856 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

MPR22, the rules allow a plunge cut and give max diameter and depth from the center of the valve stem. 

 

Nobody cares what the tool looks like to achieve the cut.  Any work outside of that diameter or below the max depth isn't allowed, period.

 

The rules are clear, some chose to ignore them.

 

 

Ken since you seem to know about this and are behind it can you please answer for me can a head have a fresh plunge cut put on it without removing any material at all from this this short side radius whatever that is???

 

I cannot beleive that any machine shop has the ability to do a new plung cut to each valve without ever removing any material, there are to many variables in drilling any holes no matter what piece of machineray is used to do so there is always an allowable varience.  

[Charlie Hayes]

Well that was a long week.

 

I am one of the younger guys in this class who is funding this by the hard work I do. I work at TFB and I have helped build what we have today over the past 3.5 years with my boss and friend Tim Barber. We have always out sourced engines because of the expense it is to have a machine shop and run a machine shop. We never have asked for anything grey or over the edge. I personally am a guy who is always willing to show and or help fix anything that is non compliant because that is not how I roll or Tim for that matter.

 

I was so confident with what my engine builder sold me and now our customers, that I was bragging to be the first one with a head off to show everyone we have the correct stuff and its all good to go. This is going off of someones word and yes you should check everything going into your own car but if you are buying a $6500+ complete long block from oil pan to valve cover with a sticker on top why would you tear it apart to check blatant issues? Those would never be in there I said to myself and our customers because that is what I was told.

 

I did win the head off contest. I did it to the #88 car which was my 2013 SM and I did it to my personal #22 car. I had a lot of bad engine luck leading to the runoffs which had me with no engine in my car Thursday 10/2/14. The head sent to me to put on a block sent to me the day before was actually another engine builders piece with a part that we did not like taken out of it. The end of the plunge cut was blended and we do not like seeing that as it says the cut shall not be blended by machine, hand or chemicals. That was fixed and I was told no other issues with the head so run it. Once again going off trust I bolted it up and got the car on track at Sonoma Raceway Friday 10/3/14 when the car was supposed to be in Monterey waiting in line to get in the paddock. 

 

The #88 car had a fresh engine from top to bottom installed before the SCCA test day on 9/28/14 and we used that day to break it in and make sure we were good to go. Once again a confident 100% legal engine that I was told we installed. 

 

On Friday after the lapping session we begin the tech process with 9 cars, 6 from the top 6 and 3 outcasts. It took until Saturday to determine that all but the #88 failed the protest. I was in the room looking at both the #88 head and my #22 head and yes there was a difference and yes my grandma could notice it. This started the entire appeal process which was not set in stone until about 6pm on Sunday. 

 

We held off tearing the #88 for as long as we could because we did not want to ruin a car if things were overturned. It was about 12 noon on Sunday when John Bauer told us to do it now. We pulled the trans, diff, LF/RR shock, CC'ed, pulled the block to remove 2 pistons/rods, and crank. Which then by 2pm failed the go no go tool on the exhaust relief cut. At this point standing in that 15x8 1 door horrible lit box I felt like I was not living.

 

I have put so much time, effort, and money in to this and I failed by putting trust into someone else handling my stuff. When I set up my car, I don't say 49.9 is ok when I want 50.3, I don't finger tight bolts and say "oh that should be good." I don't bend spindles even if it kills tires because it says you CANT. I raced the Runoffs with 2.2* camber in the front. I did race the Runoffs with an unwillingly illegal cut head though.

[Terrell Garrett]

Unfortunately, typical human behavior when wrong is to attack the accuser to deflect and attempt to avoid answering for one's own bad actions.

