Pistons - does anyone care??

[Art Smith]

why everyone is up in arms over wheels escapes me; there's no objectively verifiable rule in the GCR outlawing "compliant cleverness"!! if people want something REAL to complain about, they have to look no farther than the now compliant +0.005" OD forged pistons. prior to approval I vocally (but unfortunately politely) recommended the pistons not be approved to no avail. like so many of the recent rule changes in FF approved by the CRB / BOD, I feel even stronger that the +0.005" OD pistons are a PURE PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT masquerading as a cost reduction having now seen/held one!!

how many members of the CRB and BOD examined drawings of the pistons before approving the rule change making them compliant?

how many members of the CRB and BOD examined one of the pistons before approving the rule change making them compliant?

how many members of the CRB and BOD examined a photograph of one of the pistons before approving the rule change making them compliant?

how many members of the CRB and BOD examined dyno data from an engine first with the 3.189" OD forged pistons and then with the +0.005" OD pistons before approving the rule change making them compliant?

how many members of the CRB and BOD examined dyno data from a second National Engine builder from an engine first with the 3.189" OD forged pistons and then with the +0.005" OD pistons before approving the rule change making them compliant?

how many members of the CRB and BOD have an elementary understanding of the internal workings of a highly restricted racing engine??

below are pictures of three of the four generations of approved FF pistons: +0.030" OD
Hepolites for the Cortina; a cast 3.189" OD piston obsoletd by the approval of the 3.189" OD forged piston; and one of the new +0.005" OD forged pistons. all of my 3.189" OD forged pistons are in engines; I naively believed the sales talk about their approval being motivated by lower cost for the racer from longer useable life..............

given the existing rule on NO modifications to the exterior of FF pistons, anyone not enraged by the OBVIOUS performance features incorporated in the piston needs to spend some time at the websites of piston makers (CP, J&E, Wiseco, .....). is anyone guessing the CRB/BOD just thought the extra grooves at the top and the gas trap between the top and 2nd ring were just "lightening features" and "lightening to approved minimum is authorized"? ....or just looked cool / trick?? not having tested a set yet, I'm guessing based on previous work the pistons are good for at least 2 HPc assuming top-of-the-line commercial compression rings professionally prepared and installed (ie: gap <0.015"). people making their own rings will do even better as the pistons fix a problem the GCR prevents fixing compliantly.

people who do not require objectively verifiable data to make decisions shouldn't be making decisions! people who do not know when, where, or how to get qualified objective advise shouldn't be making decisions!! people who do not know who to trust on what subject(s) shouldn't be making decisions!!! people without a clue on the subject matter being discussed shouldn't be making decisions!!! people who think their job is representing the interests of suppliers shouldn't be making decisions for the membership!!!! given the Club's decisions making process (or lack there of), it is not an accident that these pistons have the same effect on my nose as the 2-liter aluminum head adventure. and like in that self inflicted mess, the majority again will be forced to spend money to remain competitive!

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Scott Hanba]

Interesting pics Art. Do the standard size forged pistons have the same groove and notch features that the +0.005" piston does?

[Joefisherff]

Is it just me or does the new piston have 4 ring lands versus 3 on the older units? I'm with Art when we take a manufacturer or engine builders recommendations for all new rules there seems to be a conflict of interest. While they should have input I don't think we should be counting on them solely for creating the rules around products they will be selling.

[PaulT]

Now I can save the $2500 on new Kephart wheels by getting these great new pistons! This saves the racer money, right?

Paul

[Brian]

I expect the "4th" ring groove is the gas expansion groove between 1 and 2. I have no idea what value it has, or what performance enhancement the grooves above the rings contribute.

Brian

[Joefisherff]

Thanks Brian.

[TimW]

Is it just me but aren't there maybe 10-15 guys in the country who are hyper optimized such that this becomes a necessary expense? I don't see them complaining on this board, likely because any little bit helps get you around a good F500.

If like me you're not one of those guys, we are leaving more on the table than these pistons provide for us. I see no reason to complain that my $75 in membership fees results in a $75 process run by volunteers.

The SCCA rules process is not ideal, but they are also not running a government with lives at stake. If you don't like the way it runs, become part of the solution working constructively within the structure of the appropriate committees or go roundy-round racing. At least here there is some illusion of a collaborative process...over there its clearly and overtly a dictatorship.

[T644HU05]

I don't have $1500 worth of pistons lying around to take pictures of. So I guess the answer is no, I don't care. I suppose I'll buy whatever it takes to get the motor back together when the time comes.

[Roland V. Johnson]

If someone thinks they can go out and have new cast pistons made....go ahead, and then get your pistons by the SCCA! Jay Ivey has done more to keep FF alive and well than anyone else I know of!!!! The new pistons are in effect costing him money. The engines stay strong longer and increase the time between rebuilds!

[Jon Jeffords]

The extra ring land groove is a tuning feature used to manage blowby caused by ring flutter.

Long story short, all piston rings will eventually flutter in their ring groove, at some specific combination of load and rpm. The key is to tune this flutter "natural frequency" so that it occurs at a speed/load combination that your customer spends little time at.

By changing the volume of air between the rings, you can move this flutter point around quite handily. It is a very economical "lever" to pull when developing the piston ring pack.

Attached is an example of a blowby map from Ford. Notice how quickly the blowby comes on; it is sudden, not gradual. Also, notice how they successfully tuned the flutter/blowby to occur at high engine rpm and light load, which is a combination that very few street engines spend any time at.

For a race engine, the ring flutter should be tuned such that it does not occur at high engine rpm and high load. Less blow-by means more oil film between the piston and cylinder wall, less oil dilution, less oil carry-over into the catch can, and maybe a tick or two higher reading on the dyno.

[Joefisherff]

Roland, I'm not questioning the engine builders committment to the class just the process by which the rules are formed and approved. There should be an independent party that reviews the proposals without bias, a true cost analysis done, risk versus benefit and then voted on. There continues to be items approved that create instant obsolescence of racers investments, increases costs and the racers seem to have little involvement in what is supposed to be a club. And for the pitch if you don't like it get involved, unfortunately the people making the decisions are appointees not elected officials.

[John Nesbitt]

Roland, I'm not questioning the engine builders committment to the class just the process by which the rules are formed and approved. There should be an independent party that reviews the proposals without bias, a true cost analysis done, risk versus benefit and then voted on. There continues to be items approved that create instant obsolescence of racers investments, increases costs and the racers seem to have little involvement in what is supposed to be a club. And for the pitch if you don't like it get involved, unfortunately the people making the decisions are appointees not elected officials.

There is an independent body which reviews proposals: the CRB and its advisory committees. The Club rules-making process provides for notice and comment from the membership.

It's up to members to comment in a timely fashion. From what I understand, there are typically very few comments submitted on proposals posted in Fastrack.

That said, this is a member-directed club, and the CRB and BoD respond to member input. Look at some of the recent hot-button issues where member input stopped a proposed change.

And Tim is right about getting involved. Yes, the CRB and its committees are appointed; but they are appointed from interested members who make the effort to get involved.

[Rick Kirchner]

I don't think in this case you would have seen the details of this change posted anywhere for member comment - certainly not a comparative photo or drawing with current parts.

The new FC pistons have the same features as well.

[Joefisherff]

I don't think in this case you would have seen the details of this change posted anywhere for member comment - certainly not a comparative photo or drawing with current parts.

The new FC pistons have the same features as well.

Show me where member input was solicited outlining all of the above features for the standard piston and the .005 over piston. I don't recall ever seeing it. Or the details of an aluminum head that does NOT match the original 2 liter head or the fact that 1600 rods now only have to match the weight of the original rods and be of a ferrous material opening up another Pandora's box...

[TimW]

Show me where member input was solicited outlining all of the above features for the standard piston and the .005 over piston. I don't recall ever seeing it. Or the details of an aluminum head that does NOT match the original 2 liter head or the fact that 1600 rods now only have to match the weight of the original rods and be of a ferrous material opening up another Pandora's box...

So become part of the solution instead of bitching...

You claim people are 'appointed' like its some 'chicago' old boy network or by randomly selecting members.

In reality, those who express interest in being part of the solution are added to a committee where they're energy adds value. Generally, there are many more needs then there are interested people to fill those needs.

[dc]

The fact remains, that this is a club run by members for members. If you don't like the way things are being done in your club, then YOU need to actively participate in the decision making process. It's a very simple concept.


Until then, it's all just complaining after the fact on a discussion board on Teh Internets.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Joe, the problem was that the piston supply was drying up, or already gone. People who knew the problem existed (the engine builders) came up with a solution that made the engine life longer ie saving us all money in the long run. The ring glands wear out on the old cast pistons. Using the same pistons long term cost HP. The new ones, by all accounts last much longer. Jay Ivey went through all the proper processes to get the pistons for us to use. Make the process even more difficult, and watch the class go away!

