157 replies to this topic

[MPR22]

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.

Have no problem with this statement at all, however the cheater is always going to cheat and we have just given them the green light to beat people running stock heads by not just 2/2 but whatever the number is they can massage out of ported head. 7/4 maybe?

[Ron Alan]

 

 

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.

Ding ding ding ding! A group of people were way ahead of the curve and said this 2 months ago...how popular was that opinion then?

 

I'm still sticking to what I've said all along...clarify what we have in the current wording of the head rules. The plunge has allowed heads to be more consistent across the board. Stock heads and parity have ALWAYS fought each other(according to those who really get into the nity grity of this stuff).

 

This is a class of .5's...those who have the ability to test and spend looking for anyone of those .5hp legally will do so. Those of us on a buget hope we buy a donor that has it all! I dont hold it against anyone who has the ability to find legal speed...in anyway possible. That fact will never change...and i on the cheap side accept that!

[Brocodile]

Everyone following this forum should read Dave Gran's excellent article. http://goaheadtaketh...s-splunge-gate/ It covers the history and rationale behind the rule, the protest, the technical aspect, the players, the politics, the ethical issue, everything.

[38bfast]

It may be the engineer in me that I see things so black and white but I just don't see that we have a problem with the rules. 

 

The rule was clear what could be done and what could not. 

 

At the runoffs cars were protested and found non compliant. All works as the process dictated.

 

So what is the problem. No Compliant cars need to change to be compliant. Black and white all by the rules SCCA has for all classes. 

 

The plunge cut rule is there for a very good reason to tighten up parity and as evidence shows works very well to that goal. The cost of plunge cutting is very minimal. I see no logical reason to change anything. Maybe tighten up the plunge cut rule to make it a bit tighter in definition. 

 

What does going back to stock do for us as a class? Nothing as far as the intent of the class says STOCK. 

 

Why are we is SCCA trying to fix something that is not broken. 

 

 

Again if we are really serious about change then we would go to CNC ported spec heads. That would be the closest thing to a spec engine for minimal cost and parity would be identical across all heads. 

 

The agreement that stock is the way to go does not hold water due to the variation from head to head in the casting

 

The argument to make the cheater heads legal does not stand up as it is very bad precedence to make the legal stuff legal with the only thing to hang your hat on is "well every one is doing it" that would be a road that would lead to a dead end every time. That would be rules creep that just is not needed in any class. 

 

Please Help me understand. What the hell am I missing. 

[pat slattery]

This is  part of that report:

 

econd Issue: Remove the Existing Conflicts of Interest

We see it happen all of the time in politics and business. It shouldn’t happen there and certainly shouldn’t in Club Racing.

I am not stating that any of the below individuals have acted or made decisions in their businesses’ best interests, however this conflict of interest should not exist. No advisory committee, liaison, or Club Racing Board (CRB) member should have a financial stake in a rules making process which could have an impact on their business. If they would like to provide input to the rules, their request should be submitted just as any other competitor would. Currently there are several members who have SM related businesses directly involved in the creation of the rules.

 

SCCA’s Spec Miata Advisory Committee

• Daniel Tiley – TiSpeed. One of the SM engine builders found illegal
• Louis Thibaut – Rush Motorsports, a Miata prep shop and also one of the engine builders found illegal
• Michael Collins – Managing Partner of MEATHEAD Racing, a Miata prep shop, and purchaser of engines from TiSpeed.
• Ralph Provitz
• Samuel Henry – Springfield Dyno (a supplier of Miata parts)
• David McAnaney

Chairman and Liaisons

• David McAnaney, Chairman
• Jim Drago, Liaison. Owner of the SM chat forum www.MazdaRacers.com and East Street Motorsport, a Miata prep shop. Another engine builder found illegal.
• Jim Wheeler, Liaison.

This guys is saying what many have been thinking over the years.

[David L]

Have no problem with this statement at all, however the cheater is always going to cheat and we have just given them the green light to beat people running stock heads by not just 2/2 but whatever the number is they can massage out of ported head. 7/4 maybe?

And that is why they must be shamed out of the class. And the green light has not be given for more cheating.

