|
|
Post by The Observer on Jun 18, 2013 9:33:32 GMT 12
Hi All,
Wondering what the results of the remit meetings around the country have been regarding introducing fuel injection in stockcars.I know this remit was defeated in the past, but after the trial and some publicity around it, it has certainly got our drivers talking.
I guess the question we had was is there any difference in performance (we think fuel injection on a standard motor might make it go better for those running stock motors - but not significantly enough to obsolete the EA manifold on weber carb), and feel that its safe enough given derby cars have been fuel injected for years, and streetstocks and production saloons have not had any trouble for the last few years.
In the end our drivers voted to support the remit, as the ability to bang a motor straight into the stockcar from a road car appeals to our budget racers.
Plus I think they like the idea of getting rid of those flash carbs.
That was the veiw from the drivers in GM. DId anyone else get to there local remit meeting, and remember which way they voted on this remit?
|
|
|
|
Post by fonterra1 on Jun 18, 2013 17:34:43 GMT 12
I hope it come in might save a few bucks and get on track sooner .
|
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Jun 18, 2013 19:54:23 GMT 12
Doesn't matter which way the remit vote goes at the club, it's what happens in Welly that counts.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrdamage on Jun 18, 2013 22:05:54 GMT 12
I think what Obby is trying to Ascertain is; a general feel for how the clubs voted - Ie if the vast majority are in favour then it would appear to tip the scales favourably toward it being passed?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Observer on Jun 19, 2013 9:41:02 GMT 12
Come on tank - dont be so cynical. Surely your gizzy delegates will vote as instructed by the drivers? And by letting us know whether gizzy supported or not this remit,then at least we will get a feel for which way its going, as mrdamage noted above.
|
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Jun 19, 2013 19:34:15 GMT 12
Come on tank - dont be so cynical. Surely your gizzy delegates will vote as instructed by the drivers? And by letting us know whether gizzy supported or not this remit,then at least we will get a feel for which way its going, as mrdamage noted above. I actually didn't attend the meeting as not a financial member, but I have no doubt one year we voted one way and the word came back to us the delegates voted how the club committee wanted, a case of back scratching. |
|
|
|
Post by chris13w on Jun 19, 2013 20:14:52 GMT 12
Come on tank - dont be so cynical. Surely your gizzy delegates will vote as instructed by the drivers? And by letting us know whether gizzy supported or not this remit,then at least we will get a feel for which way its going, as mrdamage noted above. I actually didn't attend the meeting as not a financial member, but I have no doubt one year we voted one way and the word came back to us the delegates voted how the club committee wanted, a case of back scratching. I'm sure that happens a lot of the time - one member, one vote - that's the answer - hardly difficult to arrange in this day and age... |
|
|
|
Post by The Observer on Jun 20, 2013 8:57:39 GMT 12
So: Given this years conference will be the most open yet, with everyone invited wouldn't it make sense to use this social network to identify which way your drivers voted? That way Chris13w could wander along to conference and double check delegates are voting there way.
I have attended two previous conferences and not seen "horse trading" or "battering" over remits for raceclasses.
Championship allocations are another story however.
What has happened in the past is a speaker has got up and put a comprehensive arguement forward about a technical remit (usually safety based) that delegates might second guess there vote.
given this thread has been read 500 odd times, it still has had only a few posters - and of that it looks like I am still the only one that attended a remit meeting.
You can;t whinge if you don't engage.
However I think the reality is bugger all drivers or car owners turn up to the remit meetings, so the delegates are forced to once over lightly on the remits and vote on the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by rustytim on Jun 22, 2013 20:35:10 GMT 12
Im wondering if this was getting voted for today or tomorrow? Have heard about several remits, transponders and in-car cameras but not the one I want to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Visacard on Jun 24, 2013 19:57:51 GMT 12
From Percy
Stockcar Fuel Injection Remit #144 was one of the most fiercely debated remits of the weekend. There were passionate arguments both for an against and when it came to voting the remit was narrowly lost. By narrowly I mean narrowly, it was a vote or two. So Fuel Injected engines are not permitted in Stockcars for the time being.
My prediction is that the Fuel Injection remit passes in 2 years time.
