207 replies to this topic

[38bfast]

Yes Bench I believe in most cases heads with a larger radius / blend could be remachined to a smaller radius / blend. Of course at a cost of R&R the head and remacining . 

 

I am hoping that the diagram to follow in the fastrack will describe the how its measured.

[RWP80000]

Because of the SM cylinder head Short Turn Radius (STR) protest at the 2014 Runoffs, SCCA went with a strict interpretation of the GCR rules language and established that any amount of deburr to the short turn radius was deemed non-compliant.  Since the language for the valve unshrouding section of the rules was very similar to the valve throat plunge cut wording, the logical conclusion is that the same strict language should and would apply to it as well going forward otherwise the potential for another mass protest.

 

In the case of the STR issue, it was deemed appropriate to provide an allowance within the rules, since not to do so would result in the scrapping of a large number of heads. This was the 1.5 mm allowance established as the maximum amount of STR plunge cut to port casting floor transition edge break now allowed.  But this was not the only change written in to the new rule language at this time as they also implemented a 0.375 maximum transition radius from the plunge cut to the valve bowl.  This was done to provide cover for what was being done by the engine builders that was also close to what the factory plunge cut tool transition provided and difficult to "tech".  This eliminated any conflict of a strict Rules interpretation that the transition at the bottom of the plunge cut was also to be a 90 degree sharp transition and in my opinion the correct thing to do.

 

The engine builders that were being "creative" with the Valve Unshrouding language had an opportunity at this time to recommend similar adjustment to the rules language for the Valve Unshrouding Relief cut but chose not to do so most probably in an attempt to keep this as a competitive advantage as they knew it was getting through tech and therefore considered Tech Shed legal.  With the closer scrutiny now taking place, this area was identified and was questioned as to how could a radius at the bottom of the Valve Unshrouding increased radial dimension cut be justified given the specific language as to wording for "sharp edge" and not creating "a smooth transition" within the rules.

 

There are arguments on both sides but those that replaced their heads and followed in good faith with SCCA's strict interpretation to the rules language now find themselves with new heads that are at a potential competitive dis-advantage and with no way to put the material back that was removed when following the strict interpretation.  

 

What this new language provides is actually quite a generous allowance over what the original rules language intended and as has been stated before, those with more generous radius transitions can become compliant without having to replace their heads.

 

Personally, I think it is important that the Rules language should mean what it says and when interpretation conflicts arise they should be addressed and communicated to the membership through a Bulletin with wording clarification and followed up with changes in the GCR.

 

Now is the time to submitted you opinions/position and requests on this issue or any other that are on your mind. 

[38bfast]

I just want to caution everyone that the data on the perceived performance advantage has not been validated. Some parties have identified no measurable gain and others claim a gain. As far as i know the 3 last national runoffs champions did not have a larger blend at the bottom of the cut. FWIW. 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I'm tired or new rules that's for damn sure, but we got ourselves into this as a class now lets get ourselves out of this and keep going in the right direction.

 

I am not sold that this radius is anything more then another way someone does something, but the new wording will take some of that creativity out of the mix for those who wish for the class to me more SPEC in nature.

 

I would be absolutely opposed to the new language if it going to cause heads to be junked once again!

 

 But this way the faithful followers of those engine builders are allowed to pay more homage to their builder as a reward for the creativity, and yet not have to start over and do the Easter egg hunt for now non existent donor heads.  

 

If your a competitive racer your going to refresh you head before runoffs and certainly before next season to stay at the top of your game, this will be a minimal cost while doing a refresh on the head.  That's my 2 cents

 

And I would feel the exact same way if I had one of these soon to be non compliant heads...  

[wheel]

This probably should have been fixed when the STR deal was re-written, but we missed it.  The bottom line on all of this is that nobody needs to buy new heads (other than heads that had blatant STR work done).  As someone pointed out on this thread, if you have a blended cut that was not in keeping with the original "sharp" wording of the rules, you can fix it without replacing the heads.  If you have a sharp cut, you are good and you don't have to buy a new head to gain the (variously reported) benefit of a blended cut. 

 

wheel

[FTodaro]

Wheel sounds good to me, let's support the rule and get it fixed and move on. The last thing we need at this point is another BS point of argument to divide the class, this is not a big deal, this is how it should work.

[Keith Andrews]

Ralph - Thank you for taking time to objectively explain what this is all about.  That was a great help to all.

 

It sure was a contrast to the tale that Sean was spinning.

