Cost cutting part supply... Your action requested

[Eric Little]

Eric,
That is a disingenuous response. Todd has claimed that the engine builder dealing with JE on this is the same builder who blatantly had Jay's pistons copied with all Jay's markings but different design that significantly increased power but was undetectable without a full strip and measure.

That is information worth knowing when evaluating the proposal to SCCA and you simply ignored the issue.

So confirm or deny. Not hard.

BB

It is not disingenuous at all to state that it is not relevant to the facts at hand. A new piston has been presented. It is of the same dimensions as the currently legal pistons. The SCCA will be able to evaluate the equality of the new part and make an appropriate decision. Any organization that does not wish to follow the SCCA rule book is free to do so.

I don't think it disingenuous to state that if the concern is that the SCCA is too incompetent to evaluate then it is hopeless to have any rules.

You are right, not hard at all.

As to Bob (Helipilot), I am not missing any issue. I do not think that the suspicions are the "real" issue. To someone that wants to race and have competition to ensure efficient pricing, I think the real issue is whether a piston can be developed that does not change the performance but does introduce competition in supply.

So let me ask, if JE were to be offered by CP to produce the JE piston using the CP equipment and material (think of it as a lease agreement), then while the piston would essentially be a CP piston, it would have the JE name and logo. Would this somehow perform differently? I think the answer is obvious. So why is it so hard to believe that if JE produced it in their own facility with their own procured material but to the same standard that this is somehow going to produce more power?

I do understand the skepticism that has been expressed. But that is why the piston will be evaluated by the SCCA for equality.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

Eric,
... the same builder who blatantly had Jay's pistons copied with all Jay's markings but different design that significantly increased power but was undetectable without a full strip and measure.

Can you tell me, who put the Ivey logo and markings on the Piston? The rumors I have been told is it was CP. So if CP produced a piston known to not meet the SCCA spec but put all of the correct markings on it, why has no one complained about the integrity of CP?

If you ask me, this is exactly the reason you have competition. If a manufacturer does that, you remove their approval and there are still pistons available.

Eric Little

[Norm Marshall]

Just asking; since JE is a global company, what if they’re presenting their piston to every sanctioning body around the world that sanctions Kent series? Why would they do that? Maybe for SCCA, it’s more about getting their ducks aligned for the future than it is about the past. Just saying, what if?

[stonebridge20]

[QUOTE=Eric Little;596436]Can you tell me, who put the Ivey logo and markings on the Piston? The rumors I have been told is it was CP. So if CP produced a piston known to not meet the SCCA spec but put all of the correct markings on it, why has no one complained about the integrity of CP?

If you ask me, this is exactly the reason you have competition. If a manufacturer does that, you remove their approval and there are still pistons available.

Eric Little[/QUOTE

Makes no difference who put Ivey's logo on cheater pistons. Fact is your engine builder either got a rouge employee at CP to do it or did it on his own, got pinched because his name is on the build sheets and now most likely can't get his hands on legal CP pistons to build engines because I doubt anybody will sell to him and is asking for another manufacturers pistons to be approved so he can go about his way in building Kent engines legal or not. I'm guessing the latter from his track record. I seriously doubt the front office at CP authorized Ivey's copyright logo to be put on someone else's pistons so lets stop that BS right here. The proposed piston manufacturer already built a piston to spec years ago. This is nothing new. Ivey tested it along with numerous other pistons and it was determined by Ivey that it wasn't as good longevity/ quality wise as the CP along with every other piston Ivey tested. Hence the CP was chosen and has served the class incredibly well. For God sake, the CP outlasts the damn bore in the block!
This argument that the proposed piston is exactly the same as the current piston because it's the exact same dimensions is misleading. Is it manufactured from the same material and under the same conditions as the CP? I think Ivey figured that out years ago and that's why we have the CP.

Look, let's stop this redickulous charade right now. This whole deal has become crystal clear and it stinks to high heaven.

[pooch776]

Eric,

Daryl hit the nail on the head when he said this whole thing smells! This unnamed engine builder of yours is the same guy who was having CP make cheater pistons with the Ivey logo on them? What a surprise. This thread is not about saving us money on rebuilds, it's about finding your engine builder a new piston/valve supplier.

Sorry, I will not be sending any letters to the SCCA asking them to expand the list of piston and valve suppliers. With parts from Ivey we have stability, quality, availability and best of all integrity. I have very little faith in the SCCA's ability to police you or your engine builder. I will continue to pay a few bucks more for my pistons and valves.

Joe

[Bernard Bradpiece]

Eric,

Apexspeed FF and FF in general is a small community. Word gets around fast. In post 41 you stated that you and your engine builder approached JE to design a piston. Trying to hide who the engine builder is does you no favors in building trust with the Apex community. If the assertions here about your engine builder are true, he already went to Jay's piston manufacturer with a design for a FF piston. We know where that went. If its not the same guy then say so and we can move on with the discussion. Apexspeeders are an argumentative lot and will disagree on the time of day, but they generally have integrity and the best for FF at heart.

