- Engine Masters Challenge -
Questions About the 2009 Rules Document STILL UNRESOLVED
The Engine Masters Challenge is an annual event in which a field of 30 carefully-selected and highly skilled engine builders compete against each other in a well-controlled "Dyno-Race", conducted at the University of Northwestern Ohio's Dyno Lab.
This event has, for the past few years, provided an impressive demonstration of engine building skill and tuning prowess. The amazing performances of the top 2008 contestants demonstrate the requirement for high levels of skill, as well as a great deal of development and extensive testing work in order to be competitive. The graph below shows the amazing BMEP levels achieved by the 2008 winner (with 2587 points) and the dramatic increase it represented with respect to the 2007 winner (2448 points).
The competition consists of several pulls over a specified range of RPM. Up to 2008, the range was from 2500 to 6500 RPM. The points are calculated by adding the average torque and the average power values measured over three pulls through the defined range, then multiplying by 1000 and dividing by the engine displacement (cubic inches).
After attending the 2009 EMC Kickoff Meeting at PRI (December, 2008), we (EPI, Inc.) decided to submit an entry for the 2009 Challenge. The organizers stated that for 2009, the competition RPM range would be increased from the current 2500-6500 to 3000-7000. In order to estimate the points needed to be competitive in 2009, we calculated that if Kaase's 2009 BMEP curve (shown above) was produced from 3000-7000 RPM, it would have produced 2750 points.
We began R&D on our engine in mid December, and by the time the official Rules Document was issued (January 9th, 2009), our initial engine work had produced an engine capable of scoring in the low-to-mid 2700-points range. Prior to investing in the planned but costly custom parts, we were not able to match Kaase's incredible 16-bar peak BMEP, but the wide, flat torque curve was encouraging and suggested that an intense R&D effort would produce a very competitive engine.
Based on this work, we had discussions with two well-known organizations which were interested in sponsoring our effort. During those discussions, it was unanimously agreed that an event like the EMC, which requires the commitment of many thousands of dollars and an unpredictable amount of R&D time, should be governed by a well-thought-out, clearly-written, unambiguous set of rules, so that there is minimal risk of disqualification of an otherwise good-faith entry because the intent of some rulemaker was not clearly stated in the document.
When the January 9, 2009 Rules Document was published, we were concerned about what we thought to be an excessive level of contradiction, ambiguity and vagueness, which, if not eliminated, would make it unwise to commit the necessary resources to compete successfully against teams like Kaase, Bischoff and Massengill
For example, the Crankshaft Rule (Page 15), as written, allows the use a custom billet 180° (flat-plane) crankshaft, yet one of the chief rule-writers insists that a flat-plane crank is not allowed. (Is there a communication problem in the EMC Rules Committee?)
In that regard, on January 12, 2009, we submitted a letter to the rules committee, according to the instructions specifically described in the Rules Document, requesting clarification on 36 administrative and technical issues. (The content of that letter appears later on this page.)
We received acknowledgement from EMC that the letter had been received, and we were told by several key EMC personnel, both verbally and in writing, that answers would be provided within the promised 14 working days.
At the end of the 14 day wait, I received an email flipoff from some Source-Interlink bureaucrat named Zinke, which said, in part:
"Please be aware that the questions@enginemasters.com program does not go into effect until after the 3/15/09 Competitor and Alternate selection process completion. If you are interested in the possibility of participating in this year's competition we encourage you, with the Official Rules information as a guide, to complete and send in an application."
Thank you, Mr. Zinke, for a dodge of the significant issues which qualifies you to run for public office. Do you truly expect potential new competitors to commit to the outlay of substantial resources in the face of such an incredibly poor statement of rules?
On February 7, 2009 (in direct contradiction to Mr. Zinke's statements) the rules committee emailed us a response letter and apparently updated the published rules to reflect most of what was in that letter. Unfortunately, their responses did not resolve several of the most pressing questions. The reaction from one of my sponsors was, essentially: "You gotta be kidding!"
