250 replies to this topic

[KW78]

I am hearing alot of people asking for a pro level tech at an amatuer event.  It just isn't feasible.  You do not have paid tech people like nascar, but a bunch of well meaning volunteers that have too much to do!!!!  Team members of various skill and experience as well.

 

The problem is the SCCA CULTURE!!!  AS I HAVE SHOUTED AT THE RAIN BEFORE!!  GET AWAY FROM THE ARCHAIC RULE BOOK PROCEDURES!!!  WE HAVE OUTGROWN THEM!!! 

 

We need to learn from NASA on some procedures.  Not all, but some.

 

As Sean says, if I post a bond, I better damn well be in on the evaluation of the process and the issues.  Ridiculous to keep people away.  The SCCA way of acting like we are in a court of law about to take away someone's freedom is absolutely F'N ridiculous.  If we enter the race, put in the supps that we are subjecting ourselves to how the race procedures are run.  This secrecy crap and protecting privacy claim is counter productive to a bunch of people wanting to be involved in CLUB racing.

 

To fix compliance in a class, get the whole situation extremely transparent!!  Extremely!!  There should be a group of competitors standing around looking at the valve job, not someone disappearing behind closed doors!!

 

I have posted before, until spec miata competitors are teching spec miatas, we are perpetuating this problem.  We are the experts on our class.  Assign a competent tech line chief for the class who knows about how to properly run a test procedure and have an open tech involving class competitors.  The competitors will get the tech issues out in the open and progress will be fast.

 

The whistler is just another example of a tool being used properly or not properly.  I witnessed this issue with a simple dial indicator being used in another class destroy that runoffs tech, so there will always be controversy on using a tool.

 

As for the idea of dyno, it is another complicated tool.  It was a fiasco at the NASA East nationals for Spec944.  First it was called uncalibrated, then another weather station, then we were using uncorrected, then we were using new corrected, then --- we didn't get dyno'd in tech.  We spent more than the entry fee in dyno fees trying to be compliant to the tool setting in the moment.

 

This is similar to using the whistler.  Hell, I thought the whistler was abandoned after the results from a mid ohio national was torn down over whistler procedures.  I know that the rocky mountain whistler has gathered dust since then.

 

And, as Dan Tiley says, CCing the motor is not feasible either.  If you seal the piston, you eliminate the CC's above the top ring.  If you don't, you risk a leak.  What about the compressed thickness of the head gasket?  How are you going to measure that on a 1.6?  The newer MLS gasket you can  make some assumptions, but they are assumptions.  Again, it is another gray procedure in reality, that tech can't be any more accurate about in the field than the whistler.

 

Pick a procedure with a whistler, and like the scales at the event, say that tool is the rule for the weekend.  How else can tech be implemented throughout the year??  Let a competitor test his motor before the race with the tech line chief overseeing it.  If I am hearing that we have a more accurate procedure (valve cover off) then keep improving the standard, but make it a feasible quick test point, and keep having the class tested.

 

And since someone brought up the ECM, that illustrated that cheating is only effective when its cheating.  Once the cheat is allowed to everyone, then the class has more parity.  Of course this has to be balanced with rules creep, but it also has to be balanced with tech shed ability at an average event.
 

(Btw the ECM cheat is not fixed with fuel and timing.  The cheater fuel curves still have a superior shape, and I can't believe we still don't allow a spec cheap aftermarket ECM that costs less than 2 tires, like a megasquirt, where we can then fix these old wiring harnesses for $70, and share the optimum fuel and timing curves)

 

I have gone to the runoffs around 16 times in multiple classes.  I just can't take it seriously anymore with the fundamental flaws that are in the system of checks and balances responsible for a level playing field.

 

My .02

Kyle Watkins

SPR

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mark Drennan]

Pretty sure tech at the Runoffs and West NASA Championships are gonna go something like this...

https://www.youtube....h?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

 

Kidding aside, I think it's great that this is coming to light and absolutely support reigning in compression ratio compliance from our motor suppliers.  I'm just a driver.  I pay (and trust) people to supply and prepare my equipment and I tell them it needs to be compliant.  I don't want anyone to have an unfair advantage...and that includes me.

 

After recently hearing about the whistler/valve-cover issue, I've had to spend the extra $ to make sure the motors for my cars were cc'd/compliant.  I'm confident they will all whistle with the valve covers off and cc correctly.  The last thing I want is to get DQ'd unintentionally.  Been there, done that. 

