FF - still a restricted class ????

[Art Smith]

I recently had a very unsettling discussion with a non-westcoast national FF competitor.
during the course of a technical/social conversation I was shown a new forged piston
that had been machined in an unusal manner and asked my opinion. the competitor
was told I thought pistons were illegal because the change(s) were not authorized by
the GCR. the competitor started with a balancing rationale but eventually settled on
"lightening to published minimums is allowed". when confronted with "Formula Ford is
a Restricted class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are
as stated herein." and requested to show me where the change(s) were authorized the
only rationale was: "lightening to published minimums is allowed". about the third time
"lightening to published minimums is allowed" was repeated it became pretty obvious
that the phrase was not coined/originated by the person I was speaking with.

does anyone that frequents ApexSpeed or works for SCCA in a position of
authority/influence believe that all four FFord pistons can be lightened (machined) to
the published minimum weight?

if so, where in the GCR available at the SCCA website is authority conveyed to the
competitor to lighten (machine, change the profile) of all four pistons?? and where in
the GCR are the limits (if any) for what can be done in the name of "lightening to
published minimums is allowed". it's not a well kept secret that large amounts of
horsepower can be had from even a Formula Ford engine if we are authorized to
modify ring land(s), barrel, skirt geometry, ..................... see "Formula Ford
Scrutineer's Handbook" by Frank Schultheis published by Tech Inspection Consultants,
Copyrighted in 1977.

authority to lighten (machine) three pistons is conveyed under the umbrella of
balancing. authority to polish (not change profile) is conveyed under the umbrella of
rotating parts. I don't see authority for doing anything else............................................


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Dave Gomberg]

I am not speaking for SCCA (despite being Chairman of the F/SRAC), however, wearing my steward's hat, if the pistons you describe were protested, I would rely upon the following (from D.2.a.2 of the FF specifications):

[SIZE=2]Balancing of all moving parts of the engine is permitted provided that such balancing does not remove more material than is necessary to achieve such balance. It is permitted to polish parts of the engine providing the contour of the part is not altered and can be recognized as the original part.

[/SIZE]I think your concerns are correct and that if anyone is creating pistons that are noticeably (much less radically) different than those specified makes them illegal in FF.

Dave

[Art Smith]

Dave-

I have no problem with:
[SIZE=2]"It is permitted to polish parts of the engine providing the contour of the part is not altered and can be recognized as the original part." contour is protected precluding changes to the piston's ring land(s), bowl, barrel, or skirt. NOT wanting to open the "what is the definition of balancing question?", my concern is how many pistons can be machined to achieve balance!! if the answer is still three as it's been for years then all myschief is precluded since dragging a "dead hole" (ie: a legal one) is seldon the answer!! if on the other hand the club (without notice) has decided to allow machining of all four pistons to achieve balance and there are no explicit GCR limits to the machining to achieve balance than that is a PROBLEM!!! [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]it takes very little imagination to visualize what will be done to a heavy cast piston in the name of balancing if there's no limits to what can be done to all four pistons in the name of the undefined term "balancing"................. why would anyone want a light weight forged "blank" that's already very near the published minimum weight ???[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Art[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]artesmith@earthlink.net[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]

[R. Pare]

Not being an engine builder, I cannot state things conclusively, but I see nothing that precludes the polishing/balancing of all 4 pistons - the GCR states that ALL moving parts can be polished and that ALL moving parts can be balanced, with no number restrictions stated. The scrutineers handbook is NOT the rule book, so what it says has no bearing.

[thunderracing91]

My engine builder showed me those new pistons and they have a centered pin and a shorter skirt. They look nice!!

[Art Smith]

Richard-

I understand the handbook isn't the rulebook; it was included because for a lot of years there was no better than Frank when it came to FF rules.

accepting your position for the sake of discussion, what are the GCR's limits of what can be done in the name of "balancing" given FF is a restricted class?? considerable care is encouraged because it's NOT a friendly question AND central to the discussion!!


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[R. Pare]

Richard-

, what are the GCR's limits of what can be done in the name of "balancing" given FF is a restricted class??

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

Most likely it's something that really cannot be defined categorically one way or the other. Given that there are minimum weight limits to all components, there are therefore limits as to how much you can take off any particular part before you reach that limit. I would expect that it is left up to the engine builder to decide on where it will do the most good to remove the metal and stay within those limits.

On the other hand, with non-moving parts like the engine block, I'd be willing to bet that you could legally "polish" off about ten pounds of weight or more........

