Kudos to Greg for doing a great job as tech inspector for The RAL at NHMS this weekend.Some guys just make it easy for the racers/crews and still do a great job.
THANKS, Greg!!
Printable View
Kudos to Greg for doing a great job as tech inspector for The RAL at NHMS this weekend.Some guys just make it easy for the racers/crews and still do a great job.
THANKS, Greg!!
We should all clap and whistle for him ;)
Stephen
"like"Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenB
Greg- want to share your experience with the rest of IT land... I was VERY impressed with tech this weekend!!!
+1, thanks Greg!
+1 to greg and the reast of the workers for making the even happen :023:
Thank you, Bruce, but please note this was not in any way a one-man show. Anthony Parker was The Man who surrendered his FV race weekend to volunteer as Chief of Tech, as we had significant assistance from others like Dave LaPoint, Chuck Evans, Ken Payson (who started teching cars Friday night before we arrived), and others. Nothing would happen without all those volunteers.
And remember, as a licensed driver, you are automatically a Regional Scrutineer, so you can do things like check gear and issue even stickers. Never hesitate to jump in there when things get busy...
But, I suspect Bruce is referring to our Weekend Surprise. I coordinated gaining access to the Division's Whistler compression ratio checker, and we made a concerted effort to check as many Spec Miata (all classes), Improved Touring, and Super Touring cars we could. I'd suggest it was a resounding success. I was actually surprised at the positive feedback we got on the device, with more curious inquiries than any kind of resistance. In fact, there really wasn't any significant resistance that I can recall...
The process went very smoothly. We announced at each post-qually meeting that we were using the device, some only top-2 or -3, some deeper in the field (and made it available to anyone, like the scales, on a volunteer basis). We did not force competitors to stay in Impound until checked, we let the individual drivers know they were officially "impounded" and invited them to come back some time over the weekend to get checked and signed off (hey, if you were motivated enough to swap out engines while we were drinking beer, more power to you). Drivers were responsible for removing their own spark plugs and rotating the engines to TDC, though I brought some limited tools and helped as I could (and I've got blisters on my arm to prove it...) I have to give a big shout out to Nick Leverone, who put their cars toward the front of the line and did a great job moving them through. He even stuck around and helped with subsequent non-Flatout Miatae and really made this a seamless process...thanks, Nick.
I will not release any individual numbers, and each competitor knows their own results (feel free to share them). The end result though was that no one was found non-compliant. Some were very close, as in within the measuring tolerance of the device, which was expected on these higher-level prep cars. Most what I would call "stock" or "junkyard" engines were well under their limits. The only two cars I could not get a good reading on were two VANOS-equipped BMWs; the readings we got on those were just way out-of-the-park low, as in so low the engines would not run if that were accurate. For some reason this device fails on these cars and I'll have to do some research to figure out why. We even tried it on the 12A on JB's IT7 and that was a Big Fale, too, but that's no surprise...
My take from the weekend is that the device, in general, tends to read 0.2 low, sometimes 0.4 low. I had previously measured three Spec Miata engines that have "known" compression ratios, meaning I have information on their direct cc'ing during build; all three read 0.2 low. And, while we found some that were farther than that, all were low. I'm calling 0.2 as my confidence level in the device, and I suggest that if someone ever blew more than allowed it would be sufficient grounds for disassembly and physical checks.
I'm happy with what we learned from this, and would appreciate any other feedback. Based on our success this past weekend we do plan to bring this out on a regular basis.
Greg
good stuff Greg! Doing the Pocono National?
I think that everyone should take a turn in tech! I did a few times a couple years ago and I believe it was a very valuable experience. You can learn a lot about the cars, the rules and what is like in their shoes... It is also a good way to meet the people. If everyone did every job, just once, our organization would be SO much better for it!
75/25 "for". Need some more track time but trying to conserve resources...probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by CRallo
But you wouldn't work it either way? Just curious as I will be there. ---> hope that doesn't influence your decision :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
I hear you on the conserve resources bit... I do plan to make one race this year though :)
i did not know this....regarding the whistler, when NASA Nats did the HC crowd the 2nd year, my 1st gen crx si came in at something like 7.0 when stock was 8.7 and i expected it to be 9.1 to 9.2 for the 0.5 CR bump. not sure why mine was off so much as well....Quote:
And remember, as a licensed driver, you are automatically a Regional Scrutineer, so you can do things like check gear and issue even stickers.
I did not know this. Either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Some of us came up just to volunteer but Greg seemed like he was working all day both days so ditto on the congrats.
First, this goes for all specialties such as grid, F&C, registration, T&S, sound, and emergency. I encourage all drivers to at least try each specialty out once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
I've got to ask you Greg, were those single or double vanos motors? Which class? I can see a ST class double vanos motor maybe having so little overlap that you get the exhaust opening really early with modified cams.
