This is the start!! It actually lifts the the valve .565" (.578' gross)vs the standard web 4 that is somewhere shy of .490". Problem is, it only fits my head :nod: This one probably won't see any use because the duration came out to 280 at .050" and when combined with that lift will make a 770 wanna run at about 11 grand (Troy) :lol:
(http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee157/kennybasham/100_1584.jpg)
Send it, I'm not scared :thumbs:
John would kill both of us! I'm gonna add about .040" to the lift and knock about 40° off the duration. We are gonna see great top end power gains, but I am actually a little worried about what the midrange torque gains are gonna do to clutches
If it's gonna destroy clutches I want one :lol:
Send me one pronto, with a head... so I can test it and keep it. If I put that on destroked 700 what would happen??
You would die a quick and painless death most likely.
You want me to name this one too?
Clutch Killer?
That cam is so big its got its own cam!
A little math on Troy's build shows that it would want a 9500- 11,500 RPM operating range, which is not as bad as I thought :lol:
Aaron's bike would be about the same with the smaller valves.......
There is a lot of powerband alignment issues that make me want to drop the duration and raise the lift. Some initial testing with a .625" lift cam has shown the nose shape and closing ramp to be more gentle on the valvetrain than some of the lower lift cams that are currently being run :clap:
Do work son, I need a cam in the next week or so
GTFOML Troy :lol:
Nice work kenny, can't wait to see what it can do!
My mind is wandering now.....
So. reading more into this... Is it the lift or the duration that says where motor RPM's should/will be?.
I don't understand how lift will make it want to run faster. I would think that if you had the valves open longer (I'm assuming since they have to travel farther) that it would drop rpm ???
Who's gonna make the spring's to support that?
I'm guessing R&D :thumbs:
That's an easy one baby!! More duration is the main trick, you just have to put it in the right place. This cam has over 120° at .500" lift, and the WEB 4 has 0°. Obviously the head is flowing far more at .500 that it is at .050. Near 300 CFM more in my case. Adding extra duration vs lift is really bad for low end and midrange torque, and makes for a more peaky powerband.
Valve window area vs time vs port flow for a given head design is VERY complicated ???
Quote from: SUB454 on November 25, 2009, 08:59:37 AM
Who's gonna make the spring's to support that?
Quote from: preddy08 on November 25, 2009, 09:04:53 AM
I'm guessing R&D :thumbs:
We have a couple of options like PAC and Ferrea, but on this particular design, it looks like properly installed Kibblewhites are gonna do just fine ;)
Does my current head need to be sent back to you for modification to fit this cam?
Yes. We had to get a balance on the geometry, because just adding lobe height was giving us screwy geometry and high RPM instability on anything rated over .500" lift (not to mention crappy thinned rockers)
Hrmm... Just let me know when you ditch the RJ aaron. :nod: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Lemme know when your ready kenny ;)
I'll try and saving some $$
KDS Parts flowing like the nile..
Lets get em' movin!!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Here is the old geometry @.500" lift. It's hard to see, but the adjuster is tipped up on the edge and pulled almost off the valve.
(http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee157/kennybasham/100_1016.jpg)
Here is the new geometry at .500" lift! WAY better!
(http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee157/kennybasham/100_1018.jpg)
Quote from: Krandall on November 25, 2009, 09:24:23 AM
KDS Parts flowing like the nile..
Lets get em' movin!!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Thanks bro!! It is about to change dramatically...... I wasn't hiding while I was off the forums!! There was actual work getting done :clap:
Do you change the length of the guide's or valve's for this big of a cam?
Yes on the valves, but I really would like to keep the rest under wraps. This took a LOT of time and money to figure out. So you understand why I don't wanna give it all away to be copied just yet......... 8) I at least wanna sell enough to recover some of the R&D before people start making a knock-off :'( :lol:
Quote from: Kenny on November 25, 2009, 09:57:03 AM
Yes on the valves, but I really would like to keep the rest under wraps. This took a LOT of time and money to figure out. So you understand why I don't wanna give it all away to be copied just yet......... 8) I at least wanna sell enough to recover some of the R&D before people start making a knock-off :'( :lol:
KBR and OMW have already done it. I was under the impression a person could just put a big cam in and be good to go....I was wrong. Just trying to learn more before my TRF879 goes back together.
