On Tolerances...

[Ted Hamilton]

Regarding a few discussions I've seen here lately, I wish we still had a KIC (Karting Industry Council) to guard and guide the sport. These issues centered around tolerances (or lack thereof.) From an outsider machinist's perspective with no dog in the fight, those threads are EXACTLY why I feel every racing engine in every racing series needs to be either "open", "limited modified" with well-defined specs in the limited areas, or "blueprinted" stock with a tight and well-defined spec on EVERY part of the engine. Blueprinting, as the name implies, is taking the engine and massaging every area to the most advantageous spec AS DEFINED ON THE BLUEPRINT. The issue with clones is that there IS NO BLUEPRINT. It's a fools errand to try to compare engines from different runs, different manufacturers, different years, etc. because it's a continuously evolving game. Unless you're going to define EVERY spec on EVERY part, creative builders are going to tolerance-stack and creatively machine to the best of their imagination and ability to create a competitive product for their customers. Incomplete tech is worse than no tech. Pocketbooks and reputations are on the line, and builders face pressure to create a winning engine. I'm of the "gentleman's agreement" school where I feel that even if it's not being teched, it should conform to the spirit and intent of the original supplied piece and usage. There are others who think, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying," or "if it's not being teched, the rule doesn't apply." Those both seem like Machiavellian trades that diminish the morality of the sport. At the end of the day, if you care about the sport, you have to be willing to tell some customers no, at the expense of your pocketbook but at the benefit of your reputation and conscience. If I was teching these motors, they'd have failed my inspection immediately because they're an obvious distortion of the OEM process. In fact, if they'd somehow shown up as a botched manufacturing job as supplied by the OEM, I'd have granted a one time pass and told the racer not to show up with it again... It's incumbent on the orgs to protect the racer from themselves. Builders will conform to what the racer's want. So it seems to me that orgs should take the lead in defining a true tolerance measurement or declare it an open area of play. If you're faced with a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation, choose whichever benefits the sport in the long run. JMO. Kudos to those who have been open about their process and thoughts.

 

[wrecit]

Ted unfortunately what you are saying/proposing would take the unfair advantages away and level the playing field.

Many of us (including you if my old memory is working) brought up this issue when the "China will save karting" movement started back in the 2000's. Unfortunately we were called old thinkers and deep pockets that did not understand that karting was to expensive. We knew it was expensive but I think with both our background in "big power" we had an understanding that trust but confirm keeps people honest.

I remember my dad telling story of running a late model in the 70's and he was track champion at 2 of the 3 tracks he ran every weekend. The third track he seemed to always come up second. To change his luck he carefully took the top end apart and installed roller rockers (illegal by the way). When the track stopped at his pit to tech he lifted the hood to show the engine with half a seasons clay splotched on the heads and all over the engine. They looked at him and said damn you figured out the track.

Gentleman agreement is great. If you and I were racing together I would put money you would be legal and I would have no problem showing I was because I know it's all about fun for me. To many think that if it's not fighting for first there is no fun though and they will dig deep to get the edge legal or not.

 

[ABR #69]

True blue printing drives up cost. Because it's so well defined, and most everything is taken to it's limit. So more involvement and more processes to adjust. And, at that point they can charge what the market bares based on their reputation. You can see it with any engine that has blue printing, the price for the engine is quite high after blue printing is done. Even to this day some older engines following blue printing still hold that price tag of a blue printed engine. Then, not only does that limit the price of entry, but it almost requires that just to enter.

The way engine builders reputations drive market price in the Karting world when it's rarely the engine that makes any difference is pretty funny. We've all as racers perpetuated this. This is why it's a vicious cycle with every new engine platform that comes along. It won't change, because the racers won't change.

Everyone thinks they're racing on the highest level, and they might be for their local region. So they're willing to spend whatever it takes to get to the best of their competition level.

 

[Chipg56]