Based on the apparent inability of the organizers to produce a coherent and unambiguous rules document, we and our sponsors decided that to pursue this program any further would be a poor use of resources.
The following text is a reproduction of the original 36-question inquiry letter, the responses of the rules committee to each question, and occasionally, our comment on the reply.
TO: The 2009 EMC Rules Committee
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES and QUESTIONS
1. Application Document: In addition to the selection of an engine make, the application document requests the specification of bore, stroke, camshaft, major component part numbers, and a host of other highly-specific data which cannot reasonably be provided until the engine development is well underway, and certainly not before February 15th. Although the document includes the use of the vague word "preliminary", I think it is important to know beforehand which of those specifications are considered binding. For example, if I made a "preliminary" selection a 5.7 Hemi, but showed up at the competition with a 7-liter LS engine, would that be cause for a protest or a disqualification?
In addition, the DEADLINES paragraph of the Rules Document states that cylinder head type must be specified on or before July 15th, which would suggest that sometime prior to July 15th, certain other application data have transmogrified from "preliminary" to "binding".
While we have no reservations about providing all the requested data when they are known, it seems unreasonable to require that a binding bill of materials accompany the application, and even more unreasonable that the rules document does not clearly define the transition between "preliminary" and "binding".
QUESTION:
Please explicitly state which specifications on the application are binding and which are not, and define when "preliminary" becomes "binding".
REPLY FROM EMC:
At the time an engine is coupled to the dyno inside the cell, a check-off sheet is filled in by the competitor & the officials. The engine type, engine year, & claimed cubic inches are stated and are “locked in” as it pertains to all rules. It is permissible for a competitor to send in “preliminary” information for one engine and when the engine is coupled to the dyno and the check-off sheet is filled in for a completely different engine to be used.
Cylinder head information is requested from the competitor so that the EMC officials can look over a competitor's stated choice of cylinder heads to see if there are any questionable areas that should be addressed prior to a competitor showing up for competition & then being told there is a problem. This is so that the EMC staff can review the parts a competitor is considering using and head off any problem areas prior to the competition.
The Applicant Name is “binding” and that person is the only spokesperson who may be contacted for any reason regarding that entry. The only time a competitor’s equipment or data is considered “binding” is at the check-off sheet signing.
COMMENT: From that reply, it would appear that it would be acceptable to provide a detailed specification of an LS-based engine on the application, then develop a 5.7 Hemi and provide the part number of the Hemi head to the committee on July 15th. If that is really the case, we can't help but wonder what are the criteria upon which the selection of competitors is based.
2. Rules, page 8, COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE: The existing wording says, in part:
"Commercially Available is defined as: any engine component(s) that are, or were, generally available for purchase by consumers prior to March 31, 2009."
QUESTIONS:
With regard to the specific meaning of "…generally available for purchase…" :
(a) Does the fact that a part has been publicly announced prior to 3/31 satisfy the definition of COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, and if so, does a website announcement of the availability of the part qualify?
REPLY FROM EMC:
"GENERALLY AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE" is not the same as "publicly announced". An example of how to confirm if a product were commercially available is to contact the company that sells or produces the product, ask the price and availability. If the availability is or has been before 3/31, that is commercially available. If the availability is after 3/31 it is not considered commercially available.
(b) If I place an order for a part which has been announced prior to 3/31, and pay for the part prior to 3/31, but the manufacturing of the part cannot be completed until sometime later (May, for example), and I have documentation of the transaction, does that satisfy the definition of COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE?
REPLY FROM EMC:
NO. "GENERALLY AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE" is not the same as publicly announced or delivery date. If the availability is or has been before 3/31 this is commercially available. If the availability is after 3/31 it is not considered commercially available by that date.
COMMENT: From that reply, it would appear that the Rules Commmittee considers the words DELIVERABLE and AVAILABLE to be synonymous, and thereby rules out the use of any manufactured part which can be ordered and paid for between 3/16/09 and 3/31/09, but which cannot be delivered by 3/31. If that is the case, we think it is an absurd restriction, and it would eliminate several competitors IF it was uniformly applied.
