Track Tac

Billet Rod / CC process

DynoDon

DynoDon

Moderator
AKRA has been getting several requests for the allowance of the billet rod and to change the cc process by way of pulling the head and doing measurements on piston and head depth.
As for the billet rod AKRA will not be approving that for 2023. Although there are some individuals finding the dipper in the bottom of the block we do recognize that there is an issue with that especially for those who are using the Y-L rod. That particular rod has a very thin dipper on it. It comes in the engines as a complete engine when you purchased them. Harmonics and modifications to that Rod if not done properly will cause the dipper to come off. That particular rod has a very thin dipper attached. The rod that has the thicker dipper is the CL rod. There are no complaints about that rod.
Pertaining to the cc process we need to get more tech involved in doing that process. For us to change the cc process by throwing it out and taking the head off to do measurements that we would come up with is problematic. In evaluating the possibility of doing a numerical system it comes to the point where there would be too many negatives for engines that are currently out there to meet the concept of a numerical system. Using the numerical system would also open the door to a lot of manipulation. Those of you who understand engines in depth can fully understand the word manipulation. Pistons and Heads are not all the same and therefore for us to use a numerical system would only open the door for machine work to those areas that would not be acceptable in regards to proving things were done that should not have been done. So with that being said AKRA will not be changing either of those tech inspections. What we need to do is convince tech inspectors to start doing more of the cc process.
 
There is no reason you can't accurately CC an engine without disassembly. This has been the way in karting and the big car world for a very long time.

Now for the billet rod, I see no reason NOT to allow that, its purely a reliability thing and will save the karter money in the long run! There is absolutely no performance gain from using a billet rod. Its past time the AKRA wakes up and allows this.
 
1fasttiller said:
There is no reason you can't accurately CC an engine without disassembly. This has been the way in karting and the big car world for a very long time.

Now for the billet rod, I see no reason NOT to allow that, its purely a reliability thing and will save the karter money in the long run! There is absolutely no performance gain from using a billet rod. Its past time the AKRA wakes up and allows this.
Click to expand...
Then, like the flathead, rpms will ramp up, as builders campaign for slight differences in the cam specs, cause that theoretically won't be a performance gain, or the cam that comes with an off the shelf engine will undergo changes that will make it out of spec with the stock rules.

Been there, done that.
 
95 shaw said:
Then, like the flathead, rpms will ramp up, as builders campaign for slight differences in the cam specs, cause that theoretically won't be a performance gain, or the stock cam will undergo changes that will make it out of spec with the stock rules.

Been there, done that.
Click to expand...
95 shaw said:
Then, like the flathead, rpms will ramp up, as builders campaign for slight differences in the cam specs, cause that theoretically won't be a performance gain, or the cam that comes with an off the shelf engine will undergo changes that will make it out of spec with the stock rules.

Been there, done that.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
Then again, $1500 race engines using $6 connecting rods..... Been there, done that. I don't believe that ANY professional engine builder is building clone engines with any concern to the limit of the con-rod. All of these engines are being built to make as much power and as much rpm as they can (regardless of what the con-rod will allow.)

(...And no, the billet rod was NOT the reason that flathead rpm increased.) Dropping the .020" lift check by WKA to align with IKF had a whole lot more to do with it (ie introducing slapper cams, ex springs, heat treated retainers, spring relief cuts, billet lifters, lifter radius clearance, welded lifter bores, lifter guides....I could go on.) It all escalated from there, the billet rod was simply to protect the racer's investment (and Bill knows that as well as anyone.)

The CC rule is a complete waste of time in my opinion, BUT to change it to actual measurements now would create havoc with all the different pistons, amount of dish, gasket thicknesses, combustion chamber differences, etc. You cannot spec a ChiCom part that is not held to strict tolerances from the factory with numerical measurements.

On the positive side, at least AKRA has some rules for the clone -- the Predator, on the other hand...UGH!

-----
🏁Thanks and God bless,
Brian Carlson
Carlson Racing Engines
Vector Cutz
www.CarlsonMotorsports.com
Carlson Motorsports on Facebook
www.youtube.com
34 years of service to the karting industry ~ 1Cor 9:24
Linden, IN
765-339-4407
bcarlson@CarlsonMotorsports.com
 
95 shaw said:
Then, like the flathead, rpms will ramp up, as builders campaign for slight differences in the cam specs, cause that theoretically won't be a performance gain, or the cam that comes with an off the shelf engine will undergo changes that will make it out of spec with the stock rules.

Been there, done that.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the valve springs are the limiting factor here and as long as they keep them at current spec, RPM will not change much, if at all. Reliability of a $5 rod in a $1200 race engine is a joke. The billet rod would save the karter money in many ways.
 
There's already talk of removing the checks from the valve springs because of the effort required to make borderline springs fall into spec.

Soon, the cam specs will change as builders keep pushing at the limits of current rules.

A $5 rod that is easy to change at every rebuild.

The inserts and bolts to change at every rebuild far exceed the price of the entire stock rod.


So, what makes this a stock engine class, if you are changing modifying every piece?
 
