I havn't seen the article but from what I understand by Dereks posts the "device" is a product of the results of the experiment and didn't have anything to do with the experiment itself.

Ah, got it! Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a page in my copy!

 

[Candyman]

To me, it all seems to boil down to this. The use, or non-use, of the pressure line is used as a tuning method. Not an absolute. Derek nor the pros that use it don't seem to be saying "Run without it all the time". But it does seem to have it's place. To me it sounds no different than using different nitro %, carb restrictors, head shims, different tuned pipe and header, slipper settings or diff oil viscosities. It all seems to tie into dialing in for where you're running. I'm sure they'd all say that if you're on a big, high speed track, get that pressure line on there to pump the high end. But if you're on a twisty, medium grip kinda surface, you might benefit from dropping the pressure line to use more low end and a smoother response.

Have I summed it up well?

 

[WoodiE]

I havn't seen the article but from what I understand by Dereks posts the "device" is a product of the results of the experiment and didn't have anything to do with the experiment itself.

That's the way I'm understanding it as well, hopefully I'll get a copy of this issue over the weekend.

I was just aurging both points earlier as I don't see any advantage of running without one and I don't see the point of bringing up a hidden "device" in this thread if you don't plan on going into more detail. Derek himself said they also tested using this "device" - if you don't want both points to be aurged then don't mention something you can't talk about, period.

At any rate from what I can see from this thread and from Derek, there isn't any really huge advantage over not running a pressure line verus running with one, kinda like 6 of one and half a dozen of another.



-Michael

 

[DerekB]

I havn't seen the article but from what I understand by Dereks posts the "device" is a product of the results of the experiment and didn't have anything to do with the experiment itself.

That is correct. Result of us testing.

To me, it all seems to boil down to this. The use, or non-use, of the pressure line is used as a tuning method. Not an absolute. Derek nor the pros that use it don't seem to be saying "Run without it all the time". But it does seem to have it's place. To me it sounds no different than using different nitro %, carb restrictors, head shims, different tuned pipe and header, slipper settings or diff oil viscosities. It all seems to tie into dialing in for where you're running. I'm sure they'd all say that if you're on a big, high speed track, get that pressure line on there to pump the high end. But if you're on a twisty, medium grip kinda surface, you might benefit from dropping the pressure line to use more low end and a smoother response.

Have I summed it up well?

thank you. But from what I've learned on the internet the posts that explain things get ignored

That's the way I'm understanding it as well, hopefully I'll get a copy of this issue over the weekend.

I was just aurging both points earlier as I don't see any advantage of running without one and I don't see the point of bringing up a hidden "device" in this thread if you don't plan on going into more detail. Derek himself said they also tested using this "device" - if you don't want both points to be aurged then don't mention something you can't talk about, period.

At any rate from what I can see from this thread and from Derek, there isn't any really huge advantage over not running a pressure line verus running with one, kinda like 6 of one and half a dozen of another.



-Michael

I mentioned a result of the article. Where somebody read the article, saw something that wasn't being done and is in the process of trying it. I can "argue" both sides, but you're crossing the 2.

And you can't see a "huge" advantage because you're looking at it wrong.

 

[WoodiE]

I've seen the article now, no where does it show or say a HUGE advantage. The only real difference I can see is between 15,000-20,000 RPM - your graph shows a slight increase without a pressure line then with a pressure line according to your dyno.

So then what's the underlining huge result of removing the pressure line, since I'm looking at it wrong?



-Michael

 

[DerekB]

I've seen the article now, no where does it show or say a HUGE advantage. The only real difference I can see is between 15,000-20,000 RPM - your graph shows a slight increase without a pressure line then with a pressure line according to your dyno.

So then what's the underlining huge result of removing the pressure line, since I'm looking at it wrong?



-Michael

I'm not sure what you're looking for. Never did I say doing what is shown is going to make the engine produce 4 times the power, it does increase the low end by at leat 10%. That's pretty good if you need that there.

Monkey Wrench- I didn't imply that if you're not a racer you aren't "advanced" but for somethings "advanced" means looking for every last bit of power that the average person doesn't need to do or worry about.

 

[WoodiE]

Derek with all do respect you are making no sense what so ever. I just posted "I don't see any really huge advantage over not running a pressure line verus running with one, kinda like 6 of one and half a dozen of another"

Your reply was "that you can't see a "huge" advantage because you're looking at it wrong."

When I ask what I'm missing you're now saying you don't know what I'm looking for. Never have I claimed that you did say there was a huge difference thus my post just above - it's for the most part pretty much the same with our without it according to your graph.

So if there is something more that I'm missing MINUS the point of there is no big difference between the two then please let me know - other wise I'm taking your graph as a no real difference between the two.



-Michael

 

[Lessen]

Ok, so we have low end gains.. great. But I'm mostly interested in how a "device" can take advantage of the low end gain and create thousands of additional RPMs. Like I said, I'm no engineer but it's just not making any sense to me at all and I think I have a reasonably decent grasp on how these things run.

 

[DerekB]

I can't help you guys. If you want to just ignore what was presented I can't help you.

 

[Lessen]

I'm not ignoring anything. As far as I'm concerned you've backed up the fact that they can gain low end power by not using a pressure line. Done.

I just want to understand in more depth the workings of the device (which you won't explain) that a certain manufacturer (whom you won't name) is attempting to make.

It just seems that in your quest to justify the pros (which I feel is fine and necessary for discussion) of not using a pressure line you opened up a can of worms which you're not willing to empty. I'm just sayin it seemed to me like you were inferring that there is something on the horizon and you have some information about it, information that you won't/can't share.

 

[FastEddy]

Thread, subject, and posts are getting BOURING!!!!!
A whole bunch about nutin.........

 

[DerekB]

I'm not ignoring anything. As far as I'm concerned you've backed up the fact that they can gain low end power by not using a pressure line. Done.

I just want to understand in more depth the workings of the device (which you won't explain) that a certain manufacturer (whom you won't name) is attempting to make.

It just seems that in your quest to justify the pros (which I feel is fine and necessary for discussion) of not using a pressure line you opened up a can of worms which you're not willing to empty. I'm just sayin it seemed to me like you were inferring that there is something on the horizon and you have some information about it, information that you won't/can't share.

Correct, I can't tell you want I've been shown in confidence.

But if you understand that the advantage of no pressure line is more power down low and better idle, AND that having pressure delivers more performance up top, tha combining the two will in some cases produce the combination of both, more, and more linear power down low and more power and RPM up top.

 

[Lessen]

well, I suppose I'll just have to wait and see