Road Atlanta FIT?

[ric baribeault]

my understanding from talking to engine builders is that a good kent would make around 112 hp on a dyno where a great motor would be around 115 or so. we all know those motors are rare, and where most of them are. that being said, that's not the reason those drivers win. i think we've entered into this downward spiraling cycle of hp fixation. the motors are supposed to be very close. in this class, even if the honda was marginally better, a better driver will still win. you could probably take the restrictor off, put most drivers in the car against JT, and they still couldn't beat him. i think it's just pure speculation as to what is fair until we have more on-track comparison. it would be nice if we could get some quality back to back comparisons between the 2 motors, in the same chassis, with the same driver.

steve, how could you make a 5% error like that? so irresponsible!

[Jim Garry]

The only other consideration is the throttle response.A fit powered car will have a definate advantage there.The restrictor size should help even the throttle response versus HP dilema.

There's been a considerable amount of debate by very experienced members of apexspeed about the benefits of throttle response in a FF chassis where, except for the rain, the driver is generally hard on it.

[SOseth]

my understanding from talking to engine builders is that a good kent would make around 112 hp on a dyno where a great motor would be around 115 or so. we all know those motors are rare, and where most of them are. that being said, that's not the reason those drivers win. i think we've entered into this downward spiraling cycle of hp fixation. the motors are supposed to be very close. in this class, even if the honda was marginally better, a better driver will still win. you could probably take the restrictor off, put most drivers in the car against JT, and they still couldn't beat him. i think it's just pure speculation as to what is fair until we have more on-track comparison. it would be nice if we could get some quality back to back comparisons between the 2 motors, in the same chassis, with the same driver.

steve, how could you make a 5% error like that? so irresponsible!

Ric

I would agree that quoting HP numbers from different dyno is at best misleading. At this point in time the only dyno's the Honda has been run on (that I know of) has been Quicksilver's and Loyning's. It is wrong to take info from any other engine builder and compare it because the Honda hasn't been there. I am obviously fairly familiar with QS numbers and I know where my Kent was in the pecking order at Quicksilver. Pardon the skeptic in me but until I get the Honda running in my car and have direct hands on, on track data then I will remain skeptical of the parity of a Honda motor that seems to be almost 10 HP down from my Kent motor. Having not driven a FI car for any length of time I cannot comment on how that will affect the lap time in a FF. Both Mike Agniflo and Stan Clayton have told me that it made a very big difference in FA. I guess we'll see.

As I said in another thread, when I get the blueprinted Honda charts, I'll post them. From there we will just have to work through the process to get these engines equalized.

SteveO

[ric baribeault]

i agree. i'll know the first lap in mine where it stands. i also believe it's fairly behind parity at this time. in atlantic there's a fair advantage to injection. in FC about zero. i have a fair amount of time in both pinto and zetec and any difference is imperceptible to me. in fact, in an fc pinto, at a track i was more familiar with, i out qualified and beat 2 zetecs that were and are front runners in the f2000 series, and at least one of them was without the restrictor and both on 8's and 10's. as hp diminishes, so does the perceived advantage. that will be born out in time. this is zetec all over again. we just have to ride it out. i can't wait until mine is done. it will be the 3rd piper, and 2nd customer car. dave's should be on track next weekend.

[R. Pare]

Thinking that the answers to this will be defined by on-track performance is delusional at best.

Lack of HP is Lack of HP. Yes, there will be most likely some gain in throttle response with the injection, but that will never ovecome the lack of HP in accelleration times in 3rd & 4th, as well as at top speed. Add to that the sharp drop off in the HP the Fit makes after 6700-6800 rpm compared to the Kent (from what I've heard), and the Fit will be at a disadvantage.

The problem that we have is that so far only Sandy has been open in revealing what his 'good' Kent motors make and how the Fit compares when run on his dyno - no one else seems to want to be as open ( the other builder who has dyno'd the engine) or has stepped up to the plate and put the engine on their dyno to get their own numbers.

Until that is done, we really only have a data point of one - certainly not very scientific, and definetely not enough to silence the critics.

So what is a 'good' Kent? If my info is correct, and Sandy's 116-117 number from his dyno is true (and I have zero reason to not believe him), then his best motors probably produce 119-120 on his dyno. The same sort of 'good' to 'best' numbers spread is probably true for just about every other builder, though the actual numbers that their dynos produce will be different.

