West Coast Championships

#41

Hmmm. Guess I have to sign up for Road Atlanta in December now to learn these things. :evil:

#42

Regarding engine tear down. I agree that if the cars make the dyno cap then they should not need to be torn down. But there were extenuating circumstances that most folks were not aware of.

Because I didn’t race on Saturday and Shawn had a stack of body contact forms to deal with, I volunteered to oversee the dyno tests along with Bill Arnold. We sealed the hoods with inspection tape then escorted the cars up to the TFB dyno. While we were testing the first place car, the second place finisher intentional left his engine idling while waiting 15 minutes or so to be put on the dyno and refused to turn his engine off at the request of a NASA official (Bill). When asked to turn off his engine he said to Bill that there was no rule that said he couldn’t keep his engine idling. He was correct on that point. The obvious conclusion was that he was trying to keep his engine heat soaked to lower his dyno reading. We attempted to cool the engine down to operating temp after getting the car on the dyno rack. Not sure how effective this was as the car dyno’d a bit below 150HP.

Shawn was aware of this. Although I did not confer with Shawn before the Championship race about what was planned in Tech, I do think NASA was forced to go beyond with just the dyno testing to confirm legality as this same car finished in first place.

#43

And was it still legal?

#44

Shawn, is this your recollection of the conversation or is there commo confusion?

Maybe Shawn was describing “shiny” valves not back-cut valves? That is to say, no removal of material, just a different finish applied by the mfr.[/quote]

I think Mr. Ford might have misunderstood what I was saying there. Based on the information that, if you google the valves part number, you will get a number of different valves for sale on the interwebs that have the stock BMW valve part number. Since this series is designed to be affordable from its creators, it is likely that a competitor or engine builder/machine shop will purchase the $12 valves and not the $40+ valves that the dealer offers.

Since the HP rule was changed just before this event, I was instructed as the RD and SD that as long as a competitor made legal power on the dyno, if they had shinny valves, like what Lako had under the previous rule (with more power) then I was to not DQ drivers for having shinny valves. The only catch was that the valves could not be “back cut” or “tapered” or machined further than what would be needed to restore a valve for service. This means, the minimum thickness on the valve stem could not be less than 6.95mm.

My comment to Walter was that I believed that if I were to pull manifolds on everyone at the event, I feared id find half the field with shinny valves. I have 2 cars myself and I dont even know what valves are in them. I believe that this anomaly was not from the angle of competitors attempt at cheating, but rather, buying whats affordable not even knowing they did not match 100% OEM specs.

I definitely did not infer that Walter Ford had installed illegal valves in anyone’s motor. On the contrary, he is the father of discovery to spend 6 years developing a motor to get everything out of it he has. If he took my comments to imply that he was cheating, I hope this clears up the intent of my comments. (We were at a BBQ and drinking, I could easily misspoke.)

On the subject of DQ’s I think its important to disclose the findings items as a teaching tool for the other competitors so thattehy either wont make the same mistake, or can correct it if they did
.
As in Lako’s case, where his cylinder head was rebuilt by an outside machine shop, So was the #1 cars cylinder head. What they did, in an effort to (my opinion) give their customer a “little special magic” was to machine down the valve guides 3mm shorter than a stock OEM valve guide. This reduced material in the intake/exhaust ports and can give a little more performance advantage.
Something else found, and I dont know if the valve was purchased that way or later machined into the face of the valve, was a @ 10mm round by 4mm deep area where material was removed from the center of the face of the valve. That also did not meet EOM specs either. It should have been completely flat with the cute little dimple in the middle.

Moral of the story, well you need to know what your machine shop is doing for you. Ultimately you are responsible for what anyone does to your car. “Well, not everyone is a mechanic or an expert on what OEM parts are so how can we be sure whats going into the motors are legal”.
my advice is, Be as involved with the process as possible. Some shops send their work out to be rebuilt. If this is the case, try to get a parts list from the builder. You can even request that pictures of the valves being used are taken, pictures of the ports, the installed height of the valve guide. Explain to the builder that while this is for a race car, they cannot do performance mods to the head. A strictly stock rebuild with OEM parts is strictly enforced and you do not wish to be DQ’d for any non OEM rebuild they might want to do to “help you”. Submit the pictures to your SD and if they dont know, send them to me. Id be more than happy to help ensure parts/machine work legality for everyone. I certainly do not ever want to do the tear down we had to do at this event.

