157 replies to this topic

[NPiekarski]

Nice work to those that worked so hard and took the time to propose this to the powers at be. Nice to see the clubs value the class and want to keep it prosper.

[Johnny D]

TO: Spec Miata Participants
FR: SCCA, NASA, Mazda Motorsports, and the Spec Miata Working Group
RE: Class Intent, Direction and Regulations
DT: December 19, 2014

Mazda, SCCA, and NASA wish to thank the hundreds of SM drivers and owners who have provided their helpful feedback. With it, we have been able to investigate and reflect on the current status of the class and its future direction. We were able to provide these data points to the SCCA's Board of Directors, which as many of you know, has just passed a rule clarification to Rule GCR 9.1.7.C.1.f.3 regarding cylinder heads. Coupled with this rule clarification, which Mazda believes is in the best interest of the Spec Miata community, the BoD also approved rule 5.11.4 to allow the Club Racing department to designate a Class Compliance Chief; both rules are outlined below. However, Mazda, NASA, and the SCCA still have work to do.

During our last unified memorandum to the Spec Miata Community, we outlined our next steps. Among these, the SM Working Group, comprised of industry experts, would determine the performance differences between stock cylinder heads, plunge cut heads (with and without de-burring), and non-compliant heads for the 1.6L and 1.8L engines, using dyno testing; this comprehensive process is still underway.

For those waiting to make decisions for the 2015 season, we strongly encourage you to read the two rules passed this week by SCCA's board. For those previously compliant and for those with acceptable levels of de-burring, as outlined in the new rule, the path is paved and we are excited for you to compete in a class that will have even more parity. This new rule allowing for de-burring is the current and future direction. The on-going dyno testing results will not affect or alter this rule. For those outside this acceptable range, it is recommended that you make the necessary corrections. While weight adjustments have been considered to allow for those non-compliant to continue to compete, albeit at a punitive level, it is NOT the current direction.

All of these acts -the decision to permit plunge cuts with the acceptable levels of de-burring outlined, the introduction of the Class Compliance Chief, and the dyno testing to determine performance differences -will help achieve the overall Spec Miata class goal: To provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low-cost, production-based cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.

As always, we are thankful for your support and faith in us to make the best decisions for the class based on all these data points.

Rule GCR 9.1.7.C.1.f.3, regarding cylinder heads, now reads: "The throat area of the port consists of the 90 degree angle at the very bottom of the cast steel valve seat as it transitions to the aluminum casting below. It is permitted to plunge cut the throats in order to correct for core shift that is commonly found in many cylinder heads. The cut must be cylindrical and concentric to the valve guide axial centerline, within a tolerance of .005", for the entire length of the cut. The radius tangent to the cylindrical and bottom surfaces shall not exceed 0.375". This cut cannot extend further than the specified number below from the bottom of the ferrous valve seat. There can be no tooling or machine marks in the head below this point. The Intersection of the machined surface of the plunge cut to the port casting shall not be altered, except that the area under the short turn radius may be de-burred, with the de-burring not to exceed 1.5 mm in width. 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."

The rule 5.11.4 states: "When assigned to an event by the head of Club Racing or his designate, the CCC works with the event technical staff to provide consistent compliance checking across all the events in designated class/es. Decisions made by the CCC regarding compliance are non-protestable."

MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development
www.mazdamotorsports.com
Mazda North American Operation
1421 Reynolds Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614
800-435-2508





 

[KW78]

Chris70, on 18 Dec 2014 - 4:00 PM, said:

And the material specification of the "bushing" is ???
Ademir
S.A.C. racing

john mueller, on 18 Dec 2014 - 3:57 PM, said:

MazdaSpeed Part Number: 0000-04-5409
$66.66 for the set

I aim that in NASA this will be the spec part number.

J~

 

 

That is an asinine position for NASA to take, and would be a big mistake.

 

I called Mazda, it is going to be a year before upper bushings are included in any kits, as an estimate.  They will be available sooner individually , but they don't even have a supplier secured yet let alone a design or production.

 

As Wheel stated, who cares about bushing material.  Make it easy, keep it simple. 

