Secret Oil Process

The trick is, how do you test it under race conditions instead of a spinning wheel with an aluminum rig?

It is not easy at all, but with successive iteration, you can come up with a model for the track and a model for the cars. The starting point is the Bearing car class. Most all who build one can get very close to the top fast times. The bearings run about a COF of 0.00035 by themselves.
After you pick all the other variables, you let the friction vary until you get a value to match the low time on the track last month. Then you do the other classes. Then you start over with the track again. You know even if the bearing car had zero friction, it has an angle on the track and wind resistance etc, so you force the angle to give you the fast bearing car times because it is as close to perfect as anyone can test. After all the smoke clears, I calculate the track is set up at 27.05 degrees. The bearing car total rolling friction includes the bearings, wheel rolling on track, and wheel touching rail. COF (combined from track data) for bearing = 0.032. For the Eliminators, COF = 0.04.
For SS it goes up to 0.062, and I also get 0.062 for the Street Pro

 
Wow. What formula do you use to encompass the track angle and "all other variables"? Mind sufficiently
blowup
 
All I know is that it is over my pay grade and YOU GOTTA wear that tie if you are going to Nationals in June!!!
cool
kickaxe said:
Wow. What formula do you use to encompass the track angle and "all other variables"? Mind sufficiently
blowup
 
All I know is that my " Flux capacitor needs 1.21 gigawatts of electricity" to make it back to a point where I can finish the race at 88mph.
lol
 
I've thought way too much about this...
dazed
and likely making it way too complicated.

My comment is more in reference to the second bullet point. Can it be said if you had one surface that held the oil, oleophilic, and another surface that was oleophobic, repelled oil, this would be an idea combination in the axle/wheel bore area. Because if both surfaces were oleophobic the oil would not stay in place and therefore would run dry quickly, slowing the car down after a few runs, as it would want to push the oil out.

What I would like to see at the very instant the car reachs the end of the track is a thermal view of the axle/wheel bore area. Cooler temps would indicate there is less friction taking place, or in other words, a good prep was employed that minimized friction. A controlled test could be made with a car with unprepped wheel bores and axles. Then move to the DD4H prep only to see if the test would show any temperature differences between the two preps. OK, so who has a thermal imaging camera?

Taking it to the next level!
headbang
BooYah!!!

kickaxe said:
  • The boundary layers are more likely where a person can find some improvement. Silicone and Teflon are both hydrophobic and partially oleo-phobic. They create the "slippery layer" that the fluid slides on. As nano scale products continue to advance, we may yet find the perfect (possibly permanent) silicone/PTFE product.
  • Finding a better fluid gripping, yet slippery substance to hold the oil to the other surface is also entirely possible. As 5K mentioned, making both layers extremely slippery = shedding of oil and loss of the hydrodynamic fluid boundary effect. Thus, the testing of ski waxes and other waxes. With skis, they work by holding melted water to the ski creating a fluid barrier between the ski and snow. If a non shedding very smooth wax with ski wax properties could be applied at a sub-micron scale.......
I enjoy reading the diverse threads here and, as soon as funds allow, look forward to racing with the amateurs and hopefully/eventually with the pros here. Happy testing and keep moving forward.
 
Interesting, a thermal view of polished wheels and axles would show the optimal viscosity and density of oil needed. Although this may already be how DD4H determined his in the first place. Having only been at this 3 year, I feel like I am playing catch up.....but loving every minute of it.

......and yes, the -philic, -phobic combo would most likely produce the optimal results.

best of luck in your new testing.
 
kickaxe said:
Interesting, a thermal view of polished wheels and axles would show the optimal viscosity and density of oil needed. Although this may already be how DD4H determined his in the first place.

I would have just went out and bought every oil and additive available and them mixed them all different ways and then used the fastest mixture.... but that's just me.... sometimes the best simulations don't account for all of the variables and the only way to figure them out is to send a car down the track....
 
