Milwaukee Midget

[Elmo Rodge]

The Milwaukadonian fellow sez "Yeah, a longer tow rope, but the point is that in an emergency, it needs to stop as quickly as the tow vehicle."

Minus of course, the 80 feet of tow rope.  Wayno

[fordboy628]

If yr gonna get a monkey to drive it take out all the "over and above" safety equipment you can, sheesh our car just has backs,it makes the Colonel nervous ,I'm fine with it........

It goes beyond stopping the car.  We put 400 miles on the Dodge dragging the Midget back and forth over 4 days.  The Dodge can stop on a dime, the Midget - not so much.  The easiest way to tow it I found was to keep a bit of brake on while in tow, which kept the rope from becoming slack and prevented me from slammin' into the tow vehicle.

Yeah, a longer tow rope, but the point is that in an emergency, it needs to stop as quickly as the tow vehicle.

A tow bar is questionable because the steering is severely limited and I don't think it would follow the tow vehicle well.

In the case of a tank, you're front is exposed, and it makes sense to keep the aero around the front tire clean.  Brakes on the front are of no aero concern with the Midget, and if I can keep 'em and be assured they aren't dragging, it's silly to get rid of them.

Yeah, I'm kinda stubborn on this one, but NASA used to send monkeys into space, and not all of them came back.  I want a better track record than that.  

Ahem,

Let's see, monkeys (I believe you might mean chimpanzees) into space.   NO BRAKES on their rockets . . . . .   AND, they needed to achieve escape velocity . . . . . 11.2 Km/sec;  40,320 Km/hr  or ~ 25,000 Miles/hr.

Uhhmmm, just to make the math easy, say 125 mph is your goal.   Well the monkeys (chimps) went 20,000% faster than your goal, without brakes.   Well, maybe a parachute or two . . . . . .

Your speed goal seems a bit like the Newtonian cannonball experiment, example A, where the cannonball falls harmlessly back to Earth . . . . . . (Well, in an ideal situation . . . . . )

Just sayin' . . . . .
 
Numbersboy

P.S.  This is what happens when a numbers guy spends the evening sampling "Oktoberfest" offerings.   Don't bother to admonish.   Mrs. Fordboy has made zero headway after a relationship of 43 years . . . . .       You have no chance . . . . . . .      Currently enjoying a Sam Adams "Oktoberfest"
 

[Peter Jack]

The tow bar really is the way to go. The amount you scrub the tires on the salt will matter little even if the wheel never turns. If someone still rides in the car it's easy to follow the tow vehicle.

Pete

[Milwaukee Midget]

Ahem,

Let's see, monkeys (I believe you might mean chimpanzees) into space.  

Rhesus Monkeys, Chimpanzees . . . any Simian that can open a beer bottle . . .

Tried the Avery Uncle Jacob's Stout yet?

Just make sure you have no plans for the rest of the day . . .

[Jon]

How about a sealed ram air system drawing from just in front of the windscreen if it has a grille there?
Do you have exhaust O2 logging data to fine tune your jetting?

cheers
jon

[Milwaukee Midget]

How about a sealed ram air system drawing from just in front of the windscreen if it has a grille there?
Do you have exhaust O2 logging data to fine tune your jetting?

cheers
jon

Jon, I think you're thinking of the MGB, which does have a cowl vent. 

It has an O2 gauge, but I'm not happy with its erratic display, nor am I happy with the logging function of the ignition/ecu module.  I wound up just reading plugs.

[38flattie]

Chris, I sent you a couple of texts a few days ago with some ideas, but received no reply. Did you get them?

Out of curiosity, what RPM'S were you running at? I may have missed that post.

[Interested Observer]

Brake drag - Is it even a problem?  How big?
Jack it up, do some spindown tests in the “normal” configuration and then some with the pads retracted or removed.  Then repeat the process.  Assess any difference.

[38flattie]

Wisdonm -

I did get your text - just was busy.

No, we did not bring the 3.90 rear end - we ran the 4:22.  I doubt if the engine would have pulled the 3.90.  I was able to spool it up to ~9100, but the car hit the wall at 7,500 -7,600 in 4th - shy of our peak at 8,000.

I'm thinking I'd have had to turn 9,000 in third with the 3.90 to approach the 121 figure, which would have been off of the power band.

Chris, I just went back and found these numbers. IMHO, the answer lies here. Do what you can to get the aero a little better, to make it easier to pull the RPM's, but for what you need (3mph), I wouldn't get too exotic with it, as you are very limited.

Find those other 400 RPM's!!!!!

[wisdonm]

I still say electric pumps, plus fuel injection, are the way to go. Both for the water and the oil. These two pump changes should be worth a minimum of 5 ponys.

