Trick flow heads

[Rat Bastid]

It would seem with the one dislike that Rat is having a pissy fit.
I expect dual conical would be for radical solid roller race applications. I also expect the cost to be pretty high.
Have a great day and keep smiling. And give youth an education every chance you get.

So you agree that companies like Trick Flow are ignorant of what springs are available and what works and what doesn’t, just like Bewy because that’s what he thinks. He doesn’t have the balls to come out and say it, so he beats around the bush. The fact is TF buys valve springs by the 10k or even the 100k count. They can buy any spring they want, and buying at that level means they get a huge break on pricing so the cost per unit would be so close it would be insignificant. In fact, I can argue that TF has a big enough wallet if they wanted a spring that wasn’t available they could get exactly what they wanted made. All that, and they are too stupid to investigate BH and conical springs. To make that assumption is the epitome of arrogance and foolishness. If TF though they could switch to a different spring for an improvement they would. That’s because at the very bottom of it all there is no gain, or they would be going backwards. I’ve ignored you two dullards for long enough but I wasn’t going to let this go. Bewy is a straight assumptive dickhead, who thinks Edelbrock changes their mind because they don’t know how to size a pleumum and you both think companies like TF are too stupid to look at the newest “technology” to see if it has a benefit. TF is not a cut rate, off shore made, low ball manufacturer like a couple of others I could name. They make a premium cylinder head and use the best parts that fit the price point of the market they are trying to reach. And yet they STILL don’t use a BH spring. Maybe you two should get off the web for a bit and reevaluate what you think you know. TF isn’t stupid. Think about that before you keep running your keyboard.

Edit:l went back and looked at the OP. The OP was considering buying TF heads and wondered why they didn’t use a BH spring. I answered that. Unless you have a damn good grasp of what a spring goes through or have used all this trickery before, why would you assume TF left something on the table. Telling the OP to swap out a set of springs on a whim is about as dumb as it gets. He could just as easily cause a problem as solve one, and at this point he doesn’t even have the heads or a problem yet. He is heading down a marketing rabbit hole. If I was the OP I would get on the phone with TF and ask them why they don’t use a BH or conical spring on their heads, or why they don’t offer them as an option. Then he would know.

 

[Oldiron440]

Man there's a lot of wind here...
All the head manufacturers use the cheapest parts they can get by with assembling their heads.
Cheap parts are used to achieve a price point, if TF heads came bare that's the way I'd buy them.

 

[Dale Davies]

So you agree that companies like Trick Flow are ignorant of what springs are available and what works and what doesn’t, just like Bewy because that’s what he thinks. He doesn’t have the balls to come out and say it, so he beats around the bush. The fact is TF buys valve springs by the 10k or even the 100k count. They can buy any spring they want, and buying at that level means they get a huge break on pricing so the cost per unit would be so close it would be insignificant. In fact, I can argue that TF has a big enough wallet if they wanted a spring that wasn’t available they could get exactly what they wanted made. All that, and they are too stupid to investigate BH and conical springs. To make that assumption is the epitome of arrogance and foolishness. If TF though they could switch to a different spring for an improvement they would. That’s because at the very bottom of it all there is no gain, or they would be going backwards. I’ve ignored you two dullards for long enough but I wasn’t going to let this go. Bewy is a straight assumptive dickhead, who thinks Edelbrock changes their mind because they don’t know how to size a pleumum and you both think companies like TF are too stupid to look at the newest “technology” to see if it has a benefit. TF is not a cut rate, off shore made, low ball manufacturer like a couple of others I could name. They make a premium cylinder head and use the best parts that fit the price point of the market they are trying to reach. And yet they STILL don’t use a BH spring. Maybe you two should get off the web for a bit and reevaluate what you think you know. TF isn’t stupid. Think about that before you keep running your keyboard.

Edit:l went back and looked at the OP. The OP was considering buying TF heads and wondered why they didn’t use a BH spring. I answered that. Unless you have a damn good grasp of what a spring goes through or have used all this trickery before, why would you assume TF left something on the table. Telling the OP to swap out a set of springs on a whim is about as dumb as it gets. He could just as easily cause a problem as solve one, and at this point he doesn’t even have the heads or a problem yet. He is heading down a marketing rabbit hole. If I was the OP I would get on the phone with TF and ask them why they don’t use a BH or conical spring on their heads, or why they don’t offer them as an option. They he would know.

