250 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

I had my 01 whistled with the VC off and it blew 9.8, 01" are 10 to 1.

 

In working with our Tech guy Barry Baker in the OVR region (Mid Ohio)  we have been bringing the whistler to regional events and testing. Guarantee in 2015 Major and 2016 runoffs we will be strapping them in to cars randomly as well as top 3.

 

But yes if the car fails the test then it requires further tear down, to confirm.

 

This is my point, if the 01 VC is designed in such a way that the distortion is greater than the distortion in the 99 for example, and permits a higher compression engine, that could pass tech under the old rule, I would like that fact to be factored in when folks sit down to implement a wt penalty on the 01 due to the perceived  advantage.

 

they should not issue a penalty if they confirm that some of those top performing motors were not spec legal to begin with.  

[Jim Drago]

. 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!

 

Three cars were whistled under protest.  I was not there( nor was Dan) and not fair for me to comment on anything other than our entry. The engine in the Buras car( our engine) did NOT fail the whistler, nor was an RFA written on the car at any point. It whistled 10.0-10.1 with the valve cover removed, which is the limit when testing with the whistler on an 01 up car. With the valve cover on, it whistles 9.5-9.6, as do all compliant 01 up cars. 

 

 

I agree with Dan, all should check their engines whistled with the valve cover off. I have found( as have all other engine builders) that those numbers mirror the actually cc numbers much closer ( IMO, exactly) the real compression ratio. It is fair to say that in the race to be competitive, all builders have pushed the boundaries...  It starts with 'Hey Engine builder X , they whistled my car this weekend and it was only 9.2, WTF? They whistled Y and Z and they were 9.5... I want mine there as well. Whistling the cars with the valve covers off is the correct way to do this.  I am confident all engine builders will make sure that their engines are compliant by both CC and by the whistler with valve cover removed(which IMO is the same number). All engine builders and competitors want to win and beat each other, I truly believe 99% want to beat each other fairly and compete under the same rules. This gray area with compression and valve covers made uncomfortable choices for all of us as racers and engine builders and needed to be corrected.  This is/was an issue that needed to be resolved.  I think it is safe to say that all engine builders ( myself included) will be checking all their engines to make sure they are compliant by CC and Whistler with no valve cover on. In the long term, this will be an improvement in the class and the rules which is what will all want.   

 

With CRB hat on...

This inconsistency with valve covers is not a miata specific problem. It is a problem FOR ALL overhead valve cars with recessed spark plugs including the integras, hondas and most every other as well.  It became apparent in SM as we are all so close, so many being built and tested and obviously I have first hand experience here.  It is important to state the rule has NEVER changed, the RULE has always been your compression needs to be 9.0, 9.4, 9.5 or 10 or less depending the year of the car. The revised testing procedure does not state "the valve covers MUST be removed" it simply says it may be necessary in overhead valve cover vehicles. The Whistler procedure is a generic procedure for EVERY car tested in the SCCA, not a miata or Sm specific procedure. Perhaps a miata specific procedure should be written? Perhaps we should throw the whistler away as it seems apparent that yet again there were discrepancies in the results. I will say, as someone who has used the whistler many times, it is a VERY accurate tool. There is no good reason to get varying results. But the tool is only as accurate as the person calibrating and testing the car, just like every other tool. That is not to imply anyone did anything wrong, again, I was not there. Jim Creighton posts here, so perhaps he may clarify what happened? 

[Jim Drago]

 

This is my point, if the 01 VC is designed in such a way that the distortion is greater than the distortion in the 99 for example, and permits a higher compression engine, that could pass tech under the old rule, I would like that fact to be factored in when folks sit down to implement a wt penalty on the 01 due to the perceived  advantage.

 

 

 

 

lmao.. right back parity

[Blake Thompson]

This thread has poor signal-to-noise ratio.  Thanks for commenting JD.

[Tom Sager]

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...

 

Kyle, I too am usually a little cranky on Monday mornings but did you also have a bowl of nails for breakfast?  

[Dan Tiley]

Three cars were whistled under protest.  I was not there( nor was Dan) and not fair for me to comment on anything other than our entry. The engine in the Buras car( our engine) did NOT fail the whistler, nor was an RFA written on the car at any point. It whistled 10.0-10.1 with the valve cover removed, which is the limit when testing with the whistler on an 01 up car. With the valve cover on, it whistles 9.5-9.6, as do all compliant 01 up cars. 

 

 

Jim... let's please use facts here... Buras whistled 10.2.   They started tinkering with the settings (ie. changing the displacement entry from 112 to 111ci) to see what would happen, but when properly whistled, it was 10.2.  Not singling your car out... everyone else checked was over by that much or more.

[Danny Steyn]

During this season there have been several rumors that the '01+ cars might end up being penalized either with weight or with a reduced restrictor, due to the fact that there were a few cars out there that appeared to be stronger than the rest. 

 

I think we are all beginning to understand that the use of the Whistler to "measure" compression ratio with the valve cover ON has produced artificially low compression results, and has allowed builders to up the REAL compression ratio beyond the allowable compression specs, and yet still meet the Whistler numbers. And this has way more benefit to the '01+ cars than other years and some engines have been built to benefit from this discrepancy. 

