LO206 rules contact information

All Walbro carbs need to go. People in Ontario are paying big bucks for the Walbro carb, and that only hurts the class. The existing no-go gauge should be no-go at all not the way its being used now.
 
All Walbro carbs need to go. People in Ontario are paying big bucks for the Walbro carb, and that only hurts the class. The existing no-go gauge should be no-go at all not the way its being used now.

I agree with the idea that the gauge should not go at all, and that I know carbs are being manipulated to meet the current tech procedure. However, the precedent for the 602 tech procedure was in place years before the 206 came on line. I would like to see Briggs call out a new "no-go" precedent....and then listen to all the howling over having to buy a new carb and how it ruins the class and the cost of the new carb is bankrupting the racer......
 
I agree with the idea that the gauge should not go at all, and that I know carbs are being manipulated to meet the current tech procedure. However, the precedent for the 602 tech procedure was in place years before the 206 came on line. I would like to see Briggs call out a new "no-go" precedent....and then listen to all the howling over having to buy a new carb and how it ruins the class and the cost of the new carb is bankrupting the racer......

Really, the wording needs to be cleaned up.
I brought this up to Dave previously, but maybe it needs addressed again with Dan.
This is probably the most problemsome area of tech I get questions on across the country.
"Pass into" just doesn't make much sense to me, I guess.
It's simple enough to tech, but gets interpreted differently by some people in the field, and it should not.
Then you've got issues with tolerances on the no-go and variations of how the tool is made that have caused additional headaches in the tech barn.

Yes, there are guys manipulating this area of the carb -- it is NOT just the first couple years worth of Walbro carbs that we're seeing this.
 
Really, the wording needs to be cleaned up.
I brought this up to Dave previously, but maybe it needs addressed again with Dan.
This is probably the most problemsome area of tech I get questions on across the country.
"Pass into" just doesn't make much sense to me, I guess.
It's simple enough to tech, but gets interpreted differently by some people in the field, and it should not.
Then you've got issues with tolerances on the no-go and variations of how the tool is made that have caused additional headaches in the tech barn.

Yes, there are guys manipulating this area of the carb -- it is NOT just the first couple years worth of Walbro carbs that we're seeing this.
Really, the wording needs to be cleaned up.
I brought this up to Dave previously, but maybe it needs addressed again with Dan.
This is probably the most problemsome area of tech I get questions on across the country.
"Pass into" just doesn't make much sense to me, I guess.
It's simple enough to tech, but gets interpreted differently by some people in the field, and it should not.
Then you've got issues with tolerances on the no-go and variations of how the tool is made that have caused additional headaches in the tech barn.

Yes, there are guys manipulating this area of the carb -- it is NOT just the first couple years worth of Walbro carbs that we're seeing this.
video on correct way to do the .602 check coming soon.
 
video on correct way to do the .602 check coming soon.

Thank you, Steve.
Be sure to discuss the variance of the way the blade is attached to the handle of the no-go gauge. The head of the bolt protrudes on some of the newer gauges and is not inset -- I have a few if you need one for demonstration purposes.
 
It will cover the correct tool to use, measuring the tool you're measuring with to verify, and the proper method of checking for slide clearance.
 
Yes. It is also fair to ask the tech person to measure their tool if there is an issue. EX: "could we please measure you no-go gauge just to make sure there are not any wear issues."
I've run into issues twice with the same tech person and each time they bring out their Starrett vernier (approximator) to try and prove the .602's validity. I should note that in both cases this is the same non Walboro carb being teched and ultimately i have prevailed - but not without the undo angst i have endured feeling like a cheater. Further, the tech tool manufacturer that Briggs has approved/certified produces tools with larger tolerances than the current regulations allow fo. I see the problem lies with the tech tool manufacturing followed by clear methods on validating tech tool accuracy.
 
It's really up to each tech person to verify the tools they use. Never "assume" a new micrometer or gauge is correct. Trust, but verify and always be prepared to check the rule book and your equipment with the customer. Do everything you can to find a competitor right before you call it wrong.
 
It's really up to each tech person to verify the tools they use. Never "assume" a new micrometer or gauge is correct. Trust, but verify and always be prepared to check the rule book and your equipment with the customer. Do everything you can to find a competitor right before you call it wrong.
While i agree with verifying, if a 602 is out its useless...same with the majority of the "approved" briggs lo206 gauges. My issue is not so much with tech people, but the poor quality tech tools that Briggs has "approved". The "approved tech tools need to be made to higher tolerances and consistency. I don't think it should be up to the tech barn to have $1000's in NIST certified metrology tools just to make sure the "approved" briggs tech tool they purchased are accurate.
 
While i agree with verifying, if a 602 is out its useless...same with the majority of the "approved" briggs lo206 gauges. My issue is not so much with tech people, but the poor quality tech tools that Briggs has "approved". The "approved tech tools need to be made to higher tolerances and consistency. I don't think it should be up to the tech barn to have $1000's in NIST certified metrology tools just to make sure the "approved" briggs tech tool they purchased are accurate.

Poor quality gages have been a problem for years........... mainly the go / no gages. No / go gages need to be be dead nuts on the tech number. Even the difference of .0002" can cause a part to meet or not meet spec!
As Steve V. says send them back to supplier.

Steve
 
Steve, We also have sorted our gauges over the years, and in some cases err on the other side.....to be more strict on the engine builders side to keep the racer safer in tech.
No go gauges and the person using them in tech always concerns me. Just a bit too much pressure for some measurements can cause a DQ.

Steve
 
Back
Top