92 replies to this topic

[Roger Caddell]

Roger,
I am moderately familiar with your PCA efforts. I know there is enthusiasm about how this might improve compliance, reduce scrutineering manpower and significantly/dramatically reducing tear downs of the (likely) innocent - focusing on the (likely) guilty. I find it very intriguing. As I understand it they are using a couple of Solo DL's to set baselines and then randomly/selectively installing them in cars to evaluate performance to determine who to go after for invasive tech.
Could you list all the parameters that you believe could reasonably be tested for compliance on our SM's using the DL's - and what level of accuracy is viable.
CNJ

The SoloDL solution is not going to work well in the SM class due to the lack of useful information (racing data use at least) in the pre 2006 MX5 line so this is not a good option in SM as the SoloDL can only receive external data via the OBDII port or other ECU connections.

So the only choice would be a logger that would acquire any data needed via sensors. PCA is doing this with EVO4 data loggers for their pre OBDII cars. On these they are gathering rpm, boost, normal GPS channels, and accelerometer data. This could be done fairly easily in SM too and other sensors could be added if desired.

The PCA has different levels of compliance, both long and short term. What we are able to help them with right away are max rpm limits, max boost limits, gearing, etc. When we have the OBDII channels with the SoloDL, we can do much more because we have much more to work with.

Of course if we want to put together a program that looks at just the GPS data from a Solo to measure and record lots of racers data from different cars and tracks to help with long term compliance and balancing, I would be very happy to discuss this with race organizers.

[DrDomm]

Domm
Not sure what others are thinking/saying... My thoughts on randoms hS always been non invasive, but three should be checked. Weights, plate.. Maybe bore/stroke and whistler on rare occasions

 

Guess I misunderstood the intent of some of the comments here.  Sounds like we're in agreement on tech, just not sure about extra fees.  I don't think anyone would care about $10-20, but as it approaches $50, I'd be annoyed.

[Jim Drago]

Guess I misunderstood the intent of some of the comments here.  Sounds like we're in agreement on tech, just not sure about extra fees.  I don't think anyone would care about $10-20, but as it approaches $50, I'd be annoyed.

Domm
Hard to say about others and what they are thinking. They may want more or less for mid pack guys. That is just what "I " was thinking. Also don't think this is more than guys talking, this is not something in the works at all. Just talk on this forum.

One of the main issues we faced with the compliance program in the past was that it went to random races ( 95% nationals) but the compliance fee was charged at all races, even the regionals, which was unfair. My thinking was if we are going to do something for the majors, it would be less cars contributing to the pot, thus we we need larger contributions to make the plan work. Make no mistake, I don't think any of us want to pay more( myself included) Just looking at options/ ideas going forward.

The reality as I see it.
I think we could all petition the club for more tech at the majors( if that is what we want) perhaps get closer to the old compliance program without actually instituting one or paying for one.
If we don't have a specific compliance program, we will be treated like all the other classes. Not saying we should not demand better. But I am saying, they could not in what most are "agreeing" to in a normal race weekend for all classes, just too much going on and too few people to do all of this.


I have some ideas.. I want to run by a few people and see what we get
Jim

[LarryKing]

As long as the SCCA doesn't add a fee to regional events to pay for Majors compliance (like they did previously with National tech) then they can go nuts with Majors tech for all I care. Majors events are already priced beyond my budget.

[luckymiata76]

As long as the SCCA doesn't add a fee to regional events to pay for Majors compliance (like they did previously with National tech) then they can go nuts with Majors tech for all I care. Majors events are already priced beyond my budget.

Believe me, as an organizer of a Majors and Regional event, we are working very hard to give racers the most for their money for both events. It's a challenge for the Majors, but we're gonna do our best to make it worthwhile.

 

Jeff L

RE/South Bend Region

[Michael Novak]

Believe me, as an organizer of a Majors and Regional event, we are working very hard to give racers the most for their money for both events. It's a challenge for the Majors, but we're gonna do our best to make it worthwhile.

 

Jeff L

RE/South Bend Region

Jeff,

 

Keep doing what you guys have been doing. The South Bend group has worked extremely well with all of the groups and the Spec Miata crowd has been pleased.

[Jamz14]

This is going to be one of those postings.

