603 replies to this topic

[Ron Alan]

Mike, ya missed one, Dynopac. Happens to be one loacally owned by Meller/Loshak prod racer/DSR racer.

Ron, point being with a Dyno of whatever type at the track. It should show a similar range of numbers as were posted within the thread from someplace on the left coast. The 121 hp was a ringer, it stunk, it was over the accecptable. Yes I understand the guy got the 121 after sealing but the number still makes the point. Legal or illegal he beat the system but the RED flag was there. Tear down or whatever.

Yes, I understand, anyone that wakes up during the night & is thinking about this site needs to get a life.

David, I've seen several references to the big list of HP #'s that was re-posted from another thread from the San Francisco Region SSM class. I believe for some here this list is a little misunderstood so let me explain.

1. The SFR Sealed Spec Miata program is administered by 1 dyno at 1 track by 1 operator...Thunderhill.
2. The attempt is to seal all cars in a range from 111hp-114.5hp. BTW...this range was never public and still may not be but pretty common knowledge.
3. If your car could not be sealed in this range(to low)you were giving the option of sealing or not. Many guys, as indicated by the #'s said go ahead...didn't really care.
4. This posted list was a complete list of all HP #'s of cars(from begging of program I believe) that had been sealed AND #'s from cars that had been pulled in randomly and compliance checked over that period(why all the dates). Again, this was never made public until the whole controversy over the 1st non-compliant car arose...and the black helicopter crowd started screaming(rightfully so) even louder than they had been about why the program was flawed! Especially when it was realized there was no written rule for what to do with a non-compliant car Fixed BTW!

So in this case, the dyno did catch a non-compliant car. BUT...the variables are pretty much taking out of the equation. IMO...those nation wide variables are a tough hurdle to get over Plus , how would you come up with a HP#...and 3 cars no less??? Do you use a number that 1 out of 100 cars could reach(legally)...or a number all could reach??? If the 2nd is the case do you seal cars??? If the 1st idea is the case, knowing that dyno is how you will be checked, who will use illegal parts to get to that number? Will let others talk about simply gaming the dyno.

Playing the advocate here. Just haven't seen a viable way that makes sense to make a dyno feasible.

For those who have floated the Data acquisition idea. Would seem simple enough to have all cars provide a universal power source. Then do all cars have a port or a way to read car parameters (via ecu)readily available? Not up on this stuff...but getting good at changing tires and cleaning windows

[Bench Racer]

Ron, I appreciate everything you said, My only point was to use the left coast numbers as an example of how ever the cars may potentially be checked in the future at a give event that a flier tells a story. No comment from me on black boxs or track Dyno checking data. I'm all for the whatever the fee is called at the national level............... Not at the regional level because as has been said tech folks are scarce & most of we regional racers I believe could give a rats a$$. It becomes obvious whose deep in the grey area. Peer pressure usually does the trick at the regional level where it's mostly the same racers at specific tracks over & over. Each time I'm on track, it's a personal goal to better myself. What comes after that comes.

In this area, when a Voytec cleans house at a regional event, who cares. Most times he & Wheeler are using the regional event as track test time.

[Gatoratty]

I just finished tuning my Rossini motor on a Mustang SD dyno last week. Made a huge gain in both HP and torque. However, the HP and torque numbers were a lot higher than what I know the motor would show on a Dynojet. Don't know why as the operator told me it was compensated for a Dynojet. I really didn't care about bragging rights as I just wanted to maximize the HP and torque for an AFR at rpm ranges. That is why I am not sure a dyno would work with an absolute number, but should work if temp, humidity, and a range for the cars tested was used. Whether it helps my times is up to me, but at least I know it won't be the motor.

[pat slattery]

Dyno's for partity are a joke IMHO, unless the motor is sealed and we are to far out to start sealing.

Daves idea of using the 2355 weight for the 99 and up seems logical vs 2275 for a 1.6 and then test for parity using restrictors. My biggest complaint for restrictors is the HP numbers come down, but the torque numbers do not. Somehow torque has to be factored into the equation. I don't think raising the 1.6 weight upwards to 2300 and lowering the 99 to something similiar to NASA will do nothing but hurt the 1.6 more, unless, something else is given to the 1.6 to increase power.

Pat

[Connie 62]

A few things to consider before we start bringing dynos to the track...
1)There is no HP cap in SM, the chance of ever being a HP cap in SM is .01% or less, probably less.
2)No one would ever be Dq'ed from an SCCA National event for a HP #on a dyno. they would only be DQ'ed for breaking a rule.
3) If we all somehow magically agreed this was the best method, which we won't.... It would be a rules change ( a major one). That rules change if we passed it tomorrow would not go into effect until Jan1, 2013.