[Art Smith]

if ANYTHING can be done to pistons in the name of balancing, FF is no longer a restricted class. and I for one have to wonder about the motives of those charged with the stewardship of what for years was the Club's premier class........

balancing until sometime recently has meant the heavy three could be reduced to the weight of the lightest piston given the machining was done on the lower internal surfaces of the pistons. since it's apparrently changed, where and when was the general membership notified? AND where have the new meaning(s) of the word(s) been documented so that compliance can be objectively verified ??? someone needs to think long and hard about this if it's not a done deal...................................??

the enclosed picture shows a piston dyno tested more than two years ago during a private test. the test was designed to determine if investing in a number of relatively expensive marginal legal improvements in sealing was potentially worth while. the drag racer's approach to gas porting was used becuase it's more efficient although the literature suggests radial gas porting of the ring lands can be made to work as well. conservatively speaking, figure on a factor of three times the horsepower netted from the gas porting shown in the picture if more aggressive gas porting and different skirt geometry & barrel (etc) can be employed to make minimum weight starting with a cast piston!


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net


ps: IF the physics of illegal parts is completely understood, the occasional lab testing of illegal parts can both focus and accelerate the develoment of legal solutions

[John Merriman]

It may very well be that the specific language in the GCR does not clearly define where the material can be removed but it's been long-standing practice - perhaps for as long as 40 years - that both pistons and rods could be machined to minimum weight. I say forty years because the Schultheis treatise speaks clearly to this point. My own experience goes back to 1983 and any engine I've ever seen the inside of (seen lots of 'em) showed clear evidence of full reduction to minimum weight for both pistons and rods. The best source of support I can find is, of course, Jake Lamont's book (Copyright 1997) which clearly sets out the procedure for full balancing to minimums. (The old minimum was 555 grams and the new min. is 515 grams) Since the book was co-authored by Tom Andreson - whose engines were in National Championship cars at least once - I have to believe the "rule" was tested and passed during the requisite thorough scrutineering teardowns.

Although you imply that the Schultheis book only supports balancing by means of material removal from three and not four of the pistons, in re-reading it I find that not to be the case. Fact is that Schultheis, the master FF1600 scrutineer/technician of his time, fully supported machining to the specified minimums.

On pistons, Schultheis states (p 94) that "Presumably, the lightest of the set of pistons should have no material removed. However, there is so much machining...in the areas of the pin bosses...that it would be difficult to enforce the finding that all four pistons were at the absolute minimum weight, while all four show signs of material removal on and around this area." I would suggest that over time, the machining of both the pin boss area and the underside of the piston crown became accepted practice. Clearly, no other area of the piston can be machined except for the valve reliefs - a recent, specific change to the GCR - so any screwing with the rings lands, etc. is off limits.

Likewise, on connecting rods, Schultheis indicates that, although he sees the rule as allowing only three rods to be lighened, he then states (p 90) that "many parties assume that these parts may be lightened to that minimum (640 grams at the time, now 630 grams)...this assumption has never been challenged. Therefore the matter...of lightening the connecting rods to the minimum weight...is clarified by...Total or overall lightening of a rod to an allowed minimum weight..." etc. and then he goes on to indicate the balancing that he sees can be done at the big end and at the beam sides.

As to your question, Art, as to why anyone would use the new forged piston I can only say that it's made darn close to the current 515 gram minimum and so it does not require the machining to be done and it's a beautifully made long-life piece which is often said to be a "five year" part. Thus, on a net cost basis, it's cheaper than the cast pistons previously used. I also understand that some guys think there's a little more power to be had with their use and that may or may not be true but, hey, that's another topic.

[Art Smith]

John-

what specificly is legal and where is it written??

we wouldn't be having this conversation if I only thought people were "machining .... the pin boss area and the underside of the piston crown" ! show me a written HARD LIMIT on machining to the pin boss and underside of the piston crown and I will shut up. if this is one of those "gentleman's agreement" deals then I've seen evidence the sky is about to fall and that doesn't sit well with me. if any machining is going to be allowed on the top and/or bore of the piston I need to adjust the internal configuration of my engines to compete on a "level playing field"; my testing has shown the horsepower leverage to be large. most of the "gasporting" horsepower can be achieved legally with attention to detail and money; attention to detail, money, gas porting, skirt & barrel improvements (etc)probably nets a factor of 3+ times gas porting.

I am not yet a "fan" of the new forged pistons. they definitely make more power but not without headaches. in spite of all of the glowing endorsements about future savings, my FIFTH set was ordered yesterday. if machining of the top and bore are going to be tolerated in the name of balancing the short answer on why someone would want to buy cast pisotns is 'you get to take MORE weight off in the right places' starting with a heavier piston from the supplier.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Agitator]

I honestly haven't read the GCR engine specs in years. However, it has been a practice for as long as I know to balance and shave the pistons and rods equally (read: all) to minimum. Don't know if this was done through actual interpretation or if it was a "gentleman's agreement", but it is certainly not a new one. It is done in Vee engines as well... and I presume 2.0 liter engines, too.

