856 replies to this topic

[Blake Thompson]

you need to protest.  

 

 

$14k.  More than a year's mortgage payments.

[Blake Thompson]

exhaust valve area 

 

oh excellent, I thought I was being dumb and it turns out I was.  Thanks for ELI5.

[Glenn]

I use to feel that way - before I stopped caring.

 

(just wait'n for the next low-cost spec class)

Its called SSM and SM5......

[Glenn]

The more I stay away the more things stay the same....  

 

I don't think the competitors were cheating but the circumstances of the class and how it's been allowed to "progress" have made them cheaters. 

 

I'm not up on the rules anymore and I don't know the details of what's happened here but the bottom line is, this class should have gone to sealed motors long ago and that's really the only way out of this mess. It's only going to get worse (Can it get worse than this last weekend?). It was time for a sealed spec motor back when I was involved. It's way past that time now but I think the competitors can use this incident (incidents?) as the impetus for real change. It might be time to get profit motives out of an amateur class. Now, back to my SM invisible hole.

Just 1 aspect of where the "cheating" has progressed.  Since when could we get more than 3 degrees of negative camber up front?  In IMSA there is a MAX camber rule for the ST cars....WAY more preparation level than SM.  And why do they do that....to eliminate the less than easy to identify cheats that are done to spindles, bolts..etc.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I'm still stuck on the oblong cut argument and the question of how someone having multiple engines found non-compliant can hold a position with SCCA.  Doesn't wash with me and obviously nobody wants to address this elephant.

 

There are a lot of people here who obviously have poor or lacking morals.  To accept that violating the rules is ok is not acceptable to me.

 

Terrell, I suppose you have never done anything for cash even small thing that you did not report on your taxes, and I am sure you never exceed the speed limit, or roll through a stop sign or other little things in life.

 

To many this is just a little thing like that...  right, wrong or indifferent...

 

Everyone thinks that the little things someone else does is so much worse then the little things we do ourselves!  We are all guilty of this!!!  he who is blameless should be the one to throw the first stone here. and no this is nothing like the compression problem we have IMPO.  

 

The builders are doing things that we the racers have no idea about period!  and apparently it is pretty much all builders as I have not seen one of  them post that they are not doing so or shown their engine to be compliant in this area.

 

I disagree with Danny, we do not need to have a deiscussion with everyone about how to rewrite the rules!  I do not want to be a part of that, I do not feel I have anything technical at all that I can add!  I do not know how to build a race engine and have no interest in become an engine builder or understanding every little detail inside the engine.  That is why I buy from an engine builder and I am sure I, Danny and 95% of the rest of the class has this now deemed non compliance issue, but that does not change my interest to get more involved in the engine rules re write.  Whatever come of this does and I will change my engine to comply with what many of you who are much smarter then me finally agree upon!

[Parity]

Boy, I’ve spent way more time following this thread than I’d like to admit. Some good ideas and some I’m not ready to buy into so I’ll take a cue from Danny’s admonishment to speak up.   

 

Being in the machining business,  I understand the technical arguments being made for and against the practice of deburing, chamfering, or blending the plunge cut area but that’s not my primary concern. The most alarming aspect of this whole situation is the “end of days” attitude some are taking. It’s understandable the frustration being felt by many but let’s put things into perspective. This class is going through a cycle common to virtually every process anywhere. We see this affect in everything from youth sports to the stock market.  Mainly, as the popularity of the process increases so will the participation and consequently the competitive element. News flash, people will spend money to win. Period.  The problem isn’t related to the class or the car but to the rules and behavior of the participants. Let’s all scrap SM and got into xyz class. How long before we’re back to square one?

 

To me the decision to protest and the subsequent disqualifications is a form of market correction. Don’t we wish this would have happened in the stock market say 8-10 years ago? While painful right now, I view this whole process as demonstrating this may be the best class going. It’s one of the few where folks have the courage to correct and self-police even if some dirty laundry gets aired.  

 

I definitely lean towards better rule definition  to remove “gray” area interpretation. Drawing this class back to the spirit of “Spec” makes it most affordable and attractive to the most people.

[Tyler Kicera]

Very sad that so many on here are taking the approach they are.

 

While I am a direct casualty of what happened this past weekend, I am trying not to lose sight of the great competition that we all had on track.  The race was exciting for me and full of twists.   

 

Consider this an open invitation to anyone who feels like they're at a disadvantage to me past/present/future.  Come by my hauler anytime and introduce yourself.  I'd be happy to compare traqmate data.  

TK

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I am assumming someothing here... Making a new plunge cut is legal correct?

 

if that is correct then deburing would never need to be done if the plung cut itself did not remove material in the area that was under protest, so whether you debur or not youwoudl be illegal if my above question is correct.  making again even more then 95% non compliant

[Todd Green]

Miscellaneous thoughts...