The only solution is to get a couple more builders to step up to the plate, dyno the Fit, and be willing to say Yes or No as to whether or not it is in the range of their 'good' motors.

[SOseth]

Thinking that the answers to this will be defined by on-track performance is delusional at best.

Lack of HP is Lack of HP. Yes, there will be most likely some gain in throttle response with the injection, but that will never ovecome the lack of HP in accelleration times in 3rd & 4th, as well as at top speed. Add to that the sharp drop off in the HP the Fit makes after 6700-6800 rpm compared to the Kent (from what I've heard), and the Fit will be at a disadvantage.

The problem that we have is that so far only Sandy has been open in revealing what his 'good' Kent motors make and how the Fit compares when run on his dyno - no one else seems to want to be as open ( the other builder who has dyno'd the engine) or has stepped up to the plate and put the engine on their dyno to get their own numbers.

Until that is done, we really only have a data point of one - certainly not very scientific, and definetely not enough to silence the critics.

So what is a 'good' Kent? If my info is correct, and Sandy's 116-117 number from his dyno is true (and I have zero reason to not believe him), then his best motors probably produce 119-120 on his dyno. The same sort of 'good' to 'best' numbers spread is probably true for just about every other builder, though the actual numbers that their dynos produce will be different.

The only solution is to get a couple more builders to step up to the plate, dyno the Fit, and be willing to say Yes or No as to whether or not it is in the range of their 'good' motors.

Richard;

I'm sure Sandy loves me talking about his business, but I will say that there has never been a 120HP Kent FF motor on his dyno certainly that I am aware of. Believe me if there had been I'd have been trying to figure out how they could have built one for me. The top motor that I know of is about 117.5, roughly 2HP better than the Kent used for comparison in the graph I had previously posted.

SteveO

[S Lathrop]

To add to what Richard said:

Look at the situation in FC. There we have 2 different engines and everyone seems satisfied with the current situation. The Pinto has the edge at top end but the Zetec guys are happy to race with what they have.

In that case Sandy worked out the engine maps and restrictors to give the FC guys the setup. If the other engine builders want to remain on the side line then maybe Sandy should be trusted to come up with the setup for Ford vs Fit engine.

The dumb part about the Ford vs. Fit fight is that the differences in the engines are not that big. Mike is arguing for a situation where the Fit has no chance to beat the best Kent engines vs. a pretty competitive race where the relative advantages are evenly balanced at the front of the grid. Yes, setting parity this high will negatively impact the Kent market. The situation that Mike advocates places the Fit engine runners in the position of permanent second class participants.

The crux of this problem is the big deviation of the Kent motors around some average. The Fit motor will have about 1/4 or less of that deviation in hp out put.

Maybe this is just going to be 2 years of test and argue and by 2011 run offs we will see a good match up between the Kents and Fits at Elkhart. It might be more fun and equitable because those good Kent engines are very hard and expensive to come by.

[stonebridge20]

Thinking that the answers to this will be defined by on-track performance is delusional at best.

Lack of HP is Lack of HP. Yes, there will be most likely some gain in throttle response with the injection, but that will never ovecome the lack of HP in accelleration times in 3rd & 4th, as well as at top speed. Add to that the sharp drop off in the HP the Fit makes after 6700-6800 rpm compared to the Kent (from what I've heard), and the Fit will be at a disadvantage.

The problem that we have is that so far only Sandy has been open in revealing what his 'good' Kent motors make and how the Fit compares when run on his dyno - no one else seems to want to be as open ( the other builder who has dyno'd the engine) or has stepped up to the plate and put the engine on their dyno to get their own numbers.

Until that is done, we really only have a data point of one - certainly not very scientific, and definetely not enough to silence the critics.

So what is a 'good' Kent? If my info is correct, and Sandy's 116-117 number from his dyno is true (and I have zero reason to not believe him), then his best motors probably produce 119-120 on his dyno. The same sort of 'good' to 'best' numbers spread is probably true for just about every other builder, though the actual numbers that their dynos produce will be different.

The only solution is to get a couple more builders to step up to the plate, dyno the Fit, and be willing to say Yes or No as to whether or not it is in the range of their 'good' motors.