As we can only surmise from your refusal to answer the question that your engine builder is the one who built the cheater engines, perhaps you can also let us know if you were one of the drivers involved in the cheater engine fracas that broke up a terrific FF group in Southern California. I understand the drivers concerned were blowing away the opposition, particularly on the straightaway and refused to have their engines checked for legality. Maybe I have this wrong.

The detail, to which you have consistently refused to respond, is all relevant to understanding motive and risk, which apparently is different to what we were initially led to believe.

You know, once trust is lost, its hard to get back and all future actions are studied with skepticism for real motive. If the guys who did the cheating held up their hands and apologized it would be a start to rebuilding trust. But perhaps we are wrong and your engine builder is not the cheater piston guy and has always built SCCA legal engines.

This has spiraled down from an interesting start. I would suggest all those that responded to SCCA without full knowledge of the facts that have subsequently come to light might review their responses.

BB

[Eric Little]

Eric,

Daryl hit the nail on the head when he said this whole thing smells!

I think you are mis-quoting Daryl significantly. Here is what he said:

"Why does it matter whose idea it is? Let the proposal/idea stand on it's own merit. Dismissing some idea because you (generic) don't endorse the originator smells. If it was Jay's idea, you're all-in? If it is Butler, Loynings or Quicksilver? What if it was Roush that wants to get into FF builds?

Why does the proposal need to get political?"

A sentiment I agree with completely. So your use of the "whole thing smelling" and attributing the initiation of that concept to Daryl is simply not true.

This unnamed engine builder of yours is the same guy who was having CP make cheater pistons with the Ivey logo on them? What a surprise. This thread is not about saving us money on rebuilds, it's about finding your engine builder a new piston/valve supplier.

I did not and do not feel the need to name an engine builder as I have not named any other builders either (I feel no need for this to be about the people as it should be about the idea and the process to ensure parts are available at competitive prices and do not upset the balance of competition). As was mentioned, this is a small community and most, if not all, know who builds my motors. Listed as a sponsor on entry forms and the video of me leaving grid at the runoffs has his decal prominently displayed.

I do find it offensive that you attribute my intentions to something they are not. You do not know me nor my background. So let me help you out. I am an economist. I have worked in the energy industry in CA for over twenty years. I was here when the wholesale energy markets melted down and due to market power among sellers, we saw the price for capacity (an indistinguishable product at that time) go from a normal price of $10-$15/MW to $9,999/MW. The only reason it stopped at that price was because the person entering it thought it was a four digit field. The field would actually accept seventeen digits. The entity entering this price, had they known, could have bankrupted the entire state in one hour. Since then I have worked at a market design that tries to ensure that wholesale energy markets are competitive because.... it results in an economically efficient outcome. I am not claiming that what is happening here is on that level of egregiousness but it is the basis for me fighting for markets to produce competitive outcomes.

Having alternative suppliers is about ensuring competition. You can ascribe it to what you like but do not try to assert your beliefs for my rational.

Sorry, I will not be sending any letters to the SCCA asking them to expand the list of piston and valve suppliers. With parts from Ivey we have stability, quality, availability and best of all integrity. I have very little faith in the SCCA's ability to police you or your engine builder. I will continue to pay a few bucks more for my pistons and valves.

Joe

Don't be sorry Joe. You have your beliefs and desires and I have no reason to believe you mean other than what you have written here. I will say, as I have before, if the community really does not believe the SCCA has the skills necessary to evaluate and perform tech to ensure compliance with the rule book, then we are simply doomed. Single supplier or not.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

Eric,

Apexspeed FF and FF in general is a small community. Word gets around fast. In post 41 you stated that you and your engine builder approached JE to design a piston. Trying to hide who the engine builder is does you no favors in building trust with the Apex community. If the assertions here about your engine builder are true, he already went to Jay's piston manufacturer with a design for a FF piston. We know where that went. If its not the same guy then say so and we can move on with the discussion. Apexspeeders are an argumentative lot and will disagree on the time of day, but they generally have integrity and the best for FF at heart.

Have not used any names of any builders in this thread. It is a small community and I assumed, that people largely knew who was building my motors. I will continue to not use names of any of the builders as I do not find it relevant to an issue of whether our class should have a single or multiple parts suppliers.

As we can only surmise from your refusal to answer the question that your engine builder is the one who built the cheater engines, perhaps you can also let us know if you were one of the drivers involved in the cheater engine fracas that broke up a terrific FF group in Southern California. I understand the drivers concerned were blowing away the opposition, particularly on the straightaway and refused to have their engines checked for legality. Maybe I have this wrong.

