crankshafts for Kents

[Art Smith]

where does one find a specification (in objectively verifiable terms) for "cast steel" AND a drawing showing "original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions" ?? at this point it's a reliability curiosity as there's no horsepower to be found in homogenous crankshafts with the same profile and weight.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

reference:

k. Crankshaft
An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA
dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight: 24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston): 3.056” +/- .004”
Crankshaft pulley: unrestricted
The crankshaft from the Cortina engine may be used.
The crankshaft from the Fiesta engine may be used.
The crankshaft may be shot peened.

[John Merriman]

Art, I'm pretty sure (and you may have already surmised, as well) that no such drawing, 'document' or spec sheet exists. As I recall it, when Jay worked with SCAT and subsequently with the SCCA on the development of the "SCCA" crankshaft, the dimensional specs and profile were essentially taken directly from a stock FORD crank by whatever means was necessary and available and that was that! Done. All SCCA had to do was confirm, when prototypes were made, that the dimensions and weight matched the original. Personally, I kinda enjoy looking back on that process - and others like it such as what occurred with the Pierce aluminum head - and I enjoy the relative informality of it. It's what 'Club racing' was all about before things inevitably changed. But I know you don't 'cotton' to that sorta stuff. Surely your question is just about curiosity, right? By the way, Dave Bean's sourcing of his cranks was basically the same deal. And lastly when FFI in the UK got the rights to make new cranks from FORD-England I have no doubt the process matched. But as far as I know the SCAT-SCCA crank was the only one that used the stronger material and if I'm not mistaken, the increase in strength and much welcomed increased longevity has been proven over the years since.

[Brian C in Az]

It seems that the rules cover it well enough. Standard bearing dimensions must be maintained, standard stroke, and minimum weight. What else is there? The rules also state no knife edging of the crank.

[DanW]

Most of the dimensional specs are identical except for the #1 and #4 throws. One may have to grind a 711 block at the corners so the throws clear the block skirt.

I had to do that with my 711 and 771 blocks.

[Daryl DeArman]

It seems that the rules cover it well enough. Standard bearing dimensions must be maintained, standard stroke, and minimum weight. What else is there?

Defining cast steel.

[R. Pare]

"cast steel" has had a pretty strong definition for decades already.

[Art Smith]

"cast steel" has had a pretty strong definition for decades already.

that being the case, where do I find in writing in a citeable club recognized source the metallurgical composition and limits for "cast steel" ?? in an analogous manner, acquiring the exact three dimensional profile of a Kent 711M crankshaft (either before or after polishing) with either a laser scanner or Microscribe is now bordering on rote. the rule as currently written doesn't say exact three dimensional profile of a Kent 711M crankshaft, it says compliant with "original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions". compliant with both sets of dimensions (ie: AND) is truly a head scratcher since the Ford crankshaft doesn't require unauthorized modification of the block to be installed........................

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Daryl DeArman]

"cast steel" has had a pretty strong definition for decades already.

I think you mean to say that what the SCCA FF engine builders have accepted as the definition of "cast steel" has remained pretty much the same for decades.

[Daryl DeArman]

"cast steel" has had a pretty strong definition for decades already.

I think you mean to say that what the SCCA FF engine builders have accepted as the definition of "cast steel" has remained pretty much the same for decades.

[Jnovak]

where does one find a specification (in objectively verifiable terms) for "cast steel" AND a drawing showing "original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions" ?? at this point it's a reliability curiosity as there's no horsepower to be found in homogenous crankshafts with the same profile and weight.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

reference:

k. Crankshaft
An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA
dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight: 24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston): 3.056” +/- .004”
Crankshaft pulley: unrestricted
The crankshaft from the Cortina engine may be used.
The crankshaft from the Fiesta engine may be used.
The crankshaft may be shot peened.

What is the end goal here Art?

[provamo]

punt

[Art Smith]

to clean up the "is condition", I recommend the following changes to the rule as currently written. given the weight, stroke, and polar moment of inertia are the same, there is no performance/horsepower to be found in a crankshaft. weight and stroke both continue to be explicitly controlled to the long standing numbers. the combination of "one piece", "ferrous", and "external profile dimensions" someplace between the two currently approved crankshafts implicitly controls polar moment of inertia. the final sentence provides retroactive compliance to competitors that purchased a SCCA crankshaft AND modified their block to enable installing it.