 

1. If the front guys are in compliance, and everyone of the front guys are I hear, then what is the need?

2. If the midpack is out of compliance, what is the need, they are midpack?

3. If the front guys are recommending areas for compliance check, then those aren't the areas that need to be checked.

 

Tech needs to be as creative as racers. I have seen nothing posted here yet that shows as much creativity as racers. Weights, plates, and whistlers. Yeah, ok. This compliance program, that will cost, will catch absolutely nothing and it will be called a success because it will be said that implementation of the program stopped people from doing it. Unless I am missing it, I haven't heard of many issues surrounding weights, plates and whistlers. So exactly what are you fixing? Now if you say we want a creative compliance program that can look at stuff like magic camber #'s, ecus, internal mechanical wizardry, creative air induction, electrical ingenuity, ETC., then I think you have something worth paying for and will be called a success for what it finds, not for what it prevents. Only after a few years of it finding stuff, and then showing a reduction in the number of infractions, can the program be called a success. A program that doesn't fix an issue is worthless.

 

Next we need to get rid of the stigma of exploiting gray areas. A good program will catch creativity. Instead of labeling these creative geniuses as cheats, DQ them from the event and welcome them back without question and without chastising. Publically disclose the infraction and provide rule clarification as to why the exploitation is in violation and advise that it will be looked at in upcoming events. Then you will truly start to build parity between the cars and competitors. As much as I want the statement "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" to be valid, lets face it, it isn't and it will never be. Development of the cars has exceeded that mandate and everyone up and down the order know this. So either lets get serious about this or forget about it. No one needs a paid program to give warm and fuzzies to midpackers. Not even the midpackers want this. Midpackers want to know that it is possible to have a car to compete at the front without spending a fortune for someone else to build it for them. There is plenty of driving talent and mechanical ability in the midpack. But there is also a lot of inexperience on how to "develop" a race car in the midpack. By exposing exploitation of the rule set, you open that knowledge up to them. Now if everyone gets together and decides that we want to keep that voodoo private, no problem. So be it!!!! But then lets not start a compliance program to be paid for and to catch nothing.

 

Just my thoughts as a NASA member and only the mechanic.

[Danny Steyn]

Great post Jamz14

[Sean - MiataCage]

This is going to be one of those postings.

 

1. If the front guys are in compliance, and everyone of the front guys are I hear, then what is the need?

2. If the midpack is out of compliance, what is the need, they are midpack?

3. If the front guys are recommending areas for compliance check, then those aren't the areas that need to be checked.

 

Tech needs to be as creative as racers. I have seen nothing posted here yet that shows as much creativity as racers. Weights, plates, and whistlers. Yeah, ok. This compliance program, that will cost, will catch absolutely nothing and it will be called a success because it will be said that implementation of the program stopped people from doing it. Unless I am missing it, I haven't heard of many issues surrounding weights, plates and whistlers. So exactly what are you fixing? Now if you say we want a creative compliance program that can look at stuff like magic camber #'s, ecus, internal mechanical wizardry, creative air induction, electrical ingenuity, ETC., then I think you have something worth paying for and will be called a success for what it finds, not for what it prevents. Only after a few years of it finding stuff, and then showing a reduction in the number of infractions, can the program be called a success. A program that doesn't fix an issue is worthless.

 

Next we need to get rid of the stigma of exploiting gray areas. A good program will catch creativity. Instead of labeling these creative geniuses as cheats, DQ them from the event and welcome them back without question and without chastising. Publically disclose the infraction and provide rule clarification as to why the exploitation is in violation and advise that it will be looked at in upcoming events. Then you will truly start to build parity between the cars and competitors. As much as I want the statement "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" to be valid, lets face it, it isn't and it will never be. Development of the cars has exceeded that mandate and everyone up and down the order know this. So either lets get serious about this or forget about it. No one needs a paid program to give warm and fuzzies to midpackers. Not even the midpackers want this. Midpackers want to know that it is possible to have a car to compete at the front without spending a fortune for someone else to build it for them. There is plenty of driving talent and mechanical ability in the midpack. But there is also a lot of inexperience on how to "develop" a race car in the midpack. By exposing exploitation of the rule set, you open that knowledge up to them. Now if everyone gets together and decides that we want to keep that voodoo private, no problem. So be it!!!! But then lets not start a compliance program to be paid for and to catch nothing.

 

Just my thoughts as a NASA member and only the mechanic.

Hi Jamz, some good points in your post.  Here are my thoughts:

 

1. Tech is not always about catching someone doings something wrong its about validating the winners.  I think we have all heard someone at some point say that the front runners are cheating which is why they are so fast.  Generally I hear this from new people into the class.  Anything outside of basic tech at Majors events in my opinion is just laziness.

