Ford Crank Rule Request

[Joefisherff]

I submitted a request to have the word "cast" removed from the crankshaft designation for Kent Engines and it looks like it is being rejected by the board. I submitted this to help the Kent survive above 6800 RPM. From the feedback I've received from Ford racers they require closer gear spacing and higher RPMs to compete off the corners. The second issue is that the current aftermarket crank requires significant modifications to the crank or block to clear and with the modifications it is very close to underweight so one mistake in the machining and you have a paperweight. If you would like to assist in this endeavor please write to the CRB here and request it be passed.

https://www.crbscca.com/

Thank you.

[Rick Kirchner]

ANYTHING that can be done to increase engine durability ought to be approved.

Yeah, there's probably some performance enhancement hidden in there, but using material limits as a rev limiter seems kinda stupid.

[DanW]

Hello Joe,


Have you contacted the Iveys or one of the other prominent engine builders?

One data point from my humble experience:

There is one version of the crank that required a little bit of clearance grinding on corners of the block skirts. I had one. I had to grind two corners and then have the block cleaned again... DOH!

That home built motor lasted me 5 seasons and over 60 hours of racing. I use 6850 as the shift point. Power starts to fall off beyond 6900. On occasion I have been guilty of missing a shift or two...up-down, no matter. Either my SPA tach or my AIM dash told no lies. It touched 8K several times with no harm other than my ego.

I did put my spare fresh head on at 45 hours and kept going.

After 60 hours I felt it was time for a pro freshening. I sent it to Ivey last winter for a refresh.

They found a roller from the timing chain missing. The block had a hairline crack below the right side motor mount from a previous iron crank failure just behind the scavenge section of the oil pump. Ivey replaced the block with one of the new ones. We re-used the steel crank - it only needed a polish. Rods were resized and pistons were good to reuse as well.

All is good.

[Phil Creighton]

From my experience on the CRB you are not likely to get a steel crank in a restricted class like FF and you couldnt justify it on the grounds of "close to weight". Lots of parts are taken to minimum with the same paperweight risk.
I have seen some vintage FF guys go that route and spend a lot of money for an engine that revs the same under power since the cam and carb limit it after 6850 anyway.
Phil

[R. Pare]

Not really sure why removing the word "cast" is really necessary if all that is desired is a crank that would survive high rpms. If the correct alloy and heat treating processes are used, a cast steel crank ( which the GCR says is legal) will survive 9k without a problem.

You also really do not want to know what a machined-from-billit crank would cost you.

[Roland V. Johnson]

We haven't had any crank problems since the new cranks were used. I have run a lot of F Fords in mostly Vintage racing lately. No one I know has accused us of being easy on the engines.

[reidhazelton]

In my experience, cranks are not an issue. I've had the same one in my car since I bought it, and I know it had three years worth of solid running on it before I bought it. At RA I rev mine to 7100 if the track and air are good. I'm not convinced this is an issue. If the scat crank was absurdly expensive, hard to find, or faulty, I'm in favor. But that does not seem to be the case in my experience. I have put at least 150 hours (I'd guess north of 200 based on the log book from before I had it) on this crank and it's still fine.

If you have a stock Ford crank - that would be a different story.

[Art Smith]

the suggested change seems like an over due change to a poorly written rule. poorly written rules that are not enforced are clearly in no one's best interest except the seller of non-compliant parts! well prepared Ford 711M crankshafts are widely/universally viewed as marginal at best solutions at 6800rpm and higher. well prepared compliant aluminum cylinder heads, intake manifolds, and Weber's will clearly produce competitive power at engine speeds above 6800rpm. that being the case, competitors needing to operate their engines above 6800rpm to remain competitive must currently either operate their engines at risk with Ford factory crankshafts or purchase in my view non-compliant (ie: with the rule as currently written) aftermarket crankshafts in the hope that the rule will continue to not be enforced. does anyone actually believe that factory Ford crankshafts require modification of either the original or updated cylinder block to be installed? therefore it's intuitively obvious, at least to me, that crankshafts requiring modification of the cylinder block for installation are NOT compliant with the "original Ford Kent AND SCCA dimensions and weight". compliance with SCCA dimensions is NOT sufficient since the rule as currently written says "original Ford Kent AND SCCA dimensions and weight"!!!

