R500 more reading[b/]

[Rob Walker]

Good and valid point Wonky !

[rj]

Peter,

 

 

Same link as yesterday

 

here

 

If you want a picture of the heavier DKE crank that can be done too, I haven't got the lighter one.

 

 

/r

[Rob Walker]

Peter,

 

First step is replace the valves with REC 32.5 inlets and 28.5 exh more extensive head porting,1440 cams . Better liners and a decent exhaust system. Can`t see much wrong with the crank , rods and pistons.

 

Rob

[Rob Walker]

Regin,

 

Cosworth pistons, higher CR and are semi slipper design giving lower friction and lower overall mass.

 

Rob

[Peter T]

Better liners Rob ?

What is the problem regarding the liners it was built with.

Paul Ivey one piece valves go without saying.

Exhaust is sorted now.

What about the p*ss poor inlet tracts from the roller barrels?

 

R500 Mango Madness

[Ash.Bailey]

In my opinon changing all these bottom end parts wont make one bit of difference to the longetivity or perfromance - unless you raise the compression ratio or use some larger high quality steel liners from say Perfect bore to get closer to the bore of the 2 litre rover touring car engine engine. Which will then allow you to unshroud the valves, run larger inlet valves @ 34mm+ and with some proting and inlet welding / movement of the inlet tract to a more direct line will allow you to exceed 260 bhp .

 

But the bottom end will all still be moving around and flexing, the surfaces will still be fretting and the crank bearing clearances without adequate counter weighting and with varying bearing clearances will still wear quickly, particulary at revs in excess of 8000 rpm never mind the 9000 + you are presently using .

 

do you have AA cover .....

 

If ^It aint ^yellow, wonky ^and wobbly................ 😬

 

 

Edited by - wonkycustard on 28 Oct 2006 21:12:51

[Chris Eccles]

The R500 K engine was a world beater, don’t knock it if it doesn’t need a bit of TLC, that sort of power from a normally aspirated engine is something to be proud of. A R500 is not an every day run-around

 

Ho Hum

The French Blatting Company Limited

[Peter T]

Any engine can be bettered by better engineering standards. Fact.

Materials are a compromise of strength and durability.

Building both strength and reliability costs more, so =- a beeter product. Fact.

Using higher quality parts is always belt and braces, so therefore will reduce the possibility of failure.

All i am trying to achieve is high power coupled with the minimal amount of risk of failure.

No one say's that you can get 100%, but i prefer odds of 80% or more for the added costs asscioated with these risks.

 

R500 Mango Madness

[martinwhitcher]

Peter,

 

Have you seen the work from Vibration Free regarding the k-series?

 

basically Most K-series cranks are approx 2.5kg under weighted and need heavy metal inserts to make a smoother running engine, this is what i am doing regarding my new 1900 DVA beast.

 

this treatment reduces the amount of stress and flexing of the botton end.

 

worth a look, Steve Butts has used this on his std crank at 240+bhp for 2 years with no trouble at all (std crank as well, reving to 9200!!)

 

Martin

 

MW 51 CAT

Superlight No.171

now known as:Superlight DVA 207

[Peter T]

Thanks martin, i will use his services.

Another p*ss poor design is the crank cam pulley and front puller.

There is more play here than a hookers song sheet!!!!!!!!

Who designed this cr*ppy meshing system? the bottom pulley has no definite keyway that enables the pulley to have a true home possition?

One area that is going to be addressed.

 

R500 Mango Madness

[Rob Walker]

Peter,

 

Better liners- ones with better location within the block, no undercuts about 20mm from the top and better material, Perfect bore possibly ?

 

Another area that should be of major concern and requires attention is the location and balance of the clutch cover. See earlier posts . The R500 flywheel has the Rover metric dowels and clutch centres. The caterham suppied AP clutch cover owes its origin from the Ford Escort Mexico 1974 and has 1/8" dowel holes and imperial fixing centers. The result is that this cover only fits onto the flywheel by distoring when pulled over the dowels and is only held on point contact. In use it moves around and its very difficult to balance in fact a lottery. Titan with the authority from Caterham attempted to re-dowel my flywheel and two others supplied by Caterham. The result was very amateurish they managed to bend the three flywheels pressing in the dowels. I ended up as usual sorting the problem myself by running a bit of weld into the clutch cover holes and redrilling the holes.

