Spending money to save money

[Purple Frog]

What are the membership views on the possibility of allowing a forged crank for the Kent engine in place of the current cast (SCAT) crank?

It would be probably twice as expensive as the cast unit, but as most of you know, when a cast crank breaks it also takes out hard to get parts such as the block. That said in many ways over the long haul it would save money.

Any thoughts? What is your experience?

[chrisw52]

if a forged crank would get me more running hours between rebuilds, then why not?

[TimH]

How often is the crank the first part that fails?

[Offcamber1]

How often is the crank the first part that fails?

every time the flywheel hits the track. (And it can take out the adapter and bellhousing.)

[Purple Frog]

Chris,
I don't think a forged crank vs. a cast crank will change the duty cycle of the engine, all other things being equal.
I was told the cast cranks do break, and when they do it is ugly.

Tim,
How many cranks break is the statistic I was interested in learning.
Is it a common problem? I don't know. That's what I was hoping to find out.

Offcamber,
I thought most folks by now had built the necessary skid protection to prevent flywheels from hitting the track.

[chrisw52]

Chris,
I don't think a forged crank vs. a cast crank will change the duty cycle of the engine, all other things being equal.
I was told the cast cranks do break, and when they do it is ugly.

Ironically (perhaps not) there is a thread on this on FaceBook where people are complaining about the fragility of the cast cranks

[Roland V. Johnson]

Since we went to the new material cast cranks, none of my customers or me has broken one. With the old stock cranks that was not the case. How many people have broken one of the new cranks?

[helipilot04]

Frog. What are you getting at? I can tell your headed somewhere....

This is the second thread of yours, concerned with the little parts in a Kent engine. Spend Money to save money, right?
Then, go back a few years, when the Honda came to FF and lets revisit ways to reduce OVERALL costs on a KENT powered FF.

Maybe,
Look at the whole package, not the little parts.
Find a way to spend 1/2 on rebuilds, get 100-200 hours before the next rebuild,
Deep six the carb so we don't have to fiddle with it all the time (not that i mind that).

I don't know about you, but my budget is Very small year over year. Sure I'd love to save a little here and there but those savings will not keep me in or send me out of the class, nor will it help me pay for another weekend each year. Tires, ENTRY fees, damage, travel, time away, those are MY factors on how many weekends I attend a year. saving $50 on valves / crank etc isn't going to change participation, which I believe is more important to class growth and racing FUN.

What say thee?

-Bob

[Purple Frog]

Bob,
i always thought helicopter pilots got paid more than Uber drivers.

Here's the deal. Folks are still contacting me fairly often as to the best way to accomplish rule changes.
I know it makes no sense if you think about it. Let's face it, my proposal for long rods for the Pinto in FC only took 17 years to pass. Obviously I'm a master at streamlining the process.

Good folks, meaning well, contact me and ask what's the chance of "xyz" getting approved. I then explain the concept of snowballs in hell.

Then I tell them to see what kind of traction it gets on Apexspeed. If you see a popular result, then maybe go forward. About that time, these nice folks always say something to the effect... "Oh, I don't want to do that."

I, on the other hand have already proven with over 9,600 posts that I'm willing to throw it up on the wall and see if it sticks. Get it out there and see what the masses think. So, I post "what if's" for them. And most the time we all learn something in the process.

For instance, in the last two cases there appears to be no interest in making those changes. So be it. Maybe we saved the FSRAC from having to read a few more letters.

[DanW]

I guess I think of this as a question of the effort required to make the change vs. the expected value in return. Alternate source of an identical valve is appealing. Assuming the alternate valves are equal or better than current supply. The existing valves are a good, reliable product. If the alternate is inferior quality, I'm not interested.

It could be relatively simple like allowing Honda as alternative powerplant, or hard like long rods on the Pinto...

[Jayeff]

If my engine builder said to me.." we recommend you do this." I'd be all in.

[John Merriman]

For those looking to understand the background to the SCCA/SCAT cast crankshaft vs FORGED crankshaft, here's a link to a string of posts from 2011 ! At that time the SCCA/SCAT (another one of the key FF engine parts brought to life, in good part, by Jay Ivey) was proving to be pretty damn reliable. (And yes, if the proper flywheel protection is fitted below the flywheel, survival rates go even higher) Way back then I noted, in that thread, that forged cranks were three times as expensive and given the reliability of the new piece, it didn't seem like a part that really needed to be added to the aftermarket approval list. BTW the SCCA approval process in those days was actually streamlined when those participating in the process worked toward a perfectly valid understanding, namely that if the part was exactly the same as the OEM part - configurations, dimensions, material, weight - and, of course, would not under any circumstances contribute to improved engine performance, well, then the road to approval was fairly smooth. My bet is the spiffy forged crank might well meet all those requirements and sure, there will always be those who will spend whatever. But in the end, is it really a 'necessary' replacement part, all things considered? Would its availability contribute in any broad way to the continued life of the Kent engine......other than in a dozen cases where the little extra lenghtening of individual engine life is enhanced? One could certainly argue that since there's no downside to having it be available, why not get it approved and racers can make use of it or not...as they wish.

