Milwaukee Midget

[Stan Back]

Just a comment -- the SCTA in its first sentence describing the GT class says that it's for "2-seat production sports cars".

It doesn't say "2-seat vehicles".

If it did, I'd guess that Pickups might qualify.

[Milwaukee Midget]

Precedent set - GT it is.

I hadn't done the process of elimination in my head in that manner.  It makes sense that the chief delineation is two seats, given the other production classes are specified as four seat, because then the question becomes where else could it run?

Better to include than exclude.

Gary, Dan wanted to pump it before we pulled the head.  We popped the hood, removed the plugs and rocker assembly, and clamped the dummy pedestals in place.  He picked a hole, we turned it over, he scrutinized the results and deemed it compliant off of the pump results.

[jacksoni]

Just a comment -- the SCTA in its first sentence describing the GT class says that it's for "2-seat production sports cars".

It doesn't say "2-seat vehicles".

If it did, I'd guess that Pickups might qualify.

You are correct Stan, but GT falls under Production (5E general rules) rules that say 4 seats for coupe and sedan classes and by default if they don't have 4 ( the quibble about jump seats aside) they go to GT. How I understand it anyway. And there is precedent now as Chris points out. I think you would be hard pressed to get one into a coupe class.

[Milwaukee Midget]

What I'm seeing unfolding is more the expanding character of car designs against the rules as written.

I need to channel my philosophical side on this one.

I'm a bit if a Luddite, in that I have a clear conception in my mind of what a sports car should be, and little has changed in what my definition would be.

But the Insight should not be excluded from competing at Bonneville simply because it doesn't neatly fit into prescribed categories.

Probably better to categorize it in the closest category it would fit into than to not let it run at all.

The alternative would be akin to the SCCA or Vintage road racing rule books, and with the exception of Vintage LSR categories, and from what I've been learning, that's simply not how this sport should operate.

[Stan Back]

". . . the question becomes where else could it run?"

We've always got T.O.

You don't have to qualify every vehicle into an existing class -- just 'cause they want too.

This year there's a '56 DeSoto on a Duramax diesel chassis without a real stock body.  So you want to classify that vehicle into an existing class?

Some think, "I'll show up and let them classify me."

My answer is "Try the Daytona 500 first, and then the Indy 500."  Then come to the SCTA.  The SCTA will let damm-near anything run if they think it is safe.

But is a Smart Car a sports car just because it has two seats?  Is that what a sports car is?

I guess we need to add more classes.  Or don't.  Keep that up and the cars will be like motorcycles.  "Green seat?"  "Leather or vinyl?"

Stan Back

[Elmo Rodge]

That's kinda what I've been thinking. I don't know much about "Door Cars" but in Special Construction, just because it ain't a Lakester, that doesn't automatically make it a Streamliner. Basically it is not incumbent upon us to accomodate everyones dream.  Wayno

[ShazamRacing]

Chris,
Thanks for the info regarding the post-record inspection.  If I qualify, I hope I am so lucky.  Your are correct, the horses have left the barn regarding my classification.  SCTA has confirmed twice that I will be in GT class, and Brian Gillespie set El Mirage records with an Insight in Modified Sports class, the nest step up from GT. 

I heard a lot of grumbling last year about GT class, and the fact that it's a 'production class' that allows engine swaps.  I don't expect that to change, since there is such a precedence already, but people are agitating.  Best of luck with the build-up of your Rover motor.  It looks like a beast, in more ways than one. 

Who was the record holder when you broke it?  I'd like to learn some of the background.

Gary

[Milwaukee Midget]

Gary, the fellow's name was Ralph Thomas, and the car was an Abarth Bialbero.

The car was sold a few years back to Martin McGlone in Great Britain, but it's my understanding it's still stateside being refurbished for historical racing across the pond.  Martin won't bring it back to the salt - it's too valuable at this point, but he races a '66 GT350 on the salt with a team out of Texas.

He's also raced Stirling Moss' old S221 Sebring Sprite at Le Mans.

Here's a protracted story on it -

http://bringatrailer.com/2012/03/10/from-italy-to-the-salt-1963-abarth-1000/

A great combination, and realistically, had it been properly set up for Bonneville, I think it would have run faster.

Pete Krause posted that he built the engine for it, but Ralph claims it was stock and had 5200 miles on it when it ran at Bonneville.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=44651963789&l=6865b2ecdd

I've gotten two different stories about the tires he ran as well, but that's another story. 

Some claim it was a factory test mule, some say it raced the Targa Floria. 

I had a picture of it up on my dart board for about 5 years. 

