EMC 2016

Open

Moderator: Team

User avatar
RAMM
Expert
Expert
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: EMC 2016

Post by RAMM » Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:45 pm

gmrocket wrote:is there any possible way to see the dyno sheets for the 5 small block entries?
Chris Henderson may be able to help out on this one. Maybe Greg Finnican too as he is a member here as well. J.Rob
New and improved website under construction.Check the blog for relevant info
http://skmfxengines.blogspot.com/

manyponies
New Member
New Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: EMC 2016

Post by manyponies » Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:02 pm

I think evening out the playing field with intake valve size is a great idea. Some platforms may still not be able to take full advantage if the rule did not allow moving the guide or seat, but allowing the possibility is a big step forward.


how would that valve rule benefit everyone? its only a benefit to those heads for engines that came with quite bit bigger valve...those that didnt, its not. if thats a new rule, builders would just look through the catalogue and pick the head with biggest valve...no matter what engine its on...

No sure but that sounds backwards.... the way the rule is now you would pick the head with the biggest valve if you had no concern of engine type you want to build.

kid7755
Pro
Pro
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:17 pm

Re: EMC 2016

Post by kid7755 » Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:21 pm

RAMM wrote:
gmrocket wrote:is there any possible way to see the dyno sheets for the 5 small block entries?
Chris Henderson may be able to help out on this one. Maybe Greg Finnican too as he is a member here as well. J.Rob
It's been forever since I successfully posted a pic here. After hours of screwing around first. Lol

What information are you after. Easier to type peaks @rpm

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4038
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: EMC 2016

Post by Walter R. Malik » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:00 pm

gmrocket wrote:
Walter R. Malik wrote:

Yes Adger, that valve diameter rule would be a lot more equal for everyone; presently, it is not.
how would that valve rule benefit everyone? its only a benefit to those heads for engines that came with quite bit bigger valve...those that didnt, its not. if thats a new rule, builders would just look through the catalogue and pick the head with biggest valve...no matter what engine its on...
I think you need to read the words that are actually printed here and not creatively interject what you mistakenly comprehend.
NOWHERE does it say anything that the valve rule in question will "BENEFIT" everyone ... it was said that a spec class rule like that proposal will "make things MORE EQUAL for everyone".

I will say that I misinterpreted the cylinder head rule for that "Small Block Shootout" class.
I took that written rule, "O.E.M. cylinder head or aftermarket replacement O.E.M. cylinder head with stock port orientation" to mean the ports had to remain in the O.E.M. locations but, everyone else in the class had a "raised runner" cylinder head of some sort so, that thinking was certainly wrong.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

kid7755
Pro
Pro
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:17 pm

Re: EMC 2016

Post by kid7755 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:47 am

Let me bounce this idea off you guys.

With the class per day there are minimal teams present on any given day and less attendees there for the night functions. I understand that most of the guys build for a living and need to get back to work to attend to customers.

I'm thinking if they run two engines from each class on everyday it will bring the whole group back together for the whole week. For the team leaders that need to leave to cater to customers while their engine is in quarantine, maybe there could be some leniency regarding the team leader being forced to stay. For example. Maybe the team leader could give another team leader whom they trust the authority just to assist the students in getting the engine off the schools dyno cart as to not delay the competition.

Just thinking out loud.

C. Henderson

Gregory
Member
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:01 am
Location: Charlotte

Re: EMC 2016

Post by Gregory » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:38 am

How about keeping the rules the same for the Small Block Class so we can have round two in the Olds vs. Chevy vs. Ford?
I'll post my peak numbers and RPM tomorrow.
Also, could someone explain why you could not run a twin blade 4150 throttle body but, you could run a 2000+ CFM 4500 four barrel throttle body?
Greg Finnican
Charlotte

kid7755
Pro
Pro
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:17 pm

Re: EMC 2016

Post by kid7755 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:01 am

Gregory wrote:How about keeping the rules the same for the Small Block Class so we can have round two in the Olds vs. Chevy vs. Ford?
I'll post my peak numbers and RPM tomorrow.
Also, could someone explain why you could not run a twin blade 4150 throttle body but, you could run a 2000+ CFM 4500 four barrel throttle body?
Greg Finnican
Charlotte
Good point. I forgot we were talking about how the single or 4 blade rule got me too. I think those Accel TB's should be allowed %100 agreed. They have that single Venturi but it has two separate blades and then the 4150 with two round primaries but one long oval secondary.

