250 replies to this topic

[tripplej93]

Right now there are 15 cars registered so over two days I hope to see most the cars either on the dyno Whistled or both.

 

 

I'm hopeful a solution can be found prior to Runoffs too...  I may be the NASA guy but the good of the class comes first.  Finding a way to keep the existing rules in place and have an easily repeatable process to test is my aim.

What I was trying to say is that you are welcome to take our 1.6 Motor to a third party who can take it apart and double check all the stats.   Whistle it, then take it, check it, etc.   I want a repeatable system that works too.   Make it fair, make it repeatable.   If the whistler procedure can be repeatable, understood, and reliable then I am all for it, and whatever I can do to help.   

[Parity]

I'll chime in here. Disclaimer: I've never seen a whistler and have no idea how they're used. I also have never cc'd an engine. But I've been in aerospace manufacturing for a few years and have worked in metrology (measuring stuff). Even in ISO certified aerospace manufacturing processes it is common to have a specification limit defined but the verification method is left up to the manufacturer. Findings will absolutely vary based on method of inspection. For instance if you inspect a cylinder bore use a 2 point dial bore gage versus an air gage versus a CMM you WILL get different readings. There is far more gray in the interpretation of the finding than most non technical people would ever expect. I've had to contest rejections based on misuse of inspection tools and variation between inspection methods many times.

 

If Ti Speed or anyone else has actually used the whistler to verify compression because that's what SCCA is using than in a ISO quality philosophy they have done nothing wrong. The correct approach here should be for the SCCA to define exactly what method they approve to verify compression and that's the standard Period. If another method of inspection shows different reading then so be it. The approved method is the only one that counts. What would you do if during a tear down inspection the cam diameters were inspected with a caliper rather than a micrometer and failed because it was out .002"? I suspect most folks would challenge the findings and they should.

 

Although we certainly have seen intentional cheated stuff, I'm not convinced this is one of them. IMO the solution here needs to be a proper definition by the SCCA and NASA on how exactly the compression limit will be tested. The tools and procedure need to be documented and verifiable between various techs and witnessed by racers in question. Define the process, verify, and document. Problem solved.  Now let's move onto driver parity...

[Ron Alan]

Will there be a go/nogo tool next week?   

[Bench Racer]

I'll chime in here. Disclaimer: I've never seen a whistler and have no idea how they're used.  

SCCA Whistler procedure, dated 8/21/14. If there is a tech bulletin specifying additions/changes to the procedure please provide.

http://scca.cdn.race...ures Manual.pdf

 

Please note point 7. as there is no set procedure, with valve cover or without valve cover.

 

7. Determine correct spark plug adapter and install it in place of the spark plug (minimal torque is required). In some cars, especially overhead cam vehicles with spark plugs well down in the engine, it may be necessary to remove the valve cover to get an accurate reading.

[HoneyBadger - BrianW]

We can get closer but its still another test that can be beat...its being beat now.  With the head on the car its very hard to get accurate bore and stroke.  The whistler can be beat with both bore and stroke (and a few other ways)....

 

Some found ways to beat the whistler with the valve cover on....others have found different ways and pass with the valve cover off...  The whistler while an incredibly accurate tool when all the variables are know its far to easy to beat with the variables masked..

While I 100% agree with what you are saying, I think there is a difference between blatant cheating (what you are mostly describing above) and building to the test. "I feel" that most engines that are over on compression are simply exploiting a gray area of testing, at least in their minds they aren't outright cheating. I know this is a slight difference but I think it keeps the conscience clean of those that have stepped into this gray area. Everyone ventures into the gray area, whether it is using bent front spindles to gain additional camber or whatever the case. It is justified as exploiting the rules rather than out and out breaking them.

 

While we can't keep people from blatantly cheating, I think simply revising the whistle procedure will close the "gray area" and cure most of what we are currently seeing.

 

JMHO

[Parity]

 

 

7. Determine correct spark plug adapter and install it in place of the spark plug (minimal torque is required). In some cars, especially overhead cam vehicles with spark plugs well down in the engine, it may be necessary to remove the valve cover to get an accurate reading.

 

Yeah, that leaves the door wide open. Based on that you can use either method, chose the result you want, and not be in violation of the standard. Tech bulletin specific to the class could provide a better documented procedure.