 

And, mazda's bushing are stupid expensive anyway  WAY WAY above market value.  $1000 for the car if bought individually.  Featured this month for $600, but you can't delete the obsolete upper control arm busings from the kit, so trhow 1/4 of the kit away.  Then pay $66x2 for 2 sets of bushing (if they were available). 

 

All this for a bushing that can't be moved on if you do bend a control arm.   If that happens to be an upper, then you have to throw away new busings it comes with,  you can't push out the bushings from the bent arm without ruining them (I've tried), so throw them away, and buy unavailable ones.

 

In my opinion, since the motorsport bushings are legal, just make any bushing legal for the whole car.  This is supposed to be a race car.

 

I did the ENTIRE FRONT END of the ITS car for $70 worth of delrin, and have some left over.   Polyurethane bushings are also available everywhere and cheap.  BTW, I can move the delrin bushings forward to the new control arm if I bend one, super easy and simple.

 

SO, NASA, don't require some mazda part number.  I am not going to have control arms ready now for my customers to go to SCCA, then charge everyone for another setup and control arm change mid year (or realistically next year) for a new more expensive bushing for no reason other than to have a mazda part number.    Assinine!

 

BTW, if the cars had delrin already throughout, you just might find they don't need 3.5 degrees negative camber anyway... 

 

My .02

Kyle Watkins

[john mueller]

That is an asinine position for NASA to take, and would be a big mistake.

 

I called Mazda, it is going to be a year before upper bushings are included in any kits, as an estimate.  They will be available sooner individually , but they don't even have a supplier secured yet let alone a design or production.

 

As Wheel stated, who cares about bushing material.  Make it easy, keep it simple. 

 

And, mazda's bushing are stupid expensive anyway  WAY WAY above market value.  $1000 for the car if bought individually.  Featured this month for $600, but you can't delete the obsolete upper control arm busings from the kit, so trhow 1/4 of the kit away.  Then pay $66x2 for 2 sets of bushing (if they were available). 

 

All this for a bushing that can't be moved on if you do bend a control arm.   If that happens to be an upper, then you have to throw away new busings it comes with,  you can't push out the bushings from the bent arm without ruining them (I've tried), so throw them away, and buy unavailable ones.

 

In my opinion, since the motorsport bushings are legal, just make any bushing legal for the whole car.  This is supposed to be a race car.

 

I did the ENTIRE FRONT END of the ITS car for $70 worth of delrin, and have some left over.   Polyurethane bushings are also available everywhere and cheap.  BTW, I can move the delrin bushings forward to the new control arm if I bend one, super easy and simple.

 

SO, NASA, don't require some mazda part number.  I am not going to have control arms ready now for my customers to go to SCCA, then charge everyone for another setup and control arm change mid year (or realistically next year) for a new more expensive bushing for no reason other than to have a mazda part number.    Assinine!

 

BTW, if the cars had delrin already throughout, you just might find they don't need 3.5 degrees negative camber anyway... 

 

My .02

Kyle Watkins

 

Kyle;

I understand where you are coming from and I fully support spec'ing a non OEM bushing set for the entire car.  I submitted this to SMAC a few years ago as something NASA would like to see....

 

My problem with this is it needs to be a spec part in the rules, I don't give a crap what the part is as long as it's spec'ed.  This class has historically had problems leaving items open.   Also, remember this is an optional part, you don't have to run it to be legal.  So, if the Mazda Offset Bushing is Spec'ed in the rules and they are unavailable for everyone (out of stock) then they are unavailable for everyone.

 

 

Again, I understand what you're getting at but IMO the error is on the SMAC & CRB by continuing their ability not to anticipate a mess that will probably show-up the future by allowing parts to be non-Spec'ed.

[Steve Scheifler]

Kyle W., your post seems to imply that the over-priced competition rubber bushings are allowed for SM. They are probably on a great many cars, but I don't recall seeing them in the SM rules.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Kyle;
I understand where you are coming from and I fully support spec'ing a non OEM bushing set for the entire car.  I submitted this to SMAC a few years ago as something NASA would like to see....
 
