1 Steam Cars : Phorum
General Steam Car topics
Valve Timing of the Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: January 09, 2003 09:12PM
<HTML>Ben and Dave,
I got to thinking about the Stanley beach racer the other night and something hit me that needs explaination.
In that race car, the engine was behind the rear axle, so for the car to move forward, the engine was actually running in reverse to the usual direction in a Stanley car. It was supposedly a stock light frame 30 hp engine.
Do you suppose that the timing was actually not symetrical between forward and reverse? And that caused the vibration that Marriott was complaining about? The eccentrics needed to be repositioned a bit and they didn't do this in 1906; but fixed it in 1907.
And, if so, could it be possible that it could not be hooked up as short as it could be in a regular car? This causing too much steam usage so it was also choking on its own exhaust trying to get out that little hump in the valve.
Remember that Light Steam Power was at one time offering the drawings for the racer's engine, with "The improved timing for 1907." Could this be it?
Not important; but it did cross my mind.
Jim</HTML>
I got to thinking about the Stanley beach racer the other night and something hit me that needs explaination.
In that race car, the engine was behind the rear axle, so for the car to move forward, the engine was actually running in reverse to the usual direction in a Stanley car. It was supposedly a stock light frame 30 hp engine.
Do you suppose that the timing was actually not symetrical between forward and reverse? And that caused the vibration that Marriott was complaining about? The eccentrics needed to be repositioned a bit and they didn't do this in 1906; but fixed it in 1907.
And, if so, could it be possible that it could not be hooked up as short as it could be in a regular car? This causing too much steam usage so it was also choking on its own exhaust trying to get out that little hump in the valve.
Remember that Light Steam Power was at one time offering the drawings for the racer's engine, with "The improved timing for 1907." Could this be it?
Not important; but it did cross my mind.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Valve Timing of the Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 09, 2003 09:31PM
<HTML>Jim,
If the engine were just " rotated 180 degrees from front to back with the axle the engine would still be running in the same direction(the top of the engine would now be on the bottom). If the engine was also rotated 180 degrees along the front-rear axis of the car then it would be reversed. Wonder what it was? It was mentioned about the improved valve timing for 1907 but from what Ben has collected the "improved" engine had to be replaced for the high speed run with Baldwin's 1906 Vanderbilt engine, thus the higher speed attempt of 1907 appears to be done with an older engine---all very intrigueing
George</HTML>
If the engine were just " rotated 180 degrees from front to back with the axle the engine would still be running in the same direction(the top of the engine would now be on the bottom). If the engine was also rotated 180 degrees along the front-rear axis of the car then it would be reversed. Wonder what it was? It was mentioned about the improved valve timing for 1907 but from what Ben has collected the "improved" engine had to be replaced for the high speed run with Baldwin's 1906 Vanderbilt engine, thus the higher speed attempt of 1907 appears to be done with an older engine---all very intrigueing
George</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: C Benson (IP Logged)
Date: January 10, 2003 12:05AM
<HTML>Hi,,,Close reading will make evident there were a few,,,several,, engines,, Ray was not allowed to go,,,{from Newton],,He was dispatched w/ a engine from Newton,,,they had used up all the engines at Fla,,,Not sure which year,,,,Of course the racer engine existant is the 07 engine NOT necessarily the record engine,,,,There was a large difference in gearing too,,,While we're on the #4 engine[early 30hp],,,Does anyone know who the special K w/ tall gearing was made for,,was it a special for FE or his son inlaw,,??? Did ya know FE had a box seat at the Vanderbilt in 06 row c #91,,,,,Did he attend?? Back to the record car,,,fliping the engine will not reverse it,,,,But it will off balence the front end somewhat,,,Was this the FIRST use of cutoff,,,Who knows about 05 F etc The car was tested on rollers,,LOTS of tire trouble ,,but I dont find mention of this in any recent articles,,,,but it is there in early reports,,, My experience,,ex backpressure will cut power but not make unbalence,,,,But the engine is out of balence by design,,,,any looseness makes it worse,,,Dave has noticed roughness in short hookup an' the #4 engine is pretty flexable Gearing change could play a part in this,,chest pressure v/s revs,,,,to produce the required tractive effort,,,Hope this helps Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: January 10, 2003 03:39AM
<HTML>George and Ben,
I am wrong. Flipping the engine from ahead of the rear axle to behind it will not change the direction the engine has to run. But; as you said George, it would be upside down, so it had to be turned over if the steam line and exhaust fittings would be on the top, and the photos show them on top, so then it would be running in reverse from what it would be in the road cars. Still wondering if the timing is absolutely symetrical from forward to reverse. And wondering if it suffered from excessive compression due to uneven timing, which gets worse at higher speeds, thus maybe the vibration?
Ben, with that flimsy frame, it is no wonder they broke engines. The first time I saw a K engine I was horrified how weak it was. And yes, the Stanley engine is badly out of balance.
