Alan
No one ever claimed to guarantee the rpms used, that would be silly wouldn’t it, I can only trust what I have been told and there is little reason to doubt that or is the starting point these days "guilty until proven innocent".
I think you might have forgotten the original train of events, and what was written by the JD staff on that original thread. Because:
SKiddell said:
If “typical” dyno type rpms were the cause then we should all be very afraid and never drive our cars again (some of us don’t)
So we have no information to support a “buzz” on the dyno which is in itself a very unlikely event therefore we must assume that it happened due to either incorrect design/adjustment or it happened prior to acquisition.
If the "Riley" engine had been buzzed prior to acquisition then that’s hardly JD's fault is it.
Who says it was "buzzed"
on the dyno? As far as I remember, the talk behind the scenes ( and which didn't match up with what was being
written ) was that the car had been "tested"
on track by a guest driver or somebody connected to JD
after they acquired it, and that's when the engine was suddenly found to be running badly. It went from the Goodwood test to storage, and then very soon to auction. Hardly much chance for it to suddenly become sick.
I'm
suggesting that this after-purchase track test *might* ( m'lud ) be where a mis-shift in an unfamiliar car caused a *slight* ( m'lud ) over rev and consequent valve/piston interface that bent a few valves. Those bent valves being what caused it to suddenly start running rough, and that rough running what caused it to be put on the dyno in the first place....
You seem to have drawn other conclusions, and if you were present at the Post Mortem then you may have seen evidence to the contrary...? If so, I'm all ears. But please don't talk about distances between valves and any other theoretical stuff as the car was running quickly and cleanly enough in Nick Howell's, Win Percy's, Tony Dron's and Mark Hales' hands for long enough to show that it wasn't a dud and it wasn't going to magically grenade itself at less than its normal rev limit.
SKiddell said:
I take on board your point regarding the initial posts (on here) some time ago and how they might have been viewed as less than favourable to Mr Riley and that none of the JD team have since returned to offer more information but maybe that’s because the reception they got was less than welcoming, from people they owe nothing too.
"People they owe nothing to", eh? I think I could personally claim otherwise, but that's for another topic.....
Anyway, I think he ( they? ) got back as good as he was giving. The tale he was telling didn't stack up as far as I could see. Don't forget I was present at the pre-auction Goodwood test, and there was nothing wrong with the engine then ( ask Mark Hales who was driving it, or anyone else who was present ). It all smells it a bit like our talented engineers have sorted it out now, and it's faster than ever....
SKiddell said:
Yes I am a little defensive of the team at JD but that’s down to professional engineering respect rather than any sort of undeserving sycophantic hero worship often seen around these parts.
You think I'm being sycophantic then?
If simply sticking up for Tim Riley ( and by extension, Nick Howell ) is "sycophantic", then so be it, but I don't see
anyone else sticking up for them and Tim's hardly had a mention on this forum let alone any
"undeserved hero worship". I know of other examples of Tim's good, sound engine building and it's simply unfair ( not to mention rather gauche ) to cast aspersions on his work without knowing what his original
budget and
brief was.
It's even more ironic when the modified L20A cylinder head in question was actually from the hand of one S. Anderson esquire ( receiver of plenty of "hero worship" ) and a fundamental part of the car's continuous history. That history was - for a very large part - what JD Classics actually
bought when they purchased the car at auction.