My problem with this is it needs to be a spec part in the rules, I don't give a crap what the part is as long as it's spec'ed.  This class has historically had problems leaving items open.   Also, remember this is an optional part, you don't have to run it to be legal.  So, if the Mazda Offset Bushing is Spec'ed in the rules and they are unavailable for everyone (out of stock) then they are unavailable for everyone.
 
 
Again, I understand what you're getting at but IMO the error is on the SMAC & CRB by continuing their ability not to anticipate a mess that will probably show-up the future by allowing parts to be non-Spec'ed.

What about the fat cat setup,it's not a spec mazda part but it's allowed ?
Why can't they do the same with the bushings ?

[john mueller]

What about the fat cat setup,it's not a spec mazda part but it's allowed ?
Why can't they do the same with the bushings ?

 

 

Exactly !!!    That is a non OEM part that WAS SPEC'D in the rules.  That's all NASA (I) wants here.

I could give a rip what part is and who makes it out of whatever.  Just as long as we all use the same spec part in our spec race cars.

 

So everyone knows, it's not THIS part that has me so amp'ed up...  It's the decision making process that leaves openings for advantages to be developed when it's not necessary and is not IMO the intent of the class. 

[FTodaro]

Just make it open and be done with it. If we are all able to get the same amount of camber, who cares at this point. More, rules, more tech, more work. IMO.

[john mueller]

Just make it open and be done with it. If we are all able to get the same amount of camber, who cares at this point. More, rules, more tech, more work. IMO.

 

I don't agree Frank.  

 

Clutches were open.  Compression testing was not spec'ed.  Short-Turn-Radius' in the head were not spec'ed.  Shall I go on?  

[KW78]

Wow.  This is a 2 part reply.... 

 

Kyle;

I understand where you are coming from and I fully support spec'ing a non OEM bushing set for the entire car.  I submitted this to SMAC a few years ago as something NASA would like to see....

 

My problem with this is it needs to be a spec part in the rules, I don't give a crap what the part is as long as it's spec'ed.  This class has historically had problems leaving items open.   Also, remember this is an optional part, you don't have to run it to be legal.  So, if the Mazda Offset Bushing is Spec'ed in the rules and they are unavailable for everyone (out of stock) then they are unavailable for everyone.

 

 

Again, I understand what you're getting at but IMO the error is on the SMAC & CRB by continuing their ability not to anticipate a mess that will probably show-up the future by allowing parts to be non-Spec'ed.

 

 

Just make it open and be done with it. If we are all able to get the same amount of camber, who cares at this point. More, rules, more tech, more work. IMO.

 

John,

 

Sorry but you're conclusions are wrong on alot of levels here.  Nothing personal but really if you are in a position to influence rules, you really need to get the approach correct and not fall into the bass ackwards way this class has been handled.

 

"This class has historically had problems leaving items open." - -   The opposite is true here.   The open items are the only things that have NOT had problems.  Any brake lines, any brake pads.  Any oil, any fan belt, any battery of similar size, any air filter......  etc etc..    The open items are quickly optimized and shared.  The open items come down in cost too. The open items more importantly can be tech'd at an average event. 

 

Its the SPEC'd items that miss the mark, but it is a little more complex than a bumpersticker.  It is the spec items, that are not functioning at their optimum level, that are not easy to tech, that miss the mark.  Example, Camber - have to use a spec spindle, control arm, subframe --  so they get bent, and that CANNOT be tech'd at an average event.    Example - ECM is spec'd but not running an optimum fuel curve.  ECM teching, while better - has been an uphill battle and for years the ones made to have a better fuel curve have the advantage.  OPENING UP the fuel and timing have watered down the problem dramatically.  WE NEED TO LEARN FROM THAT.  The best working restricted parts quickly become elite and expensive.  The restricted parts that provide an advantage, as long as they pass the tech shed balancing act(and all that that statement means), have the advantage. 

