Tech with respect to rules

F

Flash-o-matic

Member
There are a few engine guys putting out engines that have material removed to meet minimum specs. This is in violation of the Briggs rules, page 5, to be specific. I am a tech guy and have asked a few other tech guys about this and some told me that they only go by the measurement. That is, in my opinion, incorrect. The engines with the orange seal can have their "as made" specs checked verified via the Briggs app. I realize that the earlier seals do not offer that option and the surface finishes are no longer a tech item on the parts in question but that does not give free rein to adjust to spec.
As a tech guy, if I allow an engine that has been changed from it's "as born" spec to pass tech and that racer goes to a big event ( national type) and is DQ'd then it puts me, or any tech guy in a bad light.
I'm not pointing fingers but I would like to hear opinions on this from engine guys, tech guys, and rule makers. Whatever standard that is being accepted must be universal. As of right now, if any engine shops are selling "adjusted" engines to customers in Arizona you are probably going to have some upset customers.
 
IMHO
Marking the head gasket surface and the block deck at Briggs with a unique method would certainly go a long way in helping to prevent this.
 
Allowing this practice to take place also makes it very difficult on the competitors too. You’re basically left between a rock and hard place if it becomes common at your track.
 
“Opinions” shouldn’t be used in tech. Measurements are black and white. If the rule book says it’s non tech then you don’t have the authority to address it other than the measurement. Any further concerns should be directed to the people that made the rules. That seems to be where your frustration stems from.
 
Gotta agree with Gary on this one.
As a tech man (and builder) what do you do when you see a gasket surface (non-tech) that has obviously been rubbed on to remove gasket material? Did they use scotch brite, sandpaper, a wire wheel, a flat file, who knows (and who cares) as long as it meets the written rules. Or was this an attempt to disguise milling to increase compression? Again, follow the measurements in the rules.

I totally get what you are saying, flash, but the inconsistency of the machining finish from the factory is the reason that the visual was removed from the tech. This is also the reason the deck height (piston pop-up) was changed to reduce the return on investment for "builders" who were "blueprinting" the decks. For instance, if you had a block that measured -.001" you could take it to +.005" just a few years ago, and you can believe that it was worthwhile. Now, currently, to stop a few thou shy of that, and allowing a thou or two margin for rod stretch, leaves very little meat on the bone so to speak. Personally, I don't bother anymore. But I also recognize that there's a demand for this service.

Jimbo brings up a good point.
I have brought this up to Dave Klauss previously - we have a similar identifying logo stamp used in the RaceSaver sprint series that eliminated (or greatly discourages) milling on the gasket surface of the heads. It works very well, btw. This could also be done with chemical or laser etching or cnc dimpling. The major blowback I heard for employing this method of ID'ing on the L206 heads was that it would make every single head that currently in the field illegal and Dave didn't want to do that.
Had this been done several years ago when I first brought it up, we may have had a better shot at incorporating it -- highly unlikely that we could do it now unless we gave a two year roll-out to allow current cylinder heads to be used up. Doing this on the block deck surface would not be a good thing for the program at this point I am thinking. I've got customers with engines as old as anyone's but with fresh/new cylinder heads on them and they are still competitive.

I agree that it's a conversation that we should have with Dan and other tech men from the field.

-----
🏁Thanks and God bless,
Brian Carlson
Carlson Racing Engines
Vector Cutz
www.CarlsonMotorsports.com
Carlson Motorsports on Facebook
31 years of service to the karting industry
Linden, IN
765-339-4407
bcarlson@CarlsonMotorsports.com
 
Customers often request such services as maxing out ever thousandth on every measurement. They dont want to hear me tell them it doesn’t matter because they’re often already convinced this is why they’re not winning. They are not taking no for an answer. They will simply call around until someone will. Another example of this behaviour is when I don’t install fuel pump risers on engines and they come back to be rebuilt with them installed because shame on me for NOT wasting their $20. Point is, the customers are the crazy ones driving such behaviour.
 
Gary, Those words come out of my mouth daily. I purchased a 206 from a parent for parts as he said "it blowed up". When I took it apart, did not open up side cover, I found it to have zero issues other than incorrectly adjusted rockers. I did notice the deck surface was odd so I checked the numbers. The pop up was exactly .0035, the head depth was .002 too much. I reassembled it, ran six back to back sessions over two days with my out of the box ( did standard carb and valve lash adj.) engine and my out of the box engine was consistently as quick or quicker.
The big issue with the rules is the "as born" numbers on the seal show the number it should be and if page 5 of the rules are followed the rules have been broken. The as built number from the seal on the engine I mentioned was .oo1 in the hole.
 
The most important thing I take from your last post is that it doesn’t matter. Then why should we even care so much? I’ve already seen measurements when they wrote them in red sharpie that were not identical. Now where do we draw the line? I’ve had plenty of engines with too much valve lift out of the box.

This class is the best thing going in karting exactly like it is. Over regulating and making changes can’t be seen as good. So again, If it doesn’t matter why do we care?
 
Steve Vermeer said:
Not all of us have access to the bar code information, just the numbers in the tech manual..
Click to expand...
You need the secret handshake .
My understanding was that info was going to be freely available via some app .
If the tech man at the local track can not access the info. Then the only choice is go off the listed spec .
 
As a tech person, anything I can't prove to someone via a measurement, no-go gauge, or other objective measure is not something I care to get involved in. My opinions are just that. My opinion that something has been modified (ie material taken off) is not enough to DQ a competitor. If I can prove, objectivly and beyond a reasonable doubt, then, and only then, will I "go there".
 
Flash-o-matic said:
My quandary is that if I have access to the "as built" numbers do I use that available info?
Click to expand...
You can go to the "compared to known stock part", but again, I would be looking for something VERY objective, transparent, and observable (preferably a measurement of some kind rather than a visual). Even the "as built" numbers have some margin of error, Again, if I can't quantify it, I can't disqualify it.
 
The idea of putting actual measurements (and tolerances) on parts is so that we can eliminate some of the "personal interpretation" that goes on in the tech barn. If you have definitive numbers to go by, there is no gray area, it's either right or it's wrong.
 
I am 100% in favor of objective tech. I detest any subjective decisions or interpretation. My issue is with the rules package as written. The Briggs National Points Series, which I fully support, requires participating tracks to be 100% compliant with their rules set. It's very hard for me to ignore page 5 of the current rule set that states " no blueprinting allowed" and " no material may be added or removed to take any part to maximum or minimum spec".
Again, I have no issue with using measurements to determine legality but if an engine is determined to be legal at our club race via measurement but DQ'd at a national event due to a discrepancy with the actual measurement and "as built" measurement who is going to look bad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top