 

2. Why should someone spend 7K on a legal motor to be beat by a guy who just shaved the head or hogged out the restrictor plate knowing they wouldn't be caught.  We all pay the same entry fee and while most want to win, some just want to have fun and know they raced as best they could and beat similar legal cars in the process.  This was my big bitch with the NASA national.  They dyno'd cars and said that they were all within reasonable realm of power and no one has big power.  That's great but under that scenario I would just build a cheap/illegal motor that makes the right acceptable number and not spend the money.

 

3. Agreed that front guys are not going to give up all their secrets, but teching something is better than nothing in my eyes.

 

I am not proposing a compliance program that costs money.  I would pay into it if there was one as long as there was some accountable measurements put in place to make sure the money was spent properly.  Outside of that, I believe that the protest process works and can be used when needed.  I simply want some basic tech at the Majors for my entry money.  At the Fontana Majors I am told they did not even weigh cars after qualifying.  There is no excuse for this if it did indeed not happen.  If we went to a pay compliance program then I agree with you that we need to be more invasive and look deeper and many of the items you suggested.  I have offered to help build/design compliance tools in the past and that offer still stands if we ever get to that point.

 

As far as the grey area goes, there are only 3 people in this world who can speak to the intent of the SM rules and those are the founders of the class.  The rule book is pretty good right now but could be tightened up in a few areas.  I don't think subjective scrutinizing based on what someone thinks the intent should be is a good thing.  The book is the book and there are holes in the book, so lets fix those and rule on the book and not on what someone thinks the intent is or may have been.

 

Many years ago I bought several web domains like www.specmiatacheaters.com.  The intent was to do exactly what you are referring to in that if someone is caught cheating and loses the likely appeal then they go on the website for all to see.  Too many people thought it was too mean.  I don't..... It's factual not derogatory.  I'm sure Drago would host it and I would give up the domain and help write the process as to how/when one gets up there.  Yes, there would be a Hall of Fame section as there are a few guys with this status.

 

Tech is tech whether it be front or mid-pack I don't see the reason to leave the mid-packers alone.  As an SM shop I see tons of things come through that are blatantly wrong and most owners probably don't even know it because they bought a used car or rules changed since it had been built.  When I point it out to them I hear things like, well... once I start running up front I will worry about it, until then I won't get checked so its good.  That's just not fair to the people spending the money to build proper legal cars regardless of where they finish.

 

I find it interesting maybe a little depressing that with all the people on this site we only have 32 people who have responded to an anonymous poll.

 

My 2 cents.... Sean

[Jim Drago]

This is going to be one of those postings.
 
1. If the front guys are in compliance, and everyone of the front guys are I hear, then what is the need?

I believe that to a certain extent. But I don't trust anyone 100% in racing, nor should you.
 

2. If the midpack is out of compliance, what is the need, they are midpack?

Why should running midpack exclude you from following the rules? I have said it before, breaking the top ten for me was a very substantial goal when I started, why should anyone have to compete against those not following the same rules with no fear of ever being checked?
 

3. If the front guys are recommending areas for compliance check, then those aren't the areas that need to be checked.

I could not agree more. The type of tech to catch the guys you are talking about will ONLY be 99% in Runoffs style compliance check. The chance of you catching podium guys at a major with a plate infraction, whistler infraction or something similarly obvious are less than 1% IMO. Weight and fuel less than 10%. This is where a compliance program would pay dividends IMO. To look at things not ever checked at majors. Look at the one major we checked computers, two were suspect and one failed miserably. Those are the things that would be ice to see looked at more regularly. Perhaps send fuel out to be tested by the lab etc.

Many good points Jamz
Jim

[Sean - MiataCage]

 Look at the one major we checked computers, two were suspect and one failed miserably. Those are the things that would be ice to see looked at more regularly. Perhaps send fuel out to be tested by the lab etc.
 

 

So.... Jim, do you know what the bond is for a computer?  Maybe we raise a little money and do a blanket protest for top 3 computers at all remaining Majors?  Thoughts?

[Jim Drago]

About $250/300 per car. Same for fuel

Jim

[Jamz14]

Sean,

 

In the past my style has been to bludgeon people to death with constant rebuttals. I am moving away from that with a new mantra of stating my case, providing one rebuttal if necessary, and then allow people to do whatever it is they want. In that spirit, here is my last comment on the subject before I go about prepping my program for this year without regard to this stuff.

 

1. Your item one is the same thing I think I am saying. But if you think it worth it for everyone to provide mid pack warm fuzzies about the front guys, I disagree. That in no way is a statement that I don't believe the front is dong some great rule exploitation. They are and you and I know it. But again, I no longer call that cheating. They are doing their job as a racer to develop their car to the cutting edge.

