Author Topic: Salt Cat  (Read 27584 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RichFox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
Salt Cat
« on: September 21, 2010, 08:15:22 AM »
From the SCTA minutes
Vintage Engine Classification – The XO/BGCC owned by Frank Morris, Doug Grieve, Robin Morris and Barb Peterson has come under scrutiny due to modifications done to the head. According to the rule book XO class does not allow for modifications, XXO does. There were also questions raised about the advice given by Dan Warner about the legalities for running in the XO class. This issue was given to the Vintage committee for comment. The Vintage committee suggested that their records (3 of them) be rolled over to the XXO class. A motion was made by Randy Nelson that the board follow the recommendations of the Vintage Committee. Seconded by Tom Evans. 3 for, 4 against. Motion did not pass. A second motion was made by Mike Waters that the three records accumulated in the wrong class be taken away, as competitors, not officials, are responsible for making sure their vehicles meet class requirements. Seconded: Russ Eyres. 7 For, 1 against. Motion passes.
If I read this correctly the Salt Cat has been ruled not a legal XO engine due to the added intake ports. I would disagree with that as at least two XF engines are running with added exhaust ports (Ron Main and Jimmy Stevens) and several V4F engines have added intake ports. As I understand it the Salt Cat has a OEM Buick head that has been modified in much the same manner as the Ford V8 and Ford four engines that have been and are now running without protest. I think this ruling is in error and perhaps the holders of the records Salt Cat eclipsed should have been consulted. Or something. Was that 16 port head new this year or has it run before?
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 08:31:54 AM by RichFox »

Offline GH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2010, 09:06:20 AM »
I noticed in the records set at SW, the Salt Cat had  asterisks by all three records. It said records pending, I am sorry to hear this. These guys are doing a great job of getting that old design to go like that.

Offline RICK

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2010, 09:52:11 AM »
Its an older rule book, but mine states "A specialty cylinder head is fabricated, created from billet stock or cast". It clearly started life as an OEM head, did it not???  I'm not sure where I would draw the line between bone stock and so heavily modified that it would be considered an XXO???
   And I'm sure that it was NOT the intent of them to cheat.  Its a shame that they are not allowed/can't just change class now.
 Because the rule book has some 'gray areas', When going through the safety inspection I asked, "Have I selected the right class?" Both inspectors gave a blank stare at each other and then back to me and said "Yeah,,,,,,,,,,sure." I guess I'll have to break a record to know for sure?


    RICK

ps;  3 for,4 against=7   7 for,1 against=8????
It's not over, it's just harder.

Offline jimmy six

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2788
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2010, 10:37:39 AM »
In response to Rich, XF is not XO...The XF fabrication is in the block not in the head. The rule added in the 2010 is very block specific for alterations in V4F blocks which also made the added work to XF engines also defined.

The Salt Cat team used this new definition in their defense in an e-mail which was forwarded to me and others but only blocks are specifally mentioned. Their added fabrication was to a cylinder head used in the XO class which probably needs more definition but the intent has always been know by competitors in the past. I'm sure a better definition is forth coming and needed and forth coming.

None of us ever like to see records taken away especially on an interpretation of what is in the rule book. I am sure that team did not do anything intentional and felt that after a discussion with an official they were within the rules.
First GMC 6 powered Fuel roadster over 200, with 2 red hats. Pit crew for Patrick Tone's Super Stock #49 Camaro

Offline John Noonan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3606
  • 306 200+ mph time slips. 252 mph on a dirtbike
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2010, 10:44:38 AM »
From the SCTA minutes
Vintage Engine Classification – The XO/BGCC owned by Frank Morris, Doug Grieve, Robin Morris and Barb Peterson has come under scrutiny due to modifications done to the head. According to the rule book XO class does not allow for modifications, XXO does. There were also questions raised about the advice given by Dan Warner about the legalities for running in the XO class. This issue was given to the Vintage committee for comment. The Vintage committee suggested that their records (3 of them) be rolled over to the XXO class. A motion was made by Randy Nelson that the board follow the recommendations of the Vintage Committee. Seconded by Tom Evans. 3 for, 4 against. Motion did not pass. A second motion was made by Mike Waters that the three records accumulated in the wrong class be taken away, as competitors, not officials, are responsible for making sure their vehicles meet class requirements. Seconded: Russ Eyres. 7 For, 1 against. Motion passes.
If I read this correctly the Salt Cat has been ruled not a legal XO engine due to the added intake ports. I would disagree with that as at least two XF engines are running with added exhaust ports (Ron Main and Jimmy Stevens) and several V4F engines have added intake ports. As I understand it the Salt Cat has a OEM Buick head that has been modified in much the same manner as the Ford V8 and Ford four engines that have been and are now running without protest. I think this ruling is in error and perhaps the holders of the records Salt Cat eclipsed should have been consulted. Or something. Was that 16 port head new this year or has it run before?

Wow... :-o

Offline RichFox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2010, 11:42:34 AM »
In response to Rich, XF is not XO...The XF fabrication is in the block not in the head. The rule added in the 2010 is very block specific for alterations in V4F blocks which also made the added work to XF engines also defined.
...Ports is ports. A modified OEM head is not "fabricated, created from billet stock or cast." Only XX/PRO class is limited to cylinder port configuration as originally designed. Nothing about XO/classes. It is very unfortunate that a clear ruling wasn't obtained on this before putting in the time and effort. There is a lesson there. But I still think the board missed it on this one.