 

• Perhaps my memory is foggy, but I seem to remember the rules revamp done a couple of years back was done to weed out all the gray areas in head prep so that any local/competent machine shop could give a competitor something very similar to the specialized/Pro SM shops.  It was done in consultation with (all?) the SM Pro engine builders.  Now we're being told that the rules conflict themselves?  So the people at the top of our sport and those who build the engines themselves cannot write rules that don't conflict themselves?!?
• STR has no (performance) advantage.  Let's assume we take that at face value.  There have been several accomplished racers, those who very well know the difference between exit speed and "getting motored", who have come forth and said that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.  You don't get "blown away" by 1-2 HP. So far we've eliminated the compression/CC issue, and (some) people are saying that STR is negligible.  So as I asked earlier, which of course no one answered, what stones are left unturned?  What black eye is going to pop up next for our class?  (Mind you all the (straight line) performance isn't just in the engine and there may be other areas that should be scrutinized.)
• Regional competitors not coming out in fear of being torn down.  Really?  Really?!?  Do we have to go dig up the numerous threads with people complaining about the lack of tech at Majors and we're worried about too much tech at Regionals?!?  We lose far more competitors due to perceived cheating that we do from too much tech.  (Unfortunately, IMO, most of that perception is wrong, but when things like this happen, it just fuels the fire.)
• I only know Will from the times he's come to race in our region over the last few years, but in my experience he's one of the nicest, most humble guys you'll meet on or off the track.  The type of guy who'd give you the shirt off his back, or in racing terms the hard top off his car which he did at the NASA Nats for a competitor who had his back window blown out.  Attacking him is uncalled for.  And judging his finances by the state of his balaclava (sorry Will that thing is nasty) there is no way this was a one man show.  It is disingenuous at best to try to shift the focus on him.
• I cannot tell you the number of times I've wanted to do something on my car, but it hasn't been in the rules.  When you ask, people say to just do it because everyone does it and it'd be a weeny protest.  (E.g., Heat reflective material on the tranny tunnel since we lost the ability to wrap the exhaust.)  Even though it makes the rule book a zillion pages long, this thread is exactly why rules should be clarified before they come to a head.

[Glenn]

 

 

 

 

  Actually, it was pretty clear they never have looked at it.

 

 

Wonder why that is........

[RussMcB]

As new rules (or clarifications) are considered, my hope is they will strive to make the class reward good driving, chassis tuning and preparation.  It shouldn't be about who can have/afford more HP, just like it isn't about owning the best (brand of) shocks, tires, etc. 

 

It's sad that people are looking for a cheaper alternative to SM.  We are supposed to be an inexpensive, entry level class.  There are better classes for people interested in HP wars.

[Tyler Dahl]

Of the cars found non-compliant who are the engine builders?

 

Ti-Speed

East Street

????

[Ron Alan]

 

 

Both had engines that were non-conforming....these guys helped write the rules and both felt the product they bought with them would pass tech and were rules compliant.

 

There are going to be a lot of eyes on these rules over the next few weeks.  This is going to be top down type stuff....  The rules will get fixed, not to allow illegal cars but to better define the rules as they exist.

 

Please remember two things here....sans protest its likely all these cars pass tech because EVERY CAR that was torn down looked the same.....there is a reason they all looked the same from same multiple builders its the way the builders applied the rules.  Tech and the SOM applied it differently...  That tells me we need more clearly written rules.

The Irony of your first statement is deafening. THEY WROTE THE RULES THEY PROTESTED AS UNCLEAR AND CONTRADICTORY!

 

Your 2nd statement...how long has the current rule set been in place? Long enough for a smart engine builder to bring up something poorly written or have prepared a defense ready to go?

 

Third comment...EVERY CAR...I do believe one head had no marks indicating smoothing or blending after the plunge cut and was found compliant. It just had other problems...

 

I applaud the Tech and SOM who stood up and did there jobs they volunteered to do. It could have been so easy to not stir controversy and keep the status quot alive with a future clarification. The tail just cant keep wagging the dog!

[Ron Alan]

Of the cars found non-compliant who are the engine builders?

 

Ti-Speed

East Street

????

X Factor. RM(Rush) was the lone head ok under the protest with the exception of the other issue ultimately DQ'd for.

 

If my info is bad someone in the know please correct me! And apologies in advance

[MPR22]

Rules/Laws are often written with built in ambiguity. If you go read the US Clean Water Act, there are hundreds of ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs, the meaning of which have been litigated at least 4 times (that I know of) at the US Supreme Court.  The 5th one is the works today and it will never stop.  That document was written by dozens of attorneys and some of the ambiguity was on purpose to allow for the document to become a living and breathing work.

 

The first time I read the new (2010?) SM and head rules it was obvious they were crafted to include loop holes that could be manipulated.  I have no problem with that, it is part of racing.  You think otherwise you are also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause and that the government is all knowing and has a handle on every world crisis.  

