|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2012 13:15:41 GMT 12
Patience is one thing but the explanation on why a top chance was excluded from the NZ Champs will need to be a good one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skorp on Jan 5, 2012 13:23:12 GMT 12
Patience is one thing but the explanation on why a top chance was excluded from the NZ Champs will need to be a good one. indeed. and now im even more curious as to whats going on |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Jan 5, 2012 13:36:37 GMT 12
Patience is one thing but the explanation on why a top chance was excluded from the NZ Champs will need to be a good one. Agreed Gordon, in fact I'd go as far as to say NO explanation will be good enough, but at least a few facts on how many cars were tested, what engines types they were and maybe what went wrong, if SNZ knows by then, may answer some of the questions before they asked. I only ran into the President by pure chance today - so it wasn't a discussion resulting from this news breaking - but will be seeing him again tonight so will see what else he can tell me, especially when it comes to timelines of information release. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 16:47:09 GMT 12
Patience is one thing but the explanation on why a top chance was excluded from the NZ Champs will need to be a good one. We already know the explanation to that one Gordon, the testing equipment showed that Stanaway's engine was higher than the permitted 10:1 compression ratio ;D The above is a fact and whatever we've heard since then is pure speculation, so it will be great to hear anything official - thanks Barry. |
|
vf8
New Member
Posts: 49 
|
Post by vf8 on Jan 5, 2012 17:50:18 GMT 12
Yes, it will certainly be interesting to get the correct facts, especialy results of any futher accurate measuring that may have occured.Do they check the calibration of the machine with a test bottle to ensure that it is reading correctly?
What happens if the head is removed and the combution chamber etc is cc'd accurately and the exact CR calculated and found to be legal, how much faith can be had for any future use of this machine to give accurate readings. Someone previously mentioned it gave 3 different readings which is not a good look regardless of the fact all 3 where suposebly over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Backskidder on Jan 5, 2012 17:59:37 GMT 12
In regards to this situation, what can SNZ do in way of compensation if the engine is deemed legal? Can it head into a court room? Im not at all trying to open up cans of worms, just interested, as like Mr Macgor said - A top chance was excluded from the final starting line up. Is it a case of tough luck and better luck next year?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skorp on Jan 5, 2012 18:07:12 GMT 12
In regards to this situation, what can SNZ do in way of compensation if the engine is deemed legal? Can it head into a court room? Im not at all trying to open up cans of worms, just interested, as like Mr Macgor said - A top chance was excluded from the final starting line up. Is it a case of tough luck and better luck next year? there's likely some condition for entering the championship or when you get your speedway licence that stats you agree to abide by the rules and comply with all instructions given to you by speedway nz and that prevents you from taking legal action if they get a ruling wrong. but i could be wrong, could an actual competitor confirm if this is true? at any rate, taking it to court likely wont achieve much other than wasting peoples time and money |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2012 18:11:27 GMT 12
Patience is one thing but the explanation on why a top chance was excluded from the NZ Champs will need to be a good one. We already know the explanation to that one Gordon, the testing equipment showed that Stanaway's engine was higher than the permitted 10:1 compression ratio ;D The above is a fact and whatever we've heard since then is pure speculation, so it will be great to hear anything official - thanks Barry. It's been stated the engine is legal and if so that begs the query as to whether the engine failed the test or did the test fail the engine?. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2012 20:16:53 GMT 12
It's been stated the engine is legal and if so that begs the query as to whether the engine failed the test or did the test fail the engine? Until that statement is made officially, then it's still conjecture and hearsay. I'm glad it's not my job to sort it all out ;D |
|
|
|
Post by artnmotion on Jan 5, 2012 20:29:39 GMT 12
Douglas told me that the top 5 fastest cars got tested? someone may be able to confirm that, so 5 out of 170 cars tested, one got extremely unlucky!... Interesting to see what happened from here?
i think this has happened to someone else before?
I've also heard that the engine has been tested and is fine... so as mentioned... one of the top runners got excluded from a chance at a 1nz for no apparent reason
|
|
|
|
Post by nzf2stocks. on Jan 5, 2012 21:27:37 GMT 12
The penalty is for failing the official test with the official equipment; a bit like your cars wof, you dont actually get a ticket for driving a car thats not up to spec, you get a ticket for not displaying the wof sticker. You can prove that your car is fine but the fine still applies.
The penalty for an illegal engine is one years stand-down. The penalty for failing the official test is immediate stand-down pending further investigation. The car in question failed the test (rightly or wrongly) so had to be stood down. If the engine is found to be legal that should be the end of the matter.
One question though, who tested the engine later and found it to be correct? The engine builder? Was there an SNZ official there to verify the result? SNZ can only go by what they have actually witnessed, they should NOT take anyones word for it, regardless of how well respected said person is.
|
|
|
|
Post by wayne on Jan 5, 2012 22:09:07 GMT 12
Is it not " the tester of the day is the tester " so in other words bugger, A bit like the snz scales! 20 - 30 kgs difference depending on the day of year,
Seen the engine has been retested by ?, Was the engine inpounded by snz so it couldnt be " fiddled " with before another retest at another location, and who tested it?
|
|
vf8
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by vf8 on Jan 6, 2012 6:41:51 GMT 12
If facts come to light proving the engine is legal, how can Douglas be confident he's not going to get disqualified next time he gets tested and have to go through the whole rigmoral again?