|
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Jun 24, 2013 20:29:22 GMT 12
Would be interested to hear the negative points ?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandy898 on Jun 29, 2013 11:19:27 GMT 12
Would be interested to hear the negative points ? My negative point is that people like Hartley and all them other performance engine builders will start modifying these motors once we are allowed to run them. I thought the whole idea of trialling them was to see how they go in stock form against the performance engines that are already out there.Once the modification starts , it never ending and the price of engines goes out the window. It is hard enough trying to compete now on a budget. This is just my opinion.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 12:54:54 GMT 12
Would be interested to hear the negative points ? My negative point is that people like Hartley and all them other performance engine builders will start modifying these motors once we are allowed to run them. I thought the whole idea of trialling them was to see how they go in stock form against the performance engines that are already out there.Once the modification starts , it never ending and the price of engines goes out the window. It is hard enough trying to compete now on a budget. This is just my opinion.... Thats a good point and Im sure some were stock - But there was one at the mount that ran a worked hartley v6, and reported that the difference between carb and injection was stuff all... the guy swapped between carb and injection for the title races and normal club nights. Its on face book somewhere - will have to try and find it. at the end of the day - you can get the same hp out of a good carb that you can out of injection - why else would v8s still be using carbs on a regular basis? |
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Jun 29, 2013 15:05:33 GMT 12
My negative point is that people like Hartley and all them other performance engine builders will start modifying these motors once we are allowed to run them. I thought the whole idea of trialling them was to see how they go in stock form against the performance engines that are already out there.Once the modification starts , it never ending and the price of engines goes out the window. It is hard enough trying to compete now on a budget. This is just my opinion.... Thats a good point and Im sure some were stock - But there was one at the mount that ran a worked hartley v6, and reported that the difference between carb and injection was stuff all... the guy swapped between carb and injection for the title races and normal club nights. Its on face book somewhere - will have to try and find it. at the end of the day - you can get the same hp out of a good carb that you can out of injection - why else would v8s still be using carbs on a regular basis? Quite easy to have a rule where no modification to the injected motor is allowed, barring a re-bore. Easy to police, because the OEM compression should not waiver by much. If that is the main concern, we are not going to close the back to the front. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by mike616 on Jun 29, 2013 15:27:39 GMT 12
Why do you think that vehicle manufacturers went away from Carbs and towards Injection. So they didnt have customers having to worry about rebuilding carbs, cleaning out jets and making sure no water went on the engine (water in carb means no go) and fuel economy. The only V8s that are using carbs are the ones that are made in that era, People are installing fuel injection on old v8s now and even or rotories so they dont have to worry about carb issues.
Im for the injection as long as there is a way to police it and make sure everything is kept standard (but i know that wont happen and if it doesnt then im against it)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 19:38:08 GMT 12
Why do you think that vehicle manufacturers went away from Carbs and towards Injection. So they didnt have customers having to worry about rebuilding carbs, cleaning out jets and making sure no water went on the engine (water in carb means no go) and fuel economy. The only V8s that are using carbs are the ones that are made in that era, People are installing fuel injection on old v8s now and even or rotories so they dont have to worry about carb issues. Im for the injection as long as there is a way to police it and make sure everything is kept standard (but i know that wont happen and if it doesnt then im against it) Actually the main reason they went away was because the carb was becoming outdated and fuel injection provided a way to continue building top top of the line engines and since injection provides better fuel economy, more low rpm torque and smoother idle and acceleration compared to carb engines that can sometimes suffer from lack of vacuum to balance the air/fuel mixture at lower rpm. as has been stated - a high end carb engine often requires you to dance on the pedals to keep them going at low rpm while an injected engine will happily tick over with no help what so ever. from personal experience an injected engine starts to lose its advantage in the top end of the rev range where you usally reach the limit of the injectors, while a carb engine often does better at higher rpm than lower rpm. |
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Jun 29, 2013 20:00:10 GMT 12
I agree Mike616, it won't happen so make the penalties clear at the start and stick it to the first couple, then the others will follow the rules.
Manufacturers compression can only be exceeded by ----
OEM or replacement parts off offical list.
Re-bore to ---- only.
SNZ computer (quick plug in to check)
|
|
|
|
Post by rustytim on Jun 29, 2013 22:55:44 GMT 12
I don't understand the argument for injected engines needing to be standard. Looking at someone in the position that I was/am in. Building/built a first stockcar. Buying an insurance write-off falcon wrecking it out and hay presto a free engine complete with loom, injectors, manifold and everything required to run it. It is much cheaper and easier for me to just drop this engine straight in the stockcar with wiring fuel pump in from ECU, putting high pressure fuel lines in place and turn the key. I would not have to mess around with getting an old manifold, spending $$ on sourcing and rebuilding an old technology dissy, more $$ on doing same to an old carby. Straight away I am better off financially so that money could be spent on better chassis parts. After a season or so of being a mid/back running car I would want to go faster and your saying I would now need to spend the money I want to spend on go fast engine bits on converting it back to a carby, distributor engine for no gain. If it turns out that the big $$ injected engines are much quicker than the big $$ carby engines then a quick and easy decrease in the size of the restrictor plate should even out that level playing field again. However I think it has been proven that on big $$ engines don't make the car any noticeably quicker than the same engine on carbys. Just look at the comparative lap times from 8m Scott Fredrickson with and without fuel injection on trial engine last year.
I am still yet to see a good logical argument against allowing fuel injection for stockcars. Good for back pockets, I would argue less maintenance for an injected as opposed to carby, cheaper set-up costs for a new car (conversion cost for existing car is only optional for everyone so not a valid point).
Cheers Tim Wildey 82C.
|
|
|
|
Post by tank11 on Jun 29, 2013 23:57:05 GMT 12
Problem is oem ecu's can be tweeked, that's why SNZ computers would be essential.
Yes will cost but easier to monitor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 1:22:28 GMT 12
Problem is oem ecu's can be tweeked, that's why SNZ computers would be essential. Yes will cost but easier to monitor. EVERY ecu can be tweaked - its just a question of how hard it is to do so. Why should injected cars have such a hard line limit on the ability to tweak things when a carby engine doesn't anyway? that's not giving them a level playing field! that's penalizing the driver because his engine doesn't have a carb!! There is no performance advantage, there is simply a safety advantage and a reliability advantage - when will people get it in thier heads? the carb was only super-seeded by the reliability and fuel economy of modern injection - that is the reason cars are made with injection now. The manufacturers reasons have got nothing to do with how much performance you can get out of injection - the only added performance is in the low rpm range that our stockcars will only ever use in the pits or during a red light!! and since Im typing this I do know of a way to run an oem ecu without chipping it and without adding anything. the answer is all in the wiring. |
|
