98 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

Never happen.  Who to say you're not messing about after I just sold you a perfectly legal lump?

 

True, but the engine builder knows what he's giving you and if it falls in the grey and you get dinged (like Dreenan) you should pay ?

J~

[MPR22]

 

EDIT:

Referencing Michael and Frank's latest posts a couple posts above. It's rules guys, it's not rules through rose colored glasses. If I comprended what each of you posted in your up stream posts, nothing you posted is written within the rules. Please look above/read the underlined sentence.

 

 

My questions were separate and apart from the head issue being discussed.  They are exactly what they appear to be, i believe the moratorium on rule changes has expired, if so do we as class want to address additional changes?  Most of your posts seem to have a no tolerance for additional changes to  the rules whether they are good for the class or not (my opinion only, not a fact).  What is more important,  holding the line on the rules (which are not clear no matter what anyone thinks) or making changes that benefit the majority of the class or even making changes that are painful at the time but will lead to the continued growth of the class (ie. letting NBs into the class, making it a National Class.....)? 

[Johnny D]

 

 

EDIT:

Referencing Michael and Frank's latest posts a couple posts above. It's rules guys, it's not rules through rose colored glasses. If I comprended what each of you posted in your up stream posts, nothing you posted is written within the rules. Please look above/read the underlined sentence.

 

 

My questions were separate and apart from the head issue being discussed.  They are exactly what they appear to be, i believe the moratorium on rule changes has expired, if so do we as class want to address additional changes?  Most of your posts seem to have a no tolerance for additional changes to  the rules whether they are good for the class or not (my opinion only, not a fact).  What is more important,  holding the line on the rules (which are not clear no matter what anyone thinks) or making changes that benefit the majority of the class or even making changes that are painful at the time but will lead to the continued growth of the class (ie. letting NBs into the class, making it a National Class.....)? 

 

 

I think were all talking about possibly changing the rules for the better in some way or another.

 

But I still say were in a holding pattern until we get some real number on the heads and the Whistle test.

 

We did get John to say "I agree with Skip"

 

I'm done stirring for a while, carry on.

J~

[Mark]

It makes more sense to have an independent third party provide certification for a engine builders 'build' receipe and not certify each and every motor ($$). Take the builder out of the loop somewhat and amortize the certification cost over many motors. Similar to how F1 homologates chassis. There would be no guarantee that the builder doesn't stray from the certified build process or that the end user doesn't muck things up somewhere but at least we'd have another level of 'insurance' that the motor is legal and you got what you paid for and that it will pass tech when the time comes. Build your own motor or purchase an uncertified/unhomologated motor and you take your chances. Certification/Homologation would not be mandatory so peeps could still build their own motors. An optional step for builders and customers who want the benefit of an independent party validating the build. In no way would this replace intensive tech. 

 

Never happen.  Who to say you're not messing about after I just sold you a perfectly legal lump?

[Brocodile]

Enjoy your posts with respect. A cheated up head, little gain or no gain does not follow the written SCCA rules............ A big pile of junked heads, so be it. If there are no serious consequences with respect a to cheaters actions, their actions will never change. Shall we make a list of past cheaters actions with no serious consequences which has helped get us to today? Shall we return to the days of SCCA production cars pre mid 199's the limited prep/level 2 prep cars when the bottom was falling out of the class. NO, we don't want to go there and neither should the SCCA with the current Spec Miata issues.

 

Bench - As I said, I tend to be a hard-liner. However, as Frank said, the punishment should fit the crime. This is a version of the unwritten no-harm-no-foul rule so commonly applied in sports to avoid harsh penalties. To take that idea a step further and in a slightly different direction, once a rule becomes honored in the breach, it needs to be re-examined. To put it another way, once enough people are on the wrong side of the law, the law loses its legitimacy. In that case, when someone is punished, people think, "That could have been me and I don't deserve it." They feel sypathy for the perpetrator as a victim and resentment toward authority as arbitrary. The classic example is Prohibition, which was high-minded and well-intentioned in concept, but an abysmal failure in practice. The reason it failed was that too many people broke the law - it was honored in the breach. Note that I am not suggesting that we allow extensive porting work - just a revised, objective, measurable modification with minimal performance gain. This will allow those with currently compliant heads to leave them as-is without suffering a disadvantage, and permit others with minor modifications to keep their heads without gaining a competitive advantage. The rest would be out of luck.

 

Subject to the foregoing, your point about the deterrent effect of punishment is valid, but there is another critical factor. Absent detection of the crime, the potential punishment is irrelevant. No burglar would risk 20 years if he thought he was going to be caught. Most engine rules require at least a partial teardown to verify. Who is willing to put up with intrusive tech, even at the Majors? We should be careful what we wish for.

[Craig Berry]

Brocodile you are on to something. Last post makes a lot of sense to me.

[FTodaro]

Brocodile you are on to something. Last post makes a lot of sense to me.

I try not to agree with him to much because if you put a big head on that already to tall body you got Godzilla.

 

oops I am not supposed to make it personal.

