Oil Sump Rule Change

[SR Racing]

The windage trays used in most vees are both baffles and windage. The windage portion is the flat piece that is between the sump and cam/crank. The baffles on one of the typical aftermarket trays are really for longitudal slosh. We typically modify them to add another baffle down the middle for side to side slosh.

In regards to a accusump use on a Vee. Over the years I have only seen 2 in use. One was a home made, one was a 2qt system. Both engines seemed to be protected according to the data acquisition, but both blew a lot of oil. I have never fooled with one in a Vee. We have installed 3 or 4 into race cars. (1 3qt into a V12 Viper, one 2 quart into a Stealth and a couple 3 quart units in to V8's. They all worked (to protect the engines) But on those cars you didn't need to overfill them like you do on a vee since they all had road racing pans. I assume by fooling with an accusump on a vee you could get everything right.

Regarding use of dry sump system. I just don't think there is any reasonable way to level the playing field. Windage losses will always be less with a dry sump, oil temps will always be less, and case pressures will always be less. (Fooling with case venting to elimnate this would be impossible to police or determine the right size for each application. It (dry sump) is the correct technical solution, but not palatable at this time in the life of Vee. Luckilly we saw the light early enough in FST to implement when there were only 12 or 15 active racers.

[jpetillo]

Brian, thanks for the response. Yes, I was under a similar impression that windage is not well defined - or the term not typically used properly. Stopping the flying oil sounds difficult. Do we ever have our cranks actually dipping into oil during hard cornering?

Jim, yes, I figured so much about the breather leveling the pressure difference - that it would be quite difficult to police.

On the issue of the Accusumps blowing a lot of oil. I assume it is no different in this regard than running a standard setup. Do you think a larger breather would help the oil blowing problem if we're saying that the crankcase pressures are causing this?

Thanks, John

[SR Racing]

Assuming done correctly, the more venting the better in all wet sump engines. You just have to make sure that the venting never becomes covered with oil. The case pressures will blow out the oil. This can be a problem with the pulley on the front of the case. There is no seal there normally, so a heavy downshift and brake puts a lot of oil to the front pulley. The worm drive on the pulley works pretty well until it gets lots of thin hot oil all at once. <g>
BTW, a fresh Vee engine develops up to 2 CFM of blowby at peak torque and above. (An more worn engine could be twice that. )

[jpetillo]

Thanks, good information. I know all too well about venting getting covered in oil - what a mess!

[hardingfv32-1]

The size of the breather system is helpful in keeping the oil in the crankcase. Larger vents, say 3/4", reduce the velocity of the blow-by/oil mixture as it exits. This makes it easier for the oil to drop out of the mixture before leaving the engine.

Brian

[rphillips]

Fyi, I just got this email from the SCCA Club Office in response to my email on the subject. Did anybody else get an email?

I do not know who stirred this up again, but it is not happening. Please tell your fellow competitors.



Kevin Yaghoubi

SCCA

Technical Coordinator, Club Racing

Ray

[Matt King]

What is "not happening"? Dry sumps or extended wet sumps? We're talking about two different things here.

[rphillips]

What is "not happening"? Dry sumps or extended wet sumps? We're talking about two different things here.

My email was in regards to the sump extension proposal in the Fast Track so that is what Kevin is referring to. Although, based on his response, I seriously doubt that an allowance for a dry sump would happen either!

Ray

[FVartist]

I, too received the same e-mail. I was not in favor anyway.

Bruce

[Matt King]

Well, then I consider that an unaccceptable response from an official at the SCCA to a formal proposal that was submitted for member input. What is the point of the rules amendment process if some bureaucrat in Topeka is just going to scoff at it and dismiss it out of hand? "I don't know who stirred this up again?" How about the FV advisory committee and CRB? Are you kidding me that he said that in response to a formal proposal that was published in Fastrack?

[Dave Gomberg]

Kevin's response was an error. He mistakenly thought the notes were referring to dry sumps, not sump extensions. Please continue to submit input on the sump extension proposal.

Dave

[rphillips]

I received an email from Kevin apologizing for his actions and that he indeed confused some of our letters with letters regarding another issue. We all make mistakes so I give credit to Kevin for admitting it and apologizing.

Ray

[Matt King]

Yea, good for him. But I work in corporate America, where you learn not to send emails that can come back to haunt you like that, especially when the people you send them to might post them on the internet.

[rphillips]

Well, he did say to tell my fellow competitors -- what better way then the forum!

Ray

[Matt King]

Yep, all the more reason to be sure you know what you are talking about!

[coyote]

Just an idiots opinion here! Seems pretty darn funny that people will shell out $1300 for a manifold, when for approximately $500 you could gain the same hp and better "protect" your motor! That "new" manifold won't due a bit off good when you cook your motor. If you could spend not even half the money, lower your oil temps., and in all probability prolong time between rebuilds....? I'm I missing something?I guess once again the point eludes me!