Hi all,

I am wondering if anyone has an estimate of measurement of various Stanley engine weights?

I know that they are very light and I seem to recall the 4 1/2" by 6 1/2" Rocket engine(one of them at least) being stated at around 200 lbs give or take, VERY light for an engine capable, briefly, of making around 2,500 ft lbs of torque or so.

I am also curious about the piston/piston rod/crosshead/connecting rod weights of various Stanley engines.

I believe that the early engines were much lighter then the later ones put in the heavy cars. . .

Caleb Ramsby

Caleb, The ealier Stanley engines were not only lighter, but they also were smaller in bore and stroke. The later 10 and 20 hp Stanley engines that came out later also had a front crank case baffel plate added. The 10 hp grew in displacement in 1910 as also did the Model R 20 hp engine in 1909. I am not much help on the counterweight sizes for the crank throws.

Hi Caleb,

In Floyd Clymer's Steam Car Scrapbook, Fred Mariott stated that the Stanley Rocket engine, from their land speed record car, 126 mph in 1906, weighed 205 lbs.. 4.5" bore, 6.5" stroke, 2 cylinder double-acting, 413.5 cubic inches displacement.

The various engines were close enough to scale models of each other (though with important differences, as Pat notes) that you could get a _rough_ weight estimate by figuring the same (approximately 2 cubic inches) displacement per pound of engine weight.

Peter

Thanks guys,

That sure is light!

That would be roughly 1 lb per static displacement and around 10 ft lb of torque per lb of engine, with ummm, semi destructive steam pressures(!?).

I am also curious as to what pressures a new Stanley engine could take for at least a few minutes without folding up or the cranks turning on the shaft. . .

A lot of the engine failures that I have heard of were on old engines, not so fresh. . .

Caleb Ramsby

Hi,,,The engines w/ leadalloy frame rods will fold long before the ones w/ stressproof rods,,haha,But the guy says they make a better thread,,,The crank key will hold,,thats why the 30 has a 1/8" wider gear,,so the key will survive,Thats also the reason the eccentrics are part of the gear,,more bearing for the keys,,Not so stupid these guys,,,engine twist is a problem if ya are goin to abuse it,,,but racing is so much fun,,IT SAYS RIGHT THERE IN THE OWNERS HAND BOOK use care,,dont abuse it,,,NOW I disagree on some weight issue,,,#4 30hp block 75# from foundry,,50# finnished,,#8 30hp block is 75#finnished,,BOTH are 4,5"x 6,5" ,,,,Thats one third difference in weight on that part,,The counterweight shape is dictated by the clearence to the shoulder of the con rod,,,haha,,as a result has a funney shape,,,have you noticed,,Jim may take the White out to keep the Rolls in good company,,,I'll get out the old K and go lookin for Heaths grandson w/the ol' Panhard,The same Panhard Helck and John Leathers scouted for,,,Stuff leagends are made of,,Did ya ever think of taking one of these old chug chug cars on a Sunday morning,,,,and catching a pigeon in flight,,,,THAT was Win Libbey s sport w/his K,,In Lewiston Maine,,1908-1912 He bought a National in "13 when they won 30May race,,,Things were never the same,,The 12 plate was still attached when Scott shew me the car in 1953,,And the National was in Boston seen at VMCCA meets,Warren driving,,,CB

If I had my guess on failure,,,I would first look at a slug of water,,cold,,IN SHORT CUTOFF,,and ya dont need to be going fast,,Rocking back n/forth before getting under way is useless also,,BEN

Hmm, rocking back & forth is what I've always heard & read - what ought I be doing instead?

My 1908 20hp Model H engine (same as Model F) weighs 124lbs excluding exhaust manifold and axle mount trunnions. I just weighed it. This is 3 5/8" x 5" for 206ci with the 3/4 inch frame rods at 5" centres - same as the 1910 onwards Model 60 Series 10hp.

Now have to clean the bathroom scales!!

Mike

On warming the engine, rolling forwards and backwards doesn't get rid of the water unless the engine can do a complete 360 degree revolution to expell the water. In our museum we have an immediate rise to climb as we leave the doorway. I will roll forward and back wards about 20 feet to clear the engine of water before I will attempt to roll on the steam to exit. I leave the steam chest valve cracked open until it blows clear of water which usually takes about another 20 yards. I close it as soon as I can so to retain the steam cylinder oil in the steam chest. The slide valves need all of the oil that they can get.

Mike,

Thanks for the weigh in! What some bathroom scales have to put up with!ha

124 lbs, for 206 ci or 103 static, that is gas car measurement! Considering that the engine doubled for the axle suspension/torque member, astounding lightness.