[steveracer]

It makes more sense to have an independent third party provide certification for a engine builders 'build' receipe and not certify each and every motor ($$). Take the builder out of the loop somewhat and amortize the certification cost over many motors. Similar to how F1 homologates chassis. There would be no guarantee that the builder doesn't stray from the certified build process or that the end user doesn't muck things up somewhere but at least we'd have another level of 'insurance' that the motor is legal and you got what you paid for and that it will pass tech when the time comes. Build your own motor or purchase an uncertified/unhomologated motor and you take your chances. Certification/Homologation would not be mandatory so peeps could still build their own motors. An optional step for builders and customers who want the benefit of an independent party validating the build. In no way would this replace intensive tech. 

And how much would all these certificates add to the price of an engine?

 

We need to keep racers, not run them off...

[Johnny D]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=acdABwYJqks

J~

[Cnj]

In the short term SCCA have proposed a special SM class for those who have non complaint heads. I consider this the scarlett letter class. While I appreciate their efforts, I believe it to be a flawed method to entice drivers to come to race through the end of the season for several reasons:

(1) it requires drivers to know that their car is non-compliant, with a rule that is clearly not articulate to some or it would not require rework.
(2) it requires drivers to put on a Scarlett letter and tell everyone else that they have been driving a “cheater” car for the last year or more
(3) it may be a moot point when a new rule comes into play which then makes more or fewer cars compliant – a real mess
(4) it is only potentially relevant for regionals whereas in Texas we have a Majors race coming up.

I for one am considering just sitting this season out. I am way to busy to spend time opening up my engine trying to interpret whether I am or am not compliant - and then going to the track to be protested by someone who is then trying to figure out if I'm compliant. Life is too short.

CNJ

[KentCarter]

The only solution that works: 

 

Cylinder heads are open. 

 

And claimable. 

[Johnny D]

http://vimeo.com/109169719#at=17

 

J~

[Cnj]

The only solution that works: 
 
Cylinder heads are open. 
 
And claimable.

Well Doctor, its hard to do, but that's a new one

CNJ

[Mark]

Depends on how many engines the builder sells and thus his ability to amortize the cost of a certification over many engine builds. A couple of hundred at most I imagine. 

 

And how much would all these certificates add to the price of an engine?

 

We need to keep racers, not run them off...

[Bill Etherington]

mdavis, on 17 Oct 2014 - 04:28 PM Said:

"Pretty sure any of the cylinder heads in question are compliant for STL.  So there's already a class to run in.  Also there's already ITE,A,S in many regions.  That's another option.  Not sure why they'd even make up SM1."

 

 

 

STL and IT use the same head rules, "No material may be removed further than one (1) inch in from the manifold to cylinder head mounting faces."  This means the plunge cut is not allowed in either IT or STL.  SM's with the plunge cut, etc head machining running in STL have to meet all of the SM rules (restrictors, etc.). 

 

Sorry about the sloppy edit, still getting used to this website. 

[mdavis]

In the short term SCCA have proposed a special SM class for those who have non complaint heads. I consider this the scarlett letter class. While I appreciate their efforts, I believe it to be a flawed method to entice drivers to come to race through the end of the season for several reasons:

(1) it requires drivers to know that their car is non-compliant, with a rule that is clearly not articulate to some or it would not require rework.
(2) it requires drivers to put on a Scarlett letter and tell everyone else that they have been driving a “cheater” car for the last year or more
(3) it may be a moot point when a new rule comes into play which then makes more or fewer cars compliant – a real mess
(4) it is only potentially relevant for regionals whereas in Texas we have a Majors race coming up.

I for one am considering just sitting this season out. I am way to busy to spend time opening up my engine trying to interpret whether I am or am not compliant - and then going to the track to be protested by someone who is then trying to figure out if I'm compliant. Life is too short.

CNJ

Sit THIS season out?  We hardly ever saw you last season!!

I promise not to protest your engine so that's one down.

[Cnj]

Sit THIS season out?  We hardly ever saw you last season!!
I promise not to protest your engine so that's one down.

Oh I don't know, I believe I raced more than Bench

Anyway after a brief spurt of racing at the beginning of 2014 I was scheduling a triumphant return to TWS and then (maybe) Houston. Probably to get spanked, but I don't race SM for the trophies. Will sit on sidelines this next week to see if SCCA comes up with a clearer plan in time for TWS.

My perspective on this issue mirrors Skip's well articulated thoughts. I hope SCCA are reading. Its clear that NASA is.

CNJ

[MPR22]

Oh I don't know, I believe I raced more than Bench
Anyway after a brief spurt of racing at the beginning of 2014 I was scheduling a triumphant return to TWS and then (maybe) Houston. Probably to get spanked, but I don't race SM for the trophies. Will sit on sidelines this next week to see if SCCA comes up with a clearer plan in time for TWS.
My perspective on this issue mirrors Skip's well articulated thoughts. I hope SCCA are reading. Its clear that NASA is.
CNJ

If you want the SCCA to read this, you must send a letter to the CRBSCCA.com. They are deciding the fate of the class without your input.

[Bench Racer]

Oh I don't know, I believe I raced more than Bench
CNJ

Doesn't take many, did 4 races this year.