Can somebody explain this pop up valve stuff?

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
Not Trolling

Very good..You're finally learning that when I am speaking to friends that you can simply shut the fuck up because we don't care what you and your little 3 man Calgary Clique say.

Because you are trolling...

LOL you need to turn on your humor detector....

---

Power means nothing if you cannot control it!

So no drawings and made in a shed, seems like real good bang for the bucks... Nobody somewhere in Canada can make these? how about North America? Why some obscure company from England?

Quote
Philippe Bellefleur
So no drawings and made in a shed, seems like real good bang for the bucks... Nobody somewhere in Canada can make these? how about North America? Why some obscure company from England?

Certainly not a connection with England in this case......lol, but there’s a whopping 10% discount.....yuiuuuuuuuge let me tell ya, everyone knows this

---

Power means nothing if you cannot control it!

Quote
ElectroTech
Certainly not a connection with England in this case......lol, but there’s a whopping 10% discount.....yuiuuuuuuuge let me tell ya, everyone knows this

Still better than an imagined 60% cost over-run.

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

Quote
Philippe Bellefleur
So no drawings and made in a shed, seems like real good bang for the bucks... Nobody somewhere in Canada can make these? how about North America? Why some obscure company from England?

This is not the place to find these answers...

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

Quote
Not Trolling

Quote
Philippe Bellefleur
So no drawings and made in a shed, seems like real good bang for the bucks... Nobody somewhere in Canada can make these? how about North America? Why some obscure company from England?

This is not the place to find these answers...

Tell us where we can find the part number then. Tell us why the hell someone had to make this so damn complicated and expensive for what it is. Tell us why a specific person has to be the one to “certify” these when any of hundreds of thousands of people are qualified and local to most Rally activity in the instrumentation sector, let alone all the places that certify PSVs for industry every day, and those prevent explosions. What is wrong with the ARA approach?

---

Power means nothing if you cannot control it!

An engineering drawing and spec sheet would be interesting to see, might upgrade such a mandate from "entirely dubious" to "98% dubious", though it wouldn't do much to convince anyone that the supplier isn't a blowhard and/or middleman (edit for clarity: Angle, not MattP).

Not to pour scorn on this Very Excellent Idea, but I see no way that this provides any technical or economic advantage to competitors; a less negative outcome (i.e. only trashing 90% of the absurd unit price vs. 100%) is still a net negative outcome. Without arguing about the necessity and usefulness of boost monitoring and/or control in administering rallies, I do think ARA made a smart decision to split the onus for boost monitoring with competitors. The sanctioning body shoulders the vast majority of the cost (sensors and hardware), while the competitor is forced to spend ~$20 (maybe less) and 15 minutes of time to get equipped with off-the-shelf, mass-produced (read: CHEAPER) adapters and wiring to meet the mandate.

I also fail to see how this "solution" would be a more effective way to normalize competition vs. using a $25 ASME-coded pop-off valve from someplace like McMaster. Using hard seals would mean a tolerance of 4%, equating to ~1 psi on a 25 psi valve, soft seals 2 psi... minimal, and about as well as can be had without totally unnecessarily complex and expensive hardware. Easy to verify in scrutineering, takes nothing more than an compressor with a quality regulator to pressurise the intake, you fail you swap in a different $5 valve. Scrutineer can apply paint, tamper evident tape, etc. to ensure continued compliance.

I do suppose one question would be whether or not a bleed rate of 20 or 30 scfm would be sufficient for a turbo motor flowing 20-30 times that, but again, it would be helpful to know what the specs on the proposed valve are to make an honest comparison... only so much air can flow through a given area. In that vein, there would still be the old tricks of placement and intentional overboosting to force more performance past any valve (assuming the restricted engine isn't already at the absolute limit of choked flow).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2019 11:46PM by Rolling Blunder.

The whole thing stinks, bespoke bullshit, British nonsense, discounts off something that’s never been sold before, scrotum nearing by only one “trained” guy, and then when called out on it he politics show and they realize, hey the dummies are on to us, hold the line. Then a few months from now when Angle gets too busy working on calisthenics with the Estonian all male dodge ball troupe and can’t be bothered to order his parts off Alibaba anymore and then it’s start all over....
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/relief%252bvalve.html

---

Power means nothing if you cannot control it!

