S.E.A.L. Makes Rules Changes For GM 604
In last month’s QA commentary, I discussed Balance of Performance and ways sanctions try to equal out the power influence of different engines. I say power influence because the value of a particular engine depends somewhat on what track it is running on and how that power is regulated.
I outlined how adding a small amount of weight to a higher horsepower motor car does little to equal the competition. Adding sufficient weight is more effective in providing equal acceleration down the straights. But what about differences in performance in the corners? The penalized car now has to try to get through the corners with a lot more weight that wants to go to the wall.
If we consider that penalty, then we add less weight to make up for the turns and the higher HP car runs down the lower HP car on the straights. They then each have advantages at separate parts of the track. Maybe that is good and maybe not.
Now we see where S.E.A.L. has changed its rules to allow an improved performance cam for the GM 604 crate motor. S.E.A.L. stands for the Sealed Engine Alliance Leaders and is comprised of a group of promoters and tech officials. Their purpose is to regulate and certify sealed short track engines.
Tech official Ricky Brooks told me that he was the driving force behind this move and that he personally spoke with Bill Martens who oversees the GM crate motor program and urged him to approve the change. It is not clear if GM will make changes to their production motors to include this replacement cam. Here is some history.
It has been suspected and pointed out by numerous engine builders who have dyno’d both the GM 604 motor and the Ford equivalent motor over the years that the Ford had more HP. It has been said too that the Ford was easier to cheat up, not my words, just repeating what I heard. So, for some time, and at an accelerated rate lately, many teams who had been running the GM motors are switching to the Ford motors. Two of the top Pro Late Model teams at New Smyrna did indeed switch to Ford for the 2016 season.
The change allowing the new cam, GM part number 24502586, is said to be a response to Fords recent upgrade in their ring/piston package. As reported in a January 4th, 2017 S.E.A.L. press release, there were evidently a series of dyno testing runs made with both engines that resulted in the decision.
As a concession to teams not able to make the change to the new cam immediately, a 25 lb. weight break has been approved. The rules change goes into effect for this year and we’ll see how many teams take advantage of it.
For reference, the going price for this cam is around $256 at most racing retailers and the cost to install it at your approved sealed crate motor shop is around $400-$500. Of course, the builder will need to be installing this cam in a motor they previously sealed, or we’re talking about a complete rebuild/refresh which goes for a lot more money.
And, if GM does not make changes to the production crate 604, then plan on adding about $700 to the cost of a new motor for installation of the cam if you plan on being competitive. But, I did a rough check on pricing and it seems that the Ford motor lists for about $1,500 more than the GM 604. So, with the cam upgrade to the 604 motor, your still ahead $800 on cost by going with the GM motor.
Getting back to last month’s column, we see where again the engine issue gets more complicated. At least tech people like Ricky Brooks understand the problem and are trying to make things better and more equal in the engine department.
Early on, and many years ago, when GM introduced the sealed crate motor program, it was a good plan with no complications, and no competition. Then Ford got involved and it makes sense that it would be hard to end up with two identically powered motors, especially when these two companies are historically so competitive.
Since the motors have been dyno’d at several facilities and found to be very close to equal in power output, maybe now we can get back to what we do and that is go racing. We’re going to try to get one of these 604 motors with the new cam onto a dyno in the near future. When we do, we’ll provide you with the results.
If you have comments or questions about this or anything racing related, send them to my email address: chassisrd@aol.com or mail can be sent to Circle Track, Senior Tech Editor, 1733 Alton Parkway, Suite 100, Irvine, CA.
Comment On “Engine Control Needed”
Bob,
I have been doing this for years. Many Super Late Model classes up here in the Upper Midwest use the Midwest Tour rules. In fact if you look at TUNDRA’s rules package they are 90 percent rules I wrote over the years.
It is very important to people who have Super Late Models that the rules are very close. It is not like it was at one time when you had people who traveled weekly to many events. The days of Trickle, Reffner, Sauter and others have come to an end. We at one time raced five nights a week. We could very simply add or deduct weight and change the set up to go. Now it is a much bigger deal for the teams to do that. But again if we all stay close it is best for all.
But with your story you also forgot a very important part. At least up here in the great white northland, Tire Wear. Most tracks up here have a tire banking system for weekly shows. Also I believe TUNDRA has a tire system where you have to use tires more than one race.
So to me the tire wear on a weekly car and even in a TUNDRA Series car would be much better when your car is 250 pounds lighter than another car. That also helps the lighter weight car in the next event, and most of the time it’s a crate car.
So to me that amount of weight is pretty hard to swallow plus it may get to be cutting things away that are in place for the safety and integrity of the chassis. All and all crates engine cars can race with Super Lates but the laps of the race also then becomes a factor. Each tracks size, type, and banking is also not the same as far as weights for crate and Super Late cars to make them compete together.
I guess I am saying that it is a lot harder to run them together than most people think, with the lighter weight of the crate cars rolling in the center. But to me a crate engine car should not be used as a weight advantage. It should be used by a smaller team trying to compete. A crate in the right place is great, but should not be used as a tool for an advantage.
Thanx, Mike (Lumpy) Lemke
Mike,
Thanks so much for your comments. This is a complicated issue that many who mandate the rules struggle with and you make some very valid points. There is no perfect solution, only good attempts. What usually tells the story is how the season progresses for those running different motor combinations at the same track as well as in touring series.
If a more even combination of success for built/spec verse crate motors occurs and wins are split between the two, then you probably have a good set of rules. On the other hand, if one or the other dominates, then you have to take a good look at the rules and make changes where necessary to make everything more equal. That only makes sense.