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?46290-What-is-the-deal-on-New-forged-crankshafts&highlight=SCAT+forged+crankshaft

[John Robinson II]

Would its availability contribute in any broad way to the continued life of the Kent engine......other than in a dozen cases where the little extra lenghtening of individual engine life is enhanced?

You mean like the oversized pistons for the Honda’s?

John

[tstrong]

Why? The current SCAT/SCCA crank does not have any reliability or supply issues, so what problem are we trying to solve. The original Ford cast cranks certainly had supply and reliability issues and hence the SCAT crank was developed. As Roland mentioned above since using the SCAT crank I have had zero failures and have only seen/heard of a handful that were not caused by some extraneous event (multiple ground strikes, lose of oil, etc). In one of my current engines I have one of the first production run SCAT cranks and I run 10-14 weekends per year with a 7000 rpm redline and at least a couple missed shift per weekend (don’t tell Jay) and the crank is still alive and well. No need for another part that people will be arguing all day long whether it is exactly the same performance level, etc. Todd

[DanW]

Todd,

Jay knows.

[TimH]

I've NEVER missed a shift.

[EACIII]

My over revs are mostly from over enthusiastic blips while downshifting

Ed

[Art Smith]

Frog-

I'd be extremely interested in a forged Kent crankshaft for improved reliability but NOT if it means another sole source part only available from one of the good ole boys................ a revision to the rule saying only ferrous crankshafts with the minimum weight, stroke, Ford profile, AND no modifications allowed to the block for installation is all that's required. under those circumstances competitors could purchase forged billet or billet crankshafts (ie: as much improved reliability as they want to pay for) from whom ever they wanted; NO sole source price premium and NO preferential availability of parts.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[reidhazelton]

A call to engine builders asking how many SCAT crank failures they have had would be a good idea.

My guess is close to none. Mine has had the same crank since at least 2006. That's a lot of RA with 7100rpm into T12 every lap.

Yes, a forged crank might last longer, but I'm going to guess you'll have undersized journals before a fatigue failure. When something goes wrong, I believe it's usually a rod. If something was to change for the sake of changing something, I'd start with the weak link.

[John LaRue]

Looks like a money making opportunity to me.

[Art Smith]

John L.-

there are a great many posts and much dialog about the cost of participation and shrinking grids today; this thread is but one. it's my feeling the club's "rules" have contributed in a material way to the increased cost of participation. how parts are specified is a BIG deal!! it's my opinion the club got is right in specifying the rules for wrist pins and connecting rods; ie: the rules were stated in a permissive manner with respect to source. that is to say, compliant parts from any and all sources are allowed! unfortunately in my view the club got it very wrong on the high value and high usage replacement parts now allowed. none of the approved sole source suppliers are in the business of making the sole source parts they've been approved to supply. it's therefore my opinion the parts are being procured from someone whose business is making the parts and the approved sole source provider is tacking on at least 25%-50% because they can (ie: no compliant competition). and even more troubling is the club's failure to enforce the GCR on non-compliant sole source parts (ie: where in the GCR does it say competitors are authorized to modify their cylinder blocks to accommodate non-Ford crankshafts?). how parts are specified is NOT a minor detail but something extremely important to the bottom line cost, availability, and quality of the parts.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Daryl DeArman]

it's my feeling the club's "rules" have contributed in a material way to the increased cost of participation. how parts are specified is a BIG deal!! it's my opinion the club got is right in specifying the rules for wrist pins and connecting rods; ie: the rules were stated in a permissive manner with respect to source. that is to say, compliant parts from any and all sources are allowed! unfortunately in my view the club got it very wrong on the high value and high usage replacement parts now allowed. none of the approved sole source suppliers are in the business of making the sole source parts they've been approved to supply.

I agree Art, but it is a double-edged sword.

The engine builders must make a living. If they don't charge enough and the engines last too long they can't. If they allow new widgets, that increase TBO, they can make money in the short term as folks upgrade, but then it will be just that much longer before they see that engine again.