What kind of lift?
Quote from: Kenny on November 25, 2009, 10:18:39 AM
What kind of lift?
Not sure...enough to warant(sp?) altered guide's and valve's(length). Wish I knew more, but I don't.
Are those to pics reversed by chance? first one is the "good one" and the 2nd is the bad one?
or am I stupid. :lol:
You're stupid :rofl: No, the second one is perpendicular to the valve which has far more even contact during the most critical part of the valve cycle..... when the spring is at it's max pressure :thumbs:
:lol:
Well.. to me.. that first pic, the adjuster looks WAY more even than the 2nd. one. that 2nd one the adjuster is on the tip...
so :sit: . I'm out.
:rofl: :clap: I love that emoticon!! :rofl:
:sit: You should not put that up whem I am talking to my TB guys..... I think I peed a little bit :nod:
Well fellas, I reset my degree wheel to double check my work...... because unlike Krandall, I actually am stupid..... Turns out this cam came up at 270° (4° bigger than the web 4) but the lift was correct.
So off it goes to test pilot Troy who is evidently fearless :nod:
Quote from: Kenny on November 25, 2009, 03:01:58 PM
Well fellas, I reset my degree wheel to double check my work...... because unlike Krandall, I actually am stupid..... Turns out this cam came up at 270° (4° bigger than the web 4) but the lift was correct.
So off it goes to test pilot Troy who is evidently fearless :nod:
??? thought it needed your head brudda?
Quote from: Colorado700R on November 25, 2009, 03:18:43 PM
Quote from: Kenny on November 25, 2009, 03:01:58 PM
Well fellas, I reset my degree wheel to double check my work...... because unlike Krandall, I actually am stupid..... Turns out this cam came up at 270° (4° bigger than the web 4) but the lift was correct.
So off it goes to test pilot Troy who is evidently fearless :nod:
??? thought it needed your head brudda?
Oh it does! This is a kamikaze run with the adjuster nuts installed from the bottom! We are finding some preliminary numbers and then we are gonna yank that dude out to get into production. But no, Troys bike can no way run this cam long term without some pretty rowdy changes
Looks like cool stuff,
what type of piston to valve tolerences are you going to be running or what do you feel is safe for a 9000 rpm engine?
there is defiently a lot more room for power in different cams especially when you factor in the long rod builds thats something i was planning on trying to master through the winter. Ive been using the web 4 all season but have some ideas for hopefully good results, I will definetly be curious to see what you come up with
barker heads run a shorter valve also works well
Getting the spring setup really isnt hard to do, hard part is figuring out the right valve tip height to get the geometry in line were it needs to be on the rocker. The right valve length and spring pocket depth will get it, Kenny just spent the time to figure it out.
i am definately interested to see what this does. buti think it might be a little to big for me lol. im only running a little 804
Don't be scared Phucker, I'm only running a very little 770, it's just a widdle guy :thumbs:
Quote from: EHSRACING on November 25, 2009, 03:38:48 PM
Looks like cool stuff,
what type of piston to valve tolerences are you going to be running or what do you feel is safe for a 9000 rpm engine?
there is defiently a lot more room for power in different cams especially when you factor in the long rod builds thats something i was planning on trying to master through the winter. Ive been using the web 4 all season but have some ideas for hopefully good results, I will definetly be curious to see what you come up with
barker heads run a shorter valve also works well
Right now I have .080" on the exhaust with one of the new CP pistons. We DEFINITELY don't use a shorter valve, especially with the Web 4.... Remind me to tell you why sometime. I won't go into it on here
Quote from: VelociRaptor on November 25, 2009, 04:00:08 PM
Getting the spring setup really isnt hard to do, hard part is figuring out the right valve tip height to get the geometry in line were it needs to be on the rocker. The right valve length and spring pocket depth will get it, Kenny just spent the time to figure it out.
That was a big part of it. The nose velocity and closing ramp were probably the hardest part to figure out. This is an offset lobe that is pretty crazy. I think that is gonna be the whole trick.