[fordboy628]

Chris, were you required to remove your cylinder head to verify the displacement of the Grenade after you set the record last year?  Your displacement was clearly within 3% of the class minimum, but you never mentioned this in your comments.

Thanks, Gary

Gary, Dan wanted to pump it before we pulled the head.  We popped the hood, removed the plugs and rocker assembly, and clamped the dummy pedestals in place.  He picked a hole, we turned it over, he scrutinized the results and deemed it compliant off of the pump results.

Just to add:

There was always a willingness to allow more (other) cylinders to be pumped and/or to remove the cylinder head for direct bore and stroke measurements.   We were completely at Dan Warner's disposal.   It was his call.

I recall that Dan told us that he wished that everyone in impound would be as patient and co-operative as Chris was.
 
Fordboy

[Milwaukee Midget]

Mark -

Valves are in the Dodge - if you read this before you roll out, give me a call.

[fordboy628]

midget,

Slider block is all laminated.   Doing the cylinder bore and head bolt layout tomorrow.

Inlet radius adaptor is now all varnished and ready to rock.

Soon Vasily, soon . . . . . . . . .
 
Fordboy

[Milwaukee Midget]

Mark -

Valves are on their way - expect the Brown Shirt Santa to be knocking on your door Wednesday.

Thanks again!

[fordboy628]

midget,

da "package" has arrived . . . . . . . .

 
Homesecurityboy

[fordboy628]

midget,

Okedoke . . . . . .

Did some number crunching this AM on C/R.   Will print out the files from my portable cauldron and post up to the build diary.    Typical 1000 cc deal, we are going to have to be a bit clever to get to where we need to be.   Stock style head gasket is NOT an option.

And . . . . .

Made some more progress on the slider block.   Layout done, dowel holes done, 2 chambers roughed out, stud holes drilled and tapped, studs fabricated from threaded rod and the block is currently resting with the studs epoxied into the stud holes and the head, washers and nuts "nipped up" so that the studs grow up straight and tall like all little Chinese studs should.

Pics to follow, on the morrow . . . . . . .    Of to Ravinia to see that skinny singer, Sheryl Crow.
 
Flowbeeboy

[fordboy628]

Compression Ratio Measurements and Calculations

midget,

OK, here is the Compression Ratio engineering, as promised:

This is the Initial input, based on proposed bore and stroke, and:
A)   Measured volume of the cylinder head now,
2)   Quoted piston dome volume from Wossner,
d)   Using the Rover gasket with high "conformability",
z)   Presuming "zero" deck height.   Inputs for rod C/C length and piston compression height are presumptions that need to be confirmed by Wossner.

Issues:
Well, resultant C/R of 9.99/1 static.
1)   248.5 cc cylinder size creates the same compression ratio dogfight I see in every small displacement engine.
2)   This is further complicated by:
      a)   Very large cylinder head volume.  This is a result of the head being used for 1.4L, 1.6L and 1.8L engines as well.
      b)   Very large head gasket volume, 8.5 cc's.   So the "high conformability" gasket is not a choice at this displacement.
      c)   Piston dome volume "seems" to be geared toward 1.6L and 1.8L size engines.  This is no surprise as we are probably the only guys on the planet using this engine at
            1.0 liter displacement.

Bottom line is: the parts required will need to be carefully crafted to our specs, period.

Solutions:
So I got "creative" with a second design scenario on my "portable cauldron".    ( I think I've mentioned before that I like this "simulation" path, as opposed to the cutting/fitting/trying method.)

Changes I made to raise the C/R:
A)   Changed head gasket dimensions to a size available from Cometic.   This gains ~ 4 cc's. You need to give me the cylinder OD dimension.   The Cometic MLS gaskets
      are "embossed" for compression sealing for the larger bore diameters of the 1.6L and 1.8L engines.   I need to confirm that will work for us.
2)   Reduced cylinder head volume 3 cc's.   We will gain something from flat faced intake valves, I will calculate how much.   Larger diameter valves, such as those from REC
      may also gain back some volume.    I think we need to be prepared for the idea of skimming the head a slight amount, to get to where I know we need to be on C/R.
d)   Increased the piston dome volume by 1 cc.   Hopefully Wossner can increase this volume even larger.    This parameter needs to be pushed, "hard", with whoever is going
      to supply the pistons.   We just can not afford to "give away" anything here.   The dome volume is going to have to be the best compromise between the volume we need
      to gain and the light weight that will be needed for "reasonable" rod tension @ TDC overlap at the rpm's you tend to utilize . . . . . . . .   
 
MyrddinEmrysboy