1. You need every pony that you can get.

2. The pumps are not that expensive (say $150 each) and can be mounted practically anywhere.

3. The weight of an extra battery may actually help traction and won't hurt top speed. I used an old fashion car battery to run mine for a whole day of road racing, without an alternator.

I don't know what the oil flow rate is for an A motor, but I do know:

1. a big block Chevy Hi Volume pump flows 21 GPM max.

2. a '71 VW oil pump flows < 5 GPM @ 6,000 rpm.

[38flattie]

wisdonm, I agree with you!

I think Chris needs to get all of the NET HP possible, and manage the fuel/air, so that he can turn 8000 RPM's in 4th gear.

JMHO, but it looks like a manageable way to reach your goals, Chris!

[Milwaukee Midget]

Chris, I just went back and found these numbers. IMHO, the answer lies here. Do what you can to get the aero a little better, to make it easier to pull the RPM's, but for what you need (3mph), i wouldn't get to exotic with it, as you are very limited.

Find those other 400 RPM's!!!!!

Buddy, I did get your texts - sorry, my phone is old school and difficult to return messages on.  I should have just called.

Dzus fasteners are in the works to replace the hood pins, but there was never a factory chin spoiler for this thing.

I'm thinking I'll have Bob and Jeff at Midwest Fabrication do some panel alignment and get the body right.

http://www.midwest-fabrication.com/#!home/mainPage

The gaps on this thing aren't what they should be, and I've had a tough time getting them right since the cage went in.  Bob and Jeff have seen a LOT of goofed up stuff over the years - I'm confident they can handle it.

Aero is the issue, but more power would be helpful.

There is a slight hole in the power band @ ~ 7600 . . .



. . . right where it stopped pulling in 4th.

I received an e-mail from David Vizard yesterday.  His past work with a similar A-series combination produced 105 bhp, and the best he had heard of was 109 - he didn't indicate where it was in the rev range, but this confirms Fordboy's thought that there's more to be had out of this donk.

But regarding the engine, all plans are on hold until after World Finals.  I want to be certain that the existing target is the one I'm aiming at.

I still say electric pumps, plus fuel injection, are the way to go. Both for the water and the oil. These two pump changes should be worth a minimum of 5 ponys.

1. You need every pony that you can get.

2. The pumps are not that expensive (say $150 each) and can be mounted practically anywhere.

3. The weight of an extra battery may actually help traction and won't hurt top speed. I used an old fashion car battery to run mine for a whole day of road racing, without an alternator.

I don't know what the oil flow rate is for an A motor, but I do know:

1. a big block Chevy Hi Volume pump flows 21 GPM max.

2. a '71 VW oil pump flows < 5 GPM @ 6,000 rpm.

I won't speculate as to how many hp are being gobbled up by oil and water circulation, but I agree - if we can remove those tasks from the engine itself, it would free up power to the wheels.

Cooling certainly isn't an issue - it was all I could do to get it above 180, and that's with a very slow turning pump drive set-up.

As to oil circulation, increasing the volume of oil rather than the pressure would be a huge plus.

EFI would be a help as well.  My experience with it is somewhat limited to a Holley ProJection set-up I did on my '65 Ford F100 about 20 years ago.  The results were impressive, though - instant throttle response, and on a warmed over 390 with an RV grind cam, Edelbrock manifold, cheap headers, a three speed and a 3:50 gear set, fuel economy jumped from 9 to 14.

[Ron Gibson]

Ok Geo, see where you are coming from. The window and top deals are by rule, not just class. They won't let you run. The prior suggestion of wire screen over radiator would be illegal or put you in GMS. 



1st Would someone explain to me how a (screen) in front of the radiator is illegal. I can see blocking off, not screen to keep salt out.

2nd If screens are illegal maybe more record holding/setting cars should be looked at and their records taken away.

end of mini rant
Ron

[Dean Los Angeles]

Fuel Injection provides much better atomization over carbs.
What air/fuel ratio are you running?

If you are going to keep the front brakes then you - Chris - are going to have to lose 40 lbs to make up for it.   

[Crackerman]

Fuel Injection provides much better atomization over carbs.

i am going to have to disagree with this. maybe DIRECT injection at very high pressures, but not conventional fuel injection using mass produced (readily available) injectors at 45ish psi.
even MAYBE mechanical injection at high pressures such as alcohol dirt track and drag cars use.

electronic injection does have better control over air fuel ratios, driaveability and emissions, but hp to hp, would be near identical to a properly tuned carb. (timing has a more dramatic effect on trq and hp than afr does, its all about leverage on crankshaft at proper time/degrees)

if I recall correctly, for the fuel to atomize to droplets small enough to match that of a carburetor (make a vapor/ better atomiztion) the injector has to be placed something like 24 inches away from the back of the valve , vs the 6-10 inches a carb takes.