250 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

  I will add the the current 7) still does not say "must"...  So nothing was done "wrong"   

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.

 

[LarryKing]

 

I know a guy in Memphis who will sell you one of those for $1100 exchange

 

Have you got enough for everyone?

[Johnny D]

Have you got enough for everyone?

 

I'll pass.

(engine below has no relation to Drago)

https://www.youtube....h?v=ww9cFE3lKcA

J~

[Tom Sager]

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

 

Kyle, you make it sound like an engine builder would charge two-grand to CC a clean 4 cylinder engine .  I've had my last 2 '95 engines CC'd and I doubt it added more than a couple or few hundred bucks to the bill.  Getting a build sheet back with an engine which defines a number of important dimensions including compression is worth a few extra bucks to me.  

[MPR22]

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

If you were sitting there watching all the testing, tweaking, re-testing, hours on the dyno.... It takes to squeeze every HP of FT/LB of tourque out of engine you would understand why the top builders charge what they charge. It takes 10s of thousands of dollars to get to the point where a top engine builder can "mass produce" a top motor. Every year brings additional tweaks and tests , not to mention he marketing , warranting of their product. These engines are built to the razor edge tollarances that from to time fail. The parts alone for a rebuild are about 2k for and 01. Never mind the machining and assembly labor.

If you want a great class that uses sealed mass produced engines that are cheap, CHonda karting is the class for you. If I weighed 175 lbs that would be where I raced for hundreds of $$ per weekend not thousands of $$$. I'm sorry the class became so popar that it has priced you out of what you feel is reasonable. Popularity has its price.

Write the correct repeatable procedures for whistling the engines at ALL races as minimum test and move on. The "grey area" will always be exploited. It's F' ING RACING!

[Bruce Wilson]

Okay, I'll say it.  Some others have eluded to it, but maybe not as strongly as this.

 

Building engines to the whistler spec should NOT be the new standard going forward, and it should have in no way been the standard in the past!  

 

The Whistler should only be used as a way to detect non-compliance, but cc-ing should be the final say.  Yeah I know it's hard, believe me, I know

 

Everyone I've talked to in the last several days agrees.

 

Note: Sorry I should have posted this on the other thread.  Can somebody move it?

[Ron Alan]

warranting of product!

Really? HP? Or failure? I would think there has to be a lot of documentation on the driver end in the case of a failure warranty.

I'm with Tom...a little extra to guarantee a CC'd CR. Especially when I can confidently say my motor is legal!

[MPR22]

Really? HP? Or failure? I would think there has to be a lot of documentation on the driver end in the case of a failure warranty.

I'm with Tom...a little extra to guarantee a CC'd CR. Especially when I can confidently say my motor is legal!

Ron,
If you want to be 100% confident it's legal build it yourself. If that is your absolute threshold for what you will accept.

Warranty, yes, if there is a manufacturers defect the engine builders I have spoken with will warrant the issue. It's not about HP vs reliability. It's usually a weird machining issue that crops up from time to time. My engine builder does almost 100% of his own machining to minimize these issues. No human is perfect. Most engines are blown up by the owners, no oil, lost alternator belt, lost radiator, over rev. Those are usually pretty obvious. Thrust bearing damage is pretty common, usually caused by things other than builder. Installation with an impact wrench and not lining up the trans properly, start up with our overly grabby clutches are hard on them for similar reasons, diff counter weight failing can cause damage to the thrust bearing. Again almost all of those are easily detectable. On the other hand a rod sized improperly, and oil pump failure because the spring port wasn't de-burred, bearing failure because of improper install, all of those are pretty easily laid at the feet of the builder.

[Johnny D]

Aren't we talking about this to get the rules to reflect reality ???

 

There's the "should" but if tech can't/isn't going to, then it shouldn't be discussed IMO.

 

The capabilities of tech should play a hugh role in the rule set, this could vary from region to region or Major event, etc.

 

But the grey area comes from what's the rule is and what's reality.

 

So let make the rule reflect reality so it's fair for everyone.

 

And I think it's KISS, and the super smart that figure out the grey areas deserves the gains until we catch on and have another discussion like this.

 

J~

[Bruce Wilson]

What reality are we reflecting Johnny? People building to the Whistler when they know they shouldn't?  Why is a majors motor different than a runoffs motor? because people know they very likely won't get cc'd at the Majors...  

 

What I'm hearing is that people want to make the Whistler the final say, and I (and others) say it shouldn't be.  

 

Fix the Whistler procedures and let folks get DQ'd, but they should still be ALWAYS be able to appeal and get the motor cc'd for the final say.  Why is that so hard?  Surely given enough time someone can get an accurate measurement.  Even I can do that and I'm NOT a mechanic (dammit Jim I'm a driver, not a mechanic).