 

 

Any rules management of this class moving forward needs to have competitor cost, rules enforcement at an average tech event, and the kiss principle applied.  If any of these aspects are a fail, better rethink the proposed change.  If SCCA and NASA is diligent about this, then whistlegate and headgate may not kill the class after all.

 

So on today's issue, the bushing has to fit inside a defined part, and bolt up to a defined part.  KISS.  The entire cheating suspension world just got massively devalued, with a simple in reach solution, and competition just got closer.  That for my money is a good intent, not to have a part number and a defined spec.  The spec definition ultimately is the optimum level of camber.  Unfortunately NASA and SCCA don't have the same tire, but need the same customers, (which violates the KISS principle from the competitors point of view). 

 

 

Kyle W., your post seems to imply that the over-priced competition rubber bushings are allowed for SM. They are probably on a great many cars, but I don't recall seeing them in the SM rules.

 

This is the WOW part. Steve, can this be right?  I have a customer who comes to me a few weeks ago and says, Mazda is featuring new bushings and the 40% stiffer ones seem to be a good idea, like the stiffer motor mounts.  My suspension is 5 years old and/or junkyard spares (after an incident), lets freshen it up.

 

So our primary supplier is marketting parts that have no other use in no other class, other that to be spec miata parts that, to directly quote mazda, "appear identical" to the stock bushings. 

 

So, reading the newest rule revision I can find, yes Steve you are right.  Found the motor mounts, didn't find the bushings.

 

Boggling.  So we have another part specifically to perform better, and specifically to be tech shed legal...   

 

Kyle

 

 

 

[john mueller]

Wow.  This is a 2 part reply.... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"This class has historically had problems leaving items open." - -   The opposite is true here.   The open items are the only things that have NOT had problems.  Any brake lines, any brake pads.  Any oil, any fan belt, any battery of similar size, any air filter......  etc etc..    The open items are quickly optimized and shared.  The open items come down in cost too. The open items more importantly can be tech'd at an average event. 

 

Any rules management of this class moving forward needs to have competitor cost, rules enforcement at an average tech event, and the kiss principle applied.  If any of these aspects are a fail, better rethink the proposed change.  If SCCA and NASA is diligent about this, then whistlegate and headgate may not kill the class after all.

 

Kyle

 

Did you ever buy a $1000 clutch?   If not probably because it was fixed by Spec'd part number(s) in the rules.

 

Whistlegate and Headgate were caused by openings in the rules by folks that were willing to ignore the "if it doesn't say you can then you can't" rule.  Keep it simple by spec'ing a part number whenever possible.

 

I'll go on if you wish...  You are correct on some level, but modification away from OEM IMO requires a spec in a spec class.  

[KW78]

I don't agree Frank.  

 

Clutches were open.  Compression testing was not spec'ed.  Short-Turn-Radius' in the head were not spec'ed.  Shall I go on?  

 

You can go on, but stay factual please.  Compression testing is not a spec'd part, but a measurement process that needed better definition.  The short turn radius was spec'd, and the valve job was spec'd,. and well enough that the system worked and people were pulled back in line.  Thats a big success.      However, it actually supports my point that it is so complicated to regulate and enforce this particular area, that the rules about it really are out of line with the KISS principle.  

 

The KISS principle would lead back to the promise of a well designed air restrictor making all the complex teching of the shape of this turn or that within the head completely irrelevant.   To listen to them, it would make many things irrelevent that this class spends money on to gain advantages, again narrowing the performance window for closer racing AND making it cheaper.    I think 50% of forward moving effort should be spent nailing down if the promise of this concept can be realized, but that is just my opinion.  

 

The clutch example is a good point!  Yes, that rule missed the mark.  It wasn't because the rule did not spec a part number however.  It was because we were attempting to hold parts at bay that performed more optimally, and then they violated the "competitor cost" leg of the rule evaluation.   While re writing the rule to a specific ACT part number did solve competitor cost problem, it eliminated some good options like the excedy clutch that was a little cheaper and the OEM alternate clamp load clutch from mazda that I liked to use.  In hind sight, not spec-ing the weight of an open part is a known principle and has (did have) a predictable outcome.    Fortunately, the wheel rule has this worked out.  It is not a "spec" part number we have to buy from mazda, but a well defined part that is open to be bought from many sources.