 

I do understand and appreciate that many of us (including me) don't know diddly squat about these engines and therefore rely upon our builder to supply us with legal equipment.  However, the rules don't say we are supposed to rely upon our engine builder to make us a legal engine.  They say THE DRIVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING A LEGAL ENGINE.  If I was found to have one of those illegal engines and had told the builder to keep it legal I would be pretty pissed at this point and would be asking for some kind of recompense.  As far as my taxes my rule with the accountant is similar to my rule with my engine builder.  It has to pass audit/tear down.  If I am ever found in violation due to my own error or stupid decision the buck stops with me and I stand for it by myself (and have done so many times).  If the reason for my being found in violation is the failure of my professionals I still must stand for it as the buck still stops with me.  Granted, what happens next between myself and those professionals does not tend to be nice or friendly.  If the drivers whose engines were found to be illegal thought they had legal engines, they need to man up, state it was not their intent to have incorrect equipment and apologize for their error, renouncing any and all accomplishments made with that engine.  Then they can take their engine builder behind the woodshed and get to work.  If they thought their equipment was illegal they just need to quietly slink off into the slime from which they came.

 

As far as 95% of the engines being illegal I really doubt it.  The sample taken was from one extreme end of the SM group and does not consider mid-pack nor back-pack racers who run more average motors.  The rule is the rule and any concept of changing it to reward those who didn't follow the rules is just wrong.  Let them work out the costs of getting legal with their engine builders. 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Unfortunately, typical human behavior when wrong is to attack the accuser to deflect and attempt to avoid answering for one's own bad actions.

 

I do understand and appreciate that many of us (including me) don't know diddly squat about these engines and therefore rely upon our builder to supply us with legal equipment.  However, the rules don't say we are supposed to rely upon our engine builder to make us a legal engine.  They say THE DRIVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING A LEGAL ENGINE.  If I was found to have one of those illegal engines and had told the builder to keep it legal I would be pretty pissed at this point and would be asking for some kind of recompense.  As far as my taxes my rule with the accountant is similar to my rule with my engine builder.  It has to pass audit/tear down.  If I am ever found in violation due to my own error or stupid decision the buck stops with me and I stand for it by myself (and have done so many times).  If the reason for my being found in violation is the failure of my professionals I still must stand for it as the buck still stops with me.  Granted, what happens next between myself and those professionals does not tend to be nice or friendly.  If the drivers whose engines were found to be illegal thought they had legal engines, they need to man up, state it was not their intent to have incorrect equipment and apologize for their error, renouncing any and all accomplishments made with that engine.  Then they can take their engine builder behind the woodshed and get to work.  If they thought their equipment was illegal they just need to quietly slink off into the slime from which they came.

 

As far as 95% of the engines being illegal I really doubt it.  The sample taken was from one extreme end of the SM group and does not consider mid-pack nor back-pack racers who run more average motors.  The rule is the rule and any concept of changing it to reward those who didn't follow the rules is just wrong.  Let them work out the costs of getting legal with their engine builders. 

 

 

I take you think I am attackng you...  I am meerly pointing out we all have our own belief about our level of morality and we all feel ours is higher then anyone elses.  My point still stands we all do little things in life call them short cuts whatever you want but when someone else is doing something we arent doing we are all pissed that they are doing it no matter what things we are doing ourselves.  

 

Nobody here is perfect in this regard not you not any of the protesters and certainly not ME!  Mid pack guys buy alot of pro motors so tear some of those guys down at the next race and you can prove me wrong.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I still want to know if you can do a new plung cut without removing any material for the short side radius???????  I want that answered!!!!!  

[Terrell Garrett]

Charlie,

 

You are a man and should be respected for what you have said.

[Bruce Wilson]

I can understand why the COA would say there is a need for clarification based on wording in the appeal, but having seen the modification, I would agree with all the comments that there is no need for clarification.  Photos are really needed to support any argument to the contrary.

[Bench Racer]

I still want to know if you can do a new plung cut without removing any material for the short side radius???????  I want that answered!!!!!  

You would need to measure the diameter of the OEM plunge cut in one of your existing heads. Ya got ta have one on the bench. You could do a new plunge cut without removing material from the short turn radius if the OEM plunge cut was larger than SCCA allowed plunge cut diameter of 1.178 inches. Some posts back (page 18, post #342) I posted a picture visually showing the plunge cut oppposite the short turn radius.

