856 replies to this topic

[KW78]

Also some other thoughts on these issues (So many I could write a book if I could type faster... )

 

While I don't have the national prominence of Dave W or Jim, In the last several Rocky Mountain events (Nasa or SCCA) our shop has had a chunk of the field in SM with either rentals or supported customers, so I do in fact live these issues in our area.  My .02 on some things:

 

I tried to buy the tools to make sure my valve jobs were legal before the 2013 runoffs, I was told that was a single batch an may not be available again.  I have not blended plunge cuts because the rule seemed clear enough to me.  That is "pocket porting" is essence and commonly addressed in alot of rule sets.

 

My customers want to be on an even playing field, and often think tech shed legal is what the standard in fact is.  When one of them bought a Race Engineering motor, the other bought a Drago motor.  Etc. Etc.  Our tech shed is weight and plate from the 2 regular tech volunteers.

 

The circle track crowd have figured out how to get around claimer rules for a long time.   It just isn't a deterrent in the end.

 

SCCA Enterprises are here in town, and no they can not possibly supply motors for another class unless they quadruple in size.  The Gen 3 conversion has them maxed as is.  Good folks, just under staffed.

 

 

once again out of time..

 

Kyle

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Who thinks the class was better when it wasn't a Runoff eligible class, or at least more fun.

 

who is old enough to to know about those ancient times?      

[MPR22]

Call me crazy but why allow a plung cut in the first place? Seems like any mod to a head is not spec therefor should have never been allowed. Give a inch and people will try to take 1 1/16th! Stock head with no adjustments Done! I feel bad for the people that didn't get what they expected from their motor builder but when 20 plus cars run under the track record at the Glen major (or just about every major this year) what did they think was going on? This dont ask don't tell mentality is what feeds the problem in the first place. the best drivers are the best drivers and always will be but its a shame that a very talented driver might never have a shot by following the rules.

The reason for the plunge cut has to do with the core shift in the head castings.   Not all heads are created equal from Mazda not even close.  The rules were written to help make them more equal.  The class has had more parity over the last three years than ever.  A competent machine shop can do most of the work the builders are doing.  Not all heads are still equal when the come back from the machine shop, the original donor core still has an effect on the overall flow.  The work is intended to bring them closer.  The compression should be the same if the calculations are done correctly, mostly its down to some flow better than others.  What was maybe a 5-7 hp difference maybe down to 2-3 hp with the plunge cut.  

[Blake Thompson]

who is old enough to to know about those ancient times?      

 

I miss getting regional contingency dollars for swiping throw away hankooks.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I miss getting regional contingency dollars for swiping throw away hankooks.

 

You do realize there is a hoosier contingency for regional correct? 

[Blake Thompson]

You do realize there is a hoosier contingency for regional correct? 

 

a. Not for Council, they redacted it.

b.  The Hankook contigency was for the highest finishing ca weairng their tires.  Meaning I could finish 8th and get $100 if 1-7 was running Hoosier.

Those were the days, Archie.

[Bench Racer]

The reason for the plunge cut has to do with the core shift in the head castings.    

Or was it additionally, because the OEM plunge cut didn't meet the engine builders ideal? 

[davew]

I don't agree with you Dave W., while I do feel bad for the drivers that were found in violation and ASKED for a legal motor.

I don't believe the builders made a mistake they are to good. Drago specifically offers motors that state " we push every tolerance to get the most HP/TQ within the rules.". 

He helps write the rules and is already talking about making this legal.

Tiley admitted to pushing this area and apologized for it and then made jokes about it.

Thats bullshit these guys did this for their own personal gain$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Have there been any Rossini engines found to be none compliant or is one of the few with integrity.  

 

Do you really think any of these professionals would purposely send something illegal to this race. Knowing the heads where coming off, valves where coming out and every scratch in the head would be looked at. I have personally torn apart 4 motors in the Runoffs tech shed. Everybody knew what was coming. I do not believe these guys would be dumb enough to send something they considered illegal to this event.

 

Did they make an error in judgement? Did they mis interprit a rule? Maybe/probably. But not intentionally.

 

Mike Rossini is most definately a man of integrity.He needs neither you, nor I to defend him. I do not believe his engines where part of this inspection and thus his reputation is not part of this discussion.

 

It is this type of post with its negativity that will hurt the class much more that what happened at Mazda Raceway.