Regarding a few discussions I've seen here lately, I wish we still had a KIC (Karting Industry Council) to guard and guide the sport. These issues centered around tolerances (or lack thereof.) From an outsider machinist's perspective with no dog in the fight, those threads are EXACTLY why I feel every racing engine in every racing series needs to be either "open", "limited modified" with well-defined specs in the limited areas, or "blueprinted" stock with a tight and well-defined spec on EVERY part of the engine. Blueprinting, as the name implies, is taking the engine and massaging every area to the most advantageous spec AS DEFINED ON THE BLUEPRINT. The issue with clones is that there IS NO BLUEPRINT. It's a fools errand to try to compare engines from different runs, different manufacturers, different years, etc. because it's a continuously evolving game. Unless you're going to define EVERY spec on EVERY part, creative builders are going to tolerance-stack and creatively machine to the best of their imagination and ability to create a competitive product for their customers. Incomplete tech is worse than no tech. Pocketbooks and reputations are on the line, and builders face pressure to create a winning engine. I'm of the "gentleman's agreement" school where I feel that even if it's not being teched, it should conform to the spirit and intent of the original supplied piece and usage. There are others who think, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying," or "if it's not being teched, the rule doesn't apply." Those both seem like Machiavellian trades that diminish the morality of the sport. At the end of the day, if you care about the sport, you have to be willing to tell some customers no, at the expense of your pocketbook but at the benefit of your reputation and conscience. If I was teching these motors, they'd have failed my inspection immediately because they're an obvious distortion of the OEM process. In fact, if they'd somehow shown up as a botched manufacturing job as supplied by the OEM, I'd have granted a one time pass and told the racer not to show up with it again... It's incumbent on the orgs to protect the racer from themselves. Builders will conform to what the racer's want. So it seems to me that orgs should take the lead in defining a true tolerance measurement or declare it an open area of play. If you're faced with a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation, choose whichever benefits the sport in the long run. JMO. Kudos to those who have been open about their process and thoughts.

Very well worded/explained.

 

[Ted Hamilton]

True blue printing drives up cost. Because it's so well defined, and most everything is taken to it's limit. So more involvement and more processes to adjust...

This is the comical part....it costs just as much to cheat in the undefined (or ill defined) grey areas as it does to race legal blueprinted engines. When I bought a blueprinted engine, I knew what I was getting. When I buy a clone, I'm hoping for better voodoo from my builder than the next guy. Racing a clone was only cheaper for the first couple of years until it caught on.

 

[rebsfan4]

Regarding a few discussions I've seen here lately, I wish we still had a KIC (Karting Industry Council) to guard and guide the sport. These issues centered around tolerances (or lack thereof.) From an outsider machinist's perspective with no dog in the fight, those threads are EXACTLY why I feel every racing engine in every racing series needs to be either "open", "limited modified" with well-defined specs in the limited areas, or "blueprinted" stock with a tight and well-defined spec on EVERY part of the engine. Blueprinting, as the name implies, is taking the engine and massaging every area to the most advantageous spec AS DEFINED ON THE BLUEPRINT. The issue with clones is that there IS NO BLUEPRINT. It's a fools errand to try to compare engines from different runs, different manufacturers, different years, etc. because it's a continuously evolving game. Unless you're going to define EVERY spec on EVERY part, creative builders are going to tolerance-stack and creatively machine to the best of their imagination and ability to create a competitive product for their customers. Incomplete tech is worse than no tech. Pocketbooks and reputations are on the line, and builders face pressure to create a winning engine. I'm of the "gentleman's agreement" school where I feel that even if it's not being teched, it should conform to the spirit and intent of the original supplied piece and usage. There are others who think, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying," or "if it's not being teched, the rule doesn't apply." Those both seem like Machiavellian trades that diminish the morality of the sport. At the end of the day, if you care about the sport, you have to be willing to tell some customers no, at the expense of your pocketbook but at the benefit of your reputation and conscience. If I was teching these motors, they'd have failed my inspection immediately because they're an obvious distortion of the OEM process. In fact, if they'd somehow shown up as a botched manufacturing job as supplied by the OEM, I'd have granted a one time pass and told the racer not to show up with it again... It's incumbent on the orgs to protect the racer from themselves. Builders will conform to what the racer's want. So it seems to me that orgs should take the lead in defining a true tolerance measurement or declare it an open area of play. If you're faced with a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation, choose whichever benefits the sport in the long run. JMO. Kudos to those who have been open about their process and thoughts.

In your honest opinion, if you were going to build an engine and THIS was written in the rule book, in black and white, what would it tell you that you could or could not do?

SECTION 8 CONTINUED- AKRA BOX STOCK TECHNICAL INSPECTION DATA

"Important Note: All parts must be Box Stock factory production parts unless otherwise specified in the rules manual. Compared to known stock part may be used when there is no language identifying the alteration of a part. NO machining or alteration of parts is allowed unless specifically noted......."

Skip a few sentences that are relevant here because they're about claim rule.......

Back to relevant quotes..

"Any new parts MUST be submitted to and approved by AKRA before use. ALL New incoming engine and performance parts must be submitted to the AKRA office for review prior to them being allowed as legal components for competition."

 

[Ted Hamilton]

@rebsfan4 -- While I appreciate the sentiment of that rule, it's really a joke. Why? Because I know from direct conversation and observation that a prominent past engine builder (that I knew personally and almost worked for -- and others too) would massage parts and sandblast them back to an "OEM appearing" finish. Glass blasting, actually. And the parts themselves vary so much that you can't possibly build a mental idea of what they "should" look like. That renders this rule a joke. And when someone really does try to follow this rule, they buy 2 pallets of engines, cherrypick the best parts, build 3-4 good engines for house drivers and top paying clients, have a bunch of middling engines that get sold to the average buyer, and 3-4 dogs that are either scrapped or sold to known uncompetitive drivers.

