 |
|
Have to agree with Steve here. Say you take a dyno test. One of two things will happen:
If you fail, it’s because you have made too much power. I don’t think anyone would bother to tear the engine down to find out WHY. You’re already DQ’ed by the dyno, end of story. No need to cause further expense.
If you pass, it indicates that you are making acceptable power. Who would then make the call to tear down that engine?
Out West it seems that from everyone I’ve spoken with, knowone really knows what that MAX HP number is…I hear 168 thrown around a bunch. Has the MAX HP # been established?
[quote=“juliancates” post=69204]Have to agree with Steve here. Say you take a dyno test. One of two things will happen:
If you fail, it’s because you have made too much power. I don’t think anyone would bother to tear the engine down to find out WHY. You’re already DQ’ed by the dyno, end of story. No need to cause further expense.
If you pass, it indicates that you are making acceptable power. Who would then make the call to tear down that engine?[/quote]
You know my wife? She has a way of saying that she agrees, yet nothing she says really sounds like she agrees.
Re. hp. If it was up to me I’d set it at something nice and low like 160hp/torque.
Steve’s point, which I agree with, was:
What I was getting at was exactly this. Regardless of whether you pass or fail on the dyno, there is no motivation to do any engine teardown. Hence, the presence of a dyno and the enforcement of a max HP rule will effectively result in “de facto open engine rules”.
Racing in NorCal se30, I can hardly see the importance of hp. If you are a good driver, which this series is about prompting, then you will do well, if you are not a good driver, you will not do well. Hp just makes it easier for the not so good drivers to drive out of a mistake. I have seen guys win in our very tight class with a junkyard motor making 148 hp. Then again, putting a motor in my car took me from a best finish of maybe 9th to three podiums this season.
It would however be nice if the number was the number and it didn’t matter how we got to that number. Say I have an old bottom end and to get up to 160 I through a cam in the car. My numbers wouldn’t be above 160/160, but according to the current rules, the motor would not be legal…
While the dyno is a great tool I do not think this rule would work.
Not every track has a dyno and/or every region has a trackside dyno service with a mobile dyno.
Not every dyno reads the same which we all know.
If the rules got thicker in the engine department there could be a lot of trackside tests to check engine compliance. A whistler is obviously a great tool but show me a max allowed compression ratio in the rules right now. Check fuel pressure. Make sure no one is tweaking with the crank sensor. Etc.
The class is still new, the engines are still being built. Every engine we build gets better still.
[quote=“juliancates” post=69209][quote=“Ranger” post=69208]
You know my wife? She has a way of saying that she agrees, yet nothing she says really sounds like she agrees.
[/quote]
Steve’s point, which I agree with, was:
What I was getting at was exactly this. Regardless of whether you pass or fail on the dyno, there is no motivation to do any engine teardown. Hence, the presence of a dyno and the enforcement of a max HP rule will effectively result in “de facto open engine rules”.[/quote]
My point is that the dyno idea doesn’t change the impact of the other rules. There is currently no motivation to do an engine teardown. The dyno idea doesn’t change the degree of motivation to do an engine teardown. There is no “hence”, as you put it.
IMO we’re never going to get to engine teardowns. What a godawful pita for all concerned that would be. I’ve been pretty involved in engine building and engine management experiments now for quite a while. I can guarantee that a supplemental 160hp dyno would make it harder to gain advantage. Nothing realistic will prevent it in certainty. The challenge is to make the cost vs. reward such that the cars are more equal.
I don’t mean to imply that this is really important. The cars are already pretty darned equal already. A couple hp one way or another doesn’t make any difference.
Let me ask you guys this…in what way does the dyno test at Nationals result in a culture of “open rules engine”?
[quote=“Ranger” post=69212]Let me ask you guys this…in what way does the dyno test at Nationals result in a culture of “open rules engine”?[/quote]It doesn’t, for one simple reason. You are being compared to what everyone else’s numbers and curves look like, not one set number.
Dunno if this has been tried in other classes/bodies before, but how about a teardown fund. If everyone (nationally, or in the region) kicks in, then cheaters will know there is always the potential for a teardown because its not an economic issue.
It could be done the same way at the Regional level. Ultimately it’s the regional Spece30 director that would be interpreting the dyno chart. Rules are “for the guidance of the commander”. That is to say, the boss always has the ability to interpret rules as they see fit. The precise wording of the rule could easily be such as to create what you described.
I guess I view this about the same way I view any other “justice” system fiddling. If you add rules, inspections, time, cost, etc. to the system but you don’t expect to cover any additional instance than is already covered by existing rules, all you’ve done is add rules, inspections, time, cost, etc. The whole ecosystem simply gets less efficient at its primary task. Providing good clean fun for racers!