the proposed removal of the word "cast" would provide competitors a permissive (ie: vendor independent) opportunity for an easily verified compliant aftermarket crankshaft solution. while I think a cast billet steel crankshaft "meeting the Ford Kent dimensions and weight" (who knows what the SCCA dimensions are or what value their inclusion in the rule brings) would be compliant, why should a competitor wishing to run a black & white compliant engine be forced to accept the compliance and monetary risk of having a reliable crankshaft made to compete at the front of FFord fields??

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[tstrong]

Can’t believe we are still beating this dead horse. The proposed wording here is to just remove the word cast. So it would do absolutely nothing in regards to Art’s theoretically non compliant ”Scat/ SCCA/ Ivey” crank. This crank has been available, reasonably priced, and been the standard of all professional engine builders for years and is absolutely bulletproof. My current SCAT crank started life in 2005 and has 94 weekends on it (at least 250-300 hrs) with no issues and still going strong. My second car/engine had about half that many hrs on it when I sold it with no issues as well. We race all across the country with hundreds of different folks and you almost never here about crank problems from folks using the the current crank (the original Ford crank is a problem). We need to stop trying to develop new parts for no other reason than to make a better mousetrap or improve performance. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And the current crank situation is not broke. Todd

[Rick Kirchner]

Maybe so Todd, but consider this - virtually every engine issue in FF and FC proceeded to near disaster until steps were taken to correct it. For once, couldn't the class just be ahead of the curve? If someone wants to spend megadollars on a crank that's weight compliant and no advantage, then let 'em.

[Art Smith]

for those who care or haven't bothered to check, the rule as currently written says:

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.

the rule as currently written does NOT have an "availability" criteria, nor a "reasonably priced" criteria, nor a requirement to be "the standard of all professional engine builders", nor a requirement to be "bulletproof", nor a requirement to be purchased from any specific supplier! the rule as currently written for alternate crankshafts has requirements to be made from "cast steel" (whatever that means) AND to meet the original Ford Kent dimensions and weight. removing the word "cast" from the rule as currently written provides competitors wanting to run only compliant parts in their engines with an objectively verifiable compliant option to the risk of continuing to use Ford factory 711M crankshafts. parts are either compliant with the rules as currently written OR they are non-compliant; it's the very nature of formula classes.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[tstrong]

But there is no near disaster to correct. For what its worth I agree with Art that the current rule is certainly not perfect, but removing the word cast does absolutely nothing to improve it, or make it easier to verify compliance, or not. If someone wants to create a new crank and try to verify its compliance and get it approved they are free to do so it just has to start life as a casting. Obviously this makes the price of entry pretty high, but in my opinion that is a good thing. My reasoning, writing a “perfectly” defined rule and then verifying every aspect of compliance to it is a massive undertaking that involves many hours and dollars. I’m sure you know that from your job and I have been involved in hundreds of “first article” verifications of cast and machined parts and it is a huge undertaking to do it correctly even when you have “perfect” definition. Do we have a Ford approved solid model of the 711 crank, do we have definition of every possible dimension that could be generated from that model so that we can verify every detail? Or are we only concerned with “critical” dimensions? Who defines those? I guarantee you even if you have access to the Ford dwg created around 50 yrs ago it does not define critical dimensions or key characteristics. Do we care about material density and moment of inertia or only “weight”? Maybe I cant change it enough to be meaningful, but maybe I can? Depends on how well the rule is written, how it is verified, and how much money I am willing to spend. Again, we could make a science project, and pissing contest, out of this, or we can utilize one of the two known and accepted solutions and go racing with a solution that we are reasonably confident provides a level playing field. We don’t need to add more variables and speculation into the 50 year old process to solve a non problem. Todd

[Daryl DeArman]

IF you really want the rule fixed the solution is for every Kent FF motor to have its crankshaft protested at any Majors race and the RunOffs until the rule is fixed.

I guarantee you that the movers/shakers in the FF world will get that rule changed ASAP so that they can utilize their current crankshafts.