Richard,

Go over to the "Honda dyno sheet" thread and read post #52.

If the Kent is better at the end of a long strait and the Honda is better off the slow to mid speed corners and you end up at ultimately the same lap time, then the two engines are "equal". I'll give you an example. In 2006 (my last year in GT3) running a Nissan KA24 engine (inlet restricted) my engine made some very good low end power but not much at the top and would come off the corner like a freight train. Now the Mazda rotary engine cars which were "almost" unrestricted had very little torque but a ton of top end power, would come to life at the end of a long strait. Ultimately the Nissans and Mazdas ran the same lap times because they "got it done" at two different places on the track. I THINK that's what may happen with the Kent/Fit but it's only a guess until we see cars on track.
I also know that when we changed from carbs to FI in the Atlantic series in 04 on the same engine, I lost quite a bit of peak Hp with the FI but because of much better throttle response, would NEVER go back to carbs because the car was faster. Mike Sauce could probably elaborate. He was there in 04 also.

[eospeed]

Go over to the "Honda dyno sheet" thread and read post #52.

If the Kent is better at the end of a long strait and the Honda is better off the slow to mid speed corners and you end up at ultimately the same lap time, then the two engines are "equal"

That is just wrong. It just dosent work out like that and Im pretty sure you know that.The Honda is down 10+hp everywhere with the 27.5 plate.Slow speed or high speed its still 10+hp down to good kent and 13 from your kent.

[nulrich]

Go over to the "Honda dyno sheet" thread and read post #52.

If the Kent is better at the end of a long strait and the Honda is better off the slow to mid speed corners and you end up at ultimately the same lap time, then the two engines are "equal".

Why would the Honda be better off the slow to mid speed corners? It's still down 10-13 hp, not sure how that makes it accelerate better!

I also know that when we changed from carbs to FI in the Atlantic series in 04 on the same engine, I lost quite a bit of peak Hp with the FI but because of much better throttle response, would NEVER go back to carbs because the car was faster.

FA engines make roughly twice as much power. If you look at the percentage of a lap FF cars spend at full throttle, I think it's pretty clear that "throttle response" isn't a significant benefit. Also, losing "peak power" isn't the same as losing power everywhere, like the current 27.5 mm restrictor.

Just to put some numbers on this: a 10 hp power deficit translates to about 4 mph less top speed for a FF car.

Nathan

[Daryl DeArman]

The Kent is making more HP at approx. 5025rpm than the Fit ever makes. Don't know where the idea that the Fit has more power down low comes from.

Why do we expect other engine builders to tell us exactly how much the Fit needs to close the gap to one of their good motors? They have a vested interest in keeping them as far from parity as possible for as long as possible.

All the attention should be fixated on the HP curves (not peak numbers) because when all else is equal the better HP curve will win. The motor IS the only variable in this formula we should be solving for.

[RobLav]

I'm not a FF racer, but I've been following this thread for a while. Steve Lathrop hit the nail on the head with his point about deviation. A statistical distribution exists for the HP of the Kent and the HP of the FIT. The distribution for the Kent will be much wider than the distribution of the FIT since the variance (Standard Deviation squared) is much greater on the Kent than the FIT. The Japanese have been pushing the mantra of "Reduce Variation" since the early 1950's, and I strongly believe the FIT HP distribution will be fairly narrow and symmetrical along both tails. The Kent, with the high HP numbers produced by top engine builders and some fairly low HP numbers produced by homebuilders will undoubtedly have a fairly wide distribution. The other issue with the Kent is that the distribution is more than likely non-symmetrical. It will have have a wide tail at the left (low HP) compared to a fairly sharp drop off tail on the right (high HP). A non-symmetrical distribution like this is skewed to one side, and the median does not equal the mean. I do this for a living, and I would start with a Normal or Logistic distribution to try to fit to the FIT (yes play on words), and a Weibull to try to fit to the Kent.

The bottom line is that a statistical comparison test of the two data sets would reveal a very low confidence level that the two data sets are the same. It just won't happen. It sounds to me like the CRB did the right thing in trying to place the FIT HP at just under a top level National Kent. The advantage to all FF racers in allowing the FIT is back towards the mantra of "reduce variation". With reduced variation in engine output, especially with cheaper running costs, the effects will produce a higher level of causation of winning due to the driver and his chassis setup. I think this is what we want.