95 shaw said:
There's already talk of removing the checks from the valve springs because of the effort required to make borderline springs fall into spec.

Soon, the cam specs will change as builders keep pushing at the limits of current rules.

A $5 rod that is easy to change at every rebuild.

The inserts and bolts to change at every rebuild far exceed the price of the entire stock rod.


So, what makes this a stock engine class, if you are changing modifying every piece?
Click to expand...
The Predator is surely the answer.


I say that facetiously, of course.
 
Here's another way to look at the rod issue for those that think that it's the limiting factor in rpm...

What rpm is the rod safe for? Pick a number. Are they safe to that rpm after 5, 10, 20 race days? Are all rods safe to that same rpm, or are some not quite as good as others? Can it be reused on a rebuild?

Now, who is going to build an engine that will not exceed that specific rpm, regardless of power output above said rpm?
Who will gear their kart so that it will never exceed that rpm? (Hint, same answer as the previous question: no one.)
No one built engines or raced them under a safe rpm for the flywheels years ago either. Just sayin.' ;)
 
I run alot of AKRA races every year and I have seen maybe 1 or 2 rods fail on other karters motors over the last several years. Pretty sure at least 1 failure was because the guy forgot to put oil in.
I don't see the need for the billet rod. It's probably not a performance advantage but its not needed. I agree with AKRAs decision to try to limit rule changes. As 95shaw said - the billet inserts are more than the stock rod so there's no point in it.
 
cking said:
I run alot of AKRA races every year and I have seen maybe 1 or 2 rods fail on other karters motors over the last several years. Pretty sure at least 1 failure was because the guy forgot to put oil in.
I don't see the need for the billet rod. It's probably not a performance advantage but its not needed. I agree with AKRAs decision to try to limit rule changes. As 95shaw said - the billet inserts are more than the stock rod so there's no point in it.
Click to expand...
...until one comes out of the front or top of the block. Then things get real costly. That's the point.
At that time, the price of bearings and bolts become a moot point.
 
CarlsonMotorsports said:
...until one comes out of the front or top of the block. Then things get real costly. That's the point.
At that time, the price of bearings and bolts become a moot point.
Click to expand...
Exactly, they may not break often but they do break. They are cast chinese parts and we've seen bad batches with multiple failures. They usually take out the block and the crank when they let go at 6900rpm...
 
Again - only for sure failure I have seen is from guy running NO oil.
Been running clone for last 6+ years and never had an issue.
New block probably cost less than a billet rod.
If a racer is having problems throwing rods - the motors aren't built right, not maintained right or they are having the worst luck imaginable.
 
Lets face it . Should you be unlucky enough to throw a rod .
The only thing left is the head carb combination , coil and flywheel and the tins .
Maybe the cam .
May as well buy a whole new engine .
 
I like the billet rods. No broken dippers and most of the time there is some amount of gauling when I pull them down.
 
95 shaw said:
Then, like the flathead, rpms will ramp up, as builders campaign for slight differences in the cam specs, cause that theoretically won't be a performance gain, or the cam that comes with an off the shelf engine will undergo changes that will make it out of spec with the stock rules.

Been there, done that.
Click to expand...
The rpm won't ramp up with the current spring rules. The cast rods are not the limiting factor.
 
What’s the cost of a billet rod? $80?

What’s the cost throwing a rod? Of losing a race because you trusted a roadside casting? Let’s face it, these are no longer stock engines. They have already gone the way of every other “stock” engine before it. Instead of prolonging the pain get it over with and legalize parts that match the performance of the engine.

You don’t put a no name tire on a Maserati to keep a high school kid from speeding.
 
CarlsonMotorsports said:
Here's another way to look at the rod issue for those that think that it's the limiting factor in rpm...

What rpm is the rod safe for? Pick a number. Are they safe to that rpm after 5, 10, 20 race days? Are all rods safe to that same rpm, or are some not quite as good as others? Can it be reused on a rebuild?

Now, who is going to build an engine that will not exceed that specific rpm, regardless of power output above said rpm?
Who will gear their kart so that it will never exceed that rpm? (Hint, same answer as the previous question: no one.)
No one built engines or raced them under a safe rpm for the flywheels years ago either. Just sayin.' ;)
Click to expand...
This is interesting.
If we think the rules for running a stock engine class are too constricting, step up to a stock appearing.
Same thing applies here. If too restricted for your taste, step up.
Already spending most of the money for a good modified at stock class power.
Most look at the rules, and say, if there's a rule against it, that must be where the power I need to win is at.

When you get to the class with one rule, guys will think they cannot be competitive unless they are pushing the limits of that rule, or the lack of tech of that one rule.

So, run a truly stock engine, or ball up and run as much engine as your pocketbook can handle.

Doesn't matter if talking about karts, sprint cars, or late models. Everyone will push the limits of the rules, while leaving tons of speed on the table by not doing, or understanding the basics.

If you watch closely, those who push to the class where they cannot have an advantage, they will step back to a class where they can push the rules, or lack of tech.
No one wants to be the small fish in the big pond.

Jmho
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top