I had left that group for SCCA when their chosen sanctioning body and I had a disagreement. As I have suggested here, if you cannot resolve differences, sometimes your best option is to move on and I did. Note, I am not saying who the sanctioning body is because I do not want to disparage them. Others have a perfectly fine time with them and I am happy that people continue to race with them. It is just not a good fit for me.

You also seem to not be terribly well informed of all of the issues that the group faced. So let me give you some things to ponder. The race that seems to have caused so much friction about straight-line speed was at Fontana in April 2018. On Saturday, the race winner used the same builder as I have. Second place did not. Third place is the same builder, fourth through sixth are not. 6.9 seconds covered those positions. On Sunday, the top two were the same motor builder I use and third and fourth were not. 6.8 seconds covered these four. As for qualifying, on Saturday, the pole was held by a car with the motor in question but I would call a 0.342 advantage anything but "blowing away the oppostion". And on Sunday, Pole was held by someone not using said motor builder with an advantage of 0.241 over a driver with that motor. Again, seems like pretty equal lap times for a motor capable of "blowing away the opposition". To my knowledge, no protests were filed at that race. https://www.speedhive.com/Events/1522177 group 1.

That group also had significant issues with regard to the desired tire. There was a group that wanted to run the Toyo tire (later the Hoosier tread). Those that ran the series did not want to run treaded tires and a number of other drivers did not want to run treaded tires either. This issue caused considerable tension for a couple of years until the focus turned to motors. With the final issue coming when a protest was filed, there were no facilities to perform a tear down and the drivers were asked to have their cars taken by a competitor to be held until an inspector could perform the necessary inspection. Lacking in what both drivers felt to be a reasonable chain of custody they both refused. The result, no one is happy and the group split with the drivers protested joining me at the SCCA but for reasons different than mine.

Today, five drivers run motors from this builder with a growing group in the SCCA. To alleviate concerns, all five drivers have offered that the first tear down is on us. In other words, no bond posting necessary. Not a single driver has taken any of us up on the offer. One of the motors won three out of the twelve races (beating a former runoffs podium finisher in the act) and the final points standings had three of those motors in the top five. Yet still no request for a tear down.

The detail, to which you have consistently refused to respond, is all relevant to understanding motive and risk, which apparently is different to what we were initially led to believe.

Bernard, I have responded at great length to criticisms of the proposal which is an issue of whether we should have an alternative piston, whether it can be evaluated for equality, and whether the pricing of the current piston is demonstrative of monopoly pricing. I find insinuation of cheating to be beneath the heart of this issue. That issue is one of the ability to perform tech appropriately and I guess I simply have a bit more faith in the SCCA than those that have responded in opposition.

You know, once trust is lost, its hard to get back and all future actions are studied with skepticism for real motive. If the guys who did the cheating held up their hands and apologized it would be a start to rebuilding trust. But perhaps we are wrong and your engine builder is not the cheater piston guy and has always built SCCA legal engines.

I have been very clear about my motivation Bernard. So let me ask, if you have been vilified as a cheater, would you hand your car over to be held by a competitor that believes you to have cheated until such time as an inspection can be performed? A time period of two days to two weeks depending on who is telling the story? I certainly would not. Yet if I believe my car to be compliant, you are saying the only way for me (or the drivers in question) to regain your trust is to "hold up their hand and apologize". What exactly would they be apologizing for? "I am sorry I ran a compliant car and the sanctioning body and group that wanted it inspected did not have a reasonable process for doing so"? If that is the case, I can live with us agreeing to disagree.

I cannot speak for the other drivers but I have been present for assembly of my motor. I have seen the parts put in and asked questions after reviewing the GCR to understand what was being done. Because at the end of the race, it is the driver who is responsible for the legality of their car. I know my car is legal. Have you gone through the same for yours or do you just trust your builder?

This has spiraled down from an interesting start. I would suggest all those that responded to SCCA without full knowledge of the facts that have subsequently come to light might review their responses.

BB

And I would ask that all consider the relevant facts which has nothing to do with the party or parties that approached JE. Since I have received a lot of feedback from those that sent letters with not a single one telling me they have revoked their letter, it would appear that maybe what is happening.

Eric Little

[stonebridge20]

0

[pooch776]

Eric,

Daryl's exact words were "It's my opinion that this whole thing smells only because of the originator of the idea, instead of the idea itself.". I assume he is referring to your unnamed engined builder and not you but I don't know. If I have put words in Daryl's mouth, I am sure he will speak up and correct me. He has never been shy about expressing his thoughts or correcting someone on this forum before.