[Stan Clayton]

The problem with both the statistical approach and Mike's laughable analogy is that they ignore the major external factors that will always be present: chassis, setup and driver.

This is club racing, not an industrial production environment, and IMO the only approach that will work to the members' satisfaction (the only solution that matters!) is what worked in FC: keep refining the map and restrictor until there is general satisfaction that we have a level playing field. The CRB have stated that is their intent, and the class' members just need to keep their collective feet to the fire to ensure it happens.

Anything short of that dooms the class to continued decline and fratricide.

[dc]

It sounds to me like the CRB did the right thing in trying to place the FIT HP at just under a top level National Kent.

Yet, they did not do that at all. They put it over 11 hp below a solid National-level Kent at all tested dyno points, against the experienced suggestions of Quicksilver.

[R. Pare]

The reality is that The Fit is 10 - 11 or so HP down on power from a "good" Kent ( about an 11 percent difference!), but probably has a slight, but highly variable, advantage in throttle response, with the variables being ambient temperatures, how well the carb is tuned on the Kent, and the nature of a particular track.

All the track side testing in the world will not give us good numbers since we need to then add in the variables present from car to car - aerodynamics, mechanical losses, setup, gearing, and driver.

As it sits right now, my "educated" guess is that a Fit would get eaten alive at Road America, but might fare reletively well at 'point and squirt' tracks like Gratten and Blackhawk.

If one had the money, the only method that I know of to sort through this and get believable numbers is through controlled-climate track simulation on a dyno. Unfortunately, about the only people who can probably do this are NASCAR teams and Honda themselves, and you really do not want to know what this sort of program would cost.

That leaves us with only one even remotely viable alternative and that is old-fashioned dyno testing.

[Art Smith]

like Mike, it's also my expectation that the alternate engine will enjoy a significant transient throttle responce advantage for at least three reasons: 1.) fuel injection; 2.) an intake manifold/plenum designed for racing and not smog control; AND 3.) much lighter internal rotating componets. the alternate engine's piston/pin/connecting rod assembly's minimum weight is lighter than the Ford Uprated Kent's connecting rod alone!!

Jan 2010 GCR:

alternate engine
e. Pistons
f. Combined minimum weight of piston, piston pin and connecting rod: 543.5 grams (18.85 ounces

Ford Uprated Kent

e. Pistons
Minimum weight 515 grams (w/ clips, pins and rings)Weight of pin: 115 +/- 2 grams

j. Connecting Rods

Any ferrous connecting rod may be used provided it meets a minimum weight of 630 grams and has a center to center length of 4.925 +/- 0.020 inches. (Note: Weights include cap, bolts, and small end bush, but not big end bearing shells).

alternate engine
1. The stock Honda Fit flywheel must be used. No modifications are permitted except for normal resurfacing for clutch weara. Stock Honda flywheel PN: 22100-RB0-005.
b. Minimum weight with ring gear: 14.4 lbs.
Ford Uprated Kent
l. Flywheel
1. Weight with ring gear: 15.5 lbs minimum.
2. The flywheel may be machined to reduce weight to the above minimum weight. Flywheel locating dowels are permitted.
3. Weight may be added to the flywheel, providing it is added ONLY to the existing clutch bolt holes, i.e., single cap screws or set screws. No continuous material shall be used
4. An alternate flywheel, part # JAE1600 is also allowed at the above weight of 15.5 lbs

using the numbers from the Jan 2010 GCR, the alternate engine appears to have a significant advantage in lower recipricating weight and lighter allowed rotating components................... relative on track performance seems to me the only objective means to assess performance potential of the two engines assuming aero optimized cars and equal drivers/set-ups/tires.

Art

artesmith@earthlink.net

[Stan Clayton]

Art, if you are going to compare MOI, why not look at a little bigger picture, rather than cherry picking a few components that fit () your bias?

In other words, how about acknowledging that the Honda's crankshaft has to weigh a minimum of 27.7 lbs versus 24.5 lbs for the Kent; and that the Kent gets a 77mm stroke versus 89.55mm for the Honda?

And that the Honda clutch and disc must weigh 9.1 lbs versus no minimum for the Kent?

And that the Honda requires a 3.9 lb crank damper versus no minimum for the Kent?

