141 replies to this topic

[SaulSpeedwell]

I haven't been to the Charbonneau College of YouTube Video Embedding, so bear with me if this doesn't work right ...

[FTodaro]

I like it, I have been reusing old springs when u can because the brand new springs appear to be worse than the old ones.

[Zauskycop]

So...is that legal? What kind of spring is that?? Home made?

[Cnj]

So is it legal? Not by my reading of the GCR. On the other hand a protest of this part (no performance advantage) would raise the term "weenie protest" to higher levels. With that said I imagine that running it exposes the driver to possible tech shed penalty (unlikely though). Perhaps others see it differently.

Possibly time to write a letter to SCCA for parts approval. Which is perhaps why Bennett has shown the video?
I'm all for allowing part(s) that extends life of my gearboxes as I replace one or more a season.

Cnj

[SaulSpeedwell]

I like it, I have been reusing old springs when u can because the brand new springs appear to be worse than the old ones.

I found the same thing, in general, but having "pliers-tested" about 20 used and 20 new springs, I also found wild variability in results.

By happenstance, the red spring in the video ended up being the WORST one I ever tested - but there was no clue ahead of time. The white spring was not the best I've seen - the best ones will bend that full 90 degrees and not break.

I've got the process down to where even the worst of the improved springs are better than the best of unimproved springs.

[davew]

I ALWAYS replace those springs. Never had an issue with life expectancy of a new spring. But improvement is improvement.

Dave

[SaulSpeedwell]

So...is that legal? What kind of spring is that?? Home made?

I'll leave the legality argument for others to debate - I see arguments on both sides, just like with headers, shocks, engines, and everything else that matters and a lot of stuff that doesn't.

Having said that, I don't have any detectability concerns - it is precisely the same "design" as Mazda's supplier, we are just doing a better job of manufacturing it. Or maybe we are simply doing it *as well as* Mazda was doing when the cars were new?

[SaulSpeedwell]

I ALWAYS replace those springs. Never had an issue with life expectancy of a new spring. But improvement is improvement.

Dave

I swear a bad batch of 3-4 springs came through the system in the middle of 2012. Can't prove it, of course. Do you know when the F401 spring was superceded to F402? The worst ones seems to the F401s.

I have trannies out there with 50+ weekends that were built with unimproved springs - but I believe EVERY cracked synchro I have seen was accompanied by a broken spring. Unless I'm crazy, the spring is the cause and the ring is the effect - I can't see why a cracked ring would take out a spring. You agree?

Every once in a while, I find a broken spring that managed to stay in place and the synch ring is still fine. The spring is the only part of the car I have seen so far that is engineered down to BMW standards

[davew]

I agree 100%. The cracked syncro is caused by the broken spring clip

I have not noticed any problems with the 3-4 springs. But I rebuild transmissions in clumps of 5-10. So maybe I missed the bad batch. I did 2 yesterday and 1 today. Would have done 2 today but I ran out of spring clips !!!!! Know where I can get some????

Dave

[pat slattery]

Does anyone believe that any inside tranny parts has every been inspected by a SM tech inspector?

[Keith Novak]

This is the way it always starts... It's just a spring clip. It's just a little harder than the ones I used before. I can handle this shift and go back to the old clips any time I want. Next someone offers you some "special wheel bearing grease" while celebrating after a race. The clips were great and it's not like anyone got hurt so you try it and the stuff makes you fly down the track. Soon you find yourself waking up in the middle of the night sweating, trying desperately to think where you can score an ECU at 3 a.m. for a few more revs. Now you want more and more and the descent into madness can't be stopped until eventually you get caught mainlining nitro methane and shooting NOS at a seedy track in Topeka. Don't be fooled. Spring clips are just a gateway.

[Tom Sager]

I think the better spring might already be legal under this rule:


s. Miscellaneous
1. The use of the following non-standard replacement parts is
permitted provided the use does not result in any unauthorized
modification of any other component.
a. Fasteners – nuts, bolts, screws, washers, studs, etc.
(Head bolts, rod bolts, flywheel bolts, and crank pulley
bolt must be used as provided by Mazda.)

That is if the spring is a fastener and if it is included in "etc".

[SaulSpeedwell]

This is the way it always starts... It's just a spring clip. It's just a little harder than the ones I used before. I can handle this shift and go back to the old clips any time I want. Next someone offers you some "special wheel bearing grease" while celebrating after a race. The clips were great and it's not like anyone got hurt so you try it and the stuff makes you fly down the track. Soon you find yourself waking up in the middle of the night sweating, trying desperately to think where you can score an ECU at 3 a.m. for a few more revs. Now you want more and more and the descent into madness can't be stopped until eventually you get caught mainlining nitro methane and shooting NOS at a seedy track in Topeka. Don't be fooled. Spring clips are just a gateway.

Man, we could have used you in 2002 ... when "they" (whoever that is) were 10 years past overlooking Sunbelts in Showroom Stock, and the 94+ "needed" to be added, and the clutch rule and 100 other things were open because "...as Americans, we just KNOW that monopolies are always bad ..." ... and half the SMAC was cruising around with -3 camber while telling the Proles that all they needed to do was buy new parts from Mazda and they, too, could have flat tire wear ...