Is the engine in the Smithsonian the 1906 record engine, or the 1907 engine?
Everything I ever read says that it really is the 1906 engine. But; as you say, which one?
Interesting thing to think about. Just how did they smooth out the engine from 1906 to 1907. Did they give it a lot more exhaust ability with maybe a new valve? And yes, the torque would tend to lift the front end of the car.
Seems to me this racer needs a lot more research.
Jim</HTML>
I am wrong. Flipping the engine from ahead of the rear axle to behind it will not change the direction the engine has to run. But; as you said George, it would be upside down, so it had to be turned over if the steam line and exhaust fittings would be on the top, and the photos show them on top, so then it would be running in reverse from what it would be in the road cars. Still wondering if the timing is absolutely symetrical from forward to reverse. And wondering if it suffered from excessive compression due to uneven timing, which gets worse at higher speeds, thus maybe the vibration?
Ben, with that flimsy frame, it is no wonder they broke engines. The first time I saw a K engine I was horrified how weak it was. And yes, the Stanley engine is badly out of balance.
Is the engine in the Smithsonian the 1906 record engine, or the 1907 engine?
Everything I ever read says that it really is the 1906 engine. But; as you say, which one?
Interesting thing to think about. Just how did they smooth out the engine from 1906 to 1907. Did they give it a lot more exhaust ability with maybe a new valve? And yes, the torque would tend to lift the front end of the car.
Seems to me this racer needs a lot more research.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Valve Timing of the Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: Pat Farrell (IP Logged)
Date: January 10, 2003 02:07PM
<HTML>I have looked at my 30 H.P. Stanley's crank shaft and it could easily be put in backwards if there is a backwards. On one end of the crank, it has a letter stamped on it. Would this be the right side of the left side of the crank? Does it matter? Through reasoning, I couldn't see that it makes any difference which way the crank shaft with eccentrics is installed. The removable valve eccentrics could be installed 180 degrees backwards though. The valve eccentrics do not have any markings.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: C Benson (IP Logged)
Date: January 10, 2003 02:18PM
<HTML>Hi Jim,,The engine goes same way,,,Block w/cover on top means the ex on bottom can get rid of water easier, but the oil will escape easier too ,,Fred said it was light on the tiller on acceleration,,we discussed this ,,I was 17 at the time[1952] ,,,Water is a bigger problem than frame rods I think sure they are puny,,but a blown head [or tail] will stop progress right there, Wet steam an short cutoff wont get along together,,,,,,,,,,The remains of Freds 07 racer was what got sent to Washington,,,it had been in his shop for years,,,Yes I checked an' asked him where the rest of it went,,,the rest went to Harry Yencho ,s junk yard,,,that was the local handy yard,,,Harry was about 70 or so ,,active but NOT robust,,Doubted anything was left but said I could go anywhere in the yard,,and if anybody said anything ,to say he had given me permisson,,,No steam stuff was sighted BUT I bought a 12''' stack of Bosh lomb lenzes and a 1915 Pierce Arrow tail lamp,,whick I eventually found a Pierce 48 1915 to screw onto it[Missing its tail lamp of course,,,{NEVER GIVE UP]]]] I went over 3 years ago to see if I could find the place west of Watertown ,,,Its near a real good hardware[still there],,but the old junk yard is all new houses now,,,Was I the last person to chase the trail??? I also spent days and weeks lookin for that 5ft long hooded roadster pic on Freds wall,,,THE VANDERBILT racer,,OH my, the fantacy of a young kid in high school,,,[[[NEVER GIVE UP]]][[[EVER}} [[NEVERRRR]] NOW DOES ANYONE know anything about JAMES ORR the chauffeur who was in charge if the 12 cyl Packard, od/limo live garage parking in the back of Freds shop,,,I was driving a 1929 Packard at the time,,,so when Fred wasnt in a mood to talk i talked to Jim,,,Some how I think he had been at Daytona 05,,,He knew too much about Napier K-5,,,,puting pieces together 90 years late,,He also did not like 4cyl Packards,,,,I think they're great,, Jim is the reason I went to OPERA PLACE in''SEASON'' to talk w/ the drivers first hand,,,NONE liked the hand crankers,,This was a experience Most of the drivers were seniors and drove for Bostons finest,,I did get a couple of leads but thats another story,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: Jim Crank (IP Logged)
Date: January 10, 2003 05:42PM
<HTML>Ben,
Arn't you the fountain of good information.
Yes the water would escape easier if it was upside down, so use the drip valve. I think that they also rotated the engine too.
Agree the 07 engine was the one in the Smithsonian, and my guess is that it is a stock K engine, since they broke the good one.
Sure, carry the water high so you can make the run without scorching that special boiler, and then knock out a head. Easy to do with all the excitement.