TECHNICAL ISSUES and QUESTIONS
3. Rules, page 15, DISPLACEMENT, Par. 2 says: "Bore is measured at the top of cylinder".
Question:
Please be specific regarding what you mean by "top of cylinder"? For example, do you mean: "within 0.xxx" of the top of the bore", or "above the travel of the top ring", or what?
Reasoning: That ambiguity could be a cause for unjustified disqualification if the measurement is taken within the upper range of top ring travel, since lubrication at the top of the stroke is, at best, boundary layer, and with the very high BMEP (15.9 bar) produced by the top engines, a small amount of wear could result in a measurement which is different from when the engine was built, and disqualify an honest competitor.
(There was an insightful comment on the EMC Forum which stated that a bigger concern would be whether or not the bore would be measured with the torque plate used to finish the cylinders bolted in place.)
REPLY FROM EMC:
Bore is measured at top of cylinder where ring wear is not evident – that is above the wear pattern of the top ring.
COMMENT: Nice, clear reply. Here is the reason for the concern.
On the EMC Forum, one remarkably insightful observer commented: "… if you are worried that it will be close, then err on the conservative side or risk disqualification …".
That sort of comment simply proves that the writer has absolutely no grasp of the mathematics of the scoring system, nor how a "conservative" claim of an extra cubic inch could easily cost a win.
4. Rules, page 15, ENGINE BLOCK: That paragraph is very specific with regard to what CAN'T be done. However, it makes no reference to the allowability of standard machining operations which one would normally perform, including, but not limited to: (a) oil system modifications for improved lubrication, (b) machining in the crankcase area to generate clearance for allowable non-OEM components, (c) machining reliefs in the tops of the bore to clear valves, (d) machining and installation of cylinder sleeves, (e) machining of coolant passages to improve flow; (f) installing standpipes in the valley to control the drain-flow of oil from the upper engine, (g) machining and installation of oil jets to cool the pistons, (h) machining away casting flaws, slag, projections, etc. which might fall off and contaminate the oil, (i) adding block filler for increased stiffness, and on and on.
The second sentence in the rules document explicitly prohibits any of these operations ("As a general rule, unless optional equipment or a modification is specifically permitted by this Rules Document or by subsequent addendums (sic) to the Rules Document, it is prohibited.")
Question:
Please specify which, if any, of the abovementioned (and any other) machining and preparation operations are allowable on the block.
REPLY FROM EMC:
These are the type of questions that are legitimate and should be addressed: Keep in mind all rules must be adhered to such as the question about machining coolant passages to improve flow. Legal as long as it does not violate a stated rule such as water pump location.
- oil system modifications for improved lubrication – Please provide a specific question for response
- machining in the crankcase area to generate clearance for allowable non-OEM components - LEGAL
- machining reliefs in the tops of the bore to clear valves - LEGAL
- machining and installation of cylinder sleeves - LEGAL
- machining of coolant passages to improve flow – LEGAL if all other rules are adhered to.
- installing standpipes in the valley to control the drain-flow of oil from the upper engine - LEGAL
- machining and installation of oil jets to cool the pistons - LEGAL
- machining away casting flaws, slag, projections, etc. which might fall off and contaminate the oil - LEGAL
- adding block filler for increased stiffness - LEGAL
COMMENT: Nice, clear reply.
5. Rules, page 15, CRANKSHAFT, first sentence says: "Any commercially available crankshaft is acceptable." It then goes on to require production journal diameters (within 0.065"). It makes no further restrictions regarding the crank configuration.
The wording "…any commercially available crankshaft…" plus the rule that any bore and stroke are allowed, appears to permit the use of a billet crank which conforms to the stated journal diameter restrictions, but which differs from the OEM configuration in all other ways.
Such changes include, but are not limited to: (a) different journal placement, (b) different counterweight placement, (c) different snout diameter, (d) different flywheel-bolt pattern, (e) different oil-feed drillings, etc. etc.
Question: Is that a correct interpretation? If not, please provide the intended but not-stated interpretation, so that I can be sure the $2600, 180° billet crank I have ordered will not be disallowed.