 

But let me also say this as we approach these witch-hunts...

 

It's always been the case since I started racing karts, if someone is faster than you, they must be cheating.  It certainly couldn't be that they were running stickers when you were on old tires.  Also couldn't be that their car was dialed in from the extra day(s) of testing you skipped and that you've been struggling with your setup.  And even if they were as talented as you are (which is ridiculous to even think), the fact that they have a ton more laps at the track than you do couldn't have anything to do with it.  Nah, couldn't be any of those things....or could it?

 

Sincerely,

Mark (hope I weight more than a duck) Drennan

[Ron Alan]

Based on everything i've read...I have to assume a couple things. Please correct me if I'm wrong

 

1. There are several things during an engine build that can affect compression. 

2,  Builders have to measure things(CC) to avoid being way over or way under.

3.  Builders(and others) who hit there CC number right on the mark know that motor will whistle low with the valve cover on.

4.   Cliff B and others dont think the builders who are producing motors that whistle right at the number with the valve covers on are dummies...hence they are gaming the system...cheating

 

Like Mark I didnt ask questions(or even know what to ask)for my motors. But i will be and whistling with cover off before I come to the runoffs with the cars!

 

Have to love the Marines...great at breaking sh*t and killing things! I salute you Cliff Brown!

 

Question for guys who use or understand the whistler. What variables are you asked to enter prior to running a test. Is it a volume amount? stroke? what exactly? Is there potentially enough difference in a stock casting to read different numbers in different holes? 

[PMAC]

But let me also say this as we approach these witch-hunts...

 

It's always been the case since I started racing karts, if someone is faster than you, they must be cheating.  It certainly couldn't be that they were running stickers when you were on old tires.  Also couldn't be that their car was dialed in from the extra day(s) of testing you skipped and that you've been struggling with your setup.  And even if they were as talented as you are (which is ridiculous to even think), the fact that they have a ton more laps at the track than you do couldn't have anything to do with it.  Nah, couldn't be any of those things....or could it?

 

Sincerely,

Mark (hope I weight more than a duck) Drennan

well said - there are so many other variables 

[High Chair]

No, there are plenty of cars in the top 15 that do not use this exploit as it is easily (we thought) found by CCing the head and doing the math.  It became evident that tech would hardly ever question the whistler so the whistler became the "tech shed" legal way of building engines for some.  I've lost count of how many times cars have blown too high and not been popped open and measured, I have NEVER seen it happen in my whole SM career (although I'm told it happened when High Chair won the ARRC in 2009?)  

 

Power levels creep in motorsports, that's a fact.  What we are talking about here is not creep, some of these engines have one more FULL point of compression than the others.  If your motor is supposed to be 10:1, how much more power is 10% 11:1?  5% 10.5:1? The math tells me 5% in an SM is ~6hp, what would you do for 6hp?

When I won the ARRC my engine came home in a cooler. I was whistled with the valve cover off and blow 9.5/9.6  and still had to remove the head, valves, cams, etc. The engine tech guy then proceeded to do a lot of measuring that was way above my understanding. I was told he checked the compression ratio along with the valve cuts, and other items. According to those that were there the tech at the ARRC was more involved than the runoffs that year. 

As far as this thread is concerned let me just say it seems clear that most of us knew that the Dan's engines produced more power than any other engine out there; what we didn't know was if the engine was compliant. After gathering the information available from multiple sources it seems to me at least that Dan built his engines to the whistler. Lets face it, we have all pushed the envelope further than we should have at one time. Everyone I know has run computers, fuel, etc when it was tech shed legal so we should be careful not to throw the stones too far. The real question is what is the next step. For me it will simply involve protesting the next  Ti-Speed engine I see that appears to have more power than my car. I am not afraid to protest and have successfully done so before. The question is how are we going to check the engines correctly. Personally, I wish we could just write the check and send the engine to Topeka for a complete examination. It would be easier on the local tech guys and it would reduce engine creep significantly. 

 

PS

See Drago!! I am much calmer then I use too be.

[Danny Steyn]

I am hearing alot of people asking for a pro level tech at an amatuer event.  It just isn't feasible.  You do not have paid tech people like nascar, but a bunch of well meaning volunteers that have too much to do!!!!  Team members of various skill and experience as well.

