Page 2 of 4
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:56 pm
by Walter R. Malik
Gregory wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:19 pm
The equation for horsepower is HP = T X RPM/5252. If you know the RPM and you know just the T or just the HP you can
figure out the other. That equation tells you why T is always more than HP below 5252 RPMs.
Why EMC added both I don't know - it is not neccary.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
The rules say "Three best HP pulls". ... Is that BEST AVERAGE HORSEPOWER OR BEST PEAK HORSEPOWER ...?
I still would like the scoring to be the average torque and peak horsepower added together / cubic inches.
That way the power BELOW the torque peak would actually mean something along with the peak horsepower; as just average horsepower is very top heavy BECAUSE of the RPM multiplier in the factor.
Why even have a required RPM band if all it has to do is simply run down there for the peak horsepower ???
Requiring just a peak RPM would be sufficient.
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:17 pm
by Gregory
Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:56 pm
Gregory wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:19 pm
The equation for horsepower is HP = T X RPM/5252. If you know the RPM and you know just the T or just the HP you can
figure out the other. That equation tells you why T is always more than HP below 5252 RPMs.
Why EMC added both I don't know - it is not neccary.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
The rules say "Three best HP pulls". ... Is that BEST AVERAGE HORSEPOWER OR BEST PEAK HORSEPOWER ...?
I still would like the scoring to be the average torque and peak horsepower added together / cubic inches.
That way the power BELOW the torque peak would actually mean something along with the peak horsepower; as just average horsepower is very top heavy BECAUSE of the RPM multiplier in the factor.
Why even have a required RPM band if all it has to do is simply run down there for the peak horsepower ???
Requiring just a peak RPM would be sufficient.
Make up to ten pulls from 4-7.5 RPM and take the best three with the best average HP and then average those three and you
have your score.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:33 pm
by Walter R. Malik
Gregory wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:17 pm
Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:56 pm
Gregory wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:19 pm
The equation for horsepower is HP = T X RPM/5252. If you know the RPM and you know just the T or just the HP you can
figure out the other. That equation tells you why T is always more than HP below 5252 RPMs.
Why EMC added both I don't know - it is not neccary.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
The rules say "Three best HP pulls". ... Is that BEST AVERAGE HORSEPOWER OR BEST PEAK HORSEPOWER ...?
I still would like the scoring to be the average torque and peak horsepower added together / cubic inches.
That way the power BELOW the torque peak would actually mean something along with the peak horsepower; as just average horsepower is very top heavy BECAUSE of the RPM multiplier in the factor.
Why even have a required RPM band if all it has to do is simply run down there for the peak horsepower ???
Requiring just a peak RPM would be sufficient.
Make up to ten pulls from 4-7.5 RPM and take the best three with the best average HP and then average those three and you
have your score.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
OK ... averaging the horsepower numbers makes sense, at least
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:51 pm
by gmrocket
Ya I understand all that. Yet when the tq number, wether it was average or peak, was also used in the scoring..it definitely changes the build plans.
If the EMC didn't use the tq number in the scoring calculation, in many cases the finishing place of most engines would change,, some drastically. It wasn't uncommon to see two EMC engines make very similar peak hp numbers, yet one be way down on tq between 4 and 5k, which hurt the score and final finish position.
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:18 pm
by GARY C
Gregory wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:17 pm
Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:56 pm
Gregory wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:19 pm
The equation for horsepower is HP = T X RPM/5252. If you know the RPM and you know just the T or just the HP you can
figure out the other. That equation tells you why T is always more than HP below 5252 RPMs.
Why EMC added both I don't know - it is not neccary.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
The rules say "Three best HP pulls". ... Is that BEST AVERAGE HORSEPOWER OR BEST PEAK HORSEPOWER ...?
I still would like the scoring to be the average torque and peak horsepower added together / cubic inches.
That way the power BELOW the torque peak would actually mean something along with the peak horsepower; as just average horsepower is very top heavy BECAUSE of the RPM multiplier in the factor.
Why even have a required RPM band if all it has to do is simply run down there for the peak horsepower ???
Requiring just a peak RPM would be sufficient.
Make up to ten pulls from 4-7.5 RPM and take the best three with the best average HP and then average those three and you
have your score.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
HP per cube or just HP?
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:35 pm
by Walter R. Malik
gmrocket wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:51 pm
Ya I understand all that. Yet when the tq number, wether it was average or peak, was also used in the scoring..it definitely changes the build plans.
If the EMC didn't use the tq number in the scoring calculation, in many cases the finishing place of most engines would change,, some drastically. It wasn't uncommon to see two EMC engines make very similar peak hp numbers, yet one be way down on tq between 4 and 5k, which hurt the score and final finish position.
Yep ... that was simply because of the "top heavyness" if just using the average horsepower.
With torque ... ten pounds IS ten pounds, no matter where in the RPM range it happens.
With horsepower ... Ten pounds of torque at 4,500 RPM is about 8 horsepower but,
the same ten pounds of torque at 6,500 is about 12 horsepower.
Hence; top heavy so, the required tuning needed will be entirely different.
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:55 pm
by Gregory
The corrections/clarifications for the rules were posted on the web site today. The only addition that would be concidered
power related would be allowing .100 offset cylinder head/block dowel pins.
www.RaceEngineChallenge.com
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:20 pm
by Walter R. Malik
OK people ...
There was a lot of chatter on here about potential rules and what should and shouldn't be done for a contest like this.
Empty opinions maybe ...? So, it is time to step-up; how many of you are going to actually send-in an entry ...?
