48 replies to this topic

[Tom Sager]

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

I'm the bad guy here. Rest assured that had the rule stayed as it was, I would not have participated at the Runoffs on principle alone. While I understand that there was a desire to remove the sleeve option by the SCCA SMAC and CRB, I was quite pissed when I saw the rule published that sleeves would not be legal after July of this year with less than a full season's notice. In the spring of '11 I had invested in a new motor which had a sleeved blocked, a legal rebuild procedure at that time. I had sent 2 used engines to my engine builder and he told me that I had 1 good crank and 2 good heads to work with. He said the bores in the 150K street car block and the 4 season old Sunbelt bottom end which had lost much oil pressure were both not in good shape. My options then were to source another used block and hope it was good, buy a crate bottom end (or complete motor) or spend an extra $800-$900 to have one of the blocks sleeved. I chose the sleeve option.

When the rule allowing sleeves was changed I was really caught off guard as never in Fastrack was it posted that the sleeve option would be eliminated. I had given input on the overbore rule but never in that input addressed the sleeves. When the rule changed I chose to keep my feelings mostly private amongst the SM crowd and made more than 1 attempt to have the timing on the expiration of my engine addressed. I really felt it was a poor decision by the club to tell an amateur competitor that an expensive component like an engine had to be shelved after such short notice and including the championship chase for which a lot of time, effort and money would be spent. Had my request been denied, for sure I would have waged a 1 man protest and skipped the Runoffs (not that anyone else would give a rats ass if I was there or not).

Some have the budget to buy a new engine every year or even more often than that. Not that I need anyone throw a fundraiser for me, but having 2 kids in college at the same time and running a business with 12 employees leaves only so much time and dispensable income for racing too. My choices earlier this year were to address this head-on with both SCCA and NASA, bite the bullet and buy another expensive engine or keep quiet about it because probably nobody would ever know. I chose the first option and would have lived with whatever decision was made. I appreciate that both organizations listened to my argument and made it possible for me to recover at least a larger portion of my investment than would have been possible otherwise.

[dstevens]

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.

It's got a sleeve in the #4 hole. I'm speaking of those that already have sleeves. Sleeving for performance gain is tricky stuff. In bikes or other single cylinder (or even 2 cylinder) there can be some gains. That's why in many classes you have to get an entire new jug as they don't do overbore for race bikes or karts. I was in an open 125cc class and we couldn't sleeve. It was one of the few things we couldn't do.

I applaud Tom for taking the initiative and writing the letter. When I voiced my concerns to Jim he suggested I write a letter but with things the way have been this year, I don't know when or at this point if I can come back and race so I'm not real motivated. We'll see what happens.

[Danny Steyn]

Tom

thanks for the full disclosure. Much appreciated. Whose engine are you using?

[Tom Sager]

Tom

thanks for the full disclosure. Much appreciated. Whose engine are you using?

I don't think it's important to mention the engine builder. See you in September. Who knows, we might be working together on the track then.

[Danny Steyn]

No problem Tom. See you at Road America

[davew]

I liked the rule as originally written. In the long run it will be cost saving. In the short term it was going to cost a handfull of drivers some cash IF they wanted to compete legally at the Runoffs. Sorry Tom, but I agree with Danny, this should not have been changed this late in the game.

Knowing Tom, he would not have competed at the Runoffs with a sleeved block. Not in protest of his request being turned down. But because he is way to ethical to compete with a non compliant car. Even if the chances where zero of him being caught, he would know. And that alone would stop him from competing.

Kudos to Jim and Tom for coming out with full disclosure.

Dave

[Danny Steyn]

JD

Possibly you and others can shed some light on this. The word on the street is that the shot peening is easily used to disguise the practice of lightening the cranks. Apparently the oil transfer holes are drilled out beyond their dimensions, the drilled hole is then welded up, the correct diameter oil transfer hole drilled, the weld ground flush and then the surface shot peened to make it look like OEM. Any truth to this practice?

When is the last time a bottom end was taken out at the Runoffs and measured? There were several stories that circulated from years past of an engine observed with ground lobes.

Is this something we should specifically request that tech take a look at this year? Our recommendations last year seemed to be a step in the right direction.

[FTodaro]

Boy that sure seams like a lot of work for a plastic trophy. I just wonder how much weight could actually be taken out of the crank? don't they just weight the crank and it has to be a min. wt, if so then you could never get below the min. wt limits.

