207 replies to this topic

[wheel]

There is a REC for a new section 8.1.4 in this Fastrack, copied here for your reading pleasure.  This, like all RECs needs to be approved by the BoD.  This is REC for 6/1/15. 

Add new section 8.1.4: 8.1.4 Compliance Review

A member may request a determination on the compliance of their vehicle or its components by submitting a Compliance Request Form to the Club Racing Department at which time a letter will be entered into the CRB letter system.  The Compliance Request Form is available through the Club Racing Department. 

 

A.  The staff will review the request and must consult with the CRB and other appropriate experts.  

 

B.  Club Racing will schedule in-person inspection of the vehicle or components by a class expert.  The expert will submit a written opinion back to Club Racing and the CRB.

C.  Club Racing and the CRB will review the expert’s opinion.  If required, the CRB may initiate a clarification of the applicable rule(s).   Club Racing will then submit a written ruling to the applicant.

 

D.   A fee will be determined and paid in advance of the inspection.  A portion of the fee may be refunded at the discretion of SCCA.

 

E. Verification of compliance is based on the GCR as of the date of the written response to the member. The GCR changes annually, and there is no guarantee of compliance beyond the current rules season.

[38bfast]

Wheel great to see we will have a avenue in place. 

[davew]

For what it is worth, here is my opinion. The cut and paste shown in red is from post #1 of this thread. My words are in blue

 

Current: 5. Unshrouding of valves is explicitly limited as follows: Seems plain and simple so far

 

there must be a sharp edge where the valve relief cut meets the chamber.So where the additional machining meets with the un machined surface, there must be a sharp edge. Pretty simple for me to understand, so far.

 

That edge must be present and unmodified. Still makes sense even if a little redundant and refers to the edge between the modified and un-modified areas of the head.

 

This area is not to be blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition. Again appears redundant, but still is refering to the edge between the modified and un-modified areas of the head.

 

The maximum dimensions are listed below, measuring guide centerline to chamber edge: Not the greatest wording, but it refers to the "flag tools" for measuring excessively large cuts

New: 5. Unshrouding of valves is explicitly limited as follows:Same as the current rule, no issue

 

The wall of allowed relief cut must be a single cut parallel and concentric with the valve guide for the full depth of the cut.This just adds some technical wording that keeps engine builders from angle cutting the valve reliefs. This was the original intent of the rule when it was written by the SMAc years ago

 

The cut must be cylindrical Round makes sense

 

with no taper. Here is the first issue, more on this later

 

The bottom of the cut must form a 90º angle With what? I am sure the rule writers mean with the "wall" of the cut. That wording needs a little cleanup. But we know what they mean.

 

with an allowance for a bevel or curve whose length is not to exceed .040". This is the point of contention and could also be feferred to as a taper.  Some engine builders have been using a square cut tool that leaves a sharp internal corner. Others have used a tool with a rounded (insert your favorite term here;blended, radiused, etc.) tool that in theroy gives better airflow. Thus more horsepower. My interpritation of the current rule does not say if the "beveled" or "Sharp" tool is the compliant design. The current rule only addresses the edge between the modified and un-modified portions of the head. It is this intersection that is the bone of contention that is being addressed.

 

There must be a sharp, non-modified and non de-burred edge where the valve relief cut first meets the chamber. No part of this cut is to be blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition. Says the same as the current wording, just uses more words.

 

The maximum dimensions are listed below, measuring guide center line to chamber edge:Same as current wording.

 

So what we have is a bunch of new words that provide more detail as to what the original intent of the rule was. I don't think anyone should disagree with that.

The issue is the blending/champhering/radiusing/whatever of the intersection of the wall and the bottom of the cut. My opinion is that a radiused cut would be totally legal under the current rule. just as removing less material than that allowed would also be legal. That intersection is not specified in the current rules and any type of cut that meets the remaining rules would be legal.

 

My research has shown that many engine builders have used a radius of varying sizes, while others have used a sharp/square edge cut. 

