NITROUS OXIDE ( nos / n2o ) advice forum

We finally got to make some test passes on the New Spider Plate last weekend.

Our best pass this summer with the 1st stage NOS big shot plate was a 5.29@136, 1.30 60'. This weekend first pass off the trailer using the new Spider plate and Pulsoids for the 1st stage it went 1.287 60', 5.348@133.14. I had a little extra timing out as the air was supposed to be cooler this weekend, and after a plug read I put the timing back in and took some fuel out which resulted in a 5.339@135.44 but we spun a bit more on that pass with a 1.321 60'. Next pass, little bit more fuel out and a tire pressure adjustment it went 1.298 60', 5.31@135.56 still pretty fat on the plug and O2 data. That pass was as the sun was setting and the track was getting cool which made the car want to skate around a bit down track. I'm quite sure if I had gotten the chance to take some more fuel out it would have went at least 136 but we were out of time.

At this point in time it's unclear if the Spider has an advantage or is equal to the NOS big shot plate. I have to stress this was not a back to back/side to side test under controlled conditions and we've done no flow testing to verify flow rates in comparision between the two plates, but they were jetted closely to the same settings and timing was close. Density Altitude was in the same ball park, around 1300', but track conditions were worse as this was a test n' tune day and not under race prep conditions. By looking at the MPH only, the plates are very close however there is some more tuning to be done on the Spider's tune up to optimize it which would probably yield a bit more MPH. We were spraying approximately 200 hp on it using the Spider as the 1st stage on the car.

Unfortunately winter is here and it's unlikely we'll have a good weekend to go out and test before next season, so the bottom line on how well the plate performs will have to be learned next year. However we're going to do some flow testing soon between the setup I had on the Big Shot plate and the setup on the Spider to see for sure what the the lbs/hr difference was if any and will report back.

Thanks for the report John and I'm just happy that you managed to get a couple of passes in before the end of the season.

To be within 0.02 sec and 0.5mph of your previous BEST times on the NOS plate, when only using the Spider for the FIRST time and with such little time to achieve optimum results, is in itself quite a respectable achievement both for you and the Spider itself.

The fact that PB's are usually run on preped tracks earlier in the year, is also an indication that these results are an indication of better things to come.

It has been suggested that the Spider could cause disruption to the air flow but if that's the case, your results would lead me to conclude its not by very much (even though I doubt that its the case at all) and that the other advantages it has to offer, that you have yet to benefit from fully, would more than outweigh that anyway.

It's a shame that we now have to wait so long for a back to back apples to apples test but I'm sure the results of your flow tests will prove to be interesting and we'll just have to make use of the down time to make sure you achieve optimum results early in the new season.

To everyone else reading Johns post, I'd like to point out that he is a very honest and principled man, who is doing a very fair an unbiased assessment of what the Spider can do, both due to his own principles and equal encouragement from me to do the same, as I'm sure John will confirm.

The results (as above) will be TRUE & HONEST unlike most other reports you'll find elsewhere on the net.

One final point on the Spider, in discussions with Monte Smith he informed me that the highest flow rate he's seen through the best plate he's tested, has been in the region of 1,500 lbs/hr.

The Spider flowed 2,200 lbs/hr in our tests, so even if John's results ONLY prove the Spider can EQUAL such a plate at low flow levels, the Spider will ultimately out perform the best plate that Monte has tested by approx. 50%.

Thought I would post a follow up to some flow testing I did lately. This testing was done using a Omron digital timer to control the test time period and accurate digital scales weighing the bottle before and after the flow tests. The bottle was placed on the scales during the test, so we could measure the weight after purging the system without unhooking the bottle. Test time period was 5 seconds.

The big shot plate we were testing against was using a .073 jet (1), I tested the flow rate on the nitrous using the full system (all the components in the car) at 956 psi starting and it moved 673.2 lbs per hour (.187 lbs/sec) which is closer to a .074 jet really. That's pretty darn close to a 200 shot at a 5.9:1 N/F Ratio

Next I tested the Spider plate, it was jetted with the highpower 200 hp jets x 2, those are approximately a .051 dia which equates to the flow area of a single .072 jet. The spider plate using those jets at 970 psi starting pressure moved 601 lbs/hr or .167 lbs/sec. a difference of 72.2 lbs per hour in the jetting between the two plates.