[Jim Drago]

JD

Possibly you and others can shed some light on this. The word on the street is that the shot peening is easily used to disguise the practice of lightening the cranks. Apparently the oil transfer holes are drilled out beyond their dimensions, the drilled hole is then welded up, the correct diameter oil transfer hole drilled, the weld ground flush and then the surface shot peened to make it look like OEM. Any truth to this practice?




First
Apparently the oil transfer holes are drilled out beyond their dimensions, the drilled hole is then welded up, the correct diameter oil transfer hole drilled, the weld ground flush and then the surface shot peened to make it look like OEM. Any truth to this practice?

What would the gain be here? You most likely got your wires crossed with whomever mentioned this to you on the street. Let me make sure I understand.... You are going to drill a hole out, weld it closed and redrill to the same dimension? Have you ever tried drilling through a weld? Good luck there... I assume you are saying drill out and only re drill the outer dimensions to the same dimension as it was originally? Why would you shot peen this to hide? This in the center of the machined journal? When a crank is ground, it would be hide the weld in the journal if done correctly, no need to shot peen to camouflage. Furthermore, what would it accomplish? The oil is under pressure, the volume is limited to the orifice size? The larger inner diameter on the crank would do ZERO. As far as weight, it remove next to none and in a terrible spot that makes little sense

As far as lightening the cranks... There is a minimum weight for cranks in the GCR. If your asking how "I" would camouflage lightening the crank, that half ass method you described certainly would not be it. I would turn the outer most edge of the crank lobes on a lathe, That would take off any unwanted weight in the best possible place, it would also take it off in an area that is already machined ( no need to shot peen to camouflage).. It would also take off weight where there is no spec in the rules to the diameter of the crank. Your method accomplishes little to nothing, mine is completely hidden, impossible to detect( dare I say 100% tech shed legal) and most importantly removes weight from the BEST possible place, the outer most edge of the crank. The fact is that the cranks are already very close to min weight and the few ounces you could remove amount to nothing and not worth the trouble IMO. Next question?

You have a great relationship with a guy I respect in Mike Rossini,. Why don't you ask him to take a junk crank, grind on it where he shouldn't then shot peen. it will look just like it did before, obviously ground on. That is the best way for you to "know" what you suspect "others" may be doing.

When is the last time a bottom end was taken out at the Runoffs and measured? There were several stories that circulated from years past of an engine observed with ground lobes.

Every year except 2010? Last year several were taken apart and inspected and weighed.

Lastly, I think I have been VERY forthcoming with you and your program, offered a lot of help to your program when no one else would or should etc. As I have told you privately, it is important to me that all programs are close for the benefit of the class. I think you are starting to take this stuff and yourself way too seriously.

It seems to me that much of your concern is to do with me, or engines that came from here. I trust Mike 100%, if you want to see the inside of my engine, just say the word. You can have Mike take a look after the Runoffs( really any time next year as well), you pay the labor and gaskets, we will install no charge. He can look for sleeves, crank modifications and whatever else you are concerned with. Not sure how I could be any more forthcoming. You say when, we are ready.

Is this something we should specifically request that tech take a look at this year? Our recommendations last year seemed to be a step in the right direction.



I don't think so as they do it every year anyway? You can send John Bauer an email and tell him your concerns, he is the head of tech and will be doing SM tech again this year.
Jim

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Danny, maybe you should ask the right questions!

How many peeps on the rules committee?

How many are engine builders?

What was everyones vote?

You dont liek it when anyone says anythign derogitory about your sponsors, or anything that could even be even remotly interprited as derogitry especially your engine builder buddy

You seem quick to paint someone else as a the cheat, before you even ask the right questions. I know you know Jim's cell number if you really needed these answers, but instead you singled one person from the rules committee who happens to be a engine guy and put all the onus of explanations on him.

Seems like Hypocricy to me!!!!!! Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here, I certainly would never go about it the way you have. Unless the goal is to inflame some of your competitors, and cast suspicions that arent even warrented.

[Jim Drago]

My name was on the letter submitted for Shot peening and I am the only guy racing SM on the CRB, so I understand why he is asking me, that is not a problem.

[Michael Novak]

Lets make this easy!!!! Go to a spec engine for the nationals---and then throw out a date in the future, say 5 years and move everyone to it. Good for Mazda, Good for the racers.


We at Roush would be happy to build and seal also....