I totally agree that simulations do not account for all variables and can never replace real testing on a track. Dr. Jobe proved that for everyone with amazing equations and not so amazing cars. But, his work "got the the gears turning" in many racers who developed applications from his models that moved the speed limit forward. His work is still the basis for much of the testing done. Having a target viscosity and density would allow for much less of the "buy everything and mix" approach and would help speed up the testing process by eliminating many types of oils from the testing method to begin with.
 
kickaxe said:
I totally agree that simulations do not account for all variables and can never replace real testing on a track. Dr. Jobe proved that for everyone with amazing equations and not so amazing cars. But, his work "got the the gears turning" in many racers who developed applications from his models that moved the speed limit forward. His work is still the basis for much of the testing done. Having a target viscosity and density would allow for much less of the "buy everything and mix" approach and would help speed up the testing process by eliminating many types of oils from the testing method to begin with.

Well said...
 
http://www.nanodiamondshield.com/

Has anyone tried this stuff? It fits with the theories of hydrodynamics in this thread. I saw it Pep Boys the other day and it piqued my interest. I almost bought some, but I figured I would ask here to see if it is worth testing first. Plus, in my current state of building, I should save up for a silver bullet first.
 
I tried searching for an MSDS but came up short, and their company site is under maintenance. Any luck with that?
kickaxe said:
http://www.nanodiamondshield.com/

Has anyone tried this stuff? It fits with the theories of hydrodynamics in this thread. I saw it Pep Boys the other day and it piqued my interest. I almost bought some, but I figured I would ask here to see if it is worth testing first. Plus, in my current state of building, I should save up for a silver bullet first.
 
The reason DD4H listed it as a bad lube is the fact that if you don't know how to use it proper it will destroy a set of wheels and it still has the potential to shorten the life of a set of wheels due to damage of the wheel bores even used properly. Jigaloo is not compatible with plastic there fore I think it was not a lube listed due to the fact if DD4h said to use it and and someone destroyed a set of wheels with it by not using it properly..............well you get my drift. Basically, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!!
 
lUBE, what do you mean lube I've never used such a thing. Do you think that would make me faster if I used it?
 
derby freak said:
The reason DD4H listed it as a bad lube is the fact that if you don't know how to use it proper it will destroy a set of wheels and it still has the potential to shorten the life of a set of wheels due to damage of the wheel bores even used properly. Jigaloo is not compatible with plastic there fore I think it was not a lube listed due to the fact if DD4h said to use it and and someone destroyed a set of wheels with it by not using it properly..............well you get my drift. Basically, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!!

I did list it as bad for that exact reason. I also listed it as bad to keep an ace in the hole. At the time the races weren't even close and several of the league racers were falling off and whining about having no chance. That is why I made the DVD. I got everyone to 99% and kept the 1% to myself. Some people hold the 1% against me and hold a grudge because I only sped them up .03 to .05 instead of .032 to .052. The Blue can Dupont was only a few thousandths slower than jig when applied correctly.

To this day I still use the same foundation. Some new products are mixed in but if you followed the DVD to a T you would still be basically as fast as any other method I have used. The newer products I have just make it easier.
 
yeah but if the shoe was on the other foot and they had done countless hours of research to find out what could make them fast and were blowing everybody away would they have told 100% of what they were using to everybody, i doubt it
 
So is it o.k. to use jig, or what should I use ? Only raced once with the am. class. So any help from anyone I could really use.. I have the dvd but sound's like things have changed in the few years. Is jig still the thing to use or what else should a racer use . I've only used graphite and used it at the last and only race I've been involved at. I raced under red devil racing. HELP from anyone.... THANKS T.Andreasen
 
T. Andreasen said:
So is it o.k. to use jig, or what should I use ? Only raced once with the am. class. So any help from anyone I could really use.. I have the dvd but sound's like things have changed in the few years. Is jig still the thing to use or what else should a racer use . I've only used graphite and used it at the last and only race I've been involved at. I raced under red devil racing. HELP from anyone.... THANKS T.Andreasen
Yes, most of us use the jig, it is faster than the dupont spray.
Spray jig on axles ONLY and let air dry 15mins