Three "facts of life" that make OUR club a mess. SCCA can't seem to embrace change. Maybe it's time to "occupy Topeka" and take back our club.

And Jim, we CAN do it if we get together and demand it. It's just too simple a solution to ignore. If the personnel in charge of SM can't change, then it's time we change the personnel. Politicians (and yes, SMAC and CRB are politicians) just don't seem to realize that they are in their positions to represent the majority, not to protect their turf.

At the very least we can run test programs in some regions in 2012.

Jim Thill

[Jim Boemler]

I really like the idea of a machine that would spit out a go/no-go "number". Very objective, non-intrusive, great stuff. The dyno still bothers me, though. Best case, using Danny's optimistic numbers, we get 10 cars per hour through the dyno test. Pull the cars off at qualifying, and the last car waits in line for about three hours. During that time, on a double weekend, he'll miss his next session. Regardless, his car is now cold, while the first guys were very hot. And he's cooled his heels, not able to do a thing to his car, for three HOURS.

And that's the optimistic view! Drago's numbers say you could qualify first thing in the morning and spend all day at the dyno. If your run group is last, you could wait most of the night. This just doesn't sound like a way to keep people coming back.

[Alberto]

The purpose of the trackside dyno was indeed to use with a sealed motor program. After a race, test the top guys and a select sample of mid packers to check the numbers and verify who is in compliance.

I really don't see why it would be that hard to implement a sealed motor program. SFR and WDC have done it. There is a track side dyno at both Thunderhill and Infineon. Not sure about Laguna but I have seen portable ones floating around the pits. NASA often has a portable dyno at some races to check AI and AIX cars. There is no such thing as "can't" in this respect. It ain't rocket science. I can see that there are certain people who have invested a lot of money in their motors and wouldn't want such a program but I feel they would be in the minority overall but a vocal, loud, possibly influential minority.

[Jim Boemler]

Question, trying to feel out the dyno idea: What does a portable dyno cost?

[High Chair]

I just finished tuning my Rossini motor on a Mustang SD dyno last week. Made a huge gain in both HP and torque. However, the HP and torque numbers were a lot higher than what I know the motor would show on a Dynojet. Don't know why as the operator told me it was compensated for a Dynojet. I really didn't care about bragging rights as I just wanted to maximize the HP and torque for an AFR at rpm ranges. That is why I am not sure a dyno would work with an absolute number, but should work if temp, humidity, and a range for the cars tested was used. Whether it helps my times is up to me, but at least I know it won't be the motor.

Paul,
The Dynojets (at least the one I have) measures temp, humidity, pressure, etc and compensates automatically and is within 1 HP on any given day. As you know I dyno my car a lot and the Dynojet is far more repeatable then any other dyno I have used.

[High Chair]

Dyno's for partity are a joke IMHO, unless the motor is sealed and we are to far out to start sealing.

Daves idea of using the 2355 weight for the 99 and up seems logical vs 2275 for a 1.6 and then test for parity using restrictors. My biggest complaint for restrictors is the HP numbers come down, but the torque numbers do not. Somehow torque has to be factored into the equation. I don't think raising the 1.6 weight upwards to 2300 and lowering the 99 to something similiar to NASA will do nothing but hurt the 1.6 more, unless, something else is given to the 1.6 to increase power.

Pat

I have an idea! Why don't you guys stop trying to campaign a car that is over 20 years old. Soon you will be able to run them in HRC. I was never for splitting the class but this is the same bull we go through every year. Let the 1.6s have their own class if they want it. It won't affect the Nationals as no competitive drivers are in them anyway.

[High Chair]

Question, trying to feel out the dyno idea: What does a portable dyno cost?

I have about 40K in mine!

[Danny Steyn]

So far from what I have read, the common thread is that we all want

• large fields
• close racing
• even playing field
• stable rules
• reasonable tech
• reduction in the arms race and spending required

Unfortunately (for my friend George Munson), it is precisely this part of the equation that we all love that is also part of why the carnage is so severe – lots of very equal cars with very equal drivers feeling that they should be in front. I cannot see this changing in a closely contested large field class. But I do agree that there should be more disciplinary action from the drivers and the stewards for reckless driving.



So let’s get into the guts of what is possible and what is not – I have sorted them based on my understanding. Just my opinion, and I am sure that you will have other ideas, so feel free to move them around and as you see fit.