OR, how many of you simply want to afterward critique the entered engines of someone else conforming to whatever rules you wanted to see on those engines ...?
Greg has worked really hard on this and I certainly hope it sees some kind of success.
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:21 pm
by GARY C
Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:20 pm
OK people ...
There was a lot of chatter on here about potential rules and what should and shouldn't be done for a contest like this.
Empty opinions maybe ...? So, it is time to step-up; how many of you are going to actually send-in an entry ...?
OR, how many of you simply want to afterward critique the entered engines of someone else conforming to whatever rules you wanted to see on those engines ...?
Greg has worked really hard on this and I certainly hope it sees some kind of success.
The lack of traffic on this thread after the release of the rules may be the answer your looking for.
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:24 am
by Joe-71
Some of us are still waiting to know if EMC will be a go for 2018, and if so, where, when, and rules before jumping ship, so to speak. Get the bugs worked out, and then maybe an entry will be considered. Joe-71
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:41 am
by Gregory
Joe-71 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:24 am
Some of us are still waiting to know if EMC will be a go for 2018, and if so, where, when, and rules before jumping ship, so to speak. Get the bugs worked out, and then maybe an entry will be considered. Joe-71
The EMC as you know it is no more. That is directly from the parent company of HRM (TEN) at the PRI show. From here on the
EMC will continue making YouTube shows at Westech in California.
Also, after a reasoned/request phone call from a potential competitor, lateral and "vertical" gas ports are permitted and will
be on the rules page shortly.
Greg Finnican
Charlotte, NC
704 408-7356
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:00 am
by Keith Morganstein
Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:20 pm
OK people ...
There was a lot of chatter on here about potential rules and what should and shouldn't be done for a contest like this.
Empty opinions maybe ...? So, it is time to step-up; how many of you are going to actually send-in an entry ...?
OR, how many of you simply want to afterward critique the entered engines of someone else conforming to whatever rules you wanted to see on those engines ...?
Greg has worked really hard on this and I certainly hope it sees some kind of success.
I'm just a fan of these contests. I don't have the wherewithal in any sense to actually compete, but I do enjoy reading about the contests and try to learn something. A contest such as these does need people to follow it. (Unless it's a closed, secret contest without sponsors, contingency and media coverage)
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:45 am
by Walter R. Malik
Keith Morganstein wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:00 am
Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:20 pm
OK people ...
There was a lot of chatter on here about potential rules and what should and shouldn't be done for a contest like this.
Empty opinions maybe ...? So, it is time to step-up; how many of you are going to actually send-in an entry ...?
OR, how many of you simply want to afterward critique the entered engines of someone else conforming to whatever rules you wanted to see on those engines ...?
Greg has worked really hard on this and I certainly hope it sees some kind of success.
I'm just a fan of these contests. I don't have the wherewithal in any sense to actually compete, but I do enjoy reading about the contests and try to learn something. A contest such as these does need people to follow it. (Unless it's a closed, secret contest without sponsors, contingency and media coverage)
I could be wrong but, the way I understand it ... this contest is ABOUT the engine builder challenging himself and displaying his wares to his peers of other professionals within the trade and other engine builders throughout the country.
The live at mama's home, fast food magazine readers are not the target audience hence, the trade magazine "Engine Builder" has said they will, in issues throughout the year, cover EVERY engine which will be run there; as long as the builder will take his own photos of that entry while being built in order to get a later article written.
Some people just don't have this inner motivation.
I hope that scenario will be true ...
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:37 pm
by Frankshaft
Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:45 am
Keith Morganstein wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:00 am
Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:20 pm
OK people ...
There was a lot of chatter on here about potential rules and what should and shouldn't be done for a contest like this.
Empty opinions maybe ...? So, it is time to step-up; how many of you are going to actually send-in an entry ...?
OR, how many of you simply want to afterward critique the entered engines of someone else conforming to whatever rules you wanted to see on those engines ...?
Greg has worked really hard on this and I certainly hope it sees some kind of success.
I'm just a fan of these contests. I don't have the wherewithal in any sense to actually compete, but I do enjoy reading about the contests and try to learn something. A contest such as these does need people to follow it. (Unless it's a closed, secret contest without sponsors, contingency and media coverage)
I could be wrong but, the way I understand it ... this contest is ABOUT the engine builder challenging himself and displaying his wares to his peers of other professionals within the trade and other engine builders throughout the country.
The live at mama's home, fast food magazine readers are not the target audience hence, the trade magazine "Engine Builder" has said they will, in issues throughout the year, cover EVERY engine which will be run there; as long as the builder will take his own photos of that entry while being built in order to get a later article written.
Some people just don't have this inner motivation.
I hope that scenario will be true ...
I personally think displaying everything done, is bad for the industry as a whole. Yah, to stroke our ego a bit, and make money for parts suppliers and the guy putting on the event. Everyone give your hard earned knowledge away. That's why certain builders of high end engine combos, require, require you to buy 2. Or, they simply lease them. Why? Once the thing is in someone else's hands, let's reverse engineer this thing. Or, r&d it. R&d meaning, rip off and duplicate it. Follow me, or am I just off in left field? Just curious Walter, honest question, has your business grew in leaps and bounds from being involved in the emc?
Re: Race Engine Challenge 2018
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:57 pm
by gmrocket
Ya, your way out in left field.
How do you figure keeping everything hush hush is good? If a builder is paranoid or Leary about dissecting his build , then I would say he is not confident enough to be in the business to start with...every builder should be always learning and trying to build more power.
This contest looks like it's getting back to challenging the builders skills and imagination..and that's a good thing