 

The only real problem here is the protest procedure, and the lack of consequences.

 

Real simple:

 

1: Car and driver can be protested at any point of weekend

 

2: Winner keeps protest bond.

 

3: Severe penalties for rules infractions.  (And by far the most important) 

[lateapex911]

This is  part of that report:

 

econd Issue: Remove the Existing Conflicts of Interest

We see it happen all of the time in politics and business. It shouldn’t happen there and certainly shouldn’t in Club Racing.

I am not stating that any of the below individuals have acted or made decisions in their businesses’ best interests, however this conflict of interest should not exist. No advisory committee, liaison, or Club Racing Board (CRB) member should have a financial stake in a rules making process which could have an impact on their business. If they would like to provide input to the rules, their request should be submitted just as any other competitor would. Currently there are several members who have SM related businesses directly involved in the creation of the rules.

 

SCCA’s Spec Miata Advisory Committee

• Daniel Tiley – TiSpeed. One of the SM engine builders found illegal
• Louis Thibaut – Rush Motorsports, a Miata prep shop and also one of the engine builders found illegal
• Michael Collins – Managing Partner of MEATHEAD Racing, a Miata prep shop, and purchaser of engines from TiSpeed.
• Ralph Provitz
• Samuel Henry – Springfield Dyno (a supplier of Miata parts)
• David McAnaney

Chairman and Liaisons

• David McAnaney, Chairman
• Jim Drago, Liaison. Owner of the SM chat forum www.MazdaRacers.com and East Street Motorsport, a Miata prep shop. Another engine builder found illegal.
• Jim Wheeler, Liaison.

This guys is saying what many have been thinking over the years.

I helped write the article, and did some research with Dave. I'm on a 'sabbatical' from racing...but have an easy 15 yrs SCCA experience. I was on the ITAC, (the SMAC, but for Improved Touring), for 7 or so years. And I was quoted in the article, based in my internal SCCA experience.

I left the ITAC in disgust over some (minor compared to this) manipulations by ex ITAC then CRB members.  I loved being on the ITAC. (Actually 3 of us left simultaneously) It was tough to walk away.

 

I've watched SM though, and saw the BS that has been happening. As a guy who's posted bond and forced an engine tear down, I know how that process suuuuuucccks, but frankly I'm amazed at how it's gone this far in SM without somebody stepping up and being the bad guy.  And I'm dismayed at how the SMAC is comprised.

 

I know racing is a drug, and racers put up with untold amounts of crap in order to get their fix, but the SM thing is out of control.

8 guys out of 9 busted for cheating. Who KNOWS what they're doing where the protests didn't look? Flywheels? Conrods?? (shakes head). And who knows if it was ONLY those guys??? Odds are, sorry to say, that it isn't.  And sorry, the rules were pretty clear." No material may be removed".  When 8 of only 9 cars are torn down and found to be cheated up, It's jumped the shark, IMO.  If I were those guys on the SMAC, who were busted for cheating, I'd be HORRIFIED. Leaders, who screwed their members!  (My job, on the ITAC was to serve the members. Thats what ALL the positions do, from ad hocs to the BoD.  How the entire SM community isn't up in arms and demanding their termination is beyond me.

 

Finally, whats up with the penalites for the cheated up cars? In my protest, the guy had illegal pistons and was tossed...DQ from race, and suspened for a year, I think. Moving cheated up cars to last place is an odd penalty, in my book. (Maybe they went soft because they felt the builders slipped one under the drivers noses? But, then why weren't the builders who ALSO happened to be drivers, hit harder?) The rules just weren't that vague. They said, "No material may be removed", yet clearly material was removed.  Very odd, and a big part of the issue, IMO.

 

 

I know this post won't last, and thats the core of the issue.

[lm11m]

Question to anyone in the know. Is the dyno testing of the different head configurations being done on a true engine dyno in a cell where environment is controlled  and corrected for and where so many of the outside variables of the incomparable chassis dyno's are eliminated? IE (varying driveline factors and resistances caused by too many mechanical, human & environmental issues to list). In my opinion (there's that word again & we all know what it's like) it would be the only true apples to apples comparison. While this information will be interesting to see & needed if they're going to try some sort of unenforceable weight rule. I personally don't think it's going to show what the majority are expecting. The biggest gains to be had on 99/00 1.8 is there for all of us at little expense.

