250 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

Some ways to look at if you don't know. Assuming they used the correct plug.  (#21)

 

If you've been whistled with the VC on, it should of been below the spec. See examples below.

If you're right at or close to the spec, you may want to have a talk with your engine builder.

 

If you been whistled with the VC off, you know what you have, that's pretty accurate.

J~

 

Examples.

year     valve cover on   Valve cover off

90-93           9.0-9.1           9.4

94/97            8.7                9.0

99/00            9.2                9.5

01/05            9.5-9.6         10.0

[Tom Phillips]

How about approaching people and talking to them about it?  I'm pretty sure many folks have no idea whether or not their builder gave them a CR compliant motor.  Those same people are likely to voluntarily submit to being whistled.  If they aren't willing and you're really suspicious, then go ahead and protest.

That's kind of what I was thinking. Could this be the fastest way out of this mess? Organize unofficial testing first, protests second. Thoughts?

[Johnny D]

That's kind of what I was thinking. Could this be the fastest way out of this mess? Organize unofficial testing first, protests second. Thoughts?

 

I don't think it's much of a mess.

If you have a legal engine, nothing has change.

Stock, crate, junkyard, you rebuilt, all fine.

 

It's only messy if you have a pro built engine or head from a builder that wanted to give that little extra to you.

J~

[Mark Drennan]

I don't think it's much of a mess.

If you have a legal engine, nothing has change.

Stock, crate, junkyard, you rebuilt, all fine.

 

It's only messy if you have a pro built engine or head from a builder that wanted to give that little extra to you.

J~

 

I'm guessing the majority of motors are not stock/junkyard/crate, especially for those competing in the Majors series or pointy end of regional fields.  Unless your builder actually cc'd the motor (which many don't) and provided you with the data sheet, you (and in some cases, they) just don't know for sure.  I think it's safe to assume there are quite a few folks who have no idea their motor won't pass the VC off whistler test.  It's better to be safe than sorry so I recommend folks get their motors tested to verify they are CR compliant. 

[Johnny D]

And now you're getting worried after the whole season??

 

Sure, the only way to know for sure is to test.

 

I got the feeling Tom wasn't going to the Runoffs. Calm the masses.

 

Seems like East Street stands by their motor. Jim can confirm

Get more builders standing behind their product that group or questionable will get smaller and test.

 

Sounds like Charlies playing with his whistle, you haven't given him a call yet?

 

I bet nobody's going to have a problem at the Runoffs or Western Champs..

J~

[Sean - MiataCage]

That's kind of what I was thinking. Could this be the fastest way out of this mess? Organize unofficial testing first, protests second. Thoughts?

 

To be clear, I am referring to the Podium at Majors events next season.  We are more than 6 months away from that point.  If you have a pro-built motor, call your guy/girl and ask them if you have an issue.  If he or she says they didn't build it to cheat the Whistler then you should be fine.  It sounds like they don't have to CC every engine, they just have to not specifically build it to cheat the Whistler.  If you don't like the answer you get from your builder,  then there are plenty of Whistlers around that it shouldn't be too difficult between now and March to have your motor Whistled.

 

Those of you that race in N California know that a lot of times it's hard to even get the cars weighed, so Whistling will certainly be out of the equation.  All that I am saying is that if SCCA doesn't take the opportunity to clean up this mess, then we as competitors have to do it via the channels available.  If they don't want to pull out the Whistler then filing a mechanical protest on the podium will force them to pull it out.  This process will be consistent and un-biased and will include my own cars and drivers.  If we do this at a couple of key events then it should fix itself pretty quickly.  The intent of this is not to hunt anyone down, it's to get SCCA tech to open the box marked Whistler since they now know we have a problem.

 

Thanks..... Sean

[Keith Andrews]

I read Keith's posted thread a couple days ago.