Quote from: phucker on November 25, 2009, 04:49:59 PM
i am definately interested to see what this does. buti think it might be a little to big for me lol. im only running a little 804
We are gonna be building taller cams with less duration to keep the power huge and the RPM reasonable :thumbs:
So are we going to see some dyno sheets from troy or will this be some super secret spy shit?
Super Secret. 8)
Quote from: Humboldt_G on November 25, 2009, 05:46:13 PM
So are we going to see some dyno sheets from troy or will this be some super secret spy shit?
LOL Coop, you'll find with me I can keep a hell of a secret until the phone rings, then I sing like a canary :lol: No secrets here, just trying to get some cams to play with and see where they stack up. I have the RHC 14 and a Web 4, hoping to get an RE cam and a Daniel (new custom) cam, and anything else that is supposed to be cool on my hands to see what the baddest one out there is.
There will be dyno numbers. This will be part of an openly sold cam line (if they work). This cam is designed for the Raptor valvetrain. It's definitely not a catalog grind that everyone else uses with adjusted lobe centers. Of course you guys can see I am going the exact opposite way of everyone else....... I guess we'll find out who's right ???
Quote from: Kenny on November 25, 2009, 09:10:44 AM
Quote from: SUB454 on November 25, 2009, 08:59:37 AM
Who's gonna make the spring's to support that?
Quote from: preddy08 on November 25, 2009, 09:04:53 AM
I'm guessing R&D :thumbs:
We have a couple of options like PAC and Ferrea, but on this particular design, it looks like properly installed Kibblewhites are gonna do just fine ;)
Kenny, any chance of running into coil bind with this kinda lift running the kibblewhite springs?
The Kibblewhites will go somewhere over .700 lift at the regular installed height. We just have to find out if there is enough spring pressure to keep the valves under control. So there may be shimming or even another style spring involved. I kinda like running close to coil bind because the spring gets more stable.... Tell me what you think of the lobe shape. I know you've seen it before :thumbs:
Quote from: Kenny on November 25, 2009, 10:17:44 PM
The Kibblewhites will go somewhere over .700 lift at the regular installed height. We just have to find out if there is enough spring pressure to keep the valves under control. So there may be shimming or even another style spring involved. I kinda like running close to coil bind because the spring gets more stable.... Tell me what you think of the lobe shape. I know you've seen it before :thumbs:
The lobe shape looks great :thumbs:......... looks a lot like the lobe shape I see in the Sprint Car Engines 8)
Ive told people for years that the KW springs will take way more than the advertised .480 max lift rating. Its the strongest "Raptor" valve spring Ive tested yet.
Quote from: RaptorRandy on November 25, 2009, 11:58:32 PM
Quote from: Kenny on November 25, 2009, 10:17:44 PM
The Kibblewhites will go somewhere over .700 lift at the regular installed height. We just have to find out if there is enough spring pressure to keep the valves under control. So there may be shimming or even another style spring involved. I kinda like running close to coil bind because the spring gets more stable.... Tell me what you think of the lobe shape. I know you've seen it before :thumbs:
The lobe shape looks great :thumbs:......... looks a lot like the lobe shape I see in the Sprint Car Engines 8)
That is one of the things we struggle with in these roller rocker motors. The motorcycle cam companies can't seem to get a good handle on it, and the race car cam companies don't want to fool with it. I've been through half a dozen high end cam grinders during the last 2 years, and this is the first complete cam that I will be able to put on the shelf. We aren't talking about commercial brands either. I am talking no window "skunkworks" companies that do stuff for Pro-Stock, NASCAR and F1. Getting these done is tough!
Quote from: VelociRaptor on November 26, 2009, 03:25:51 AM
Ive told people for years that the KW springs will take way more than the advertised .480 max lift rating. Its the strongest "Raptor" valve spring Ive tested yet.
They are the most commonly available and they work well. We have used some custom beehive stuff that is 325 lb-in and installed at 85lb seat pressure ::) Needless to say, that was not exactly trail friendly. It also barely controlled some of the "one off" cams we have done with nearly 500lb of spring over the nose per lobe..... That was a real indicator that we were going the wrong way somewhere.
Not enough market for alot these companies to really care about.