FF engine rules

[Art Smith]

making a decision doesn't make it the right decision, the correct decision, or fix the obvious problems of the option selected. having killed a very popular 40 year old class that is still number four or five in National participation, it's my view that the absolute minimum the BOD is now obligated to do is assure "independent objective testing of the new parts to confirm no performance advantage prior to approval AND objectively verifiable rules to enable compliance verification".

as a minimum, the chosen path for the future has serious if not life threatening appearance problems. those appearance problems need to be proactively and aggressively addressed if anything approaching workable is to be salvaged. does the club own the rights to the set of torque and horsepower curves it intends to use as the basis of parity or are they owned by a sole source supplier with a multi-billion dollar customer?? any plan for the future that has at its core the use of a SECRET parity standard the club doesn't even own is insanity !! the club has recent very painful and public experience with the consequences of a sole source supplier acting in a manner consistent with their financial interests deciding not to sell their hardware to a key Enterprises supplier. most people and organizations learn from a single experience hitting their thumb with a hammer and do not place their thumb on the head of a nail with a hammer in the other......... the set of torque and horsepower curves the club intends to use as the basis for parity must be included as a rule and published in the GCR for the benefit of all competitors and members. two current Formula Ford National engine builders who have worked on engines for the class every day, have done it for years, and are good enough at it to survive in a very tough market are far better qualified to witness the performance testing of the new parts for the benefit of all who participate in the class than any single political appointee without regard to the chosen appointee's home zip
code.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[helipilot04]

Has there been any discussion regarding weight vs HP chart? if someone wants to make 125hp from their new fit motor, then penalize them with weight? Im sure there are drawbacks to each side here, but I know other classes in other clubs do this to "equal" out the cars.

just an thought..

Bob

[TimW]

Has there been any discussion regarding weight vs HP chart? if someone wants to make 125hp from their new fit motor, then penalize them with weight? Im sure there are drawbacks to each side here, but I know other classes in other clubs do this to "equal" out the cars.

No, there is an inherent simplicity of a single engine formula class that they all run at the same weight. Parity is hard enough on the power side and will not be perfect (and arguably is not perfect now over the spectrum of kents) but adding varying weights will make that task even more difficult. That could potentially create the GT3 nightmare that Mike is so rightly arguing we avoid. Match the power and acceleration rates (via rotating inertia or other means) as close feasible and go race. More possible permutations just results in more testing to determine what is optimum. Make the fundamental high level design/solution decisions simple as they are hard to go back on if you make them wrong.

We also won't have the 'intake in the breeze' problem of the zetec which is not really accounted for in its parity formula so we have a better chance here than they do.

[Daryl DeArman]

...two current Formula Ford National engine builders who have worked on engines for the class every day, have done it for years, and are good enough at it to survive in a very tough market are far better qualified to witness the performance testing of the new parts for the benefit of all who participate in the class than any single political appointee without regard to the chosen appointee's home zip
code.

artesmith@earthlink.net

Art,

While two experts meeting your criteria might be the most qualified, they certainly wouldn't have the appearance of being unbiased. If what you describe is truely needed/desired then such tests would have to be administered/observed by experts without any ties to SCCA, Ford or Honda.

[lancer360]

What is the definition of parity? Exact match is not possible with all the variables concerned, so what would the acceptable range or percentage be. Is this even possible to achieve using dyno data? I'm fairly new to dyno's, but from what I have read dyno's can vary drastically depending on conditions and manufacturer. I understand that there is a conversion for atmospheric conditions. Is this conversion consistent or is it possible to run the same engine on a cold wet day and a hot dry day and have the conversion come out significantly different?

I'm currently having a F600 built and decisions are going to be made in our class based on dyno data also so I'm curious as to what more knowledgeable people think and what the definition of parity is going to be.

[Matt King]

..

[Art Smith]

Daryl-

you're absolutely right, in a perfect world two completely independent AND qualified observers would be better than what I suggested. that said, it's my sense that two National engine builders would be light years better than any political appointee from the perspective of balanced appearance.