What those who write the rules shouldn’t do is penalize one or the other for the sake of their personal beliefs as to what is best for the sport. Leave it up to the race teams to decide which they want and produce a set of rules that will allow more equal competition. There are two sides to this issue and then there is fairness and equality.
Consequences Comment
Bob:
I’ve been racing on local dirt short tracks in Colorado since the age of 14 and grew up idolizing drivers like Kelly Boen, Keith Roush, my father Don Schweitzer, and a number of other clean drivers. Among lack of decent parenting, I believe most of the problem lies with the fact that a lot of younger drivers never even touch a bolt on their machine which results in careless decisions behind the wheel.
It might be too late to save some of the drivers in the activity but the best thing you can do for your kid is to form a bond between he/she and their equipment. Respect the equipment, drivers and the future of the sport.
Josh Schweitzer, IMCA Stock Car One17s
Josh,
I completely agree. Many of the “fast track” drivers who have big money families and/or famous racing fathers, have not spent sufficient time behind a wrench. I’m not talking about all of them. I’m sure some of these drivers had to turn wrenches plenty when they were starting out.
The lesson would be, bend it or break it and you fix it, if it’s your fault. Then there would be a measure of appreciation for what it takes to build and repair these cars. I bet the next time a decision comes along whether to chance wrecking the car they would be much more inclined to wait for a better and less troublesome time to try to pass.
As an example, not to toot our own horn because we had nothing to do with it, is Dalton Zehr, our past test driver on many CT projects. He, working alongside his dad Marty, has played a big part in building his cars for as long as I can remember. Marty instilled in him the basic work ethic and they worked together building every car he drove for the family. That is where he learned that.
Right now, as I write this, he is building his new short track car from a bare frame/chassis in the shop in Menominee. If you’ve ever seen him race, he rarely ever gets caught up in a fracas or bends any “sheet metal”. One big reason for that is that he has to fix it come Monday.
Traction Control
Bob Bolles,
I enjoyed your article about Traction Control which I read through my Hot Rod Network email. I have not reached a conclusion on the subject which is as settled as yours (“don’t use it”). However, and you’ve heard this rap, technology is very difficult to keep out of things. In the interest of brevity, I’ll put some thoughts down in a list:
Keeping technology out of racing may have prohibited even synchromesh transmissions or rev limiters. Isn’t part of racing the development of new technologies?
Traction control did exist in Formula One, got banned, then unbanned and finally banned again (in 2008) when they went to a standard ECU. Standard anything is difficult, expensive and enforceable only in the most organized and policed series.
Traction control for drag racing is the best. I never could master getting a set of MTs heated up and then hooked for a great start but that didn’t mean I couldn’t enjoy being a klutz. However, when I got a car with AWD and traction control, a 1.7 sixty foot time was relatively easy (yes, the reaction time isn’t exactly zero).
Has traction control increased the enjoyment of my vehicle? Absolutely. The summary of my wandering here is: let some classes or racing groups or whatever’s, use traction control if it makes for more enjoyable racing for the competitors.
The problem is the extension of this thinking: we may soon have self driving race cars, where the driver merely monitors vehicle voltage. Would that work, maybe? In any event, “Just say no”, or somehow being completely negative on a technology may not be the answer in all cases.
Very truly yours, Joe Bagel, Chicago, IL
Joe,
If you have followed short track racing for any length of time you would have seen a great deal of innovation and invention along the way. The technology in many areas of performance is allowed within the rules and is ever changing for the better. All tracks and sanctions have rules and what you are arguing is for the rules makers to change the rules. This is not at all what I was talking about.
My two points were, one that the use of TC is against the rules. Secondly, the use of TC does not help a driver learn to control wheel spin through throttle control, which in Cup racing where TC is strictly outlawed, is essential to doing well. You of all people should know that.
You stated that when you were able to use TC in your drag car, your times improved quite a bit. You didn’t say you learned how to manage tire spin, you leaned on a crutch called TC. What that does is hurt all of the drivers who have talent and can control tire spin on their own. Let’s give out participation trophies next and see how that works out. Like you pointed out, before you know it, we’ll only need for the drivers to steer the car, and on a drag strip, that isn’t too awful hard.
Traction Control From Across The Pond
Bob,
From a European (English ) point of view, this subject takes me back several years. Most of our road cars and competition cars have TC as OEM fit. Virtually all the aftermarket ECU’s have TC on their menu. It does reduce the driver skill in driving, but interestingly, in the loose surface disciplines I follow (Rally and dirt track), it has not caught on.
Particularly in Grass Track , where the cars are 250kg missiles powered by 1300cc Hayabusa motors, the top drivers have tried TC in testing (it is banned) and say that, with track conditions so variable, it is impossible to set up correctly. So, long live the right foot! Mind you, in our hill climbs (one mile or so), the ex. F1 (stock car, not Formula One) engines and turbo ‘busas don’t half need it the wet!
Arthur Heaton, Yorkshire, and proud of it.
Arthur,
Thanks for chiming in. The sport of circle track racing in Europe is extremely varied and exciting. It seems to me like you guys have tried to find any and all ways to compete going in a “circle”, and I find it very interesting to watch in YouTube videos.
Many racers here have learned the same thing, it’s sometimes hard to tune. Maybe they would be better served to forget TC and get on with learning how to drive. That is how it always was long before TC ever came along. It worked then and it works now.
The post Matching Sealed Motors appeared first on Hot Rod Network.