 

My opinion is that neither should be made illegal. If your engine builder feels their way is the best, let them do it that way. But let the engine builder decide for themselves. My wording would be to allow any radius as long as the wall and bottom of the cut are at a 90* angle. Thus the current tool and procedure still works. Clean up the wording and adding more detail is good. But let the engine builder do what we are all paying him for.

 

My biggest concern is how this was handled. It may have been done as per SCCA procedures, but definately not handled well for public opinion. This should have been part of the head gate rule clarification. But if not it should have been part of the report from the "Super Committee" on Spec Miata. It should never have become public at this point. There are too many open wounds from last years problems. We had a few weekends without drama. Now we have this. No matter if this was a personal vendetta or just a simple request for clarification, it was handled very wrong.

 

Honda, Toyota and the boat manufacturers had better start building their inventory, as we are trying very hard to ruin this great class.

[James York]

 

 

Honda, Toyota and the boat manufacturers had better start building their inventory, as we are trying very hard to ruin this great class.

 

Maybe spec FRS would be fun.

[Alberto]

Maybe spec FRS would be fun.

 

I'm sure it would be - until the cheaters and creative interpreters show up...

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Dave I dont often have to disagree with you but I do on this one.  If I had one of these heads which I do not I would have no heartburn over having to refresh the head at the end of the season and being told I could run the head rest of this year with no legality problem.  As well as knowing that I will be able to keep my already known good head and just have it recut to the new spec.  Anyone who is competitve is going to refresh their head at the end of the season most likely anyway. and anyone who isnt competitive probably like the STR mod isnt going to go change their head out anyway...

 

If this was a vendetta it would certainly end in a protest and be very ugly.  I do not agree with the way Sean posted on this orignally but its his right to do so.  I felt the runnoffs disaster was handled very very very poorly and should have been handled in the way in which this is said to have been handled minus claims of what the gain is and that this is a specific builder etc.

 

This ruling really harms NOBODY!  it shouldn't dredge up hard feelings except for the builder than now has a uselessl tool.  And if my feeling is that it is almost zero gain then what is anyone really fighting to keep their rounded cutter anyway, or is that a tell for (IT REALLY IS 2HP??????)

 

I see no problem with making things a little more spec, it sure makes the job of those poor overworked Tech officials one hell of alot easier when they do not have to interpret what is legal or not and it makes their decision to act much simpler.  So that is now a bad thing?  IMO its put the race back on the track rather then the tech shed which where we all claim we want the race to really be won or lost!

 

The fact that this forum and the chatter on facebook has gotten ridiculous offensive and personal since the 14 season ended is proof we need to make some kind of change.  In the old days at  least the old days for me the worst it seemed to get was Charbs calling Danny names, we now have SMAC members posting vids insinuating someone is a cheater at the same time congratulating him on a win, we have one shop owner nearly mad enough to throw fists etc etc.  How is any of that in the interest of our class, this whole last year has almost driven me from this class!!!!!  All I want to do is come to a race and feel we are all on par and duke it out on track knowing that the tech shed will find nothing!  I SURE FELT THAT WAY IN 2011-13.  And I sure don't want to say this is anyone specifics fault its all our dam faults for trying to push every tollerance find ever grey area etc. but 2014 was a totally unenjoyable year of racing to me personally!  

[Jamz14]

Honda, Toyota and the boat manufacturers had better start building their inventory, as we are trying very hard to ruin this great class.

A touch hyperbolic. Like somehow man drama is limited to SM.

[davew]

A touch hyperbolic. Like somehow man drama is limited to SM.

 

But we have brought it to an exceptional level

[john mueller]

4.  Anyone who is competitve is going to refresh their head at the end of the season most likely anyway. and anyone who isnt competitive probably like the STR mod isnt going to go change their head out anyway...

 

3.  This ruling really harms NOBODY!  it shouldn't dredge up hard feelings except for the builder than now has a useless tool.  And if my feeling is that it is almost zero gain then what is anyone really fighting to keep their rounded cutter anyway, or is that a tell for (IT REALLY IS 2HP??????)

 

5.  I see no problem with making things a little more spec

 

  

 

 

I'm hoping I've not taken anything here out of context Kyle...