So with the nitrous flow rate difference at 72.2 lbs per hour, my ball park estimate is that we had the spider jetted approximately 20 hp less than the big shot plate. That helps explain why the MPH was slightly lower testing with the spider than the big shot plate. Of course there are a million variables here in what we're testing, but my gut feeling now is that the spider, if jetted exactly the same lbs/hr rate and N/F ratio as the big shot plate it should have a small advantage as it almost as fast with the smaller flow rates.

On another note, at first I thought the spider made the car 60' better because the power was down slightly from the big shot plate and the car hooked better (We've been fighting an issue of too much wheel speed). However after closer observation, I definately see higher peaks in the accelerometer data on runs with the spider plate. The engine and driveshaft curves are smoother and the engine was pulling better once it got up on the converter. I think I noted earlier that we got the best ever 60' out of the car using the spider even while fighting too much wheel speed. I think we're on to something once we get both the engine and chassis dialed in some more.

Trevor this is some info I think you'll find quite interesting, let me know when you get back and I'll send you some screen shots from the data logger.

Great test! I'm sure Trev'll be over the moon that someone's backing up what he's been trying to tell everyone.

Everything points to some great numbers next season.

Nige

Yes that's a great result and although not as big a hp difference as I'd expected, I'm very confident that the info you've got about the 60ft time is going to prove the benefit of my overall more efficient component design, as I've always stated that my systems make more torque more than they make more power, as proved by the WON Vs Ny-Trex test that was INDEPENDENTLY carried out a couple of years ago.

I look forward to seeing your screen dumps John.

Thanks again for your INDEPENDENT assessment and testing.

great result, almost exactly the same ET as before with only a days setup
AND with less BHP of nos!!!
Trev its gonna be your year in 2009

Beyond, thanks for the tests...I'm keeping an eye on this. Also, are you comparing a regular big shot plate, or a cross-bar plate? It seems that an NOS M/S cross-bar plate would be the best comparison.

Thanks!

Moo there is one other factor to consider, John (Beyond) was using the same amount of timing retard as he was when using the NOS plate. Ron has already proved that the Spider delivers nitrous in such an efficient way that it doesn't need the timing to be retarded as much as normal plates (if at all) and therefore there would have been a SUBSTANTIAL power increase had John had the time to optimise the timing.

For the record, on a small 2.6l engine I found that JUST 1 DEGREE was worth 50 hp on a 200 shot, so we could be talking about a SERIOUS amount of power having been wasted in Johns testing so far.

It is incredibly difficult to do direct comparisons between ANY nitrous products by performance for the following reasons;
1) The timing of a car is seldom correct throughout the run and is seldom accurate, as most people factor in a large safety margin, because it is so difficult to achieve optimum timing for more that just part of the run
2) The same applies to mixture
3) Even if these 2 factors were optimised, you could not compare the DEGREE OF ENGINE RELIABILITY that each kit offers, without pushing the engine to the limits to see if one kit allows the engine to make more performance with less stress. As this is of VITAL IMPORTANCE and a MAJOR factor in my system designs, it's unlikely that the degree of advantage my systems offer in that respect, will ever be demonstrated conclusively.
4) If it was possible to conclusively prove such an advantage (as we've done for ourselves but would not be accepted as unbiased), people would then realise that they can either enjoy greater reliability than when using the same amount of nitrous as any other make of kit or they'd have a greater potential to make more power yet still not exceed the reliability levels that other kits achieve at lower power levels.

As a consequence of the above, I've always concentrated my efforts on improving the quality and volume of flow through the system, because when you have that, it's inevitable that you'll get better results in ALL RESPECTS and it's just a shame that most people can't appreciate those factors, without seeing track results first.

For the record, on a small 2.6l engine I found that JUST 1 DEGREE was worth 50 hp on a 200 shot, so we could be talking about a SERIOUS amount of power having been wasted in Johns testing so far.

