296 replies to this topic

[suck fumes]

so 3 years ago to keep costs down machining heads was put in place.
This allowed the use of many more heads that were either non-compliant, or just undesirable. Hence helping to keep head core cost down.

now, because the rules allowing head performance balancing were written with an unclear section and others decided to blatantly ignore the rules, this is pulled. Thus going back to exactly the situation that was in place before that was proven not to help the community.

again, a place where logic and reasoning has no place.

so back to the whole club thing, no members had input on this, it was decided for the group; so where do we write the letters to?

Why bother, expect to get a "thank your for your input" response and promptly be ignored.

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

You have some nerve Dave I'll give you that. "Tech Shed Legal" was out of context. Facts sure get distorted. A quick visit to the archives will show my comments and their context. Many rules you have today are a direct result of my efforts to make SM more spec. What have you "contributed"?

DW, we have one thing in common. I too was fired as SMAC Chairman when I informed the community that SCCA intended to prevent Spec Miata from going national.

Irony that you conment here about racers being rules makers. Remind us why you was fired from the Chairman position?

If you have not forgotten, I've been in a few Runoffs tear downs myself. I've seen your cars. Glass house pal.

[38bfast]

Mud slinging is not the answer. None of us have a halow over our heads. Case in point I don't see a line with the stewards tuning ourselves in for passing under yellow or jumping a start or contact we could have avoided. All cheating. We push to see how much we can get away with. Is it legal no. Is it by the letter of the rule, no. Do we know we were wrong when we do it, yes.

This is truly a no win situation. Pros and cons to every possible outcome. More cons than pros for all of them.

For me I felt the rule as written was clear and a good rule on its intent for the class. I also agree with tightening up the rule as well. Obviously others had a different veiw point. I will wait for the weight penalty to decide what my next steps will be.

[suck fumes]

So how long have these builders been plunge cutting and blending ?

How can you tell and is it easy to see on a 1.6 ?

The reason I ask is I had a couple of heads done between 3 to 5 years ago and was wonder if they did that back then.

This is not a new issue. In 2009 me and gorilla both had heads from Karl at ART and both of us were DQ'd (even though it was done within the rules) but of course we got reinstated after the appeal haha. I'm really shocked that some people are stupid enough to push the blending envelope past what is legal after that whole mess in 2009 at Topeka runoffs.

[38bfast]

Just to be clear if you get busted pushing the limits man up and take your lashings that are due.

[dstevens]

<snip>  Either that or take away the national championship potential (give that to the SM5) and give us back our grassroots, fun racing.

That's probably more along the lines of what it will take to reign in cost.  The participation of the front runners would likely drop as well as overall numbers but in the end losing national status is about the only leverage to get the genie back in the bottle.  Or as back in the bottle as it can get. 

[glasshouse]

Not too long ago a thin gentleman from NH with rather long hair once told me something I thought would never happen.....

 

How appropriate.....

 

[KentCarter]

It's time for every single head that was found to be noncompliant to be photographed, sectioned and photographed again and the photos distributed to every SM racer. 

 

I don't trust any of you. 

[suck fumes]

Not too long ago a thin gentleman from NH with rather long hair once told me something I thought would never happen.....

How appropriate.....

Lol!!! Are those for sale?

[Bench Racer]

James, my point was/is, all intake and exhaust bowls have an OEM plunge cut. Then because some heads were found to have OEM plunge cut marks lower in the bowl than previously found the depth number was changed per SM rules. The heads get plunge cut two times, once OEM and once by the SM engine builder. The OEM plunge cuts have zero process after the plunge cut other than a high pressure water wash.

 

Are you saying, these new summit rules say, if an OEM plunge cut exists, no SM engine builder plunge cut, the head is illegal for the 2015 Runoffs? And weight will be added to my car. If that is what the proposed summit rules are saying, that is friking nuts and so are the summit folks that agreed to the rule clarity.

