Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Greg Brown, Hammerhead Performance won the Race Engine Challenge with a score of 1634.
Greg Finnican
Promoter
Race Engine Challenge

Jack Barna, Valley Performance, finished first in the In-line class with a score of 1549.
Buck Hinkle did make three successful pulls for a score of 1523.
Greg Finnican
Promoter
Race Engine Challenge

What happened to Randy's engine? It was leading in the inline class when I left. Did it not pass tech ?

CamKing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:55 pm What happened to Randy's engine? It was leading in the inline class when I left. Did it not pass tech ?

They measured the compression ratio to be a tenth to high on one side so, I got tossed.
Not near responsible for the 70 some points difference between the two engines.

It sure would be nice to have a "seasoned" tech inspector there for each operation in order to get the correct calculations because I really think it got messed-up.
Oh, well.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:47 am

CamKing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:55 pm What happened to Randy's engine? It was leading in the inline class when I left. Did it not pass tech ?

They measured the compression ratio to be a tenth to high on one side so, I got tossed.
Not near responsible for the 70 some points difference between the two engines.

It sure would be nice to have a "seasoned" tech inspector there for each operation in order to get the correct calculations because I really think it got messed-up.
Oh, well.

How did they check it? Did they go by published data on some components? Or was everything actually checked?

CGT wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:50 am

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:47 am

CamKing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:55 pm What happened to Randy's engine? It was leading in the inline class when I left. Did it not pass tech ?

They measured the compression ratio to be a tenth to high on one side so, I got tossed.
Not near responsible for the 70 some points difference between the two engines.

It sure would be nice to have a "seasoned" tech inspector there for each operation in order to get the correct calculations because I really think it got messed-up.
Oh, well.

How did they check it? Did they go by published data on some components? Or was everything actually checked?

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.

It's over ... it is what it is. I will improve it and be back next year with a vengeance.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:47 am

CamKing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:55 pm What happened to Randy's engine? It was leading in the inline class when I left. Did it not pass tech ?

They measured the compression ratio to be a tenth to high on one side so, I got tossed.
Not near responsible for the 70 some points difference between the two engines.

It sure would be nice to have a "seasoned" tech inspector there for each operation in order to get the correct calculations because I really think it got messed-up.
Oh, well.

Sorry I left before this happened.
I've been talking to Greg, yesterday and today, working on a plan to make sure this doesn't happen again.
I'm looking for someone in the Charlotte area with a P&G gauge to check CID, and a Whistler to check compression ratio. There should be no need to pull these engines apart.

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.

Walter,
Regardless of false measurement
Your Engine still Showed Great!!
Kick Butt next year!!
Dave B.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:31 am 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!

Warp Speed wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:42 am

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:31 am 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.

grandsport51 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:38 am Walter,
Regardless of false measurement
Your Engine still Showed Great!!
Kick Butt next year!!
Dave B.

The actual measurements were fine ... just the derived data was off.

It's overwith ... moving ahead is paramount.

Walter R. Malik wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:12 pm 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.

From what I was told, the engine needs to be cold for the P&G. My thought is to use it on each engine before their first run, and use that displacement for calculating their score.

I'd rather see a spec fuel with no comp limit. Let the engine builder decide what they can run on that particular fuel. Isn't that part of engine building ?

That'd do away with this type of problem.

I spent a lot of time making sure our 2017 engine was at, but not over the comp limit. But there's always room for someone else to come up a little different on it.

Anyway good job Walter !

Randy

CamKing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:32 pmFrom what I was told, the engine needs to be cold for the P&G. My thought is to use it on each engine before their first run, and use that displacement for calculating their score.

When I did P&G'ing at NHRA events, the gauge came with a thermometer and a calibration chart. Used correctly, they are very accurate.