 

Let me ask this. Is the whistler intended to be a method to verify compression or simply a pre-screen to determine if a full tear down is required?

[Bench Racer]

Yeah, that leaves the door wide open. Based on that you can use either method, chose the result you want, and not be in violation of the standard. Tech bulletin specific to the class could provide a better documented procedure.

 

Let me ask this. Is the whistler intended to be a method to verify compression or simply a pre-screen to determine if a full tear down is required?

Agree with your point 1. Read the Whistler procedure and there's a bunch more doors left wide open for disaster.

 

As far as I'm concerned, an engine builder cc's an engine and the tech should be completed by the same process. The Whistler should be a red flag for a cc job like the engine builder did. Sound familar relative to manufacturing. and, yup, I understand to cc takes time and experienced mind and hands.

[HoneyBadger - BrianW]

Agree with your point 1. Read the Whistler procedure and there's a bunch more doors left wide open for disaster.

 

As far as I'm concerned, an engine builder cc's an engine and the tech should be completed by the same process. The Whistler should be a red flag for a cc job like the engine builder did. Sound familar relative to manufacturing. and, yup, I understand to cc takes time and experienced mind and hands.

I don't think engine builders cc every single engine they build. They come up with a formula, block height, cylinder deck, gasket, etc that they have cc'd before and they crank them out. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is how most do it. Slight tolerance stacking in the formula change the compression very minor amounts, nothing I would think would be significant.

[Danny Steyn]

I don't think engine builders cc every single engine they build. They come up with a formula, block height, cylinder deck, gasket, etc that they have cc'd before and they crank them out. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is how most do it. Slight tolerance stacking in the formula change the compression very minor amounts, nothing I would think would be significant.

 

I too would be very surprised if any Miata engine builder CC's every motor. They might do a few here and there and especially check the ones that are going to be near the pointy end to make sure they are close and not over.

[Tom Sager]

I too would be very surprised if any Miata engine builder CC's every motor. They might do a few here and there and especially check the ones that are going to be near the pointy end to make sure they are close and not over.

I'm a little surprised that some builders say they don't CC most or every engine.  Most are trying to build/buy top power and there has to be some variation from head to head and chamber to chamber (not to mention blocks and cranks) and that variation if you're walking the line in the rules could cause an engine to be out of compliance.  It only takes 1 cylinder to be out of spec to be non-compliant.  I would want to know as a builder or a buyer what each cylinder measures. 

[Parity]

 

I would want to know as a builder or a buyer what each cylinder measures.  

 

Once you've done several engine and calculated the tolerance stackups, its become very predictable as to what the results will be. Knowing the diameter of the cylinder bores is one small part of the equation. You'd have to know it's cylindricity, roundness, as well as the piston diameter at the combustion point and volume of the dome area, not to mention exact head gasket thicknesses and other variables. If builders have to document and record this to deliver to the customer then I'm sure we'd be looking at 8k-10k motors. At least in theory the whistler should be the better method since it measures to combined effect of theses variables which ultimately what compression ratio is.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Its rediculous to thing engine builders should cc every engine... Do we want to be paying 9k for these engines next week?

I have zero problem accepting the Whistler with cover off results as gospel... I also have nomproblem is you measure .1 over even it flickers .2 but never stops there.

If you are found to be .2 or more over when the numbers stop they you are cheating period! You should be dq'd period and it should be your responsibility to clear your name by proving either you engine builder built it against your wishes or that in fact the Whistler number is not right by cc ing the engine and publishing the letter you receive back from the scca.

There will be no hiding in the future from this exposed cheat there are several of UA that are absolutely determined to clean this up. If you think you can continue to hide outside the top 3 think again your day is soon coming. Even if the tech crew covers your ass by changing to procedure post race to prove your legal you will have to deal with the court of public opinion! We all have formed opinions as to what really happened at the sic.

[Bench Racer]

I don't think engine builders cc every single engine they build. They come up with a formula, block height, cylinder deck, gasket, etc that they have cc'd before and they crank them out. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is how most do it. Slight tolerance stacking in the formula change the compression very minor amounts, nothing I would think would be significant.

From my non engine building capabilities we agree. And maybe using the Whistler at the get-go (before the Whistler cheat area was known) allowed some plus 2-5 hp flyer engines get out the door.  