Not much different than the SM cylinder head fiasco. Rules that "everybody" is breaking and aren't enforced finally get enforced, the rule will get changed

[Art Smith]

given the basic nature of steel, ALL steel parts start life as "cast" in one form or another. as the rule is currently written, are crankshafts made from cast billets compliant? short of a destructive metallurgical examination of the micro-structure of a steel part, are there reliable means to differentiate the difference between a cast billet part and one from a cast billet that has been forged? objectively verifying a part is made from steel is straight forward; objectively verifying a part is made from "cast" steel AND not forged is problematic at an absolute minimum! Ford dimensions to at least an order of magnitude, maybe two, more precise than used in the making of the currently available alternate cast steel crankshafts are readily available. see
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...11M-crankshaft
making CNC parts from CAD solid models is approaching kid's play today. objective compliance verification without the word "cast" in the rule would to be extremely easy: steel, stroke, weight, and it spins in an unmodified Ford 711M cylinder block (clearly more stringent compliance criteria than used to wink at the currently available alternate crankshafts). and finally, removing the word "cast" from the rule as currently written is NOT a compliance threat to any competitors currently using one of the alternate crankshafts nor a compliance verification burden to the tech inspectors (ie: clearly crankshaft/cylinder block geometry requirements are not being checked). for Kent powered cars to compete at the front of grids, its my sense they have to be able to reliably operate at 7000rpm or above and it widely understood that Ford crankshafts won't survive that type of use! removing the word "cast" from the rule as currently written is a permissive (ie: not required) reliability/cost of rebuild motivated change, Kent power will continue to be limited by the combination of the Weber, intake manifold, and cylinder head............

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[tstrong]

Art, I think we are just at a state of agreeing to disagree. It is not nearly as simple as you want to make it out to be. Laser scanning a single (or even multiple) parts that you believe are compliant at best gets you a set of values that if matched exactly are “likely” compliant. The only way to know the nominal values and allowable tolerances is with the official Ford dwg and all of its revision levels. But again there is not a problem to be solved here. Use existing parts and go racing. I’m out as I have a car to finish to actually go racing. Todd

[Art Smith]

Todd-

sad to say I agree. I just wonder where the current perceived need for statistical methods was when the current alternate crankshafts were being discussed and why compliance verification seems to vary between suppliers. it's truly a mystery how crankshafts that can't be installed without modification of Ford cylinder blocks were ever allowed in competition (ie: how were they ever found to be compliant with Ford Kent dimensions). it's my sense organizational indifference to the use of non-compliant parts is a cancer that attacks the foundation of formula classes AND requires large doses of radiation treatment when it's found.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[problemchild]

Todd-

it's my sense organizational indifference to the use of non-compliant parts is a cancer that attacks the foundation of formula classes AND requires large doses of radiation treatment when it's found.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

One could also argue that it is just common sense to allow parts that offer no competitive advantage other than that they are delivered without a flaw that ensures they will fail within a limited life span. Using your cancer analogy, that is why we vaccinate our children to prevent human papillomavirus. Perhaps, if you believe the Scat crank is illegal, you can propose a rule to include it.

As a person who has experienced both radiation treatment for HPV and a destroyed engine due to a broken crank, I can assure you that neither was a positive experience.

[John Nesbitt]

IF you really want the rule fixed the solution is for every Kent FF motor to have its crankshaft protested at any Majors race and the RunOffs until the rule is fixed.

I guarantee you that the movers/shakers in the FF world will get that rule changed ASAP so that they can utilize their current crankshafts.

Not much different than the SM cylinder head fiasco. Rules that "everybody" is breaking and aren't enforced finally get enforced, the rule will get changed

You just had to go there, didn't you?

The slew of actions from the 2014 Runoffs certainly triggered a resolution of the infamous SM PlungeGate controversy. However, there was a pretty high price to pay. I do not have the results close to hand, but I believe that the entire original podium, plus several others, lost their finishing positions.

I am not a metallurgist. I have no opinion on this. But it would be far better to get the question definitively sorted by the CRB before putting drivers' results at risk.

