Tony Bischoff and BES Racing Engines Wins Amsoil Engine Mast

A place for professionals to network and discuss the business and technology inside the shop.



Top Contributor
Posts: 4074
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Pahrump NV.
Country:
USA
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:23 pm
What a Joke typical HOTROD magazine BS at the Amsoil Engine Masters Challenge

This guy Tony Bischoff and BES Racing Engines Wins Amsoil Engine Masters of 2014 with a 689-Horsepower 401ci Gen III Hemi by Bischoff Racing Engines at the Amsoil Engine Masters Challenge of 2014 when another engine beat him in HP and Torq! I could care less what the Parameters were in judging the guy lost to the 727-Horsepower, 436ci LSX by School of Automotive Machinists hands down Hot Rod MAGAZINE LIES! as usual !
Ya the school had a bigger engine by 35 cubes but by the rules Bischoff could have built a bigger engine too so that doesn't play into it not at all the Automotive Machinist beat him hands down He doesn't deserve to keep anything it all needs to go to the Kids from that school how dare he accept this award. What a sham of a competition and a shame on Hot rod for again picking a winner for favors.
I quit reading Hot rod and other rags long ago when I figured out they were just out to sell parts when I was just a kid over 40 years ago nice to know nothing in corporate America will ever change LIES UPON LIES Learn to think and judge for yourself boys and girls there are Way to many out there willing to deceive you for the ultimate goal of stripping your almighty dollar from your pocket Than there are honest souls willing to help you achieve your dreams. Learn who to trust and its not some advertising rag of a Magazine.

http://www.hotrod.com/events/coverage/t ... -iii-hemi/

This whole story makes me sick and Mad as hell
Dennis Barnett
A&P Mechanic, FCC General radio Telephone Operator
Line Maintenance A&P Mechanic and MOC Tech specialist.



No Turning Back
Posts: 845
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:46 am
Location: Canberra
Country:
Australia
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:37 am
I had to read the link because I was intrigued by the degree of umbrage evident in your post.

Then I read it again and then I read the rules.

The key factor in the rules is the way that each engine's actual power and torque results are weighted to compensate for displacement.

The sum of the average corrected torque quotient and the average corrected
horsepower quotient are multiplied by 1000 and then divided by the claimed cubic
inch displacement of the engine. This will yield a quotient number to be used for
scoring for engine dyno results.


Essentially this means that the results are expressed as a figure which relates to hp per cubic inch capacity. Thus, as in this case, although the winner didn't achieve the outright power and torque figures of not one, but two of the competitors, what he did achieve was from a smaller capacity engine (401ci vs 417ci and 436ci).

Seems to me that this is a fair way of levelling the playing field. Otherwise the guy with the biggest engine would always win.
Chris



Top Contributor
Posts: 4074
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Pahrump NV.
Country:
USA
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:50 pm
Chriss
Your right & wrong each engine builder had the option of building a bigger engine as did the others to build a smaller engine be it by bore or stroke so really a HP per cubic inch equation goes right out the window in this case its an apples to Oranges comparison especially when there all building different engines, Your using a sliding scale to chose a winner.

If your gonna judge by a HP per cubic inch you need to level the playing field more by having all the engines the same size there are just too many variables involved for a True judging.

They Did a Good Build off a few years back with 426 Hemis they gave all the builders the same requirements a budget of $18,000 max, requirements of stock bore, stock stroke, they could use what ever they wanted for Pistons, compression, cam, flat tappet or roller, The Heads could be Cast Iron or Aluminum and any induction manifold ALL parts had to be off the shelf parts that anyone could buy no porting other than done by the mfg of the parts minor port matching was allowed NO super charging no turbos no nitrous single Carburetor.
All engines had to run the same Sunnoco unleaded 98 octane fuel supplied by Testing.
Now this was a True challenge as Numbers for each engine builder were all over the place as far as HP and Torq goes with one of the engines Blowing up during testing. all were allowed the same amount of time on the dyno which was generous allowing multiple Plug, Timing & and jetting adjustments.
The differences in parts choices were as huge as was the Preparation of the parts, the differences in MAX hp & Torq, Manifold vacuum pressure were also just as wide displaying pure experience in what works and what doesn't & who really knew how to build the engine.

Proving Proper Parts selection, Preparation and tuning have way more to do with Engine building than just throwing stuff together. Nascar Knows this that's why They have Induction restriction plates and strict rules on engine size.

Grumpy Jenkins used to run a 330 cube small block he raced in Super stock built from a 400 block now I wonder why he did that? Can a smaller engine make more power than a Bigger one? you bet your Butt it can! Grumpy Went up against ALL in Super stock with a Smaller motor and beat the Pance off All of em!
His engines have won 5 Pro stock championships & 3 AHRA championships.

