Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Rick360 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:14 pm One problem with header rules is the headers have to fit the dyno, so some headers that fit a chassis won't fit some dynos.

Rick

Exactly ... in my opinion, that is why requiring a "catalog" down-swept header but, with simple modifications allowed, like different flanges or flange adapter plates, would make a lot of sense here; keeping the playing field somewhat level.

CamKing wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:50 pm

GARY C wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:38 pmI think if you kept the header rule to a mild steel (no stainless) then custom header cost would not add a big dollar amount to the headers and could open up ideas to the market on header design, not to mention the adventurous builder could buy a mild steel header kit and build his own and might save a few dollars.

Would there be any advantage to running expensive stainless, over mild steel, for dyno testing?
If not, then let the builder decide.
If the only advantage to stainless, is that it'll last longer, then let the engine builder decide if it's worth the extra money. Maybe he will have an easier time selingl the stainless exhaust to a customer. Maybe he can get a company like Burns Stainless to sponsor his project.

True!

I think limiting the choice to catalog headers creates problems across the availability spectrum: At the "ubiquitous xxx engine" end are an embarrassment of riches, where you need to test many $et$ to find the least-compromised for your combination. Even with the same general specs, the pipe contortions to fit a design into a specific chassis could affect the power and likely none will be ideal for the EM challenge. At the "orphan" extreme are few or zero choices and the need for a custom set regardless, with possibly no subsequent designated chassis recipient to recapture the cost.

Specifying just a general location and orientation of collector exits for ease of dyno installation (and encompassing typical chassis design locations for those going the 'catalog' route) would make the job of custom fabbing much easier, with no convoluted and restrictive routing required for a specific chassis.

An optimum header design is a significant contributor to a winning combination and the builder shouldn't be handcuffed by commercial availability.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:23 pm but, with simple modifications allowed,

One man's definition of simple, may not be the same as another's.
If you get into too many "gray area" rules, you end up pissing off a lot of people. It's hard to explain to someone why their idea of a simple modification wasn't allowed, while another person's idea of a simple modification was.

MadBill wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:12 pm An optimum header design is a significant contributor to a winning combination and the builder shouldn't be handcuffed by commercial availability.

And MadBill drops the Mic, and walks off stage.

RevTheory wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:19 pm I hear ya, Mike, and I don't have a solution

Me either, but I always take the side of "Less Rules".

Remember, the long term plans of the "Race Engine Challenge" is to have multiple classes to compete in.
Maybe one that is a lot less restrictive, and one that is more restrictive.
That's something, down the road. Right now, we've got a class that needs to represent the top of the line street/strip engines, that allows the engine builders to showcase their talents and ingenuity.

That being the case ... I could definitely run some 180 degree headers as long as tubes cross under the oil pan or across the engine rear and don't physically interfere with the dyno. Those types are everywhere in the street/strip car crowd, right ...? I know some FE Ford vehicles and Panterra's which are custom like that way right now.

I guess I could work that out.

There has to be some kind of sensible header rule ... not anything goes.

The cylinder head rules will be the hardest to get right between all the different engine families.

Also the most important.

Rick

CamKing wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:23 pm but, with simple modifications allowed,

One man's definition of simple, may not be the same as another's.
If you get into too many "gray area" rules, you end up pissing off a lot of people. It's hard to explain to someone why their idea of a simple modification wasn't allowed, while another person's idea of a simple modification was.

Whatever those simple modifications are to be, would need to be defined in the rules package ... not just the word "simple".

Of course ... cylinder heads will most always be the most important.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:43 pm That being the case ... I could definitely run some 180 degree headers as long as tubes cross under the oil pan or across the engine rear and don't physically interfere with the dyno. Those types are everywhere in the street/strip car crowd, right ...? I know some FE Ford vehicles and Panterra's which are custom like that way right now.

I guess I could work that out.

There has to be some kind of sensible header rule ... not anything goes.

Luckily, I'm not making the rules. I'd allow 180 degree headers.
That way, the 90 degree crank V8's wouldn't be at a disadvantage to the 180 degree crank V8's.

Rick360 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:53 pm The cylinder head rules will be the hardest to get right between all the different engine families.

I think you'll be surprised.
the average "assembler" won't like the head rules, but the good engine builders will.

CamKing wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:05 pm

Rick360 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:53 pm The cylinder head rules will be the hardest to get right between all the different engine families.

I think you'll be surprised.
the average "assembler" won't like the head rules, but the good engine builders will.

Keep up the good work, it is obvious that you are putting a lot of care into this.

CamKing wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:30 pm

RevTheory wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:19 pm I hear ya, Mike, and I don't have a solution

Me either, but I always take the side of "Less Rules".

Remember, the long term plans of the "Race Engine Challenge" is to have multiple classes to compete in.
Maybe one that is a lot less restrictive, and one that is more restrictive.
That's something, down the road. Right now, we've got a class that needs to represent the top of the line street/strip engines, that allows the engine builders to showcase their talents and ingenuity.

Yes, as much as I don't like the cost of custom headers I think there is a lot of unexplored potential on the exhaust side of an engine so I can see where you would want that less restrictive.
The next question would be if someone finds something new should it be required that they share it?
That was one thing I liked about the earlier EMC was the follow up articles gave some good tech info about the engine.

I think the oil pan rules will be interesting to know; will one need to have a dragster in order to use the "contest" oil pan after the contest ...?

I would like an update on ST as far as dyno tested this week. I am sure I am not alone. Thanks, Charlie