One passing mention on Angle's website from 2013: https://www.angleconsulting.com/content/fia-homologation-pop-valve-group-r-rally-series

FIA paperwork with a PN (950-013-001) https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/file/LT%252043-Boost%2520Control%2520System%2520Group%2520R%2520(09.07.2013).pdf

...but good luck finding any info on that or the Peugeot Citroen PN (0A2127642A) the google ties it to, assuming its even the same part as what is being mandated for CARS.

Quote
ElectroTech

Quote
john vanlandingham

Quote
Not Trolling

Very good..You're finally learning that when I am speaking to friends that you can simply shut the fuck up because we don't care what you and your little 3 man Calgary Clique say.

Because you are trolling...

LOL you need to turn on your humor detector....

People who are primarily troll/nerds wear out the humor welcome mat..He and his little suck-buddy clique were personas non-grata not too long after they arrived to troll.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

You want things to be expensive, go sole source and mandate the price.

---

Power means nothing if you cannot control it!

Quote
john vanlandingham
People who are primarily troll/nerds wear out the humor welcome mat..He and his little suck-buddy clique were personas non-grata not too long after they arrived to troll.

---

First Rally attended (2000), First Rally competed in (2001)
Cars Built (1), Engines Built (0) Cages Built (0)
Driver (8), Co-Driver (47), Drivers (19)
Clerk (29), Steward (1), Official (17), Volunteer (5)
WRC Spectator (1), WRC Photographer (6), WRC Observer (4)
Rallies attended (120) Countries attended rallies in (11)
Last Updated, May30, 2022

Just when the going is getting good... and somebody might have fixed the internet...

SNAP



Come on boys... get along and talk. There hasn't been so much excitement here since, well, fawk, I forget, what was I talking about?

Quote
Rolling Blunder
An engineering drawing and spec sheet would be interesting to see, might upgrade such a mandate from "entirely dubious" to "98% dubious", though it wouldn't do much to convince anyone that the supplier isn't a blowhard and/or middleman (edit for clarity: Angle, not MattP).

Not to pour scorn on this Very Excellent Idea, but I see no way that this provides any technical or economic advantage to competitors; a less negative outcome (i.e. only trashing 90% of the absurd unit price vs. 100%) is still a net negative outcome. Without arguing about the necessity and usefulness of boost monitoring and/or control in administering rallies, I do think ARA made a smart decision to split the onus for boost monitoring with competitors. The sanctioning body shoulders the vast majority of the cost (sensors and hardware), while the competitor is forced to spend ~$20 (maybe less) and 15 minutes of time to get equipped with off-the-shelf, mass-produced (read: CHEAPER) adapters and wiring to meet the mandate.

I also fail to see how this "solution" would be a more effective way to normalize competition vs. using a $25 ASME-coded pop-off valve from someplace like McMaster. Using hard seals would mean a tolerance of 4%, equating to ~1 psi on a 25 psi valve, soft seals 2 psi... minimal, and about as well as can be had without totally unnecessarily complex and expensive hardware. Easy to verify in scrutineering, takes nothing more than an compressor with a quality regulator to pressurise the intake, you fail you swap in a different $5 valve. Scrutineer can apply paint, tamper evident tape, etc. to ensure continued compliance.

I do suppose one question would be whether or not a bleed rate of 20 or 30 scfm would be sufficient for a turbo motor flowing 20-30 times that, but again, it would be helpful to know what the specs on the proposed valve are to make an honest comparison... only so much air can flow through a given area. In that vein, there would still be the old tricks of placement and intentional overboosting to force more performance past any valve (assuming the restricted engine isn't already at the absolute limit of choked flow).

this is where I was going but the trolls are going ape shit...

I thought it was pop-off valve. Is this Pop-Up thing different?

---

Andrew Steere
Lyndeborough, NH
KB1PJY