Huh, interesting that they adopted the 20 horse frame rod and spacing for the later 10s.

Ben,

Do you have any idea where that extra 25 lbs went? Mabey in the steam chest for a wider frame rod spacing?

I had always wondered why they made the gear casting more complex by putting the eccentrics on it, things are coming together in my mind now(for better or worse!?).

Did Win Libbey also race pigeons? Almost a forgoten sport now, hummm, use reverse process and use pigeon to find water for steamer(ie' Ark, land fall).

Caleb Ramsby

Hi Caleb,,,The block is somewhat thicker overall,,yes more space in the steam chest,,I'll have to think why,,the whole thing is close,,the #4 engine with the long stroke,,hmm,, well the big ends ALMOST hit the brake drums,,the ones next to the axle gear,,they actually pop on the brake straps when the engine gear count is 59 teeth,,of course the K engine gear is 66t stock w/axle gear of 54,,Somehow I think the draughsman had a beef with the guys in the pattern/assembly shops,,There just isn't much space to change anything,,and to grind the ball races right into the rods,,nice weightsaving,,but a hassle to mate to interchangable replacable bearings,,,Anybody got a good solution for the eccentric bearings,,Every time ya change something,,it gets heavier,,,Ben

Hey Ben,

Hummm, were they going for a larger steam chest to displacement ratio, mabey that was one of the changes for the modified Rocket engine?

I had heard 1/3 or so steam chest to displacement ratio, not sure if that is STATIC or DYNAMIC displacement.

A word and question on that matter,

In all of the old references engine sizes are just simply stated in bore and stroke, now almost everyone(but not all) state what I(rightly or wrongly(!?)) call dynamic displacement.

That is 4 1/2" X 6 1/2" bore and stroke, excluding clearance if filled with water would be 206.75 ci of water. Now the "pumped" volume would be twice of that(excluding the area of the piston rod) since the engine is double acting, so static(just siting there) 206.75 ci, dynamic(pumping volume) 413 ci.

It is just plain oll' weird to me, I like to think of what the power volume is, that is, two power strokes per rev for a DA steam engine. One power stroke every rev for a two stroke single acting engine(steam or IC) and one power stroke every OTHER rev for a four stroke single acting engine(standard IC).

So for a measured volume of 100 ci.

Dynamic displacement, that is effective power stroke volume.

Steam DA, 200 ci.
Steam SA or IC two stroke, 100 ci.
IC four stroke, 50 ci.

I am rather curious to say the least as to where the common modern practice of steam car guys stating the dynamic displacement of an engine instead of the standard, measured sitting volume.

Anyone have any idea about this?! Or personal preferences as to the standard designation?

Getting more and more off topic, but anyone know of people using sealed roller or ball bearings for the mains or big/small ends of dry Stanley engines, how well they would hold up?

Caleb Ramsby

Hi Ben,

Eccentrics are a bear. Diameter/width ratio nowhere near any standard bearing, antifriction or otherwise. Narrow, narrow, narrow, with large, large large diameter. How about cutting eccentrics with a little "step" in journal, polish/grease, centering/positioning one-piece eccentric rods around them, and pouring "best babbitt" (hi tin, no lead) into the gap? Uninterrupted bearing surface, plus ~50% more bearing surface in available space, yet lighter eccentric rods with no caps, ears, or bolts. Between eccentrics dipping in the oil, and copious splash, it should stay well-lubed. Bearing loads on this setup math out pretty low. I don't know if this will be any good on the road, but I plan to find out.

Amen on conrod/counterweight clearance. Much fun in my own scaled-740-based "Stanleyoid" engine design! In fact, almost all the mechanical clearances were endless fun. Oddly, some places had lots of wiggle room to work with, others were infuriatingly critical, esp allowing for up to 3° frame flex. Tiny changes radiated through the whole engine design, sometimes multiplying machine work, sometimes reducing it. I went with the less/simpler machine work changes. Back on topic, overall, about 20% heavier than a comparable Stanley engine, though much stronger and cheaper.

4140 "stressproof" frame rods, for sure. Found a few other places for 4140 too, including vertical frame brace rods at crossheads.

For water clearing, how about "puffing" the throttle open/shut a few times, with good exhaust release pressure, drip open, and car moving? Recommended in Stanley owner's manuals. Also, not blowing water thru engine during boiler fireup, proper piston/head clearance, and keeping throttle ground & plumbing right so the jugs don't fill up with condensate during standby.

