 |
|
just to be clear, the new rule does not make rockers more “open” - they must be the “exact shape and size” of the stock rockers - if you want to cast them out of unobtanium, knock yourself out. B)
bruce
TheRedBaron wrote:
[quote]stu seitz wrote:
Yup, you’re right. I was citing the previous edition of the rule. My mistake. Knock yourself out with the roller rocker sales.[/quote]
Bruce, if you have no way to measure them…
Do yourself and others with the rules group a favor and close the barn door.
Thanks to those that are involved.
Regards, Robert Patton
By allowing upgraded rockers you are allowing people to avoid having to replace broken rockers. We know rockers break at high RPM’s and when bouncing of rev limit. If someone has the $ to install upgraded rockers that are the same shape and size, and it keeps them on the track all weekend instead of packing up early, or driving the car home on 5 cylinders then I don’t see a problem. This isn’t something I would run out and do, but if I did break a rocker, it would be a viable choice when replacing.
A billet or roller rocker on a stock cam is there really any gain to be had. I ask cause I don’t know not to be a smartass.
Greg
87isMan wrote:
[quote]By allowing upgraded rockers you are allowing people to avoid having to replace broken rockers. We know rockers break at high RPM’s and when bouncing of rev limit. If someone has the $ to install upgraded rockers that are the same shape and size, and it keeps them on the track all weekend instead of packing up early, or driving the car home on 5 cylinders then I don’t see a problem. This isn’t something I would run out and do, but if I did break a rocker, it would be a viable choice when replacing.
A billet or roller rocker on a stock cam is there really any gain to be had. I ask cause I don’t know not to be a smartass.
Greg[/quote]
Greg,
I’m not convinced that rockers just break, because of high RPM or bouncing off the rev limiter. I think it’s more due to them being out of tolerance, and getting beat up by the cam (or valve).
I don’t see how you can argue that using a stronger lighter (and much more expensive) material in the valvetrain doesn’t help performance. Even if it’s 5 HP, wouldn’t you want to have that extra 5hp?
If someone has broken rocker experience that they believe was due to OTHER circumstances, please chime in. All the ones I’ve experienced and seen could be attributed to the valve clearance being too high.
What’s next? ARP rod bolts? Higher strength con rods? Forged crank? None of them are supposed to add power.
victorhall wrote:
[quote]87isMan wrote:
[quote]By allowing upgraded rockers you are allowing people to avoid having to replace broken rockers. We know rockers break at high RPM’s and when bouncing of rev limit. If someone has the $ to install upgraded rockers that are the same shape and size, and it keeps them on the track all weekend instead of packing up early, or driving the car home on 5 cylinders then I don’t see a problem. This isn’t something I would run out and do, but if I did break a rocker, it would be a viable choice when replacing.
A billet or roller rocker on a stock cam is there really any gain to be had. I ask cause I don’t know not to be a smartass.
Greg[/quote]
Greg,
I’m not convinced that rockers just break, because of high RPM or bouncing off the rev limiter. I think it’s more due to them being out of tolerance, and getting beat up by the cam (or valve).
I don’t see how you can argue that using a stronger lighter (and much more expensive) material in the valvetrain doesn’t help performance. Even if it’s 5 HP, wouldn’t you want to have that extra 5hp?
If someone has broken rocker experience that they believe was due to OTHER circumstances, please chime in. All the ones I’ve experienced and seen could be attributed to the valve clearance being too high.
What’s next? ARP rod bolts? Higher strength con rods? Forged crank? None of them are supposed to add power.[/quote]
I wasn’t arguing the use of a stronger or lighter rocker would not add performance I actually asked if it would with a stock cam, I have no idea.
But broken rockers are common, and if you keep one more competitor on track which is the point of club racing, and it does not have a performance gain, it files under the trick parts, that not everyone has, and doesn’t need to be fast category. Again I have no idea if lighter rockers will make a difference, but if you could get an upgraded rocker that is the same size, shape and weight, I wouldn’t do it right off the bat, but the first time I broke a rocker I would put them in, just to keep from having to worry about doing it again. I am sure everyone has the welded swaybar reinforcements.
I just believe this rule is to allow racers to fix a common failure item.
Maybe have just one spec upgraded rocker availabe that is the same size, shape and weight that a racer could install for piece of mind.
I just don’t get it sometimes. How did this turn into a 3 page thread.
Just change the rule to say factory or factory equivalent rockers and be done with it. KISS!
I do think that a stronger lighter rocker would help power, with the same cam. It’s less friction in the valvetrain. I’m also just not convinced that broken rockers are a common problem (when proper maintenance is allowed). Also, with a stronger rocker, you could mess with valve clearances, possibly yielding more power.
87isMan wrote:
[quote]
Maybe have just one spec upgraded rocker availabe that is the same size, shape and weight that a racer could install for piece of mind.[/quote]
If there is a need for an upgraded rocker, then I think that this is a great idea! Although instead of one option, I’d suggest a couple different options (from a couple different vendors). Let’s not repeat the exhaust fiasco.
I just don’t think we should leave part of the valvetrain open to rules creep.