 

I'm now a contributor to SMAC.  While I have to respect the process of rule making I can't stand by and listen to constant hyperbole.  

 

 

1.  The touted performance advantage folks have been tossing around is utter bullshit.  To my knowledge it has not been tested by someone not connected to SM and oh won't ever be.  Why? Because any advantage would be lost in the correction factors of a chassis dyno or in the many many many friction points of the drivetrains of various cars that would have to be tested to get a large enough sample size to provide relevant data. MEANING: If you have a position to prove you can get a dyno to say what you want it to say. 

 

2.  We are several years down the road where the radiuses/beveled/chamfered cuts have not been disputed via bygone review process or via a protest.  Intent of the rule may be disputable but is completely irrelevant this far removed from it's inception.

 

3.  We just did this shit.  And now another pissing match between engine builders have yet again held the class hostage, well at least our wallets.  Who does this sort of change harm???   Everyone except the engine builders.  Now, those with radius'd cuts won't need to toss their heads but they need to have them re-cut and some of those haven't run a race in 2015 yet, but for next year they'll need to have them worked again.  Bullocks if you ask me.  And for what?  A disputed gain that is not proven is an advantage???  Someone remind me how many 90 degree cut heads have won RunOffs since this rule has been in place?  Oh yeah, ALL OF THEM!

 

4.  I call bullshit on your "anyone who is competitive"...  Rules should not be made for the pointy end of Majors fields.  Maybe Majors should be splintered off to go mess themselves up and not the whole class.

 

5.  This is where I get frazzled.  While I don't think this rule change is necessary I have no problem with it ultimately.  Making the rules more spec is a good thing.  I feel the timing of this rule is poor and when it goes into effect is at minimum 12 months too soon.  Cleaning up the grey areas is something SMAC should be doing and the CRB should take their advice to heart.

[davew]

Kyle, I think we do agree more than you think.

 

I am not on any rules or advisory committee. And do not go on facebook except for personal/family items. What happens/happened on the SM facebook page, I have no clue.

 

Please remember that 99% of the SM competitors do NOT refresh their cylinder head twice a year. Or even once a year. The majority of the people that make this class great, run the same motor for many years. Without ever taking it apart. That should be a testament to the quality of the basic product from Mazda, but also to the quality of all the engine builders out there. I am NOT an engine builder, I buy mine just like everybody else.

 

95% of the new rule is wording changes. No real change in the intent of the rule. Just cleaning up the language.

 

From what I read here, the issue is the radius cut at the bottom of the relief cut. If the rule is a max, then anything done under the max is legal. What this radius spec is doing is adding a minimum dimension to the spec. Now we have to be somewhere between a 90* sharp corner and a 0.040" radius. Who can determine that my radius is not 0.042". Putting a min and a max makes tech harder, not easier. 

 

For the record, I can not tell you which engine builder does it which way. In fact, I can not tell you what my engine builder does. I really do not care. And neither do 99% of the people running SM. This bickering needs to stop, for the well being of the class as a whole.

 

Everyone needs to remember that just because a part, as complicated as a cylinder head, passed tech, does not mean that it is legal. It means the particular area that was inspected was found legal. It does not mean the entire head was legal.

 

Can't we all just get along

 

dave

[Adax]

"Sharp" when referring to a transition cannot be defined and should be removed from the final version. At some level, even if microscopic, a radius exists.

[Johnny D]

Did you want to open up the cutlery vocab book.

Not steak but butter knife sharp?

J~

[Jamz14]

Are we really at the point that we have to define every word we use? A separate addendum to the GCR and CCR that spells out the definition of words like sharp? I guess so.

 

But all this from the same group of guys that say; government, regulation......bad. But we need mommy and daddy to spell out what the word sharp means because it doesn't have a specific value associated with it. I know what sharp is and more important, I know where the usage for that word is being driven from so I am able to make a decision as to what sharp means without it having to be assigned a specific value. And by the way, if we are going to go down this imbecilic path, we need the tolerance for sharp too.

 

I hope that the people that think they are so very clever in taking advantage of gaps left open on definition are happy. Congrats, you are the smartest butt holes in the room.