   Hoping for parity in a class of racing where all the cars aren't clones is like looking at your wife of 40yrs, blinking your eyes & expecting her to look like that bikini clad 20yr old you married. You love her & you wish for it, but it aint happening! That being said, in reality and I'm not trying to be a wise guy or hurt any ones feelings (ego) here, we're amateur racers 95% of us wouldn't realize any advantage of a modified cylinder head to start with. It's not what's beating us every week on the track, only in our minds. I've been actively involved in & participated in many forms of automobile racing over my lifetime & been pretty successful at it wearing all the hats. It's commitment, ability (driver / crew) & preparation to detail & budget (tires) of coarse that wins races the majority of the time. We don't all have the same and never will. This offseason look at your program & commitment, work on the weak areas, be honest with yourselves, it's probably not your cylinder head making the difference.

   Don't let all this stuff we really don't have any control over drag us down. Adapt to it and move on. It's racing man !

 

                                                                                                                                            Mike Mizer

                                                                                                                                            Mechanic & Proud Dad

                                                                                                                                            Shultz / Mizer Racing

                                                                                                                                            Sm 20 / 23

[wheel]

I can tell you that the dyno to be used is not a chassis dyno.  It is a top of the top of the line engine dyno and the people that will be operating it are top of the top professionals.  They are not volunteers like the rest of us.  I have complete confidence that the results will be thorough and honest.  I can also tell you that, from my observation as a consultant with the Group, what you are looking at will be the rule for 2015 (weights and/or plates TBD).  

wheel

[Danny Steyn]

so Wheel - what do we do now getting ready for the 2015 Majors in Sebring and Homestead? We just do NOT have time to get this sorted. I remember how pissed of the Daytona prototype guys were this year with the Tudor series not having any rules in place before the Daytona 24 hours, making them up as they went. 

[Danny Steyn]

Dave Gran’s well written and all-encompassing article deals with all aspects of where we find ourselves today in Spec Miata.

 

The parallels in several aspects between what happened in the Lance Armstrong era of cycling and what’s happened in the STR era of Spec Miata (yes we only had DQ’s this year but most of us believe that this has been going on for quite some time) are quite similar and just as entertaining. (obviously on a much smaller stage)

 

Listening to the admissions  of Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreu and other members of Armstrong’s US Postal squad, the refrain you heard over and over again was that everyone was doing it and they were so close to it that they just became part of it.

 

It is only when it really blew up in their faces and they could finally see the consequences of their actions that they really could finally say …… “What were we thinking”. In terms of consequences, there was a real chance that they could have done jail time if caught, and while the Federal investigation was still under way, there was a real chance that they could have done jail time if they had lied.

 

It took several organizations, journalists and concerned citizens like Betsy Andreu, to clean up their sport. And in retrospect it’s easy to see how much the the cheating damaged the sport of cycling.

 

As was the case in cycling, it has taken concerned drivers, and an outside organization to step in and clean up our class. And in Spec Miata, in terms of the consequences it is now painfully obvious to all that want to see, that the STR infractions, however minor they may have appeared on the surface, have had a very damaging impact on the class. There is a real fracture in the class, as can be seen from the letters received by the SCCA and NASA. Despite this, I believe the class to still be healthy and I personally believe that we will be a better class for this.