[Daryl DeArman]

I am not a metallurgist. I have no opinion on this. But it would be far better to get the question definitively sorted by the CRB before putting drivers' results at risk.

Yep, alternatively people can just stick their head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening or not a problem until it is.

I'm guessing that will happen as soon as there isn't a Honda on the top step of the podium at the RunOffs.

[Art Smith]

the absolutely last thing FFord, Kent powered competitors, and the wider formula car community needs is anything remotely related to or approaching the 2014 RunOffs mess. while far too long since last sited, I continue to hope for the overdue return of adult behavior in the halls of power with decisions driven by objective data, rational thought, bounded by integrity, and above political expediency and supplier profit. it's with those thoughts in mind I support Joe Fisher's proposal without reservation to proactively remove the word "cast" from the rule as currently written. it removes an ambiguous word with no apparent value from the rule eliminating a compliance verification problem before it becomes a mess and thereby provides competitors the means for a compliant crankshaft option with more reliability.

the other situation can hardly be called a question. Ford Kent crankshafts spin in Ford Kent cylinder blocks without modification! anything, without regard to supplier, that won't spin in an unmodified Ford Kent cylinder block clearly AND obviously does NOT meet "Ford Kent dimensions and weight" and is therefore non-compliant. creating objectively verifiable rules to authorize the use of non-compliant parts is far more difficult than it might seem at first blush because a host of problems need to be addressed. configuration control of a part from a vendor who has already demonstrated a complete disregard for the rules as written in favor of profit is problematic at best. the harder problems are institutional and go to the heart of why someone was allowed to "wink", the environment that tolerates "winking", and why the rule as written has not been enforced. I have personal experience with both radiation treatment and attempting to constructively communicate to this king he has no clothes; neither are anything approaching fun.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[reidhazelton]

Lemme take a stab here - the issue is the rules say the crank needs to be the same dimensions as the stock Ford crank, yes? The stock crank fits in the block, but the Scat crank does not fit without modifying the block. Still correct? So not ALL of the Scat dimensions are exactly the same as the Ford crank.

So help me here - what does the word "cast" have to do with it? Isn't it an issue of an undefined dimension? (I assume the performance based dimensions are listed -stroke/weight/etc, but the size of a counterweight is not. Still right?)

If we remove the word "cast", the Scat crank is still legal and still does not fit in the block without mods.

What am I missing here?

(PS. I don't wanna see our king naked. Insert barf emoji)

[Daryl DeArman]

Lemme take a stab here - the issue is the rules say the crank needs to be the same dimensions as the stock Ford crank, yes? The stock crank fits in the block, but the Scat crank does not fit without modifying the block. Still correct?

So help me here - what does the word "cast" have to do with it? Isn't it an issue of an undefined dimension? (I assume the performance based dimensions are listed -stroke/weight/etc, but the size of a counterweight is not. Still right?)

If we remove the word "cast", the Scat crank is still legal and still does not fit in the block without mods.

What am I missing here?

Remove the word cast and options open up for others to procure and legally utilize a crankshaft that a)isn't Ford OEM and b) is dimensionally identical to the Ford OEM crankshaft.

[Daryl DeArman]

the Scat crank is still legal and still does not fit in the block without mods.

What am I missing here

You're also operating on the assumption that the SCAT crank is legal. Just because it's in wide use, and even desired by the Kent-powered FF community doesn't make it legal. A simple change of the rule to allow the SCAT crank P/N xxxxxxx to be utilized solves that potential problem.

[reidhazelton]

You're also operating on the assumption that the SCAT crank is legal. Just because it's in wide use, and even desired by the Kent-powered FF community doesn't make it legal. A simple change of the rule to allow the SCAT crank P/N xxxxxxx to be utilized solves that potential problem.

Ok, but isn't this an issue of an allegedly illegal Scat crank and not the word "cast?" Even under this reasoning, the Scat crank is still illegal as it is, even if the word "cast" is removed. It's not illegal because of its material, it's allegedly illegal because of it's dimensions.

And if the Scat crank is illegal, why is the word "cast" the issue? "Cast" is not constraining Scat and their design - cast does not effect dimensions and dimensions are the issue.