And don't get me started on the '99+ being added.

I agree with you - but the toothpaste is 10 years out of the tube re: "blueprinting" of this nature. Any slippery slope worries of SM becoming "like Production" has either already happened or is already well under way.

I wanted SM to be like SRF. Spec almost everything, unless there was a real good reason not to (batteries, alternator belts, etc.), and excommunicate repeat offenders rather than tolerate and celebrate them. That ain't how it went, and I think that is why SRF will still be (relatively) as strong as it is now in 2022, and SMs will cost $65K and be 2 seconds faster

[SaulSpeedwell]

I think the better spring might already be legal under this rule:


s. Miscellaneous
1. The use of the following non-standard replacement parts is
permitted provided the use does not result in any unauthorized
modification of any other component.
a. Fasteners – nuts, bolts, screws, washers, studs, etc.
(Head bolts, rod bolts, flywheel bolts, and crank pulley
bolt must be used as provided by Mazda.)

That is if the spring is a fastener and if it is included in "etc".

Was the OEM-equivalent rule done away with in SCCA? Last I knew, NASA had never adopted it in the first place, which means a car that passed Runoffs Champion tech could go to the NASA Champs and get tossed for NAPA anything, a Wal-Mart battery, etc.

I found this out the hard way in 2007 when NASA told me my crate motor's original (round) valve springs were deemed "illegal" in my 1990 car (which should have had "square" springs that were still available from Mazda, but not installed by Mazda in any crate motor at the time). NASA was, essentially, not granting that the manufacturer's own parts supercessions were de facto "compliant".

For years we were afraid to run the wrong year of transmission in our cars ... we knew it was routinely not enforced, but it took years for the GCR to only partially catch up.

The recent SMAC is light years better than what we had in the bad old days. They are as close to benevolent dictators as I've seen, anyway

[Tom Sager]

Was the OEM-equivalent rule done away with in SCCA? Last I knew, NASA had never adopted it in the first place, which means a car that passed Runoffs Champion tech could go to the NASA Champs and get tossed for NAPA anything, a Wal-Mart battery, etc.

I found this out the hard way in 2007 when NASA told me my crate motor's original (round) valve springs were deemed "illegal" in my 1990 car (which should have had "square" springs that were still available from Mazda, but not installed by Mazda in any crate motor at the time). NASA was, essentially, not granting that the manufacturer's own parts supercessions were de facto "compliant".

For years we were afraid to run the wrong year of transmission in our cars ... we knew it was routinely not enforced, but it took years for the GCR to only partially catch up.

The recent SMAC is light years better than what we had in the bad old days. They are as close to benevolent dictators as I've seen, anyway

Yeah after taking a look, NASA does not have the nuts and bolts rule. I better check my radiator hose clamps.

I've had transmissions rebuilt every time due to shifts that "crunch" in 3rd or 4th gear. I suspect the same for other people. You think a better spring might double the life between rebuilds assuming we're using good oil, changing it and not driving in an abusive to the transmission way? Very subjective I know but this is a good rule change if it means longer life between rebuilds.

[Jim Drago]

Does anyone believe that any inside tranny parts has every been inspected by a SM tech inspector?

Does anyone believe that any inside tranny parts has every been inspected by a SM tech inspector?

In 2008 Blake drove my car and trans and rear were completely disassembled. In 2009 the trans came apart as well. Not sure in 10-11, in 2012 they did not
No way that passes as a nut or fastener rule Tom, but nice try

All that being said, if it is undetectable from the Mazda part, no way it is deemed non compliant IMO

[38bfast]

The Mazda spring would be easy to tech. Just drain the oil through a screen.

[wesmc]

great post!

[FTodaro]

On the rule issue, what I have seen and what mr. B was referencing is there is a belief that the new replacement springs are substandard. If there is a Mazda spec on that spring, I would argue that the current replacement, dose not comply.

I rebuilt my tranny the first ot the year and got 4 races out of it and that tell tail little chunk of metal showed up in the oil and I had to pull and replace them.

I put the old ones back in and finished the season on the old springs.

We are not talking about a speed improvement here we are talking about getting back to the real life expectancy of the component part.

[Keith Novak]

While I would support allowing a properly heat treated spring clip for trans longevity and cancel my plans to build a miniature dead transmission Stone Henge in my back yard, it doesn't necessarily seem in line with the SMAC line of thinking. There were suggestions for how to make the MS diff much less prone to failure with no performance gain and I don't remember them going far. (I also mostly smiled and nodded when the details were explained so don't ask me to elaborate.) Parts you can't really tech (bend the spring with calibrated pliers until they break and then hand the guy the pieces and rule on legality?) seem to get a pass, but parts you could replace that fix a failure point with no performance improvement are JuJu...that's baaaad magic. It comes back to tech shed legal. For all intensive purposes, if you can't tech it, it's legal by default.