You are right, I don't know you. I accept that you may not want to mention your engine builder by name but please answer my question. Is your engine builder the same one who produced non compliant CP pistons with the Ivey logo? If the answer is yes, than in my opinion you and your intentions become suspect no matter what your qualifications are or how honest a person you may be.

Joe

[LenFC11]

Unfortunately when you don’t come clean with information requested by many reputable members of the community using plausible deniability as your reasoning you have now aligned yourself with a known cheater.

Everything you now say or do in the community will be viewed with great skepticism.

[stonebridge20]

So, the thing is, when someone quots another post and then that other person craps their pants and pulls the origional post because they cracked the lid open on a can of worms, the origional post goes to never never land but the quote lives on till they shut off the Internet.

Seems you conveniently left something out of your explanation of what Daryl ACTUALLY said, Erick.

[Eric Little]

So, the thing is, when someone quots another post and then that other person craps their pants and pulls the origional post because they cracked the lid open on a can of worms, the origional post goes to never never land but the quote lives on till they shut off the Internet.

Seems you conveniently left something out of your explanation of what Daryl ACTUALLY said, Erick.

Once again, Daryl can correct me if I am wrong. I see the string of posts from Daryl as providing context for his thinking. When I take his two quotes and put them together, it seems to me he is saying that people are criticizing a person and that criticism should not necessarily apply to the idea.

Post 67
It's my opinion that this whole thing smells only because of the originator of the idea, instead of the idea itself.

Post 57
Dismissing some idea because you (generic) don't endorse the originator smells.

Note that Daryl wrote post 57 before he wrote post 67. I fail to read all of Daryl's thoughts on this topic to come to the conclusion that had been reached in post 85.

Eric Little

[Eric Little]

You are right, I don't know you. I accept that you may not want to mention your engine builder by name but please answer my question. Is your engine builder the same one who produced non compliant CP pistons with the Ivey logo? If the answer is yes, than in my opinion you and your intentions become suspect no matter what your qualifications are or how honest a person you may be.

Joe

My builder has not produced pistons. He is not in that business. If you are asking if he asked CP to make pistons that are different, he has because he builds motors for purposes other than FF and he does some building just because he seems to have fun doing it and likes to try things. In post 42 even Mike says he has had custom pistons made. I am not asking he prove they did not end up in an FF illegally. I have not seen any of these "illegal pistons" and I am not aware of anyone that claims to have seen them. I am aware that CP says they were produced. I am not aware of any motor that has been found to be running them.

I understand that the "evidence" you have heard, likely third hand, may be sufficient for you. It is not for me. I know what is in my motor. I have measured and checked elements myself. Warning was sent out and any competent tech inspector would find them (particularly if the rumored 12:1 compression ratio is anywhere near true).

So if you think that allegations that have not been shown to have been used illegally is enough for you to doubt me forever (even though I was not involved in any request to build such a piston nor were they ever in my motor), then doubt away. I am not trying to make everyone believe. Simply answering questions as they come.

In the meantime, if anyone wants to refocus discussion on the elements of should we have alternative pistons, can the SCCA ensure equity, are competitive economic forces a good thing so that the real issue here can be addressed, that would be great. Because when it come down to it, the argument of my builder is an ad hominem attack. Per Merriam Webster:

"marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

So if my contentions are that an alternate piston of no competitive advantage to provide appropriate economic incentives is met with opposition based on the mere fact that a motor builder that some suspect of cheating approached a piston manufacturer, then that certainly seems like the definition fits.

That builder is not involved in the presentation of this piston to the SCCA. I believe I mentioned that before too. JE is the one that brought it forward, provided samples and drawings and requested approval by the SCCA. I fully expect the SCCA to perform due diligence to determine if the piston is indeed equivalent and if so, there would not appear to be any reason to deny it regardless of who may have been involved at any point in the past.


Eric Little

[stonebridge20]

In post 42 even Mike says he has had custom pistons made. I am not asking he prove they did not end up in an FF illegally.

Eric Little

Mike hasn't built a FF Kent engine since 1987 It blew up, that's why Mike let's the guys that build them every day do his and his customers Kent engines.

Mike builds Datsun L series, MG and Triumph engines ONLY.

Mike's custom pistons can't be bought from his supplier by any one else other than Mike because Mike layed out the time and money to develop those pistons and owns the part number.

Mike would not be happy if he saw pictures of his pistons in a block that he knows that he didn't sell them to.

Mike ain't a cheater because Mike despises cheaters.

Be more like Mike.

[Daryl DeArman]

Let me attempt to clarify:

People are against the proposal because of who's behind it, instead of evaluating the pistons/valves on their own merit. That opposition for those reasons stinks.

I wasn't at Fontana in 2018. I've never met Eric. I know many of the people involved. I used to be heavily involved with the club in question.

I am completely aware of the optics of not allowing your engine to be torn down. However, I'm also keenly aware of the issues with chain of custody and that club's protest procedures or lack thereof.