Forget all the nay sayers about cc'ing and the cost to cc at the track. Quality checking in manufacturing is implemented the same process as the process to fabricate the part. Forumlas, forumlas to skip cc'ing, are short cuts.............................   

Please put yourself in Saul's shoes at Mid Ohio 2009. You know he's lurking with some thoughts in mind. 

Agust 2009 FasTrack see page 19.

 

http://www.google.co...oSczqQiKLRJwdxA

 

I agree regarding this was a different time period.  It's the part about his car being checked in a different configuration (VC off) vs. the other competitors (VC on).  

 

"Mr. Bennett’s car was inspected with the Whistler in a different configuration than all other SMs inspected by the

Compliance Crew"

 

"Tests performed by a member of the CRB established that the differences in the configuration of the SMs subjected to this test during

the Mid-Ohio impound had a measurable and significant effect on the results obtained by the Whistler."

 

Just reading between the lines, I was not there.

 

This is not a new issue.  It just has been raised as an issue, that "no one knew about".  Really?  I enjoy good theater as much as the next guy.  It was very well done in this case. IMHO

[Bruce Wilson]

I wouldn't race an engine that wasn't cc'd.  With the amount of "tolerance" in any production motor, that just wouldn't be prudent (Na-ga-da).  For those of you who have taken the time to cc a motor, and found out how delicate a procedure it really is, you should understand what I mean.

[Johnny D]

looks like 2nd item listed here under scrutineering forms and procedures:

 

http://www.scca.com/...t.cfm?cid=44724

 

So from here ^^^, I got this...

http://scca.cdn.race...ures Manual.pdf

 

But unless I'm missing something, it doesn't say anything about removing the valve cover.

 

So where's the latest??

Or you guys still working on it a little more.

J~

[RussMcB]

I'm curious about something.  Probably naive and there may be no one wanting to answer, but ...

 

If the rules don't allow any engine modifications (I assume - I haven't read them), how do pro engine builders build an engine "to the Whistler"?  What are legal ways to raise the compression to higher than stock?  Thin head gasket?  Removing deck height or shaving the head?

 

Thanks.

[LarryKing]

Russ, what are you, some kinda wiseguy troublemaker?

 

There are absolutely no contradiction in the following two statements. (Trust me, professionals have assured me of this.)

 

"If you were sitting there watching all the testing, tweaking, re-testing, hours on the dyno.... It takes to squeeze every HP of FT/LB of tourque out of engine you would understand why the top builders charge what they charge. It takes 10s of thousands of dollars to get to the point where a top engine builder can "mass produce" a top motor. Every year brings additional tweaks and tests , not to mention he marketing , warranting of their product. These engines are built to the razor edge tollarances that from to time fail. The parts alone for a rebuild are about 2k for and 01. Never mind the machining and assembly labor." -MPR22

 

"Assembly, rebuild, and refurbishment procedures, and all associated dimensions must adhere to the published factory service procedures, except as otherwise stated in these rules. No components may be added or omitted from those specified by the published factory service procedures. All components must be standard dimensions. It is permitted to use industry standard procedures to repair damaged non-engine compo-nents (e.g., welding a transmission or differential housing)." -SCCA GCR

 

 

I am a little dubious of this one:

 

"A. PURPOSE AND INTENT
The Spec Miata (SM) class is intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost, production-based cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. The rules are intentionally designed to be more open than the Showroom Stock class but more restricted than the Improved Touring class."

[Cliff Brown USMC]

In order to help clean up the SM class and to prevent a mass exodus of SM drivers from leaving the SCCA, what specifically would any of you want checked when cars get  protested? PM me if you like and give me details about a certain engine. This is not a which hunt. I do believe it would be beneficial to all drivers in the future who would like to know what to look for should they decide to protest a " Clearly NON Compliant car" rather than assuming one is cheated.