HOLY SHIT

I'm a little confused by this statement,I was under the impression that timing was retarded because of the effect of nitrous on combustion.How does the efficiency of the spider mean that less retard is required? I would have expected more/better nitrous flow to need less advance? Is this a function of better/more even distribution and mixture control?

Awesome bit of kit,especially the one in the edelbrock.Can we have something that good for 4 cyls please?

Nige

Here's a VERY IMPORTANT bit of information (that most people seem to be unaware of), that was discovered back when nitrous was being used to supplement oxygen at altitude on war planes.

Britain, America and Germany all used nitrous for this purpose but they used different methods of adding it to the engines. One used it in unpressurised liquid form, another used it in pressurised liquid form and the third used it in pressurised gaseous form.

Those that used it in liquid form were able to run reliably with less timing adjustment than the country that used it in gaseous form.

Another factor that either few people are aware of or fail to take in to consideration, is that nitrous can be anything from 100% liquid with 0% gas, through to 50% liquid with 50% gas all the way down to 0% liquid with 100% gas.

With these 2 factors in mind, you can no doubt appreciate that a system that delivers 100% liquid (a system of maximum efficiency), will need less timing adjustment than an inefficient system, even if they both deliver the same amount of nitrous and make the same power.

It's this improved efficiency, delivering more dense liquid nitrous to the engine which then super cools the intake charge, that results in less timing retard to maintain reliable results.
Retarding the timing to maintain reliability reduces the power achievable from a given amount of nitrous.

BTW it is also due to the increased density (in part), that my systems make more low end torque sooner in the rpm range than other brands do, so its an all win situation.

For our in-line 4 cylinder customers, our Pro Series systems use the same technology as the Spider, so if you want some of that then that's what you need.

Thanks for such a clear simple explanation.

A lesson a day keeps the cobwebs away

Nige

Modest too

No comment!!!

Regular Big Shot with NOS solenoids (bottom outlet). That's what I had been running most of the season for the 1st stage. I had that plate setup with the solenoids mounted directly to the plate which makes it hit very fast. On the spider due to the mounting we had to use about 8" of feed line which showed on the logger that it hit just a tad bit softer, but not as much difference as I had expected.

I have a double cross plate also, but don't like using that one on lower flow levels like what we were doing with my first stage. We've struggled most of the seasons trying to find the tire speed sweet spot, both from a chassis and power management standpoint and I'm really looking forward to doing some more testing next year with the spider as a 1st stage.

About timing - we're pulling a boat load of timing out of the spider at the hit with a 7531 gear retard, far more than needed tune up wise as it was being ran as a non-progressive setup and that's what we're using to control power. Without that timing out it would just sit and spin. So in regards to Trevors comment about timing, this thing pulls far more out in the 1st second than is needed tune up wise. Now downtrack with all guns on it was pretty close, it might have liked one more degree or maybe even two more, but that would be really pushing it from reading the strap on the plugs. At that point in testing I was taking fuel out, the plug strap had some heat in it, but she was rich. We were working on taking fuel out at that point so I didn't want to try any more timing till the plugs cleaned up.

Just a lil' update on this test we did last year. A friend of mine and I were talking last weekend at the races about what happens on a 7531 box when the crank trigger is starting to go out, and the discussion prompted me to take a look at some of our ACQ data from last year. What I found was something I never noticed when we were out testing the spider plate. For some reason the gear retard was activating twice in 1st gear. Once at launch (like it's supposed to) and again when the second stage retard came on. That was an additional 13 degrees retard for approx .7 seconds that shouldn't have been there, and wasn't there when I wasn't running the bigshot plate we were comparing the spider to. It happened on all three test passes, so we never did actually get a test under similar conditions.

So that somewhat throws off my test I was doing, it wasn't as close as I thought it was. While I won't and can't say how much that would have effected the ET's, I'm sure it hurt some. 13 degrees of additional retard even if only for .7 makes some difference - don't know how much. Anyway, looking forward to trying to get out with the car again next year if finances and scheduling all work out.

Thought you should know this Trevor...