 

The problem is the SCCA CULTURE!!!  AS I HAVE SHOUTED AT THE RAIN BEFORE!!  GET AWAY FROM THE ARCHAIC RULE BOOK PROCEDURES!!!  WE HAVE OUTGROWN THEM!!! 

 

We need to learn from NASA on some procedures.  Not all, but some.

 

As Sean says, if I post a bond, I better damn well be in on the evaluation of the process and the issues.  Ridiculous to keep people away.  The SCCA way of acting like we are in a court of law about to take away someone's freedom is absolutely F'N ridiculous.  If we enter the race, put in the supps that we are subjecting ourselves to how the race procedures are run.  This secrecy crap and protecting privacy claim is counter productive to a bunch of people wanting to be involved in CLUB racing.

 

To fix compliance in a class, get the whole situation extremely transparent!!  Extremely!!  There should be a group of competitors standing around looking at the valve job, not someone disappearing behind closed doors!!

 

I have posted before, until spec miata competitors are teching spec miatas, we are perpetuating this problem.  We are the experts on our class.  Assign a competent tech line chief for the class who knows about how to properly run a test procedure and have an open tech involving class competitors.  The competitors will get the tech issues out in the open and progress will be fast.

 

The whistler is just another example of a tool being used properly or not properly.  I witnessed this issue with a simple dial indicator being used in another class destroy that runoffs tech, so there will always be controversy on using a tool.

 

As for the idea of dyno, it is another complicated tool.  It was a fiasco at the NASA East nationals for Spec944.  First it was called uncalibrated, then another weather station, then we were using uncorrected, then we were using new corrected, then --- we didn't get dyno'd in tech.  We spent more than the entry fee in dyno fees trying to be compliant to the tool setting in the moment.

 

This is similar to using the whistler.  Hell, I thought the whistler was abandoned after the results from a mid ohio national was torn down over whistler procedures.  I know that the rocky mountain whistler has gathered dust since then.

 

And, as Dan Tiley says, CCing the motor is not feasible either.  If you seal the piston, you eliminate the CC's above the top ring.  If you don't, you risk a leak.  What about the compressed thickness of the head gasket?  How are you going to measure that on a 1.6?  The newer MLS gasket you can  make some assumptions, but they are assumptions.  Again, it is another gray procedure in reality, that tech can't be any more accurate about in the field than the whistler.

 

Pick a procedure with a whistler, and like the scales at the event, say that tool is the rule for the weekend.  How else can tech be implemented throughout the year??  Let a competitor test his motor before the race with the tech line chief overseeing it.  If I am hearing that we have a more accurate procedure (valve cover off) then keep improving the standard, but make it a feasible quick test point, and keep having the class tested.

 

And since someone brought up the ECM, that illustrated that cheating is only effective when its cheating.  Once the cheat is allowed to everyone, then the class has more parity.  Of course this has to be balanced with rules creep, but it also has to be balanced with tech shed ability at an average event.
 

(Btw the ECM cheat is not fixed with fuel and timing.  The cheater fuel curves still have a superior shape, and I can't believe we still don't allow a spec cheap aftermarket ECM that costs less than 2 tires, like a megasquirt, where we can then fix these old wiring harnesses for $70, and share the optimum fuel and timing curves)

 

I have gone to the runoffs around 16 times in multiple classes.  I just can't take it seriously anymore with the fundamental flaws that are in the system of checks and balances responsible for a level playing field.

 

My .02

Kyle Watkins

SPR

 

SPOT ON!

[High Chair]

SPOT ON!

 

I am hearing alot of people asking for a pro level tech at an amatuer event.  It just isn't feasible.  You do not have paid tech people like nascar, but a bunch of well meaning volunteers that have too much to do!!!!  Team members of various skill and experience as well.

 

The problem is the SCCA CULTURE!!!  AS I HAVE SHOUTED AT THE RAIN BEFORE!!  GET AWAY FROM THE ARCHAIC RULE BOOK PROCEDURES!!!  WE HAVE OUTGROWN THEM!!! 

 

We need to learn from NASA on some procedures.  Not all, but some.