There are 2 primary advantages to a full BLUEPRINTED rule set -- (1) it prevents cheating because there's a known spec to measure against instead of "judgement calls" and biases. (2) It allows skilled machinists to "save" dog engines by machining them to the proper specs.

Now as written, I would expect the rule you quoted to be upheld by VIGOROUS tech inspection and throw the book at offenders -- event and possibly series DQ on the spot. Why? Because only serious punishments deter the dishonest. And even then, it just makes them think twice and hope they don't get caught.

 

[Chipg56]

Of course you are correct, and from a cost perspective, you cannot make up for the fact that any motor that is made with variable tolerances is going to need considerable massaging before it is race ready. Massaging means added cost. It happened with the flathead, the clone and will be an on going problem with the predator.......and it cannot be avoided because even just establishing rules will cause known stock parts to end up in scrap bins.

 

[rebsfan4]

@rebsfan4 -- While I appreciate the sentiment of that rule, it's really a joke. Why? Because I know from direct conversation and observation that a prominent past engine builder that I knew personally and almost worked for -- and others too -- would massage parts and sandblast them back to an "OEM appearing" finish. Glass blasting, actually. And the parts themselves vary so much that you can't possibly build a mental idea of what they "should" look like. That renders this rule a joke. And when someone really does try to follow this rule, they buy 2 pallets of engines, cherrypick the best parts, build 3-4 good engines for house drivers and top paying clients, have a bunch of middling engines that get sold to the average buyer, and 3-4 dogs that are either scrapped or sold to known uncompetitive drivers.

There are 2 primary advantages to a full BLUEPRINTED rule set -- (1) it prevents cheating because there's a known spec to measure against instead of "judgement calls" and biases. (2) It allows skilled machinists to "save" dog engines by machining them to the proper specs.

Now as written, I would expect the rule you quoted to be upheld by VIGOROUS tech inspection and throw the book at offenders -- event and possibly series DQ on the spot. Why? Because only serious punishments deter the dishonest. And even then, it just makes them think twice and hope they don't get caught.

Problem is, well known tech officials, who once had very high standards for their position, have turned a blind eye to all the illegal activity. It has nothing to do with there not being blueprinted specs to build or tech by. It has everything to do with certain tech officials ignoring it. It has everything to do track promoters and/or race promoters telling tech officials to not do the job they're hired to do. It has everything to do with those tech officials not telling those track promoters and/or race promoters its not your place to tell me how to do my job. I understand your point of conplete blueprinting but that would only increase engine prices at a faster rate than they already occur.

 

["J'-remy]

more and more reasons to go to sealed motors. unfortunately cheating in racing is like a plate of cookies in front of the Cookie Monster nobody can help themselves

 

[flattop1]

Isn't the tolerance stacking also multiplied by the use of Datum Lines ?

 

[wrecit]

Here is something that may or may not make sense to people why blueprinting levels the playing field and ends up controlling cost.

Compare to known oem means rely on the tech guys eye. Blueprinting relies on measuring devices that make things black and white go/no go.

Most live in a 1/16 inch or larger world which is fine. An engine advantage/disadvantage is measured in .001 of an inch. To give some perspective a simple conveyor belt in a coal fire power plant has to be aligned to .0035 of an inch or else it will tear itself apart. In fraction form that is 7/2000. If a dumb conveyor is that temperamental think about that connecting rod or crank. Btw the human eye can not see that

 

[Ted Hamilton]

@wrecit -- GOOD engine builders machine to .0005, and the excellent ones (Muller et. al.) build to .0001 or darn close. The only way I see getting around a full spec would be a CFM rating on the carby, tested with a flow bench. By venturi restriction or restrictor plate, the flow could be managed so that internal mods were diminishing returns and not worth doing. (EDIT: I had removed this, but added it back in due to rebsfan4's comment below) I don't see a solution short of a complete spec. Of course one could bypass the problem with so much HP you can't hook it up. Then people would stop throwing money at motors. If you can't stop the cheating, make it nearly irrelevant.

 

[rebsfan4]

So tech officials would have to purchase a flow bench? LOL....OK? All because we just want to rationalize away the point of holding builders to the standard of if there's no specification on said part in the rule book, leave it alone and leave it in it's stock, from the factory form. It's really not as hard to do as some folks want to make it seems. It's dang sure not an impossible task as some are making out to be.

 

[Ted Hamilton]

...and lest you think the LO206 is immune from issues like this, I know of places you can get counterfeit seals so good you can't tell the difference. If it can be devised by a man, it can be reverse engineered and copied by another man. Sealing isn't the answer unless you're willing to impound them all week and have a random pill draw for motor. I HAVE done that as a racer and official, and it works very well. It adds 30m to the program to mount your engine, however, and a hassle to the track/series to make sure they all come back and get maintained during the week.

