$300 to check a set of valve springs

Matt78

New member
I've been building my own clones for a while now. Surely someone can come up with a better way to check these springs. Usings springs as a rev limiter is about the most backwards concept ever. The price of these engines is going up as we get more and more rules. Several racers are jumping ship on the clones. The biggest classes local now are box stock Predators and the rules are extremely simple. They only tech the stock air cleaner and weenie pipe and muffler. $125 claim. I had my doubts that a claim rule would work so well but they had to break the class into 2 weights because of so many entries. I have built 4 of these for myself and some friends for next season. I don't want to see added classes at tracks but this one is working well here. Whether we blame engine builders, racers, or Obama for the increased price of the clone doesn't matter. The class isn't bringing in new racers/budget racers as intended. I fear it's too late to fix it now. My rant is over for now...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jg299c

New member
Several posters on here had the best answer for the spring problem......a certain wire diameter, number of coils in a determined length, but it didn't make it to the rule book.
 

JPR57

Premium User
A wire diameter, number of coils and height are good ways of teching springs, but the hard fact is you can't produce a batch of springs with every one having the exact same pressure. All springs have a +/- factor that plays into the equation. Most being around .5lbs +/- Now if you want a spring to be 10.8lbs @ .850 because of the +/- factor some springs will be 10.3 and some will be 11.3 with the large majority being right at 10.8. This is why you still need a dead weight check. If all you checked was the coils, wire diameter or height how would you know if your springs are as good as Joe Bob's springs...? I am not saying that the spring rule is perfect, but it is the best way right now to be sure the springs are on a level playing field. We have a post on our Facebook page (ARC Racing) regarding springs and tech.
 
I feel the pain too... I'm up to paying $1,050 for my clones...an engine that starts out as a $150 engine. I think we're back to a point to where the Animal is making sense again...
 
And the Lo206 makes even more sense -- at least that's what several customers of ours have said.
The clone is a blueprinted engine at this point....You are paying an engine builder to tweak everything he can withing the rules.
Although we are strong supporters of ARC and their billet products, the current method of teching springs is ridiculous (in my opinion.) Ambient air temperature, heat cycling, metalurgy variances, etc etc are all over the place, then we take a dead weight (expensive stone age technology) to determine if a competitor is legal? Every engine builder worth their wages already owns a quality spring tester (Intercomp, Longacre, etc.) yet that is not the standard used in the tech barn, so we each have to purchase the dead weight system. At what point do the rules change again to accommodate a particular spring and results in additional costs to update (already happened.) What if the current spring tech gets dropped entirely? Talk about "dead weight!" At least you can use your digital spring tester for other engines, clutch springs, etc. I know, I know -- some will say that there are variances among different manufacturers and even among different digital spring testers from the same manufacturer....Isn't that the case with all measurement tools? Yet no one complains about the accuracy of using a dial caliper, dial indicator, or no-go gauge in the tech barn.
I certainly don't have all the answers to this whole spring dilemma. If it were up to me, I'd make it stock appearing springs (just like the flatheads) and tech wire diameter and length. Those "trick" springs cost no more than the current 10.8 "trick" springs everyone's crying about now with the clones! Once you open up the springs on the clones, you'll need to add the billet rod (ARC makes a fine one) and then allow the racers an oversized piston. That's about the only difference from the flatheads at this point. And if you consider the pricing -- (especially considering the initial cost of the engine alone) the flatheads and animals are priced about the same as the clone!
Wow, what web we weave.
Totally agree with the OP.
Thanks,
Brian Carlson
 

MikeBoone

Member
I am sure this will earn A BUNCH of points with folks here. Who do I blame? THE ENGINE BUILDERS! Does it seem funny that the clone quickly escalated to the SAME price point that their previous product was at and then stayed relatively static? That all fo the changes were made in the name of "safety" and "reliability" but also seemed to eliminate the back yard builder?
These guys were faced with the prospect of losing their businesses. They had to do something. It was either continue to talk trash and be a nay sayer about the clone, or embrace it and find a way to extract a living from it. That is just what they did, the builders that had the sanctioning bodies ears suggested rules changes and tweaks to the package that would ensure that they would have a ready and willing customer base.

In order to for the clone to remain viable, it needs to run ONLY the steel billet flywheel 10.8 springs, stock carb, wenie pipe, shoe clutch and have a base price replacement claim of $150.00. period.

It may be too late for the platform. But I hope that we can get back to where it should have been in the first place. A STOCK ENGINE.
 