 

I would hate to see the '01+ cars receive any penalty, if they are being determined to be overdogs based on REAL compression ratios that are over the specification. This would be HORRENDOUS for the class.

 

While I don't know what happened at the SIC, as I had already left, it appears as though certain cars were WELL over the limit when whistled with the valve cover off (more accurate measurement) and were within the limit with the valve cover on (less accurate measurement), so I think that this move is going in the right direction.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle, I too am usually a little cranky on Monday mornings but did you also have a bowl of nails for breakfast?

I think you know I call it like I see it! I am not cranky I have been beyond honked off all season check with Novak ams frank... This is a fuckimg problem that needs fixed yesterday and nobody but cliff brown has stepped up to make a stand! End of story, I am tired of sitting tight and waiting for it to straighten out it time we take account for ourselves and make it right as a class!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle, I too am usually a little cranky on Monday mornings but did you also have a bowl of nails for breakfast?

I think you know I call it like I see it! I am not cranky I have been beyond honked off all season check with Novak ams frank... This is a fuckimg problem that needs fixed yesterday and nobody but cliff brown has stepped up to make a stand! End of story, I am tired of sitting tight and waiting for it to straighten out it time we take account for ourselves and make it right as a class!

[FTodaro]

 

I would hate to see the '01+ cars receive any penalty, if they are being determined to be overdogs based on REAL compression ratios that are over the specification. This would be HORRENDOUS for the class.

 

 

Thank you Danny.

 

This is my thinking also. I do not want to waste two years. Year one, over compensation, then Year two giving it back. Lets make sure we have a reason to make the change.

[wheel]

From the CRB perspective.  It became obvious that for some cars the whistler did not read properly when used with valve covers on the engine.  This was not SM specific.  The test procedure was corrected to take this into account.  I don't know what happened at CIS but this should come as a warning to anyone going to the Runoffs.  They need to be certain their cars are within the compression ratio specifications.  If the whistler reads an engine as being over, the entrant may ask that the heads be pulled and cc'd to confirm the actual c.r.

wheel

[Dan Tiley]

From the CRB perspective.  It became obvious that for some cars the whistler did not read properly when used with valve covers on the engine.  This was not SM specific.  The test procedure was corrected to take this into account.  I don't know what happened at CIS but this should come as a warning to anyone going to the Runoffs.  They need to be certain their cars are within the compression ratio specifications.  If the whistler reads an engine as being over, the entrant may ask that the heads be pulled and cc'd to confirm the actual c.r.

wheel

 

Based on this experience... the top 3 at the Runoffs need to be CC'd REGARDLESS of what the whistler says.  In fact... leave the whistler at home.  This is the runoffs!

[Ron Alan]

For those of us not engine builders can someone give the cliff note version of how a compression number is determined? 

What does 9.5-1 correspond to? What Volume number is required for 9, 9.4,9.5 and 10? I assume a liquid volume measure is easy enough to do on a head chamber with valves closed...do you then ad or subtract a number that relates to the height of the piston in relation to the block?

Lastly...with the whistler or a CC measure...is one hole picked at random? Or is every chamber checked?

[john mueller]

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....

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!

 

Anyone have a link to the new documented testing procedure? 

[zoomzoom22]

Anyone have a link to the new documented testing procedure? 

 

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

 

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

[Sean - MiataCage]

What an epic clusterscrew.......  

 

If a protest for compression was filed why were those cars not CC'd?  Isn't that the only way to 100% accurately measure the compression ratio?  If I were the one who wrote the protest I would be pissed.  I hope whomever wrote it got their money back or protested Creighton for not following the proper Whistler procedure post race at a minimum.  Why were the cars whistled with no valve covers after qualifying and then after the race they were whistled with the valve covers on?  Sounds to me like people wanted to go home and not have to worry about compression being out of compliance.   Was tech not obligated to use the new procedure?  Was tech not obligated with the protest and RFA to CC the cars instead of Whistle them?  Seems like a joke to me.....

 

IMO whomever wrote the protest was completely let down by SCCA.  SCCA is so much about self policing and then when someone has the balls to step up and protest someone and ask for some help from SCCA they completely drop the ball and leave them high and dry.  

 

Isn't all this the same crap that just went down at the NASA East Championship?  The rumor mill from there said most all the top cars Whistled over as well.  When is someone going to get this right?  If 10 minutes is too long to take the valve cover off, then let the top 6 engine builders come up with the number that the Whistler should see with valve covers on so we can get to the bottom of this once and for all.

 

Full Disclaimer.... I am not a motor guy at all.  

 

Dan Tiley.... I don't know you, but I hear really good things about you.  However..... Your statement below to me is ridiculous......  In the first sentence you say "the right thing to do" yet then it appears to me that you all but admit to building your motors to the Whistler.  I'm not an engine guy at all, but I am going to go out on a limb and assume that NO engine builder ever builds an engine without CC'ign the volume prior to assembly and therefor a Whistler couldn't be used without knowingly building to the whistler and not the actual CC volume.  I am not singling you out as I am sure others are doing this as well, but the compression ratio's to my knowledge have never changed.