 

Dave

[Waterboy]

Have there been any Rossini engines found to be non compliant or is one of the few with integrity.

Pretty sure in the whistle gate thread one of his motors was mentioned. You would have to go back and read if you really want to know.

[MPR22]

Or was it additionally, because the OEM plunge cut didn't meet the engine builders ideal?

IIRCC the rule is applied the same across all engine years. Also the 1.6 benefits the most from the work. So you should be happy the modification was approved. Or did you have one of the Majic 1.6 heads and wanted to keep other a from getting closer to you.

You always seem to go to the "evil engine builder card"when you don't like the explanation.

[Danny Steyn]

To the SMAC, CRB, and anyone involved in writing new specs..... here is your dilemma as I see it.

1. if all the heads produced by those engine builders that have exploited the STR cleanup, are now deemed non compliant, then you have a HUGE expense and obligation on your shoulders to replace those heads.

2. If on the other hand you rewrite the rules to essentially legalize those engines then you will effectively remove the burden from your shoulders and transfer it to every other driver/ engine builder who will now need to do it in order to keep up.

I urge you to think this through carefully as WE WANT THIS TO BE A SUCCESSFUL CLASS THAT CATERS TO ALL AND NOT JUST THE FRONT RUNNERS.

[Richard Hall]

 

I tried to buy the tools to make sure my valve jobs were legal before the 2013 runoffs, I was told that was a single batch an may not be available again.  I have not blended plunge cuts because the rule seemed clear enough to me.  That is "pocket porting" is essence and commonly addressed in alot of rule sets.

 

 

 

The circle track crowd have figured out how to get around claimer rules for a long time.   It just isn't a deterrent in the end.

 

 

Kyle

 

 

Kyle,

 

I too looked into getting some head tools and came up empty. Even a set of drawings so I could make the tool would be handy. 

 

I agree claimer rules don't work a lot of the time. I think intimidation plays a large factor with the dirt guys.

 

 

 

The question I would like to ask the group is what do you want out of the rules? It seems to me some are saying the class has parody at the top now and that should be our goal. While others are saying the cost to get to the top parody has gotten out of hand and the rules should be used to get the cost back to what it was a few years ago.

 

 

Things I am curious to see.

 

·         An invoice for the work on a pro built head.

 

·         I would love to see an illegal head.

 

·         Dyno numbers for a stock head and one of the illegal heads on the same motor.

 

Note: Not to point fingers, Just to get a handle on what we are all talking about.

[Bench Racer]

IIRCC the rule is applied the same across all engine years. Also the 1.6 benefits the most from the work. So you should be happy the modification was approved. Or did you have one of the Majic 1.6 heads and wanted to keep other a from getting closer to you.

You always seem to go to the "evil engine builder card"when you don't like the explanation.

Cut the crap, my engine has way more than the driver does. Enough on that subject or are you in a total deflect mode and this is nothing but a funny game to you.. Before your 1999 engine was rewoked, did the intake valves have OEM plunge cuts? Simple question, the answer would be one word, YES or NO.

[FTodaro]

To the SMAC, CRB, and anyone involved in writing new specs..... here is your dilemma as I see it.

1. if all the heads produced by those engine builders that have exploited the STR cleanup, are now deemed non compliant, then you have a HUGE expense and obligation on your shoulders to replace those heads.

2. If on the other hand you rewrite the rules to essentially legalize those engines then you will effectively remove the burden from your shoulders and transfer it to every other driver/ engine builder who will now need to do it in order to keep up.

I urge you to think this through carefully as WE WANT THIS TO BE A SUCCESSFUL CLASS THAT CATERS TO ALL AND NOT JUST THE FRONT RUNNERS.

the only problem I have with #2 is that we have no objective data about if this makes any difference. we are speculating,

 

If the new rule makes them all illegal and supply and demand drives the cost over the top, then only the well funded and supported guys like you and maybe me, will get legal

 

I think the answer needs to be driven by facts, and quantify the advantage, I posted several pages about about potential cost saving solutions no one bit, but if it can be shown this is a consistent advantage a wt or plate change would fix it fast and cheap. but it cannot be based on speculation only Data.

 

You know what they say about assumptions.

 

edit for my spelling

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Pretty sure in the whistle gate thread one of his motors was mentioned. You would have to go back and read if you really want to know.