Hope this helps.

 

ps:

I'm not the sharpest tool in the rack, but reading all this stuff tells me there are others much duller in the tool rack. As I read the plunge and shroud rules, there very clear. How about some of you so bussy attempting to save your heads and engine builders a$$ tell me why post # 342 0n page 18 would not provide a 100% legal plunge cut. We would need to use the same/similar plunge cut tool as Mazda and most likely no smoothing/shaping/deburring would be required after the plunge cut as per the minimal OEM cuts (and others have stated) I've looked had zero smoothing/shaping/deburring. Hey, I don't dislike anyone, this is technical.

 

Now out to finish prep on the car.

 

[zoomzoom22]

I can understand why the COA would say there is a need for clarification based on wording in the appeal  

 

This is an important point.  The COA didn't say fix the rule it is dumb or wrong.  I for one think it is standup and respectful what some of the guys are posting here in hindsight.  Also I'm happy to see that nobody was HOMERED or shown bias by the officials at the runoffs one way or the other.  While funny for other reasons, even the president s message in the press release seems to point out a cleanup was in order.

[Mark Lenney]

I still want to know if you can do a new plung cut without removing any material for the short side radius???????  I want that answered!!!!!  

 

The rule allows the modification as far as the allowed new plunge cut, and no more

 

4. No aluminum in the bowl area (other than that specified

for the plunge cut) or the ports may be removed, added,

or manipulated for any reason. It is understood that

heads may look slightly different from bowl to bowl due

to casting irregularities. No material may be removed or

added from the short turn radius in the port.

[Craig Berry]

[quote name="Terrell Garrett" post="66945" timestamp="1413221422"]Unfortunately, typical human behavior when wrong is to attack the accuser to deflect and attempt to avoid answering for one's own bad actions.
 
I do understand and appreciate that many of us (including me) don't know diddly squat about these engines and therefore rely upon our builder to supply us with legal equipment.  However, the rules don't say we are supposed to rely upon our engine builder to make us a legal engine.  They say THE DRIVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING A LEGAL ENGINE.  If I was found to have one of those illegal engines and had told the builder to keep it legal I would be pretty pissed at this point and would be asking for some kind of recompense.  As far as my taxes my rule with the accountant is similar to my rule with my engine builder.  It has to pass audit/tear down.  If I am ever found in violation due to my own error or stupid decision the buck stops with me and I stand for it by myself (and have done so many times).  If the reason for my being found in violation is the failure of my professionals I still must stand for it as the buck still stops with me.  Granted, what happens next between myself and those professionals does not tend to be nice or friendly.  If the drivers whose engines were found to be illegal thought they had legal engines, they need to man up, state it was not their intent to have incorrect equipment and apologize for their error, renouncing any and all accomplishments made with that engine.  Then they can take their engine builder behind the woodshed and get to work.  If they thought their equipment was illegal they just need to quietly slink off into the slime from which they came.
 
As far as 95% of the engines being illegal I really doubt it.  The sample taken was from one extreme end of the SM group and does not consider mid-pack nor back-pack racers who run more average motors.  The rule is the rule and any concept of changing it to reward those who didn't follow the rules is just wrong.  Let them work out the costs of getting legal with their engine builders.
[/

Terrell, you are spot on with many of your comments. I take full responsibility for my car and blame no one but myself. I will say I was overconfident, being that I have been torn down many times and we knew tech was going to be tough, so we took time to double check everything......we were just wrong. I may not be on your level of intelligence, but I can assure you I am not dumb enough to take a cheated car to any race, because I always expect to be torn down.
How do we know how many cars would have passed?? It is easy for those not involved to say their car would have, heck, I would have said the same thing 2 days ago, but how do we really know. (AND NO, I AM NOT SAYING that makes it right), just posing the question. We dont know. Pointy end of the field really means little, one can cheat and get DFL. I may be the only one, but I personally know of many back markers who remove the plate for a race....no one cares because the are back markers.
I may be wrong but if someone thinks that this cheated head is going to move some drivers to the back and others up I think they are mistaken. My advice to a mid pack friend of mine was to not focus on the head and focus on his driving if he wanted to get to the front.
Tyler, I agree with your comments earlier and will be glad to share data. If I am ever faster PLEASE feel free to come over an I will be more than happy to share and help.
Many mistakes were made, but knowing the people involved, I will never be convinced that they were out to cheat everyone......but we are all entitled to our opinion.