I cant imagine anyone spending the $4 to really cheat up a motor, I guess maybe if they were already buying a brand new set of tires for every weekend it might make sense…also at the HP tracks it is pretty obvious who has the HP…yea, just keep on stacking up the rules and teardowns and such and see where it takes the series.
maybe I am a “babe” also…hell I raced in vintage/CCA for 5 years without even doing a valve job on an engine, so I guess it is just hard for me to imagine it would be that important to anyone to cheat up an engine.
Al
If you think “engine creep” hasn’t entered our series you’re just kidding yourself. See how that 148hp engine performs at the Glen or VIR…Take a look at some of the great videos out there.
Look at the discussion thresds re .20 over pistons, multiple ecu testing. Talk to the engine builders - I’m not naming names. All these tricks are for reliability 
The level of driving is improving each year - with that comes the need for parity under the hood. Yup, the guys with deep pockets will spring for new tires whenever needed. They sure as hell don’t stop there.
Three or four years ago good driving, set up, and 150hp was all that was needed to run up front. 160/160 is the norm now…
Although a Dyno rule has limitations and potential problems I see the point and need. I agree with Ranger’s point(s).
When searching for an engine last season, I was told between $5,500 and $9,000 in various quotes.
My whole car cost $9k…not spending that on an engine.
Spec compression. Those that have decked quite a bit may have to buy a thicker gasket. This would also hopefully eliminate all the minor tweaks to the cam/valvetrain when changing deck height.
If you want to have a dyno rule, you need to pick multiple points to compare against.
There are a ton of dyno plots available at this point. Average them all, pick a min and max and go. I have no issues with this.
Take a collection and buy one:
http://store.katechengines.com/whistler-compression-ratio-tester-p174.aspx
Musings…if you don’t check everyone on the same dyno a hp rule is useless. Example…the GTS series.
160/160 is a good built motor, 20 over, good pistons, cam timed correctly, head milled to limit, good valve job, most parts in head new, many ECUs tested to find the best. More than 165 and I get very suspicious of the ECU or other attempts to advance timing.
Whistler…saw one wrong last weekend. Fully built ITA Miata motor read 9.0 to one after calibration. I call BS because I know the man who built the motor. The Whistler operator must have EXPERIENCE operating the unit to get good consistent readings. Pulling the head off the winner is the only way to really check compliance.
And I see that DiVinney entered the ARRC and pussied out:laugh: Chuck
[quote=“cwbaader” post=69258]
And I see that DiVinney entered the ARRC and pussied out:laugh: Chuck[/quote]
I hated to miss it but I had to travel to SC for my father-in-law’s funeral.
It sounded like the Spec Miata was close and mostly clean. Would have been fun to be there in a +/-40 car field.
[quote=“cwbaader” post=69258]Musings…if you don’t check everyone on the same dyno a hp rule is useless. Example…the GTS series.
[/quote]
Part of the idea of the rule is to give people the option of rolling the dice. If the rule specs 160, and you are over, you get DQ’d. Those guys that want to build a motor that is right at the limit may run the risk of getting a dyno that reads a bit high. Even more reason not to push it. You’ll probably know who those guys are as they would be dyno’ing before you go out to race on any given weekend.
Again, there should be enouigh dyno plots roaming around that were taken at a NASA event to compare across the board.
Nobody at nationals (in the top 4) had over 160. I guess you can count me out of the top 4 since I was DQ’d because of a chip, but they didn’t dyno X’s (can’t remember who was behind me) car. I think Anthony had 157 IIRC.
Are we just not seeing the full monte with regard to the southern or west coast guys due to non-participation at Nationals?
If a fully built motor results in about 160, make the rule at 160 and allow a +2 tolerance.
I am WAY more interested to see what happens next year with the new tire. I ran two 2009 tires on the left side of my car during the final race at nationals and picked up about 1 second compared to the 2011 tires.
My thoughts on why there should not be a limit…
There are just too many variables. The vehicles that we race are over 20 years old, and parts wear. Computers are different, fuel tanks and pumps are different, air flow meters are always not 100%, and engine mileage is different, stock vs .20 over bore, just to name a few. There is really no way of policing every aspect with so many engine builders and or drivers building his or her own.
What i think would be the only way to control engine output would be sealed engines. We have a spec exhaust, a spec engine? With a spec engine a stock rebuild could be built and put on an engine dyno and have true hp and torque numbers before it gets into a car. Simple fuel pressure testing, compression, dme, and cam timing could be checked at the track for possible cheeters. But everyone would have to buy a spec engine which would never happen, unless it could be set at a later date like 2015. I believe a spec engine, with stock bore, could be built for around $2,000 and would need a simple rebuild every 2-3 years for maybe under $500 bucks.
All that would never happen, so just drive what you have. I have a stock rebuild engine and about 10hp down from the highest engines. I have fun racing and sometimes win races. Can i throw down 5-7 grand for a new engine, sure, but i dont think its really worth it. Some of my best and exciting races have been ones that i have lost.
Peter Thibault