James

[John Merriman]

As I said, Art, the GCR clearly doesn't have the kind of specific cast-in-stone wording you are so desperately seeking. But the simple reality is that the kinds of milling and lightening I referred to - and of which Schultheis wrote quite specifically - have been used, accepted and deemed legal for over 40 years - ask Arnie next time you talk to him. On the other hand, the sorts of "gas porting" tricks you are trying have been seen as illegal - also for over 40 years. (refer to Frank's very specific and forceful statement about that) Since I'm a sort of "nut" about the Kent engine, I accept these realities and see them as part of the "truth and beauty" of FF1600 or, if you forgive the pun, the "art" of it!

[Art Smith]

John-

just so there's no room for doubt in your mind where I come down on this, I believe ALL machining of the external circumferance (including the ring lands) and the top with the exception of the recent authority to machine valve pockets to be ILLEGAL. I test known illegal things occasionally on the dyno to accelerate development and/or to reduce development costs. acknowledging it's only a sample of one, I get very cranky when someone shows me hardware I believe to be blatantly illegal and they're telling me they're being encouraged as a minimum by Topeka. I understand balancing has been done on the under side of the cast piston crowns and pin bosses for many years. the logic that connects "everybody has done it for years" and "the Big Dogs do it and no one screams" to compliant with the rules in the GCR as written escapes me.................................! if "it" needs to be done or almost everyone does "it" then authority to do "it" should be added to the GCR using the club's approved change process. there's NO paint on the inside of any of my blocks and there's no tapped fastener holes to secure freeze plugs in any of my blocks because I can't find authority in the GCR as written to do "it".

in a restricted class where terms are not defined and objectively verifiable rules are the exception not the rule, how does one assure themselves they're competing on a level playing field? the owner of the pistons believes they have a green light to use them having consulted with someone(s). it's my firm belief that legalized gas porting (vertical and radial) of pistons under the cover of a balancing rationale is the tip of a huge ugly iceberg for FF because it opens the door to machining of the working surfaces of the piston.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Ken Glasser]

Going back to the topic of balancing three pistons v four. Generally speaking as a DIY engine builder, if I have a workable spare from one motor and want to use it in another motor then all four pistons would likely end up being balanced. The three piston rule would work against someone trying to save a few dollars on a rebuild if the part measured correctly.

R. Pare

Not being an engine builder, I cannot state things conclusively, but I see nothing that precludes the polishing/balancing of all 4 pistons - the GCR states that ALL moving parts can be polished and that ALL moving parts can be balanced, with no number restrictions stated. The scrutineers handbook is NOT the rule book, so what it says has no bearing.

[Daryl DeArman]

Further, if you are going to only lighten 3 components to match the lightest 4th, then you have the issue of parts bin blueprinting and the costs associated with that.

For arguments' sake: If the rule states a minimum component weight and indicates that the part may be lightened to make weight then where is the restriction to how and where that weight is removed? In the absence of such a restriction I'd say it is fair game. Especailly in the absence of a clause (as some other restricted classes have) such as "no authorized modification may also perform another prohibited function",

Be creative, just be warned that all your time and effort to exploit the loophole might find that loophole slammed shut.

Just because something has/hasn't been done for years doesn't mean it is what the rule allows or doesn't allow. If it is a slippery slope, so-to-speak, then perhaps a letter or two might get the "prohibited function" clause added under "errors and ommissions". Forgive me if it is in the latest class specs--I race vintage and my latest SCCA GCR is 2002!

[bob darcey]

I race vintage also, but we follow the '72 GCR and don't allow the forged pistons (yet). Still, this whole discussion is interesting. It seems damn illogical to allow gas porting and radically modified piston skirts under the guise of balancing or lightening to the minimum weight. Is cutting swirl trenches in the crown also "lightening"? Would any of this pass inspection at the Runoffs??

Also of interest is (if correct as someone stated) that the forged pistons have a centered pin and a shorter skirt. If that's correct, I'm surprised that they were accepted as legal. The old cast pistons had the pin offset ~.040" to the right (as the driver sits), which causes the piston to bear against the right side of the bore during the power stroke; it's commonly done in production cars to reduce noise, but it's not optimum for making power. Smokey Yunick always recommended "switching" the pistons in a small block Chevy so as to use the pin offset in the opposite sense to make more power. So, if the forged pistons have centered pins and shorter skirts, they should make more power than the old design.

But gas porting and reducing skirt area is going way beyond lightening. Granted, the GCR doesn't specify where weight can be removed, but incorporating functional changes in the name of "lightening" is a real slippery slope.