 

As i like to be a devil ('s advocate')  Show me in the GCR where is specifies what tool to use to make the "plunge cut".   Oh, it doesn't exist.  So if asked a tool manufacturer to make me a tool that could cut a tapered plunge that left no tool marks would that be illegal?  

 

If the machinist uses a grinding tool that leaves no tool marks is that illegal, done on good valve jobs all the time as opposed to using a cutting tool which leaves burrs.  The second sentence below is what is creating this huge controversy.  Dan Tiley said he used a file to remove the burr at the end of the plunge cut.  That seems to cross the grey area.  That seems to crossing the line.  However if an engine builder used a grinding tool to make the "plunge cut"  it would not leave a burr.  Would it be considered to be blended?   If yes then the rules contradict themselves.  Where in the rules does it say you have to use a "cutting tool"  or what specific cutting tool you must use?   It gives maximum diameters and depths,  it says thou shall not "create a smooth transition".  I assume that was intended to keep people from getting all port and polish in the transition.   However it does not say " the plunge cut will be of a constant diameter from the bottom of the seat to the bottom of the cut.  If one wanted to perform the work, by hand does it specifically exclude that in the wording below?   

 

"There can be 

no tooling or machine marks in the head below this point. 

The area under the seat where the plunge cut ends and the 

casting resumes cannot be blended by hand, machined, or 

chemically processed to create a smooth transition. The 

90 degree bend at the bottom of the valve seat and the 

aluminum directly below it will be measured with a gauge 

and must conform to the maximum diameters and depths 

listed below."

 

Another contradiction that Mr. Drago used in his protest was that all plunge cuts are into the short turn radius area of the port.  If that is indeed true then the rule as written probably leads to fail all competitors who re-work the plunge cut.  

 

No material may be removed or 

added from the short turn radius in the port.

 

I have not seen the heads that failed.  Please show me the short side radius of the port area including definitions of dimensions, where it ends and begins based on other verifiable landmarks in the cylinder head.   Oh those aren't in there either so where do i know where not to perform my plunge cut?   

 

 

See how fuckkiing complicated this can all be.

 

The more specific the rules the more costly the class,  PERIOD.  

Sealed engines sound great until you are the guy that gets the left side of the bell curve and the front runners with all their money buy 8 engines and keep the top 2 and sell the bottom 2 to the mid packers at a discount.  

 

 

Most of the people on here just want to race and have the perception of it being a fare race.  Reality is the fast guys who commit to winning will always have the best equipment and spend the most money.  Nobody at the run-offs  was at any significant disadvantage because some engine builder got creative with the interpretation of the plunge cut rule.  Unless of course if was one of those cheater 1.6's.  Those would stand to benefited way more from the head work as they are unrestricted.

 

The sky isn't falling.  The class isn't full of cheaters that will do anything to win.  And those of you that think you have a 100% by the book legal car are delusional.  I can spend 10 minutes with any car and find at least one infraction.  Does it mean you are a cheater, by the book, YES.  

 

In this case the COA heard the appeals and ruled its illegal.

Still would like to see the heads.  

[38bfast]

The COA also ruled that the rule needs to be addressed.

[Kyle Freiheit]

I haven't seen these heads in question but I am positive the heavier the "deburring" the better the flow. Looking at some of the test heads(1.6) I have there is actually a thicker boss in the STR right below the the seat, doing any deburring, blending, chamfering in this area couldn't hurt. This helps in 2 ways, 1)it removes a restriction in the STR, 2)stops the charge from seperating which is helping it follow the STR. Also, the angle of the debur can be helpful, just like the angles on a seat can help. 

 

I think the rule was fine as written. There is no room for ambiguity. If we allow deburring, you are going to have to spec the width of that deburr and the tool that is used. If we go down this route, there tons of other areas like this with building cars. The rule book would have to be 500 pages. 

 

The factory made a plunge cut and there doesn't seem to be any flash/tags and I don't see any grinding marks. 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I am just an amatuer racer with a flowbench 

[Ken SM94]

MPR22, the rules allow a plunge cut and give max diameter and depth from the center of the valve stem. 

 

Nobody cares what the tool looks like to achieve the cut.  Any work outside of that diameter or below the max depth isn't allowed, period.

 

The rules are clear, some chose to ignore them.

[38bfast]

From what I have read the COA was forced to make their ruling based on a rule that was not improperly or not correctly written. Because of the exact verbiage they were forced to make the running of non compliance. But the positive is they did recognize that the rule did need future consideration / rewrite. Basically they recognized it was a F up rule but had no choice but to rule on the exact verbiage.

[mvzante]

Show me in the GCR where is specifies what tool to use to make the "plunge cut".   Oh, it doesn't exist.  So if asked a tool manufacturer to make me a tool that could cut a tapered plunge that left no tool marks would that be illegal?  

 

 

As stated, since no specifications are given on the tool I'd probably want one like this to be used to make the cut.....

 

http://www.amazonsup...s/dp/B00A0P72DS