Offline saltcatracing

  • New folks
  • Posts: 19
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2010, 12:15:06 PM »
The LAST thing that the Salt Cat Team would be involved in is a rule infraction – intended or otherwise.   The 16 port Head is truly the result of “backyard” ingenuity that started with an OEM head that was modified using a DRILL PRESS AND A HOLE SAW!  It is NOT a specialty head as written on page 16 of the most recent rule book which states: “A specialty cylinder head is a fabricated, created from billet stock or cast.   All X class engines, as described above, which are 325 cid, but less that 375 cid, shall be classified as either XXF or XXO. Specialty cylinder heads are NOT allowed in this instance.“  Thus, the class choice of XO, as the block was 325 cid – partnered with the “modified” OEM head.
Furthermore, before we started the “Henry Head” Project, in October of 2009, Frank visited with Dan Warner while we were in Impound, and asked specifically if we could do anything to a “stock” casting head – he replied “YES”.  Frank expanded on that and explained exactly what was rolling through his mind, and was still given the green light as he was only talking about “modifying” a stock head.
Speed Week 2010.  XO/BGALT Class.  Our 1st run we qualified and went to impound, and Dan Warner checked us in.  In the morning, we backed up our down run with another qualifying return run.  In Impound, Dan sealed the engine as we wanted to change classes.  We put out $300 to run in the XO/BFALT Class and qualified on our down run.  Checked into Impound, and backed up that run the following morning.  Put out another $300, and changed classes to XO/BGC.  Made a qualifying down run, checked into Impound, and the following morning backed that run.  Went to Tech Inspection, where the engine was blown down (came in under 325 cid); and all three records were certified.  Headed back to Montana elated!
On September 2, we received an email from Dan Warner that our records were in question.  We responded the following morning.  We were in a crunch as we were already registered for World of Speed.  We were able to make contact with Doug Robinson late on September 6.  He informed us it would be a Board decision, but his committee recommended that the records be rolled to the XXO Class.  We were scheduled, at that point and time, to head towards Bonneville in exactly a week.  Doug recommended, with things still in the air, that we not run the Henry (16 port) Head.  Tuesday morning we pulled the engine, retrieved a head that was in progress for next year; had it milled; and partnered it with the 367 cid block.  Got it running on the Saturday morning before WOS.  Our Speed Week record results were not decided until late Friday night – at the end of WOS.  Bottom line is – if you need a rule clarification, who do you ask?  If the record certification official cannot give you a definitive answer and as “jimmy six” stated above “Their added fabrication was to a cylinder head used in the XO class which probably needs more definition but the intent has always been known by competitors in the past”.  Give us a break…we cannot operate on “intent has always been known”.  If that were the case we wouldn’t be in this position.  So please, where or from whom can we get a definitive clarification of rules that are painted in gray?    

Just to clarify one point....our team has nothing but respect for and considers Dan Warner a good friend.  We feel that he truly advocates for the competitors and believes in innovation - innovation that is distinctly unique to Bonneville.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 01:19:02 PM by saltcatracing »

Offline RICK

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2010, 12:31:30 PM »
Unfortunately this 'forum', can only give opinions. Mine is

     YOU DONE BEEN ROBBED



       JMO,   RICK
It's not over, it's just harder.

Offline Freud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5419
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2010, 12:34:11 PM »
Who benefitted from the changed decision?

FREUD
Since '63

Offline RichFox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2010, 12:37:14 PM »
I have been running in Vintage engine classes since 1978. I never knew the "intent" of the rules was that Fords can add ports but Buicks can't. In fact I would have found that funny in other circumstances. Instead I just find it sad.

Offline saltcatracing

  • New folks
  • Posts: 19
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2010, 02:51:52 PM »
For those curious what a modified Buick "Henry 16 Port Head" looks like we have attached pictures.  Is it a specialty cylinder head?  You be the judge… Is it fabricated?  Created from billet stock?  Cast?   

Offline nrhs sales

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2010, 03:08:02 PM »
I can see both sides of this.  It definately has been "fabricated" but  why is it okay in one class and not another? I don't know, I'm a motorcycle guy.

Just sucks that this decision was made after you got the record.  Seems like it should have been clarified before speedweek if there was questions about the heads.

Offline John Noonan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3606
  • 306 200+ mph time slips. 252 mph on a dirtbike
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2010, 03:08:14 PM »
For those curious what a modified Buick "Henry 16 Port Head" looks like we have attached pictures.  Is it a specialty cylinder head?  You be the judge… Is it fabricated?  Created from billet stock?  Cast?   

Looks like a stock head that been modified ...a lot.. :-D

Who holds the records in the classes?  Were you protested?  you passed inspection?..so much for hot-rodding and some out of the box thinking.


Offline saltcatracing

  • New folks
  • Posts: 19
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2010, 03:13:49 PM »
In the XO Classes they were our own records - we simply were bumping them up - quite a bit.  There was no "protest" filed.  Someone simply saw a picture of our engine on the internet and contacted SCTA Board Members with "concerns".

Offline nrhs sales

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
Re: Salt Cat
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2010, 03:15:34 PM »
I thought only folks who were entered in the same class as you were allowed to protest?  Am I wrong in my thinking?