 

As Sean says, if I post a bond, I better damn well be in on the evaluation of the process and the issues.  Ridiculous to keep people away.  The SCCA way of acting like we are in a court of law about to take away someone's freedom is absolutely F'N ridiculous.  If we enter the race, put in the supps that we are subjecting ourselves to how the race procedures are run.  This secrecy crap and protecting privacy claim is counter productive to a bunch of people wanting to be involved in CLUB racing.

 

To fix compliance in a class, get the whole situation extremely transparent!!  Extremely!!  There should be a group of competitors standing around looking at the valve job, not someone disappearing behind closed doors!!

 

I have posted before, until spec miata competitors are teching spec miatas, we are perpetuating this problem.  We are the experts on our class.  Assign a competent tech line chief for the class who knows about how to properly run a test procedure and have an open tech involving class competitors.  The competitors will get the tech issues out in the open and progress will be fast.

 

The whistler is just another example of a tool being used properly or not properly.  I witnessed this issue with a simple dial indicator being used in another class destroy that runoffs tech, so there will always be controversy on using a tool.

 

As for the idea of dyno, it is another complicated tool.  It was a fiasco at the NASA East nationals for Spec944.  First it was called uncalibrated, then another weather station, then we were using uncorrected, then we were using new corrected, then --- we didn't get dyno'd in tech.  We spent more than the entry fee in dyno fees trying to be compliant to the tool setting in the moment.

 

This is similar to using the whistler.  Hell, I thought the whistler was abandoned after the results from a mid ohio national was torn down over whistler procedures.  I know that the rocky mountain whistler has gathered dust since then.

 

And, as Dan Tiley says, CCing the motor is not feasible either.  If you seal the piston, you eliminate the CC's above the top ring.  If you don't, you risk a leak.  What about the compressed thickness of the head gasket?  How are you going to measure that on a 1.6?  The newer MLS gasket you can  make some assumptions, but they are assumptions.  Again, it is another gray procedure in reality, that tech can't be any more accurate about in the field than the whistler.

 

Pick a procedure with a whistler, and like the scales at the event, say that tool is the rule for the weekend.  How else can tech be implemented throughout the year??  Let a competitor test his motor before the race with the tech line chief overseeing it.  If I am hearing that we have a more accurate procedure (valve cover off) then keep improving the standard, but make it a feasible quick test point, and keep having the class tested.

 

And since someone brought up the ECM, that illustrated that cheating is only effective when its cheating.  Once the cheat is allowed to everyone, then the class has more parity.  Of course this has to be balanced with rules creep, but it also has to be balanced with tech shed ability at an average event.
 

(Btw the ECM cheat is not fixed with fuel and timing.  The cheater fuel curves still have a superior shape, and I can't believe we still don't allow a spec cheap aftermarket ECM that costs less than 2 tires, like a megasquirt, where we can then fix these old wiring harnesses for $70, and share the optimum fuel and timing curves)

 

I have gone to the runoffs around 16 times in multiple classes.  I just can't take it seriously anymore with the fundamental flaws that are in the system of checks and balances responsible for a level playing field.

 

My .02

Kyle Watkins

SPR

When the 99s were allowed to change the fuel pressures and timing it did bring parity to the class since many were already doing both. The less gray areas the better! Your idea of how to use the whistler also makes a lot of sense. It would be easy, cost effective, and fair to everyone. 

[RussMcB]

Who is 'High Chair'?

[Craig Berry]

[quote name="Mark Drennan" post="66133" timestamp="1412053823"]Pretty sure tech at the Runoffs and West NASA Championships are gonna go something like this...
https://www.youtube....h?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
 
Kidding aside, I think it's great that this is coming to light and absolutely support reigning in compression ratio compliance from our motor suppliers.  I'm just a driver.  I pay (and trust) people to supply and prepare my equipment and I tell them it needs to be compliant.  I don't want anyone to have an unfair advantage...and that includes me.
 
After recently hearing about the whistler/valve-cover issue, I've had to spend the extra $ to make sure the motors for my cars were cc'd/compliant.  I'm confident they will all whistle with the valve covers off and cc correctly.  The last thing I want is to get DQ'd unintentionally.  Been there, done that. 
 
But let me also say this as we approach these witch-hunts...
 

It's always been the case since I started racing karts, if someone is faster than you, they must be cheating.  It certainly couldn't be that they were running stickers when you were on old tires.  Also couldn't be that their car was dialed in from the extra day(s) of testing you skipped and that you've been struggling with your setup.  And even if they were as talented as you are (which is ridiculous to even think), the fact that they have a ton more laps at the track than you do couldn't have anything to do with it.  Nah, couldn't be any of those things....or could it?
 
