HSCC FF1600 Camshafts/Drivers Meeting

[MikeM]

I realise it wouldn't cover all engines but if you do get it done and sealed it's one less to be suspicious of. If an engine hasn't been sealed it's always subject to being checked as it is now. If all reputable builders sealed an engine on rebuild it may well take out most potential claims? I was thinking of it as a help, not a solution. I don't know how many Neil does a season but it has to be a fair few!
Regards
Mike

[nigel grant]

I think your'e suggestion is spot on Mike lets hope the engine builders will take it up.I am all for engine checks don't think I'm not but it has to be done properly or you might as well not bother.I don't know what proportion of the historic grid build there own but if the engine builders seal their's that should act as a deterent for the ones that arn't sealed as they will be the ones that could get checked.Having said all that I'd be suprised if anyone is deliberatly bending the rules but as with any sport we have to be seen to enforce the rules just in case.

[Alan Raine]

I'm sure engine builders are all honest and above board, but what would stop them unsealing an engine, tinkering with it, and re-sealing it again if they knew there was a problem?

[MarkG]

I'm sure too, that the well known engine builders are honest, but anything can be done to the engine when they go out the door, so MikeM's idea is a good one I reckon.
Bit tricky to police the private built engines though and I'm sure most competitors would welcome more scrutiny as I'm sure there are many that have suspicions about engines now and again.

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

I'm sure engine builders are all honest and above board, but what would stop them unsealing an engine, tinkering with it, and re-sealing it again if they knew there was a problem?

There would be nothing to stop them Alan - except their reputations.
In the broader scheme of things there has to be a few bent engines, but I think it is unlikely those engines win much. What is the point of spending a fortune on tyres, set ups, practice, all the preparation, to save a few quid by cheating on the engine. It would be a pointless exercise. The people who use a bent engine are generally those who cannot drive very well, and cannot grasp that the reason car No. 2 passed them down the straight was not because No. 2 had a bent engine - but because No. 2 came out of the previous corner faster.

[JFW]

Hi all,

I wanted to open up this debate so we can canvas opionion.

I would love to have access to a suitable piece of equipmant to do a quick in situ test, any recommendations are welcome.

There is a formal procedure that needs to take place in order for this to be effective, I feel strongly it is in the interests of the championship.

suggestions for measuring kit please.


J

[simon drabble]

If anyone wishes to chat about the Castle Combe FF scrutineering they should come along this weekend to the WHT. My son is bening run by Emax Motorsport who regularly run their Swifts at CC. Martyn, who co runs it with Glenn, is also part of Philspeed engines so might be able to give some colour as to how they do it and what are the pitfalls.

[Henrik Pedersen]

Hi
Quick question for the FF people: I am almost done restoring my Caldwell D9 FF, and I miss the windscreen.
The Caldwell is basicly a Merlyn clone, and the windscreen should fit.
Where do you get a new, or who manufacture new ones ?

[daktari doc]

I'm hoping to race a car next season along with a driver that has this year's experience in classics, but haven't allowed anything in my costings for engines being stripped after races. What level of rebuild will be required after inspection ?

As a novice lacking mechanical experience and a certain rear runner due to budget and experience in a car purchased privately i'm now concerned that opening the engine will prohibit or limit the number events we can attend, can someone clarify please.

[dikko]

daktari doc. DO NOT in any way imagine we are stripping engines down every race. We are working on a system of fair and non-intrusive examining and won't need to see bits of engines everywhere... And I'm sure that will go for the Classics too.
Message to Henrik and d. doc, if your cars are pre 72 you'll be welcome to join the Historics and don't forget our (one entry per year) race entry without membership fee. It would be good to see you.

Camshaft question. Keep us informed boys if you find the answer to our needs.

[Henrik Pedersen]

Caldwell D9 is of 1969 vintage, so it should go well in your championship.
I am more concerned about the driver.

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by daktari doc

I'm hoping to race a car next season along with a driver that has this year's experience in classics, but haven't allowed anything in my costings for engines being stripped after races. What level of rebuild will be required after inspection ?

As a novice lacking mechanical experience and a certain rear runner due to budget and experience in a car purchased privately i'm now concerned that opening the engine will prohibit or limit the number events we can attend, can someone clarify please.

It would cost about £500 plus bits (gaskets and the like) to rebuild from component parts (roughly) So it will depend on the level of stripdown the Scrut. requires but there would certainly be some cost. Your advantage is, it you are not challenging for top positions you are less likely to have to do a stripdown. I would think you would be quite unlucky to have a stripdown.
The things that prompt a challenge are, passing a car on the straights. Under braking or on the twiddly bits is ok 'cos that doesnt take more power. but when you are flat to the mat and someone 'with no more power' sails past you, you begin to wonder.

[Henrik Pedersen]

PS: When someone sails past you, it could also be because you have chosen the wrong gearratio. Just perhaps.

[MikeM]

Hi daktari doc - I cannot speak for Classics but in NFF we tend to look at the top three at the end of each season but waive it if everyone seems happy that they appear correct. Apart from that, it would normally be when protested. I doubt if Classics are much different to this?
Mike

[McMuttley]

Last year at Snett, my team mate and I had identical cars, engines and ratios and yet had very different speeds coming out of Russell - dont know why - I think he's trying to tell me what gear I should be in?

(dear old Russell, one of the few places I ever overtook, I miss you)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69361978@N06/6305688855/

[dikko]

Originally Posted by Henrik Pedersen

Caldwell D9 is of 1969 vintage, so it should go well in your championship.
I am more concerned about the driver.

