Continuous Improvement - Oil Control

Oil control on track is a weakness of a stock Toyota-powered Lotus. Our baffled oil pan, the gPAN has been a reliable solution that has kept many, many cars safe with good oil control when subjected to 1+g loads. We initiated a serious dry sump effort to develop the next level in oil control but continued to look at the gPAN to see if slight improvements could be made.  Both our dry & wet sump solutions are discussed in this post.

A wet sump solution like the gPAN is truly the best option for most owners as it remains street friendly. I cut my engineering teeth at Pontiac Fiero where continuous improvement was part of our daily mission and expectations. In the 90s, I worked with the Japanese OEMs, while working at 3M Automotive, and saw it applied at all areas of their business. From the Japanese I learned that small improvements, done continuously, can have a big impact over time.

The new gPAN2 is an example of a product that we have been able to improve through small design changes. Our latest improvements are horizontal ledges in the side of the pan. The chart above shows oil pressure data measured from two of our Elises(Nirvana & Blue Car). They were equipped with basically the same modifications: Nitron 46mm Triples, Hoosier A6s, SJ Racing wheels, RACEunderAero, titanQR and KATANA265. The Blue Car had our new ULTRAliteLINES vs. stock oil cooler lines in Nirvana, which may account for the slightly higher average oil pressure. The data is from the Lotus Cup events at Laguna Seca in 2010 & 2011, with yours truly doing the driving. We took laps that were close in time and also compared the g loads (over 1g) to insure we were loading the cars equally. The data is shifted a bit as our Start/Stop point were a bit different for each car so the peaks and valleys don't correspond perfectly.

The variation between the two pans is the most striking difference. Both gPANs do a good job with keeping the oil pressure in an acceptable range - the gPAN2 simply controls the variation better. Will this make any difference to wear and tear on the engine? Hard to say as we don't have the ability to test longevity. The engineer in me says that it must be better as it varies less. Though there would be added cost of material and labor for welding the ledges, I felt it would be an improvement worth incorporating.  It was also a big enough improvement that a new name was in order.  So we put on our creative hats and came up with... gPAN2...8^)

Dry sump development continues in earnest. We took Blue Car to Spring Mtn racetrack two weeks ago to test her.  We first ran her on a dyno to insure we had a working solution then made the trek out to SMMP. The oil tank in our solution is a modified tank from Peterson. Ryan spec'd a design and had it built. He wanted to see how well the solution would work so installed a temporary clear top on the tank so we could view the oil in action. The Dailey pump that we choose includes the air separation stage as external oil pumps can add a ton of air into the oil causing foaming. His separator works amazingly well as shown in our video: Tank in action

We recruited our friend Jack to drive the car at the track in 105deg F weather. He ran the car under specific directions from Ryan so we could check various issues. Oil pressure readings were excellent once we determined the correct oil level. The two issues that we experienced were our breather set-up and low hot idle oil pressure. The breather plumbing from our tank was not adequately shielded from the incoming oil under high revs, so too much oil was getting into our catch tank. You can see a bit of this in the video above. We're now making a change to the vent design. The hot idle pressure required that the pump be removed and tweaked by Dailey. The pump was adjusted after we returned and the tank is now getting modified. We should be ready for testing again soon.

More Track testing: 2ZZopg, Brake Pads, etc.

We were at the track again last week for more testing. We pulled our engine and had Bruce Nogrady install our new oil pump gear, the 2ZZopg. We went to Willow Springs to test after confirming that the gear was running fine on the street. We also needed to test another brake pad compound and an improvement to an existing product. My good friend and fast LCS racer, Jack, met us at the track and was our official test driver. Jack has many, many laps on this track and could be trusted to put the car under high loads to confirm the performance of parts we are developing.

Jack ran the car for a few sessions and I ran one session as well. I downloaded the data from our AiM system between each session. The oil pressure looked fine and the car was running well even in the 97degF heat. See graph with data below. The gear is the same dimensions as stock but made from higher grade steel. Since it passed our testing, we added it to our website today. It is now ready for anyone building a motor and looking to upgrade over the stock sintered gear - which is known to break apart under high rpm, oil starved use.

We continued to test brake compounds with the 308BBK & Front OE caliper relocation set up. We had run the Carbotech XP12 front & XP8 rear at the last two track tests with good luck. We decided to test out the more aggressive XP10 in the rear this time. The car remained stable under heavy braking. Jack even felt it dived less. The added bias to the rear was noticeable over the XP8 but not nervous like the last time I tested different pads at Willow: previous test.

The brackets used to relocate the front caliper have been ordered and are expected to be in stock this week. I think it will be the solution for many of the power junkies out there who are looking for a BBK that still retains their hand brake.

I am very happy with these pads - Ralph@V2 has been swearing by Carbotech pads for years with his racing efforts. We had first tested these pads last year and have recently added them to our stock. Trail braking is great with these pads and amazingly, the dust is low and easy to clean. The only negative so far is that the pads must be bed with care, though we get them pre-bedded to ease this process.

The ULTRAliteLINES continue getting tested along with a couple of new products. We are very pleased with the data that we are gathering. The FuelSafe fuel cell was removed from the car before this test, filter cleaned and replaced. It ran well and remains a great solution though you must monitor the fuel consumption. We are working with them to improve the fuel reading as I had described in a previous post.

The engine was yanked out today by Chris. We take it to Bruce tomorrow to prep it for the Dailey Dry Sump system. Ryan will be done with the tank for this system this month. We will be back to track test it with Dave T. at the wheel. The Blue Car must be ready for LOG31!

