Sorry ... missed my point (or I mis-stated it). No way can I afford that
type of budget, although some seem to think nothing of it. I'm doing my
engines myself ... learning as I go! That's a major part of the fun. Just
frustrating to see what some folks are shelling out just to go fast.
-----Original Message-----
From: Curt <coliver@cyberhighway.net>
To: Pete Towell <RTOWELL@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: Brian Evans <brian@uunet.ca>; vintage-race@autox.team.net
<vintage-race@autox.team.net>
Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 2:07 AM
Subject: 6 million dollar A series -Was Roller rocker
>Pete :
>
>At the risk of continuing this thread past the end of the 1999 season....
I
>would like to volunteer getting you through the 1999 season for half of
what you
>say is you engine budget. According to your figures you spent 24K on motors
last
>year. I AM PRETTY SURE I CAN LIVE ON TWO OR THREE CUSTOMERS LIKE AND OFFER
YOU
>A DISCOUNT!!!
>
>Man... I put on 10k plus street miles plus several vintage races on my
current
>1275 A series and it is Still a GUNGA little motor! Of course it is gonna
take
>an Indy budget to make a Sprite an Indy contender.... But Why? What's the
point?
>If you want to go fast for that kind of money, there are a few now obsolete
Ralt
>RT-41s Atlantics out there and you can go 150 with enough down force to
>re-arrange your 'nads and still not need a 24K engine budget. It does not
take a
>fortune to enjoy your car, have a lot of fun, or go reasonably quick.
However,
>It just take a lot of money to become a legend in your own time. Even then
it
>still doesn't buy the sanity to know that there is a threshold where the
speed
>returns for dollars spent on a given car shrink amazingly quick and it is
just
>wiser to buy a faster car or learn to drive better.
>
>Curt - A Sprunt driver still working on the last two points... but loving
the
>journey.
>
>Pete Towell wrote:
>
>> Nice to be clean and all ... but some of us would like to add a degree of
>> reliability that isn't there otherwise. Vintage is becoming prohibitive
due
>> to the need for "period" parts. That's all fine and good for those with
an
>> unlimited budget ... for the rest of us, it means that we can't play.
>> Should we allow roller rockers? ... I don't know, but racing an early
'60's
>> BMC car is challenging at best and painful when the rules say "build it
to
>> 1964 specs." When I need 2-3 engines to get through a season at $6-8K
each,
>> I think we've lost the point on amateur racing. If having fun is no
longer
>> a primary objective, then we're on the right track.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Evans <brian@uunet.ca>
>> To: vintage-race@autox.team.net <vintage-race@autox.team.net>
>> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 2:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: Roller rocker posting for fellow racer
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>A-series engines are perhaps a little different that some others,
because
>> >the head design limits breathing so much. I'll go with the original
poster
>> >that the advantages and disadvantages to an A-series are almost even, in
a
>> >given engine build. A-series engines don't respond well to lots of
lift,
>> >but they do respond to fast acceleration of the valve, and to lots of
>> >duration at the lift that works (about .350"). Fast acceleration of the
>> >valve results in lots of side thrust with the A-series rocker geometry,
so
>> >the guides wear fast. So I think that it would be correct to say that
>> >roller rockers wouldn't give more performance using a fast-ramped cam,
and
>> >would give better guide life than normal rockers. BUT by using a cam
that
>> >has lower acceleration you can have acceptable guide life with normal
>> >rockers ( and yes, even better life with roller rockers) at the expense
of
>> >performance. And that's the whole point of not using newer technology.
>> Not
>> >allowing the roller rockers for the vast majority of racers is moot -
they
>> >don't take full advantage of what they can do under the rules for either
>> >performance OR reliability, so who cares? We don't, and shouldn't allow
>> >them simply because they weren't available in the period AND because
they
>> do
>> >have increased performance potential for all engines.
>> >>
>> >>Remember that there's always a performance/reliability ratio that
decides
>> >what we do to get faster. Colin Chapman used to say that he wanted his
cars
>> >to fail on the cool-down lap, then he knew that he'd gotten the equation
>> right.
>> >>
>> >>Cheers, Brian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>At 01:09 PM 1/20/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>In a message dated 1/20/99 12:07:39 AM, PaceCars@aol.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>><<Roller rockers are not a performance advantage for A series motors.
>> What
>> >>>roller rockers do is give you longer valve guide life, due to less
side
>> thrust
>> >>>on the valves. Roller rockers are noticeably heavier than
non-rollers,
>> so if
>> >>>you want to run high revs, non-rollers are probably superior.>>
>> >>>-- that may be true IF there are no other changes to the motor. As I
>> >>>understand it (and I am no expert on BMC motors) the roller rockers
allow
>> the
>> >>>use of other parts which can greatly enhance performance.
>> >>>
>> >>> <<Many of the fast guys in SCCA run non-rollers (Comptune sells his
own
>> >>>version of non-rollers) due to less valve train mass. >>
>> >>>-- and how often do these "fast guys" rebuild the motor. I've heard
they
>> run
>> >>>such radical specifications and high rpm that they install new crank
>> bearings
>> >>>every other session. I suppose if someone in vintage wanted to do
that
>> with a
>> >>>non-roller motor and vintage legal parts (whatever that means these
>> days), I
>> >>>could not complain. I also would not envy anyone doing 3 or 4 engine
>> rebuilds
>> >>>every weekend as part of normal maintenance!
>> >>>
>> >>> Sorry, I will not be convinced that roller rockers do not improve
>> performance
>> >>>by allowing higher rpm and more aggressive cams and other performance
>> parts.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers, Doug Meis
>> >>> (Of course it's easy for me bitch about roller rockers when I've got
>> overhead
>> >>>cams AND a roller crankshaft)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
|