As in equally mature you mean? We have a few of those (grey-haired wise ones....). And if we had our way we would introduce a rule that you should at least be as old as your car! ....if only!
Come and give us try Henrik, join Pertti from Finland, he's mature too!

McMuttley, don't beat yourself up about it, remember nostalgia is a thing of the past..not passed...
PS I'm now suitably (and respectably) de-drooped thank you very much.

[Henrik Pedersen]

I will just have to wait for the HSCC´s calender for 2012, to see if it will be possible.
I hope to join the Siverstone Classic in July with my MATRA D´jet, and I might bring the Caldwell too, if there are a HSCC Formula Ford race there, as well.

[trackstarMerlyn]

Hi All,

Have been thinking about all that has been said and also over the last week I have found some very interesting information on this subject,

I think that a tool to check the cam in situ could be made, but as ever this would take time and money to make. Not a huge problem and would be happy to help, but as we all know being a push rod engine, a crank position sensor would be needed to make this work and this is not going to be a easy thing to do as quick check at the meeting, and to be honest no other ff1600 championship uses tools like this or has the need to.

As said before, lift can be checked very quickly with basic tools, so that takes care of that. Duration can be checked with basic tools and with engine still in the car - it won’t be 100 % accurate to the degree, but it will show up any difference in ex/inlet duration from the standard legal cam, which would then give good cause for the engine to be inspected out of the car.

As an offer of help I am more than happy to supply a car, myself and my workshop for the day, to go through the in car checks with the person who will be checking next season. This is no problem at all, as if it helps with this question mark, then that can only be a good thing.

Last week I had a call from a guy who had a spare FF1600 engine and, in light of the camshaft discussions, asked me if I could inspect it.

The first check was maximum lift taken at the spring cap with zero tappet clearance. This was found to be between 0.6mm and 0.9mm more than the legal maximum lift limit...

The next check was timing and duration. Standard FF1600/GT cam has 272/272 duration [same on both inlet and exhaust] and timing figures are 27/65 [inlet] 65/27 [exhaust].
27+65+180 = 272 in both cases.

A very different set of figures were found on this engine, inlet 30/77 - duration 287; exhaust 61/36 - duration 277... a very big difference. This also means that this is a duel ground cam i.e. a different duration for both inlet and exhaust unlike the standard legal camshaft. This configuration has a massive effect on the valve overlap - with the standard overlap being 54 deg, this cam has 66 deg giving 12 degrees more overlap than a standard cam.

Without boring you all to tears, I did a calculation: if you take an engine of this type, you have 32% efficiency [chemical efficiency]. The mathematical gain from this cam would, on paper, be calculated conservatively at 30%. However with the engine only being 32% efficient, the true power gain on paper would be 32% of 30%.

If we take an engine developing 100 bhp and swap the standard cam for this cam, the mathematical gain would be 30bhp. To calculate the true power gain, we then take 32% of this 30bhp, being for round figures 9bhp (being very conservative). If this cam were to be fitted to an engine already producing between 103 and 108 bhp we would arrive at figures approaching 120 bhp …

The cam was found to have a ford logo, but compared to the FFI/GT cam the logo is different.

So in brief the owner, having paid good money for an engine, now has another invoice to make it legal. Even worse than that in my view, if he had fitted the engine in good faith and it was then inspected/stripped at a meeting, he would then have the issue of people thinking he knew, and was cheating, and so on - not good in any way.

I think in short check engines correctly and transparently and make people aware of the rules and aware which parts must be used to be legal. Then you can’t go far wrong. There are some fantastic engine builders for FF1600, who are very skilled and very good at their job and who build legal quick engines and it needs to stay like this.

[Alan Morgan]

I spoke to the guy who's making our Pinto camshaft checker at the weekend and he thought that a fixture which bolts to the head of a Kent engine (after the rocker gear had been removed) with a pair of dummy pushrods that are supported by the fixture so that they can only move linearly could measure the lift. A rotary sensor (similar to the one which attaches magnetically to the end of a Pinto camshaft) could be attached to the distributor in place of the rotor arm. From then on the principle would be the same - spin the engine on the starter for a few seconds and examine the trace on the screen.

[simon drabble]

why not just get each engine's builder to vouch for its legality. If his engine is subsequently found to be illegal he has shot himself in the foot.

[zefarelly]

its quite possible to have a cam ground with the correct lift and duration in total . . .but by changing the ramps the cam would show increased duration at any given lift. no head flows much below 1mm valve lift, but if you add 20-30 degrees to the 1mm lift duration you would make a hell of a difference to the breathing and performance of the engine . . . . .

Simon nice idea . . .but as soon as an engine leaves the workshop who know whats going to happen to it . . .just because it has any given name on top.

[trackstarMerlyn]

very true,joe.

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

Simon nice idea . . .but as soon as an engine leaves the workshop who know whats going to happen to it . . .just because it has any given name on top.

The builder could put their own seals on the engine. If it's tampered with, then it's no longer their responsibility.

[SAMD]

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

The builder could put their own seals on the engine. If it's tampered with, then it's no longer their responsibility.

I think that is right, otherwise bang will go their livelihood!!
I think the issue over 'that' engine, is that the camshaft was reground and a Ford 'type' stamp put on it. Totally illegal for FF1600. No argument. And as Simon says, seal the engine when it is built. It is still liable to scrutiny the same as any other engine, but the eligibility scruts will know it is highly unlikely to be illegal, therefore, attention would be turned to the 'homebuilt' engines. Which, if they are legal have nothing to worry about!

[esper]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

why not just get each engine's builder to vouch for its legality. If his engine is subsequently found to be illegal he has shot himself in the foot.

It keeps me wondering? good idea. But Simon are you a Priest?