 

Please dont  get in the way of a love story like this...  swinging form nuts is fun lol i must not be the only one

[Andrew Charbonneau]

 hummm

[Andrew Charbonneau]

might think I need to be here only because kyle sucks

[mdavis]

To the SMAC, CRB, and anyone involved in writing new specs..... here is your dilemma as I see it.

1. if all the heads produced by those engine builders that have exploited the STR cleanup, are now deemed non compliant, then you have a HUGE expense and obligation on your shoulders to replace those heads.

2. If on the other hand you rewrite the rules to essentially legalize those engines then you will effectively remove the burden from your shoulders and transfer it to every other driver/ engine builder who will now need to do it in order to keep up.

I urge you to think this through carefully as WE WANT THIS TO BE A SUCCESSFUL CLASS THAT CATERS TO ALL AND NOT JUST THE FRONT RUNNERS.

Danny- agreed.  See my post regarding restrictor plates under your URGENT thread.

[MPR22]

Cut the crap, my engine has way more than the driver does. Enough on that subject or are you in a total deflect mode and this is nothing but a funny game to you.. Before your 1999 engine was rewoked, did the intake valves have OEM plunge cuts? Simple question, the answer would be one word, YES or NO.

I was being serious about you having a killer head not disparaging your driving talent.
Don't know about the 99 head, have literally had 5 different heads on it. Bought one from Blake about 3 years ago, then new rules came out and bought a Gilfus, that was on it for a while until I had Chris give me one to try, then he put together anither onethat flowed better.....out of all that swapping of heads we went from 124.1to 126.5 on same dyno corrected.

I haven't looked at any of them apart in so long I have no idea what the plunge looks like from the factory. I may have one laying around at my dads.

What does that have to do with you beating up the engine builders all the time.

I have seen plenty of 1.6 heads up close and personal and they look like they came from 10 different manufacurers from 10'different planets.

[Jamz14]

Some suggestions as it was pointed out that few workable suggestions have been offered.

 

Problem: Invasive tech. It is needed (sealed motor programs are a nightmare and don't bypass the need for invasive tech) to ensure compliance and guard against creep, as well as to inspire confidence in the competitors that they can come and race on an even playing field. The problems are with invasive tech is that MOST competitors are not prepared to tear down their engines at the track all the way to the cranks. They lack the skills and funding to do so. Yes guys like TFB, RUSH, East St, Tiley, OPM, ETC can do it. But this is amateur racing and not everyone drives under those tents.

 

So how do you bridge the desire for the tech and the HUGE burden this would place on competitors that don't own build shops and can't tear down on their own, or even just want to have that kinda work load at the track when this is supposed to be fun???!!!

 

Possible solution: A small fee for tech. $20.00 or so. Tech becomes a close to full tear down down by a 3rd party on one car at just about every race. The 3rd party is responsible for the tear down and for the rebuild. This eliminates the concern of the gentleman driver that doesn't want to wrench, A car is looked at in great detail at just about every event, and the cost is quite low as compared to going to a sealed motor program that is erroneously thought to be cheap. And even if it isn't a full tear down, a spotlighted area is teched by this 3rd party company that is not allowed to field a car. So for example, lets say you are concerned this week about gearboxes. One car is choosen (maybe the winner, maybe someone else), the 3rd party company must remove and inspect the gearbox and place back into the car after inspection. It has to be systematic and consistently done in order to prevent people from attempting things thinking they won't be caught.

 

Granted that this does not really address that the machine shops didn't think they were in violation in this latest issue. However, if the spotlighted tech item was open to competitor review, then Ken and Will would have had plenty of opportunity to have made their case on the one motor when it came up and all other competitors would have had plenty of time to quietly go back and look at what they were doing and change it before it drove class wide panic.

 

Yes there will be people that question the ability of a 3rd party to put the car back properly but a couple of points on that. The major garages can fully handle alleviating the 3rd party from putting everything back and do it themselves. Guys that don't run for a major garage didn't have the confidence that it was done to any standard level in the first place so there shouldn't be an issue with them, and guys that don't run for the garages that do their own work to a standard level can also alleviate that responsibility from the 3rd party and would be prepared to do the reassembly themselves as well (me). But alleviating the rebuild is a not mandatory but competitor optional.

 

Anyway just a suggestion.