Regards,

Cliff

[Dan Tiley]

Cliff... while I appreciate you personal crusade to clean up SM, I personally believe the mass protest strategy, while effective, turns compliance into a very personal and targeted attack.  The SIC should have been a very fun event, but instead there were 2 who left the track immediately and didn't even race, and a whole bunch of people pissed off at one another.   Does anyone know who won the race by a margin of 0.008s ... or who won the SARRC Championship that resulted from the race?  Isn't that why we do this in the first place?

 

I don't run NASA events very often but I think there's something to be learned from their dyno policy at the bigger races.  You qualify, you go immediately to the dyno.  You race, you go immediately to the dyno.  Top 3 or top 5 are checked every time.  Nobody is disqualified based on dyno numbers, but it completely removes the element of personal attacks among peers from the equation, and the tech staff can make the call on who needs further attention.  

 

At the NASA Championships this year, competitors very willingly and openly shared their dyno sheets with one another.  There were no personal attacks, and nobody left early.  When there is an outlier, it becomes clear whose cars need a closer look, and nobody can say that anyone is on a "witch hunt".

 

Just my opinion. 

 

 

EDIT:  BTW... the dyno is also a clever and sneaky tool that can be used by tech to test gear ratios and rev limiters as well!

[FTodaro]

I'm curious about something.  Probably naive and there may be no one wanting to answer, but ...

 

If the rules don't allow any engine modifications (I assume - I haven't read them), how do pro engine builders build an engine "to the Whistler"?  What are legal ways to raise the compression to higher than stock?  Thin head gasket?  Removing deck height or shaving the head?

 

Thanks.

Russ a short answer to your question, motor builders make sure the motor is built up to the limit of the spec.

 

so your street motor is likely below the specs in many areas and the builders modify the motors to be at the Max allowed in all categories. So head shaving and block decking are all used to keep the motors at the limit of the spec.

[Ron Alan]

 

Cliff... while I appreciate you personal crusade to clean up SM, I personally believe the mass protest strategy, while effective, turns compliance into a very personal and targeted attack.  The SIC should have been a very fun event, but instead there were 2 who left the track immediately and didn't even race, and a whole bunch of people pissed off at one another.   Does anyone know who won the race by a margin of 0.008s ... or who won the SARRC Championship that resulted from the race?  Isn't that why we do this in the first place?

 

I don't run NASA events very often but I think there's something to be learned from their dyno policy at the bigger races.  You qualify, you go immediately to the dyno.  You race, you go immediately to the dyno.  Top 3 or top 5 are checked every time.  Nobody is disqualified based on dyno numbers, but it completely removes the element of personal attacks among peers from the equation, and the tech staff can make the call on who needs further attention.  

 

At the NASA Championships this year, competitors very willingly and openly shared their dyno sheets with one another.  There were no personal attacks, and nobody left early.  When there is an outlier, it becomes clear whose cars need a closer look, and nobody can say that anyone is on a "witch hunt".

 

 

 

Dan,

 

I hope Cliff corrects me if i'm way off base here. The "Fun factor" has been gone for some for awhile...long before this event that should have been "Fun" for all. It needed to happen. It exposed a flaw. No one was DQ'd...but all are on notice. A fair fight is all anyone wants...which will bring back the "Fun" until the next greatest speed secret colored gray is exposed 

 

We are not a dyno class...would that be better or worse? Not stirring just asking...

[Dan Tiley]

Dan,

 

I hope Cliff corrects me if i'm way off base here. The "Fun factor" has been gone for some for awhile...long before this event that should have been "Fun" for all. It needed to happen. It exposed a flaw. No one was DQ'd...but all are on notice. A fair fight is all anyone wants...which will bring back the "Fun" until the next greatest speed secret colored gray is exposed 

 

We are not a dyno class...would that be better or worse? Not stirring just asking...

 

Good question, and I really don't know.  It seems to work for NASA.  Again, nobody is disqualified from the dyno.... it just highlights those cars which might warrant a "closer look".  Most competitors don't have the balls (or might not be willing to risk the bond) that Cliff did to write a protest.  The dyno results are just a tool to help the Tech staff to decide how deep they need to go and on whom.  