Some shops, Like Walter Ford’s shop, take great pride in the fact they build 100% legal engines. Thats a shop you can trust 100% in knowing that what they do will not compromise your finish at a regional or champ event. If you dont do the work yourself, finding a shop you can trust 100% to do the legal work your series demands, is key. Just the same, get data to back up the parts legality, pictures can help the process. Be involved.

Sermon over. Everybody hold hands and Ooooohhmmmmmmmmmmm

#45

Yes it was.

#46

We’re any torn down engines illegal or were the only DQ’s the refusals?

#47

From Sundays Champ Race we had:

1 DQ from the teardown. (Non EOM valve guides & non OEM valve face)
1 DQ for under weight (suffered damage in the race that leaked all his fuel out of the car)
1 DQ for refusing to be torn down.

#48

There are some fairly liberal understanding of the rules going one…mostly around

“Dyno was good, that’s enough!”

Scott, while you and I do not agree on this, I point out that clearly, the results of impound tell us that it is -not-, seven times this year.

Dyno is a tool.
The HP rule is -a- rule.
There are MANY rules in the E30 book.

They are all meant to be equally enforced in any combination at any time*.
*: In the aspect of good customer service, no, there is no intent anywhere to do tear downs at regional events.

At a National Championship, it should be expected and met with gladly. SM goes through this, all smiles. Has for many many year. The intent is to help the competitor prove how clean the car was that is bringing them $1000s of $$$$ in contingency and other awards. It’s beyond a $12 trophy at a Championship event. It must be accepted when you register…if you end up in the barn, you have a job to do to some level. Could be nothing, could be extremely detailed.

How do you get the DQ details? Ask. Ask the RD, the SD, the Tech guy…there is no publication, but as much as the “DQ” in the results is public, there’s no harm in asking why, rather than the interwebz speculating and making NASA the bad guy over "valve finish’…

Larry ran dyno legally. He read the rules, and he APPLIED Them. Kudos. It’s something everyone should be able to do without burning down the class rules structure because they are rarely read and understood.

Proving adherence to the rules should not feel onerous. I’m lost as to why some think that it is.

-Respectfully.

#49

[quote=“SurferShawn” post=79069]
1 DQ for refusing to be torn down.[/quote]

Two. Position 4th declined inspection, and once in the shed, 5th then also declined.

#50

[quote=“Tow Mater” post=79071][quote=“SurferShawn” post=79069]
1 DQ for refusing to be torn down.[/quote]

Two. Position 4th declined inspection, and once in the shed, 5th then also declined.[/quote]

Initially yes, but had I been told he did not make weight, there was no need to tear him down. I didnt find out until after.

#51

I think I understand.
Who built the engine for the car that finished first, but was DQed because of the valve stem and surface work to the face of the valve?

Thanks, RP

#52

I guess the thing i really truly don’t understand as a non-engine bulider is the performance advantage definition. If two cars dyno within hp and torque specs and one has modified valves and/or guides and one does not, what is the advantage? Is there some magical hp or torque that they gain that a dyno would not show? I am asking, not being a smart ass (for once).

#53

There’s a of couple things (use your imagination :P) that won’t be picked up by a dyno and therefore that’s the reason why it isn’t the only tool for engine legality.

#54

Car #1 finished 3rd(that’s my car) and was DQ’ed for the valve guides being non standard. The valves are stock untouched valves. The officials are incorrect on this valve issue. There are three different exhaust valves available. A flat face, and dimpled face and a recessed cutout face. The 1987 iS came with the cutout. There is no advantage to either one of them. Again I dyno’ed at 156HP with normal operating temp.

#55

[quote=“Tow Mater” post=79070]There are some fairly liberal understanding of the rules going one…mostly around

“Dyno was good, that’s enough!”

Scott, while you and I do not agree on this, I point out that clearly, the results of impound tell us that it is -not-, seven times this year.