Note that I have separated the 1.6 vs. 99 parity issue so we can deal with this separately from the rest

SUGGESTION LIST SO FAR

Needed now

• Stable rules set - Stop changing the spec - try and get to a sensible spec quickly and hold it for at least a few years - regular spec rule changes are not good for the class
• Close the gap between NASA and SCCA - find a middle ground on weight and restrictor size
• Bring back tech compliance fee to increase and improve tech – include random midfield tech as well
• Disallow sleeving of motors – new 0.001 overbore removes this need

Possibly happen in the future

• Sealed motors
• Black box - some sort of mandated data capture for tech to check for anomalies
• Track dyno “lie detector” based on horsepower cap
• Remove Dash to reduce places to hide ECU sensor tricks
• Mandate Sealed 3^rd party ECU’s, or open up ECU’s so that the illegal gains can be negated

Unlikely to happen

• Get rid of pro motors
• Engine claim rule
• Revert to stock suspension
• Tire allocation
• Unshaved DOT tires

Sensible suggestions

• Every racer does time at the tech shed helping out
• Stiffer penalties / fines / bans for cheaters
• More self policing from SM racers - polite requests to protests

1.6 Vs. 99 Parity Issue

This is a difficult one to solve because the two cars in existing SCCA trim have different strengths and weaknesses making their success very track dependent
So far there are two main schools of thought

1. Split the cars into two classes

90-97 = Regional Class, and 99+ = National Class

2. Get the cars closer in weight power and torque

How this is going to be done is being addressed by many behind the scenes, but suggestions on this thread include

• Reduce weight on 99’s and use a smaller restrictor – similar to NASA ruleset
• Allow 1.6’s to upgrade to 1.8 motors

I have always advocated keeping the classes together, but maybe it is time to separate them, as long as we run the two classes in one race. We have way too many undersubscribed classes in SCCA right now. And we all want to run in large fields. So we now hand out two sets of trophies. Big Deal. So what if the SM2 (what 1.6 is called in SE) wins overall and creams the national 99’s at certain tracks.

[James York]

The purpose of the trackside dyno was indeed to use with a sealed motor program. After a race, test the top guys and a select sample of mid packers to check the numbers and verify who is in compliance.

I really don't see why it would be that hard to implement a sealed motor program. SFR and WDC have done it. There is a track side dyno at both Thunderhill and Infineon. Not sure about Laguna but I have seen portable ones floating around the pits. NASA often has a portable dyno at some races to check AI and AIX cars. There is no such thing as "can't" in this respect. It ain't rocket science. I can see that there are certain people who have invested a lot of money in their motors and wouldn't want such a program but I feel they would be in the minority overall but a vocal, loud, possibly influential minority.

Alberto,

You need to consider the magnitude of such an endeavor, I think you may be missing the big picture. You posted two regional examples. SM is a national class run at maybe 100 different tracks across the country. And as a nationwide SCCA class, I am allowed to show up anywhere in the country and run a national race by the national ruleset. I can't even imagine a nationwide sealing program fixed at some arbitrary number on one type of particular dyno.

If I show up at one of your local national races and dyno, say 5 hp more, but my car was sealed in TX, then what? Do I get tossed? Does SCCA take posession of the car until they can get it back to TX to validate the seal number on that dyno?

[Rob Burgoon]

And that's the optimistic view! Drago's numbers say you could qualify first thing in the morning and spend all day at the dyno. If your run group is last, you could wait most of the night. This just doesn't sound like a way to keep people coming back.

Nice strawman. Why does every single car have to visit the dyno? You take a sample.

[Rob Burgoon]

Looks good Danny, but I'm not in support of stiffer penalties for rules infractions. I think there are two different kinds of cheating and unfortunately there's not a cut and dried way to distinguish between the two.

1. Parts out of compliance (see the recent runoffs DQs, I understand they were out of spec, but JUST BARELY) To me this is an attempt to get right on the ragged edge, but missed by a smidge.

2. Blatant cheats (ported heads, wrong cam, wrong coilovers, aluminum flywheel, etc)

I think the fast guys occasionally have #1, and the midpackers are more likely to be #2. If a fast guy is doing #2, by all means, throw the book at him, but knowing how the SCCA works, I think you'll have some collateral damage with some well intentioned racers if you ask for "stiffer penalties for non-complaint cars"

[Rob Burgoon]

@Alberto and James, I think a seal and dyno program would make more sense for regional racers. Local dyno, no problem.

For SCCA national races, with multiple dynos out there and the fact that dynos can be defeated make a horsepower limit a no-go.