Uh.....42? One was an ITS-spec E46 323i and the other was an ITR-spec '00 328.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
Valve overlap was one of our theories as to why we couldn't make it work; we figure it's possible that this engine may never be at TDC with both valves closed. - GA
That's what I figured: double vanos motors adjust both intake and exhaust cam phasing. Ah here is what my manual has to say:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
With the engine off, the base setting of the camshafts is as follows:
Intake camshaft: Retarded
Exhaust camshaft: Advanced
This is also the fail safe position in the even of an electornic control failure.
Both camshafts are held in these positions by oil pressure from the engine oil pump.
The exhaust camshaft is held additionally by a spring in the VANOS actuator.
When the engine is started, the camshafts remain in these positions until the ECM
detects the position of the camshafts from the camshaft sensors (approximately
50 revolutions or 2 - 5 seconds).
Once the camshaft positions are recognized, the ECM makes an initial camshaft
timing adjustment based on oil temperature, oil pressure, and engine RPM.
Following this initial setting, engine RPM, throttle position signal, intake air temperature,
and engine coolant temperature are used to adjust camshaft timing.
In hind sight, could have done a leak down on the cylinder to see if it ever would hold pressure, if it won't do a leak down, it won't do the wistler either. I wish I'd thought of that on Saturday, could have brought my leakdown tester for Sunday.Quote:
With the engine off, the base setting of the camshafts is as follows:
Intake camshaft: Retarded
Exhaust camshaft: Advanced
This is also the fail safe position in the even of an electornic control failure.
Both camshafts are held in these positions by oil pressure from the engine oil pump.
The exhaust camshaft is held additionally by a spring in the VANOS actuator.
It was very cool to have that tool and the way it was used - pretty much a volunteer/honor system. Regardless of result, no one is getting protested or torn down or otherwise dealt with. Greg was even nice enough to check my car since I was curious to see it all work and to know what was going on in the motor.
Thank you Greg for making it happen.
Hi Guys! Love the idea of the Whistler at tech. I don't think a little more checking would hurt! So I build rear gears and transmissions for ARCA and Nascar Truck teams, also one lowly backmarker Cup team... Anyway a couple years ago, I was cutting thru the Cup garage to get to Goodyear guys and stopped to watch the 24 team change a motor outside their garage (spit a drysump belt off, whoops). They were just finishing as Greg Mankowski rolled his Whistler up to check the new motor. Greg is the chief of engine tech for Sprint Cup. I stop to talk to him about Nascars official position on the Whistler. Half hour conversation with these key points.
1. ONLY cold as they feel the temp compensation is not accurate.
2. Some motors do NOT whistle accurate. The last version of the Toyota motor consistently whistles high and they have been torn down and checked. Found to be legal, so it is considered legal while blowing a high number. Suspected to be chamber shape.
3. It is used as a guideline only, teardown is the next step. NOT used to DQ EVER!
4. If a motor gets fogged, post dyno, before being shipped to the team aka a Hendrick rental, It will whistle high until run and cleaned out. They will be back to recheck you the next morning!
5. DO NOT MESS with tires, safety items, fuel or motor size or compression! These are the golden rules!!! WE will increase the fine every infraction by any team. We are at $200,000 now. Make our day!
I'm all for it but we should never DQ on it alone!! Love, Jim
SCCA doesn't have a written position on that, but they have used it to DQ cars from qualifications at the Runoffs. Never for the race, as far as I know. This is why we chose to do this in a purely-informational setting last weekend, with no intent to take action if someone were found non-compliant. Of course, if someone had thrown down a $25 protest on another car, it would have been another matter...Quote:
Originally Posted by gt40jim
I have enough confidence in the device that I'd use it to toss someone if they blew obviously high. And, as you point out, I'd verify it by letting the engine cool and take another reading (Katech notes in their procedures that the engine should be at ambient for the most accurate readings).
But if the shoe was on the other foot, as a tossed competitor I'd consider a protest against the device if it was close. If it were just a plain-Jane regional weekend I'd probably take my licks and research it later, but if it was an "important" race (Runoffs, ARRC, NARRC, etc) then I'd protest and pull the head for cc'ing. Of course, that's assuming I know for a fact the engine was compliant...
But I agree: the device should be used as a go/no-go decision maker on whether to do more detailed, invasive measuring.
GA
Nice Job Greg. I did not know that I can help in tech.
Gapless rings will blow higher than large end gap race rings. (Increasing the gap will lower the blow of course.) Really large gaps can get a very high compression engine past the whistler.
Glad to see some rules and engines looked at. Now, just pull some exhaust manifolds off of the SMs, ):MM