[Art Smith]

best-on-best this post is about the Club's decision procress or complete lack there of. it's my view the process, if it exists and if it's being used, is severely broken AND fatally flawed; it's not producing good decisions (not even defendable decisions) that are in the interest of the membership. until the BOD begins to suspect or understand there might be a problem, all efforts to help or suggest improvements will continue to be ignored. I've tried to help both privately and publicly to NO avail. it's exactly like trying to suggest to a friend with a severe drinking problem they might need some help.......... the problem is obvious to everyone but you're the "bad friend" for talking about it out loud!!!

it's not news the emperor has NO clothes!!

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...ighlight=0.005
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...ighlight=0.005
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...ighlight=0.005

simple questions should have equally simple answers even in our Club. how many members of the CRB/BOD saw/held a +0.005" OD piston before they approved it??? how many members of the CRB/BOD reviewed the submittd dyno data before they approved it???

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[dc]

These pistons have been around for over a YEAR already. What's the problem if they last longer and have no supply issues? At some point, these pistons will be in every FF engine out there, so the perceived horsepower gains are irrelevant.


Art, if you don't like the way things are handled in the SCCA, why don't you run for a position of authority? Join the CRB, even. Otherwise, why spend so much money to just be disgruntled and angry all the time?

I don't hear a lot of other complaints about the SCCA black helicopters.

[T644HU05]

Isn't Art the guy with the 120hp $12,500 used motors? But with 120hp motors, he doesn't have to buy those pistons anyway, so what's problem? It must be something else, what could it be?

[PaulT]

Is this a complaint about the forged 0.005" oversize pistons or the forged standard size pistons?

I only see pictures of the oversize piston posted here. So I checked the images on the Pegasus site and both sets of forged pistons both have the "extra ring lands" but neither shows the grooves above the top piston ring.

Are these grooves now showing up on the standard forged piston too?

Clearly the forged piston has a different shape than the original ones and I thought everyone was happy with the introduction of the forged pistons due to the lack of the original cast ones...

Paul

[Daryl DeArman]

Nobody seems to have a problem with the "process" until it affects them in a negative manner.

Call me lazy, but rather than try to fight the system, I went elsewhere.

I volunteered to help that other organization and will do so with the next organization I become a member.

Volunteers aren't always welcome when their viewpoints don't correspond well with the status quo.

[Jon Jeffords]

Paul, to make sure we're talking about the right grooves and lands, the CP forged piston has the following features, from top to bottom:

• Top land with "contact reduction grooves"
• Top ring groove
• Second land having a substantial accumulator groove
• Second ring groove
• Third land
• Oil ring groove

Here's some cool reference info, and a photo of the forged CP piston.

http://www.spearsenterprises.com/pdf/pistonSpecs.pdf

http://www.iveyengines.com/images/1600piston.jpg

PS: I'll be in your neck of the woods Sat night for a show at the Arcada; any good restaurant recommendations?

[PaulT]

So after a year of having forged pistons approved, we are going to start complaining now??? Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

Paul

[PaulT]

PS: I'll be in your neck of the woods Sat night for a show at the Arcada; any good restaurant recommendations?

There is also a Race and Performance Expo a couple miles to the east from Arcada this weekend at Pheasant Run. I don't know anything else about it, but here's a link

http://www.rpexpo.com/

Paul

[Roland V. Johnson]

Art, please explain to me the problem that the new piston causes, and how you would have solved the piston problem.

[Art Smith]

Roland-

there are now two (2) compliant forged aluminum pistons; the first at 3.189" OD and the second at 3.194" OD (ie: +0.005"). the first approved forged aluminum piston solved both the availability and service life problems members were having with the cast 3.189" OD pistons,

it's my view that FF doesn't need performance enhancement parts being approved that obsolete perfectly satisfactory modern and available parts. the piston rule we have today was strengthened to explicitly preclude performance enhancement games being played with the exterior surfaces of our pistons. the cast piston problems were SOLVED with the first forged 3.189" OD alumium pistons from Ivey Engines. given the problems were solved with the first piston, you're on your own for why we were hit with the second bolt from the blue obsoleting the first...............................

new pistons, new rings, new sleeves, and another senseless round of custom machining to get the bores round and square to very small numbers with the surface finish right add up in any economy! being forced to spend money on performance enhancing parts to remain competitive makes no sense to me.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[TimW]

But doesn't this make more blocks still usable without sleeving, which is cheaper in the long run? So if someone has a good standard size block and chooses to open it up for a very small advantage for a plastic trophy, more power to him. Most would not choose to compensate for their other inadequacies by increasing the engines capacity by 0.6% unless it was out for rebuild anyway , no?

