Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

CamKing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:15 am

Warp Speed wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:50 am
Who would build a 409?!? Lol
Apologize in advance to whoever did, but really?!? Hahaha

BMP and World Products both offer newly designed 409 blocks, and Edelbrock offers aluminum heads.

Early on, it was decided that the rules package would be written to invite as many different engine platforms as possible.
What we didn't want to see, was 8 SB2 headed engines running against 8 SC1 headed engines.

Of course the C3 head takes advantage of the rules, but there are at least 10 Inline valve Chevy heads that are just as good.

Ok lol

CamKing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:22 am

GARY C wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:09 am What was the structure of the engine that ran head to head with his?

The overall winner, that was behind Randy in points, until the Saturday runoff was a SB Ford block, with custom designed Hemi heads.
It was a really nice engine.
http://www.hammerheadperformanceengines.com/

Thanks.

Warp Speed wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:25 am Ok lol

I said from day one, that this would be much harder to write the rules for, then a racing class. In a racing class, you normally only have a couple different engines, and they're the same CID, and basically the same style engine. Making rules to fit a variety of engine platforms, and different CID's, is always going to result in loopholes for people to take advantage of. The only option I see, is to wait until someone takes advantage of the loophole, then close it for the following year. If the rules makers think the C3 head is too much of an advantage, add twisted valve placement heads to the splayed valve class. If you still want the 409 Chevy to run in the inline valve class, give it an exemption.

It seems no matter where the cleveland style engine goes there's controversy. No cant, more cant, less cant.Nothing stopping the rest of competition from copying?

Steve.k wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:58 pm It seems no matter where the cleveland style engine goes there's controversy. No cant, more cant, less cant.Nothing stopping the rest of competition from copying?

??????????

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:17 pm

gmrocket wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:17 pm

CamKing wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:39 pm
This is a brand new event, and everyone involved worked very hard on the rules package.
It will be even better next year. One thing I suggested is a penalty for being slightly off on one of the measurements, and a DQ for being more then slightly over. What "slightly" means will have to be decided on, and clearly stated in the rules, before the competition.
We learned something from this year, unfortunately, at Randy's expense.
My first thought would be:
Less then 1% = 10pt deduction
Between 1% & 2% = 50pt deduction
Over 2% = DQ

if that's the case, 1/10 0ver on the comp limit is + 10%

way over on the limit by any measure

You have got that math WAY wrong ... starting at zero there are 120 tenths in 12 to 1.
There are ten tenths in each full point above zero. The percentage count doesn't begin at 11 to 1.

I hope your sour grapes are simply showing because you finished last in point total.

10% of 12 would be 1.2 compression points.

sour grapes? you said "a tenth" over, that is 10%. you must have meant 1/100 if it was 1% over.

thanks for the vote of confidence on my finish position.

randy331 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:36 pm I'd rather see a spec fuel with no comp limit. Let the engine builder decide what they can run on that particular fuel. Isn't that part of engine building ?

That'd do away with this type of problem.

I spent a lot of time making sure our 2017 engine was at, but not over the comp limit. But there's always room for someone else to come up a little different on it.

Anyway good job Walter !

Randy

Didn't EMC do that in the old days? It seems more in line with how most performance engines are done.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:51 am

Charliesauto wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:39 am

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:50 pm

YEP ... fix it and come back with a vengeance.

Without divulging any secrets, can you provide some basic info on your engine and maybe even highlight the rules?

Wondering what displacement, compression, carb size etc?

Can you post the dyno test info?

Thanks

Realistically ... there are no secrets. It is simply a mid 1990's NASCAR engine with a roller cam and tunnel ram manifold. With a 1/4" more offset ground stroke to go from 358 to 383 cubic inches in order to be legal for the lower end of the rules engine size.

257/268 @.050" camshaft ... 2 older 950 Holley carbs with annular boosters installed. dragster step headers 1 3/4" to 1 7/8".

Thanks for the reply.