Same'ish rules would be great! However, I think the rule should say that the second place team has to swap intake manifolds with the 4th place team. \:D/

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: EMC 2016

Post by gmrocket » Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:05 pm

Walter R. Malik wrote:
gmrocket wrote:
Walter R. Malik wrote:

Yes Adger, that valve diameter rule would be a lot more equal for everyone; presently, it is not.
how would that valve rule benefit everyone? its only a benefit to those heads for engines that came with quite bit bigger valve...those that didnt, its not. if thats a new rule, builders would just look through the catalogue and pick the head with biggest valve...no matter what engine its on...
I think you need to read the words that are actually printed here and not creatively interject what you mistakenly comprehend.
NOWHERE does it say anything that the valve rule in question will "BENEFIT" everyone ... it was said that a spec class rule like that proposal will "make things MORE EQUAL for everyone".

I will say that I misinterpreted the cylinder head rule for that "Small Block Shootout" class.
I took that written rule, "O.E.M. cylinder head or aftermarket replacement O.E.M. cylinder head with stock port orientation" to mean the ports had to remain in the O.E.M. locations but, everyone else in the class had a "raised runner" cylinder head of some sort so, that thinking was certainly wrong.
i didnt quote him in my question..i just asked a simple question...how would it benefit everyone?

ill ask you since your so smart...how would it benefit the BB chev? and how would it be more equal for everyone,,everyone includes the BB chev. well it wont, it will only make the valve size more equal for those that dont have a 2.19" that certainly isnt everyone.

what would make it more equal for everyone, and benefit no one. is to get rid of the no factoring rule. that way those spec heads can be suited to a cubic inch thats realistic for that RPM range. for gods sakes,,,a lot of those heads have a hard time feeding 400" fully ported,,, even if a 2.19" valve was allowed.

factoring is the great equalizer

oh, and you should get your quotes correct...you quote the small block head rule totally out of context and used the words that were not even in there...no where does it say "orientation" it says "configuration" i guess thats why you misinterpreted it.

User avatar
RAMM
Expert
Expert
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: EMC 2016

Post by RAMM » Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:55 pm

I spent some time speaking with Steve Dulcich this year about the rules he wrote. He admitted that the cylinder head rule is a tricky one to write. It can get very convoluted quickly. Speaking about it with some fellow EMC'ers and Corey Short in particular a suggestion he made really seemed to make sense. Obviously I am not referring to any SPEC class where the actual cylinder head MFG and part #'s are provided. What was suggested is to lump all inline valve/wedge heads into one group and anything Hemi/canted valve heads into another. The rest of the rules regarding the cylinder heads would have to be fine-tuned but I thought this idea cut through a lot of the confusion. I would still love to see the EMC with maybe 3 classes--Vintage(where anything goes) and Wedge class (cube factored) and Hemi/Canted class (cube factored). Run 2 or 3 of each class per day and hold the Finals on the Friday like days of yore. Just my thoughts. J.Rob
New and improved website under construction.Check the blog for relevant info
http://skmfxengines.blogspot.com/

brechlrl
Pro
Pro
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:35 pm

Re: EMC 2016

Post by brechlrl » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:10 pm

I like that idea.. Plenty of room for diversity of engines and a simple way to level the playing field a bit

User avatar
RAMM
Expert
Expert
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: EMC 2016