Some of today's properly careful warmup/starting methods seem to have been often ignored back when Stanleys were ordinary daily drivers. One story I like (in Clymer, page 21) is how 8th-grader Raymond Stanley parked his car at school, and it was stolen by mischievous classmates. Car turned up a few miles away, abandoned, with an empty boiler but no damage. The pranksters didn't know how to turn on the burner. This happened several times. After that, he put a padlock on the throttle when parking. I doubt the young joyriders did careful engine warmups during their fast getaways.

Peter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2009 01:07AM by Peter Brow.

Its late,,,I'll try again tomorrow,,,Sone of these early Stanleys aparently did not feature the extended chest drip handle we are all used to presently,,,so Rays car may have had to just lift er valves,,You' er probably gonna put some water/steam through the engine,,if nothing else ,put to cool the superheater that gets full heat while getting up steam,, I really like Nergaards frame stiffners,,,work good,,,Re eccentric,,EVEN with balls,,,the thing will slam the pedal down if ya roll back on a hill w/pressure in the chest,,,Its been a while since my last rant on this,Its vicous[sp],,Ben

What clearance did they use between the head and piston?

Did this change much with time or different engine sizes?

It seems to me that this clearance would be much more important then that in the steam passageway.

Water doesn't take kindly to being bull rushed!

Caleb Ramsby

Hi Ben,

Good points as usual. No engine frame stiffeners for me. On rolling back with pressure in chest and hooked up, "Doctor, it hurts when I do that", "Well, don't do that". I plan to unhook at all stops. Hmm, just thought of an auto-unhook, acting at low speeds (unhooks as you approach stop), that might actually be simple ... or just a strong reverse pedal spring ... In various machines, I've dealt with ball/roller bearings badly out of adjustment, or dirty, brinnelled, or pitted, with massive play/drag, and with good babbitts that I mistook for new antifrictions due to the low drag. A bit o graphite (or moly = "molecular ball bearings") in crank oil should help with stiction.

One really simple idea I looked at was, press brake pedal, engine unhooks via linkage. That would be a simple, easily removed, and invisible retrofit for Stanleys too. Problem: rehook needed every time you brake to slow while cruising. Would that be worth _never_ having a rollback-reverse?

With warmup, choice may be saving superheater, with extra dewatering work to avoid risking engine, or starting with a dry engine and gradually frying the super. With a Stanley, I'd probably be a contender for the "most extreme babying it" trophy, but for my project "beater" (zero historic value), I'm making the superheater cheap and easy to drop & swap. My light "express boiler" looks like 60 seconds of burner to fire up, and with any luck usually left on pilot too (with auto fuel-off if it goes out), so the super won't toast as much as in a Stanley.

8 minutes or more of full burner on a dry pipe, each run, is harsh treatment indeed. Then again, all that superheater coolant flowing off into nice cold stationary cylinders to condense and build up for several minutes ... inlet open, piston well away from head ... drip open or not ... then move pistons ... even slow ... with vehicle inertia behind them ... ouch ... time/pipe/engine cost comparo time ...

Even cylinder-end drains are no solution there. Consider parking on a steep hill. Uphill end of cylinder could still fill with more water than clearance volume.

Ray should have left drip valve wide open, to retrieve car a bit closer to parking spot ... :)

Peter



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2009 09:28AM by Peter Brow.

Hi Caleb,

Different piston/head clearance for different engines. Numbers all over the map, not even counting modifications. Name an engine, somebody probably knows. I have the 740 figure somewhere, alas far from handy. Total 740 clearance volume (avg front/rear) 8.82%, from 'prints.

Peter

Peter,

It looks like between 3/16" and 1/4" clearance between piston and head for 740, from rough estimates.

Loco practice was 1/4" to 3/8" no matter the engine size.

It looks like part of Ropers warm up technique was to have some flue gases blast against the cylinder! Then the cylinder superheats the steam, instead of condensing it. . .

Caleb Ramsby

Hi Caleb,

Dead on. Forgot that I annotated the Schick cylinder block blueprint. 0.188" piston/head clearance by my calcs.

80% scale would be 0.150; 0.125 in the "B139". However, total average (f/r) clearance volume 10% instead of ~9% for 740 Stanley. This might allow a hair shorter cutoff at speed with the Stephenson link. Somebody here (post several years ago) pipetted his Stanley engine and came up with much higher clearance volume. I have been told that actual clearances, clearance volumes, and cutoffs vary in Stanley engines, but in good tune they all run fine.

Peter

Hi,,,Good topic?? Steam passageway / clearence volume / ease of making corebox s ,,Whose got knowledge/experience on this,,,here or new thread,,Ben