You claim that the Honda has "a significant advantage in lower recipricating weight and lighter allowed rotating components."

I doubt it.

[Art Smith]

Stan-

I'll trade you any day of the week and twice on Sunday all your listed alternate engine's centerline baggage for:

Combined minimum weight of piston, piston pin and connecting rod: 543.5 grams (18.85 ounces)

recipricating weight is horsepower that goes with the square of the crank speed..........

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Stan Clayton]

Oh, so you're saying that only the weight of the piston package matters? Cool! Now I can save that $4-grand I spent on a carbon clutch and super-light flywheel for my Atlantic by reverting to the 33 lb monstrosity that come from the factory on the Toyota 4age.

After all, it doesn't affect anything, right?

Riiiiight!!!

[Art Smith]

Stan-

speaking of Toyota's, I hear the hot set-up uses 515 gram piston/pin assemblys, 630 gram rods, and the stock smog control intake manifold................... I've even heard that while Weber's make more power on Toyota's, everyone uses fuel injection for improved transient responce???

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Stan Clayton]

I've even heard that while Weber's make more power on Toyota's, everyone uses fuel injection for improved transient responce???

Nope.

PS - Just to share my experience...the Toyota with the TWM adapter and Weber DCOE 48's from back in the late 80's will make slightly more peak power (<5 hp) than the TRD EFI setup as developed for the pro series back in the early 90's, but our experience from years of running both setups is that there is no driver-discernible throttle-response difference between them when the revs are maintained above 8000, as they should be for best lap times. If you want to pull off tight corners at 6500 RPMs, then the EFI might be a bit more tractable, but your lap times will suffer.

In the late 90's TRD and Loyning independently developed new EFI manifolds that match the peak power of the Webers, but again there is no real throttle-response difference when driven in their intended RPM range. We have chosen to remain on Webers to take advantage of the 25 lbs weight break given them (used to be 50 lbs...darn!). For the same reason we have eschewed a sequential gearbox.

Having run both Swift 008 and 014 for customers in recent years, and as a consequence being very familiar with both, IMO most owners of those cars don't convert to carbs because they can't get down to the carb/h-pattern weight anyway, so why bother?

[mblanc]

Frankly I don't care what JT has. His HP number is meaningless to me...........SteveO

I would think it would be important, as it's the track record holder at RA, where everybody is so worried the FIT keeping up.


Either way,
first impressions with data are:
The restrictor sure can't be far off, Best I ran at RdAtlanta last year in a DB6, 1:33.1
Mike this year in a DB6 1:32.9

IT CAN'T BE THAT FAR OFF and run a 1:32

Should I be able to go faster? YUP
has he gone faster w kent? YUP
can I go faster probably
can he go faster w/ his FIT probably

I'm NOT trying to use one set of data as a be all end all means, but
it's the only real world data set at this point,

AND

IT CAN'T BE THAT FAR OFF



Obviously need some more cars on track, and more data,

[John Robinson II]

Please explain this to me, maybe I will have to change my driving style... When exiting a corner, actually, as soon as the car rotates entering a corner, I mash the accelerator all the way to the floor, and the engine immediately starts picking up revs. If the motor does not respond, I am to low in rpm or the jetting is way off, which kills hp. How is the FI going to help throttle response above 5000 rpm? How big of a difference does one expect between the 2?

I honestly think the Honda will always be at a disadvantage, I even told Tom G at Atlanta. Once a decision is made as to the power level restricted by the restrictor, that is it, there are no other ways to increase power, no further development, BUT, the kent will continue to evolve just like it has for the past 40 years.

John

PS I dont think 120 hp kents are mythical.

[TimW]

The restrictor sure can't be far off, Best I ran at RdAtlanta last year in a DB6, 1:33.1

Um, don't take this personally Marc, but frankly a 1:33.1 or a 1:32.9 is a wanker lap time for Road Atlanta so to conclude its not too far off is really not fact based. Mind you of course I'd be happy to be ~3.5 seconds off the track record there as it's a man's track if there every was one, but my (or your) time is not really relavent.

Even if the track record at 1.29.xxx was right after paving JRII has been into the low 30s since so 3 seconds off the pace does not make for equal.

[stephen wilson]

I'm glad you posted that John, I've wanted to for quite some time! I'm just a "lowly" CF guy, but if I'm doing my job, throttle to the floor after turn-in, no response issues.

