428 replies to this topic

[Alex Bolanos]

Sam Henry is designing a new tool for the tech staff that will fit properly, use the full length of the valve guide and will work with no slop. I believe they will have a few different tools with varying stem thicknesses, so the tool fits properly in the guide and leaves nothing for interpretation. ( Sam's real job is an engineer who designs and manufactures similar tools and pieces every day)

Who made the first tool? When was it made and how long has it been the go no go gauge? Who has had access to it?

[Jim Drago]

Tools were designed by National staff in Topeka, no idea who manufactured them. They have been used since 2011. We all have access to the tools. The technical drawings are on the SCCA web site, any of us can reproduce the tools. I can't speak for anyone else, we never bothered with the tools because we always built our heads under the spec and never felt we were even pushing the edge.

Both races above have been won, tech is over, results are official.. Anything after that , positive or negative is sour grapes.

[High Chair]

Tools were designed by National staff in Topeka, no idea who manufactured them. They have been used since 2011. We all have access to the tools. The technical drawings are on the SCCA web site, any of us can reproduce the tools. I can't speak for anyone else, we never bothered with the tools because we always built our heads under the spec and never felt we were even pushing the edge.

Both races above have been won, tech is over, results are official.. Anything after that , positive or negative is sour grapes.

Jim the fact that tech is over and the results are final has no bearing as to how things are handled among our peers in the SM community. If what appears to have happened really did happen then you can expect this thread to go 30 pages+.

[Bench Racer]

After viewing the tool drawing I fully understand people being upset/or happy. A checking/go-no gauge tool with tolerances in the thousands. Duuuu.

EDIT:

Forgot this part, most likely require several flags/stems to fit different valve stem holes.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Dewy can you post the link to it? I wouldnt have the first idea to where to look on the SCCA site...

[Bench Racer]

Dewy can you post the link to it? I wouldnt have the first idea to where to look on the SCCA site...

http://scca.cdn.race...-11_reduced.pdf

[Caveman-kwebb99]

_{Dont look to hard to make really, but it definilty is not so easy a caveman could do it... would have to have a machinest build that thing.}

[Bench Racer]

_{Dont look to hard to make really, but it definilty is not so easy a caveman could do it... would have to have a machinest build that thing.}

Don't discredit your self caveman, you dudes did the first wheel. It's not hard to make, it just gets more costly bringing the tolerances smaller where the checking process requires the tolerances to be.

[Kyle Freiheit]

Is the radius of the tool design the same as the GCR says. Looks different to me.

Kyle

[pat slattery]

for some reason I can't download anything off the scca site, both my lap top and pc will not load. Anyone else having an issue?

[Glenn]

for some reason I can't download anything off the scca site, both my lap top and pc will not load. Anyone else having an issue?

Its a conspiricy against 1.6 drivers......

[Bench Racer]

Is the radius of the tool design the same as the GCR says. Looks different to me.
Kyle

The flag is .003 larger than the maxium radius specified in the GCR spec. Advantage to the motor over the spec.

Its a conspiricy against 1.6 drivers......

Pat, did you try opening the link from post number 348 above?

[dchamp]

I had the same problem opening the link pdf in my browser (Chrome) when I normally do not. You can right-click on the link, do a Save As... then you should be able to open the PDF with your browser, or Adobe reader.

[Jim Drago]

Its a conspiricy against 1.6 drivers......

That is funny
Pat, I have been complaining forever about the site.. If you are using google chrome or even internet explorer, I have issues. I have to use firefox for it to work

[Jim Drago]

The flag is .003 larger than the maxium radius specified in the GCR spec. Advantage to the motor over the spec.

with .006 slop in a new valve guide.. That is Only if tool is inserted perfectly straight. If is rocked at all, that number gets bigger or smaller.

[Kyle Freiheit]

Interesting. Seems that .003 and valve guide slop = fairly lenient.

Kyle

[Bench Racer]

with .006 slop in a new valve guide.. That is Only if tool is inserted perfectly straight. If is rocked at all, that number gets bigger or smaller.

Being that I wasn't there, are you saying the stem holes that were checked were that much larger than the tool stem or were the stem holes not round?

[Jim Drago]

Interesting. Seems that .003 and valve guide slop = fairly lenient.

Kyle

.003 =fairly lenient
.006 slop designed into tool= inaccurate measuring, one way or the other ( if tool is perfectly perpendicular.. it could fall in a hole that is roughly .00299 smaller than the spec.
valve guide wear= inaccurate measuring and not lenient, typically worse for competitor as it allows tool to fit in easier
Then add rock of tool, unless any of us can hold a tool straight within .003 of an inch over a 4-6 inch tool?

answer .003 bigger with no slop, tool needs to go to the bottom of guide and fit in the guide snugly, from top to bottom, takes out any guess work

[Kyle Freiheit]

maybe the tool should have 2 wings or maybe a cylinder. Even with slop, if one side could fall in, the other would catch. No?

[Alex Bolanos]

Interesting. Seems that .003 and valve guide slop = fairly lenient.

Kyle

Not only that but .006 of slop in a brand new valve guide seems like a lot. Is there any provision in the rules to account for "valve guide slop"? How large of a valve guide slop can I show up with claiming it's a used head? I'm just a cuban but .003" + .006" x 16 valves = how much HP? If there's nothing in the fine print to reign in these tolerances then too much is left up to creative appealing....