I'm not worried about the interests of Honda, the interests of Honda's vocal lobbyists, the interests of Honda's suppliers, the interests of the many kind contributors from other classes that helped the FF community arrive at this crossroads, or the interests of the competitors who said they would or might buy an alternate engine if it was approved and begin competing in the new class in SCCA National events; I'm concerned about the equitable treatment of the prior FF community's interests. as a member of that community that has had hardware (or engineering) at the RunOffs almost every year since retiring, I don't want to be forced into buying a new camshaft or flywheel or head or anything else to support parity with a modern engine that has been sold as easily tuneable to an as yet disclosed Uprated Kent standard. Honda is paying the development bill which usually includes certification testing; and if they're not, it's a good bet that their compensated development contractor is donating the testing. certification of compliance to a SECRET parity standard apparently NOT owned by the club but rather a sole source supplier doing the development work for Honda has some serious appearance problems in my view. which organization has the role of the horse and the cart isn't clear to me. two FF National engine builders witnessing the testing will not fix those problems but rather mitigate the problems to a degree from an appearance perspective.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[John LaRue]

It might be a good idea to get a sampling of the very best Kents out there to help insure that we achieve parity at the appropriate level. How willing would you be Art to volunteering your information to help this program along. I am not sure if we can get others to volunteer or not. Perhaps SCCA should have impounded the top cars at Runoffs and had the engines pulled and tested just as they do in NASCAR.

John

[John Robinson II]

Art,
I respectfully ask, when is the last time you helped bolster the FF participation numbers? Ever??

John

[TimW]

Perhaps SCCA should have impounded the top cars at Runoffs and had the engines pulled and tested just as they do in NASCAR.

Did I read correctly that Erik did this with the FE podium cars?

Tim

[Art Smith]

John L -

I've already publicly supplied to the community at no cost data for one of my engines and the club too if they wanted to include it in a sample of representative competitive Ford Uprated Kent engines. the performance data, testing conditions, and history for my Loyning 02-317 engine were posted here at ApexSpeed when it was offered for sale. after being air freighted into Topeka from LAX and assembled in a parking lot using the competitor's head and pumps, the engine finished third at the 2008 RunOffs after starting 10th twice on hard tires. in the absence of a punitive none disclosure agreement (NDA), I would urge others to use caution disclosing private data not consistent with the prevailing wind in Topeka. rumors of FF privileged/private data being posted on the internet continue to make the rounds.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Marshall Mauney]

Did I read correctly that Erik did this with the FE podium cars?

Tim

Yes, plus one more that he was "interested in" - total of four cars.

[Ananth K]

Art - I read the For Sale thread you have posted here:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21272

It certainly appears to be a strong engine, judging from your claimed numbers of ~120 bhp and the 2008 runoffs performance. You would be doing the FF community a great service by making this engine available as a (or one of many) representative Kent against which to baseline the Honda - the only publicly available "parity" curve right now is the one posted below by Dave Gomberg.

From this I conclude the Honda is approximately 5 hp down compared to your engine, and would definitely not result in parity:

Here is the dyno graph for the Fit vs. Kent.

A couple of notes about the graph. First, there are 16 small vertical divisions on the graph between each 5 hp. That is, each of those vertical divisions represents 5/16 hp. Second, there are two blue lines (for the Kent) and two red lines (for the Fit) for both hp and torque. The lower line of each pair represents the power under acceleration against the water brake and the upper line of each pair represents the power under deceleration (this is the standard way the Quicksilver does their dyno runs). To compare the Kent and Fit, look at the difference between the two lower lines or between the two upper lines.

Dave

Supplying either the power and torque curves from your engine, or the engine itself to the unbiased party, whoever that is, will definitely help parity by bringing the Honda up to the level of a known good Kent motor. I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

[Art Smith]

the Loyning aluminum head, intake manifold, and Weber that were part of the configuration as tested have been sold; and thus no longer available. the engine configured as advertised made closer to 116HPc, not 120HPc. marketing numbers are marketing numbers, who's to say what the engine would have really made with the extra parts. maybe the engine would have made power consistent with the educated guess, maybe more, or maybe less! in the current environment, I suspect you'll be hard pressed to find an Uprated Kent that makes more power; my money is on Kent owners working on conditioning, muscle tone, and body fat ratios for the horses they have.............

corrected torque and corrected horsepower vs engine rpm curves have already been posted here at ApexSpeed.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Peter Horvath]

If you truly want parity, why bother tearing down engines?
Just run the top three on a portable (tire driven) dyno in the tech barn.
For every one horsepower, add five seconds to the car's total finish time.