Sincerely,
Mark (hope I weight more than a duck) Drennan[/


Well said Mark. I am in the same boat with you. Besides driving, they do let me carry things and clean the windshield. I know many of us, including my self, have been racing for a long time, and chose this class because of the tough competition and how close car performance is. I think even the most competitive of us can handle getting beat, we just want to have confidence that we got beat by a legal car.

[High Chair]

Who is 'High Chair'?

What are you a Newbie!!! I am the one and only High Chair, Knuckles, Midget, Short Round, and Von Cs little brother. I'm an ARRC Champion, SARRC Champion, Beer Pong Champ, and the occasional thorn in Drago's side. I use to post here often until I got a life. But now I am coming out of retirement to cure the evils of high compression ratios.

[LarryKing]

Could it be that the '99s are now simply obsolete and anyone who wishes to be competitive must buy a VVT car?

 

- says the 1.6 driver who has felt this disparity for, oh, six or seven years.

[High Chair]

Could it be that the '99s are now simply obsolete and anyone who wishes to be competitive must buy a VVT car?

 

- says the 1.6 driver who has felt this disparity for, oh, six or seven years.

I don't think so! Most top 99s and VVT cars seem to be very close and as of now most races are still won by 99s. The 99s and VVT cars are a lot closer than a 1.6 and 99 thats for sure. However, I do believe the 1.6 is no longer competitive at the National level and should be raced in a separate class along side the other SMs but that is a different argument for a different thread. Even if the VVT cars get stronger I think it will be pretty easy to keep parity with a 99 in the long run.

[Dan Tiley]

After gathering the information available from multiple sources it seems to me at least that Dan built his engines to the whistler. Lets face it, we have all pushed the envelope further than we should have at one time. 

 

Guys... I don't think it's fair to single out Ti-Speed in this as we were the first 2 engines tested to the new procedure.  I accept responsibility for having built engines to the only tool that has ever been used to check compression on a Miata by a tech official, following the exact written SCCA procedure released on 7/2009 and unchanged until last month.  We have had dozens of engines whistled in tech time and time again, following the same procedure, and were always found compliant.  In the 13 or 14 year history of the class, I've only heard of 1 cc test over 5 years ago, and the result was nowhere near correct.  Please remember that SIX cars were tested from FOUR different engine builders, ALL were over the compression limit, some by lesser margin, and one by a larger margin than my highest.  And yes, even a 10.1 which flickers to 10.2 is a fail when the rule is specified as an "Absolute Maximum" at 10.0.  I may be the only builder stepping up honestly, but I assure you we are not alone.

 

I'm certainly not saying it is right, or acceptable, or that it should be allowed to continue.  All I'm saying is that it was not coincidental that all 6 cars tested failed.    Do you think they found all 6 that were over the limit in the field?  Certainly not.  

 

We will correct all of our engines to properly CC... but note there are literally hundreds of engines out there (not just mine) in the same boat.  I want nothing more than for SM to be successful... Those who know me, know that I am a racer, and have loved racing in SM for nearly 10 years.  I race fairly and compete fairly.  I will continue to do so.  

[High Chair]

Guys... I don't think it's fair to single out Ti-Speed in this as we were the first 2 engines tested to the new procedure.  I accept responsibility for having built engines to the only tool that has ever been used to check compression on a Miata by a tech official, following the exact written SCCA procedure released on 7/2009 and unchanged until last month.  We have had dozens of engines whistled in tech time and time again, following the same procedure, and were always found compliant.  In the 13 or 14 year history of the class, I've only heard of 1 cc test over 5 years ago, and the result was nowhere near correct.  Please remember that SIX cars were tested from FOUR different engine builders, ALL were over the compression limit, some by lesser margin, and one by a larger margin than my highest.  And yes, even a 10.1 which flickers to 10.2 is a fail when the rule is specified as an "Absolute Maximum" at 10.0.  I may be the only builder stepping up honestly, but I assure you we are not alone.

 

I'm certainly not saying it is right, or acceptable, or that it should be allowed to continue.  All I'm saying is that it was not coincidental that all 6 cars tested failed.    Do you think they found all 6 that were over the limit in the field?  Certainly not.  