The scales have alwas been a bone of contention too but at leat if you rock up to scruitineering and go over weight you can easily cut a crush rail off etc to comply on the day. Proving the engine is legal in a hurry is not quite as simple. Its a catch 22 situation as the snz officials can only go off the test results on the day, and the failed result leaves no option but to deny further participation.It just begs the question as to how they can ensure the test is as accurate as possible.Still, we need to wait for the official facts to come out regarding any subsequent test that has been completed before passing judgement on the test equipment in question.
|
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Jan 6, 2012 6:51:59 GMT 12
Patience is one thing but the explanation on why a top chance was excluded from the NZ Champs will need to be a good one. We already know the explanation to that one Gordon, the testing equipment showed that Stanaway's engine was higher than the permitted 10:1 compression ratio ;D The above is a fact and whatever we've heard since then is pure speculation, so it will be great to hear anything official - thanks Barry. I spoke to David Jones again at Western Springs last night, and he hoped he might be able to let me (and therefore macgorians) know a few things today. Considering I'm on the radio for 1 hour this morning, flying to Palmerston North this afternoon then doing the Speedbox thing tonight, I might not actually receive that call and/or be in a position to put anything up on here. I'll do as as soon as possible however. |
|
|
|
Post by Apples on Jan 6, 2012 7:00:20 GMT 12
ive never had my car tested, how is the test done?
A, it the old compression gauage in the spark plug hole or
B, its done by air volume and the engine sealers paperwork?
|
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Jan 6, 2012 7:05:06 GMT 12
Yes, it will certainly be interesting to get the correct facts, especialy results of any futher accurate measuring that may have occured.Do they check the calibration of the machine with a test bottle to ensure that it is reading correctly? What happens if the head is removed and the combution chamber etc is cc'd accurately and the exact CR calculated and found to be legal, how much faith can be had for any future use of this machine to give accurate readings. Someone previously mentioned it gave 3 different readings which is not a good look regardless of the fact all 3 where suposebly over. Your questions are the EXACT reason I suggested it might be better until SNZ release their statement. They are questions they'll likely answer, but realistically cannot be answered here yet. If their statement doesn't answer everything, THEN I guess is the time to start asking some more............. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2012 8:04:24 GMT 12
ive never had my car tested, how is the test done? A, it the old compression gauage in the spark plug hole or B, its done by air volume and the engine sealers paperwork? A compression gauge doesnt give you the compression ratio, the machine below is used... store.katechengines.com/whistler-compression-ratio-tester-p174.aspxThe machine does actually allow for engine temparature, as someone earlier asked about. The temp and engine displacement is entered manually - temp was checked with laser gun when my car was done, and displacement is from the engine sealing docket. |
|
|
|
Post by Roaddog on Jan 6, 2012 9:26:43 GMT 12
One question though, who tested the engine later and found it to be correct? The engine builder? Was there an SNZ official there to verify the result? SNZ can only go by what they have actually witnessed, they should NOT take anyones word for it, regardless of how well respected said person is. I was told it was Mel Hills who pulled down and checked the engine, Mel is now the engine tech man for snz don't know if the engine builder was there but I would say Douglas and his dad would have been there and 1 or 2 other snz officials. |
|
|
|
Post by artnmotion on Jan 6, 2012 10:33:57 GMT 12
Is it not " the tester of the day is the tester " so in other words bugger, A bit like the snz scales! 20 - 30 kgs difference depending on the day of year, Seen the engine has been retested by ?, Was the engine inpounded by snz so it couldnt be " fiddled " with before another retest at another location, and who tested it? tester is mentioned above... and i am also told that the whole car was pretty much impounded as such. there was tamper proof like seals put on the engine immediately so what you are speaking about when it comes to "fiddling" is completely eliminated. if tamper evidence is shown then id say it would be immediate 1 year stand down |
|
|
|
Post by nzf2stocks. on Jan 6, 2012 20:05:07 GMT 12
Good to hear that the procedures were followed, knowing the people involved I'm not surprised. Hopefully this will be the end of the matter.
One thing I'm interested in is the actual measured compression ratio. Some engine builders take it too close to the line; 9.99-1 is technically legal but leaves you open to this sort of problem. Humidity and altitude can cause a very small variation that cannot reasonably be allowed for, at least not in the equipment we can afford in NZ. eg, with identical testing procedures on the same car it will read 0.05- 0.1 higher at Waikaraka (at sea level) than at Rotorua (up in the mountains.) I have my engines built to 9.85-1, leaving a bit of room for error. My engine builder says that I loose 5-7 hp, not enough to measure in the performance of a stockcar.
|
|