 

David, take a deep breath and stay off the  MazdaRacer site, you'll catch the friking nuts illness..

[James York]

James, my point was/is, all intake and exhaust bowls have an OEM plunge cut. Then because some heads were found to have OEM plunge cut marks lower in the bowl than previously found the depth number was changed per SM rules. The heads get plunge cut two times, once OEM and once by the SM engine builder. The OEM plunge cuts have zero process after the plunge cut other than a high pressure water wash.

 

Are you saying, these new summit rules say, if an OEM plunge cut exists, no SM engine builder plunge cut, the head is illegal for the 2015 Runoffs? And weight will be added to my car. If that is what the proposed summit rules are saying, that is friking nuts and so are the summit folks that agreed to the rule clarity.

 

David, take a deep breath and stay off the  MazdaRacer site, you'll catch the friking nuts illness..

 

I don't think i am saying that.  What I am trying to say, if I understand correctly, is your head must now be untouched.  If you have had no head work done, its legal forever.  If you had an additional plunge cut as allowed by the GCR with no blending or any other machining, it will be non-compliant in 1 to 2 years.  And in the meantime you will be required to carry more weight to run that head.

 

Perhaps you are a lucky one with a head that was not built to the provisions allowed in the current ruleset.

[MPR22]

I don't think i am saying that.  What I am trying to say, if I understand correctly, is your head must now be untouched.  If you have had no head work done, its legal forever.  If you had an additional plunge cut as allowed by the GCR with no blending or any other machining, it will be non-compliant in 1 to 2 years.  And in the meantime you will be required to carry more weight to run that head.

 

Perhaps you are a lucky one with a head that was not built to the provisions allowed in the current ruleset.

you forgot the part where if David milled the head to reach optimum compression his head is illegal for the 2015 run-offs and will be non-compliant in the next 1-2 years.  

[MPR22]

To achieve the long-term goal, the class must ultimately return to stock cylinder heads with a permitted industry-standard valve job.

 

What is this?  It was actually well defined, now it is some obscure undefined term "industry standard".  Which industry?  If its a car racing industry standard, then custom valve jobs are the standard. 

[MPR22]

-Independent testing will be conducted to determine the effect of the individual and collective modifications. Only once this scientific data is collected and evaluated will weight levels be determined.

 

How will the tests be performed, flow bench, dyno, on track?  Other?  

Kent Carter might be about to have a stroke by the use of the term 'scientific data'.  

 

Even if the data is collected scientifically, who the frack and how the frack do they decide what the appropriate weight penalty?  Is it just weight or should there be a plate modification also?  

 

What if the data is inconclusive, do they arbitrarily add weight to keep from having to explain their lack of conclusive evidence?  

[MPR22]

 The group, established by SCCA President Lisa Noble, also includes John Doonan, Steve Sanders and Mike Allen (Mazdaspeed Motorsports Development), John Mueller (NASA), Tony Ave (SCCA Club Racing Board) and Robert Clarke (SCCA Pro Racing/SCCA Inc.).

 

The group met face-to-face at SCCA’s offices in Topeka, Kansas October 30, 2014. Also attending in consultation were: Eric Prill (SCCA), John Bauer (SCCA), Jim Wheeler (SCCA Club Racing Board), Steve Knapp (Elite Engines) and Jim Stewart (Stewart Engines).

 

Interesting group to decide the fate of Spec Miata.  

 

In the group, only John Mueller races SM with any regularity.  

 

Why were engine builders (who's heads were not inspected at the run-offs) invited to the meeting?  Is it because they were thought to never have produced a non compliant head?   Is it because they could look at the work done by others and shake their heads and say, " yep they are fracking cheating". 

 

I assume there are "detailed" minutes from this illustrious meeting and that as a member I should be able to review the minutes from this meeting.  