[Johnny D]

there's is no right or wrong there's what is, (so zen)

 

So what people are expecting should be, no prob with a CC, done properly, where ever, ship it??

but for tech to CC however many seems a bit far fetched. in the sun, missing lunch, working late, etc.

 

There are other ways, cert, seal, fee, that all cost more but is that reality?

What will be, will be.

J~

[Bruce Wilson]

Wasn't saying to have tech cc.  Again, let tech use the Whistler (hopefully properly), but final say should be cc (through appeal).  Has been done before, no? Seems to me tried and trusted is much better than all this all this voodoo surrounding Whistlergate.

 

Btw, my 1.6 cc'd @ 9.4 and Whistled at 3 different races (with completely different tech teams) @ or slightly under 9.4 with VC on, so I'm a little suspicious of the 1.6 variance numbers posted on the other thread.

[Johnny D]

It's all good.

Did you want to go with what you have (9.4), ask for adjustment or reality??

Your call.  

J~

[Tom Phillips]

Since I'm a hopeless newb with a junker motor I might as well play the impractical idealist. The other racers, the track, and the rulebook are all there to be defeated, but not the tech guys. I fully support the use of money and creativity to get every last advantage out of the rules, but not out of the volunteers. They are giving their time and talent wearing the black hat (the one nobody wants to wear) to enable racers to push the rules to the limit and receive none of the glory. They should be given all possible help maintaining the field so the game can go on. Why then, when the weakness in the whistler procedures was discovered by so many people were the tech volunteers left out in the cold? This applies to other areas of "tech shed legality". They're hosting this party, not shutting it down.

 

JMHO. Now back to the issue at hand.

[Keith Andrews]

Wasn't saying to have tech cc.  Again, let tech use the Whistler (hopefully properly), but final say should be cc (through appeal).  Has been done before, no? Seems to me tried and trusted is much better than all this all this voodoo surrounding Whistlergate.

 

Btw, my 1.6 cc'd @ 9.4 and Whistled at 3 different races (with completely different tech teams) @ or slightly under 9.4 with VC on, so I'm a little suspicious of the 1.6 variance numbers posted on the other thread.

 

Yes http://forum.specmia...41;t=000097;p=0

 

My understanding is there was some variation in the Whistle testing.

 

After all that has been posted you doubt the VC changes the tone on on a Whistler?  Maybe cc'ing has some variation as well, as has been stated.

[MPR22]

Wasn't saying to have tech cc. Again, let tech use the Whistler (hopefully properly), but final say should be cc (through appeal). Has been done before, no? Seems to me tried and trusted is much better than all this all this voodoo surrounding Whistlergate.

Btw, my 1.6 cc'd @ 9.4 and Whistled at 3 different races (with completely different tech teams) @ or slightly under 9.4 with VC on, so I'm a little suspicious of the 1.6 variance numbers posted on the other thread.

Bruce,

The whistler is accurate to +\- 0.1 if performed properly. I can make that thing read just about any number I want below the actual number. Many variables influence the results, temp, probe seating, cleared combustion chamber, proper input data, valve covers on or off, hands on the hose crimping it while testing .....,,,

Odds are your three different results came from any one of those variables. You had it right , first level of scrutinity is the whistler, fail that test and be prepared to box it up and ship it off. If we fix the rules to develop the correct agreed upon repeatable by joe volunteer then any sane racer will make sure his/hers engine is within the rules. Nobody wants to pull an engine every weekend.

[Bench Racer]

I read Keith's posted thread a couple days ago.

Forget all the nay sayers about cc'ing and the cost to cc at the track. Quality checking in manufacturing is implemented the same process as the process to fabricate the part. Forumlas, forumlas to skip cc'ing, are short cuts.............................   

Please put yourself in Saul's shoes at Mid Ohio 2009. You know he's lurking with some thoughts in mind. 

Agust 2009 FasTrack see page 19.

 

http://www.google.co...oSczqQiKLRJwdxA

[38bfast]

It has been stated that building to the whistler and not cc is in the gray area. Cc is a hard number that can be measured. That's not the gray area that's black and white. That is just playing the odds. It's like an oversized or no restrictor and hoping tech won't check it.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Amen brother!

 

It has been stated that building to the whistler and not cc is in the gray area. Cc is a hard number that can be measured. That's not the gray area that's black and white. That is just playing the odds. It's like an oversized or no restrictor and hoping tech won't check it.

[LarryKing]

 

 Every year brings additional tweaks and tests

 

And the majority of SM competitors seems to be fine with that, so we get what we've got, the need to constantly spend to keep up.

 

Enjoy.