IS:

k. Crankshaft
An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA
dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight: 24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston): 3.056” +/- .004”
Crankshaft pulley: unrestricted
The crankshaft from the Cortina engine may be used.
The crankshaft from the Fiesta engine may be used.
The crankshaft may be shot peened

RECOMMENDED:

k. Crankshaft
An alternate single piece ferrous crankshaft that is equal to or larger than the dimensions of the original Ford Kent 711M crankshaft AND equal to or smaller than the dimensions of the 09-01-2015 version of the SCCA crankshaft AND compliant with the minimum weight and stroke is permitted.
Weight: 24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston): 3.056” +/- .004”
Crankshaft pulley: unrestricted
The crankshaft from the Cortina engine may be used.
The crankshaft from the Fiesta engine may be used.
The crankshaft may be shot peened The block may be modified (ground/clearanced) to enable using crankshafts compliant with the dimensions of the 09-01-2015 or earlier unmodified SCCA crankshafts.

given Enterprises is selling (currently "sole source") something better (improved strength and balance) than original Ford OEM crankshafts for reliability, I'm of the opinion that all the mumbo jumbo about "cast steel" (whatever that is in someone's mind) be deleted in favor of ferrous, a well defined term. when my supply of Ford 711M crankshaft cores is depleted, I'd much rather buy a domestically produced crankshaft that assures the valves will float before the crankshaft comes apart!! camshafts, lifters, push rods, rockers, valves, valve retainers, and valve springs are the same for everyone so there's only potential improved bottom-end reliability (ie: where most of the Kent cost is) !

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Jnovak]

to clean up the "is condition", I recommend the following changes to the rule as currently written. given the weight, stroke, and polar moment of inertia are the same, there is no performance/horsepower to be found in a crankshaft. weight and stroke both continue to be explicitly controlled to the long standing numbers. the combination of "one piece", "ferrous", and "external profile dimensions" someplace between the two currently approved crankshafts implicitly controls polar moment of inertia. the final sentence provides retroactive compliance to competitors that purchased a SCCA crankshaft AND modified their block to enable installing it.

IS:

k. Crankshaft
An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA
dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight: 24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston): 3.056” +/- .004”
Crankshaft pulley: unrestricted
The crankshaft from the Cortina engine may be used.
The crankshaft from the Fiesta engine may be used.
The crankshaft may be shot peened

RECOMMENDED:

k. Crankshaft
An alternate single piece ferrous crankshaft that is equal to or larger than the dimensions of the original Ford Kent 711M crankshaft AND equal to or smaller than the dimensions of the 09-01-2015 version of the SCCA crankshaft AND compliant with the minimum weight and stroke is permitted.
Weight: 24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston): 3.056” +/- .004”
Crankshaft pulley: unrestricted
The crankshaft from the Cortina engine may be used.
The crankshaft from the Fiesta engine may be used.
The crankshaft may be shot peened The block may be modified (ground/clearanced) to enable using crankshafts compliant with the dimensions of the 09-01-2015 or earlier unmodified SCCA crankshafts.

given Enterprises is selling (currently "sole source") something better (improved strength and balance) than original Ford OEM crankshafts for reliability, I'm of the opinion that all the mumbo jumbo about "cast steel" (whatever that is in someone's mind) be deleted in favor of ferrous, a well defined term. when my supply of Ford 711M crankshaft cores is depleted, I'd much rather buy a domestically produced crankshaft that assures the valves will float before the crankshaft comes apart!! camshafts, lifters, push rods, rockers, valves, valve retainers, and valve springs are the same for everyone so there's only potential improved bottom-end reliability (ie: where most of the Kent cost is) !

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

Write a letter to the CRB system. It will come up at the next conference call.