[38bfast]

Kyle just to play delves advocate.

Lets say you do have a head with a larger blend and the rule would make you non compliant. Per the GCR you MUST change your equipment to become compliant. You have just spent a boat load of money changing your head out due to STR and etc rulings so you can become complaint. Your car has yet to hit track and now comes down a rule that you have to do it all over again. I know this is a argued point but for this example lets say the big rad is legal. Remember the big rad has never been found non compliant.

There is no option for him. Per the our rules comply or don't race. Yes I know people will run non compliant but given the situation they were compliant and spent a lot of money and time to be compliant and now they are not again.

Pointy end guys will switch heads like they are disposable toilet paper. So there would be no impact to them. Mid pack guys or regional guys are much more frugal. from what I have seen front runner replace their heads at least once a season. Mid pack guys (are largest customer base) seem to be on a 2-3 year cycle on head maintenance. Back of the pack guys one time for the life of the car. Yes I am generalizing lots of exceptions to that.

So just after he spent a bunch of time and money to be compliant (witch he did not want to spend in the first place) you ask him to do it again at the end of the season.

just for numbers sake to pull the head, send it out, get it remachined, get it back, all new gaskets and etc. The cost to have it done $1500 to $2000. 3 sets of tires. I can not imagine that this guy is a happy camper at this point.

So lets assume 400 heads need to be redone X $2000 = $800,000.00. I don't know about you but thats not a small number to me.

Then you tell the guy that the item he has to change has little to no impact on his performance.

Remember per our rules bring a compliant car or don't race. He has NO option. But he is told the class will be much better for it.


now the flip side.
A lager blend is spec. Everyone in compliant per the rules. Now the guy with the small rad has a CHOICE. He can leave his head alone because it is compliant or if he can't live with out the radius he can lay down the cash or maybe in the future when the at the opportune time arises he can make the change. He does not HAVE to scrap anything. He has a choice. I am sure a mid pack guy or regional guy would be more than happy to purchase that sharp cut head.


Either way someone is not going to jumping up and down with joy.

[Jamz14]

 

Pointy end guys will switch heads like they are disposable toilet paper.

Is there non-disposable toilet paper? Probably a Kentucky thing.

[38bfast]

Is there non-disposable toilet paper? Probably a Kentucky thing.

LOL got me

[Jamz14]

LOL got me

[Caveman-kwebb99]

John and Ralph you can expect a reply when I get he from work and off my dumb phone.

[Tom Sager]

 

 

you can become complaint. 

Yeah, but that doesn't do any good.  I've tried it.  

[Tom Hampton]

So, AFTER I build it, I can ask if its legal...and, I can then PAY a fee to have someone LOOK at it, and tell me if its legal or not. 

 

Hello barn.  Have you seen my horse? 

 

How exactly would this have any bearing on this specific situation?  Unless Sean machined his head (or bought someone else's head), and PAID the SCCA to come and inspect it...the question would still have resulted in EXACTLY the same situation. 

 

 

There is a REC for a new section 8.1.4 in this Fastrack, copied here for your reading pleasure.  This, like all RECs needs to be approved by the BoD.  This is REC for 6/1/15. 

Add new section 8.1.4: 8.1.4 Compliance Review

A member may request a determination on the compliance of their vehicle or its components by submitting a Compliance Request Form to the Club Racing Department at which time a letter will be entered into the CRB letter system.  The Compliance Request Form is available through the Club Racing Department. 

 

A.  The staff will review the request and must consult with the CRB and other appropriate experts.  

 

B.  Club Racing will schedule in-person inspection of the vehicle or components by a class expert.  The expert will submit a written opinion back to Club Racing and the CRB.

C.  Club Racing and the CRB will review the expert’s opinion.  If required, the CRB may initiate a clarification of the applicable rule(s).   Club Racing will then submit a written ruling to the applicant.

 

D.   A fee will be determined and paid in advance of the inspection.  A portion of the fee may be refunded at the discretion of SCCA.

 

E. Verification of compliance is based on the GCR as of the date of the written response to the member. The GCR changes annually, and there is no guarantee of compliance beyond the current rules season.