262 replies to this topic

[john mueller]

I can say that I work on and with some of the best SE30 cars in the country. I will say a few will be running the runoffs next year in SM.

 

Good, NASA doesn't have runoffs.  :-)

 

Charlie,  In your opinion why would this new rule drive folks away?  What's wrong with having a HP & TQ cap?  If folks are going to race elsewhere is it because they don't like the rule or just think it's unfair in some way, and if so why?  Help me / us understand, because besides SM SE30 is the best race to watch.

[Jim Drago]

That cover is bad ass!

[Jim Drago]

Sorry John, why even have a rule book if U are not going to do a invasive tech and rely on Dyno numbers.  It is your Championship race, is it not

while I don't agree in Pats wording, I have to admit and believe me it isnt easy for me to say But I think I agree with him. I don't envy Johns position and certainly understand time constraints and all of the difficulties involved in a ful tear down. etc. I see little information gained on the dyno that would cause me not to feel like we needed to pull cars apart. If competitors feel that tech wont pull a car apart and all that needs to happen is to look similar on the dyno, many will be encouraged to get there a hell of a lot easier and spending far less money. that irritates many who have spent lots of time and money to get all they can legally.

We all have to abide by the same rules, if someone beats me within the rules, good for them. They deserve it. Less having sealed engines, all we have is the rule book. If we don't enforce the rules with inspection, the rules don't mean much IMO.

While it may not be a fair, the general consensus is going to the NASA champs anything in the bottom end of the motor is fair game as they will never tear the cars down. They haven't done invasive tech at the Champs since 2007/2008 when Lamb won. IMO, the only way to keep the cars in check is to pull them apart. Going to the runoffs next week, we all know if you are on the podium, your car will becoming home in pieces. This is not a concern, we all know it to be reality. Say what you like, but if you are a front runner and think you can win, that notion scares the #$%^ out of you. Yeah yeah, I don't care that 'your' car is legal and that "your not worried". I don't even listen to anyone so naive to say "if your car is compliant you have no worries". I touch more on my car than 99% of the others and I am always worried. That fear keeps people in line, without it, the rules slowly get trampled on.
I want to be clear this is not a slam or a poke at John or NASA. Just a different opinion.
Jim

[Bench Racer]

Come on man, us racers are smarter than that.....    Put epoxy on the areas of the parts you don't want treated then remove epoxy.   NEXT...  KEEP THEM COMING, put your Smokey Yunick hat on!

 

We are in the SCCA tech shed. In my right hand, I hold an OEM mazda gear, on the table is a same gear used, in my left hand I hold one of racer J's gears. After inspection it's suggested to racer J after he's handed his DQ that he reads SCCA rules on authorized modifications. As the tech inspector I'll view that the micro-asperity peaks and valleys are not present. I'll also have SAE documentation to support the tech decision. Take a look at one of your surface protected REMed gears and also look at an OEM gear and tell me you can't see any difference, say nothing about looking at the surfaces under a micro-scope. That difference racer J is what gets you DQed. 

 

Reading material:

 

http://www.remchem.c...acingComponents

 

I have my "Bench" hat on.

[Johnny D]

Not speaking for John M, NASA, just my opinion. It's the difference in clubs.

 

I think it was a win in NASA/John M eyes. with these things.

 

Appearance of Parity.

Close racing.

Hardly anyone complain, I think.

Everyone had a good time and met some fine folks.

Things were checked, IMO, I wasn't there.

A lot of people worked hard all weekend.

 

Why add more work with a tear down if you didn't really see any wrong?

J~

[Johnny D]

Same goes for Charlie. Just my opinion.

 

I think you just made Seal E30 or Smokey is rolling in his grave.

 

Funny how all the people with stock engine all went along with the boycott. e30 botherhood or sheep?

J~

[Bench Racer]

Why add more work with a tear down if you didn't really see any wrong?

J~

It's a come to Jesus time.   Hey, it shakes a big ol dude like Drago, It can't be all bad. 

[Johnny D]

It's a come to Jesus time.   Hey, it shakes a big ol dude like Drago, It can't be all bad. 

Like I said the dif in the clubs. Just my opinion.

 

If you want a 100% feeling you got beat by the best than SCCA, Dot you "I's" cross your "T's", fine. Different stroke...

SCCA is the closest to pro tech you're going to get without being in it.

 

NASA is a different story, IMO, did everyone walk away feeling they got beat by the best? I think so.

I do fee if it was warranted, it would of been done. Also too many little birdies talking to John.

J~

[Jamz14]

  What's wrong with having a HP & TQ cap?  .

Hey John,

 

Welcome back!  Wouldn't there be significant differences between dyno numbers being used to measure TQ and HP? Do you measure on a superflow or dynojet? Did the dyno calibrate?