John

WELL THAT'S AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE JOHN, because there's a number of threads on various forums that have only recently mentioned your results, so this is VERY FORTUITOUS that you should post this information now.

It is of particular importance because if you remember, I told you you'd need less retard when using my Spider than the Big Shot, well that has been supported and verified by Big Ron in the UK who has just carried out some dyno testing of a Spider, where he picked up 255 hp with just 5 degrees of retard, which I and the plugs indicated was still too retarded.

Therefore NOT ONLY did you have double the retard you thought you wanted but you probably had DOUBLE X TRIPLE the retard you ACTUALLY NEEDED.

That is to say you were 22 degrees OVER RETARDED for 0.7 secs (and that's not allowing for the fact you were progressive and actually needed NONE for the first second or so) and then you were 9 degrees overly retarded from that point onwards.
You might not be prepared to guess at the time difference that would make but I can ASSURE YOU it would have been SUBSTANTIAL!!!!

Sorry you didn't make it to the track this year but good luck for next.

All the best

BTW thanks for the update and I'm sure you'll find this thread of particular interest;

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4707&start=0

Also if you're still about here John, would you mind giving the full spec of your engine and any details that we don't have of the car itself please?

I don't believe I'm all in with no retard Trev, that might be a bit expensive on this engine. I tune the car off what the spark plugs tell me to do. So far I've done ok, I've never melted a piston or lifted a ring land, so I must be doing ok but there's always room for improvement.

When the car comes out next time I'm going to be working more on the lean side with plenty of retard, then keep putting timing into it until we get a good read on the plug. This ol car I've always messed around with so much I've never really optimized things. I want to get it running as best it can on the motor, then a single stage, then start messing with the second. We spent most of the season last year working on repairing damage and getting the car to work the 60' without blowing the tires off. Still ended up with way to much wheel speed.

We have plenty of Steve Johnson equipped cars in our class and they've been flying. With the setup we had last year, we're only down approx 2 mph and 1 tenth to what they've been doing this year. I have no doubt than even the old setup last year with more tuning could have at least matched the current ET & MPH records for a nitrous car. When the Nova comes back out, it'll be a little bit meaner than last time.

For reference this is a 71 Nova, stock suspension running on True 10 29.5x10.5s tires, weight last year was 3400 per rules. We race a restricted nitrous class using a #4 line. The engine is a 615ci BBC, Dart Race Series Block, GRP rods, JE Nitrous Pistons, Calies Magnum crank, AC Nutter Dry Sump/Charlies pan, Pro Filer 24 Degree Heads and Sniper Intake ported by Mike Stark at CFM Performance and a Harold Brookshire Custom Roller. We run two stages of nitrous on it, as of our last testing it was a Highpower Spider for stage one, and Highpower Direct Port for Stage Two. Right now the heads and intake are getting some more tweaks to them and freshened up by Darin Morgan at Pro-Filer which I believe will pick things up a bit more.

The car is currently stripped with part of it at the body shop repairing last years guard rail rash from Wichita and I've got all the wiring pulled getting ready to completely rewire it (remember the problem we had with the progressive due to voltage drop?). I'm also getting ready to cut the cage out of it, we have to upgrade it to SFI 25.5 min to meet IHRA/NHRA rules in order to compete in 2010.

I'm pretty sure the one i have is one of the early ones, perhaps the first one for a big dominator. If you recall this was the one you had to machine the throttle bore size on to work with my carb. You built it on or about March 10, 2007.

Can't say for sure about racing next year short of winning the lottery lol. I am in the middle of selling one of my businesses, if that goes through here in the next couple months I would say it's a sure thing we'll be out with bells on. That is barring getting stuck in chassis shop jail, body shop jail or other issues this winter.

What's the flow potential in lbs per hr for the Revo ?

Did you ever address how to stage the timing retards with one? I've only got three stages of retard to work with in my digital 7 box.

Does the new Max extreme have a proportional DC output? What is the range - 0-5VDC??



That's a little more than the two pulsoids I have I believe, but much less than the 2 stages we have available now. It would be nice to be able to move more than a single Revo can output - can 2 be synced together for more output?