Race Engine Challenge II

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
CGT
Expert
Expert
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CGT » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:23 am

Joe-71 wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:44 pm
EMC rules liked best: Specific fuel that allows builder to not have to worry about detonation, No timing belts, No vacuum pumps, No dry sump, Carburetion unlimited, No EFI unless class specific, Chassis headers, 12" maximum depth oil pan from crank centerline, cubic inch maximum parameters, replacement blocks, replacement heads, cast intakes. Joe-71
I could live with that. I think Adger did a hell of a job this year. His input would be very valuable in that regard.

RevTheory
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2123
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:45 am

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by RevTheory » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:51 am

I sure would like guys to be able to weld in runner extensions and use epoxy in the floors. Not sure how you guys feel about that sort of thing though.

randy331
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2544
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: N.W. MO.

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by randy331 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:20 am

RevTheory wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:51 am
I sure would like guys to be able to weld in runner extensions and use epoxy in the floors. Not sure how you guys feel about that sort of thing though.
I talked with Adger some about those types of rules when we were at EMC. He said Hotrod wanted the engines to resemble something the average reader could build, ( or at least appear that way ) that's why the pre approval for the heads used.
The average street-strip guy ( Hotrod mag. reader ) probably isn't welding or epoxying up their heads. As an engine guy, I think it's more interesting to be able to do epoxy and welding if you want to, but I can see it from Hotrods point of view too.

We used Profiler heads on this years engine. It may not help Profiler to use the EMC to advertise their heads if the heads are obviously highly modified with welding and/or epoxy. It would imply to the average reader the head was all wrong as it came.

As far as rules go, this years was ok. The flat tappet cam thing wasn't my favorite, but it was the same for everyone.

Randy

RevTheory
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2123
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:45 am

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by RevTheory » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:40 am

Yeah, I guess I can see both sides too. A lot of us are beyond out-of-the-box intakes but that doesn't mean that the majority of their readership is.

Carry on, gents.

CGT
Expert
Expert
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CGT » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:05 pm

I think rules requiring sensible ring widths(spacers) and crank pin diameters possibly are common sense. They do keep costs down. Don't see much need for 1200.00 worth of .6mm rings in a competition like this.

The shelf header thing is limiting, but yet everyone has to abide. Unfortunately that doesn't lend itself toward innovation of a header design. But it does leave you with headers that are good for something besides a dyno competition after its all said in done.

Without reasonable limits on rpm or valve lift, costs also go way up. Which could discourage alot of people from competing. If the L/D rules mentioned by DV were in place this year, our small valve entry(Creason) would have won by even more than what it did.
Last edited by CGT on Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

randy331
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2544
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: N.W. MO.

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by randy331 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:23 pm

CGT wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:05 pm
If the L/D rules mentioned by DV were in place this year, our small valve entry(Creason) would have won by even more than what it did.
Why do you say that ?

Randy

CGT
Expert
Expert
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CGT » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:30 pm

randy331 wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:23 pm
CGT wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:05 pm
If the L/D rules mentioned by DV were in place this year, our small valve entry(Creason) would have won by even more than what it did.
Why do you say that ?

Randy
Taking lift away from the next closest entry (BES) 2.350 valve I think, could very well of hurt their score, while being able to add lift to ours became an obvious advantage during testing. And that's what placing an arbitrary L/D ratio could do in alot of cases in my opinion.

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by David Vizard » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:42 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:33 am
David Vizard wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:02 am

Surely everyone would want to install the largest air-flow productive intake valve into whatever they are building. So If the largest effective valve is installed then there is no point in lifting it more than 38% of whatever the diameter of the valve is. This should mean a level playing field as far as valve lift is concerned - should it not?

DV
Not really true ... Personally, I installed a larger intake valve and gained air flow into one of my past EMC engines ... and gained a little maximum torque and horsepower only to LOSE power everywhere below the RPM of that peak torque figure.
Just have a maximum valve lift figure here at "0" lash and they can use whatever valve size they want.

That was a change during testing that I wish I never made because it would now take installing 8 seats to go back. So, I left it that way.

Walter,

I know you are a real engine pro here so I really hate to ask this as I feel it might even go to the extent of seemingly being an insult so let me apologize ahead of time.

My question is if you were sure the cam was on the right LCA and in at the right advance did you spread the LCA for the increased low lift flow potential of the bigger valve and retard the cam the appropriate amount for the bigger intake (I assume only the intake was increased)?

If not then the test results may not be as meaningful as you may be supposing.
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by David Vizard » Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:27 pm

CGT wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:05 pm
#1.I think rules requiring sensible ring widths(spacers) and crank pin diameters possibly are common sense. They do keep costs down. Don't see much need for 1200.00 worth of .6mm rings in a competition like this.

#2.The shelf header thing is limiting, but yet everyone has to abide. Unfortunately that doesn't lend itself toward innovation of a header design. But it does leave you with headers that are good for something besides a dyno competition after its all said in done.

#3. Without reasonable limits on rpm or valve lift, costs also go way up. Which could discourage alot of people from competing. If the L/D rules mentioned by DV were in place this year, our small valve entry(Creason) would have won by even more than what it did.
Mr. CGT sir, - Some thoughtful posts here and I must say up front some of my response may be biased by the fact I am always going for the latest technology so please take that into account if you are making a response.

#1 We are moving into an era where ring widths are dropping faster than in any time in previous history. Those 0.6 mm rings are going to be pretty common in maybe as little as 3- 4 years. Look and the 1 mm ring history. You can even get these relatively cheap on shelf pistons. 3-4 years ago they were considered hi cost tech.

