48 replies to this topic

[Danny Steyn]

JD - hope you can shed some light on this

Trying to understand how these items were approved just prior to the runoffs. The sleeving was specifically prohibited going into the 2012 runoffs and now it has been extended into 2013. I thought the idea to allow overboring to 1 over was to remove the need for sleeving, and to stop the potential opportunity for gaming the system with the sleeves.


Spec Miata

1. #8730 (Jim Drago) Clarify the use of shot peening.

In section 9.1.8.C.1.c.1, clarify the crankshaft language by adding the following:
“The stock Mazda Miata crankshaft must be used with no modifications except for machining to allow the use of main and rod
bearings as allowed in 2 below. Shot peening to stress relieve the crankshaft after machining is permitted. The following table
lists the permitted crankshaft for each model year and the minimum weight (not including pilot bearing or hardware).”

2. #8804 (Club Racing Board) Engine Sleeve Rule Change effective 8/1/2012

SCCA FasTrack News August 2012 Page 10
Change 9.1.8.C.1.b.2 as follows: “Cast iron cylinder liners (sleeves) as previously permitted may be used in both Regional and
National racing through the 2012 season 6/28/13. and may not be used at the 2012 runoffs or beyond. Regions may continue to
allow sleeved blocks via supplemental regulations.”

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Danny dont you have him on speed dial?

The shot peening part was already discussed a while back, I cant remember the conversation, between Dewy and Jimbo...

[Bench Racer]

Play the game, hold em or fold em.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Dewy does this vid mean you will be riding off into the sunset? Or will you be shot peening you crank for the runnoffs?

[pat slattery]

WTF

[Bench Racer]

Spec Miata

“The stock Mazda Miata crankshaft must be used with no modifications except for machining to allow the use of main and rod
bearings as allowed in 2 below.

157 views with no one saying anything within this thread about this post. Ya, sure, my motor builder takes care of these deals.

From the SMCS above that specs "crankshaft must be used with no modifications except for machining to allow the use of main and rod bearings".

Woud it be safe to believe that when modifying the crankshaft per the rule that one must specifically grind the crankshaft within the tolerances specified in the FSM for the specific undersized bearing. Or is there some gaming going on when grinding the crankshaft.

[Jim Drago]

JD - hope you can shed some light on this

Trying to understand how these items were approved just prior to the runoffs. The sleeving was specifically prohibited going into the 2012 runoffs and now it has been extended into 2013. I thought the idea to allow overboring to 1 over was to remove the need for sleeving, and to stop the potential opportunity for gaming the system with the sleeves.


Spec Miata

1. #8730 (Jim Drago) Clarify the use of shot peening.

In section 9.1.8.C.1.c.1, clarify the crankshaft language by adding the following:
“The stock Mazda Miata crankshaft must be used with no modifications except for machining to allow the use of main and rod
bearings as allowed in 2 below. Shot peening to stress relieve the crankshaft after machining is permitted. The following table
lists the permitted crankshaft for each model year and the minimum weight (not including pilot bearing or hardware).”

2. #8804 (Club Racing Board) Engine Sleeve Rule Change effective 8/1/2012

SCCA FasTrack News August 2012 Page 10
Change 9.1.8.C.1.b.2 as follows: “Cast iron cylinder liners (sleeves) as previously permitted may be used in both Regional and
National racing through the 2012 season 6/28/13. and may not be used at the 2012 runoffs or beyond. Regions may continue to
allow sleeved blocks via supplemental regulations.”

Danny
You are correct. That was the original intent of the rule, to do away with the sleeves since we can now legally overbore to .25. The sleeved blocks were to go away before this years Runoffs. We received a letter asking us to extend, also pointed out some procedural errors in the way it the rule was introduced regarding member input. We basically put the end of the sleeved blocks in a rule that allowed an overbore, when it should have been sent out for input on it's own. Considering all that was involved, the money spent on the engine by the letter writer. We decided to extend the deadline out to next year.

We have informed tech about what our concerns were about sleeving blocks etc and they are well aware what to be looking fr should a sleeved bock be inspected this year.


As far as shot peening, It is spelled out in most every other class that allows grinding of the crankshaft, it is not spelled out in SM. I wanted it spelled out legal or not, we decided to make it legal as it is very common practice when grinding cranks. It is not anyway a performance advantage unless we consider keeping the bearings in the engine a performance advantage. We have been able to legally turn the cranks since the 2009 rules went into effect which is a big cost savings over what I think is a $600 crank new vs $150 to get turned.



Jim

[Alberto]

Does balancing the crank and related rotating assembly fall into the scope of this too? Would that help longevity of the motor?

[Jim Boemler]

Tell me, Jim -- if it's legal to bore the sleeve, why even bother to make replacing the sleeve illegal? Is there really some additional benefit to be precluded, or is it just needless stuff to check?

[Danny Steyn]

Really not happy with the timing of this just 2 months prior to the runoffs.