[dstevens]

Lets make this easy!!!! Go to a spec engine for the nationals---and then throw out a date in the future, say 5 years and move everyone to it. Good for Mazda, Good for the racers.


We at Roush would be happy to build also....

Move everyone in nationals or everyone? I know it was tongue and cheek but with all due respect to the The Cat in the Hat, you guys make some good Ford products but guys like Rossini, Thornton and Drago are where I'd go. If it went spec, which I think is a bad idea for what some consider an entry level club racing class, Mazdaspeed should be marketing them and the only ones allowed to service under the seal. I think it would be a good option but mandating it would be in my opinion would be counter productive to the class. One of the many beauties of SM, particularly for the regional racer is the cost of getting on the track in the first place. For under $10k you can get a lower tier car and your safety gear and you're ready to rock. These days that's a good racing value.

I've seen the sealed/spec thing in both cars and karts and at some level, there is an advantage but to make a spec package that is competitive with what's out there now and legal under the current rule set it's going to cost about the same as a pro motor does now. That may drive new people to other classes, Honda Challenge for example or drive them away from club road racing. If you want to do it nationally that's fine, but you'll lose regional cross over which is a big part of the popularity of the class. Right now you can take a 150k beater engine and run at the back with some guys and have fun. Seems to me that some of y'all have forgotten about the fun part. I think some of the guys at the pointy end have lost perspective on the original goal of the class and instead of moving up or to a higher performance class, at times they want to implement changes that don't benefit that demographic of the class. I think both NASA and SCCA have done pretty well to arrest the rules creep particularly seeing how some are so vocal and ardent in their positions.

It's still a great class. Don't screw it up by trying to implement a solution that is in search of a problem.

[Michael Novak]

I agree all the builders decribed are good, but we can do mass. It would be easy for Mazda to produce one variety of engine that would go into all cars racing---adjust the rules from there. Nationals would be the place to start--whatever the package the National guys could race reg or nationals with the engine, but it would be required to run them at the nationals. Make the package cheap that it would also be the engine purchased for a regional level racer. Over time---- 5 plus years move everyone over to it. At some point this issue will need to be addressed, as MAZDA will stop producing some of the parts. They I am sure would be happy to produce one engine and all the parts given the size of the SM field.

Just my thoughts-

[Jim Boemler]

My guess is that the entire SM fleet is a drop in the bucket when it comes to Mazda's production lines. I doubt they'd be interested.

[Bench Racer]

I understand asking a technical question on this site is the same as asking if someone is beyond the gray area of the rules. With a preface that I beleive Spec Miata motors should be built by a professional motor builder the same as when Kart racing a professional built my Kart motors.

The question is: (Tom, not aimed towards you.)

Per the rules no oversized pistons may be used, but per the rules one may use sleeves and one may bore the sleeve holes perpindicular within a nats arse to the crankshaft to meet the intended perfect motor design, for less friction and so on which would be called a competive advantage. Yes/No???

[Mike Collins]

As the SMAC secretary, our votes and opinions are only shared among the voting members. When we submit an opinion to the CRB it is unanimous. We have engine builders, tuners, race team owners, prep shops and folks who manufacture parts. Every member does an excellent job of considering all of the possible outcomes of each decision and does what is felt to be truly in the best interest of the future of the class. Because many of us generate revenue from the class the long term success and participation is always the root of our decision making process.

Oh... And if we are wrong on something we just blame Drago

[Bench Racer]

Do we actually agree on something?

It would be an advantage over 50-75% of all blocks out there if done correctly... More screw up sleeves than install correctly IMO. It would be no advantage over those that were pretty good from Mazda. It definitely cuts down on searching for good blocks though

Thank you Jim.

[Jim Drago]

Thank you Jim.

Sorry Dave, I was logged in as BSI fixing their classified adds I fixed your post for you though and your welcome

[Caveman-kwebb99]

As the SMAC secretary, our votes and opinions are only shared among the voting members. When we submit an opinion to the CRB it is unanimous. We have engine builders, tuners, race team owners, prep shops and folks who manufacture parts. Every member does an excellent job of considering all of the possible outcomes of each decision and does what is felt to be truly in the best interest of the future of the class. Because many of us generate revenue from the class the long term success and participation is always the root of our decision making process.

Oh... And if we are wrong on something we just blame Drago

Good post. I blame Jim everytime I dont win...