 

If I'm paying 5-8k for a pro built motor I expect it to be built to the rule, not the Whistler.

 

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.  

[Jim Creighton]

I will tell all of you general things concerning what happened yesterday at the SIC but nothing specific about a single car. I have not posted yet since I did not leave Daytona until Toni was finished with all the paper work and that was right at 7 PM. It was 7.5 hour drive home so you do the math.

When the protest was filed, I was asked to get the SEDIV whistler and perform the test on three protested cars. This is the same whistler that I have used at the Runoffs to test production category cars for for the past several years. I assisted one of the CFR tech workers with the tests. We checked the three cars but found we had used 111 c.i. instead of 112 so we retested the three using 112. The test was performed with the cam covers removed. An additional protest was filed and two more car was tested with the cam cover removed. We ran out of time and sealed all the cars so they could go race.

At that point, I huddled with the tech staff and we reread the whistler instructions. Even though all the motors we had already tested were not hot, we decided we would retest everyone since we had not blown air into the cylinders to remove excess fuel. And reading the instructions, we saw nothing concerning removing the cam covers so it was decided we would not remove them. None of us at the event could find a tech bulletin changing the original whistler procedures. I had received an email about it but nothing official.

When we rechecked all the cars post race ( except one who had blown up and had a locked motor ) they all were compliant. The cars involved did finish in P 1, 2, 3, 4, and not sure of the others.

So, let me report what I observed. Removing the cam cover changes the reading and audible tone. With the can cover removed, the 1.8 reads approx .6 to .7 higher. The 1.6 seems to be a little less, about .5.

As most of you know, the whistler is just a tool and is not accepted by the stewards as being the final word on compression ratio. I only over saw the tests and reported to the SOM. I was asked to give my opinion and did so.

I will tell you that I believe there was only one compliant car that I checked. Everyone else needs to pull their heads and cc the motor. What I observed makes perfect sense to me and explains some observations I've made at the Runoffs in production category classes. Many of those cars including Miatas are limited to compression ratio. In using the whistler to check compression ratio, I have found almost all the production Miatas to be .7 to .8 lower than the allowed max. This makes sense to me now.

So, where do you go from here? That's up to you guys. The class is spec and that what makes it good. The timing of this was perfect since we will all be at the Runoffs in a week and more tests can be run using other whistlers since the SEDiv one will not be there.

Yesterday was a long day for many. Thanks to all who were involved. I know when I finally sat down in the motorhome to head home, I realized I'd missed lunch and dinner and I never eat breakfast. I know the tech workers assisting also missed lunch so thanks to all who helped. And special thanks to the Alex Hawkins book on tape which kept me company on the drive back to Atlanta.

[Danny Steyn]

What I observed makes perfect sense to me and explains some observations I've made at the Runoffs in production category classes. Many of those cars including Miatas are limited to compression ratio. In using the whistler to check compression ratio, I have found almost all the production Miatas to be .7 to .8 lower than the allowed max. This makes sense to me now.

 

And herein lies the temptation!!!!! Waaaaaaaay tooooooooooo seductive it appears!!!

 

Jim Creighton, and all the other volunteers, in tech, and on the track, thanks for your hard work and sacrifice, way too often totally unappreciated. 

[Jim Drago]

Jim... let's please use facts here... Buras whistled 10.2.   They started tinkering with the settings (ie. changing the displacement entry from 112 to 111ci) to see what would happen, but when properly whistled, it was 10.2.  Not singling your car out... everyone else checked was over by that much or more.

 

Again neither of us were there so anything either posts is second or third hand info. Trying my best (as always)to report "facts' , just all have come to me second hand.   The "only' ones who are sure to have accurate information on the subject would be:

 

A) The entrant or driver.. in this case both were Buras

The protester who was Cliff Brown

C) The tech official doing the test ( Jim Creighton) and the chief Steward. ( I put a call in to Jim Creighton to ask, didn't answer)

 

All I can share is what I was told. I have only spoken with Buras and Brown, I was told by both we whistled 10.0-10.1 an no RFA or issues with the Buras car. Neither confirmed 10.2 rumor which seems to make sense as 10.2 would have received an RFA and a loss of all qualifying times.   

 

 

Perhaps Brown,Buras or Jim Creighton( all have my permission) can post what they saw or were told on the compression reading, I don't have a problem with it either way. If we were 10.2, I will stand corrected.  It really doesn't matter in the larger scope of things.  I have already stated this could effect all builders, myself included. I feel fairly certain this was not the case yesterday though.  At the end of all of this, I am fine with a few of my engines being found over on compression if this issue fixed and put to rest. If there is an issue with any of our engines, I will fix at my expense.  This is no different than getting the heads/engine rules right in 09. I think we are on the right track with this and getting it out in the open was the first step.  The class will ultimately be better for it.  

[Danny Steyn]

I think a few overdog cars will come back to the pack again, but then again there are others that are overdogs for a bunch of other reasons, but at least the issue of compression gaming appears to be under control.