157 replies to this topic

[Ron Alan]

Geez John...are you in or out? 

 

Like a train wreck...you cover your eyes but still peek between your fingers

[Johnny D]

Ok Ron, you like my last post.

 

In or out? train wreck, cover your eyes??

 

WTF are you talking about???

 

It's all good, but explain please.

J~

[Ron Alan]

Ahhh...I forget there is more than 1 John! Was aimed at Mueller who hours earlier said he was checking off the forum for awhile. It didnt last long

[FTodaro]

I do not know anymore that anyone else at this point but it looks like the direction is to Not go to stock heads but to allow plunge cut to remain. If all you have is a plunge cut your legal. The testing they are doing is going to determine if there is any benefit between stock head, plunge cut head sharp edge, plunge cut deburr, plunge cut with blending. I assume the full out porting will always be off limits.

 

But for the others it may look like this: Stock head=no wt added, Plunge cut = x, plunge cut deburr =xx, plunge cut blend = xxx.

 

we will just have to wait till all the numbers come out to see how this works, and if the wt addition is based on data, and they are going to share the data, that kind of transparency is all good.

 

The good news is we can relax for awhile, we do not have to debate what is a proper deburr or blending value.

[wheel]

For every letter we receive from the folks on the "everyone's doing it, just make it legal" department, we get three letter from the "it's about time" group.  Although this was a black eye for the class and some who have guided its direction over the last decade, it is an opportunity to bring SM back closer to the original intent.  The Group has compromised on the (compliant) plunge cut heads.  If you have an engine with that head, you can race it as long as it lasts.  If you have a stock head you may now stand a chance against an equally talented (or lack of talent) driver with a plunge cut head.  If you want to build a new engine, save yourself the extra $3K for a "pro" head, and go racing.

The folks who will be doing the dyno testing are some of the best professionals in motorsports.  The tests will be comprehensive and the results will be fair.  

wheel

[James York]

For every letter we receive from the folks on the "everyone's doing it, just make it legal" department, we get three letter from the "it's about time" group.  Although this was a black eye for the class and some who have guided its direction over the last decade, it is an opportunity to bring SM back closer to the original intent.  The Group has compromised on the (compliant) plunge cut heads.  If you have an engine with that head, you can race it as long as it lasts.  If you have a stock head you may now stand a chance against an equally talented (or lack of talent) driver with a plunge cut head.  If you want to build a new engine, save yourself the extra $3K for a "pro" head, and go racing.

The folks who will be doing the dyno testing are some of the best professionals in motorsports.  The tests will be comprehensive and the results will be fair.  

wheel

Jim,

 

Just remember later when the complaints come, since that solution strategy brings a variable which can be optimized (meaning people with $$) for performance advantage.  And to me contradicts exactly one of the missions the statements released identifies as a goal, "lower costs, bring it back more to its intent".

 

Add, the complexity of tech and the mistrust of who is running what and being honest about their head, the path of allowing multiple "legal" heads, appears to me to be very painful.

[wheel]

James,

Not sure what the variable is.  The plunge cut is pretty clearly defined.  The STR porting is not legal and will not be legal in the future.  I guess the variable is - which is better, the plunge or the stock?  Hopefully, the dyno information will be accurate enough to make that a wash.  Obviously, there is no pure solution to the problem.  And, also as obvious, no matter what is done, there will be a number of folks who come on here and preach that it was the end of the earth as we know it.  I guess that's just racing.

wheel

[James York]

Wheel,

 

Exactly correct.  I was referring to the variable of which path is better for which tracks .... you correctly figured out.  Whatever path is selected whether I like it or not, I think it should be one choice.

 

You and I both know, weight can somewhat be used to offset the acceleration differences due to different heads.  It won't balance top end differences or speed advantages as the acceleration rate decreases and aero becomes the big player.

 

And if it is significant weight that is required, you now have the impact on braking and cornering power differences....

 

That is why I am saying, no matter how painful, I would suggest one solution.