 

I reiterate my position on the upcoming rule changes

1. Plunge Cut heads have been legal for some time. This is NOT cheating. DO not change this rule and DO NOT punish drivers who are compliant. I suspect that most heads fall into this category.
2. Ported, massaged, deburred heads are ILLEGAL as per the current regulations. This part of the spec could POSSIBLY allow VERY minor changes to allow only the minimal amount of deburring. This will prevent many heads being tossed without them gaining a significant performance advantage. At the time of the next refresh the deburring could be done by drivers who do not have it yet. It just needs an acceptable spec.
3. All ported, massaged or performance enhanced heads need to be tossed.
4. None of this should require any weight changes.
5. The 99 vs. VVT parity is close as the rules are written
6. I think some concessions can be made to 1.6 and 1.8 NA’s to make them more competitive

[Caveman-kwebb99]

so Wheel - what do we do now getting ready for the 2015 Majors in Sebring and Homestead? We just do NOT have time to get this sorted. I remember how pissed of the Daytona prototype guys were this year with the Tudor series not having any rules in place before the Daytona 24 hours, making them up as they went. 

 

This is just my opinion, but you just got what you wrote to scca to ask for. You said i signed petition but dont agree with it, so please make something else the law of land,  Now they did just that and now thats bad?

 

Whats the big deal your car can be prepped all but an alignment with the current head on it, when the weight comes out just add weight and align... easy peasy and japaneezy.

 

I said this before is we dont all speak with one voice we have no chance, so all those that signed petition and wrote letters contrary to what the petition said you now have what you have. so stop the whining and bitching.

 

prep your cars and have extra weight plates on hand for when its time to align the car, then go out and race hard and those 20% with stock heads will probably now get 20% of the podium spots.  

[Tom Sager]

It may be the engineer in me that I see things so black and white but I just don't see that we have a problem with the rules. 

 

The rule was clear what could be done and what could not. 

 

At the runoffs cars were protested and found non compliant. All works as the process dictated.

 

So what is the problem. No Compliant cars need to change to be compliant. Black and white all by the rules SCCA has for all classes. 

 

The plunge cut rule is there for a very good reason to tighten up parity and as evidence shows works very well to that goal. The cost of plunge cutting is very minimal. I see no logical reason to change anything. Maybe tighten up the plunge cut rule to make it a bit tighter in definition. 

 

What does going back to stock do for us as a class? Nothing as far as the intent of the class says STOCK. 

 

Why are we is SCCA trying to fix something that is not broken. 

 

 

Again if we are really serious about change then we would go to CNC ported spec heads. That would be the closest thing to a spec engine for minimal cost and parity would be identical across all heads. 

 

The agreement that stock is the way to go does not hold water due to the variation from head to head in the casting

 

The argument to make the cheater heads legal does not stand up as it is very bad precedence to make the legal stuff legal with the only thing to hang your hat on is "well every one is doing it" that would be a road that would lead to a dead end every time. That would be rules creep that just is not needed in any class. 

 

Please Help me understand. What the hell am I missing. 

You're not missing anything.  I think most in our class expected SCCA and NASA to conclude that the existing rules would be best.  Instead it looks like those that followed the rules will now be subsidizing the performance of those who have not updated their cars beyond the 2009 rules.  

[pat slattery]

If you read between the lines, it would appear that SCCA is so pissed at what the SMAC and CRB has done over the years that they want to blow SM up and start over again

[jedd fahnestock]

"The engine builders of the non-complaint engines are East Street Racing owned by Jim Drago, (Also driver of the #2 car, and a CRB member)  TiSpeed owned by Dan Tiley (SMAC member as well) and Rush Motorsports owned by Louis Thibault, another SMAC member."

 

Still trying to wrap my head around this paragraph in Daves article. I dont even know exactly what the SMAC does and if they are elected officials or appointed. Do they get to keep their position on the committee after all this?  

[Tom Sager]

I can tell you that the dyno to be used is not a chassis dyno.  It is a top of the top of the line engine dyno and the people that will be operating it are top of the top professionals.  They are not volunteers like the rest of us.  I have complete confidence that the results will be thorough and honest.  I can also tell you that, from my observation as a consultant with the Group, what you are looking at will be the rule for 2015 (weights and/or plates TBD).  

wheel

Jim, thank you for giving us a little peek into the testing process.   Seems to me that if it's horsepower that SCCA and NASA want to equalize between stock and plunge cut heads, restrictor plates are the best way to equalize it.  Otherwise, weight differences also impact handling.  1.6 might have no other way to bridge the gap other than weight.   Most of the cars being raced are not 1.6 so a restrictor looks like the better method to me.  