REPLY FROM EMC:
- different journal placement - LEGAL
- different counterweight placement - LEGAL
- different snout diameter - LEGAL
- different flywheel-bolt pattern - LEGAL
- different oil-feed drillings - LEGAL
- etc. etc. Be specific with questions
COMMENT: Nice, clear reply, which, when coupled with the unclear hedge "commercially available", suggests that it is highly probable (but not clearly stated) that the use of a custom crankshaft would be disallowed, since it could be ordered and paid for after 3/16 (competitor selection) and before 3/31 (cutoff date), but even Sonny Bryant couldn't DELIVER it by 3/31.
On the EMC Forum, one self-appointed authority (who bravely hides behind the name REVOLUTIONARY, and whose comments consist mostly of name-calling) made the following pronouncement: "...it has been proven over and over that using a flat-plane crankshaft provides no advantage whatsoever".
Well, Mr. Revolutionary, you are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but you might ask yourself why it is that, at the top levels of motorsport (F1 and IRL, for example) the engine designers willingly accept the large second-order horizontal shake which a V8 with a flat-plane crank generates, in exchange for the demonstrable power gains available by proper use of the resulting firing symmetry.
6. Rules, page 15, CYLINDER HEADS, Para. 1 states: "Any domestic OEM passenger car or commercially available aftermarket OEM replacement three valve per cylinder, cylinder heads are acceptable only on eligible engine types so equipped as OEM". Later in that section, Para. 4 begins: "Any valve seat size and / or valve size is acceptable."
Questions:
(a) If I choose to modify OEM heads within the constraints specified elsewhere in this section, which includes permissible replacement of valve seats, am I allowed to use any commercially available seat material (similar to what an aftermarket head supplier would use)? ("As a general rule, unless optional equipment or a modification is specifically permitted by this Rules Document or by subsequent addendums (sic) to the Rules Document, it is prohibited.")
REPLY FROM EMC:
YES
(b) Am I free to use any commercially available valve guide material and configuration? ("As a general rule, unless optional equipment or a modification is specifically permitted by this Rules Document or by subsequent addendums (sic) to the Rules Document, it is prohibited.")
REPLY FROM EMC:
YES
7. Rules, page 16, CYLINDER HEADS This section allows milling of cylinder heads so long as the OEM valve angles are not altered beyond the stated restriction. It further states that "Fastener holes on the cylinder head's intake manifold .... mating surface... cannot be altered in any way." Then, later on in the INTAKE MANIFOLD section, it says: "Modifications to the exterior surfaces of the intake ports and / or manifold... are not allowed".
There appears to be a substantial contradiction here. If I mill the heads on a V-type engine, then I will need to remove material from either the intake manifold attach surfaces, or if possible, from the intake manifold mating surface on the head, to make the parts fit together properly. Milling the intake surface on the head changes the tapped holes by shortening them and removing the chamfers. Milling the manifold changes what could be interpreted to be an "exterior surface".
Question:
Is it allowable to machine material off the surfaces of the intake manifold which sandwich the intake manifold gaskets between the manifold and the cylinder heads?
REPLY FROM EMC:
YES
8. Rules, page 16, IGNITION, Para. 3 states: "Electrical power will be supplied to the ignition system by a single 12-volt source, as well as a single switched circuit fused at 20 amps".
That sentence is unclear in the following ways: (a) the wording "...as well as..." suggests that there are TWO circuits, one of which is 12-volts, unswitched and unfused, and the other is of unspecified voltage, but switched and fused for 20 amps.
Questions:
(a) Are there actually TWO circuits as hinted by the wording? If so, please specify the fusing, switching and voltage for EACH supply.
(b) If the wording is meant to describe just ONE supply circuit, please clarify the wording to say so.
REPLY FROM EMC:
Electrical power will be supplied to the ignition system by a single 12-volt source fused at 30 amps, as well as a single switched (keyed) circuit fused at 20 amps.