This rule does not constrain people to the Scat or Ford crank. If someone wants to make another crank and use it, they can so long as it's cast and meats the other rules.

Isn't this solving the "check engine light" by just rotating the tires?

I'm legit confused here.

[reidhazelton]

Remove the word cast and options open up for others to procure and legally utilize a crankshaft that a)isn't Ford OEM and b) is dimensionally identical to the Ford OEM crankshaft.

So you just want a billet crank, right? Requiring the crank to be of cast construction doesn't limit you to only the two current options. Racers are limited to the market because those are the only two entities making cast cranks. Company C can make a cast crank - no one is stopping them.

[Joefisherff]

Yep, alternatively people can just stick their head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening or not a problem until it is.

I'm guessing that will happen as soon as there isn't a Honda on the top step of the podium at the RunOffs.

And when was the last time that a Kent was on the podium, particularly the top step? F2000 Pintos get a new cam, new carb, longer rods and a weight advantage to help compete and when was the last improvement that a Kent received to help competitively? I see the Honda is receiving a new ECU, who will confirm that it provides no competitive advantage? Will it simply be rubber stamped into use with a promise, from a few that have a vested interest, that everything is equal? If you want higher car counts you have to give people a fighting chance to compete and running a cast crank at the ragged edge, in order to keep up, is not the way to attract competitors. The dimensions of the SCAT crank is another issue, but related, only because I don't want people running it to be protested and lose that elusive podium.

[Daryl DeArman]

And if the Scat crank is illegal, why is the word "cast" the issue?"

Feasible, quality alternative options.

[Daryl DeArman]

So you just want a billet crank, right?

Personally, I don't care.

Company C can make a cast crank - no one is stopping them.

The lack of paying customer(s) is stopping them

[reidhazelton]

Personally, I don't care.



The lack of paying customer(s) is stopping them

I'm with ya here. So, if there is no market for a cast crank that has no durability issues, who's going to buy a more expensive billet crank (assuming it's not a performance advantage)? It's like a gold plated toilet - it functions just the same as the porcelain one.

[Daryl DeArman]

And when was the last time that a Kent was on the podium, particularly the top step? F2000 Pintos get a new cam, new carb, longer rods and a weight advantage to help compete and when was the last improvement that a Kent received to help competitively? I see the Honda is receiving a new ECU, who will confirm that it provides no competitive advantage? Will it simply be rubber stamped into use with a promise, from a few that have a vested interest, that everything is equal? If you want higher car counts you have to give people a fighting chance to compete and running a cast crank at the ragged edge, in order to keep up, is not the way to attract competitors. The dimensions of the SCAT crank is another issue, but related, only because I don't want people running it to be protested and lose that elusive podium.

Then get the rule changed to specifically allow the SCAT crank as an alternate part, in addition to any "cast crank that is physically identical to the Ford OEM kent crankshaft."

[Daryl DeArman]

I'm with ya here. So, if there is no market for a cast crank that has no durability issues, who's going to buy a more expensive billet crank (assuming it's not a performance advantage)? It's like a gold plated toilet - it functions just the same as the porcelain one.

Everybody who wants an objectively verifiable legal crankshaft in their engine that doesn't want to run the OEM cast p.o.s.

[Rick Kirchner]

I'm with ya here. So, if there is no market for a cast crank that has no durability issues, who's going to buy a more expensive billet crank (assuming it's not a performance advantage)? It's like a gold plated toilet - it functions just the same as the porcelain one.

A cast crank requires expensive tooling. A billet crank just requires G-code....

[problemchild]

And when was the last time that a Kent was on the podium, particularly the top step? F2000 Pintos get a new cam, new carb, longer rods and a weight advantage to help compete and when was the last improvement that a Kent received to help competitively? I see the Honda is receiving a new ECU, who will confirm that it provides no competitive advantage? Will it simply be rubber stamped into use with a promise, from a few that have a vested interest, that everything is equal? If you want higher car counts you have to give people a fighting chance to compete and running a cast crank at the ragged edge, in order to keep up, is not the way to attract competitors. The dimensions of the SCAT crank is another issue, but related, only because I don't want people running it to be protested and lose that elusive podium.