 

The crank- its common knowledge that the R500 crank is of lightweight design and is grossly undercounterweighted. However this was the design in order to provide very low inertia and produce and engine with high dynamics. This allows rapid changes in revs and quick gear shifts. If you start fitting a fully counterweighted crank and reduce secondary vibration for sure the engine will vibrate less and may last longer but will it still retain its startling dynamics. DKE maked me a fully counterweighted crank for my K some years back its was around 15Kg a real heavy old hector more suited to a truck.

 

IMHO the level of tune of the R500 is quite enough and pushing the boundary`s further is very much deminishing returns as Dave Jackson and others have found out. Interesting though.

 

Rob

 

 

[Rob Walker]

Martin,

 

I was told that Steve (lucky) Butts engine had blown up. May be 9200 was too much for it??

 

Rob.

[martinwhitcher]

Rob,

 

The crank is still fine by all accounts, what I believed caused it was a rod breaking around the small end, though it is well documented on exiges.com and seloc.

 

Martin

 

MW 51 CAT

Superlight No.171

now known as:Superlight DVA 207

[oilyhands]

Hi Rob,

 

Steve Butt's engine failed because of a faulty rod, the bush at the small end had been machined biased over to one side by .5mm or so which left one side of the rod perilously thin. On inspection the crank and all other parts in non affected cylinders were intact and in good order, his engine made over 250BHP and was regularly revved to 8800. This is after three seasons without incident or manintenance and two overall championships and a second overall this year.

 

Adding to the counterweights by HMI may increase the cranks overall weight, but the rotating moment is not so high because the added material is near the centre of rotation, as well as eliminating the secondary out of balance forces (those that pushed your piston pins all to hell) the HMI helps to distribute the flywheel affect along the entire legnth of the crank rather than just one end. Having fixed pins just transfers the forces elsewhere.

 

A heavy metalled 1.8 K crank is about 2kg heavier than standard, however; the complete rotating crankset assembly can have a lower rotating moment, also the flywheel effect is shared equally amongst the main bearings. This all moves towards a crankset that accelerates quicker has less flex and subsequent bearing loads

 

On the subject of oiling, as well as the modifications for grooved bearings for some cranks, there is a lot to be done to the ladder and block oilways to reduce drag post-pump and improve alignment and capacity of the feeds to the bearings. In a stock oiling situation main bearings 2 and 4 also carry oil to two big-ends each and yet the size and orientation of the feeds is the same to every main bearing , often the feeds are misaligned with the bearing feed holes and are on the small side due to casting/machining shift.

 

Oily

 

Edited by - oilyhands on 29 Oct 2006 09:28:09

[Peter T]

Yes a very good valid point Rob about the clutch cover, a lot of people do not get their engine balanced with this on.

 

 

R500 Mango Madness

[Jason Plato]

yes - I would partly agree that there is diminishing returns in respect of costs vs longetivity vs power gains as you go beyond 230 bhp or move beyond the R500 spec .

 

my failier like Steve Butts was as a result of a failed Rover part - his was a rod , mine was a valve seat or possible a REC valve .

 

I feel confident in saying that my engines failier wasnt as a result of the revs used or the power used or the cam used - the exhaust cam was lower lift than the 1444 that is cam of choice at the moment . So it could be argued that these failiers are not representative of the K beyond 230 bhp . But only time will tell . There isnt many people using 230 bhp + K's on trackdays and sprints . Several are on the roads but the stresses are no where near the same in my opinion.

 

my concern in moving beyond 230 bhp and using more and more revs is the stability of the whole engine - it flexes and moves a lot . This increases wear dramactically and now matter how many £1000's you throw at the lump - that issue will remain as a result of the engines design and lack of metal / light weight .