Post by RAMM » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:42 pm

Forgot to mention running the top 3 engines of each class for a total of 9 on the Friday obviously. Maybe make the payouts $500 per/for 1st $300 per/for 2nd $100 per/for 3rd. Also I think dialing the comp ratio back to 10.5 would make the engines more sellable to the average street guy wanting to purchase the engine or one like it. J.Rob
New and improved website under construction.Check the blog for relevant info
http://skmfxengines.blogspot.com/

kid7755
Pro
Pro
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:17 pm

Re: EMC 2016

Post by kid7755 » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:43 pm

Not a bad idea J. Rob. I'm likin it.

bigdaddy
New Member
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: EMC 2016

Post by bigdaddy » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:07 pm

i really like the format j.rob is proposing. it opens the door for some great discussion.carry on gentlemen :D

Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 4038
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: EMC 2016

Post by Walter R. Malik » Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:07 pm

gmrocket wrote:
Walter R. Malik wrote:

Yes Adger, that valve diameter rule would be a lot more equal for everyone; presently, it is not.
i didnt quote him in my question..i just asked a simple question...how would it benefit everyone?

ill ask you since your so smart...how would it benefit the BB chev? and how would it be more equal for everyone,,everyone includes the BB chev. well it wont, it will only make the valve size more equal for those that dont have a 2.19" that certainly isnt everyone.

what would make it more equal for everyone, and benefit no one. is to get rid of the no factoring rule. that way those spec heads can be suited to a cubic inch thats realistic for that RPM range. for gods sakes,,,a lot of those heads have a hard time feeding 400" fully ported,,, even if a 2.19" valve was allowed.

factoring is the great equalizer

oh, and you should get your quotes correct...you quote the small block head rule totally out of context and used the words that were not even in there...no where does it say "orientation" it says "configuration" i guess thats why you misinterpreted it.
I am only smarter than those who don't read ... judging by your comments, you could not have read the big block "spec" rules ...? There was/is NO factoring rule in that class; 470 cubic inches was for everyone.
So, that proposed valve diameter rule WOULD make it MORE EVEN, (not totally even), for everyone ... all those engines are the SAME cubic inches.
Did you realize that the 2 engines with the biggest allowed valves were 1 & 2 in that class ...?

OK ... I remembered the word wrong, it was a paraphrase; send me to the firing squad. The actual word correction you gave is pretty much the same thing to misinterpret.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.

gmrocket
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:40 pm
Location: Grimsby Ontario

Re: EMC 2016

Post by gmrocket » Wed Oct 12, 2016 2:04 am

Walter R. Malik wrote:
gmrocket wrote:
Walter R. Malik wrote:

Yes Adger, that valve diameter rule would be a lot more equal for everyone; presently, it is not.
i didnt quote him in my question..i just asked a simple question...how would it benefit everyone?

ill ask you since your so smart...how would it benefit the BB chev? and how would it be more equal for everyone,,everyone includes the BB chev. well it wont, it will only make the valve size more equal for those that dont have a 2.19" that certainly isnt everyone.

what would make it more equal for everyone, and benefit no one. is to get rid of the no factoring rule. that way those spec heads can be suited to a cubic inch thats realistic for that RPM range. for gods sakes,,,a lot of those heads have a hard time feeding 400" fully ported,,, even if a 2.19" valve was allowed.

factoring is the great equalizer

oh, and you should get your quotes correct...you quote the small block head rule totally out of context and used the words that were not even in there...no where does it say "orientation" it says "configuration" i guess thats why you misinterpreted it.
I am only smarter than those who don't read ... judging by your comments, you could not have read the big block "spec" rules ...? There was/is NO factoring rule in that class; 470 cubic inches was for everyone.
So, that proposed valve diameter rule WOULD make it MORE EVEN, (not totally even), for everyone ... all those engines are the SAME cubic inches.
Did you realize that the 2 engines with the biggest allowed valves were 1 & 2 in that class ...?

OK ... I remembered the word wrong, it was a paraphrase; send me to the firing squad. The actual word correction you gave is pretty much the same thing to misinterpret.
Huh? I said get rid of the "no factoring rule". I understand it's no factoring in that class that's why you build the biggest the rules allow.

Put factoring "in" that class so the builder maximizes the heads potential to the cubic inch. Maybe have a minimum cubic inch like 390?

Post Reply