[nulrich]

I honestly think the Honda will always be at a disadvantage, I even told Tom G at Atlanta. Once a decision is made as to the power level restricted by the restrictor, that is it, there are no other ways to increase power, no further development, BUT, the kent will continue to evolve just like it has for the past 40 years.

I agree with this, they will never make the Fit engine equal to a very good Kent. The Zetec still isn't equal to a very good Pinto engine (except with the F2000 pro series map).

I don't think it matters, though, if they get it reasonably close (like the club map Zetec to the Pinto). New and updated chassis will probably be designed to only take the Fit engine, given what a big financial advantage it enjoys if you are buying a new car, so if (when) FF chassis/aero design improves, the Kent will be left behind.

Our new FC car won't take the Pinto engine, for example, but I don't expect the slight horsepower disadvantage to be an issue, even for club racing.

Nathan

[stonebridge20]

I just deleted a very long post I wrote. It was just way too personal on why I have been so vocal here for the last however many months. I just can't argue with a group of people I considered brothers due to our shared passion of FF anymore. It's not who I am. It's not who I want to be and It's not what this class is about for me after 25 years. I just have to draw a line in the sand when it goes "personal". I'm bowing out on any further Kent/Fit discussions.

I'll see you guys at the track and will offer whatever I have that you need as I have always done, no matter what engine is behind you!


Mike

[R. Pare]

Please explain this to me, maybe I will have to change my driving style... When exiting a corner, actually, as soon as the car rotates entering a corner, I mash the accelerator all the way to the floor, and the engine immediately starts picking up revs. If the motor does not respond, I am to low in rpm or the jetting is way off, which kills hp.

No, your nitrous nozzel is too big!

[Stan Clayton]

The Zetec still isn't equal to a very good Pinto engine (except with the F2000 pro series map).

That hasn't been true for some time. For the 2009 season the CRB approved a map and restrictor for the Zetec that put it on par with the best aluminum headed Pinto and a bit north of a "very good" iron headed Pinto (see image below).

Since then, of course, it has turned out that the right tail of the binomial distribution for iron Pintos is very long indeed, and that "very good" was semantically equivalent to "5 hp down from the best".

Not only that, but it also turns out that the Zetec engine used for the study below, and presented to the CRB, BoD and membership as representative of what a Zetec was capable of, was an absolutely bone-stock, fresh-from-the-crate example with EXACTLY those operations permitted in the GCR carried out on it.

The ink was no more dry on the 2009 GCR when word started filtering in that the engine builders were "blueprinting" Zetec engines to free up several additional hp, and that those with magic iron Pintos were gleefully adding the new camshaft for a similar power boost.

The only losers? Those with CNC'd aluminum headed Pintos. They have no room for improvement and no new cam. Which is why no new aluminum heads have been sold to SCCA racers in a year. It's a good thing for Fast Forward that the Aussies, Kiwis, South Africans and Europeans have no such silly rules about the head, or they wouldn't sell any at all.

[nulrich]

Stan:

I won't argue with anything in your last post, I believe it is correct as far as it goes, and depending on how you define "very good." However, I have several dyno charts that are much more recent that show a somewhat different scenario. Unfortunately, I do not have permission to disclose them, but I believe my previous statement is correct.

Let's keep this thread on the Fit, though.

Regards,

Nathan

[Stan Clayton]

Let's keep this thread on the Fit, though.

Agreed, but this ancillary discussion is germane to the Fit precisely because several members of the CRB tell me that what happened in FC is what lies at the root of their decision to bring the Fit into FF where it is. Think of it as a case of "once burned, twice smart"; the CRB wants to ensure that once Fits are exploiting every opportunity compliant to the rules, that they are not then the "must have" engine in the class.

SOseth and JR2 have broken the code on this and stepped up to have their engine builder prepare Fits to the limits of the rules. The Fit crowd owe them a collective debt of gratitude because it is action like this that will allow the CRB to shorten the phase-in period to real parity.

[oriev]

It seems to me, a non FF driver, that bringing the new motor with slightly less makes sense as it is easier to allow some change to even it out after sufficient on track data is available, than it would be to try to restrict the motor after it becomes an overdog. All of the people who have invested in the new program will have to be patient, it has taken 30+ years to get the fords where they are one or two years for the new platform is not that long to wait. A fit winning the runoffs the first year should not be because it has an advantage but because some one running it deserves the win through driving talent and preperation, not just the latest and greatest powerplant. Just my opinion.