However, I still support dynoing some racers and posting the results publicly to stimulate protests.

[Rob Burgoon]

I have always advocated keeping the classes together, but maybe it is time to separate them, as long as we run the two classes in one race. We have way too many undersubscribed classes in SCCA right now. And we all want to run in large fields. So we now hand out two sets of trophies. Big Deal. So what if the SM2 (what 1.6 is called in SE) wins overall and creams the national 99’s at certain tracks.

how do you guys handle racing out of class? Do the 1.6 guys whine about the slow 99s trying to race them?

[cpdenis]

The idea of splitting the class is ridiculous. Some geographic areas may have enough numbers to justify this at the regional level but not everywhere.
While the big dogs were running in Road America the local Florida SCCA club had one of their meets at Homestead. There was a total of 15 SMs. Five (5) NBs and ten(10) NAs. If the class was split I would have been racing 5 cars. Might as well race ITS. The NASA races have had more or less the same numbers. I got into this class for the car count and close competition. I have a 99' with the original engine 110K + miles on it. Its had the oil changed spark plugs new wires and timing wheel. I haven't even replaced the head cover gasket.

#1- It sounds that if the class is split, I have to up the ante and invest 15K if I want to run my 99', run with the big dogs or nationally. I don't care about doing either. I'll do it in my own time and I don't want to sell my 99'. I like my dashboard, don't do away with it.
#2- I don't believe the cheating numbers whatever they are, are as prevalent as is being implied above. I've stated before if you beat me good for you. If you were cheating I don't really care. I'm having fun racing with whoever is around me. Just don't hit my car. Its a plastic trophy and at the end of the day it doesn't mean a damn thing, its insignificant. This isn't changing any of our lives.
#3- What is a good dyno number? If Drago's 131hp is the new benchmark, does it mean I can do something illegal to my engine and pass dyno tech. If I'm over then red flag.
#4- I don't care for tearing anything off at the track. I enjoy the fact that I can unload the car of the trailer, check oil, pressures, torque the wheels and spend the rest of the weekend racing and relaxing with my friends, not taking apart or putting stuff together. That's one reason why I stay away from nationals. Another is budget.

Maybe the solution is to seal to an approved dyno number and throw away the engine rule book. Over your out. Under your OK.

By the way I'm looking for a 37mm restrictor plate to race the Homestead Nasa Final. Anyone have one they care to lend out. I don't want to buy one and have to order another one in January.

CP Denis

[Bench Racer]

I have an idea! Why don't you guys stop trying to campaign a car that is over 20 years old. Soon you will be able to run them in HRC. I was never for splitting the class but this is the same bull we go through every year. Let the 1.6s have their own class if they want it. It won't affect the Nationals as no competitive drivers are in them anyway.

While I never intentionally go looking for issues on this site, sometimes that soap box you stand on seems to be little tall. Being that you seem to have everything covered, why when the 99 plus cars were added to the mix was there not some comformity of the 99 plus spec line weight to the 1.6 spec line cars. Could have done the same with the 1.8 cars. Seems that would have been a normal part of the classing process.

A 1990 car with roll age weighs 2020 pounds with a spec line weight of 2275 pounds for a 255 pound weight difference.

A 1999 car with roll age weighs 2100 pounds with a spec line weight of 2450 pounds for a 350 pound weight difference.

Doesn't that weight difference raise a red flag from the get-go. Why wasn't the 1999 car 255 pounds above the basic build weight which would be 2355 pounds? Ya know, start the ball game with some parity.

The 1.6 weight has been changed 4 times since the 99 plus cars were added.

The 94/97 weight has been changed 4 times to date with the restrictor plate being changed two times.

The 99 weight has been been changed two times since classed with the restrictor plate never being changed.

When we look at the many different weights & plates changes it's pretty simple to figure out why all the changes occured.

Seems as tho if the spec line weight were closer as shown there would be only one gadget for parity & that would be the restrictor plate. I'm sure you've heard of the KISS principle. Bringing the cars to a lowest spec line weight is good for all race cars because higher weight is the nemesis of race cars. Obiviously the gains the 99 has with the extra weight offsets the negatives or the 99 owners would be screaming for weigth removal.

How about one of you folks that own both a top prep 1.6 car at 2275 pounds & a top prep 1999 car with a weight at 2355 pounds do a test with different restrictors in the 99 while documenting the results. Better yet why doen't the SMAC/CRB do the testing with two top notch cars..

[Nsparks]

Don't bother to seal the engines. It would only make the fast guys more elite because it's not hard to "re-seal" the engine.