New Pistons and Barrels!

[dc]

I was expecting a permanent ban after post #71.

Did I miss something, too? Nothing seemed insensitive or factually incorrect. Even if it is an opinion, there wasn't anything racist or hateful, so I'm not sure why there would be an assumption of a ban.

[Sharplikestump]

Sorry, didn't mean to be a buzz-kill on this thread. It's a really good topic and glad to see that progress is most likely coming in the FV P & C arena. Availability has been a looming issue, but looks to be improving with help from the FSRAHC and the CRB.

I wouldn't worry about that, Bill.
My guess this one will go on for a long time.
Mike

[Rolling Stone]

All I can say is it is COURSE not COARSE...Sorry!but itz inn evry poste u do

[Bill Bonow]

Frank,

You need to tell us who these posts are directed at.....

I just scrolled through all of my posts to see if I had made another spelling error

[G.B.]

Please note that this SCCA rule change will not be incorporated into CASC?s F1200 rules until someone proposes it.

Perhaps it should be discussed at next month?s F1200 AGM.

[Hardingfv32]

I And the let the rest of us AVERAGE people talk about the situation.

I am sorry, but there is a need for the expertise of above average people (relative to a subject) to get the effective solutions.

Pistons: We have the the AA pistons that had small oil rings and different ring slot locations. The FACT is there is 'NO' known document performance benefit to these features vs a K/S piston. Period. Feel free to fined something in the large piston design literature base. There was absolutely no requirement to change the rules. It was done because average people and average engine builders (relative to a subject) feared there could be a performance advantage with the AA pistons.

Wheel covers: Now average people (relative to a subject) are off to work on new aero rules. We have the first new aero feature in about a decade and the fear is flowing in the streets. Using Runoff lap and speed trap data you simply cannot make a case for the effectiveness of the wheel covers, but yet they have generated a review of the FV aero rules.

This is why the average guy needs to be educated by above average (relative to a subject) guys.

This is too much fun! I need to take more Prozac.

Brian

[sracing]

The FACT is there is known document performance benefit to these features vs a K/S piston. Period. Feel free to fined something in the large piston design literature base. There was absolutely no requirement to change the rules. Brian

Is this a typo? Not sure what you mean? In itself a smaller ring can be an advantage. The position of the ring can also be an advantage. There are lots of known documented performance benefits. (friction, effective compression ratio, etc.)

The original rules were poorly written ("dimensionally identical") and in any case needed changing.

But maybe this is a typo, or I just don't understand your post,

[blackhole]

Please note that this SCCA rule change will not be incorporated into CASC?s F1200 rules until someone proposes it.

Perhaps it should be discussed at next month?s F1200 AGM.

Yes we will be putting this forward because it is impossible for either us or Bill Vallis to produce engines anymore in Canada as we are both out of stock of the K/S Sets.

We will be doing some testing this winter with the Chinese products to see if they hold up to the standards that we need them to be at. It would be excellent if they could. As this will save the Canadian racer a lot of money as we will not have to endure the outrageous shipping and border expenses as in the past!!!!

[Hardingfv32]

Is this a typo? Not sure what you mean? In itself a smaller ring can be an advantage. The position of the ring can also be an advantage. There are lots of known documented performance benefits. (friction, effective compression ratio, etc.)

The original rules were poorly written ("dimensionally identical") and in any case needed changing.

Grammar error: NO known benefit

I was being literal. I am up for learning something if I am wrong.

1) Yes, a smaller oil(?) ring could be an advantage, but in the case of Palermo or any other builder, the 'option' to use a spacer system for the oil ring groove makes the oil ring groove size irrelevant relative to FV.

2) Position of the ring location... a more complex subject.

Yes, ring location is helpful for lowering an engine's CG or lengthening the rod length. Neither are a benefit or available to FVs.

Effective compression ration: I appreciate that there is a small volume involved, what I do not appreciate is that it effects the CR. It seems to be it is a constant volume that travels with the piston. I do not see how it matters. Can you demonstrate?

3) Friction: I have no clue on this point. Can you expand? I have a ton of piston articles & papers and I have no recall of friction being effected by ring location.

Again, I have done extensive piston and ring research to help with my preparation of the K/S pistons. I simple never detected anything about ring location that improved engine power performance.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

Just trying to understand your view,

Grammar error: NO known benefit.

Brian

[Bill Bonow]

Thank you, makes much more sense with the added "no"

[Matt King]

I don't think the rules were changed because of any perceived performance advantage to the AA (Chinese) pistons. Engine builders were already using rings that thin or thinner in the K/S pistons with spacers. The problem was that the piston rules were so vague and inadequately worded that no one could properly interpret them and when they were finally clarified, they were then modified to allow a commonly available and inexpensive off the shelf piston to be legal (pistons that were apparently already being used but that's another issue). Maybe I got something wrong, but that's how I viewed it.