[LarryKing]

 

Do we want to be paying 9k for these engines next week?

 

Which is only 25% more rediculous (and also ridiculous) than paying $6,000 - $7,000 for a mass-produced in-line 4 cylinder when you can buy a stock reman all day long for $1,500.

 

http://www.automotix...G6VsaAtwr8P8HAQ

[Jim Creighton]

I resent what K Webb just posted about us changing the procedure to "prove" cars were legal at Daytona. No one could find the written change to the whistler procedure and as such, we used the printed instructions we had to whistle the cars in impound. Several people went on line searching for it and couldn't find it on Sunday at the track. The driver who filed the protest apparently did not have it.

I just looked at SCCA to see if a tech bulletin was issued and I don't see it with the tech bulletins. With all going on and 7 other races to run and deal with on Sunday, I did not have time to go to my motorhome and sit in the AC to look this up.

Tech did not "cover anyone's ass". We performed the tests just as the printed material said. Whose fault was it that we did not have the update? No idea. But, I can tell you that if I had had that update, the cam covers would have stayed off and I would have stood by the readings I got. Without it, I had nothing to base my original method (cam covers off) to the Stewards. Remember, tech only measures and reports.

I've explained this all before, but it seems some of you don't want to accept this. I'm done. I'm going to leave tomorrow for a Pro Cup race and return home on Sunday, pack my bag and leave for the airport to go to the Runoffs where I will be Tech Chief for the production cars. I will not look upon another SM until the ARRC.

[FTodaro]

Jim lord knows i am not going to be able to defend Kyle, (i do not do criminal law anyway) but i do not think any of his rant was directed at you or anyone personally. I know that this has been brewing with him for along time, and its been like popping a cork on a Champagne bottle.

 

I think everyone on here respects you and the hard work that all the volunteers put in to this little hobby. I know from working closely with our tech guys in our region that they are over worked and under paid. Have more on their plate than just us SM nuts.

 

Just my two cents.

[Dan Tiley]

I resent what K Webb just posted about us changing the procedure to "prove" cars were legal at Daytona. No one could find the written change to the whistler procedure and as such, we used the printed instructions we had to whistle the cars in impound. Several people went on line searching for it and couldn't find it on Sunday at the track. The driver who filed the protest apparently did not have it.

I just looked at SCCA to see if a tech bulletin was issued and I don't see it with the tech bulletins. With all going on and 7 other races to run and deal with on Sunday, I did not have time to go to my motorhome and sit in the AC to look this up.

Tech did not "cover anyone's ass". We performed the tests just as the printed material said. Whose fault was it that we did not have the update? No idea. But, I can tell you that if I had had that update, the cam covers would have stayed off and I would have stood by the readings I got. Without it, I had nothing to base my original method (cam covers off) to the Stewards. Remember, tech only measures and reports.

I've explained this all before, but it seems some of you don't want to accept this. I'm done. I'm going to leave tomorrow for a Pro Cup race and return home on Sunday, pack my bag and leave for the airport to go to the Runoffs where I will be Tech Chief for the production cars. I will not look upon another SM until the ARRC.

 

 

Jim... please don't let the very loud and abrasive words from one competitor detract from the fact that the rest of us appreciate you and what you do. We appreciate the fact that you follow the book, but keep things fair and fun at the same time.  I seriously doubt anyone else here will have anything to say to the contrary.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Mr. Creighton I recently added the atl region as one of my regions of record because I wanted to support what I have seen from you in the past.

You said earlier you were only in an advisory role at the sic. I accept that post with no problem. My previous statement was not aimed at you in any way and sorry if you felt it was.

If I was in charge of tech at the end of this debacle knowing I am not getting paid I may have done the same as what was done. Regardless of how it went down it did make non compliance compliant.

I also believe that most will now correct this problem if it exists in their cars.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

And Dan for the record as an engine builder I would have done exactly what you and others did.

As an smac member I would never do it.

As a competitor I want us all fair in that regard.

[Jim Drago]

Which is only 25% more rediculous (and also ridiculous) than paying $6,000 - $7,000 for a mass-produced in-line 4 cylinder when you can buy a stock reman all day long for $1,500.

 

http://www.automotix...G6VsaAtwr8P8HAQ

That engine is 110,000 miles and used  I know a guy in Memphis who will sell you one of those for $1100 exchange