When an engine builder does the political leg work to get a new part approved, and fronts the costs involved to test said parts, they need to have the ability to recover those costs. If we take that away from them, folks will be racing the same grenades with a finite supply of approved parts.

Maybe they need to take a note from "Big Pharma". . . single source parts for X period of time and then open it up to any generic part that is physically identical. Prices go down after pioneer has had an opportunity to recover their costs/risks and make a little profit.

[Art Smith]

"When an engine builder does the political leg work to get a new part approved, and fronts the costs involved to test said parts, they need to have the ability to recover those costs. If we take that away from them, folks will be racing the same grenades with a finite supply of approved parts."

Daryl-

it's a reasonable argument, but where's the evidence there's ANY objective testing being done ?? or that GCR compliance is a hard and fast requirement ???

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl-

it's a reasonable argument, but where's the evidence there's ANY objective testing being done ?? or that GCR compliance is a hard and fast requirement ???

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

No definitive evidence of either. . .

[John Merriman]

- We're not talking about billions of pills here. What?.....maybe 50 crankshafts?
- Forged cranks - which I would bet match the criteria - have been available for years for Burton for the high HP classes that use the Kent block
- My belief is that the potential suppliers of such parts are fully aware that the new versions have to match old versions 100%. If somebody buys a crank someplace and gets torn down at, say, the RunOffs, then tough luck......"you're out buddy..."
- Best option in my book? Just stay with the approved options we have. This is an amateur sport....not INDYCAR. Constant approval of more and more high buck parts ain't what is needed.
- And, while I'm at it: Hey...I like looking at pictures of $75,000 Formula F cars in the Classified.....but they are, you know...just a tiny bit over the top, yes?

( Art.........sorry to be a little "cranky" this morning.....it's only 41 degress here in Connecticut.... :-)

[Daryl DeArman]

- We're not talking about billions of pills here. What?.....maybe 50 crankshafts?

We also aren't talking about Billion$ in development costs. Just saying single source for X period of time to recover costs and maintain incentive, then open up to generic equivalent.

[Steve Demeter]

An outsider here. But if the existing SCAT crank is basically reliable then why not allow forged cranks. Keep the constraints cited before weight, configuration etc and if someone wants to spend more money for what would appear from many posts to be no real advantage in performance and probably not in reliability either then let them spend the money.

[Eric Little]

An outsider here. But if the existing SCAT crank is basically reliable then why not allow forged cranks. Keep the constraints cited before weight, configuration etc and if someone wants to spend more money for what would appear from many posts to be no real advantage in performance and probably not in reliability either then let them spend the money.

What are the membership views on the possibility of allowing a forged crank for the Kent engine in place of the current cast (SCAT) crank?

Steve,

I am of the same opinion as you. That is, allow the new crank as an alternate. That said, the original post stated "in place of".

I do not want to replace my present, apparently weak SCAT crank, if I do not need to. However, at the point that I need to replace said crank, I would like as many options from competitive suppliers as possible to keep costs down provided competitive levels are maintained. And since there is no reason to believe that part X manufactured by party 1 to the same spec as part Y by party 2 perform any differently, then let me vote with my dollars so that I can spend more on entry fees.

Eric (anti-single source parts) Little

[Roland V. Johnson]

It is a bit ludicrous to think that a class that existed for almost 50 years on the premise that a single source engine is the way to keep competition fair and reasonably priced should now allow anyone to make a part and claim that it should be allowed by claiming it is more cost effective some how.

[alangbaker]

It is a bit ludicrous to think that a class that existed for almost 50 years on the premise that a single source engine is the way to keep competition fair and reasonably priced should now allow anyone to make a part and claim that it should be allowed by claiming it is more cost effective some how.

Roland... ...things change.

While the single-source engine was still in production, there wasn't going to be problem with the supply of reasonably priced parts, but that's not the situation we have for the Kent engine anymore.

[jhaley]

I bought a new crank in 2016 because of a rod failure not a crank failure. Cost $925. I have no idea what the mark up was. Let's say it happens to be a 50% profit or $463. I would like hear from one of the large engine builders how many FF cranks they sell in a year. 25,50, 100. Even if it's 100, that's $46k of gross profit before rent, insurance, employees, taxes, Etc. I wonder if enough cranks are sold in a year that more companies would even want to get in that business.

[tstrong]

Alan, I fail to see where the cost of aftermart parts is unreasonable and the single sources causing price gouging. As an example let’s look at the crankshaft. In 1994 I purchased a brand new Ford crankshaft prepared by jake Lamont for a FF engine I was building. The cost $625. Now 25 years later I can buy a fully prepared Scat crank with better metallurgy and proven lifecycle from Ivey for $925 as Jim mentioned. Is this really an unreasonably high cost for a better product? I think not. If we are going to “try” to write rules that allow multiple supplier to produce parts that do not result In a performance difference and then try to enforce them I think we are in for a very difficult journey. All to potentially save a very small amount of money that is completly insignificant In the yearly racing budget of even the most frugal of the folks who are actually out racing Kent powered FF’s with any regularity. Just as a a side note I recently purchased a forged crank for a lotus twincam (a glorified FF crankshaft with multiple sources) for around $2700. Todd

[Daryl DeArman]

It is a bit ludicrous to think that a class that existed for almost 50 years on the premise that a single source engine.

Since when has FF ever been a single source engine?

[Daryl DeArman]

If we are going to “try” to write rules that allow multiple supplier to produce parts that do not result In a performance difference and then try to enforce them I think we are in for a very difficult journey.

Agreed. As I attempted to convey above, I believe we do need to have single source suppliers at least for some period of time. Those folks need to have an incentive/some assurance that it will be worth their time and effort. Maybe not make a fortune, but at least not lose a fortune.

However, at some point in time it is in the best interest of the participants and other engine builders to not have to purchase all their parts from a competing engine builder.

[billtebbutt]

I once had a boss who was an serial philanderer. I learned only 2 things from him over the 7 years I worked for him:

1. One spouse is enough

2. You never have a problem until you really, really, really have a problem. And only then do you deal with it.


Re the crank question, my view is that we are a long way away from reaching #2

cheers,
BT

[problemchild]

All to potentially save a very small amount of money that is completly insignificant In the yearly racing budget of even the most frugal of the folks who are actually out racing Kent powered FF’s with any regularity. d

If the majority of current FF racers are regional guys and vintage guys, both of whom may be running multiple events or full seasons on a single set of $1000 tires, then the current $1000 crank is a completely significant part of their budget. Comparing budgets and the CoL index between time periods is not always relative. Our culture has changed and what the average person considers "necessities" has changed. It is now more than rent, food, and beer.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Daryl, as far as I know the only source for a Ford engine was Ford. A few things were/are allowed to be free, but the basic engine had to come from Ford. Yes, things do change. That is why Formula Ford in the United States exists only in the Vintage ranks, as far as I know.

[alangbaker]

Daryl, as far as I know the only source for a Ford engine was Ford. A few things were/are allowed to be free, but the basic engine had to come from Ford. Yes, things do change. That is why Formula Ford in the United States exists only in the Vintage ranks, as far as I know.

Roland, come one...

It was an "only source" that was selling hundreds of thousands of units.

That's hardly the same thing.

[Jayeff]

If the majority of current FF racers are regional guys and vintage guys, both of whom may be running multiple events or full seasons on a single set of $1000 tires, then the current $1000 crank is a completely significant part of their budget. Comparing budgets and the CoL index between time periods is not always relative. Our culture has changed and what the average person considers "necessities" has changed. It is now more than rent, food, and beer.

So you are saying that on a per race basis the cost of a SCAT crank is significant for the average vintage guy. I'd dispute that. The biggest per race cost I have is the depreciation on my tow vehicle. After that, it's meals and lodging. A SCAT crank lasts at least 100 hours and likely more. So for $925 it's 9.25 per hour or 18.50 per race weekend. Maximum.

[problemchild]

So you are saying that on a per race basis the cost of a SCAT crank is significant for the average vintage guy. I'd dispute that. The biggest per race cost I have is the depreciation on my tow vehicle. After that, it's meals and lodging. A SCAT crank lasts at least 100 hours and likely more. So for $925 it's 9.25 per hour or 18.50 per race weekend. Maximum.

I am not an accountant so I don't process cost on an hourly basis, or evaluate depreciation, etc. What I do know is that when I spend a $1000.00 for a part on my race car. it catches my attention. If that part is now $2000.00 and is adding another $1000 to my $4500 rebuild invoice, then it is significant to me. That may be irrational, by accounting practice, but so is only considering race car parts, fuel, tires, and entry fees as the cost of our racing, as most of do. While I know a portion of FF racers spend $8-10K per event in direct racing costs, there seems to be a lot more who are spending $1500-$2500 per event in direct racing costs.

if FF racers used proper accounting practices to consider costs, then every body would be running Honda engines, and we would not get the daily rant by somebody freaking out about the cost of a Honda conversion.
I don't think that arguing about perception is relative to the conversation and I withdraw my contention to Mr Strong's comment.