250 replies to this topic

[High Chair]

Hearing there may be some serious tech issues with 3 of the cars at the SIC. 3 hoods have been sealed and will undergo more tech after the race.

 

[chris haldeman]

Intresting

[High Chair]

Hearing now they are whistling multiple cars. Regardless of how it turns out it is good to see tech keeping everybody on the up and up.

[PMAC]

Hearing there may be some serious tech issues with 3 of the cars at the SIC. 3 hoods have been sealed and will undergo more tech after the race.

Makes you wonder if the issue is with the cars or the people doing tech - just saying' - additional paper was filed and the next three cars also failed.  Now I ask you, what is the probability of that on the same race weekend? 

Surely, the engine builder of one of the cars isn't happy that his motor didn't pass; guess he wasn't expecting that outcome.  

They should impound and whistle the entire field after the race.

[High Chair]

Makes you wonder if the issue is with the cars or the people doing tech - just saying' - additional paper was filed and the next three cars also failed.  Now I ask you, what is the probability of that on the same race weekend? 

Surely, the engine builder of one of the cars isn't happy that his motor didn't pass; guess he wasn't expecting that outcome.  

They should impound and whistle the entire field after the race.

Who knows! If the cars are compliant great; I just think it's good that there is

tech at the SIC. Hopefully with multiple cars having issues they will go ahead and pull the heads and start doing some math.

[PMAC]

Who knows! If the cars are compliant great; I just think it's good that there is

tech at the SIC. Hopefully with multiple cars having issues they will go ahead and pull the heads and start doing some math.

 

word is everyone passed post race tech

[Danny Steyn]

As a class we need to be kept honest and I hope that we get to hear what REALLY went down. Heard a wide range of chatter out there at the moment!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I think Jim Creighton owes all of us an explanation as to how the wistler was used in round one of compliance testing? Also how was the whistler used in post race compliance testing? Also were both of these cpliance tests via Whistler performed in the same motor trim configurations the exact same each time? Example I was told and do not know this for fact but first round was done with valve covers off and post race was administered with valve covers on...

Fact a non compliant car with the valce cover off could be made to look compliant with the valve cover on as the valve cover influences the whister reading.

Fact if you want to bump up your compression on your spec miata you can deck the head to get between .2 and .4 in extra compression depending what model you own. There is your free speed secret for the week!

While I applaud having tech... If what I have heard is true having this kind of tech is like having no tech at all. And IMO nothing was proven completely with regards to legality of any of the engines.

This year we have had a lot of talk swirling around about what is going on with engine development.

So Mr. Creighton at the arrc... How can we expect the whistler to be used???? Just as it was at the sic????? If so I will guarantee you my car will be both non compliant and compliant at the same time!

This whole class has turned into a joke if this is really how things are going to go!

[Dan Tiley]

This isn't Crieghton's fault. He was simply following the new Whistler procedure that was released last month, replacing the procedure that has been used since 7/2009....

The CRB, with Jim Drago's input decided that the Whistler is more accurate by measuring engines with the valve cover removed. This may be true, and it may (or may not) be coincidental that this change was made 6 weeks before the runoffs. Bottom line is that the top 6 qualifying cars (from 4 different engine builders) were correctly Whistled at the SIC with the new procedure and all 6 failed.

There was no announcement of the change, nor did it appear in fastrack, as it is not a rule change, but rather a change to the test procedure. My recommendation is for everyone to have their engine's Whistled to the new procedure ASAP!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I take it your comments to both insinuate there was a conspiracy and that your engines will now be checked and brought into line with the new way to test?

Am I reading to.much into what you said dan?

[Charlie Hayes]

Oh wow. So what did they blow? And just because everyone had it they didn't look any further?

[Dan Tiley]

I take it your comments to both insinuate there was a conspiracy and that your engines will now be checked and brought into line with the new way to test?
Am I reading to.much into what you said dan?

I don't think that it really has anything to do with me or my engines specifically, but moreso a statement to the entire class. This change affects everyone.

[Tom Sager]

This isn't Crieghton's fault. He was simply following the new Whistler procedure that was released last month, replacing the procedure that has been used since 7/2009....

The CRB, with Jim Drago's input decided that the Whistler is more accurate by measuring engines with the valve cover removed. This may be true, and it may (or may not) be coincidental that this change was made 6 weeks before the runoffs. Bottom line is that the top 6 qualifying cars (from 4 different engine builders) were correctly Whistled at the SIC with the new procedure and all 6 failed.

