Request new FF parts approval
#28133 from Joseph Marcinski · Not recommended · Minutes (2020-03 Fastrack)
Mr. Joseph Marcinski, Letter #28133
Thank you for your letter of January 6, 2020 concerning an alternative piston, rings, wrist pin and valves
for Formula F. Although your letter failed to designate what engine these parts were intended for, we
will assume that it is the Ford Kent 1600 cross-flow.
First, your letter provides no detail concerning the Manley valve(s) you propose for use. No part
number, drawings, part(s) or dyno comparison. It is not possible for this part to be evaluated on what
has been submitted.
Be advised that JE submitted a request for approval of a piston on or about November 9, 2018 for the
Show 22 more lines
Ford Kent 1600 cross-flow engine through SCCA’s letter system. That request included an engineering
drawing of the piston, but did not include dyno comparison results or a sample part. It was further
unclear to the FSRAC at that time, and to this day, whether JE has actually manufactured a piston or has
simply produced a drawing and will produce such if asked to do so. The FSRAC recommended to the CRB
that the request be denied. The CRB accepted that recommendation and published notice thereof in the
January 2019 Fastrack. A follow-up inquiry was made by JE’s Jim Irwin concerning the request and a
response was provided by the FSRAC Chairman, David Locke, on February 1, 2019. The letter advised Mr.
Irwin that the FSRAC did not see evidence of a need for an alternative Kent piston, but assuming that
such need could be demonstrated a dyno comparison to the currently approved piston would be
required. Locke welcomed further submission of dyno test results and a sample piston; to date JE has
not made further inquiry or submission on this matter.
As you may or may not be aware, about twenty (20) years ago parts for the Kent engine were in very
short supply and the quality of those available were questionable. Since that time members of the
Formula F community have worked to produce parts, including a block, which have proven to be of good
quality and provide a useful engine life many times that which existed previously. In the absence of a
proven shortage of parts, or valid reason for approving “alternative” parts, we do not believe it prudent
to introduce such into the stream of competition. Even “if” the proposed parts are dimensionally the
same, differences in material composition and processing could result in a part that would not produce
the same power or worse yet, longevity. It would at a minimum introduce a variable into the class that
could result in “perceived” performance differences which we believe would have a negative impact
upon its overall health.
Thank you for your continued support of Formula F and the SCCA.