95 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Get real Shabbi is smoking crack, Only the US Congress can create parity, they have that over in Russia... Maybe thats why so many russian states suceeded?

The dude dont care ablout the other racers, so why does he care what car they buy to race that is uncompetitve? Dude this is America almost home of the free,and still land of the brave. Read the rule book and build your own car, then you wont have to buy one from Drago for 35k! Drago not holding a gun to anyones head to buy his car, if you dont want to turn a single wrench in constructing a car and you want a car that can run up front with anyone you buy a car from him for 35k... Thats labor at shop rates in there buddy! What do you pay at the shop when you take your car in for service on your street car 75-85$ and hour? How many hours do you think goes into stripping, painting, assembling, testing, fitting, dynoing, etc. there is easily 19k just in parts in a Drago car, and thats if you go bare bones on the equipment. I have build my own, and have owned and maintained a few from Drago, if it were not for having a Drago car to begin with I wouldnt have had a clue about how to built a front runner myself. Don't demonize the rich, just aspire to be richer yourself.

And for one last hole in your argument even if we gave everyone the same car down to the horse power and torq. There would still be winners and loosers, and most would still biatch and wine that someone else has cheated or spent to get an advantage. end of story. Guys that are 3-6 seconds back on a 1:45 track would still be 2 seconds back at the best with a top car. You have racecraft, tire management, setup, tires, data annalysis and more.

Coaching IMO has no bearing on the conversation with all due respect Ron, we all recieve coaching, the back markers are always coachign each other, front runners coach each other, and then others get a professional driver to coach them, NOBODY gets absolutly zero coaching, some just get inadequate coaching.

And finally Shabbi why are you posting this sh it in PASS/FAIL tool thread, start you own thread, for bitching about parity, and you will get 2 million ideas few at best will make the class any better than what is in place now.

From me personally, I want to say thank you to guys like DRAGO, COLLINS, MUELLER (even if you ara the Grinch), and more I cannot name for sticking their necks out to make rules that everyone will biatch abolut and whin about and hold them responsible for their results over. I appreciate that you guys have thick skin and this kind of horse Sh it doesnt bother you but i'm tired of listinig to it, and I have only been doing this for 3 years.

God bless america and spec miata!!!!

[Ron Alan]

Come on Kyle, it was tongue in cheek...haves vs. have-nots Get with the 1st century!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

caveman no understnd no cheeks ans tunges... scrible picture on rock ans send via terridacticle to me.. them mayeb me comprenday.

Now can dewwwwwy please get back to inventing no fail and we all pass tools?

[Danny Steyn]

All right guys - this thread has wandered far off course. So getting back to the SALIENT points

• Heads at the runoffs have been measured with the current test tools and there seems to be room for improvement on the tools
• Drago showed some tools for passing/failing the plunge and relief cuts on cylinder heads that seemed to make sense, but on closer examination also had issues with the way they were used (or maybe I am just ham fisted)
• Dan Tiley brought up a great point about why circular tools will not work as they will still pass oval plunges / reliefs where the minor axis is less than the spec
• David Dewhurst made some testing gear that IMO is way too technical and not repeatable (David I appreciate the work but I think there is a simpler way)
• and then we went off on a tangent

I think we need a better version (better built, closer tolerances, longer stem) version of the current FLAG tool, that will be built by SCCA Enterprises or other, and sold to the engine builder, teams, drivers. I can see the issue with the current tool and I dont want to have to deal with what others have been through.

So Drago, Collins, Tiley....... your thoughts on moving forward???

Schabi, Jamz14, Moose et al - I would like to see a separate thread for ideas on how to improve / equalize this class. They are worth debating, but they are killing this discussion on tech tools. Thanks.

[Bench Racer]

David Dewhurst made some testing gear that IMO is way too technical and not repeatable (David I appreciate the work but I think there is a simpler way)

Danny, please advise how the relief cut tool in post number 46 is "way to technical and not repeatable".