I get what you are saying. Now look to the other head manufacturers and the spring choices they install on assembled heads. We need to take into account the intended application. I asume most would be looking at hot street/strip use. Then we have to take in customer perception. Most have been ingrained with needing dual springs for performance. Today the factories are selling autos with 500+ HP that rev to 7,000 RPM, and they are using BH springs in those engines, with warranty. Again I state, application.
Redoing the 1966 heads for my 289 Ford, I am using Melling valves designed for the 5.3L LS. Stem length is very close and they are about 0.100" larger in the valve head. Because the guides were previously knurled and have worn, I can not use sleeves so the machinist will install bronze guides. I have an Engle HFT cam from a 351 I had with low miles that I will use to replace the failing stock cam. With 1.7:1 rockers the lift will be 0.500. TFS sells a PAC spring with the required for these heads, 1.6" installed height and the required spring rate. These are a BH spring. The engine is for a Fordor street use. Application.
For an aggressive solid race cam application dual or triple springs would be the likely best choice. Application.
Now going back to the OP's original post, he states thinking of using the smallest cam TFS sells for his engine. This would indicate street use and lower rev limit. For him, checking the cam recommended spring rates and choosing springs with those specs is in order. Whether he chooses dual or BH is his choice. With BH comes the additional cost of the retainers and whether that poses a problem. It comes down to the owner's wishes, budget and the application. We can only offer our thoughts to help that person make a choice.
Your recommendation for him or others to call the manufacturer for their recommendations, is solid.

 

[Phreakish]

Today the factories are selling autos with 500+ HP that rev to 7,000 RPM, and they are using BH springs in those engines, with warranty. Again I state, application.

With regard to application: those OEM engines are designed more for cost and emissions than anything else these days. The performance is almost a side effect. Almost.

These modern engines run ring packs most hot rodders wouldn't consider, much lighter/thinner pistons, have better valvetrain geometry, and have a lifter/pushrod/valve package that's extremely well engineered due to the sheer volume of production and the manhours available to put into durability and abuse testing. The use of BH springs goes hand-in-hand with those other choices/constraints and is likely driven by cost as much as anything. A BH spring is going to use less metal than any single spring with a damper, or double or triple spring package, and the cost of the metal is what you get in commodity parts. The volume negates almost all the engineering and development costs, and automation nearly eliminates labor costs.

Modern heads and induction are also so good that most engines don't need the super radical cams that oldschool iron does - and thus can better control the valves with less force - which starts what an old boss of mine would call: "ever decreasing circles to the left until you fly up your own ***". By that I mean the lower force allows the designer to thin the valve stem, which then further reduces mass and required force, then the retainer can be thinned, and then the spring can be reduced in diameter, and then a BH profile can be used because narrowing one end of a spring is nearly free in a coiler and results in an even lighter retainer... In the end, you wind up with a very well engineered system that happens to use BH or conical because it was designed to - not because BH or conicals offer intrinsic benefits in and of themselves.

Making the change from a cylindrical spring to BH or conicals also comes with bigger implications than just resonance or surge or mass. The rate of the spring is no longer linear, and so becomes a much more involved engineering problem that the typical builder or hot rodder isn't going to have the ability to suss out. There's also decades of knowledge behind most enthusiast engines with regard to spring rates needed for certain cam specs. If the springs become non linear, and old assumptions are broken down, one is left with a recipe for disaster because seat/nose loads are no longer sufficient to describe a proper spring. Now you need an @.050 spring load too... or maybe @.200 - or does it matter more @ .500?

That doesn't mean they don't have their place, but the benefits only tend to matter in specialty use cases. Typically OEM applications or super-scienced out builds that need very minimal valvetrain weight, and in those cases the cam is going to have to be designed to work with the valvespring and valvetrain package as much as it is for the timing events.

It's a complex topic, and it seems like RB is only trying to point out that painting BH, or conical, or cylindrical springs with a broad brush as to their benefits and drawbacks is the wrong way to go about it because they all exist for different reasons and tend to operate under vastly different constraints/applications. Which I think Dale is also saying.
So in effect, ya'll are arguing about how much you agree with one another.

 

[Phreakish]

Cheap parts are used to achieve a price point, if TF heads came bare that's the way I'd buy them.

Like so?

That said, TrickFlow is known to not use bargain basement springs from chinese recycling plants. I'm pretty sure (could be wrong) that most all of their springs come from PAC - not exactly lightweights.

 

[Dale Davies]

With regard to application: those OEM engines are designed more for cost and emissions than anything else these days. The performance is almost a side effect. Almost.

These modern engines run ring packs most hot rodders wouldn't consider, much lighter/thinner pistons, have better valvetrain geometry, and have a lifter/pushrod/valve package that's extremely well engineered due to the sheer volume of production and the manhours available to put into durability and abuse testing. The use of BH springs goes hand-in-hand with those other choices/constraints and is likely driven by cost as much as anything. A BH spring is going to use less metal than any single spring with a damper, or double or triple spring package, and the cost of the metal is what you get in commodity parts. The volume negates almost all the engineering and development costs, and automation nearly eliminates labor costs.