Mitigating Innovation Risk Via Testing

I received an email last week from a supplier (and friendly competitor) expressing concern about the clamps that we were using in our new ULTRAliteLINES. His concern was based on the fact that Gates, the manufacturer of the clamps, recommends them 'for vehicle coolant hose only'. I very much appreciated the feedback from him as it made me realize that others would also raise this concern - even though we are using it with hose engineered for coolant, oil and other fluids. So this blog entry serves to show our approach to insuring the performance of our product.

We knew our kit was a novel application of these components and did not know of any other companies that were using it this way. These lightweight Startlite hose, clamps and BSP fittings, were so cool (to us geeks) that we wanted to determine if they were fit for use in our application. Since coolant and oil as fluids look extremely similar to each other from the clamp's perspective. The only system differences are a small temp difference (coolant goes to 240F or so, oil to 270F) and the significant difference of pressure (15psi vs 100psi). The material properties are irrelevant to our hose system as neither fluid comes in contact with the clamp since our arrangement is over a barbed fitting, not a reused hose that could have oil on it. Therefore, pressure capability was the only real concern for our testing to investigate.

We felt spending the time and money to conduct track and lab testing would be the right path for this kit. It added 4 months to our development schedule but clearly needed to be done as we knew of no others who run this combination.

Ryan, who developed the ULTRAliteLINES, and I have a combined 25+yrs in the OE and Tier 1 auto industry. I spent 12yrs developing new products at 3M Automotive and subjecting these parts to OE specification and internal tests. Developing lab tests that would predict the lifetime of a part was always a Holy Grailish endeavor. There are committees of scientists and engineers who work towards striking the right balance between real world testing and simulated testing done in a lab. We decided a combination of lab with actual in-car testing would be the best indicator of how the product would hold up. Frankly, thoroughly testing this creative 'joint' would be the only thing that would allow us to sleep at night!

Laboratory tests:

We found a lab in MI that specializes in automotive line and fitting testing. They would be able to subject our kit to extreme conditions we could never replicate on the street or track. We sent them three samples of our kit and had them run two types of tests:

1. Pressure Proof: 150degC@150psi for 30minutes and check for leaks
2. Burst: increase pressure until failure

These tests represent extreme conditions that would never be seen in our cars. But by testing in this manner, we can fatigue the product and try to extract a failure. Accelerated tests can help predict potential failures, so extreme conditions are warranted. Since our budget did not allow optimization of this joint, we did not test various combinations. We only tested the configuration that we felt would be the best for our kit.

We created a marketing piece that shows the test results. You can see it here: LAB results. Essentially we passed the Pressure Proof tests and showed a safety factor of 3 to 5 times on the Burst test. This test is quite extreme as it is run immediately after the Pressure Proof test. Basically, the fittings blew out of the hose at pressures that were 3 to 5 times higher than they would ever see - even at peak operating levels. Frankly the test showed that the joint was withstanding 6 times normal operating pressures. As an engineer, this is a comforting margin and insures blissful sleep.

Track testing:

Subjecting parts to the track can be some of the best testing possible. This testing will insure that the cars can run even more reliably on the street. We installed the ULTRAliteLINES onto our Blue Car, a 2004 Elise. We initially ran it at the Big Track at Willow Springs, then at CA Speedway (Auto Club Speedway) and then finally at Laguna Seca. Here is a video from Laguna Seca: Blue@Laguna. We were testing several other products as well but the ULTRAliteLINES were run for a total of 11hrs (including dyno, etc) and approx. 360 track miles.

We used our AiM data system to record key parameters like oil temp and pressure. We also reviewed the lateral acceleration numbers to see how the pressures were holding up with our gPAN. The car showed oil temps of approx 200degF which is well under the 300deg F used in the Pressure Proof testing. The actual oil pressures we logged ranged from the high 40s psi to the low 60s psi. This was a third to half of what was used in the lab testing and far, far below the Burst test results of 344, 452, 565 psi. Ryan's OE experience suggested that a peak pressure of 100psi would be the extreme level experienced by our lines.

Other Considerations:

Proper component selection is key for a reliable system. Each of the parts we chose, come from reputable automotive companies who have done extensive testing. We simply supplemented their work with tests that were specific to our needs.

The Aeroquip Startlite hose has been used for fuel, oil and coolant applications successfully and has been fully tested by Eaton Corp. The braided hose actually imparts a clamping force onto the fittings, much like a 'Chinese Finger Trap' when you pull it. The Lotus twin oil coolers utilizes a fair amount of rubber hose. This became a clear opportunity, for weight reduction, if we used Startlite, since it is 40% lighter than typical rubber hose.

The Gates clamps were the newest and novelist item in our system. They have the ability to dynamically adjust compression based on temp. They also work very well when applied over hose/fitting barbs as they have much more clamp surface area and better conform the hose to the fitting barbs. The Gates clamps also claim to be impervious to ALL automotive type fluids.

Combining all these features made good engineering sense to us. We just need some testing to insure we were onto a good thing...and separate us from the typical approach that is used in the aftermarket.

Options For the Ultra Cautious:

I recognize that some in our community may still want more security. For them, I suggest the tried and true hose clamp. They can easily be added as a secondary clamp over our Gates clamps or as the primary clamp. They add just a tad bit more weight...I suspect Colin Chapman would simply run our kit as is...