 

Perhaps the club should come up with some viable and acceptable solutions in its opinion and request membership feedback as to which path to follow.... since we are a club.

[MPR22]

For every letter we receive from the folks on the "everyone's doing it, just make it legal" department, we get three letter from the "it's about time" group.  Although this was a black eye for the class and some who have guided its direction over the last decade, it is an opportunity to bring SM back closer to the original intent.  The Group has compromised on the (compliant) plunge cut heads.  If you have an engine with that head, you can race it as long as it lasts.  If you have a stock head you may now stand a chance against an equally talented (or lack of talent) driver with a plunge cut head.  If you want to build a new engine, save yourself the extra $3K for a "pro" head, and go racing.

The folks who will be doing the dyno testing are some of the best professionals in motorsports.  The tests will be comprehensive and the results will be fair.  

wheel

So you are telling me you got 900 letters saying they want stock heads?  

Or are you saying you got 900 letters that say about time the heads were teched?

Or did you get 20 letters that said about time and 7 letters from the petitioners?

 

 

You will not stop the haves from outspending the have nots.  The SCCA has no method of inspecting the stock heads.  They are changing the rule because they claim they can't inspect a aftermarket plunge cut.  So either way they can't tech the heads..  You want to look at data, go look at the qualifying times of cars 5 years ago vs today.  How many are within 1 second during both time periods?  

 

The class should progress, not regress.  

 

Static is the enemy of success.  

[pat slattery]

So you are telling me you got 900 letters saying they want stock heads?  

Or are you saying you got 900 letters that say about time the heads were teched?

Or did you get 20 letters that said about time and 7 letters from the petitioners?

 

 

You will not stop the haves from outspending the have nots.  The SCCA has no method of inspecting the stock heads.  They are changing the rule because they claim they can't inspect a aftermarket plunge cut.  So either way they can't tech the heads.  In one fell swoop the SCCA has cost the SM community $500,000 (my estimate) many of which who probably have legal to the current rules heads, and managed to push parity back 4 years ago.  You want to look at data, go look at the qualifying times of cars 5 years ago vs today.  How many are within 1 second during both time periods?  

 

The class should progress, not regress.  

 

Static is the enemy of success.  

 

For every letter we receive from the folks on the "everyone's doing it, just make it legal" department, we get three letter from the "it's about time" group.  Although this was a black eye for the class and some who have guided its direction over the last decade, it is an opportunity to bring SM back closer to the original intent.  The Group has compromised on the (compliant) plunge cut heads.  If you have an engine with that head, you can race it as long as it lasts.  If you have a stock head you may now stand a chance against an equally talented (or lack of talent) driver with a plunge cut head.  If you want to build a new engine, save yourself the extra $3K for a "pro" head, and go racing.

The folks who will be doing the dyno testing are some of the best professionals in motorsports.  The tests will be comprehensive and the results will be fair.  

wheel

OK, wheel, we have an organized group of over 300 protest and you got 900 letters from no one organized.  I say lets see them

[Rob Burgoon]

We need a petition to change the mission statement of the class. Scca is way way too fixated on "original intent" which was whatever the class creators thought would fly with the leadership at the time, not what today's SM racer wants from the class.

[wheel]

My bad.  I should have said "I" rather than the collective "we"

[Todd Green]

James,

Not sure what the variable is.

Two other variables that were brought up in addition to what James listed were:

1. Large variance in performance of stock heads.  Supposedly this is why the plunge cut was allowed in the first place.  Will the committee be sampling a large number of stock heads (to at least flow) to determine the validity of this claim?
2. Ability of our more "creative" friends to be able to modify stock heads for performance gains that cannot be teched.  If this is the case, then you'll still be paying $$$$ for a head.

It'd be nice if the committee specifically addressed these two issues that were brought up.

[wheel]

Todd,

1. OK - Although using the words "Large variance" without any data is just as bad as saying that there is no variance between stock heads.