[Danny Steyn]

When you get into the sleeve territory there are all types of approaches that can yield gains. Speak to any motorcycle racer about sleeves and they will start talking another language that borders on alchemy.

AFAIK there were several sleeved cars at the 2011 Runoffs - maybe JD has real numbers about who was running sleeves. It appears that some motor builders were unable to reproduce the numbers they got from their sleeved motors and would hate to think that is what is going on here.

Seriously the timing on this really is NOT RIGHT - this is something that was outlawed for the 2012 runoffs and NOW ITS BEING ALLOWED. We really need to know who and what is behind this. SERIOUSLY. Don't care if this makes me the scapegoat. IMHO this is PURE BS and should have been fought by EVERYONE in the interests of this class.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

When you get into the sleeve territory there are all types of approaches that can yield gains. Speak to any motorcycle racer about sleeves and they will start talking another language that borders on alchemy.

AFAIK there were several sleeved cars at the 2011 Runoffs - maybe JD has real numbers about who was running sleeves. It appears that some motor builders were unable to reproduce the numbers they got from their sleeved motors and would hate to think that is what is going on here.

Seriously the timing on this really is NOT RIGHT - this is something that was outlawed for the 2012 runoffs and NOW ITS BEING ALLOWED. We really need to know who and what is behind this. SERIOUSLY. Don't care if this makes me the scapegoat. IMHO this is PURE BS and should have been fought by EVERYONE in the interests of this class.

Damn, it's liek a whole new Danny right there... What happened to the old Danny?

[Danny Steyn]

Kyle

its hard enough for everyone to keep pace with things and produce a competitive entry. But to have the whole game changed just before the runoffs is not right (Just my opinion - not speaking for anyone else here)

[Jim Drago]

When you get into the sleeve territory there are all types of approaches that can yield gains. Speak to any motorcycle racer about sleeves and they will start talking another language that borders on alchemy.

AFAIK there were several sleeved cars at the 2011 Runoffs - maybe JD has real numbers about who was running sleeves. It appears that some motor builders were unable to reproduce the numbers they got from their sleeved motors and would hate to think that is what is going on here.

Seriously the timing on this really is NOT RIGHT - this is something that was outlawed for the 2012 runoffs and NOW ITS BEING ALLOWED. We really need to know who and what is behind this. SERIOUSLY. Don't care if this makes me the scapegoat. IMHO this is PURE BS and should have been fought by EVERYONE in the interests of this class.

Danny
Just for the sake of full disclosure... No car or engine that has been built here EVER, meaning ZERO CARS OR ENGINES, have come with sleeves in them. NONE! And to be clear, we never ran them last year, we never ran them this year, nor will we run them at the Runoffs this year. If we are found to have them, I will voluntarily withdraw any of them from competition.


To the rest of your question, I don't know how many cars ran sleeves last year ( I think only one), the one that many of you "think" ran sleeves at the Runoffs b/c it was inspected with sleeves during the year DID NOT run a sleeved block at the Runoffs, many saw that in tech. I think you are looking for something that is not there. It had nothing to do with people not getting numbers they had etc last year because of sleeves. As far as a gain from sleeves, if sleeves are put in according to the rules and the material is what it is supposed to be, there is no advantage. I doubt many really know where the gains would come from in sleeves other than material, but that is another story altogether.

The extension was due SOLELY to one letter we received asking for the extension and pointing out that procedure was not followed to the letter of the law when the Overbore rule was passed. Perhaps that person will post, but they are under no obligation to do so


Jim

[Danny Steyn]

JD - thanks for posting above - it helps to alleviate some of my concerns
As I said - its hard enough to hit a static target, let a lone a moving one.
What was the procedural issue that was not adhered to?

[Jim Drago]

The procedural issue was that we asked for member input regarding a .25 overbore, Killing the sleeved blocks was in that member input, not a separate one. I think a case could be made in either direction. But when all was said and done, the CRB felt it was reasonable to think that killing a legal part should have been put out as a separate member input, especially considering the costs involved of a Runoffs prepped SM engine. etc.

[Danny Steyn]

Thanks for the feedback JD -
One more question - is this someone we would expect to see attending the runoffs?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Near Conspiracy averted?

[dstevens]

AFAIK there were several sleeved cars at the 2011 Runoffs - maybe JD has real numbers about who was running sleeves. It appears that some motor builders were unable to reproduce the numbers they got from their sleeved motors and would hate to think that is what is going on here.

So what about the guys that don't have as deep of pockets as you that have stock motors with sleeves that are impacted that have sleeves for non performance reasons? I think the trade off to eliminate the sleeves for an overbore is a false economy. It will cost the racers that can't afford it the most and it looks like Jim and the board have already told tech what to look for. The guys that don't do their own work will really be hit. Particularly if they can't or don't have access to a good used block. The guys that have the big dollar cars will be able to afford to change but some folks may be left out.

[Jim Boemler]

Do you have an otherwise good block that can't be fixed with a .040 overbore, Dave? While I do get your logic, I just can't see it making a practical difference.