 

2. In your 2nd point this is flat out cheating and goes against your point one. But I don't believe for a moment that the front guys are doing the things you mentioned in this point. A hogged out restrictor will eventually be caught as the front guys are often checked for this. However I acknowledge your frustration in even the simple things are not being checked. In two years of competing in SM I have been asked to show my plate exactly once. And in that case they only wanted to verify the color and didn't have me pull the plate.

 

3. Of course the leaders don't want to give out secrets and nor should they. I am not looking for a library of cheats to show the world how to do it. I am saying that a creative compliance program that matches the creativity of the racers could be useful in car development. And that infractions leading to a DQ should be opened for all to understand so that they are not DQed in the future for the same infraction. And if Tech starts actively looking for these creative solutions then the competitor that is checked will learn about it in tech, not through a library of cheats or forcing teams to divulge secrets.

 

I was very careful in the language I used in describing infractions. I think the term cheating in our sport is the wrong word. And BTW, I want to acknowledge that I have evolved in this viewpoint and therefore some of my previous posts may not be congruent with my new view. Again, don't get me wrong. This in no way is saying that there isn't flat out cheating going on.

 

In regards to the 3 people in the world that understand the intent of the rules. I disagree. Everyone knows the intent of the rules. The intent is to provide a fair and level playing field. The purpose of the rule that says you can't unless we say you can is a way to allow those 3 people from having to write a rule book that is quite a bit bigger than it is. What I am suggesting is an attitude change. One that doesn't demonize guys that are looking to develop their cars to the very edge without us having to go to a power points based system that is even easier to manipulate. One that rewards guys like me that spend much time on keeping their cars as free as possible and that are willing to go through their gear before every weekend ensuring that it is rolling free and easy. I am suggesting something that is more along the lines of the attitude in F1. The rules are there, now smart people, go out and push them to the limit. If we find something we don't like, then we clarify in the rules and develop the rules like we develop cars. There is very little work by these three people to look at a DQ and to place in the book language that either allows it or disqualifies it. The hard work is trying to envision everything a creative team can think of to optimize their car in advance of writing the rule book. That is an impossible task. Teams in F1 aren't demonized for their exploitation. They are honored for their ingenuity and I consider it a high compliment if a rule is created to prevent an idea I had that takes advantage of what you will allow me. As Mike Collins is known to say, " their is no rule that says you can't be smarter than me". So let guys be smarter than their rivals until such a time that it is noticed and addressed and then the field is reset with that advantage nullified. It rewards them for a time for their creativity. Kinda like a patent, you get it for awhile but then you have to compete again.

 

I really don't care if the midpack is teched at the same level of the front. Go for it. I want to run at the front. So if you want to spend tech time and effort in the midpack that isn't going to be challenging us, not a problem with me. All that means is that I will be able to continue with my creative solution patent for a longer period of time. What I care about is that there is really no guide for a small grassroots org like mine to figure out how to develop a car without spending my track budget at a major garage that is also fielding my competitors cars. Don't get me wrong about that last statement. These garages have a right to make money and charge for their expertise and knowledge. But that extra 30% that they make in profit could be going into my track program if I am willing to spend the time to turn the wrench myself and to spend the time coming up to speed. I don't begrudge that it is taking us two years to get to the point where we are semi competitive. I didn't have 100K to drop into a garage to have a race winning car out of the shoot, and quite frankly even if I did we still would have spent two years learning the racecraft side of the house. All I want is a reasonable shot of being that grassroots underdog story of winning against all the powerhouse teams that are favored to kick my butt. I want my hard work and devotion to the sport to give me a leveling edge against money. I know it isn't fair to abandon tech for the midpack. And I am not suggesting that you do abandon tech for the midpack. But as others have pointed out, not everyone wants to compete at the front and engage in an intrusive compliance program that is needed at the front. So do weights and plates for all, include them in random intrusive tech but maybe only suspend podium winners for not complying with a an intrusive tech request. Allow midpack guys to say that they don't even know how to take the head off and rebuild it without spending a lot of money having a garage do it. Allow them to have their results nullified. If what you say is true and their are some guys that just want to come out and race, then they won't care if their 20th place is relegated to the back for failing to comply with an intrusive tech request. Only guys that do care about climbing the order will care about a relegation. But to say that we are going to suspend you for 6 months for not complying doesn't account for the difference in teams, talent, and differing objectives for racing by the people up and down the order. Leave the suspension rule in place for the top 5 positions, or the podium. But we can be smart enough to develop the class to a professional level while addressing concerns of the weekend racer. At least that is what I was raised to believe about American ingenuity.