[Bench Racer]

When rules are written which will have dimensions within the rule description someone should hand sketch at minimum the area to be described by the rule. Then all dimensions required to manufacture said part should be applied to the sketch. I'm not suggesting a sketch/drawing is required for every rule with dimensions. What I am suggesting is that by following the above process, we'll not have words like bevel and curve show up in a rule and we will have looked at all dimensions required to write a rule.

 

But then as a retired mechanical engineer, what the hell do I know.

 

I wrote my last letter a couple months ago because "Interpreting and Applying the GCR" protocol was/is not being followed.  Why you ask why, the straight forward simple answer is, when SCCA committee members respond, it's been that way for twenty years and it isn't going to change, why write. 

 

David Dewhurst

SCCA #250772 

[Bench Racer]

let's support the rule and get it fixed and move on.

 

I hope like hell with your word "fixed", your suggesting replacing the word bevel and curve with the words chamfer and radius/R which are normal everyday engineering and manufacturing words. 

 

 

[Sean - MiataCage]

Ralph - Thank you for taking time to objectively explain what this is all about.  That was a great help to all.

 

It sure was a contrast to the tale that Sean was spinning.

 

Not sure what tale I was spinning.  Ralph was involved in all of this from the get go and can corroborate what and how it all went down.  He and I had a couple of conversations about it throughout the process.  Unfortunately all that have been involved are not always willing to speak up publicly so I get tasked with speaking about it because I simply don't care about how it may be perceived.  If I believe it is right I will always stand up for what I think is right.

 

The "Tale" was pretty simple..... The rule was in my mind and "others" clear.  Some motor builders chose to play in the gray area.  I asked for a formal clarification so I could choose to make the changes to my cars and could not get one.  From there it was escalated to someone who could get me an answer.  Please tell me what "Tale" I was spinning.  If anything the fact that the CRB has chosen to re-write the rule only backs up my assessment that it needed clarification.

 

If you are going to start throwing stones at me, please use some facts in your argument.  If I have mis-stated something then I will most certainly apologize and take responsibility for it.

 

Your move......

[wheel]

By the way, there will be a diagram when the final Fastrack goes on line.  The person who is doing the drawing had to go out and RACE this weekend and didn't put his racing on hold to do the drawing.  

 

I don't see where anyone has spun anything with regard to this issue.  The original rule had an intention.  The wording of the rule left that intention open to "creative" interpretation.  

 

We all know what was going on here.    We can read that the rule said "sharp" and we know that "sharp" is not curved and it is not a 45º bevel, it is sharp.  Granted, there is no definition of sharp in the GCR.  In part, that is the reason for the rule clarification. 

 

The CRB, in the shadow of the 2014 Runoffs, looked at the wording of the rule and fixed it.  Now we are where we are, and there was only one goal in mind.  That goal was to do what was best for the class in the long run.  

wheel

[James York]

One point I don't quite follow.  If the rule was "clear", as shared by a few people here,.. sharp, no blending, etc, why the need for a rules clarification?  Those motors looked at at NOLA should have just been bounced by the compliance committee person and its done deal, over.  No appeal.

[38bfast]

To echo Sean we have had a lot of communication over this issue. We both agree that two different people can read the current rule today and come up with very distinct contradicting interpretations. Concluding that the rule needs further clarification. So that's the easy part of you will. Obviously defining a new rule with the least impact to the customer / racer is the chalange. that is now what we all have in front of us.

Just for clarification the SMAC did just not wake up one morning and say lets mess with a rule because we are board. This issue was brought to the SAMCs attention looking for clarification. The SMAC has spent considerable time reachering and debating this topic in effort to help and suport the CRB in their effort.

[Tom Sager]

To echo Sean we have had a lot of communication over this issue. We both agree that two different people can read the current rule today and come up with very distinct contradicting interpretations. Concluding that the rule needs further clarification. So that's the easy part of you will. Obviously defining a new rule with the least impact to the customer / racer is the chalange. that is now what we all have in front of us.

Just for clarification the SMAC did just not wake up one morning and say lets mess with a rule because we are board. This issue was brought to the SAMCs attention looking for clarification. The SMAC has spent considerable time reachering and debating this topic in effort to help and suport the CRB in their effort.

After reading through the thread, this latest proposed clarification seems reasonable.  

[Ron Alan]

One point I don't quite follow.  If the rule was "clear", as shared by a few people here,.. sharp, no blending, etc, why the need for a rules clarification?  Those motors looked at at NOLA should have just been bounced by the compliance committee person and its done deal, over.  No appeal.