9. Rules, page 17, FUEL INJECTION: The first paragraph in this section is thoroughly confusing and ambiguous in several places. Reading between the lines, one gets the implication that the writer might have been describing the replacement of a 4-barrel carb with a TBI unit, but nowhere is that explicitly stated. Here are specific questions on that paragraph:
(a): Sentence 5 says: "The (single) throttle body must be mounted centrally in the conventional four-barrel location"
Question: If that is the case, how can I use a forward-facing OEM-style intake and throttle body on an LS-type engine? (The wording in this paragraph is in apparent contradiction to the wording in the AIR FILTER-FUEL INJECTED ENGINES section)
REPLY FROM EMC:
The throttle body must be mounted as follows: 1) centrally in the conventional four-barrel location, 2) forward facing, 3) or sideways facing.
(b): Sentence 6 says: "The throttle body must mount directly to the intake manifold with no more than 1.25 inches combined gasket and / or spacer thickness..."
Question: Does that apply to ALL throttle bodies (forward-mounted, side-mounted, centrally-mounted, etc).
REPLY FROM EMC:
YES.
Question: Can the 1.25 thick spacer be an adapter between different bolt patterns?
REPLY FROM EMC:
YES.
(c): The next-to-last sentence says: "Relocation of the fuel injection point from the OEM or Aftermarket provisions is prohibited."
Question: What does "...fuel injection POINT…" MEAN? Are you trying to say "…the 3D location and orientation of the fuel injector bodies...", or do you mean "...the 3D location in space of the nozzle-face of the injector within the intake port...", or do you mean something else entirely?
REPLY FROM EMC:
Fuel injectors must be mounted in the OEM manifold provisions, or in “as-cast” bosses or provisions in an aftermarket intake manifold designed to accept fuel injectors. Relocation of the fuel injection point from the OEM or Aftermarket provisions is prohibited. Custom-welded fuel bungs added to an intake manifold are prohibited.
COMMENT: Remarkably clear reply.
10. Rules, page 17, FUEL INJECTION: Para. 3 says: "Knock (detonation) sensors are prohibited."
Questions:
(a) If an engine is OEM-equipped with a knock sensor, can that sensor be left in the original location and simply not used as part of the engine management package?
REPLY FROM EMC:
NO, "prohibited" is not the same as "not used".
COMMENT: That's an interesting hedge on wording. People I know who have an ordinary comprehension of the English language have concluded that "prohibited" and "not used", in this context, could easily be understood as synonymous, ESPECIALLY in view of the sentence on page 10 of the Rules Document, under DATA ACQUISITION, which says: "Monitoring data through such devices (computers, etc.) and the use of additional sensors is permitted during the tuning period only."
(b) IF NOT, does that mean that an OEM-standard knock sensor as originally installed on the engine must be removed and replaced with some form of plug?
REPLY FROM EMC:
Must be removed.
(c) IF SO, please state that such a plug is authorized ("As a general rule, unless optional equipment or a modification is specifically permitted by this Rules Document or by subsequent addendums (sic) to the Rules Document, it is prohibited.").
REPLY FROM EMC:
It it the competitors responsibility to state what they are intending to do, not the organizations responsibility to state every possible case. State specifically what you are intending to do. A commercially available plug such as a freeze type plug would be acceptable.
11. Rules, page 17, FUEL INJECTION: Para. 4 says that no fuel flow information will be available from the dyno for Fuel-Injected engines.
Question: Can I incorporate a fuel flow turbine into my own fuel system, which will be connected only to the laptop I use to tune the engine management system?
REPLY FROM EMC:
YES. Data acquisition systems are allowed as part of the operating engine management system or ignition system of the engine. No sensors in addition to those listed as legal for the operation of the engine management system for data acquisition are legal during the warm-up or competition pulls. Monitoring of the data stream or recorded data from auxiliary a data monitoring display or computers is prohibited during the warm-up or competition pulls. Monitoring data through such devices and the use of additional sensors is permitted during the tuning period only.