Renegade

Member
If all you check are wire diameter, coils, and overall length, get ready for a spring that will let us turn 7,000+ rpms. The answer is not in the springs we have engines turning higher rpm now than we did before the .650 check.
 

DynoDon

Moderator
It actually wasn't the builders that were responsible for the high cost of the box stock engine. It was the tracks that posted big money races that sent the cost of the engine to where it is. If the tracks owners/operators would have sent the money to the BP class there wouldn't be everybody and his brother looking for that extra edge that costs money so you can win money. Would the sanctioning bodies still have a need to put specs on the internal parts to keep the playing field fair. Yes.
 

Renegade

Member
Here is your main problem with cost. Racers have come to believe that high cost means more power. Not true by a long shot, but I here it all the time. As the number of racers continues to drop once again, the smaller customer base will cause a rise in cost all it's own. This will happen as builders try and maintain the same cash flow with less customers and it will reach a point of collapse once again. Will clones reach that $1800+ level that flatheads did. Time will tell, but it will be the end of the clones and we start all over again with another cheap engine.
 

DynoDon

Moderator
Somebody show me an engine that will show up in the future if the clone dies that will not follow the same path.
 

Curbjumper78

New member
I find it amusing to see all the responses and whining about the cost of clones. One guy blames the high cost on engine builders, the other guy blames it on track owners, another blames it on the mexican drug cartel...................... you get the point here. I'm not here to bash or insult ANYONE, but arent we (the racers) held accountable for paying what we pay? WE are the only ones who have control of our HARD EARNED CASH. WE choose to pay these higher costs to keep up with the competition level. I dont think anyone should ever pay $1000 for a "winning motor", but its their money, NOT MINE.

If engine builder "A" sells winning engines for $1000 and engine builder "B" sells winning engines as well for $400, WE get to choose to spend where we want to spend our money, correct?

Lets start holding ourselves accountable for our own actions, instead of blaming everything/everybody else. Just my $ .02
 

Renegade

Member
If engine builder "A" sells winning engines for $1000 and engine builder "B" sells winning engines as well for $400, WE get to choose to spend where we want to spend our money, correct?

Builder "A" will sell twice as many engines as builder "B" because it cost twice as much it's got to be twice as good, right? That's the mentality or some racers.

Somebody show me an engine that will show up in the future if the clone dies that will not follow the same path.

They will all follow the same path. Like I said Racers are their own worst enemy.
 

MartinBuilt Clutches

Clutch Builder
And the Lo206 makes even more sense -- at least that's what several customers of ours have said.
The clone is a blueprinted engine at this point....You are paying an engine builder to tweak everything he can withing the rules.
Although we are strong supporters of ARC and their billet products, the current method of teching springs is ridiculous (in my opinion.) Ambient air temperature, heat cycling, metalurgy variances, etc etc are all over the place, then we take a dead weight (expensive stone age technology) to determine if a competitor is legal? Every engine builder worth their wages already owns a quality spring tester (Intercomp, Longacre, etc.) yet that is not the standard used in the tech barn, so we each have to purchase the dead weight system. At what point do the rules change again to accommodate a particular spring and results in additional costs to update (already happened.) What if the current spring tech gets dropped entirely? Talk about "dead weight!" At least you can use your digital spring tester for other engines, clutch springs, etc. I know, I know -- some will say that there are variances among different manufacturers and even among different digital spring testers from the same manufacturer....Isn't that the case with all measurement tools? Yet no one complains about the accuracy of using a dial caliper, dial indicator, or no-go gauge in the tech barn.
I certainly don't have all the answers to this whole spring dilemma. If it were up to me, I'd make it stock appearing springs (just like the flatheads) and tech wire diameter and length. Those "trick" springs cost no more than the current 10.8 "trick" springs everyone's crying about now with the clones! Once you open up the springs on the clones, you'll need to add the billet rod (ARC makes a fine one) and then allow the racers an oversized piston. That's about the only difference from the flatheads at this point. And if you consider the pricing -- (especially considering the initial cost of the engine alone) the flatheads and animals are priced about the same as the clone!
Wow, what web we weave.
Totally agree with the OP.
Thanks,
Brian Carlson

I highly agree on the springs
 

metalmagic

New member
Smaller restricter plate = less rpm/hp.... No matter what spring u use, rod u use, porting polishing, ect..... Only two things need to change open up the rules and drill a smaller hole lol
 

don marsh

New member
we want the best engine best kart best tires and we are going to pay for that no matter what it cost that is just what men do no rule will ever change that
 
Top