Hmmm...be a little dejavu then?(and there would be an appeal which would be denied) And then we would still end up right  here i believe?

 

Pro-active this time is a good thing i believe. 

[James York]

Hmmm...be a little dejavu then?(and there would be an appeal which would be denied) And then we would still end up right  here i believe?

 

Pro-active this time is a good thing i believe. 

I don't know Ron.  And maybe we would end up in the same spot.  

 

But I do find it a bit disheartening that intelligent people can each have, in there opinion as described here, two different opinions each on a rule they believe to be clear.  Each year lately I lose more and more interest in running SM and the SCCA because of the constant BS.

[Keith Andrews]

 

This clarification came about all because we have motor builders playing fast and loose with the rules again.  In recent months, several of us have confirmed that at least one specific motor builder has been taking creative liberty with this specific rule and after testing found it to be a limited competitive advantage (less than 2 hp) but a competitive advantage none the less.   

 

If the rules stand as they do today and you or your engine builder built your motor without a radius cut, then you are going to need to go out and buy a new head as that material has been removed and can not be put back if you want a motor built with the most HP legally possible. 

 

So.....  If you want to add more expense to the class then submit your letter to turn down the proposed rule clarification.  If you want to eliminate the need to go out and buy new heads to get the last little bit out of your motor then submit your letter supporting the rules clarification.

 

Whatever you decide, everyone needs to submit a letter.

 

Sean

 

 

 

From the information that I have gathered I have been made aware that there are currently 3 SM engine builders using a radius of approximately 1.5mm or .060R at the bottom of the cut left buy the cut process. The number of heads that have this machining process applied is somewhere between 600-and 800 heads. I don't know how many are still in service at this time. This practice has been applied for many years. 

 

To date the valve relief cut rule as to referencing the size of bend or radius at the bottom of the cut has not been challenged and no heads have been found none compliant relating to that issue to date.

 

The issue as I see it is some builders believe that the profile of the cut is open per the rules and others believe it is not. 

 

As far as performance advantage goes claims from none to +2hp have been announced. This is a very hard modification to compare. No 3rd party testing has been done to date to my knowledge. 

 

Sean-

 

The contrast I see is your:

 

"one specific motor builder" VS. "3" known builders that have been building this way for a many years.

 

"a limited competitive advantage (less than 2 hp) but a competitive advantage none the less" VS. "As far as performance advantage goes claims from none to +2hp have been announced. This is a very hard modification to compare. No 3rd party testing has been done to date to my knowledge."

 

As has been stated this is just a pissing match. 

 

If all that was desired was a rules clarification, and a known radius of 1.5mm or .060R is being used and has been deemed legal why not put forward a rule that reflects that radius.

 

Just my .02, if this was really worth any HP, all builders would be doing it.  Maybe there is some technical reason others can't do a valve job with a radius cut, I don't know. 

 

In my view this is more about being disruptive to competitors on and off the track than it is about rules clarification.  That is my opinion. 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

 

 

In my view this is more about being disruptive to competitors on and off the track than it is about rules clarification.  That is my opinion. 

 

Kieth I agree it is disruptive, but taking care of it this way rather then dq someone at a majors for it and send another shockwave through our class would be far more disruptive.

 

Sean is not on the SMAC or CRB or anything else that I know of, he is just an opinionated SOB as many of us are.  IMO he has expressed his opinion, and he chooses to believe that its a 2hp advantage, so be it.  His opinion on that may sway others, I chose to believe its worth ZERO-.5, and personally could care less, but I do care that we dont let this fester and become the next big blow up in the class.

 

Clarifying the rules now and allowing people to race their current heads till 16 is the right move IMO. 

[38bfast]

Very smart people wrote the original rule. But with racing one can only anticipate so much of how things will be interpreted and acted upon. The rule makers do their best to keep the rules black and white. The builders do everything they can to find gray. That's just the nature of racing. Hell we see this in F1 or nascar all the time.

It's just like the farmer who builds his chicken coop to keep out the foxes. He does every thing he can think of to keep them out. Meanwhile the fox is doing everything he can to defeat what the famer has done so he can have some tasty chicken. If the fox finds a way in the famer changes the coop to not let it happen again.