 

When I dyno on a superflow from a shop I trust, they send me home with a superflow sheet and a dynojet corrected sheet. The differences are significant.

 

If using TQ and HP , and you want to allow for differences in dyno numbers from different type dynos, or from different altitudes, humiditiy and ambient pressures, I would think that you would have to require a selection of restrictor plates for competitors to use on any particular day. If not, a real bummer to be penalized for tuning my chassis well to get max HP and TQ to the rear wheels regardless if my motor is beefed up beyond spec. IMO, spec the allowed mods just like what we do in SM. This rewards the folks that spend a lot of time on their chassis and running gear besides the engine. Use a dyno to give an indication of non compliance and confirm it with a tech inspection. I would think that this approach would also be supported by the manufactures as their engines and running gear are then being tested at the absolute limits and racers are providing what the absolute best possible to get out of the package is with everything optimized to the Nth degree. If just a HP and TQ restriction, a guy could beef his motor and never have to worry about how well his bearings are spinning.

 

But then again, what do I know, I'm crazy.

[Tyler Dahl]

Bench I see where your coming from but how can you compare a brand new part to a 100k mile part, they naturally get smoothed and you can't provide a burden of proof that it has been rem'd

[Ron Alan]

NASA is a different story, IMO, did everyone walk away feeling they got beat by the best?

I'll bet there are a few 99's who think a little closer look at those 1.6's was warranted   

[Ron Alan]

Hey John,

 

Welcome back!  Wouldn't there be significant differences between dyno numbers being used to measure TQ and HP? Do you measure on a superflow or dynojet? Did the dyno calibrate?

 

When I dyno on a superflow from a shop I trust, they send me home with a superflow sheet and a dynojet corrected sheet. The differences are significant.

 

If using TQ and HP , and you want to allow for differences in dyno numbers from different type dynos, or from different altitudes, humiditiy and ambient pressures, I would think that you would have to require a selection of restrictor plates for competitors to use on any particular day. If not, a real bummer to be penalized for tuning my chassis well to get max HP and TQ to the rear wheels regardless if my motor is beefed up beyond spec. IMO, spec the allowed mods just like what we do in SM. This rewards the folks that spend a lot of time on their chassis and running gear besides the engine. Use a dyno to give an indication of non compliance and confirm it with a tech inspection. I would think that this approach would also be supported by the manufactures as their engines and running gear are then being tested at the absolute limits and racers are providing what the absolute best possible to get out of the package is with everything optimized to the Nth degree. If just a HP and TQ restriction, a guy could beef his motor and never have to worry about how well his bearings are spinning.

 

But then again, what do I know, I'm crazy.

I believe Pat said this in 1 sentence 

[Johnny D]

I'll bet there are a few 99's who think a little closer look at those 1.6's was warranted   

Fine, they should of said something or threw paper, squeaky wheel get the grease.

Wasn't there 99's in the top 10 with a chance to win???

J~

[Bench Racer]

Tyler, it's really quite easy to tell a REMed part or not. The O.D. of the tooth and around the corner doesn't get used, the valley and somewhat up the side of the valley doesn't get used. The top corner of the tooth gets rounded. These smooth shiny surface changes one will see don't happen from a single cut tool, from grinding or from lapping or from any other normal machine process.

Bottom line is when the micro-asperity peaks and valleys are not present, someone CHEATED. These peaks and valleys are what REMing is eliminating so the friction is reduced thereby not wasting HP as the peaks and valleys hit/rub on each other.

 

[Jamz14]

I believe Pat said this in 1 sentence 

I work harder than Pat, not smarter.

[Ron Alan]

Good, NASA doesn't have runoffs.  :-)

 

Charlie,  In your opinion why would this new rule drive folks away?  What's wrong with having a HP & TQ cap?  If folks are going to race elsewhere is it because they don't like the rule or just think it's unfair in some way, and if so why?  Help me / us understand, because besides SM SE30 is the best race to watch.

 

I think in theory HP & TQ cap is not a bad idea. But in a production car class...if you only look at those #s and not how you get there...well i will use your words, there are "clever racers". Would you control the shape of the curve also? 

 

No doubt Jim, David, Pat and many others could write a book on the potential pit falls in this...and for the most part I have to agree also. I recently saw a dyno sheet of a nicely prepared PTE car which is governed by HP to weight limit. The HP and TQ lines went straight up together and reached max HP/TQ at 4500 rpm(allowed for his car) and then stayed right at those numbers in a straight line across the page until it hit the rev limiter...really impressive!

 

Granted, a stock ecu wont do this...but if competitors know only a max HP/TQ number will be looked at(for the most part)and not how it is achieved, it will encourage the easiest ways to get to that number. Cut heads, porting, 01 pistons, cams...you name it. Lots of easy cheap ways to make an average stock motor become a good motor. And though we would all love cheap, in this case I think it would not be beneficial to the class 

[john mueller]

I think in theory HP & TQ cap is not a bad idea. But in a production car class...if you only look at those #s and not how you get there...well i will use your words, there are "clever racers". Would you control the shape of the curve also? 