 

[Pete_Muller]

Ted,

I personally believe your message #13 points in the correct direction, and I have an example of that.

In the 70's in both 2-cycle sprint/enduro racing (IKF was all their was back then), the single only class that successfully mixed engine brands was "Stock Appearing". (any engine could be run in 100cc Open, but that's for a different topic).

Tech was fairly simple for stock appearing class: the engines had to APPEAR stock from the outside (original castings, ignition, etc), but you could do whatever you want on the inside. Put as many ports in it as you want, cut the wildest rotary valve you wanted, run whatever compression you wanted, heck... people were even running con-rods out of one of the other engines as long as the length was the same.

The one huge catch was --- only 2 different Tillotson carbs were allowed -- both had ⅞" bores, and EVERY hole in the carb was tech'd. Carbs were VERY tightly controlled. Of course bore and stroke was checked on the engine as well. You could even run a percentage of alcohol if you wanted, (but good luck getting more than about 20% through that carb). Many, MANY races were won on straight gasoline.

There were many different brands of engines that could be run (all rotary valve), but on any given day, pretty much any engine could win.

And regarding this previous statement, I never saw any class succeed that attempted to mix "induction methods". Piston port, reed valves, and rotary valves needed to be separate. When the reeds came out, they tried a bit to mix them into the Stock Appearing class, and it was a disaster. The beauty and competitiveness of "Stock Appearing" came to an end because people liked the simplicity of the Italian reed engines. Those evolved into a "controlled stock" class, where ports were measured, along with other things, and that class was never as "equalized" as the Stock Appearing class.

Probably more history than many of you care to hear about, but as they say... "history repeats itself". <sigh>


More on this thread topic in a bit....

... and I may even tell the story of how someone got around the above rules. haha!

PM

 

[Ted Hamilton]

...All because we just want to rationalize away the point of holding builders to the standard of if there's no specification on said part in the rule book, leave it alone and leave it in it's stock, from the factory form...

That's my point -- you can't do that. There's no way to tell if it's been messed with or not. Some of us machinists are d@mned clever...

 

[mike97760]

There are others who think, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying,"

You are not wrong at all but not one word of what you typed addresses this fact: They will still be there. This just raises the bar a bit for all the rest of us who are already running legal. Bringing out polygraphs and cattle prods would work better.

 

[Ted Hamilton]

There is also a related tangent on this discussion. And that is this: the competing interests of the builders, racers, and ruling orgs must be carefully balanced so that no one group becomes predatory at the expense of the others. This balance ensures the long-term survival of the sport.

It is in the interest of the builders and racers for the orgs to create a reasonably achievable and stable (non-changing) rule set.

It is in the interest of the racers that the stable rule set allows the builders to amortize their tooling and skills over years -- competition and supply and security of long-term business drives prices down.

It is in the interest of the orgs to have a wide variety of builders to make it easy for racers to join via easy access and cheaper prices. Thus, the orgs must also beware of getting into bed with suppliers. Short-term, this gives the appearance of helping and makes it look like that supplier really contributes to the sport... But long-term, the bias and economics this creates hurts both the racers and the builders by throttling the supply chains, compromising the importers, limiting availability, and locking out competition. It also sets up variability within regions of the country, so you can't just go race anywhere, any weekend.

I don't have all the answers. But I do know that we won't find them without clearly stating the problems.

@Pete_Muller -- I appreciate your taking the time to answer... I'll look forward to your continued input!

 

[rebsfan4]

That's my point -- you can't do that. There's no way to tell if it's been messed with or not. Some of us machinists are d@mned clever...

That's my point -- you can't do that. There's no way to tell if it's been messed with or not. Some of us machinists are d@mned clever...

While it's true it can't done 100% the point we've been raising a fuss about, here lately anyways, is that known illegal activity is not being called out at many BIG event by BIG name officials at all. Thus cause promoting the free will of certain engine builders to willfully ignore what's written in the rule book without fear of repercussions. All because they know it's being ignored in the tech shed. A lot of what I'm sure you're referencing about reading in these threads, that's brought you to your point of blueprinting everything has to do with stuff that can be blatantly seen as out of specs with no blueprinting being needed. We can blueprint all we want but if the officials, owners and/or promoters aren't going to do tech the right way call out these guys who or blatantly doing things they know they aren't suppose to do, it will the same thing happening if it blueprinting were done. And realistically you cant blueprint EVERY single part or facet of an engine without creating an outrageous surge in engine pricing. Sure it may level the playing field but it will only level the playing field for those who are financially able to remain in the sport. Which would be the very same upper echelon of people who entangled amongst the whole blind eye turning were seeing already. It's a no win situation as long as engine builders have the kind of leverage they are allowed to have.