But when that same engine in the same field of bigger engines makes LESS total power than the Bigger engines in the same field and class it doesn't make it a winner just because it made more HP and Torq per cubic inch I'm sorry it just doesn't.
Dennis Barnett
A&P Mechanic, FCC General radio Telephone Operator
Line Maintenance A&P Mechanic and MOC Tech specialist.



Top Contributor
Posts: 4074
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Pahrump NV.
Country:
USA
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:31 pm
NFT5 wrote:
The sum of the average corrected torque quotient and the average corrected
horsepower quotient are multiplied by 1000 and then divided by the claimed cubic
inch displacement of the engine. This will yield a quotient number to be used for
scoring for engine dyno results.




Given that they all had Limited time on the Dyno and some guys got more time than others do to the rules allowing Dyno Time extensions whether they used it or not by winning certain parts of the build and then Using Averages of HP and Torq Throws every thing out the window again in my opinion.
Not every one got the same amount of Dyno time for pulls and tuning otherwise why bring it up? Its just like all these Car shows that restore a car in a Half hour show.

Some guys may have only had made a few Pulls while another may have gotten 5 or more for tuning then an averages are calculated and they don't say whether the lowest and highest numbers are averaged or just the highest used? they don't say.
Anyone who has spent time in a dyno room will tell you it takes some time to dial an engine in and no two engines are the same.

Another Variable that they don't talk about at all Is how large the water tank is for the Dynos and What temp the water was for each dyno pull, does it make a difference? you bet it does the cooler the water is the higher and more accurate your numbers will be.
I personally know builders who shut the dyno down after a raise in water temp by just a few degrees till it cools back down. and here they ran engines back to back one after another on two different dynos in the same shop.
Dennis Barnett
A&P Mechanic, FCC General radio Telephone Operator
Line Maintenance A&P Mechanic and MOC Tech specialist.



No Turning Back
Posts: 845
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:46 am
Location: Canberra
Country:
Australia
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 6:06 am
If I read it correctly then the different competitors did actually get the same time on the dyno, but those who saved time in the earlier round were allowed to use that time in the final round.

No set of rules is perfect, I agree. Many years ago one of the tasks I had to do in my job was compile statistics which were used for projections of company performance in the future. Fresh out of uni I could see that some of the statistics were skewed and that senior management compensated for this (without really understanding what they were doing, and why) using 'seat of the pants' guesstimates. Not very scientific, I thought, so I introduced a series of weighting factors to bring the figures into line. It almost cost me my job but, in the end, I was able to prove my case and the weightings were allowed. What I see here is that the organisers are trying to do the same thing but the number of variables are so great that it's maybe next to impossible to come up with the perfect formula. Still, the idea of rewarding the guy who gets more hp per cubic inch is commendable, in my opinion.

The idea of having all the builders use the same basic building blocks that you mentioned is a good one. That really means that success would come from an individual's knowledge and ability to transfer that into the build. That there wre some spectacular failures doesn't surprise me either. That would have been a good competition.

But, the competition is only to engender interest in the publication and sell more copies, so they feel they have to keep changing it to maintain the interest of their readership. That's a bit of a shame, really, given that it will work short term, but long term the larger base, like yourself, will actually lose interest. Just how the world is now, mate. It's all about now, with scant regard for the long term future.

To be honest, I have enormous respect for all these engine builders. What they can achieve is quite remarkable.
Chris



Top Contributor
Posts: 4074
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Pahrump NV.
Country:
USA
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:55 am
Chriss
Being a certified engine builder I am quite capable of entering one of these competitions and would like to but they never put it out there for the general public for entry its always done by invite only so that always puts a Thorn in my side then they make up the rules like these.
Being an actual certified builder I take great pride in my ability's and knowledge no I don't know all or claim too, but I do know when the Wool is being pulled over my eyes.

I am sorry if you don't agree with me and my opinion and thats all it is an opinion you don't have too lol we can disagree all day long that's why we have a great forum like this.

When I was a kid I used to believe all these magazine write ups were independent evaluations of all these different company's wares.
I figured out later after being burned more than once on the supposedly best thing since sliced bread wasn't even as good as the original parts I had taken off.
But the magazine writer had done his job and wrote and worded it in such a way to convince me that my original parts were junk and sub standard and that the new part would make lots more power. It didn't take long for me to wake up and figured out all these magazines were nothing more than fancy paid advertising for the aftermarket parts industry that the writers didn't care about me my car or any thing else other than convincing me that my parts were junk and that I had to buy this other guys junk part that it was superior.

The Magazine industry hasn't changed or gotten any better with time either
Dennis Barnett
A&P Mechanic, FCC General radio Telephone Operator
Line Maintenance A&P Mechanic and MOC Tech specialist.

Return to The Pro Shop!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests