January 2022 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
Aaron Johnson
Well-known member
How is tech measuring valve lift and with lash? Shouldn’t we be putting a dial indicator on the valve retainer and measuring. Shouldn’t that be standard? What other way would include The lash? Seems like we could maybe standardize. The Honda is interestig, if you measured the rocker you would get a different measurement than the valve because of the rocker pre tensioner. But now that aftermarket rockers are allowed those are gone.
kruck
Well-known member
That is the standard way, which yes measures the physical amount the valve moves. However, lash is supposed to be taken out prior to the measurement being taken, per 9.1.5.E.2.f.7. Now whether the tech inspector actually requests for that to be done or not, is not always consistent, at least in my experience.Aaron Johnson":1kfcsxdi said:
Chuck Baader
New member
OK Kevin...per the response:
"These spec lines are from the original "Limited Prep" classifications that were made, many years ago, and that was the process/ruling at that time. As the "Prep Level 2" ruleset matured, and more waves of cars got classified to it, this measurement method was re-evaluated and changed to the current rule."
What confused me was these two sentences. There were no changes between the original limited prep rule and the current rule that I can find. So, IMHO, we have an "old school" rule that has passed its exploration date.
Note that you have had a couple of prominent engine builders opine here (along with an amateur) in favor of this change. If you canvass others I believe most, if not all, will be in favor of this change.
"These spec lines are from the original "Limited Prep" classifications that were made, many years ago, and that was the process/ruling at that time. As the "Prep Level 2" ruleset matured, and more waves of cars got classified to it, this measurement method was re-evaluated and changed to the current rule."
What confused me was these two sentences. There were no changes between the original limited prep rule and the current rule that I can find. So, IMHO, we have an "old school" rule that has passed its exploration date.
Note that you have had a couple of prominent engine builders opine here (along with an amateur) in favor of this change. If you canvass others I believe most, if not all, will be in favor of this change.
"Behind every rule there's a great story"...any idea of the story with this one? Seems quite silly, potentially difficult to comply with (dependong on valvetrain design), and runs contrary to our culture of "inspect in as-raced condition".kruck":3vpwlb1y said:
I understand the ideas "it's always been that way" and "we don't want everyone to have to buy new cams" but why would those be overriding considerations for what many, myself included, perceive as a poor reg?
GA
My request to standardize the valve lift rule to make it consistent without having to consult the vehicle spec line except for the allowed lift amount will make it much easier for scrutineers to provide an accurate number. Having checked valve lift in impound many times, I have found many arguments from competitors on how "zero" lash is determined. " As raced " makes the procedure less contentious leaving only the argument of it being " too hot " or "too cold" to be checked. I really think that some cars having the lash checking procedure being " grandfathered" is at best biased and questionable.
Keith Church
Well-known member
I agree with what Sam said. One prep level should have only one checking procedure and "as raced" is the simplest.
Chuck Baader
New member
One other thing that has me scratching my head and my ass.
In the December FasTrack, letter 31891 references a "TBR - Throttle Body Restrictor". minimum thickness .375"
Letter number 31858 references a "Flat plate intake restrictor" no thickness specified.
The GCR, December edition in the Glossary references "Restrictor, Intake", minimun 060" thick, and a "single inlet restrictor", specified ID must be maintained 3MM.
On page 490 of the GCR, a " Flat Plate Intake Restrictor is required"
All of these have very different interpretations....please standardize nomenclature.
In the December FasTrack, letter 31891 references a "TBR - Throttle Body Restrictor". minimum thickness .375"
Letter number 31858 references a "Flat plate intake restrictor" no thickness specified.
The GCR, December edition in the Glossary references "Restrictor, Intake", minimun 060" thick, and a "single inlet restrictor", specified ID must be maintained 3MM.
On page 490 of the GCR, a " Flat Plate Intake Restrictor is required"
All of these have very different interpretations....please standardize nomenclature.
And in the same Fastrack, a new standalone definition of "TBR - Throttle Body Restrictor". Is it a new standalone definition or is it going into the Technical Glossary location of all the other "Restrictor, Intake" (you know, TIR, FPR, SIR...?)Chuck Baader":37xij5ff said:
And, what, are the current restrictors not enough that we need a new one? What's the background on this? It's like whomever wrote that reg has never ever read the Technical Glossary - possibly not even the GCR? - and thinks they have a new bright idea that no one else has ever thought of.
A great example of "every reg has a good story" combined with "half a dozen different rulesmakers, none of whom are talking to each other, each of whom thinks they're smarter than the next one."
<kermit>Of course, not that that's any of my business, mind you...</kermit>
Protech Racing
Well-known member
Maybe the lift checking procedure should have a "what do you think" ?? I have not seen any reason mentioned that shows a downside of , "as raced" .
Maybe the 100TW tire deal with 2% weight break , needs a "What do you think"?
Maybe the 100TW tire deal with 2% weight break , needs a "What do you think"?
Jason Stine
Well-known member
Protech Racing":3pinaggv said:
PAC and CRB were pretty clear in their response. I like your approach of trying to get support for SEDIV regionals only at this time.
The SEDiv has a regional class rules committee that will meet on February 19th at the SEDiv Convention at the Sea Palms Resort on St Simons Island, Ga. If anyone is serious about requesting a new SEDiv regional class, I would highly suggest attending that meeting in person and making a presentation for the new class. Registration is open on motorsportreg.com.
Protech Racing
Well-known member
I will email you my request. Add details as you see fit.
I dont see why anyone would need to make an actual appearance . Just too far for me to go.
WE have quite a bit of interest in pursuing this at least in the region/division. Just like the SM T deal.
FWIW I dont think that anyone that has a vested interest in tires, should have a vote regarding tires,.. Input ,of course but not actual vote. Follow the money . Anything that helps racers race ( IE reducing cost does that) should be encouraged IMHO. A 2 % or more weight break will do that.
We should not be in an out spend the competition mode for Production . Totally not in HProduction. HP is our entry level class for many racers. Lots of old race cars and many new. 2 sets of tires per season as opposed to 1 set per weekend will help our numbers for sure.
I dont see why anyone would need to make an actual appearance . Just too far for me to go.
WE have quite a bit of interest in pursuing this at least in the region/division. Just like the SM T deal.
FWIW I dont think that anyone that has a vested interest in tires, should have a vote regarding tires,.. Input ,of course but not actual vote. Follow the money . Anything that helps racers race ( IE reducing cost does that) should be encouraged IMHO. A 2 % or more weight break will do that.
We should not be in an out spend the competition mode for Production . Totally not in HProduction. HP is our entry level class for many racers. Lots of old race cars and many new. 2 sets of tires per season as opposed to 1 set per weekend will help our numbers for sure.
Chuck Baader
New member
Mike, that would make way too much sense :boohoo:
Way, way way way too logical :mrgreen:
Way, way way way too logical :mrgreen: