What material will generally give the lightest valves? I'm guessing for option you have steel, inconel and maybe titanium. I would imagine the titanium could be questionable as far as longevity (galling). But the other two could be made lightweight by latheing them down at the base of the stem since they are so strong? Or even the various "hollow" valves?

 

Ti- Valves are light weight and can last a full season depending on how good they really are.

There is another valve that is out that is actually lighter them titianum. It is bi-metal cross between Aluminum and Titanium. It was used in the Viper GT races and was banned due to their weight.

Mostly the Hallow valves that are out there are a form of Nickel which is 30-50% lighter then the conventional valves.

 

Inconel would not be light. It is used for headers because less material can be used. Titanium valves need lash caps.

 

Off-the-shelf...Ti would be lightest, Inconel would be second lightest, steel would be heaviest.

You can probably design some uber light and heat resistant metal matrix composite, but at what point is a light valve too expensive?

$15/valve Supertech nitride coated FTMFW

 

Titanium would be the choice.Galling is not a problem with DLC type coatings.They work best with a beryllium alloy seat.They do have a cycle life but that wouldn't be a problem with a drag car.The hollow stem valve are really only a rule beater.They are designed for classes that ban titanium.

 

This would be for street purposes....looking to get maybe another 500-1000 RPM out of the engine, But would rather lighten up the valvetrain then use even heavier valve springs.

Could aluminum be used on the intake side if the seat and face were coated/hardened to protect against the heat? Or do you think the seat would get beat up?

 

If your valve springs can't handle another 500-1000, then I'm guessing you won't make more power by spinning it higher.

 

the valves in your heart are pretty light

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slofu &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the valves in your heart are pretty light </TD></TR></TABLE>

The only heart valves that could withstand the heat of an engine are inside the chest of Chuck Norris, because his heart runs on nitromethane.

 

Another great Chuck Norris Fact

 

Chuck Norris FTW.

have you heard of his plan to take over CNN to make it the 'Chuck Norris Network'? slogan: 'we Chuck the most Norris.'

 

as prevoiously stated in the "combustioncontraption screwed up my head" thread I would say if you took a couple melted down ninja stars and machined them into valves they would withstand 100,000 rpm's. because the air would slice as it passed through the valve.

they would only weigh .0000001 oz.

[/thread]

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Aquafina &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If your valve springs can't handle another 500-1000, then I'm guessing you won't make more power by spinning it higher.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The goal is to lighten the load the springs sees so that they can take another 500-1000 RPM and still keep control of the assembly. As opposed to using stiffer springs that actually consume more power just to get them moving.

So Titanium valves with Aluminum keepers??? That would probably save what 20 maybe 30% weight over a full steel assembly?

 

You would have to be racing to win serious money for ti valves to actually be worth it. I just cant see anyone other than pro teams dishing out that kind if money on a regular basis to replace them.


Aluminum retainers would scare me. If one wore and broke the results would be total destruction.

 

same as if any retainer broke.

IIRC ***** @ SuperTech has said that between his newer Al retainers w/ proprietary keepers and his Ti retainers he prefers the Al even in a DD street engine. granted, you're going to want to deburr your springs and go for a snap-fit w/retainers so as to keep springs/retainers from rotating separately and wearing the retainers faster (which is better in any case).

 

Only problem with aluminum, is that there is no fatigue limit, which means that no matter what you do, the part will fail eventually from fatigue, 100% of the time, no questions asked.

Whereas steel and titanium you can design stresses under a fatigue limit, and it will never fail from fatigue.

 

true, which is why aircraft are retired after a time (although i've heard that many are retired long past the date recommended by the mfg, especially when airlines are still paying off the jets ).

perhaps ***** has a recommended replacement interval. we're used to checking our Ti retainers for galling, and they're not too hard to replace. it might be long enough that the engine could use a refreshing anyway.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slofu &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">true, which is why aircraft are retired after a time (although i've heard that many are retired long past the date recommended by the mfg, especially when airlines are still paying off the jets ).

perhaps ***** has a recommended replacement interval. we're used to checking our Ti retainers for galling, and they're not too hard to replace. it might be long enough that the engine could use a refreshing anyway. </TD></TR></TABLE>

It is VERY common to see planes built in the 60's still flying regularly today, in the private, commericial, and military fields by the way

 

...and surely most of them are airworthy, as many MFGs simply make their public recommendations/guarantees so as to protect themselves from potential litigation.