 

Still I think those with legal engines built to the 2010-2014 spec are going to find being penalized a bitter pill.  

[Ron Alan]

If you read between the lines, it would appear that SCCA is so pissed at what the SMAC and CRB has done over the years that they want to blow SM up and start over again

Add Mazda to that list....

[38bfast]

Dave Gran’s well written and all-encompassing article deals with all aspects of where we find ourselves today in Spec Miata.
 
The parallels in several aspects between what happened in the Lance Armstrong era of cycling and what’s happened in the STR era of Spec Miata (yes we only had DQ’s this year but most of us believe that this has been going on for quite some time) are quite similar and just as entertaining. (obviously on a much smaller stage)
 
Listening to the admissions  of Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreu and other members of Armstrong’s US Postal squad, the refrain you heard over and over again was that everyone was doing it and they were so close to it that they just became part of it.
 
It is only when it really blew up in their faces and they could finally see the consequences of their actions that they really could finally say …… “What were we thinking”. In terms of consequences, there was a real chance that they could have done jail time if caught, and while the Federal investigation was still under way, there was a real chance that they could have done jail time if they had lied.
 
It took several organizations, journalists and concerned citizens like Betsy Andreu, to clean up their sport. And in retrospect it’s easy to see how much the the cheating damaged the sport of cycling.
 
As was the case in cycling, it has taken concerned drivers, and an outside organization to step in and clean up our class. And in Spec Miata, in terms of the consequences it is now painfully obvious to all that want to see, that the STR infractions, however minor they may have appeared on the surface, have had a very damaging impact on the class. There is a real fracture in the class, as can be seen from the letters received by the SCCA and NASA. Despite this, I believe the class to still be healthy and I personally believe that we will be a better class for this.
 
I reiterate my position on the upcoming rule changes

• Plunge Cut heads have been legal for some time. This is NOT cheating. DO not change this rule and DO NOT punish drivers who are compliant. I suspect that most heads fall into this category.
• Ported, massaged, deburred heads are ILLEGAL as per the current regulations. This part of the spec could POSSIBLY allow VERY minor changes to allow only the minimal amount of deburring. This will prevent many heads being tossed without them gaining a significant performance advantage. At the time of the next refresh the deburring could be done by drivers who do not have it yet. It just needs an acceptable spec.
• All ported, massaged or performance enhanced heads need to be tossed.
• None of this should require any weight changes.
• The 99 vs. VVT parity is close as the rules are written
• I think some concessions can be made to 1.6 and 1.8 NA’s to make them more competitive

I am with you on this. Dam easy solution to the problem in my eyes.

[wheel]

I personally added the word plates to the above post.  Plates have not been part of the Group's discussion but I think that the CRB will look at all the data and call on our collective experience in multiple classes with regard to restrictors and weight.  

Jim Drago is retiring from the CRB at the end of the year after many years of dedicated and valuable service.  He was on the CRB when I came on board and has worked thousands of hours for the Club, on many issues inside and outside of the Spec Miata class.  His retirement was in place way before the unfortunate happenings at the Runoffs.  

 

The CRB has a previously unscheduled face-to-face meeting at the PRI show next month.  Whether we will ask the BoD to appoint a replacement for Jim will be on the list of topics to discuss.   Despite the importance of the SM issues, we have more than 500 letters in the CRB letter system and less than half of them have anything to do with SM.  

CRB members are appointed by the BoD, at the request of the Chairman of the CRB.  The Advisory Committee members are appointed by the CRB, at the request of the current Chairman of the various committees.  The SMAC will also be on the agenda for our meeting next month.  You may expect some changes to the SMAC for 2015.

[Danny Steyn]

Kyle. I am not whining and bitching. Sorry if it appears that way. Most definitely not my intention.

Quite the ipposite in fact. I think this will ultimately be good for the class. I just don't want to see everyone having to buy new heads, but it doesn't bother me personally.

However what makes this class attractive to me and others are large fields that provide close wheel-to-wheel racing. I am considering my options just in case we have low turnouts at the first double majors events as people figure out what to do with the new rule set.