Roller Cam for the 200 inline 6?

wallaka":c3uk0syr said:

Then you've lost the load-distribution capability of the roller and it would quickly grind a groove in the cam.

Click to expand...

I see your point. Unless of course the cam could be ground to the same shape to match the ball. Not being a machinist this perhaps is completely out of the question. Just thinking, I wonder if the extra meat required on the cam would prevent it from going through the journals. Just a thought

russk":t2t8v5gx said:

CNC-Dude:

Speaking of expensive (but certainly interesting) valve train parts, have you looked at the Schubeck Racing site and their "Roller-X" lifter? Pretty neat stuff! They have designed a new [mechanical] roller lifter that eliminates the traditional roller, axle, and needle bearings. Those components are replace by a solid roller (or wheel) that rides in a "wheel well" in the lifter body on a thin film of oil. This apparently eliminates the potential failure of the needle bearings, and so the lifter, and then the really bad stuff that happens shortly after that. I'm not sure if roller lifter failure is a big problem (it may well be - particularly in endurance racing applications) but any valve train failure can be very expensive and, at some level, is probably worth avoiding. The only problem is the cost - particularly for a new technology piece.

Somewhat off the topic but an interesting bit of related engineering.

Russ

Click to expand...

Russ, I just looked at that site you mentioned. It really is a pretty simple concept. You basically only have a roller lifter that has 2 pieces total. You would think since it is going to involve less components to make a set, they would be cheaper than $900+ a set....ouch! Nice idea they have, I wonder if they patented it. It would be very easy to duplicate, however.

CNC-Dude:

If they are the true innovator of this roller lifter concept, I can't imagine they would not have filed a patent application!

You're absolutely right that the lifter is conceptually simple with just the two components: the lifter body and the roller (or wheel) - of course there needs to be some aspect of the design that keeps the roller pointed in the right direction relative to the cam lobe direction of travel.

As a professional software developer for nearly 40 [!] years, my take has alway been that the simpliest design that accomplishes the task at hand is the best, most reliable, and most elegant solution. I know that's true when writing program code (after many millions of lines) and I suspect it's true of most other things as well - including high performance engine components.

I know you are a very capable engineer, machinist and fabricator so when you say it would be easy to duplicate the Roller-X tappet, I sure believe you. But I'm wondering how difficult it would be to assure that the roller (wheel) and the wheel-well are an exact fit with the proper separation for the thin film of load bearing oil? That doesn't seem to me (a non-machinist) to be a simple proposition in practice even though it seems simple in concept. I guess "those that can" (like you) do, and those that can't (like me - at least at my current skill level) are always amazed by those that can . . .

Keep up all the good work you're doing and keep me posted when your books become available.

Russ