2. Substitute "cheater" for "creative"  and your "friends" can still spend more money.  That is true.

[Steve Scheifler]

Unfortunately, any long-term solution with weight for the plunge cut, even if it were enforced, does not address the benefit of cherry-picking the best "natural" head and running it without the added weight. So from a consistent performance standpoint that really is not much different than returning to stock heads, effectively undoing what the original plunge cut rule was intended to accomplish. That may be the best we can do now without forcing people to replace 2014-compliant heads, though I seriously question how many out there really know what they have or will bother to find out. My guess is that a large majority have enough post-plunge work to fail.

If I look for a silver lining in terms of close competition it may be that of the remaining truly stock heads there might be a few cherries which don't need re-plunge to make top power, but not enough of them to satisfy demand, so the number of "haves" will be naturally limited, at least for awhile. How many cars at the front run without the added weight should be an interesting indicator.

Bottom line for me: If they can justify allowing the plunge and think it can be enforced, then the existing rules are probably still the best compromise. The number of people worried about replacing their head is proof enough that the class has evolved to the point where at least that much work/expense has been accepted by the masses as necessary to be competitive. It has become mainstream, and many of those unwilling to do it probably fall into the "just having fun racing with my buds" category where other choices make as much or more difference.

[Todd Green]

Todd,

1. OK - Although using the words "Large variance" without any data is just as bad as saying that there is no variance between stock heads.

Yes, that was point.  It'd be nice to have it quantified.  WRT cheating, yes, but you know people are going to do it, so it should be addressed.   If we go back to stock heads and the "haves" are now leaving the "have nots" on the straights by a larger margin than what they were with the current rules, people are not going to be happy.

 

What seems to  be missing here, is that I believe most don't care about the "intent" of the original statement for the class.  What most want is close racing where everyone has equal power and it comes down to setup, racecraft etc.  (Granted that is somewhat idealized, but is the general gist.)

[mdavis]

Unfortunately, any long-term solution with weight for the plunge cut, even if it were enforced, does not address the benefit of cherry-picking the best "natural" head and running it without the added weight. So from a consistent performance standpoint that really is not much different than returning to stock heads, effectively undoing what the original plunge cut rule was intended to accomplish. That may be the best we can do now without forcing people to replace 2014-compliant heads, though I seriously question how many out there really know what they have or will bother to find out. My guess is that a large majority have enough post-plunge work to fail.

If I look for a silver lining in terms of close competition it may be that of the remaining truly stock heads there might be a few cherries which don't need re-plunge to make top power, but not enough of them to satisfy demand, so the number of "haves" will be naturally limited, at least for awhile. How many cars at the front run without the added weight should be an interedting indicator.

Bottom line for me: If they can justify allowing the plunge and think it can be enforced, then the existing rules are probably still the best compromise. The number of people worried about replacing their head is proof enough that the class has evolved to the point where at least that much work/expense has been accepted by the masses as necessary to be competitive. It has become mainstream, and many of those unwilling to do it probably fall into the "just having fun racing with my buds" category where other choices make as much or more difference.

This is almost exactly what I wrote in my letter to the CRB

[David L]

Thats the problem Wheel nobody wants to use the CHEATER word. They want to say NON COMPLIANT. BS there cheaters no ifs ands or butts about it. Notice how the cheaters always talk about how good the parity is.if they truly wanted parity they wouldn't be cheating what they want is to have an UNFAIR advantage over their competitors to make up for their lack of talent.. The rules were clearly spelled out that no additional material could be removed, but they removed more because they thought they could get away with it. CHEATIN is CHEATIN lets shame them out of the class. 

[Bench Racer]

Shame on me, two different subjects. 

 

Subject one, look in the mirror.

 

Now, this ^ is fricken funny comming out of you.    As you and some of your Texas friends like to say to me, do you (me) ever read the stuff you  post.

 

Subject two, a compliment to John Mueller and NASA.

 

I may not always agree with the stuff NASA posts, but I would call their info transparent more so than the minimal amout posted by the SCCA.

[wreckerboy]

This seems to be as good a place as any to add this: http://goaheadtaketh...s-splunge-gate/