Bringing in a little perspective here, this a hobby for all the guys paying the bills. It's not pro racing so there is really not all that much at stake for 80% of the competitors. This is a solution that meets the 80/20 rule in my mind.

Art, what were your back to back track test results of the options? Is it measurable? You say you haven't even dyno tested the 5 overs yet. The crb was inclined to think the variance was negligble and had the benefits of reducing costs for well used blocks by keeping them in service longer. Where is your objectively verifiable evidence disputing that claim? There is a difference between science and engineering for a reason.

[Greg Mercurio]

Art: Decaf.

[DaveW]

[mblanc]

But doesn't this make more blocks still usable without sleeving, which is cheaper in the long run?

NO. Who really has a kent block that hasn't been sleeved, once or several times?
If it was really about saving $, there was a better way, that would avoid resleeving twice as often, with a 5 under piston, instead of over. Is it really a price saving to buy two sets of pistons on one set of sleeves, versus resleeving? maybe. But then again a set of sleeves installed, essentially making your kent new again, is pretty inexpensive relative to all else we do.

For a further explanation, see the Jan 07 posts re: gapless rings, linked above.


The point is that it isn't about rehashing the pistons, it's about avoiding the next item of performance creep.

I would like to see a FF world where a guy can put his car up for a couple/few years to pursue something else, comeback and be as competitive enginewise as he was prior to his hiatus. -IE all the cars coming out of the woodwork for the FF40th. Lets make sure those cars will be just as competitive at the 50th. ;-)

[EACIII]

I have 3 blocks that have not been sleeve but one of them would have required it when I put it together but now with the new pistons is will be good to go with a little honing. As the block also had a bad trush bearing I was going to junk it but will now save it as a spare. So I see the new piston as a big cost savings.

Ed

[Eric Cruz]

NO. Problem SOLVED.

[Larry]

Eris'c glib response isn't shared by all! Art, you've informed us of what you perceive as a problem. If nothing else, it indicates that the folks who made the rules either didn't dig into the details adequately, or assumed that this detail was inconsequential. On the other hand, you provided details and pictures and a rational explanation of your concern, and I appreciate your efforts!

Thanks,
Larry Oliver

[Eric Cruz]

I had 6 or 8 cans of glib last night when I posted that. Sorry if I offended. I have more than 40 races and almost as many test days on my sealed Enterprises motor, and I have never verified whether it even has pistons in it. And the leakdown is still only about 3%. So happy not to have to pull those suckers out of my Kent motor every year like I used to...

I know you don't care for Enterprises, Larry, but for reasons like this, it works for me.

Best regards,
Eric

[Greg Mercurio]

Yo Art: You are making claims of performance increase without objectively verifiable data yourself. In re-reading your claims, you appear to be making suppositions. Your claims are based on WHAT?????????????

By your own admission, "not having tested a set yet, I'm guessing based on previous work the pistons are good for at least 2 HPc..."

Sir, I submit that this is not objectively verifiable data, and you are as guilty as those that you accused of not doing their homework, as you have clearly not done yours. Is your "previous work" objectively verifiable by 3rd party audit? Are the 2HPc you claim backed up by anything other than your best guess?

Inflammatory rhetoric is best left to politicians and community organizers. When you have objectively verifiable performance data from your dyno, please post the results here so that we may have an informed discussion, not just another of your rants.

[Daryl DeArman]

Art shouldn't be held to the same standard since he isn't making decisions that will affect the rest of us, but you already knew that.

[Greg Mercurio]

Actually Daryl, I hold Art to a higher standard as he is making assertions of the capability of the CRB members to make technical decisions, their collective abilities and their veracity. He has offered no proof, nothing but a lot of BS.

It is extremely poor form to crap on ANY volunteer. It's even worse to allege facts that are not borne out by proof.

If you have any proof to present that support any of the accusations Art has made against the CRB members in the initial post, please present them here, until then I respectfully request that you butt out.

[GAC]

Does anyone actually have any dyno results to show the difference in power from the pistons? I think that actual data would help to answer the question of whether or not we should be concerned about this new piston. Art, you have mentioned some tests. If you have the results, cold you please post them for all to see? Comparative numbers will work fine if you aren't free to quote absolute numbers.

[Josh Pitt]

editied by me to keep this thread from straying off topic.