An 04 Napier, the one George keeps telling me about? OOOH what a goodie!!
Try cranking a Locomobile 48 some time, or a Pierce 66. That is why we got hernias.
Jim</HTML>
Arn't you the fountain of good information.
Yes the water would escape easier if it was upside down, so use the drip valve. I think that they also rotated the engine too.
Agree the 07 engine was the one in the Smithsonian, and my guess is that it is a stock K engine, since they broke the good one.
Sure, carry the water high so you can make the run without scorching that special boiler, and then knock out a head. Easy to do with all the excitement.
An 04 Napier, the one George keeps telling me about? OOOH what a goodie!!
Try cranking a Locomobile 48 some time, or a Pierce 66. That is why we got hernias.
Jim</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: EARL C. LEAVEY (IP Logged)
Date: January 10, 2003 06:28PM
<HTML>THE DRAWING OF THE STANLEY RECORD BREAKER ENGINE IS AVAILABLE AT
[www.lightsteampower.freeserve.co.uk];
[www.lightsteampower.freeserve.co.uk];
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: George Nutz (IP Logged)
Date: January 10, 2003 07:41PM
<HTML>Jim,
I again remember reading at Coburns that the '07 racer had busted its engine and that the Baldwin Vanderbilt of 1906 had busted its suspension---that they took the engine out of the Vanderbilt and put it in the '07 racer for the high speed run. Coburn may try and find that article amongst his huge collection. The new "strengthened" boiler was steel tubed instead of copper and allowed the boiler pressure to be jacked to 1300psi, not that this dare ever be used on that poor engine but greatly increased the reserve capacity of the boiler on drawdown.</HTML>
I again remember reading at Coburns that the '07 racer had busted its engine and that the Baldwin Vanderbilt of 1906 had busted its suspension---that they took the engine out of the Vanderbilt and put it in the '07 racer for the high speed run. Coburn may try and find that article amongst his huge collection. The new "strengthened" boiler was steel tubed instead of copper and allowed the boiler pressure to be jacked to 1300psi, not that this dare ever be used on that poor engine but greatly increased the reserve capacity of the boiler on drawdown.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.trivia
Posted by: C Benson (IP Logged)
Date: January 10, 2003 09:03PM
<HTML>The Loco had a comp' release I hope,,,,,Pierce only went to the 7'' stroke when they added the electric starter haha The napier was 6.5 X 6'',4cyl ,796 cid Factory racer K5,,,Find little ref to it,,,only McDonald's 6cyl,,,Cheers Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: C Benson (IP Logged)
Date: January 10, 2003 09:40PM
<HTML>While it is known as the K engine,,,remember the K as a car did not exist yet,,,except as a fantacy in someones mind,,,,Thank the powers that be that that person had the wherewithall to DO something about that dream,,,Never give up,,never give up ,,,EVER,,,,In 1906 was the beginning of the 6 cylender cars,,Matheson,Thomas,,Chadwick,,Pierce , Panhard-Levassor, Richard Brasier, among others,,,NEW FAD TO FOLLOW<,, LONG HOOD,,,,So why not,,,GEE WOW ,,,Fred the cycle racer-stud,,FE,who liked race horses, an going like hell,,,Yeh,,,HERE WE GG GO OO,,,,Bert Holland an others should not be forgotten,,,Was the first 30hp a K or M ,,,,DID the race engine have a desegnation AT THAT EARLY TIME,,,or was it just the racer pet project,,,XXXXX As far as I know timing is symetrical,,,open links vs crossed links give different cutoff timing,,be aware,,,,,boats dont need the advance,,,,xxxx2'' snow yesterday 4'' this morning going well below by Mon ,, We had 2' plus last week ,,,Rev Inkvest told me I could jump start both this AND the family cat w a hairdryer,,,See Ya Ben</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: Robert L. Maley (IP Logged)
Date: February 03, 2003 01:39AM
<HTML>I wonder if anyone has ever thought of making a plastic model of this engine to reduced scale. Easy to assemble and disassemble, colored components, made of plastic a lot like Tyco Toys. I have thoughts that an upcoming generation familiar with what has gone before, could carry on the fascination with Steam Engines with constructive improvements to overcome problems inherent in the originals. Does Smithsonian publish anything on their collection of Automobile Steam Engines? Curious.</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: allen blazick (IP Logged)
Date: March 08, 2003 10:25PM
<HTML>Ben, where did you read the report on the F? Allen</HTML>
Re: Stanley Rocket.
Posted by: dan smith (IP Logged)
Date: March 29, 2004 08:32PM
<HTML>Jim, As preparation for the 06 centennial here, (ormond beach) I recently inspjected the rocket replica currently at Daytona USA. It too has the engine behind the rear axle: I believe it is a 10 hp...Dan Smith, Race Director, Ormond Beach Centennial events</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.