[Sharplikestump]

Yes we will be putting this forward because it is impossible for either us or Bill Vallis to produce engines anymore in Canada as we are both out of stock of the K/S Sets.

We will be doing some testing this winter with the Chinese products to see if they hold up to the standards that we need them to be at. It would be excellent if they could. As this will save the Canadian racer a lot of money as we will not have to endure the outrageous shipping and border expenses as in the past!!!!

Here is a free tip to one and all......Was anything BUT that for me, and necessitated a couple of long trips to correct it in customers engines at various racetracks.....and while I'm just another selfish old cuss, in the interest of the class and in the holiday spirit, I share this to spare you the same pain:
Should you elect to use the Chinese sets, do NOT use the snaprings that come with the set at this time. THEY WILL LEAD TO DISASTER. Replace them with a quality set. I have some in stock, have included them with sets sold, and will continue to do so. I will also be reminding AA that this must be corrected, along with hopefully convincing them to incorporate a couple of other changes.
I have informed them that their product has been approved for FV, and we can hope that inspires them to work with us.
Who knows, maybe they can find it in their hearts to kick a few $ to the Vee community. Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
Mike P.

[sracing]

Grammar error: NO known benefit..

Again, I have done extensive piston and ring research to help with my preparation of the K/S pistons. I simple never detected anything about ring location that improved engine power performance.

Brian

Ok, your grammer change makes it a little better.

The point I was making is that the existing rules "dimensionally identical" were worthtless. There are NO P/C's "identical. However since the Chinese sets were visibly not identical, it was clear that the rule needed changing.

1. The location of the ring effects effective CR. The closer the compression ring to the top of the piston the higher the effective CR. No matter that this volume moves with the piston. To make it simple, assume that the swept volume is 400cc (including the volume between the piston and cylinder to the top ring.) and the head cc is 50cc. The CR is 8:1. If the top piston ring were raised so that an additional 1 ccs were cut from the swept volume and head, the CR would now be 8.14:1. (note that I left out deck heght, etc, just to simplify) This increase is due to what is called "crevice displacement". VE is also effected of course.

2. The piston is also hotter near the top thus impacting #4 below.

3. The spread between the 1st and 2nd rings can play a role in flutter.

4. The ring surface size and material plays a role in friction and heat transfer.

and I could go on.

While the differences between the K&S and Chinese alone were not going to mean much in the way of performance (since RINGS and spacers were free.) the RULES did need clarifying.

Matt, was generally correct. The MAIN issue was clarification of the existing rules not so much what advantage or disadvantage there was in the available P&C's.

I am not sure what articles and papers you have, but significant advances have been made in ring and location technology in the last 50 years.

[Sharplikestump]

The Chinese pistons are garbage. They are being pushed by someone trying to reduce costs, but to this point they have been nothing but trouble.

What was the original market for these pistons? Rebuilding a 50 year old car? Do you know ANY VW shop that has the expertise to order such pistons from China? I guaranty the person who placed the order for such P&B sets had no clue what to specify other than the size. Who has the documentation on these products? Maybe K/S Germany/Brazil, but are they sharing? What is the chance that the iron or aluminum are the proper specification.

On top of that they are not readily available.

Boys and girls, these are race engines when operating above 5000, not dune buggy lumps. Be careful what you feed them!

Brian

Had a couple of interesting conversations today.
First one was with EIS.
(This is the site that another poster listed as having Mahle P/Csets in their catalog.)
I was informed, "Yes, I have one set that we have had for years". He was quite sure that there were no others, nor would there be, as Mahle has dropped many items that were money losers. This set is listed for $379. (I did not buy them).
I have asked Stevan Davis to call EIS to confirm this, but anyone can. The toll free # is 800-969.3266.

Next call was to Ron Barrett at AA, the importer for the Chinese brand.
I learned several interesting things. Prior to his going to work for AA, he ran (I believe) IAP, a major importer in CA. I also believe he told me that they were the largest importer of Mahle. He told me of quality control problems with their pistons varying in weights.
the set he mentioned varied 11 grams amongst the 4 pistons. When he asked the senior person at Mahle if he knew the factory tolerence, the man did not know, but thought it was approx. 30 gr. (It is 5 gr, and this is for a stock engine). I laughed and replyed that I was staring at a box or NOS Brazilian pistons that I have owned for roughly 30 years, that I have not used because they vary 16 or 18gr. Ron then told the guy that he had weighed some pistons from China that were within 1gr.
I confirmed this to Ron, as that is what I find...the worst being a 2gr. spread. Ron also told me that Mahle went to Chinese pistons in their Brazilian cylinders.

As to availability....Ron checked for me, and as of this morning, he had (177) full sets, and if we want more, it is not a problem.

Ron is a very busy (and knoweldgeable) man, but I invited him to follow this topic, so it might be wise to start sticking to the facts.

Mike P.