Modern heads and induction are also so good that most engines don't need the super radical cams that oldschool iron does - and thus can better control the valves with less force - which starts what an old boss of mine would call: "ever decreasing circles to the left until you fly up your own ***". By that I mean the lower force allows the designer to thin the valve stem, which then further reduces mass and required force, then the retainer can be thinned, and then the spring can be reduced in diameter, and then a BH profile can be used because narrowing one end of a spring is nearly free in a coiler and results in an even lighter retainer... In the end, you wind up with a very well engineered system that happens to use BH or conical because it was designed to - not because BH or conicals offer intrinsic benefits in and of themselves.

Making the change from a cylindrical spring to BH or conicals also comes with bigger implications than just resonance or surge or mass. The rate of the spring is no longer linear, and so becomes a much more involved engineering problem that the typical builder or hot rodder isn't going to have the ability to suss out. There's also decades of knowledge behind most enthusiast engines with regard to spring rates needed for certain cam specs. If the springs become non linear, and old assumptions are broken down, one is left with a recipe for disaster because seat/nose loads are no longer sufficient to describe a proper spring. Now you need an @.050 spring load too... or maybe @.200 - or does it matter more @ .500?

That doesn't mean they don't have their place, but the benefits only tend to matter in specialty use cases. Typically OEM applications or super-scienced out builds that need very minimal valvetrain weight, and in those cases the cam is going to have to be designed to work with the valvespring and valvetrain package as much as it is for the timing events.

It's a complex topic, and it seems like RB is only trying to point out that painting BH, or conical, or cylindrical springs with a broad brush as to their benefits and drawbacks is the wrong way to go about it because they all exist for different reasons and tend to operate under vastly different constraints/applications. Which I think Dale is also saying.
So in effect, ya'll are arguing about how much you agree with one another.

Phreakish, I agree. Not sure on TFS springs source, but I do know the springs I need are sold by TFS through Summit and are sourced from PAC. Where AFR, Dart, Edelbrock or any of the other manufacturers source their springs I also can not say. The more reputable companies are most likely going to use American manufactured for quality. The offshore stuff may be acceptable, but maybe not. American made is likely more expensive, but you have more confidence in the quality. You also help keep fellow Americans working instead of people from a country that wants to wipe America off the map.
I sure hope our economies do not fall down the outhouse hole.

 

[Phreakish]

Phreakish, I agree. Not sure on TFS springs source, but I do know the springs I need are sold by TFS through Summit and are sourced from PAC. Where AFR, Dart, Edelbrock or any of the other manufacturers source their springs I also can not say. The more reputable companies are most likely going to use American manufactured for quality. The offshore stuff may be acceptable, but maybe not. American made is likely more expensive, but you have more confidence in the quality. You also help keep fellow Americans working instead of people from a country that wants to wipe America off the map.
I sure hope our economies do not fall down the outhouse hole.

I've only read and been told TFS uses PAC, and they do list PAC in several places - whether they use them for assembled heads is really a guess, but all indications seem to suggest it's true.

I cannot agree more with the rest of your post.

 

[Bewy]

Rat,
I could reply to your insults, but then I would be stooping to your level: at the bottom of the birdcage.....which I do not intend to do. So carry on, & I will reply every time in my own way. Is that enough balls for you....
As far as quality goes, Comp cams does not make springs, just like the other cam companies do not. Comp uses PSI or PAC, forget which one, but both are respected spring makers

TF & other manufacturers do not know what engine the heads will be used with or the performance level. So they provide general purpose springs. With the range of BH & conical springs now available, the user can tailor spring usage to lesser spring tension & less stress on the valve train.

To further your education, here is some more info on BH springs: In the back of Vizards SBC book, he lists 10 engine combos. #5, the highest output engine with a 300 nitrous shot, made 677 hp. It used BH springs...

In the BBC book, #2 engine a 496 made 649 hp,,with BH springs...with this comment, 'The flat tappet Dart headed 496 build was used to see how well Comps 2605 BH springs worked in practice.....the spring was good enough to run a 0.600" plus lift hydraulic valvetrain to 7000 rpm.'
In the same BBC book; heavy valves, heavy valve train,' This [photo of BH spring] is a top performing FT spring for street applications. With just 125lbs on the seat, it accommodates a 0.615" lift, & it delivers 350 lb over the nose force. This typically allows RPM up to 6800 with good dynamics all the way'.
And:
' This Comp 26055 BH spring with its 12.7gm retainer can handle 0.700" valve lift & rpm to over 7000rpm with minimal lifter collapse when paired with a hyd roller.'
And:
'..it pays to research which spring gets the job done with the minimum of spring force possible. [ italics in original ]. This is especially true when using a hyd roller because the least amount of force results in the least [ amount of ] lifter collapse.'