 

We will correct all of our engines to properly CC... but note there are literally hundreds of engines out there (not just mine) in the same boat.  I want nothing more than for SM to be successful... Those who know me, know that I am a racer, and have loved racing in SM for nearly 10 years.  I race fairly and compete fairly.  I will continue to do so.  

Dan,

Your engines are not the first or last engines to be found ( or in this case alleged) to be non-compliant. Everybody I know speaks highly of you so I have no doubt that you will make good on the fact that your engines will be corrected going forward. At least you came on here to work towards a solution and take the heat; that is a lot more than can be said for a lot of people when things like this happen.  By the way I can't speak for the other 5 cars but I do know that Cory's car only registered a 9.0 with the valve cover on so that would be close to 9.5 (its a 99); which was were it should have been. If a car went over by .1 and flickered to .2 then it would not be compliant but it would be easy for most people to understand. What did Chris's car register? I was told it was WAY over and Dillion's was not far behind. Any truth to that? Sorry if that was already covered but I didn't see it.

[Sean - MiataCage]

I accept responsibility for having built engines to the only tool that has ever been used to check compression on a Miata by a tech official, following the exact written SCCA procedure released on 7/2009 and unchanged until last month.  We have had dozens of engines whistled in tech time and time again, following the same procedure, and were always found compliant.  

 

What about the rule book?  The testing procedure means nothing.  You made an active choice to completely ignore the legal compression numbers in the rule book and go with what you could get away with.

 

 I race fairly and compete fairly.  I will continue to do so.  

 

I have a very hard time with this statement.  You just admitted to violating the rules yet you want us all to know you race and compete fairly.  If motor building doesn't work out, you certainly have a future in politics.

 

In all seriousness..... I get you are not the only one that has and is doing this, but it is my opinion you should have just left your statement at I screwed up and I am fixing it.  Don't tell my you lied to me then say trust me I'm a good guy.  We all make mistakes and I am cool with that.  I hear really good things about you and you are certainly a smart and talented guy and I am sure you didn't mean to help get us into the situation we are currently facing.  You can certainly help get us out of it.

 

I applaud your willingness to come on here and answer most of the accusations.  A lesser man would just keep quite and hope that it all goes away.  

 

Thanks.... Sean

[Jim Drago]

When I won the ARRC my engine came home in a cooler. I was whistled with the valve cover off and blow 9.5/9.6  and still had to remove the head, valves, cams, etc. The engine tech guy then proceeded to do a lot of measuring that was way above my understanding. I was told he checked the compression ratio along with the valve cuts, and other items. According to those that were there the tech at the ARRC was more involved than the runoffs that year. 

As far as this thread is concerned let me just say it seems clear that most of us knew that the Dan's engines produced more power than any other engine out there; what we didn't know was if the engine was compliant. After gathering the information available from multiple sources it seems to me at least that Dan built his engines to the whistler. Lets face it, we have all pushed the envelope further than we should have at one time. Everyone I know has run computers, fuel, etc when it was tech shed legal so we should be careful not to throw the stones too far. The real question is what is the next step. For me it will simply involve protesting the next  Ti-Speed engine I see that appears to have more power than my car. I am not afraid to protest and have successfully done so before. The question is how are we going to check the engines correctly. Personally, I wish we could just write the check and send the engine to Topeka for a complete examination. It would be easier on the local tech guys and it would reduce engine creep significantly. 

 

PS

See Drago!! I am much calmer then I use too be.

 

I know, you usually save your best work for me  

However I do agree with your post.. To some extent many throwing out accusations should be careful most all of us have lived in a glass house at some point and many others know all the weak pains to aim at.   Your post is spot on, the who's and whats are not all that important. The problem in and of itself is not that colossal of a deal,  but none the less needs to be addressed.  It will be addressed, fast forward to January , this will no longer be an issue IMO.

[Dan Tiley]

What about the rule book?  The testing procedure means nothing.  You made an active choice to completely ignore the legal compression numbers in the rule book and go with what you could get away with.

 

 

Sean, again... I'm not making excuses.  Where in the GCR does is say what tool must be used to measure CR, or Bore, or Stroke, or the weight of your flywheel?  I can't find it.  The fact is that the Whistler is what has been the standard for CR.  Nobody can dispute that fact.  There is a very specific written procedure on how to use it in the SCCA tech procedures.  I followed the procedure exactly.