 

We are both arguing for the health of the class, but one aspect that I don't like is the problems I anticipate with single supplier solutions.  Any issue that makes any solution more exclusive, makes racing cost more, and works against the goal of close racing, which is the selling point of the class!

 

My 02

Kyle

[James York]

 

Whistlegate and Headgate were caused by openings in the rules by folks that were willing to ignore the "if it doesn't say you can then you can't" rule.  Keep it simple by spec'ing a part number whenever possible.

 

 

Whistlegate was not a problem with the rules.  It was pure manipulation of the tool used to conveniently measure CR without the need for more complex method.  If those cars were CC'd they would have failed, simple.  The rules are very clear about maximum allowed CR.  It does not specify that the CR is based on using the Whistler.

[davew]

All 3 gates (Whistle head and spindle) have nothing to do with rules as written. They have to do with suppliers being willing to put money ahead of their personal integrity. Everyone knows about rule #1. Some just chose to ignore it.

 

KW, the 40% harder bushings have been around for years. Like 20 years. They have not proven to be of any benefit over the stock bushings. Which are half the price of the competition bushings. Also, Mazda may list a kit of bushings, but it is simply a list of all the individual part numbers for Mazdaspeed only. Look at your invoices, you will see every bushing listed individually, not a kit. Thus no problem eliminating the upper front bushings if you want the eccentric ones. Go to the local dealer and try to order that kit part number. It does not exist.

 

Spec Miata is not the only customers Mazdaspeed has. The 40% bushings are legal in many classes of racing. They are not legal for Spec Miata. The 40% competition motor mounts where allowed many years ago (when I was on the SMAC) because they served no performance advantage, where actually pennies cheaper than the oem version, and lasted longer. Thus meeting your KISS principle.

 

As I stated in another post, i am against allowing anything except oem bushings. How much more KISS can you get. But the ruling powers have voted against me, so I can only hope that the rule will be updated with some decent specs and we can all go on racing and having fun.

 

Dave

[FTodaro]

 

As I stated in another post, i am against allowing anything except oem bushings. How much more KISS can you get. But the ruling powers have voted against me, so I can only hope that the rule will be updated with some decent specs and we can all go on racing and having fun.

 

Dave

For the sake of argument, and you know i love to do that,

 

We had an issue with Fuel pressure so we allowed the 99 and other models run a fuel pressure regulator and timing wheel. we allowed multiple versions of a fuel pressure regulator to be used. You offer one on your site.

 

We have the issues with the Bushings, as i understand SCCA is allowing open supplier  and NASA is considering using just OEM Spec. (do i have this right)?

 

I on the other hand I am suggesting just leave camber open why spec the parts? Just leave the rule that offset bushings are permitted in the front upper control arms. the bushings must be similar in design to the OEM part with an offset center hole. this avoids fancy metal bushings.

 

debate

[Bench Racer]

Snap a photo of an offset bushing and include in the SMCS.

[Steve Scheifler]

Good stuff, I was alternately nodding and shaking my head reading posts from John, Kyle and others. All had things I agreed with and things I would debate. But in the case of the new rule for eccentric bushings I side with clear specs but not a single source. Although I appreciated the Fat Cat upgrade and the initiative he showed in becoming the supplier, that kit is seriously over priced and I've heard grumbling about support issues. Unfortunately I think there is more room for rules abuse there so I'm not certain that I'd open it up, but I think adequately clear specs for these bushings can be written to minimize the gray areas, keeping supply up and prices down.

[greengreengreen]

Create a spec/dimension. and a 2D drawing with material.  I'll do the drawing.  It will take a whopping 10 minutes.  Oh wait!!! I have a model and 2D drawing and just need to change the dimensions to what ever they are.  The model will cjange the existing 2D drawing.  Click, click, click and click.  Create PDF.  Copy and Send to anyone who wants it.  Make that 2 minutes.  Now that is KISS!!  Load on Web Site another minute.

 

Kevin