I'm cross-posting this from another forum, as I feel it's important to get this out... - GA
Allow me some leeway here for a quick explanation. First time I heard the rumors I was amused; second time it was a coincidence. I've now heard something similar from three different sources so I'd like to clear the air before this gains some legs and gets out of control.
I've heard various iterations that there's some rumors and innuendo floating around in regards to the time involved in the tech process and some misunderstandings, some caused by me. The primary focus seems to be on the legality of the engine, started mostly due to the time involved for the tear-down and measurements, the people surrounding the car and looking concerned, and the time it took Tech to stir the numbers around.
The extended period we spent in in Tech (roughly 4-5 hours) was primarily two-fold: one, it takes a while to get the head off the car. Manifolds and cams have to come out first and you've got to make sure to carefully remove the gears so you don't lose timing on the bottom end (otherwise the whole front and bottom of the engine has to come apart). That was probably a good half or more of the time involved.
Second, both we and the Atlanta Region tech inspectors were careful about getting accurate measurements. Matt Kessler builds stuff to the edge of the cliff so all measurements were RIGHT THERE. The Tech guys wanted to measure several times, since handheld tools have built-in accuracy tolerances. Further, once they had their "official" numbers they allowed Matt to remeasure with their tools so there would be no room for arguments and appeals. Everyone's measurements agreed and we were/are completely satisfied with their measurement techniques.
In addition, there were a lot of people milling around, in many cases getting in the way and slowing things down. Unlike the times when we were pulled apart in the "old skool" Valvoline Runoffs, there was no one managing the crowd and controlling who had access to the tech inspection area. Honestly, we really didn't care: we had nothing to hide and as long as people didn't get in the way we were OK with folks looking on, through, and under the car and engine. There were a few times where I even saw competitors' crew members leaning over our guys watching the measurement process. Again, no problem, we welcome the oversight but in a few cases it slowed things down.
However, the part that really created tension and confusion was my fault. When Tech was crunching the numbers inside the room Matt came to me and told me the cc measurement on the head didn't "seem right"; he was sincerely concerned that he had mis-measured his work and that the head cc was too small, thus we had too much compression. Having those tech guys in the office for 45 minutes while we all milled around looking nervous only seemed to confirm our fears, to the point that I even walked over to Joe Moser and Ruck's crew to tell them that we believed we had screwed up on the engine build. Given this, I told them, it was purely our own fault and should we be found illegal I offered them my sincere apologies.
Note this was BEFORE the official word had come back.
So, when the tech guys re-emerged not more than 15 minutes later and told us we were all legal and free to go, even WE were surprised! I'm sure the relief and surprise on our faces was obvious.
We figured out the full story once we got home and re-measured everything and went back through our build notes. Remember that we had built a new engine specifically for the ARRC? Well, we ran out of time and never installed that new engine; it sat in the back of the van the whole week. However, we had those numbers in our heads for that build, and those numbers did not match what they measured on the ARRC race engine; the head cc that they measured was lower than what we expected (and what that new engine was built to). It turns out that we mis-calculated the compression ratio on that NEW engine, to the low side; the compression ratio on the replacement engine is apparently a few tenths TOO LOW. Thus when we got the head cc reading from Tech on the race engine, and it was smaller than the one in the engine we had just built, we assumed the new build was accurate and that we had screwed up on the engine we used for the ARRC (and the prior year); in point of fact it was the other way around.
Ironically, had we installed the replacement engine we would have been TOO LOW on compression... So, rest assured the race engine was fully legal. We've re-verified that the bore and stroke were all within specs, and the compression ratio calculation using measured volumes put us within the legal 10:1. It's RIGHT THERE, and completely, totally, 100% legal.
The stressful part for me personally was that given it was the same engine I had raced on all year, I spent 45 minutes worrying how I was going to reasonably explain such a stupid oversight to all my worthy competitors, present company included. Fortunately, it turns out everything was fine.
Trust me, my heart can't take too much more of that!!
So, let the normal rumor mill run its course, but please don't let this experience imply anything other than what it was...
Greg