[Eric Little]

Mike hasn't built a FF Kent engine since 1987 It blew up, that's why Mike let's the guys that build them every day do his and his customers Kent engines.

Mike builds Datsun L series, MG and Triumph engines ONLY.

Mike's custom pistons can't be bought from his supplier by any one else other than Mike because Mike layed out the time and money to develop those pistons and owns the part number.

Mike would not be happy if he saw pictures of his pistons in a block that he knows that he didn't sell them to.

Mike ain't a cheater because Mike despises cheaters.

Be more like Mike.

Mike,

I did not accuse you of cheating. I simply brought up the point that anyone can go to a manufacturer and have a piston built. None of us know what it was used for.

If the CP piston is also "owned" by one builder then we should not need an SCCA rule to prevent that piston from being built for others. That would be a contractual dispute which is where it belongs. If those pistons that you have had built were then manufactured by someone else such that they did not provide any competitive advantage and did not violate an patent (assuming you have one), then would you be okay with that or would you insist that no other competitor can build anything that can compete with your piston?

Wholesale and retail competition is good. If you have development work that is so unique that it needs protection, the US has patent laws. Beyond that, build it if you think there is a market. All I am asking.

Eric Little

[Kim291]

Unfortunately when you don’t come clean with information requested by many reputable members of the community using plausible deniability as your reasoning you have now aligned yourself with a known cheater.

Everything you now say or do in the community will be viewed with great skepticism.

This is a true statement and this is exactly what has happened on the West Coast! If you are not going to prove you are a reputable engine builder then you are going to be dealing with skepticism.

This is why I am skeptical! Here is a little history of the whole incidents that occurred.

As to what Todd Strong has stated to about witnessing non compliant valves being in his shop and being in a few of his engines? This is a true statement I also was a witness to this. The valves were clearly not the same shape as a compliant valve. (Even I can see that, with the little knowledge i have regarding engines.) Not only were they a different shape they were the Manley Stainless steal valves. Which clearly are not legal to run as stated in our then and current rules. The group that was questioning him were told that this was being done to save money and that there in NO performance advantage. My opinion is that even if these Manley vale’s were exactly the same dimensions (which they were not) You can not install them into the engines you build prior to a new rule being in effect.
At that time we (Our FF group “The Series”) all agreed that if this engine builder would change them to the compliant valves in all his engines that he has installed the Manley Valves into we would just move forward and nothing more was said. He did show us that he purchased the compliant valves from Pegasus racing and was going to install them before the next race.

BTW This was months before we new about the non compliant FF1600 pistons were ordered by this engines builder from CP Piston.

So with this being done that is were the tension started the divide in our group. (“The Series”) Skepticism has now set in with anything this engine builder had touched.

We were all still racing as “The Series” but there was always acquisitions flying. The following season after the valve incident all 4 of these (excluding Eric Little, he was now racing with SCCA so I can not state what was going on with his car) drivers were suddenly even faster then last season. Eyes open wide and the accusations were flying. Especially when we ran the Fontana (ACS) race. That is what Eric is stating to in his prior statement.

There are much more details that I can not get into (being that the word “Lawsuit” has been presented to me many many times)

I can say this, ”I am disappoint in this group of men, because I thought we were all friends on and off the track (even with this engine builder), and I am disappointed in CP piston for letting this builder convince them to design his non compliant pistons With the Compliant stamp of certification. I have the Build Sheets for 10 of his sets and not one is a compliant piston.
“Maybe this engine builder had these pistons made for paper weights since they claim they were not in any of his engines”? We will never know at this point.

I know one thing I am NOT disappoint in, is all the hard work Ivey Engines and all the other reputable engine builders are doing to keep the class thriving. At the vintage level.

This whole thing is just a shame for this wonderful class we are part of. FORMULA FORD

As I state on my car “CHEATERS SUCK”

[stonebridge20]

[QUOTE=Daryl DeArman;596472]Let me attempt to clarify:

People are against the proposal because of who's behind it, instead of evaluating the pistons/valves on their own merit. That opposition for those reasons stinks.
[/QUOTE





Fact: Ivey tested (evaluated) pistons from the proposed manufacturer and they were proven to be subpar to the CP. You get what you pay for I guess. Remember, CP came about because people from "another" manufacturer wink, wink...thought that product had become crap so they started up CP on their own. Lucky for us, they build a piston that outlasts the block bore.

Fact: An alternate valve hasn't been proposed yet according to Eric so what's there to support or not in the letter we are asked to write to the CRB?

Fact: Some day, maybe proposed valve manufacturer doesn't make a valve with the same profile or material as our current valves. They also don't make a valve that will work with current retainers and keepers.