[Art Smith]

Jay-

I continue to hope, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary to date, that there's a proactive member of the the CRB or one of the myriad of advisory committees that cares enough about the integrity of the rules as written to get problems fixed when they're identified.......................... in industry we were frequently reminded you're either part of solution or part of the problem! in my view, the rules as written should apply to everyone equally, even Enterprises and their sole source "improved" replacement crankshaft. if a specification (in objectively verifiable terms) for "cast steel" AND a drawing showing "original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions" exist, they in my opinion should be made available. if not, it will be very interesting to see how those currently on the CRB and advisory committees deal with Enterprise's "cash cow" and those that purchase and install them ...................... I currently see no authority in the GCR for grinding/clearancing of blocks to enable installation of crankshafts without regard to source OR grinding/clearancing crankshafts to enable installation in unmodified Ford blocks.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Jnovak]

Jay-

I continue to hope, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary to date, that there's a proactive member of the the CRB or one of the myriad of advisory committees that cares enough about the integrity of the rules as written to get problems fixed when they're identified.......................... in industry we were frequently reminded you're either part of solution or part of the problem! in my view, the rules as written should apply to everyone equally, even Enterprises and their sole source "improved" replacement crankshaft. if a specification (in objectively verifiable terms) for "cast steel" AND a drawing showing "original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions" exist, they in my opinion should be made available. if not, it will be very interesting to see how those currently on the CRB and advisory committees deal with Enterprise's "cash cow" and those that purchase and install them ...................... I currently see no authority in the GCR for grinding/clearancing of blocks to enable installation of crankshafts without regard to source OR grinding/clearancing crankshafts to enable installation in unmodified Ford blocks.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

Art, I again state, write a letter. Identifying a problem with the rules on this forum does absolutely nothing to solve your problem.

Your opinion that everyone is against common sense rules and clarifications is EXTREMELY misplaced. I suggest that you volunteer to help or write a letter with the exact specific wording that you are confident will solve the, as written, problems with the rules.

[GAC]

Art, I have a few things. First, what is wrong with using the updated crank? Why do you want to make your own?

Cast steel is defined as steel, which has it's own definition, that has been formed as a casting, which has it's own definition, too. Changing to ferrous opens up the rule to allow iron or forged or billet cranks. While a forged crank should be stronger, it should also cost more. If the current updated crank is sufficient for the application, which it appears to be, why would you need to open up the definition? Using a casting helps keep the cost down for production.

Third, are engine builders currently modifying the block to fit the updated crank? If so, do the rules prevent it? Are you sure there is really an issue? I don't remember quicksilver modifying my block for the crank in my previous engine.

From a cost standpoint, I do not see the reason to change the rule to allow the use of alternate cranks. If the block machining is a real issue, it would warrant a change, but I'd talk to people like jay and sandy about it first.

[Art Smith]

Greg-

at the root of the discussion are two core beliefs: 1.) the rules must apply to all competitors and suppliers equally; and 2.) I don't believe in "a little pregnant", you are or you're not. that being the case I believe the SCAT crank is non-compliant with the GCR as written AND/OR it's use requires non-compliant modification to the block to install. how can anything be compliant with non-existent "dimensions" since clearly it's not compliant with the Ford "dimensions" as Ford cranks can be installed without modification to either the block or the crankshaft. this situation is exactly why sanctioning/rules/compliance verification organizations should not be allowed to make/sell parts; the potential appearance of "conflict of interest". selling "improved" (slightly improved, moderately improved, ...............) parts as "replacement" parts effectively creates a sole source/monopoly performance part required to compete with NO price protection for competitors!! great deal for those selling the parts; not such a great deal for competitors forced to pay the sole source/monopoly price!

to test your understanding of "steel" as used in sub-paragraph k., where do I find the GCR traceable composition showing the compliant ranges of Fe, C, Ni, Cr, Mo, Ti, ......? since all "steel" starts life as "cast", however it's defined for use in the GCR, what does its inclusion add OR is the the phrase "cast steel" that needs to be defined?

my recommendation to update the current rule as written to include the word "ferrous" in lieu of "cast steel" is permissive with regard to all of your concerns and NOT required. unlike the SCAT crank, "ferrous" crankshafts made to the envelope of dimensions of the Ford crankshaft and the SCAT crankshaft (assuming they're eventually documented) offer NO performance advantage other than potentially improved reliability. weight and moment of inertia are controlled.

Art
artesmtih@earthlink.net