[MPR22]

For Spec Miata to be a healthy, growing and economical class across organizations, where a racer can be competitive utilizing a stock Mazda Miata that is enhanced with bolt-on performance parts acquired through Mazdaspeed Motorsports Development

 

It was pointed out by others but I will jump on, since when did we sign up to race Stock Miata?  

And what bold on performance parts, besides the suspension kits are we suppose to buying from Mazdaspeed? 

[Brian129]

To achieve the long-term goal, the class must ultimately return to stock cylinder heads with a permitted industry-standard valve job.[/size]
 
What is this?  It was actually well defined, now it is some obscure undefined term "industry standard".  Which industry?  If its a car racing industry standard, then custom valve jobs are the standard. [/size]

"Stock" and "unmodified" while are easy to understand are not easy to prove one way or the other, and are definitely not clear.
The wording is far from a solution

  

-Independent testing will be conducted to determine the effect of the individual and collective modifications. Only once this scientific data is collected and evaluated will weight levels be determined.[/size]
 
How will the tests be performed, flow bench, dyno, on track?  Other?  [/size]
Kent Carter might be about to have a stroke by the use of the term 'scientific data'.  
 
Even if the data is collected scientifically, who the frack and how the frack do they decide what the appropriate weight penalty?  Is it just weight or should there be a plate modification also?  
 
What if the data is inconclusive, do they arbitrarily add weight to keep from having to explain their lack of conclusive evidence?

.
If the data is inconclusive, then they will still add weight as the goal is to move back to stock heads sooner than later, so then it would follow that the penalty will make the power added by valve cutting not an advantage, and more of a weight disadvantage.

[MPR22]

In achieving that goal, it is important that current participants not be disenfranchised and unreasonably burdened while still making the class attractive to individuals that have either left the class or not engaged in the class due to scope creep away from stock.

 

 

This one just leave your head shaking.  Making rules without getting member input is about as disenfranchising as activity as i can think of.  And again who left this class or didn't engage because its not Stock Miata?   People who can't afford to race more than 2 weekends a year?  If they really cared they would put us on cheaper tires that lasted 4 weekends.  If i wanted to race Stock anything I would go to SSB.  I and most others I suspect are in SM because it has the best competition and the deepest fields.  And yes SCCA that includes SRF!

[MPR22]

 It needs to be stated that the heads examined at the Runoffs were modified on varying levels, but each head found out of compliance was in violation of the rules as they are written. Additionally, this is not simply an issue with de-burring, but rather actual smoothing, blending and porting on the sharp edge from the plunge cut.

 

 

Interesting they stayed away from pointing out that full on port work was done to the inside of intake port on one engine builders heads.  Instead they just focus on the small stuff.  

[MPR22]

Less than 15 years ago, the concept of Spec Miata was born. The essence of the class focused on a low cost, fun, competitive environment that was relatively easy to enter. If a participant found a good donor car, added safety equipment, a hardtop and a bolt-on kit of performance parts purchased through Mazdaspeed Motorsports Development, they would have equipment capable of racing at the front of the field.

 

Throughout the years, the class veered from the original intent and direction. The scope of the class has crept into something beyond its original intent. While the essence of the class may remain the same, in some respects, it has lost its way, pushing the definition of “limited modifications” and the notion of “low cost.” Mazda, SCCA and NASA all agree that changes must be made for the long-term health of the class, regardless of which sanctioning body operates the races.

 

 

From what i understand a bit of revisionist history but hey I wasn't there.  

If they really want it to be low cost where you race a bucket of shit, then make it Regional only again and we can all start cheating up the cars for cheap like they did in the old days.  We wouldn't have to pay an engine builder to maximize our stock engines, we could just cut control arms, lighten flywheels and cranks, remove the oilers, shim the springs, put in cheater rings and high compression pistons, fully port the heads, modify the restrictor plates, run modified 5th gears, modified rear end gears, solid lifters in 1.6s............  yep back to the good old days where cheating was cheap and tech was non existent, thats the ticket.  

 

Sign me the frack up.