[Eric Little]

[QUOTE=stonebridge20;596476]

Let me attempt to clarify:

People are against the proposal because of who's behind it, instead of evaluating the pistons/valves on their own merit. That opposition for those reasons stinks.
[/QUOTE





Fact: Ivey tested (evaluated) pistons from the proposed manufacturer and they were proven to be subpar to the CP. You get what you pay for I guess. Remember, CP came about because people from "another" manufacturer wink, wink...thought that product had become crap so they started up CP on their own. Lucky for us, they build a piston that outlasts the block bore.

Fact: An alternate valve hasn't been proposed yet according to Eric so what's there to support or not in the letter we are asked to write to the CRB?

Fact: Some day, maybe proposed valve manufacturer doesn't make a valve with the same profile or material as our current valves. They also don't make a valve that will work with current retainers and keepers.

And if this piston from JE is "subpar" but equal in performance (i.e. power output) to the present, what exactly is the opposition to it being allowed? If it lasts one race, then I suspect no one will buy it. But I doubt that will be the case. JE seems to know their business.

As to the valve, given that SCCA asked for evidence that there was demand for a piston, it seemed logical that they would ask for the same from a valve. Easier to ask people to write one letter rather than two. And if in that time, Manley does not build a valve that is consistent with the current valve, I would expect SCCA to not approve it. Not on the grounds that people don't want it but on the grounds of a competitive differential. I think they are capable of doing that.

Eric Little

[stonebridge20]

Sorry your boy can't buy legal FF Kent pistons from anyone.

Karma is a bitch sometimes.

[TimH]

Sorry your boy can't buy legal FF Kent pistons from anyone.

I must be missing something. Pegasus is refusing to sell?

[reidhazelton]

Easy questions, easy answer.

It's not an issue that custom pistons were made. Could be someone wanting a hot Ford Fiesta or a hill climb car. That's cool. If those pistons end up in a Formula Ford - sure it could be an 'error', but that engine builder would have to be seriously inept and have to have completely ignored the rulebook. It's more likely than not there was a nefarious intent there.

So, easy questions (like, yes/no kind of easy) - were any pistons made that were not to spec with the Ivey logo? Or, were any pistons made with a Ivey logo that were not ordered by Jay? If so, that eliminates all reasonable doubt as it shows intent to sneak by the rules, circumvent Jay's time in getting the piston designed, tested, approved, and manufactured. There is no other reason to have an Ivey logo on a bogus piston unless you are trying to pull a fast one.

[BorkRacing]

Easy questions, easy answer.

It's not an issue that custom pistons were made. Could be someone wanting a hot Ford Fiesta or a hill climb car. That's cool. If those pistons end up in a Formula Ford - sure it could be an 'error', but that engine builder would have to be seriously inept and have to have completely ignored the rulebook. It's more likely than not there was a nefarious intent there.

So, easy questions (like, yes/no kind of easy) - were any pistons made that were not to spec with the Ivey logo? Or, were any pistons made with a Ivey logo that were not ordered by Jay? If so, that eliminates all reasonable doubt as it shows intent to sneak by the rules, circumvent Jay's time in getting the piston designed, tested, approved, and manufactured. There is no other reason to have an Ivey logo on a bogus piston unless you are trying to pull a fast one.

Better question: Is anyone involved in this discussion have first hand involvement with the so called illegal pistons, as in were they there when the head came off? If not, then let's stop the conjecture and finger pointing.

Even better question: Does the proposal have merit? Skip the reason why because if the builder in question can't buy pistons surely someone else can for him. No one here ever had someone buy beer for them before they were 21?

[BLS]

"No one here ever had someone buy beer for them before they were 21?"

Not me. At the age of 15 we just went to the loading dock of the Budweiser distributor and bought direct

That might have been about 51 years ago...

[BorkRacing]

You know it's kind of sad.

Someone just posted a question looking for help on his Webster gearbox.
I declined from offering advice for fear of being attacked by the crowd here tonight.

Seems you all are in a hanging mood.

As I said to someone who sent me a PM, bad form everyone, bad form. Let's be in this together!

[dc]

Must be the middle of winter to get everyone so stir crazy. I'm really tired of getting flagged messages about this thread and others. Seems like right around this time every winter someone brings up a rule or a parts supply issue and everyone loses their minds. Between this and the F500 thread, I'm just about ready to set fire to everything and file an insurance claim.

If this discussion can't remain free of flame baiting, trolling, taunting or name calling, I'm going to lock it up. This really isn't what I want new forum members to think is status quo for ApexSpeed content.

[reidhazelton]

Without answers to those questions, I automatically become very suspicious. If someone, somewhere, didn't put Jay's logo on a piston that it did not belong, then it's an easy 'no'. It should not be a hard question.

