Winner Of The Race Engine Challenge

[RevTheory]

You've got an excellent attitude, Randy. That sounds like a great build

[Warp Speed]

I agree with the "P&G" and especially the "Whistler"; there should be at least a few in that area however, taking a head off is mainly so the other teams can get a look at what was done in order to make that engine what it is.

I wouldn't want that part to be changed ... but, using the "P&G" and "Whistler" FIRST would certainly be a lot faster.

Only problem with a P&G and a Whistler gauge, is they aren't very close to accurate at all. Unfortunately, neither was the tech inspector apparantly! Lol
Congrats anyway!

A P&G is not perfect but close and I have never witnessed a Whistler to be wrong, unless the data input is wrong or ring blow-by is high. These engines have almost no blow-by at all.

After a tech scare, and one of our engines being almost illegal cr wise in post race, we bought a few whistlers, and had to use them on every engine before pushing them to the dyno. Constantly .2-.3 off.
We quit doing it as it was a total waste of time.
BTW, our engines are fairly well sealed as well!

[CamKing]

Only problem with a P&G and a Whistler gauge, is they aren't very close to accurate at all. Unfortunately, neither was the tech inspector apparantly! Lol
Congrats anyway!

A P&G is not perfect but close and I have never witnessed a Whistler to be wrong, unless the data input is wrong or ring blow-by is high. These engines have almost no blow-by at all.

After a tech scare, and one of our engines being almost illegal cr wise in post race, we bought a few whistlers, and had to use them on every engine before pushing them to the dyno. Constantly .2-.3 off.
We quit doing it as it was a total waste of time.
BTW, our engines are fairly well sealed as well!

Did they always check off, in the same direction?
If they're always .2-.3 off in the same direction, then you can work with that.

[GARY C]

You've got an excellent attitude, Randy. That sounds like a great build

X2

[PRH]

I realize I’m nobody....... but...... I gotta say I’m shocked that at a contest where the compression ratio is part of the tech, that it would be possible to have someone disqualified because the tech officials did the math wrong.
Especially considering there was probably a room full of engine builders there.

I know Randy likes to keep his stuff close to the vest, but I’d love to see the compression ratio calculations(bore, stroke, head cc, dome volume, etc).

The actual compression ratio of the motor build, with the components used isn’t really something that requires “interpretation”.
It’s simple math....... it’s either within the rules limits or it’s not.

Whistlers have probably improved in the last 20 years or so, but about that long ago I was building some 318 Mopar 2bbl oval track motors for one of the local series.
The guy driving them was really good and they were winning a lot of races, so those 318’s saw a lot of scrutiny from the tech officials.
The rules were 10:1cr, and the motors were solidly under that.....9.7-9.8:1.
They got checked with a whistler a few times..... always came up around a point lower than the actual CR.

[DanE1]

At any rate, I'm very proud of your accomplishment Randy. A top flight build!

[jsgarage]

Not the first screw-up by the (previous) administrators of the event. A few years ago, it was mentioned in print that one engine got hooked up to the dyno, and the operator- an official of the event, ran the motor for a full pull without turning on the cooling water.... The team got an "OOOPS-sorry." Hope Walter got more than a smile & a handshake.

[Tom Walker]

This was the first event ever promoted by this administration, so it must have been a different event. Anyway, a very valiant and powerful entry by Randy Malik, and the history of the engine was very interesting.

[Gregory]

Randy deserves a lot of praise for being the sportsman he is. The cc'ing and measuring was done several times and then scotch bright/solvent was used to clean out the carbon for additional measuring. Anticipating that something like this might happen at the REC, we had what we call the Engine Builders' Hall of Justice. When the calculation kept coming in over the limit, we convened all other available team leaders (not including the participant that would then move up to number one) and presented the findings. An anonymous vote was taken (not including management) and the majority held to the 12:1 limit.

We are always open to suggestions to make dyno racing work in a sportsmanlike fashion.

Greg Finnican
Promoter
Race Engine Challenge

[pamotorman]

the original whistlers were used in the GM engine factories to make sure the engines were within the build spec. katech developed and built the race track model.

[JoePorting]

Randy deserves a lot of praise for being the sportsman he is. The cc'ing and measuring was done several times and then scotch bright/solvent was used to clean out the carbon for additional measuring. Anticipating that something like this might happen at the REC, we had what we call the Engine Builders' Hall of Justice. When the calculation kept coming in over the limit, we convened all other available team leaders (not including the participant that would then move up to number one) and presented the findings. An anonymous vote was taken (not including management) and the majority held to the 12:1 limit.

We are always open to suggestions to make dyno racing work in a sportsmanlike fashion.

Greg Finnican
Promoter
Race Engine Challenge

I would think a less severe system when someone is just slightly off would be take away a certain amount of points based on the estimated advantage, such as 10 points, then add a punitive point reduction such as another 10 points and leave it at that.

[PRH]

Randy certainly seems to have let it go, so i suppose I should as well...... but....

It didn’t seem like Randy was questioning the actual measurements of the components so much as the implementation of that data into the CR computation.

A cc amount of near 2.5cc's got taken into consideration twice because the piston was .012" above the deck at TDC ... when that amount should have been removed from the swept volume only once.
.100" down from TDC is only .088" down from the DECK so the down-fill divider in the formula was bad data.

[gowest]

I guess i have missed something along the way. I thought Randy finished second in the canted/hemi class but this thread is talking about inline. Did he have an entry in each class ? If so what engine type did he enter ?
Congrats on the effort Randy !

[Walter R. Malik]

I guess i have missed something along the way. I thought Randy finished second in the canted/hemi class but this thread is talking about inline. Did he have an entry in each class ? If so what engine type did he enter ?
Congrats on the effort Randy !

The C3 Ford "Yates" head has the valves STRAIGHT with NO cant at all but twisted,
similar to a 409 Chevy with a combustion chamber.

[Warp Speed]

I guess i have missed something along the way. I thought Randy finished second in the canted/hemi class but this thread is talking about inline. Did he have an entry in each class ? If so what engine type did he enter ?
Congrats on the effort Randy !

The C3 Ford "Yates" head has the valves STRAIGHT with NO cant at all but twisted,
similar to a 409 Chevy with a combustion chamber.

Find that kinda weird, that they would allow valve rotation in an "inline" class?!?