Let's not loose sight over what we have here in SM. We have the tightest competition in SCCA. There is no arguing that. But to achive this it takes adaptation in the rules as time goes buy. "The foxes get better with time". All forms of racing evolve. It's part of the game we are all playing. Does it suck when the rules cause people to endure change and money to be spent? Hell yes. No one wants that. But we also demand the closest racing possible.

The tollarence in power output from all the builders is amazingly close. It for the most part is tighter than the spec engine classes. It's my opion that we would have more variance in a sealed engine program.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Sean-

 

The contrast I see is your:

 

"one specific motor builder" VS. "3" known builders that have been building this way for a many years.

 

"a limited competitive advantage (less than 2 hp) but a competitive advantage none the less" VS. "As far as performance advantage goes claims from none to +2hp have been announced. This is a very hard modification to compare. No 3rd party testing has been done to date to my knowledge."

 

As has been stated this is just a pissing match. 

 

If all that was desired was a rules clarification, and a known radius of 1.5mm or .060R is being used and has been deemed legal why not put forward a rule that reflects that radius.

 

Just my .02, if this was really worth any HP, all builders would be doing it.  Maybe there is some technical reason others can't do a valve job with a radius cut, I don't know. 

 

In my view this is more about being disruptive to competitors on and off the track than it is about rules clarification.  That is my opinion. 

 

Keith....  To answer your questions:

 

I was only personally aware of one builder.  That builder who was directly involved in the STR gate and admitted publicly to building motors with more compression because he knew the whistler process wouldn't catch it.  A motor builder with history.  There has been testing done and we have seen advantages, but there are others who have done testing and say it does nothing.  The testing that has been done has not been done by anyone independent so all of the data can always be looked at as flawed.  Common sense applies here.... It is my understanding that the cutter required to make this cut is not a cutter that is just sitting around the shop.  It had to be custom built to perform this exact cut, so it was an active choice to try to improve the flow.  I applaud the ingenuity, but I and others don't believe it to be legal with the rule and wanted a clarification.  If it does nothing then what's the problem tightening up the rule?

 

If it was just a pissing contest, why not just show up and protest one of his cars and potentially cause him some more public humiliation?  I don't build motors or sell motors so I'm not sure what the pissing contest would be about. 

 

I am the one who penned the first pass of the rule that was sent directly to the CRB.  It has (rightly so) changed quite a bit to be better and more clear.  It was at this point that .060R was added in.  I asked for .040. as a compromise given discussion that there were motors in existence that had these radius cuts performed.  After lengthy discussion with several of the people involved it seemed the right thing to do was to limit the amount of expense to the racer.  Limiting that expense in my mind is means is cheaper for people to re-machine an existing head that has a radius to bring it into compliance with the new rule (if they chose to go that route) versus having to go out and buy new heads for those that were straight cut since that material can not be put back.

 

I'm not involved in determining what is or is not legal, I just want a clarification so myself and others can choose to make the change or not based on written enforceable rule and not verbal hearsay.  I'm not sure how you can be pissed at me for wanting a simple clarification.   Coming off the heels of the 14 Runoffs, now is the time to make the appropriate changes to tighten up areas of the rule book that need help.

 

The rule in my mind is and was very clear as the opening statement in the engine rules section says the following:

 

 

No modifications to this engine are allowed, except where specifically authorized within these rules. This includes, but is not limited to, all fuel injection and engine manage- ment components, as well as electrical, cooling, and lubri- cation systems. All systems are subject to test procedures and must conform to OEM specifications as stated in the Mazda factory service manual.

 

There are obviously differing view points on this which is why the clarification is needed.  The fact that this is even an issue again speaks to how good and close the class is.

 

"In my view this is more about being disruptive to competitors on and off the track than it is about rules clarification.  That is my opinion. "

 

Your are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that.  But I would argue that if you look at actions here it clearly shows that this could have been handled in a MUCH larger way which would have been disruptive to competitors as well as the overall health of the class.  

 

I had a technical question about a rule and was not able to get an answer.  When that happens you only have 1 current choice in SCCA Land and that is a protest.  There is no longer a way to ask for a clarification within the GCR.  If you call Topeka, they can't give you anything either... They refer you to the GCR.    So, as I see it me taking the time and public heat to try to get this clarification is the exact opposite of being disruptive to the class.    I asked questions for years about the STR and I was always told not to worry about it.  I was told it has passed Runoffs inspections several times so that means it's legal.  I need more than hearsay and rumor.... I simply want a public clarification so that myself and others can choose to make the changes or not.

 

Sean