There was no announcement of the change, nor did it appear in fastrack, as it is not a rule change, but rather a change to the test procedure. My recommendation is for everyone to have their engine's Whistled to the new procedure ASAP!

Dan, can you or anyone else explain why the readings are different with or without a valve cover installed?  Position of the sensor?  

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I personally don't care which way it goes I just am tired of bringing a knife to a gun fight?

So back to Mr. Creighton how is this going to go?

Will we make excuses and go back to the old procedure any time someone fails the new procedure?

The class is hanging in the balance right here imo...

We either draw a fuckimg line in the sand now or I and I suspect some others will depart the class...

I am sickened that rules and procedures can't even be followed by the tech guys...

If we need to DQ the top 20 with the new procedure then it should be done and then we can move forward as a class and learn from our mistakes! If I'm collected in that then so be it...

I am not here to throw rocks from a glass house...

I have loved this fuckimg class fr day one I started I have been consumed by it, I have had my momoments I'm sure but I embrace the competition and I give credit to driving where it is due...

We as a class have an opportunity right now to save ourselves. What will we do, make legal a cheat because everyone knows it and its not enforceable just as we did with timing and FP??? Or will we come into compliance with the new testing procedure and man the fudge up about where these cars of ours have gotten to????

While there is cheating in all racing chump and srf is calling my name as a more fun for the money alternative...

This needs be gotten right for the sake of this class!

We have people worried about rem of gears in this class... What a joke in comparison to how cheap it is to get .2 -.4 more compression and how much more that will do for your performance. Where will this shit end???

Dan your on the smac... And Jim your on the crb... I am trusting both of you to do what is right for the class not what is best for your pocket book. I have known Jim for as long as I have been racing, he has repeatedly saved me money at his own expense all for the good if the class letting me know there are lines to draw and I was asking to cross them... To me that tells me alot and sets an example that I try to follow. Is that the perfect measuring stick maybe not but following advice of the man with the most torn apart engines in the history of sm to my knowledge is a pretty damn good template! Again this is my opin and not and advertisemtn I would hope that dan points his people in the same way as well as rossini, re, Haag, Stewart, autotechniq and so on ams so on...

This harkens back to the plain old gas pledge many made years ago.

I am probably way to rose colored glasses to believe we can get back to what makes this shit fun.

The regular Joe who gets into this class doesn't have a fuckimg chance or doing well unless he gets into a work beater car at this point... That's how far we gone past the edge at this point...

[Dan Tiley]

Dan, can you or anyone else explain why the readings are different with or without a valve cover installed?  Position of the sensor?  

 

Yes... the whistler is a tone generator.  It blows air into a fixed volume (combustion chamber) and returns a tone at a given frequency that is converted to a corresponding volume.  This is just like blowing over the top of a wine glass and getting a sound.  Add wine, you get a smaller volume and thus a higher frequency tone.  Since the Miata has a very deep valve cover where the probe drops in, it affects the tone returned by the whistler, thus lowering the reading.  

 

It really is the right thing to do to whistle cars without the valve cover.... it's pretty spot on to cc'ing.  Problem is that the standard Tech procedure since 2009 has been to whistle with cover on, and so far, 6 for 6 cars tested have built engines to this long standing standard.  

 

This test procedure change is going to affect ALOT of cars... Yes, mine too.  We're already responding.

[Danny Steyn]

As far as I know the whistler provides a sonic frequency response based on the volume detected. This is converted to a digital display. The more items that are attached to a particular cylinder, the more chance there is for this frequency response to be dampened. A valve cover will do this. So too will water pumps and other additional items close to the cylinder being tested, and these all have the potential of reducing the "measured compression ratio". Remember that the whistler is purely an indication, It is NOT the actual compression ratio measurement. But a car that whistles at or above the limit then should be CC'd to confirm the whistler

[Charlie Hayes]

Too slow

[Danny Steyn]

Dan beat me to it!!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Also there is some varience in the Whistler as a tool for testing. If you whistle .1 over you would receiver no more testing yet if you whistle .2 or more over you should be then sealed and cc'd... Can the top 6 tested at the sic please reveal their Whistler number since all are over it would be interesting to see what those numbers actually are!

[Todd Lamb]

Seems to me this shouldn't be affecting anyone. If motors are being cc'd/measured when they are built, they are legal.

 

The whistler will always read low with the valve covers on, but that doesn't mean you would build to what the whistler shows. Unless....