 

The K is good, light and produces good power but it has a limit and I think it all depends how much longetivity and reliability you are willing to comprimise to chase the last 15 - 20 bhp over and above 230 / 245 bhp and how much more fun . thrill or reduced lap times that last 15 - 20 bhp will actually give you 🤔

 

Me - Ive been there done that , now i'm going to try a ford

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

here is C7 TOP

South Wales AO

 

Edited by - Dave Jackson on 29 Oct 2006 12:46:45

[Peter T]

Strange that...

Inlet valve size 31.5 mm weighs 32 grams

Exhaust valve size 27.5 mm weighs 35 grams.

Seems there is no markings on the inlet valve but it is much better made being wasted.

The Exhaust valve bearing number LGH10065K, is this a standard Rover valve?

 

R500 Mango Madness

[rj]

Peter,

 

Google came up with this:

 

LGH10065, EXHAUST VALVE VVC

 

So I assume the valve is stock Rover unless it has been modified.

 

I would go for REC (Paul Ivey) or Hellier valves! I may even want to part with my REC 32.5 mm inlet valves as I may go bigger...

 

 

/regin

[oilyhands]

To be honest the VVC and VHPD exhaust valves are quite good quality. Some have thinning at the end of the stem near the head to form a carbon break ledge, I dont use these on higher power engines. Obviously REC's valves are better made but the exhausts will not be waisted stem, you need more mass in the stem on the exhaust valve since they handle a lot more heat.

 

Both 33.5 and 34.5mm inlet valves are available but you will need to carefully check bore and piston clearances since head alignment might not be perfect and guide centres can vary, this can bring valves closer to bores and piston pockets than God intended. The inserts required to support larger valves will sometimes break through to the head surface which may give a problem with any subsequent skims to the head.. bear this in mind. I have used 33.5mm valves to good affect in a number of engines.

 

Oily

[Peter T]

Thanks Regin, i thought these might be standard valves.

I will not use these in my head!!!!

 

 

R500 Mango Madness

[Slipper man]

Peter - if you are looking for the best, and don't mind spending some money, have you thought of doing a 2 litre Evo engine? The crank on those is superior (can't remember the make except that it is French) and all those I know who have driven them (including me) rate the 2 litre Evo as the best car Caterham have ever made. 250 BHP and 190 (IIRC) lbs ft. It is also very smooth and drivable. If I were building a top spec engine, that is what I would have now.

[Bozz]

SM

 

Interesting...just read this recently

 

here

 

Probably out of date now though

 

Bozz

 

McLaren Orange and Black 1.6SS 6 Speed here

[Jason Plato]

chambon for the froggy crank

 

webby here

 

same stroke as 1800 though - I thought 🤔 just larger 82.5 mm bore 🤔 using steel liners from Perfect bore or PTP 🤔

 

here is C7 TOP

South Wales AO

[Rob Walker]

Oily,

 

Your post suggests that the stock crank that has had Tungsten plugs added to its counterweights is superior to the bespoke steel cranks that are fitted to the R500 engines. Is it your recomendation that we all throw away our expensive steel cranks and replace with a stock crank with HMI? and be confident that it is safe to hold engine revs at near 9000 rpm and full power with this crank?

 

Refering back to my problem with piston / gudeon pin retention with circlips. The problem was confined to one circlip on one piston on cylinder 3, I traced the fault a very badly bored ( Quarry Engineering) liner that was not bored parallel and the bore did not run at 90 degree to the centre line of the crank. I accept that any unwanted vibration may have contributed to the failure.

 

Rob

 

Edited by - Rob Walker on 30 Oct 2006 10:09:23

[oilyhands]

Hi Rob,

 

That's not what I am suggesting.

 

I do suggest that *any* crank will benefit from HMI. steel crank or stock crank. If seconday OOB forces are minimised then some of the fretting and flexing experienced with higher powered K's will be eliminated.

 

If you have a steel crank then it is perfectly possible to have this heavy metal inserted. In my experience a steel crank isnt necessary until over 8500 if the stock crank is properly balanced. If you are running slicks and doing a lot of trackwork then the stock crank may be vulnerable across the rear main bearing. The stock crank is a strong item.

 

I'm glad you got to the bottom of the problem with your piston.

 

Oily