 

No doubt Jim, David, Pat and many others could write a book on the potential pit falls in this...and for the most part I have to agree also. I recently saw a dyno sheet of a nicely prepared PTE car which is governed by HP to weight limit. The HP and TQ lines went straight up together and reached max HP/TQ at 4500 rpm(allowed for his car) and then stayed right at those numbers in a straight line across the page until it hit the rev limiter...really impressive!

 

Granted, a stock ecu wont do this...but if competitors know only a max HP/TQ number will be looked at(for the most part)and not how it is achieved, it will encourage the easiest ways to get to that number. Cut heads, porting, 01 pistons, cams...you name it. Lots of easy cheap ways to make an average stock motor become a good motor. And though we would all love cheap, in this case I think it would not be beneficial to the class 

 

Agreed, that is in my first post I mentioned the omission of a spec mapping (ECU) is a concern of mine with SE30.

[john mueller]

Hey John,

 

Welcome back!  Wouldn't there be significant differences between dyno numbers being used to measure TQ and HP? Do you measure on a superflow or dynojet? Did the dyno calibrate?

 

When I dyno on a superflow from a shop I trust, they send me home with a superflow sheet and a dynojet corrected sheet. The differences are significant.

 

If using TQ and HP , and you want to allow for differences in dyno numbers from different type dynos, or from different altitudes, humiditiy and ambient pressures, I would think that you would have to require a selection of restrictor plates for competitors to use on any particular day. If not, a real bummer to be penalized for tuning my chassis well to get max HP and TQ to the rear wheels regardless if my motor is beefed up beyond spec. IMO, spec the allowed mods just like what we do in SM. This rewards the folks that spend a lot of time on their chassis and running gear besides the engine. Use a dyno to give an indication of non compliance and confirm it with a tech inspection. I would think that this approach would also be supported by the manufactures as their engines and running gear are then being tested at the absolute limits and racers are providing what the absolute best possible to get out of the package is with everything optimized to the Nth degree. If just a HP and TQ restriction, a guy could beef his motor and never have to worry about how well his bearings are spinning.

 

But then again, what do I know, I'm crazy.

 

 

You use the word indication...  That's how we used the dyno, it was a tool to develop a plan on how far we thought we needed to go each day.  The results were an indicator.

 

The dyno results we pulled never had a predetermined point where we were going to acct upon.  ie, if any car pulls 128hp pull the head.

For our purposes Dyno pulls were viewed as data points used for comparison and that is all.  Outliers would be considered an indication that we needed to investigate further.  Numbers were consistent with what we saw each time we pulled them.  Each day was never compared to another day.

 

However, I did have a set of red flag numbers for each model and if we saw those exceeded, which we didn't would have warranted more scrutiny.

 

Again, it was not because the dyno results 'looked okay' or pulled a 'low' number, it was looking at all the dyno pulls from that particular day and determining what our path should be.  This eliminates the Make, Model, type, vintage and whatever from the discussion.  It's a comparison of one to the others courtesy of our pretty dang good parity we are enjoying at the moment. 

[Ron Alan]

You use the word indication...  That's how we used the dyno, it was a tool to develop a plan on how far we thought we needed to go each day.  The results were an indicator.

 

The dyno results we pulled never had a predetermined point where we were going to acct upon.  ie, if any car pulls 128hp pull the head.

For our purposes Dyno pulls were viewed as data points used for comparison and that is all.  Outliers would be considered an indication that we needed to investigate further.  Numbers were consistent with what we saw each time we pulled them.  Each day was never compared to another day.

 

However, I did have a set of red flag numbers for each model and if we saw those exceeded, which we didn't would have warranted more scrutiny.

 

Again, it was not because the dyno results 'looked okay' or pulled a 'low' number, it was looking at all the dyno pulls from that particular day and determining what our path should be.  This eliminates the Make, Model, type, vintage and whatever from the discussion.  It's a comparison of one to the others courtesy of our pretty dang good parity we are enjoying at the moment. 

Thank you for changing your mind and providing more insight And yes I missed your mapping comment

 

We want video racers!!!

[Mike Ferrara]

I competed at this event. This is my third year driving in competition. All three years driving a Spec Miata here in Utah. With the short season we have here, this would compare with maybe two years of racing experience elsewhere . I started the championship race 15th of 30 entries. That's about as average as you can get. I have a 1999 with Rossini power and I dyno'ed my car at the same dyno as the leaders. My HP number was 1 HP less than the highest I heard about and my torque number was 4 more than the best of the top finishers. This is proof of the parity in this class......it,s still most about driving!! HP does not win races all by itself!!!