[Parity]

 

We would need to use the same/similar plunge cut tool as Mazda and most likely no smoothing/shaping/deburring would be required after the plunge cut as per the minimal OEM cuts (and others have stated) I've looked had zero smoothing/shaping/deburring

 

Using the same or similar tool as OEM is unlikely. It's a different process. Form tools tend to create more burrs which will worsen as the tool dulls. An interrupted cut in a casting is also an issue. Using a ball or bull nose mill and sweeping the surface gives much betters results with limited burrs. 

[mhiggins10]

You would need to measure the diameter of the OEM plunge cut in one of your existing heads. Ya got ta have one on the bench. You could do a new plunge cut without removing material from the short turn radius if the OEM plunge cut was larger than SCCA allowed plunge cut diameter of 1.178 inches. Some posts back (page 18, post #342) I posted a picture visually showing the plunge cut oppposite the short turn radius.

Hope this helps.

 

ps:

I'm not the sharpest tool in the rack, but reading all this stuff tells me there are others much duller in the tool rack. As I read the plunge and shroud rules, there very clear. How about some of you so bussy attempting to save your heads and engine builders a$$ tell me why post # 342 0n page 18 would not provide a 100% legal plunge cut. We would need to use the same/similar plunge cut tool as Mazda and most likely no smoothing/shaping/deburring would be required after the plunge cut as per the minimal OEM cuts (and others have stated) I've looked had zero smoothing/shaping/deburring. Hey, I don't dislike anyone, this is technical.

 

Now out to finish prep on the car.

I don't see any picture in that post.  Is it just me?

[mvzante]

 Using a ball or bull nose mill and sweeping the surface gives much betters results with limited burrs. 

 

As shown in the picture at the top of page 21.  If you can't radius it after the first cut put the radius in the first cut to give you the best result possible without removing material from the short turn radius.  That's the thought there correct?

[pat slattery]

[quote name="Terrell Garrett" post="66945" timestamp="1413221422"]Unfortunately, typical human behavior when wrong is to attack the accuser to deflect and attempt to avoid answering for one's own bad actions.
 
I do understand and appreciate that many of us (including me) don't know diddly squat about these engines and therefore rely upon our builder to supply us with legal equipment.  However, the rules don't say we are supposed to rely upon our engine builder to make us a legal engine.  They say THE DRIVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING A LEGAL ENGINE.  If I was found to have one of those illegal engines and had told the builder to keep it legal I would be pretty pissed at this point and would be asking for some kind of recompense.  As far as my taxes my rule with the accountant is similar to my rule with my engine builder.  It has to pass audit/tear down.  If I am ever found in violation due to my own error or stupid decision the buck stops with me and I stand for it by myself (and have done so many times).  If the reason for my being found in violation is the failure of my professionals I still must stand for it as the buck still stops with me.  Granted, what happens next between myself and those professionals does not tend to be nice or friendly.  If the drivers whose engines were found to be illegal thought they had legal engines, they need to man up, state it was not their intent to have incorrect equipment and apologize for their error, renouncing any and all accomplishments made with that engine.  Then they can take their engine builder behind the woodshed and get to work.  If they thought their equipment was illegal they just need to quietly slink off into the slime from which they came.
 