[John Robinson II]

It seems to me, a non FF driver, that bringing the new motor with slightly less makes sense as it is easier to allow some change to even it out after sufficient on track data is available, than it would be to try to restrict the motor after it becomes an overdog. All of the people who have invested in the new program will have to be patient, it has taken 30+ years to get the fords where they are one or two years for the new platform is not that long to wait. A fit winning the runoffs the first year should not be because it has an advantage but because some one running it deserves the win through driving talent and preperation, not just the latest and greatest powerplant. Just my opinion.

I totally agree, but a motor, kent or fit, that is 10 hp down will not win the runoffs. THere are way to many that are closer to the top hp level at that race. You might have a shot at M-O or maybe even Topeka, but not R-A, you need all the power you can get to get up the hill to the checker and right now, a fit will not win that drag race, regardless of driver.

The real question is, "what is slightly less"

John

[ric baribeault]

john, there's actually 2 questions. "what is slightly less?" is one, but i think the more important one is "what point do we establish, to measure slightly less from?"

[Larry]

Good point, Ric! We want a precisely measured deviation from an unidentified point.

Larry Oliver

[Stan Clayton]

We want a precisely measured deviation from an unidentified point.

Not quite, Larry. Call your engine builder and ask what the normal range of peak hp is for freshened engines, and he will tell you something like 113-115. He will also tell you that an engine with a history of making 114 or 115 will not go out the door at 113 or lower because something isn't right. That's why when you scrutinize the bill you see mysterious charges for things like a new rocker or two, a valve here and there, maybe a new or reground cam, etc. The bottom line is that the engine builders know what their engines should make and go to some pains to ensure that competition engines going out the door are, well...competitive, if only with their own products.

The following two charts illustrate the concept and possibly point to the beginnings of an answer. The graphs are illustrative only and do not represent real engines, nor actual distributions!

The first is a simulated distribution of all engines from all engine builders with broad symmetrical high and low tails. The second shows what I suspect is a typical distribution from a single engine builder, with the distribution skewed somewhat to the right. After all, the engine is very mature and builders don't ship sub-par engines to customers who are willing to pay for dyno time (as opposed to those who say to him, "just screw it together and send it to me!"

[Larry]

113HP? 117HP? Assuming all engines are affected equally by atmospheric deviations? Sea level at 59 degrees and 29.92 altimeter? After all, the Honda FI should compensate for conditions, right?

Larry

[RobLav]

Stan,

The distribution shape on the right is what I suspect is the actual. And I also suspect that the left tail is spaced further to the left because of older engines / home builds / etc. But the Normal distribution, as it appears to be in your distribution fit, well... does not fit very well. Look up a Weibull in wikipedia. I have software that will fit Weibull. You'll probably see a higher R^2 value.

Wherever we put the FIT HP, the Kents to the left of it will probably eventually be obsolete.

[Stan Clayton]

113HP? 117HP? Assuming all engines are affected equally by atmospheric deviations? Sea level at 59 degrees and 29.92 altimeter? After all, the Honda FI should compensate for conditions, right? Larry

If 117 is a top 5% engine, then no...that is too high imo because the Fit would then be the 'must have' engine. OTOH, if top runners at the Runoffs are swapping in their "good" engine when the lump in the car is over 3 hp down (as I have seen and had explained to me at the Runoffs...), then 113 is too low to be a front runner.

IMO, 113-114 is the number the CRB should set on a blueprinted engine in time for the Runoffs.

Just my opinion, of course...YMMV.

[Art Smith]

hopefully on track performance data is used by the CRB to adjust the SIR size and not imagineering. with only a couple of converted cars on the track now without blueprinted engines, one (or more) adjustments for convergence if required for the 2011 RunOffs seems like a far more realistic expected outcome. it's also my hope the CRB procedes deliberately as $300 cams that cost $3000-$4000 (shipping both ways, new lifters, removal/installation, run in on the dyno with street springs, installation of racing springs, dyno tune) to get installed mid-season in a Ford Uprated 1600 Kent or Cortina engine are a non-starter.............................

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net