 

[Rat Bastid]

Rat,
I could reply to your insults, but then I would be stooping to your level: at the bottom of the birdcage.....which I do not intend to do. So carry on, & I will reply every time in my own way. Is that enough balls for you....
As far as quality goes, Comp cams does not make springs, just like the other cam companies do not. Comp uses PSI or PAC, forget which one, but both are respected spring makers

TF & other manufacturers do not know what engine the heads will be used with or the performance level. So they provide general purpose springs. With the range of BH & conical springs now available, the user can tailor spring usage to lesser spring tension & less stress on the valve train.

To further your education, here is some more info on BH springs: In the back of Vizards SBC book, he lists 10 engine combos. #5, the highest output engine with a 300 nitrous shot, made 677 hp. It used BH springs...

In the BBC book, #2 engine a 496 made 649 hp,,with BH springs...with this comment, 'The flat tappet Dart headed 496 build was used to see how well Comps 2605 BH springs worked in practice.....the spring was good enough to run a 0.600" plus lift hydraulic valvetrain to 7000 rpm.'
In the same BBC book; heavy valves, heavy valve train,' This [photo of BH spring] is a top performing FT spring for street applications. With just 125lbs on the seat, it accommodates a 0.615" lift, & it delivers 350 lb over the nose force. This typically allows RPM up to 6800 with good dynamics all the way'.
And:
' This Comp 26055 BH spring with its 12.7gm retainer can handle 0.700" valve lift & rpm to over 7000rpm with minimal lifter collapse when paired with a hyd roller.'
And:
'..it pays to research which spring gets the job done with the minimum of spring force possible. [ italics in original ]. This is especially true when using a hyd roller because the least amount of force results in the least [ amount of ] lifter collapse.'

You’re kidding right? You think TF didn’t look at 99% of the end users or their heads? Let me sum it up for you. Most guys buying their heads are going to run scam very close to what they close the springs for. They 5/16 pushrod. They KNOW the resonance of the valves, springs and retainers. They aren’t guessing. Yet you think ty are so stupid they just ran a spring off the shelf and put the head together. You don’t think they insulted with PAC before they ordered up 10,000 springs? You seem to think you are the smartest guy on the internet and don’t give credit to the companies who bust their asses trying to get a product to market at a price point that exposes that product to the broadest sales possibility.

Back to the OP, who was asking about changing springs on a set of heads he hasn’t even used yet, and you are still bandwagoning for something that you have no clue if there is even an issue. The analogy is you might have a heart attack so got get a bypass right now. That’s your “logic”. I stand by what I said, and I couldn’t care less what you or Vizard say. If the BH spring was all that, TF would have been using them years ago. Of course, they aren’t as smart as you so there is that.

For the OP, I would buy a set of BH’s and use them. That would settle it. If you are worried about harmonics and the general consensus is they stop harmonics then that’s what I’d use just so I could sleep at night.

 

[92b]

Stopped at the pac booth at PRI and asked "what's new?". Guy from pac said check out our new springs for the godzilla motor.

 

[Bewy]

Amen.

 

[PROSTOCKTOM]

WOW!!! So much hate and discontent I am not sure if I should post anything for fear of someone hating me next.

The main reason Beehives are not used on roller cam head is the lack of spring pressure rate. Most roller cam engines will use a spring rate per inch of around 700#. The top end of Beehives that I've seen are right at 400# per inch so they do not have sufficient pressure available to control the valve.

Also Conical are actually not a Beehive. Comp Cams has Conical and Beehives both. The Beehives as the name implies are shaped like a Beehive. The Conicals are shaped more like a Christmas tree. I actually just purchased Comp Cams 7256 conical spring to replace the K-Motion K-800 spring on my 440 street engine. K-800's had a 471# per inch rate and the single wire 7256 has 486# per inch rate.

What it always boils down to is cost on any item and when buying assembled heads in particular your only going to get a generic collection for a given application. This is why I prefer to buy my heads bare and outfit them with the hardware of my choosing.

Peace be with you all this Holiday seaon.

Tom

 

[MOPARMAGA]

One thing in common with the heads using beehive springs I've seen is tuliped valves & beat *** outta round seats. (LS heads and 5.7 hemi) Most newer engines still have a variable rate spring or regular *** springs. And as the OP stated he's going with a smaller camshaft, he doesn't need to worry about high tech (?) To turn maybe 6800 rpm periodically.

 

[Bewy]

Tom,
Your comments on BH & conicals are correct. The advantages of BHs, lighter weight, less spring reqd to control the valve train & better harmonic control also apply to conical springs.