[Jim Drago]

Sean,
 
In the past my style has been to bludgeon people to death with constant rebuttals.

That's great, but you know we can only read about a paragraph or so at a time

[Jamz14]

Jim,

 

Lol!!! I can only work on one personality disorder at a time.

[svvs]

I think I'm with Domm when I say that it would be nice to see a bit more tech in the middle of the field.

 

For me I'm pretty proud/happy when I wheel my car into the "upper midpack/top 10" in a regional SCCA SM race.  I'd like to know the guy in 8th was playing by the rules.  I think anyone who gets the "lucky midpack check" would gladly comply with tech....though I know someone would have to tell me which bolts to take out to hand you whatever part you were looking for (or I'd hope someone I'm friendly with would be at the track to help take me apart).

[Tom Sager]

I don't think it would take much for SCCA HQ to publish a list of compliance checks (with guidelines for checking them) and offer that list to the host regions of Majors events and let those race organizers pick and choose items they want to check.  It doesn't take much extra effort to pull in a few extra random cars (in addition to front runners) during the weekend.  Also allow the host regions to come up with their own ideas of what to check if they're inclined to.  A little scrutiny helps everyone.  Even something as simple as hoods up on the grid is a good idea.  There have been events where some forgot to re-install plates after cleaning them.  

 

No, this won't catch the 2.0 liter stroker motors and some like myself might get DQ'd for not getting the car apart in tech before everyone left for dinner, but I have no doubt that the specter of having the cars looked at more than in the past cleans up a few things.  

[Ron Alan]

Jim,
 
Lol!!! I can only work on one personality disorder at a time.

You can beat the spirit out of a man for awhile but it eventually comes back like a raging hemorrhoid

Welcome back...to each and every disorder...and keeping it pithy

[DrDomm]

 

...So do weights and plates for all, include them in random intrusive tech but maybe only suspend podium winners for not complying with a an intrusive tech request. Allow midpack guys to say that they don't even know how to take the head off and rebuild it without spending a lot of money having a garage do it. Allow them to have their results nullified. If what you say is true and their are some guys that just want to come out and race, then they won't care if their 20th place is relegated to the back for failing to comply with an intrusive tech request. Only guys that do care about climbing the order will care about a relegation...

 

I agreed with all of your posts up to this point.  I do not know how to take off the head, and rebuild it.  So disqualifying me for refusing to do it, without any suspicion, is nonsense.  Paying another team to do it is a waste of my money, that could go for much more important things.  If SCCA  (or someone else knowledgeable) volunteers to do it, then fine...have at it.  I would be pissed if I tow for 2 days, finish 20th or worse, and get disqualified for refusing to remove the head.  This was one of the reasons I heard at Regionals that would deter guys from doing Nationals.  Just because I can't tear down a motor doesn't mean I don't care about my results.  With all due respect, that was one of the stupidest things I've seen posted on this forum.

 

If I understand the SCCA protest process correctly, if I thought someone's head was non-compliant I'd have to put up a bond that would cover the cost of them removing and installing it (plus any fee to determine compliance).  If it's compliant, I lose that bond and part of it goes to the competitor to cover the cost of their trouble.  Is that right?  If so, then have the same policy for random invasive techs.  Apply your compliance fee toward that.

 

If the front runners are sick of the 40+ car fields, then the above suggestion is part of your answer.

[MPR22]

I believe a published list of items that might be teched at any Majors to any competitor in the field would go a long way to cleaning up mid pack shenanigans. Easy stuff that any competitor handed a small set if tools can perform. I know that's like giving the cheater advanced notice, but it will likely prevent the big things from showing up at the events. I think Jim and Jamz are looking more for the grey areas but that gets expensive and invasive.

I really wish we could remote mount the ECU in the 99s. I'm getting too old and fat to crawl upside down in the footwell to pull that thing. I know event tech don't like asking competitors to pull those things unless they are in impound. However I have heard several special shift points through the years, lets just say 200 rpm over my shift points.

The key to any compliance testing is random. Anyone at anytime can be checked.

The chief of tech at NOLA told everyone at the drivers meeting, "the top 3 will have there plates checked after qualifying". That is not random, if I was so inclined, I could pull the plate and qualify 4th or 5th and improve my starting position greatly with little effort and little chance of being caught. Now if she had said we are checking top 3 and a few random cars for plates after qual then that option is off the table. I'm just giving a hypothetical of course.