Dyno is a tool.
The HP rule is -a- rule.
There are MANY rules in the E30 book.

They are all meant to be equally enforced in any combination at any time*.
*: In the aspect of good customer service, no, there is no intent anywhere to do tear downs at regional events.

At a National Championship, it should be expected and met with gladly. SM goes through this, all smiles. Has for many many year. The intent is to help the competitor prove how clean the car was that is bringing them $1000s of $$$$ in contingency and other awards. It’s beyond a $12 trophy at a Championship event. It must be accepted when you register…if you end up in the barn, you have a job to do to some level. Could be nothing, could be extremely detailed.

How do you get the DQ details? Ask. Ask the RD, the SD, the Tech guy…there is no publication, but as much as the “DQ” in the results is public, there’s no harm in asking why, rather than the interwebz speculating and making NASA the bad guy over "valve finish’…

Larry ran dyno legally. He read the rules, and he APPLIED Them. Kudos. It’s something everyone should be able to do without burning down the class rules structure because they are rarely read and understood.

Proving adherence to the rules should not feel onerous. I’m lost as to why some think that it is.

-Respectfully.[/quote]

Jeff,

I totally agree with you. I didn’t clearly make my point. The heat soak attempt IMO put doubt on the table for that engine and that further inspection other than dyno results was needed. For regional events use the dyno and look for outliers. National events yes…I agree now that we know some of the things to look for, go beyond the dyno.

Scott

#56

[quote=“Tow Mater” post=79070]
How do you get the DQ details? Ask. [/quote]

Hmm. I thought that’s what I did earlier… I thought since you commented that one of the east coast DQs was for an illegally modified valve, you must have had the details. If not, I’ll try elsewhere.

As an aside, I think a key difference between SM and SE30 is that we have HP limits while SM doesn’t, so it’s not a completely accurate comparison. The dyno provides an additional method to verify compliance, so it could be used to minimize or eliminate the need for teardowns. That said, I don’t take issue with DQs for parts found to be clearly in violation of the rules. I do, however, believe there’s validity to the question of whether teardowns are warranted without specific cause. I’m admittedly no dyno expert, but on the surface it seems the dyno would identify the symptom (more power) without needing to search for the cause via teardown. For that matter, we’ve got a breakaway spec for the diff - not sure why they were dismantled at all.

Thanks,
Cliff

#57

[quote=“cpp” post=79081] For that matter, we’ve got a breakaway spec for the diff - not sure why they were dismantled at all.

Thanks,
Cliff[/quote]

Cliff, the Differential teardown was to verify the ramp angles were not modified from OEM.

#58

Thanks, Shawn. I appreciate your feedback on all this.
I clearly have lots to learn, and it’s entirely possible I’m a bit naive wrt people’s intentions.
Cliff

#59

CCR 17.2: "Tech inspectors have the right to inspect anything at any time for any reason."
SE30 rules: "…may elect to inspect any component of a suspect engine…

So, CCR clearly says it can be done, but SE30 rules would seem to give hope that dyno is primary, and teardown will only be done for a suspect engine.

Now I may fall in the minority on this one, but has anyone considered that there was a hidden agenda all along? Hmmm, lets see why & how these Norcal engines are so strong. Lets get a first hand look & shorten the 6-8 year learning curve it took Norcal builders to develop in 1 afternoon of tearing down the front runners motors.

If one of the cars that dyno’d was in question for heat soaking motor then as a result the powers at be decide to completely tear down the top 3,4,or even 5 finishers. What about the motors that inherited 3rd & 4th by default of the DQ, DQ & DQ? Reminds me of pro cycling…Lance Armstrong stripped of all TDF victories, some of those next in line were also on the juice, so somewhere down the line in some of those years 4-8th actually could be the winner but they were not tested…I mean torn down.

tor

#60

[quote=“SurferShawn” post=79084][quote=“cpp” post=79081] For that matter, we’ve got a breakaway spec for the diff - not sure why they were dismantled at all.

Thanks,
Cliff[/quote]

Cliff, the Differential teardown was to verify the ramp angles were not modified from OEM.[/quote]