I'll put up any number of $$$ that the tool in post number 46 can not be deflicted as can both (SCCA. Drago) of the previously discussed relief cut tools can be deflected. All I need to do is wipe tool makers ink/or felt tip pen material on the measuring surface of the tool and if the material is scratched the relief cut is illegal. It's been proven that neither of the two previous gauges is repeatable, granted neither is technical either, hmmm, maybe that's why there not reliable.

I even offer up another concept within post number 66 with a bore gauge fixtured within a tool that is centered by the valve stem and the valve seat. The issue is with this tool people would be required to read a dial gauge.

You know full well that Jim, Mike, Dan and others are not about to openly discuss a tool on the site.

Nuff on this issue for me.

[Jim Drago]

I think we need a better version (better built, closer tolerances, longer stem) version of the current FLAG tool, that will be built by SCCA Enterprises or other, and sold to the engine builder, teams, drivers. I can see the issue with the current tool and I dont want to have to deal with what others have been through.

So Drago, Collins, Tiley....... your thoughts on moving forward???

I spoke with John and Ryan at PRI this weekend and that is exactly what I proposed. What my "plan " build a test flag tool where the stem is the exact dimension of a new valve, it is long enough to eliminate the wiggle will make that tool of X" radius until it clearly does not fall into a hole that is .005 too big. ( yes we are trying to exploit this to gain .005) Make a prototype and test with a few other engine builders and SCCA and see what the thoughts are. I have already purchased the 6mm drill rod, so I will try another set here in the not too distant future and bring to Sebring if possible.

[Jim Drago]

Danny, please advise how the relief cut tool in post number 46 is "way to technical and not repeatable".

Dave
My apologies, I have been busy and kept meaning to look at what you sent. I think what you have there could work well. I will look into it

[Dan Tiley]

I spoke with John and Ryan at PRI this weekend and that is exactly what I proposed. What my "plan " build a test flag tool where the stem is the exact dimension of a new valve, it is long enough to eliminate the wiggle will make that tool of X" radius until it clearly does not fall into a hole that is .005 too big. ( yes we are trying to exploit this to gain .005) Make a prototype and test with a few other engine builders and SCCA and see what the thoughts are. I have already purchased the 6mm drill rod, so I will try another set here in the not too distant future and bring to Sebring if possible.

Why not just buy a new intake and exhaust valve from Mazda, weld a "flag" on the valve face... say from 1/8" plate? Grind/lathe the flag down to the .005" over the spec (radially), and call it good. The valve will fall perfectly into the seat (it better!) and you have a tool that is guided by both the valve guide AND the valve seat. (thus, virtually no lash). With the .005" allowance you have an unmistakable margin of pass/fail, yet not enough to show any measurable gains on the dyno for those who choose to push this allowance.

[Jim Drago]

That is basically what Dewhurst was saying and one of the things I was going to fool with. seems very simply and effective.
Jim

[Danny Steyn]

David - finally saw what you are proposing. Sorry about the delay - have been browsing while traveling and using my smartphone and never saw the images you posted.

I VERY MUCH LIKE YOUR IDEA!

[Jim Drago]

The Dewhurst method ( man this is hard to swallow But it does work very well..
Thanks Dave


Jim

[Bench Racer]

Jim, your welcome, it was all part of group brainstorming.

[Dan Tiley]

Looks like a winner to me!

[Ron Alan]

Jim, your welcome, it was all part of group brainstorming.

[powerss]

Instead of using an actual valve how about using a standard seat grinding tool for piloting on the valve guide. That way valve guide wear isn't an issue and then create the flags that will fit onto the standard .375" top.

http://www.goodson.c...d-Steel-Pilots/

[Jim Drago]

Instead of using an actual valve how about using a standard seat grinding tool for piloting on the valve guide. That way valve guide wear isn't an issue and then create the flags that will fit onto the standard .375" top.

http://www.goodson.c...d-Steel-Pilots/

Looking into that as well, good idea