[EYERACE]

1. ya gotta cheat legal

2. races are won or lost in the tech shed

3. govern yourself accordingly

[Art Smith]

T0: crb@scca.org
From: art smith
Subject: FF pistons

Sirs:

during the course of a very unsettling conversation with a non-westcoast
National FF competitor I was recently shown a lateral gas ported forged
piston for a 1600 FFord and asked my opinion. they were told in no
uncertain terms that I thought gas ported pistons were illegal in FF because
they included an unauthorized change to an engine component(s); ie:
"Formula Ford is a Restricted class. Therefore, any allowable modifications,
changes, or additions are as stated herein." their rationale eventually
settled on "lightening to published minimums is allowed" AND said the
change(s) had already been run by Topeka................

are there any circumstances (lightening, balancing, etc.) where the club
has approved or would approve machining of the crown, and/or bore,
and/or ring land(s) of a 1600 FFord piston beyond valve pocketing
explicitly authorized by D.2.e.3?

if so, what are those circumstance(s) and where in the current GCR is
authority conveyed to the competitor for those modifications? what,
if any, limitations are there for the modification(s) and where are they
found in the GCR? how many competitors, if any, have been provided
written confirmation that machining of the crown, and/or bore, and/or
ring land(s) will be found compliant with the current GCR?

thanks in advance for your prompt and complete answer(s) to this thorny
series of questions. the questions are being driven by the prospects for
a fair and level playing field at this year's RunOffs in the hopes of not
having to make any late configuration changes to remain competitive.


Arthur E. Smith
artesmith@earthlink.net

[jivey]

We as engine builders have been working on keeping the class moving forward with moderrn parts and pieces to improve the reliability of the engines. For all classes. The crap that your proposing now should have been done 20 years ago when people like lobenberg, vasser, tracy, andretti,athcison, groff's,the smith kids, Knapp bros., j. younge,schrobel,wietsenhoff(sorry sherrie if I spelled it wrong, She is AWSOME)wakefield, firestone, r.k smith, And many more On & on into the night. Would have benifited from it.
And it could have been tested with proper scrutineering (shultiese was there) that was conducted during those years.
Now it's a crap shoot . There is no presedent set through the year. To what is is legal or not. But to most of us people that do this for a living (not you Art). We follow what has always been excepted by the status quo. Including the new parts. Also by being through many teardowns. And the respect we have for each other. It has worked for years and years. So show up with your gas ported pistons. No problema.We'll see what happens.It will test the system. But the best prepared effort, car and driver will still win. IF THEY EQUALLIZE THE FUEL RULE!!!!!!! BUT THAT"S A FAT CHANCE.

Jay

[Brian]

Jay, Art's rant is basically that he was shown a piston by "a non west-coast national competitor" that had what he thought was an illegal modification (the lateral gas-porting). Since he thinks it's illegal and is hacked off that someone is violating the normal interpretation of the rules (your "status quo"), he has been asking for clarification of the rules and hasn't getten the cast in stone interpretation that he was hoping for. The guy with the gas-ported piston is using the lightening rule to allow the material to be removed to form the gas ports and said it's been blessed by Topeka. Art is now asking for clarification from SCCA, since the rule book is ambiguous. I think Art agrees with your position rather completely, and certainly wants a level playing field.

Brian

[jivey]

Thanks Brian. Sorry Art. To me that would be modifying the ring groove. And it states no modification is made to the piston for the installation of rings. Since that does effect the way the ring works. Jay

[Stan Clayton]

Art's letter was recently received at the Club, and the Formula/Sports Racer Advisory Committee has it for action. One week is a bit short to expect an official response from the rules making process, but I would not be surprised to see a Tech Bulletin issued in time for this year's Runoffs.

Stan

[Art Smith]

while it is true the CRB was formally sent a letter on July 18th, person(s) in positions of responsibility and authority were first sent the information privately on June 26th. my first, second, and third choices for working problems is to do it privately and quietly. working problems privately and quietly only works for me if there are results and things people tell me will happen happen! person(s) running gas ported pistons in FF with potentially a nod or more from Topeka is an extremely serious situation to me; it undermines the fundamental integrity of competition in the class. I agree one week is too short a time to expect an official responsce but I was none-the-less disappointed four weeks was apparently not enough time to get a response into the August FasTrack!! draft language for the piston paragraph has already been provided privately using the language in the 2-liter section B.5.f.3 as a model:

machining of the grudgeon pin bosses to achieve balance and weight
is authorized; all external surfaces, dimensions, and profiles shall remain
standard with the exception of the valve pockets which may be modified per
D.2.e.3.

given the seriousness of the problem, I will be appalled if language addressing the situation isn't in the September FasTrack released August 20th. it's nothing more than timely constructive administration of the GCR to assure the integrity of competition. at this point it's hard to understand how the integrity of racing today wasn't more important than getting a notice into the August FasTrack "welcoming" comments on the potential destruction of the class as we've known it. August the 20th, postulated agendas (uncommunicated decisions) and values will be crystal clear for all to see.....................


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net