 

I'll hold off on my bid for SCCA President until Whistlegate passes

[Mike Collins]

The rule book has a rule.  The enforcers of the rule book have a tool to enforce the rule.  The competitors build to the tool that enforces the rule.  This is the way it has been and always will be.  We race machines, part of the sport is finding a mechanical advantage (ideally legal).  That may be with set up, propulsion, drag etc...

 

When the rule makers learn the tool they are using is not effective the rule changes.  In our specific fiefdom its happened with ECU's, valve relief cuts, coating etc...

 

This is very cyclical, it's happening now, its going to happen again.  

 

But as others have said we have very few (VERY FEW) skilled individuals that can actually use the tools correctly. We have even fewer who can actually cc a car accurately and repeatably.

 

If my car were to get Whistled, I'd video tape the test, protest the result, I've almost never seen it done per the procedure.  I'd insist on getting CC'd if the car was found over and then video that procedure as well....if they had the tools and could even find someone to do it.

 

There are smart people in the club.  We need to take advantage of that and write better rules.  The SMAC has worked towards that goal for years.

 

There is no rule in the rule book that says one competitor is not allowed to be smarter than another...that is why we are constantly evolving.  Evolve or parish...

[5X Racing]

Wow, now I remember why I forced myself to stop visiting this site, cause I just spent hours reading this when I am supposed to be working! So counter-productive to life, but oh so interesting! 

 

There's been so many good points made here, especially what Kyle said. The only thing I want to add - and actually reinforce, as others have already said it - is the fact that we might be expecting a little too much from the governing bodies volunteer tech teams in some of these cases, and need to look at what can be realistically accomplished within the time frame given, environment, tools needed, manpower needed, and knowledge needed to perform a task such as cc'ing a head. Having been on the other side of the fence by volunteering to be the SM Series/Tech Director at the NASA East Championships, I now realize what it takes to be a part of this team and process. It's not fun people! I'd much rather have been racing with you all and cursing the tech team for having you pull shocks on Saturday night instead of being the one that was the subject of the cursing! Then times that by the 3 days I had to do it!

 

While the solutions might come easy armchairing it from a PC on here, the reality of it all is quite different when you get down in the trenches. The tech team is usually stretched so thin and so overworked (because who the hell want's to go hang out at a racetrack all weekend, NOT race, then work for free on top of it?!) that cc'ing a head might not be a realistic thing to do as easy as some might think it is. There's also special variables that come into play when cc'ing a head in a tech shed like Dan said that could cause gray area variables and skewed results just the same as with a Whistler machine. If there's an easier way to get a result, it should be embraced, cause I can see our quest for righting this compression ratio issue reaching a dead-end if it finalizes on an unrealistic process needed from the tech team involved in finding out.

 

I'm not an expert in anything - especially a Whistler machine - but if we can figure out a way to make it work for our application, make it the standard method of tech shed testing compression ratio and rely on it, that's going to be key to enforcing anything beyond having to do mass protests like Cliff said. Also, let's not forget about the roots of both organizations which is regional level racing, where the majority of the entry fees come from. If we can perform easy compression tests at regional races with a Whistler (or whatever), that's a huge bonus as it will help solve this problem from the bottom up. I can safely say that our tech team in NASA FL can perform a Whistler test, but I would have to imagine they'd quit that volunteer position on the spot if presented with the opportunity to devote 10 hours of being in the Florida sun, missing the race they're there for to begin with, watching someone tear down their engine, and then trying to accurately cc they're head. When they quit from that, we don't have any tech at that point. Point is, it's not realistic, and we need a realistic solution, whatever it may be. I hope we can figure out something for next year that is accessible and easy enough for the average tech shed to perform. 

[HoneyBadger - BrianW]

There is a lot of talk about cc'ing engines. I don't see anyway that is reasonable to do during the race weekend. I am pretty experienced at wrenching on these cars, and I don't think I could get reliable cc numbers at the track. The environment is just not conducive to that detailed a procedure. If the engine needs to be cc'd its likely going to have to get boxed up and sent off.

 

It seems as if everyone is in agreement that if the cylinders are whistled with the valve cover off, we are going to get reliable numbers that are very close to the cc numbers. It seems that a simple SM specific procedure change can stop the issues we are seeing with building to the test and not the spec.