No trolling, no finger pointing. It's just a question. When I was on the FSRAC I do recall some bogus pistons showing up, and SCCA having to issue a member advisory. Just looking for some background should anyone have it, and if any of the people involved there are involved here as it seems to be the suspicion of this thread. Easy enough to dispel if false.

[BorkRacing]

Without answers to those questions, I automatically become very suspicious. If someone, somewhere, didn't put Jay's logo on a piston that it did not belong, then it's an easy 'no'. It should not be a hard question.

I agree but I also find it hard to believe that they produced 12:1 compression and it was undetectable to the eye.

Everyone knows it happened, everyone knows what to watch for and everyone knows a certain engine builder's name was on the order form. How they ended up where they did and why Ivey and CP didn't prosecute if it indeed was fraud, no one knows.

But what does any of that have to do with asking SCCA to look at another piston?
I don't blame Eric for not answering this crowd. It's brutal.

[billtebbutt]

Doug, i think it may be the weather. Maybe between October and March, every APEXSPEEDER should be required to prove they have taken their prescribed amount of vitamin D before posting?????? I am reaching for a double dose as i speak.......

There is clearly a bad engine builder out there, and it seems like we all know (now, duh!) who that is. So nobody who cares about our sport is going to ditch their builder only to seek out that builder. And now that we know that that builder is behind the new piston idea, well who really gives a flying fidoo what that builder thinks? To the extent that his motors seem unfair in the future, feel free to protest the **** out of his customers, and destroy what is left of his reputation (or yours, if you are wrong): that seems fair and commercial. His involvement in the new piston idea may be well-intentioned, but his reputation precedes him.......

Speaking only for myself, given the stakes (which really from my perspective only is my ability to sleep well), i can find many engine builders who will not impinge on my REMsleep......

best,
bt

Must be the middle of winter to get everyone so stir crazy. I'm really tired of getting flagged messages about this thread and others. Seems like right around this time every winter someone brings up a rule or a parts supply issue and everyone loses their minds. Between this and the F500 thread, I'm just about ready to set fire to everything and file an insurance claim.

If this discussion can't remain free of flame baiting, trolling, taunting or name calling, I'm going to lock it up. This really isn't what I want new forum members to think is status quo for ApexSpeed content.

[SteveG]

not impinge on my REMsleep......

You know Bill, if you have your REMsleep Cryo treated it will have better crystalline structure and last longer
That's what Mike told me.

Anyway, back to the selected winter Apexspeed argument and flame session.

[racerdad2]

Would not a simple compression check on the engine and a fuel sample catch this 12-1 piston ?

There are only two kinds of racers... Those who cheat and those that don't... In karting I raced against guys who had the "cheater" engine, carb, clutch, fuel... One day on false grid I smelled nitromethane... drag racers...

[TimH]

One day on false grid I smelled nitromethane... drag racers...

Something like this happened to me at, of all places, the 50th at RA. Funny smell waayy back in the grid. I thought "WTF"? Maybe they just didn't want to change their jets...

[Daryl DeArman]

When I was on the FSRAC I do recall some bogus pistons showing up, and SCCA having to issue a member advisory. Just looking for some background should anyone have it, and if any of the people involved there are involved here as it seems to be the suspicion of this thread. Easy enough to dispel if false.

Reid, you know it can't be proven that something didn't happen. We can only prove it did happen IF they were caught.

You say some bogus pistons showed up while you were on the FSRAC. Did you actually see these pistons or just some drawings that surfaced? (Looking for clarification, not meaning to come across as aggressive or accusatory) Not certain what you mean by "bogus pistons showing up". I'm only aware that eyes have been placed on drawings. Do we KNOW that the pistons were actually made? Is it possible that CP said hey look what so and so is looking to have made for these certain folks, here's some drawings?

But what does any of that have to do with asking SCCA to look at another piston?.

Nothing. Which was my point after I finished my first bucket of popcorn. Not only do they not trust SCCA to look at the parts objectively, they trust the company that allegedly made these illegal pistons to begin with, to continue being the sole supplier of pistons.

Would not a simple compression check on the engine and a fuel sample catch this 12-1 piston ?

Nope. Fuel sample isn't telling you anything about compression ratio. The racer could be using a whole lot more octane than his compression ratio dictates for other reasons.