Suggesting Kent’s are not competitive with Honda’s is completely uninformed rhetoric. The cars with Honda’s are so much more developed than any car with a Kent that a 5+hp handicap to a superkent can be overcome. Had the right car and driver with Superkent showed up at Road America at last year’s Runoffs, they would have won by half a lap.

[reidhazelton]

Everybody who wants an objectively verifiable legal crankshaft in their engine that doesn't want to run the OEM cast p.o.s.

Got it. Sorta. So why not just change the rules to more specifically solve the Scat crank compliance issue rather than leave the non compliance issue hanging out there while adding in a billet crank?

And yeah, nobody wants to go back to stock cranks. I'm with ya one-hundo on that one.

[Daryl DeArman]

Got it. Sorta. So why not just change the rules to more specifically solve the Scat crank compliance issue rather than leave the non compliance issue hanging out there while adding in a billet crank?

And yeah, nobody wants to go back to stock cranks. I'm with ya one-hundo on that one.

I alluded to that solution in post #13, and more specifically again in post #30.

[Art Smith]

removing a superfluous/ambiguous word is easy AND that's the permissive (ie: it effects the status of NO current hardware) change request under consideration! why tie a controversial boat anchor to something easy attempting to unilaterally fix something that is FAR from easy?? focusing on the achievable seems like a sound strategy to me; attempting to constructively communicate to this king he has no clothes has proven nothing approaching fun or rewarding....................................

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[M.Sauce]

Suggesting Kent’s are not competitive with Honda’s is completely uninformed rhetoric. The cars with Honda’s are so much more developed than any car with a Kent that a 5+hp handicap to a superkent can be overcome. Had the right car and driver with Superkent showed up at Road America at last year’s Runoffs, they would have won by half a lap.

Except the right car with a Kent and with the right driver never shows up.If the Honda was not the best package more Kents would show up.Saying that cars are not developed unless they are Honda powered cars is a statement that the Honda is the package to have.

[problemchild]

Except the right car with a Kent and with the right driver never shows up.If the Honda was not the best package more Kents would show up.Saying that cars are not developed unless they are Honda powered cars is a statement that the Honda is the package to have.

"Best package" is a subjective term that does not qualify competitive, non-competitive, fast, slow, cost-effective, not cost effective, expensive, not expensive, reliable, unreliable, etc. If a majority of people who choose to invest in the class choose the Honda, it has no relevance to whether a kent has 2 or 7 more HP. There are a handful of people who have stuck with the kent engine after trying the Honda specifically because they want the HP advantage. For them, that is the best package.

We are now in the process of giving the Pinto a performance advantage over the Zetec, to try and attract more racers. Intentionally creating an advantage with one engine choice to attempt to boost participation, is a very slippery slope. If it works, then it causes a big mess. If it does not work, then it's a waste of time. I struggle to believe it is the answer to the problem. I prefer rule decisions made based on facts and science.

[billtebbutt]

I dunno about the rest of the viewers on this thread, but I am keenly interested to know who we think is the "right driver" these days!!!!!


I am way too far removed from my National days to have a view, but what say you? Who could take the top step at the Runoffs with a Superkent?

best
BT

[problemchild]

I dunno about the rest of the viewers on this thread, but I am keenly interested to know who we think is the "right driver" these days!!!!!


I am way too far removed from my National days to have a view, but what say you? Who could take the top step at the Runoffs with a Superkent?

best
BT

Any of the top 5 drivers from the 2020 Runoffs race would have won the race easily if you gave them 7 extra HP in the same car prepared by the same team. Simon Sikes, Bob Perona, Jeff Bartz, Jonathan Kotyk, Kyle August. Hundreds of other young talented drivers would do the same. Old men, like myself, with my wife, father, or buddy in the pitlane, won't win with 14 extra HP.

Congrats to JR2 who ran in the front group at Sebring last weekend in his DB6-kent against pro run Honda cars. Both races were won by drivers about 1/3rd his age. I think John did a great job. I also think that going back to the original post indicating that kents were not competitive with Hondas ..... that was uninformed rhetoric.