12. Rules, page 18, AIR FILTER-FUEL INJECTED ENGINES: The first sentence says "Any commercially available air filter is acceptable", then goes on to specify the external limits of the filter housing. By virtue of the fact that the previous paragraph in the rules explicitly addresses the filter housing in carbureted applications, the implication is that the filter housing in forward-facing fuel-injected installations may be custom made.
Questions:
(a) Is that the case?
REPLY FROM EMC:
Official Rules as of 2-7-09 for all engine types are now noted as OPTIONAL.
COMMENT: One can only GUESS what that cluster of words really means:- The Official Rules are optional?
- Air filters are optional?
- All air filters can be custom made?
- Other ????
(b) If it is NOT the case, please explicitly state the restrictions on the FI filter housing.
NO REPLY FROM EMC.
13. Rules, page 18, CAMSHAFT / LIFTERS / TIMING BELTS-CHAINS: This entire specification seems to have been written with the mindset of a single camshaft located in the valley of the block, with block-located cam followers.
Clearly, certain allowable engines (such as the 3-valve Ford modular) are not in this configuration. The 3V-FM engine uses a single cam in each cylinder head, with rocker-arm-type cam-followers. Those cam-followers have a roller in the center which follows the cam lobes and each rocker pivots on a hydraulic adjuster that is fixed in the head. The paragraph explicitly states that any camshaft which retains the OEM journal diameters is acceptable. However, a camshaft having non-OEM base-circle radii will detrimentally alter the cam / follower / valve stem geometry.
Question: Is it allowable to modify the OEM adjustment mechanism to restore proper valve train geometry?
REPLY FROM EMC:
Not enough information supplied to answer. Be specific with what is intended to be done to modify the OEM adjustment mechanism.
14. Rules, page 18, CAMSHAFT DRIVE: This section prohibits active cam phasing, and says any OEM-fitted phasing system must be "disabled in a manner which can be clearly confirmed and verified by the event tech officials".
Questions:
(a) If I choose to disable the phasing function by entering a constant value in the cam phase control table of the ECU, and can show that table to the officials, is that sufficient verification of disabling?
REPLY FROM EMC:
NO.
(b) If I choose to disable the phaser by means of mechanical modifications, please explicitly state that such modifications are allowed. (Again, an apparent conflict with the second sentence in the document: "As a general rule, unless optional equipment or a modification is specifically permitted by this Rules Document or by subsequent addendums (sic) to the Rules Document, it is prohibited.")
REPLY FROM EMC:
It it the competitors responsibility to state what they are intending to do, not the organizations responsibility to state every possible case. State specifically what you are intending to do.
15. Rules, page 19, HEADERS: The first sentence says: "Chassis-style exhaust headers are required."
Question:
What specifically (in terms of width, height, length, collector, direction, etc.) constitutes a Chassis-Style Header? (Will the wide headers off my dirt sprint car qualify?)
REPLY FROM EMC:
Chassis-style exhaust headers that run down and back from the front of the engine are required.
COMMENT: Yet another apparent answer which adds rather than removes ambiguities. I specifically asked for limitations; they provided none, suggesting there are no limitations other than what they stated, but nontheless, I would bet money that they would disallow the headers off my dirt sprinter for being too wide or some other such observation.
16. Rules, page 20, OIL PAN/SCRAPER: The paragraph states that any oil pan may be used which is not WIDER than the pan rails and is not deeper than 12" lower than the crank centerline. In view of the fact that there were disqualifications last year based on that restriction, I pose these questions:
Questions:
(a) Does "WIDER" refer only to the horizontal dimension perpendicular to the crank axis, and therefore may the pan extend beyond the downward-projected profile of the pan rails in a front-to-rear direction?
REPLY FROM EMC:
Pan can be no wider than the block means look at the front of the engine – the pan, not the pan rails, cannot be wider than the block from front to back. Rules are silent to the length of pan. Since rules are silent about the length of a pan it would be the competitors responsibility to state what he/she purposes (PROPOSES ???) before assuming it is accepted.
COMMENT:The first sentence of that reply provides a much clearer insight into what they intended. It would have been nice if the rules had been stated that way from the beginning.