A compression check might tell you something's amiss, but you won't know whether it's the piston, head, head gasket or some combination of the three that's at issue.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Back to the proposal at hand.
1. There is no parts supply problem. Valves and pistons can be bought from Pegasus. As far as I know no one is banned from buying parts from Pegasus.
2.The valve should be a dead issue. It is clearly not compliant with the shape of the current valve and should prove to be a performance advantage.
3. If someone wants to go through the same process that Ivey was forced to go through and have a different piston certified as compliant with the GCR dimensions and have no performance advantages (except maybe have a vastly improved service life), go for it. Then propose it to the CRB. (The SCCA did not spend any money on the testing of the Ivey piston. It was all done on Ivey's dime. That, correctly, is also part of the cost of the piston.) If it is approved have someone keep track of the product and make sure no one is having some made with the correct markings with the wrong dimensions. Do not try to imply that someone is making a huge profit on something when you have no idea what their cost is.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Off topic but relevant to this thread I believe. Yes when I returned from vacation and saw this thread I was disappointed. It was proposed by a group that I did not trust to have the best intentions for the Formula Ford Class. Yes there were pistons made that had the correct markings on them as compliant to SCCA FF rules, but were not built to the correct dimensions. No I have not seen them in person, but I have first hand knowledge that they exist. I believe the SCCA CRB also has that knowledge. That is why they issued a notice that there might be some non compliant pistons out there. I have no first hand knowledge that they were ever used at all. Ivey has requested that the non compliant pistons with the correct FF1600 SCCA markings be returned to him for destruction. That has not happened. Two competitors from this group who seemed to have extremely strong engines, also confirmed by sector times at the former race, were asked to have their cars impounded and engines inspected at the next race. If the engines were found to be legal the The Series would pay for the re-assembly. As a former SCCA San Diego Chief of Tec and Assistant Open wheel Chief at the 1990 National Championship I was consulted to make sure the process was as close to SCCA's as possible. I was not at that race, however a process was put in place to impound the cars. The engines would be inspected by a former FF professional engine builder (who no longer builds FF engines) with a former Head of the CRB as an observer. The drivers refused. The argument was with the process. One of the drivers reportedly said his car needed cleaning and he would bring his car for inspection in a couple of weeks. This being the case one will ever know if the engines were legal or not. I intend this to be my last post on this topic!

[Daryl DeArman]

Back to the proposal at hand.
1. There is no parts supply problem. Valves and pistons can be bought from Pegasus. As far as I know no one is banned from buying parts from Pegasus.

Irrelevant. That's not the argument for the piston nor the valve.

Should be careful what you wish for. If CP made these illegal pistons with Jay's logo on them and Jay and CP have a parting of ways over that, CP may no longer choose to make such a piston for such a small market. Then ya'll will be scrambling for an alternative and JE, who's currently interested, may not be at that time.

2.The valve should be a dead issue. It is clearly not compliant with the shape of the current valve and should prove to be a performance advantage.

If the valve proposal is made and the SCCA determines that the back side of the valve, the face, the keeper lands or anything else isn't exactly the same, they should kick the proposal. Easy, peasy. Why worry?

3. If someone wants to go through the same process that Ivey was forced to go through and have a different piston certified as compliant with the GCR dimensions and have no performance advantages (except maybe have a vastly improved service life), go for it. Then propose it to the CRB.

IF the SCCA determines that should be the process, so be it. If the SCCA determines that some other process is all that is required and you don't like their criteria, don't support the proposal. Easy peasy.

The SCCA did not spend any money on the testing of the Ivey piston. It was all done on Ivey's dime. That, correctly, is also part of the cost of the piston.

As it should be. Ivey should include every cost he incurs and whatever profit he wishes. It's his business, he alone should dictate what he is willing to trade his knowledge, time and energy for. If the market decides his prices are too high, they seek alternatives. It is his choice how he wishes to respond. So far, he differentiates himself by not being the least expensive but by how far he bends backwards to help the class and his customers as well as the quality of the product. What's the concern if somebody brings a less expensive product to market, if that product and/or service is inferior?

If it is approved have someone keep track of the product and make sure no one is having some made with the correct markings with the wrong dimensions.

At least my double blind engine and dyno testing suggestion was reasonably doable and would prove/disprove whether or not the parts provided a performance advantage.

Do not try to imply that someone is making a huge profit on something when you have no idea what their cost is.

I don't care whether his cost is $5/piston or $500/piston, he has the right to charge whatever he wants as long as the market has an option. If all the pistons have to go through him first, then it matters.

I know the term margin or mark-up was utilized, but I believe the poster(s) was/were speaking to the difference in price between JE and CP as the "margin" or "mark-up" not Jay's cost vs. Jay's price. Perhaps using the terms incorrectly, or not how most would interpret them. However, if we followed their math we would see they were talking about the difference in price between the JE proposed pistons and the CP.

[stonebridge20]

You know Bill, if you have your REMsleep Cryo treated it will have better crystalline structure and last longer
That's what Mike told me.

Steve is correct Bill. I would have no problem fitting you into the Cryo processor chamber. I will guarantee you the deepest nights sleep you ever had and it'll last forever !

[Roland V. Johnson]

https://www.scca.com/pages/fastrack-news

[problemchild]

if people are going to cheat, what would be the purpose in going through all the trouble to change rules?