-Vic
Stock/OEM rockers and be done. Same size, shape, weight and material.
I’m not sure I agree this is a common failure item, or any more common than a stock fuel pump, alternator, or gasket. If you’re worried about breaking them, replace them before they break with stock like many of us have done. I can only think of one failure in our region this year and it was close to the last race on a high mileage motor. I went two years learning how to drive my car and bounced off the rev limiter a lot with a high mileage motor and they didn’t break. Bent a valve or two, but didn’t break a rocker. :laugh:
I’m surprised no one has tried to save the picture I posted, might clear some things up…:laugh:
I have been running BMW motors for a long time, have broken one rocker, and that was a fairly fresh one that had been run with poor adjustment at one time…
I think people are just trying to find stuff in the rules to play some sort of game here on the internet. Go ahead and build you some rockers, I will be out racing somewhere. While you are at it, reinvent the wheel.
Google “Perry Genova” He is a damn fast driver who runs too much cam so he built his own rockers, years of wiped out cams, more broken rockers, brocken shrick cams, dnf’s
Al
Robert’s is a voice of wisdom on this and other issues. With all of the changes that have evolved over the last few years, it seems improper to allow this one to progress further. Although I have only been racing with specE30 for 2 years, rocker arm failures have been low on the list of reasons for a failed racing weekend. I agree with “closing the barn door” on this issue ASAP.
Ed
I’ve just finished the third season on my motor with no rocker arm replacement along the way. The last race weekend included the 8 hour enduro. We dropped out of that race after 6.25 hard hours of racing because we had catostrophic brake failure, not rocker arm failure. This discussion is irrelevant. IMO, the stock rocker arms are bullet proof.
The short answer is they wore out. 
The calipers were on the car 5 months and in perfect condition before the 8 hour race. The PF1 pads had one 25 minute race on them and the grooved rotors had two races on them.
IMO it is impossible to race 8 hours on a single set of front brake pads. James Clay thought the PF6 might make it but I think I recall reading his team came out of the race to replace pads along the way…not sure. There simply wasn’t time to fix the car and get it back out there. We finished 9th out of 14 in class.
FARTBREF wrote:
Over on “another” board, they call it PMS - parked Miata syndrome. Happens every winter about this time.
I haven’t come up with any witty E30ism for it…
Steve D.
“We dropped out of that race after 6.25 hard hours of racing because we had catostrophic brake failure, not rocker arm failure. This discussion is irrelevant. IMO, the stock rocker arms are bullet proof.”
There is no such thing as bullet proof in racing…
“IMO it is impossible to race 8 hours on a single set of front brake pads”
wrong… ST43 will last the entire 25 hour…
FARTBREF wrote:
[quote]
I think people are just trying to find stuff in the rules to play some sort of game here on the internet. Go ahead and build you some rockers, I will be out racing somewhere. While you are at it, reinvent the wheel.
Al[/quote]
I started this topic not as a game but in all seriousness.
How long have you raced fartbref? How many different series how you been a part of?
I raced in pro 7 and was part of the beginning when cars could be built for only a few thousand bucks. We had 60 car fields at all the great California tracks. One never knew who was going to win the next race because it was so competitive. Before you knew it it took a $3500 motor to run up front on top of other “things” that were debatable in legality at best. That was the demise of the series. Those “grey” areas in the rules.
I was then a part in the beginning of Spec Miata, same thing, rise peak and demise where a $5000-$7500 engine might get your foot in the door to run up front. Costs are ridiculous from where they were when the series was developed.
That is why I sold my miata and started building an e30. Could the 3rd time be a charm? I hope so. Take a lesson from other series that have already tried what we are doing! Affordability, fast, fun, fair.
If you think it is far fetched for someone to use all aspects of these “grey” areas in our rules you are DREAMING!! It WILL happen. And you are gonna be the first person to bitch when that guy shows up and kicks your ass all over your track.
I don’t mean to sound harsh but there WILL be people that do that kind of stuff. The door needs to be shut immediately on things like this rocker arm issue. Here is something I have learned in racing. If you can think of a way to cheat, just think of an idea, and somebody has already done it.
All you guys that think everybody has the integrity to not bend these “grey” areas are oblivious to the fact that it WILL happen.
With that said, I think that whoever has been taking all winter to make this new rule set has done a great job. I know it is not an easy job so it will do for now. The series will grow. These “grey” areas need to be put away.
willf wrote:
wrong… ST43 will last the entire 25 hour…[/quote]
PRetty sure it depends on car/application and drivers. I flew out from the 8 Hour that night to go to the 25, where the same PFC 06 pads went the distance (only 18 hours or so due to fog) on our E30 M3 and had about 50% left. However put in 3 fast guys and Jim, none of who really take it too easy on the brakes, which is a significantly smaller amount of material on an E30 anyway…
Also, I am pretty sure that if Gasman has been using the 06 pads instead of the more sprint oriented 01 that had been used for a race (?plus qual and practice for that race?), even with his couple of drivers that were running their own all-out sprint in the 8 hour they would have made it the distance.
Poor Jim…nobody will hang out with him and listen to his Christopher Cross Christmas album.