The statement and subsequent conclusions about pan length are contradictory to the rules as written, since the rules clearly state that custom pans are allowable within the stated restrictions. NOW they add an implicit, ambiguous restriction on length.
(b) Is it allowable to modify the oil pickup to accommodate an acceptable deep pan? ("As a general rule, unless optional equipment or a modification is specifically permitted by this Rules Document or by subsequent addendums (sic) to the Rules Document, it is prohibited.")
REPLY FROM EMC:
YES.
17. Rules, page 20, OIL PAN/SCRAPER: Sentence 4 says: "External ventilation systems... are not allowed."
Questions:
(a) Does that mean the engine must be sealed off from the ambient atmosphere?
(b) If so, how do you plan for blowby gasses to escape?
(c) If not, please state specifically what it DOES mean?
REPLY FROM EMC:
External crankcase ventilation and/or oil drain-back systems plumbed externally that return oil to the pan are not allowed. The stated rules address external crankcase ventilation systems such as smog pumps or pan evac systems attached to headers.
COMMENT: Yet another apparent answer which adds rather than removes ambiguities. The phrase: "The stated rules address...." lends very little clarification to the ambiguities which the questions attempted to remove.
From the reply, one can GUESS that they mean "Any system which attempts to reduce crankcase pressure below ambient is prohibited." If that is the case, WHY NOT JUST SAY SO?
18. Rules, page 20, OIL: This paragraph says "Competitors may only use supplied oil".
Question: Please specify the required oil brand, viscosity and additive package. That is a very reasonable request in view of the money invested in a competitive engine and the testing it must endure prior to competing.
REPLY FROM EMC:
Oils are yet to be determined and are supplied to participants at the event. These are generally National brands and various viscosities. At this time we cannot offer an answer to this question and updates will be posted. It is planned that this information will be available by the March 16, 2009 date of Applicant notification.
19. Rules, page 20, OIL ADDITIVES: Sentence 2 says: "Only those oil additive furnished at event permitted for use."
Question: Please specify what the permitted additives will be. Again, that is a very reasonable request in view of the money invested in a competitive engine and the testing it must endure prior to competing.
REPLY FROM EMC:
OIL ADDITIVES are the same program as motor oil and supplied at the event. Use is optional and from list that is planned to be available by March 16, 2009.
20. Rules, page 20, WATER PUMP: The first sentence says: "Any commercially available electric or mechanical water pump is acceptable. The paragraph then goes on about pulleys and pulley drive systems.
It would appear that the writer had in mind either (a) a Meziere / CSI style pump system, or (b) an OEM-style pump in which the water pump is driven from the crankshaft with a belt system.
Question: Does that paragraph preclude the use of a commercially-available 12V electric motor driving an OEM-style water pump mounted in the OEM location by means of a belt / pulley system? (If so, that restriction is an unreasonable handicap to a competitor who chooses an engine for which there is no Meziere / CSI style pump available.)
REPLY FROM EMC:
That would be permitted.
21. Rules, page 20, WATER PUMP: The last sentence says: "Electric water pumps will be allowed with one 12vdc power source".
Questions:
(a) Does the sentence mean that a separate 12vdc power supply will be provided for electric water pumps, and
(b) If so, is that supply switched and what is the current limit or fusing on that supply?
REPLY FROM EMC:
Refer to response to question 8.
22. FASTENERS and GASKETS: In the process of building high performance engines, I have found that OEM fasteners and gaskets are often not up to the task. Nowhere in the rules document does it say that high quality replacement fasteners (ARP, SPS, etc.) or gaskets (Fel-Pro, Cometic, etc.) are allowable.
Question:
Are aftermarket fasteners and gaskets prohibited? ("As a general rule, unless optional equipment or a modification is specifically permitted by this Rules Document or by subsequent addendums (sic) to the Rules Document, it is prohibited.")
REPLY FROM EMC:
Aftermarket fasteners and gaskets are permitted.
Please note the Official Rules dated 2.7.09 address several of the questions you had asked.