Do you have to pay to enter or do they have sponsors to cover the cost?

GARY C wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:55 pm

randy331 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:36 pm I'd rather see a spec fuel with no comp limit. Let the engine builder decide what they can run on that particular fuel. Isn't that part of engine building ?

That'd do away with this type of problem.

I spent a lot of time making sure our 2017 engine was at, but not over the comp limit. But there's always room for someone else to come up a little different on it.

Anyway good job Walter !

Randy

Didn't EMC do that in the old days? It seems more in line with how most performance engines are done.

That would work fine IF they would have told us early on that the fuel was 100 octane, but to make the rules state that unlimited compression is acceptable, and not let us know what fuel is going to be used until a few weeks before the competition is VERY wrong. They lost 5 of the Vintage Class engines, and detonation seemed to be the culprit.

GARY C wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:55 pm

randy331 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:36 pm I'd rather see a spec fuel with no comp limit. Let the engine builder decide what they can run on that particular fuel. Isn't that part of engine building ?

That'd do away with this type of problem.

Anyway good job Walter !

Randy

Didn't EMC do that in the old days? It seems more in line with how most performance engines are done.

Yes they did and quickly got away from it because the contest simply became a "Detonation Control" competition.

gmrocket wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:25 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:17 pm

gmrocket wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:17 pm

if that's the case, 1/10 0ver on the comp limit is + 10%

way over on the limit by any measure

You have got that math WAY wrong ... starting at zero there are 120 tenths in 12 to 1.
There are ten tenths in each full point above zero. The percentage count doesn't begin at 11 to 1.

10% of 12 would be 1.2 compression points.

sour grapes? you said "a tenth" over, that is 10%. you must have meant 1/100 if it was 1% over.

Not Correct ...
a tenth of a compression point is less than 1% at 12.1 to 1, (111 tenths more that 1), when compared against 12.0 to 1, (110 tenths more than 1) or the 11.99 to 1 rule, (109.9 tenths more than 1).
... your math must simply be different than the rest of the world.

EDIT:
Just to make it clear, the first 10 tenths is in the divider of 1 which can not be counted because the RATIO is more than 1.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:14 pm

GARY C wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:55 pm

randy331 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:36 pm I'd rather see a spec fuel with no comp limit. Let the engine builder decide what they can run on that particular fuel. Isn't that part of engine building ?

That'd do away with this type of problem.

Anyway good job Walter !

Randy

Didn't EMC do that in the old days? It seems more in line with how most performance engines are done.

Yes they did and quickly got away from it because the contest simply became a "Detonation Control" competition.

Thats what I was thinking from older publications.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:35 pm

gmrocket wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:25 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:17 pm

You have got that math WAY wrong ... starting at zero there are 120 tenths in 12 to 1.
There are ten tenths in each full point above zero. The percentage count doesn't begin at 11 to 1.

10% of 12 would be 1.2 compression points.

sour grapes? you said "a tenth" over, that is 10%. you must have meant 1/100 if it was 1% over.

Not Correct ...
a tenth of a compression point is less than 1% at 12.1 to 1, (111 tenths more that 1), when compared against 12.0 to 1, (110 tenths more than 1) or the 11.99 to 1 rule, (109.9 tenths more than 1).
... your math must simply be different than the rest of the world.

EDIT:
Just to make it clear, the first 10 tenths is in the divider of 1 which can not be counted because the RATIO is more than 1.

So after all this were you legal or not?

Did they not calculate correctly and you did win?

NO ...

After all the true calculations, One deck was .010" shorter than the other so, one side was 11.94/1 and the other was 12.13 /1.

That probably would have meant maybe only a couple points in score but, it was over and not within the 11.99/1 rule limit.

MY fault for not checking both sides beforehand.

Analogy ... no such thing as a little bit pregnant.

gmrocket wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:25 pm

So after all this were you legal or not?

Did they not calculate correctly and you did win?

Double post ... see above.