Also these thinner rings will allow piston designs to evolve a little further as can be seen on the latest stuff if you have access to such.

#2 I hope we don't have to user shelf headers as very few of them (actually could be none of them) are even close to optimum unless you build the engine to suit the headers. I will be using my own design.

#3 Thank goodness someone is seeing the logic here. I am really surprised that I have failed so badly in conveying my argument for a percentage lift rule. In my seminars I spend about 10 minutes on the relevant tech that would explain why this is no disadvantage for anyone who understands the physics behind it.
Bottom line 10 mins doing this verbally or 4 hours typing it out editing it etc and posting it. I don't think I want to spend the time but I will go through this in my next seminar and may be one or more of the attendees can post their thoughts after I have given them a comprehensive 'why' this lift rule would not penalize anyone who is taking every functional measure to build torque and hp.
DV
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3345
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by GARY C » Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:40 pm

randy331 wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:20 am
RevTheory wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:51 am
I sure would like guys to be able to weld in runner extensions and use epoxy in the floors. Not sure how you guys feel about that sort of thing though.
I talked with Adger some about those types of rules when we were at EMC. He said Hotrod wanted the engines to resemble something the average reader could build, ( or at least appear that way ) that's why the pre approval for the heads used.
The average street-strip guy ( Hotrod mag. reader ) probably isn't welding or epoxying up their heads. As an engine guy, I think it's more interesting to be able to do epoxy and welding if you want to, but I can see it from Hotrods point of view too.

We used Profiler heads on this years engine. It may not help Profiler to use the EMC to advertise their heads if the heads are obviously highly modified with welding and/or epoxy. It would imply to the average reader the head was all wrong as it came.

As far as rules go, this years was ok. The flat tappet cam thing wasn't my favorite, but it was the same for everyone.

Randy
Thats a good point if you are gong to have mnf sponsors.

A highly modified parts class would need the shops to put up the purse money similar to a grudge race event.

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8225
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:15 pm

randy331 wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:20 am
I talked with Adger some about those types of rules when we were at EMC. He said Hotrod wanted the engines to resemble something the average reader could build, ( or at least appear that way ) that's why the pre approval for the heads used.
The average street-strip guy ( Hotrod mag. reader ) probably isn't welding or epoxying up their heads. As an engine guy, I think it's more interesting to be able to do epoxy and welding if you want to, but I can see it from Hotrods point of view too.
IMO, That's going to be the big difference with this competition.
The engines will reflect something the average guy can buy from a professional engine builder, not what some HotRod reader can build in his own garage.
This is about showcasing the engine builder's abilities, and the rules should reflect that.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

David Vizard
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:19 pm

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by David Vizard » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:41 pm

CamKing wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:15 pm
randy331 wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:20 am
I talked with Adger some about those types of rules when we were at EMC. He said Hotrod wanted the engines to resemble something the average reader could build, ( or at least appear that way ) that's why the pre approval for the heads used.
The average street-strip guy ( Hotrod mag. reader ) probably isn't welding or epoxying up their heads. As an engine guy, I think it's more interesting to be able to do epoxy and welding if you want to, but I can see it from Hotrods point of view too.
IMO, That's going to be the big difference with this competition.
The engines will reflect something the average guy can buy from a professional engine builder, not what some HotRod reader can build in his own garage.
This is about showcasing the engine builder's abilities, and the rules should reflect that.
Mikey,

100% with you on this point!
DV
David Vizard Small Group Performance Seminars - held about every 4 weeks. My shop or your shop. Contact seminar organizer at marvingvx@gmail.com for details.

randy331
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2544
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: N.W. MO.

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by randy331 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:14 pm

Then open the rules up and make sure us hobbyists can't copy it at home.

Any V8 0f no more than 410 cubes, no more than 2 valves per cylinder, no more than 2 carbs, or throttle bodies.


No RPM limit, you get to pick your best 1500 rpm, best average over that 1500 rpm wins.
Leave TQ out of scoring.

Randy

Joe-71
New Member
New Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:46 pm
Location: SA TX

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by Joe-71 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:20 pm

Then just bolt on a turbo or five or six, and turn up the boost. The competition then comes down to who can tune a laptop the best. JMO, but I was privileged to dyno test several sets of headers on a past EMC engine, and one of the header sets were built by Jon Kaase with which he won EMC. We tested those on our engine, and a set of FPA headers for a car made more torque, and horsepower then the winning EMC headers. If you are going to build engines for racing, then you need to have the competing engines in the same class of racing, or it is wasting time and money. Joe-71

User avatar
CamKing
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8225
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:05 pm
Location: Denver, NC
Contact:

Re: Race Engine Challenge II

Post by CamKing » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:37 pm

randy331 wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:14 pm
Then open the rules up and make sure us hobbyists can't copy it at home.

Any V8 0f no more than 410 cubes, no more than 2 valves per cylinder, no more than 2 carbs, or throttle bodies.


No RPM limit, you get to pick your best 1500 rpm, best average over that 1500 rpm wins.
Leave TQ out of scoring.

Randy
I think you will see that class added in the future.
for now, these engines are supposed to represent top-of-the-line street/strip engines, that will last a given number of miles on the street.
We can't run them them on the dyno for 1,000 hours each, to know they'll last, so we have to have rules that lessen the advantages you would see from building a dyno queen ,that's designed to last just as long as the competition. RPM & Valve lift limits, do just that.
Mike Jones
Jones Cam Designs
Denver, NC
jonescams@bellsouth.net
http://www.jonescams.com
(704)489-2449

Post Reply