 

Mueller is probably the man to best chime in on this.  Does it work?

[Ron Alan]

Well...only problem is it would put some engine builders out of work if a number was all that was checked. Very easy to get to an "acceptable" number that would require no further scrutiny for very little money and effort. I think this was why a few people were a bit frustrated after Miller last year. The other thing that i think NASA does that is non- evasive and seems to work is putting a GPS style device in the car that simple gives HP values based on speed, acceleration and weight on the track. They do this at the 25hr

[Jim Drago]

[quote name="Ron Alan" post="66366" timestamp="1412348306"]Dan,

The "Fun factor" has been gone for some for awhile...long before this event that should have been "Fun" [/quote



The fun factor for me has officially left the building. I love the class and love the competition, but for me it hasn't been fun for awhile. Atleast not like it should be. Most of us, especially me take this stuff way too serious. The most fun I have had in the class was before I ever won a race. If you have any success on track, I can guarantee atleast 20% of the rest have called you a cheater. I was very saddened when many rejoiced when they felt that Craig and I were going to be disqualified from the 2012 Runoffs. That was sad and can say without a doubt, I would not wish that on anyone.

Many of us are guilty of selective morality ... If you have ever lived in a glass house and I feel safe to say MANY have. Perhaps we should be careful when throwing stones from our glass house? This is not meant at all to Cliff, I am talking to all.. Including me.

Many opinions would flip flop 180 degrees if the shoe was on the other foot. if Suddenly those offended by the build to the whistler found out that is how their engine was built... Many would suddenly be fine with it all . And those who were fine with it would before would magically somehow now be offended and pretty upset that they were down compression and hp to others that they would never seemed building to the whistker.

It is racing.. We are all passionate and competive as hell and racing seems to bring out the best and worst in people. I have seen both, it certainly has brought both out in me.

At this point, I think all are on board to get compression right..
Perhaps we have a voluntary whistling at arrc? I am sure dan,myself,jeff and Rossini can bring a whistler.. Each whistle each other's engines.. No one whistles their own engines! .Anyone who doesn't volunteer .. Well perhaps you protest them?
I think we can address this in a way that gets back to what sm is supposed to be.. Maybe bring all the camps back together as sm drivers, not individual camps. Just my 2 cents
Jim

[MPR22]

I'm curious about something.  Probably naive and there may be no one wanting to answer, but ...

 

If the rules don't allow any engine modifications (I assume - I haven't read them), how do pro engine builders build an engine "to the Whistler"?  What are legal ways to raise the compression to higher than stock?  Thin head gasket?  Removing deck height or shaving the head?

 

Thanks.

Not only what Frank said about building the engines to the manufacturers spec, also there were head specific rules implemented about 3 years ago that allow explicit rework of parts of the heads.  The heads, especially on the 1.6 models had such a huge variance on castings that it became critical for participants to basically buy several heads to find the ones that flowed the best.  To stop that and allow for a more equal playing field a standard set of guidelines for machining the heads was published for the class.  It is very clear what can and can't be done to the heads.  That is outside the original class rules but I would say that it has made the class more competitive and lowered the cost to do so, Oh and it benefited the 1.6 more than any other car as it is an unrestricted intake. 

[Johnny D]

In order to help clean up the SM class and to prevent a mass exodus of SM drivers from leaving the SCCA, what specifically would any of you want checked when cars get  protested? PM me if you like and give me details about a certain engine. This is not a which hunt. I do believe it would be beneficial to all drivers in the future who would like to know what to look for should they decide to protest a " Clearly NON Compliant car" rather than assuming one is cheated.

Regards,

Cliff

 

Kind of a Whistle blower hot line.   

 

Kind of sad too when a grey area comes to someones attention that it's not reported instead of embraced.

J~