First, let's talk rocker ratios... sorry, that's an overhead valve engine term, but it's analogous to what I am talking about.
Does anyone know the lever ration of LVR 1.6? Is it, coincidentally, 1.6:1?
Not sure if the LVR has figured out the optumal ratio or whatever, but it seems like a good place to start. The only other lever I know of is found in the ZAP600... and let's face it... ONE of these two markers is a remarkably better system to emulate.
Since the bolt/ram is going travel 3/4", and the valve stem is not, we obviously have to position the lever where it will be engaged after the bolt/ram has moved, say, 1/2"... leaving us the last 1/4" of travel to engage the lever.
A lever ration of 1:1 gives 1/4" of valve stem movement... is that enough? Nah, more is better, right? So we mess around with lever placement and ratios to find the best timing for this mechanism that opens the valve a satifactory amount each time. The only way to figure this out is probably modeling it and testing it... but, we should be able to get pretty close just theorycrafting.
We know how much the bolt/ram is going to move, and we know pretty much how far a valve has to open... so we should be able to get grenade/horseshoes close.
Speaking of the ZAP600... vertical poppets, I'm bringing it back. Are there inline valve designs that will flow better in this configuration?
Would having the air inlet into the valve coming from the side help flow? Say the inlet port was perpendicular to the surface/plane the cup seal closes on/against. This way the air doesn't have to flow around/past the cup seal on its way into/through the valve.
I like the simplicity of the ZAP600's single-unit bolt/ram configuration, and want to modernize it... possibly utilize such a design when I build my Ehm.
Does anyone know the lever ration of LVR 1.6? Is it, coincidentally, 1.6:1?
Not sure if the LVR has figured out the optumal ratio or whatever, but it seems like a good place to start. The only other lever I know of is found in the ZAP600... and let's face it... ONE of these two markers is a remarkably better system to emulate.
Since the bolt/ram is going travel 3/4", and the valve stem is not, we obviously have to position the lever where it will be engaged after the bolt/ram has moved, say, 1/2"... leaving us the last 1/4" of travel to engage the lever.
A lever ration of 1:1 gives 1/4" of valve stem movement... is that enough? Nah, more is better, right? So we mess around with lever placement and ratios to find the best timing for this mechanism that opens the valve a satifactory amount each time. The only way to figure this out is probably modeling it and testing it... but, we should be able to get pretty close just theorycrafting.
We know how much the bolt/ram is going to move, and we know pretty much how far a valve has to open... so we should be able to get grenade/horseshoes close.
Speaking of the ZAP600... vertical poppets, I'm bringing it back. Are there inline valve designs that will flow better in this configuration?
Would having the air inlet into the valve coming from the side help flow? Say the inlet port was perpendicular to the surface/plane the cup seal closes on/against. This way the air doesn't have to flow around/past the cup seal on its way into/through the valve.
I like the simplicity of the ZAP600's single-unit bolt/ram configuration, and want to modernize it... possibly utilize such a design when I build my Ehm.