As far as 95% of the engines being illegal I really doubt it.  The sample taken was from one extreme end of the SM group and does not consider mid-pack nor back-pack racers who run more average motors.  The rule is the rule and any concept of changing it to reward those who didn't follow the rules is just wrong.  Let them work out the costs of getting legal with their engine builders.
[/

Terrell, you are spot on with many of your comments. I take full responsibility for my car and blame no one but myself. I will say I was overconfident, being that I have been torn down many times and we knew tech was going to be tough, so we took time to double check everything......we were just wrong. I may not be on your level of intelligence, but I can assure you I am not dumb enough to take a cheated car to any race, because I always expect to be torn down.
How do we know how many cars would have passed?? It is easy for those not involved to say their car would have, heck, I would have said the same thing 2 days ago, but how do we really know. (AND NO, I AM NOT SAYING that makes it right), just posing the question. We dont know. Pointy end of the field really means little, one can cheat and get DFL. I may be the only one, but I personally know of many back markers who remove the plate for a race....no one cares because the are back markers.
I may be wrong but if someone thinks that this cheated head is going to move some drivers to the back and others up I think they are mistaken. My advice to a mid pack friend of mine was to not focus on the head and focus on his driving if he wanted to get to the front.
Tyler, I agree with your comments earlier and will be glad to share data. If I am ever faster PLEASE feel free to come over an I will be more than happy to share and help.
Many mistakes were made, but knowing the people involved, I will never be convinced that they were out to cheat everyone......but we are all entitled to our opinion.

Nicely said Craig

[Bench Racer]

Using the same or similar tool as OEM is unlikely. It's a different process. Form tools tend to create more burrs which will worsen as the tool dulls. An interrupted cut in a casting is also an issue. Using a ball or bull nose mill and sweeping the surface gives much betters results with limited burrs. 

Paul, no disrespect. I'm would believe Mazda completes a whole lot more plunge cuts with their form tool before sharpening or new cutter than any SM engine builder. It seems like one hell of a good place to start eliminating stuff that needs a second process after the plunge cut. Again when I view OEM heads I see no second process elimination of anything. Please keep in mind one shall steer clear of the plunge cut surface of the short turn radius. Can't cause a lot of hurt to have mazda inquire as they are a very large part of this game.

 

EDIT:

Just looked a minimual number of OEM plunge cuts and their very smooth.

 

I don't see any picture in that post.  Is it just me?

When I open page 18 post #342 I see the picture. The picture is from the days of the 9mm depth cut and shows the plunge cut 180* opposite the short turn radius.

[Parity]

Bench,

 

Typing this as I do my best Rodney Dangerfield impersonation...If Mazda (more likely tier 1 supplier) is using form tools, they have a tool control programs in place identifying exact tooling requirements, tool life management, etc. Forms are routinely made and inspected say via Optical Comparators for this type process. Most likely it would be a different process at the aftermarket shops machining this feature now. The picture on page 18 shows concentric machining marks which are more typical of sweeping the surface. This is the more common machining practice today. The machining process initiated in 1990 by the OEM may very likely be different than what they are doing today. The process of deburing is usually left to the machining supplier to determine. Typically the most cost effective process is employed.

 

The question here is not the OEM process but the SCCA rule which I assume is designed to prevent gains from porting or improving flow when compared to OEM procedure. It's very possible if I was machining these heads as an OEM today I would machine it as a sweep and break edges because Mazda does not prohibit it.

My thought would be to steer the process toward current best practices and validating that. 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

You would need to measure the diameter of the OEM plunge cut in one of your existing heads. Ya got ta have one on the bench. You could do a new plunge cut without removing material from the short turn radius if the OEM plunge cut was larger than SCCA allowed plunge cut diameter of 1.178 inches. Some posts back (page 18, post #342) I posted a picture visually showing the plunge cut oppposite the short turn radius.

Hope this helps.

 

ps:

I'm not the sharpest tool in the rack, but reading all this stuff tells me there are others much duller in the tool rack. As I read the plunge and shroud rules, there very clear. How about some of you so bussy attempting to save your heads and engine builders a$$ tell me why post # 342 0n page 18 would not provide a 100% legal plunge cut. We would need to use the same/similar plunge cut tool as Mazda and most likely no smoothing/shaping/deburring would be required after the plunge cut as per the minimal OEM cuts (and others have stated) I've looked had zero smoothing/shaping/deburring. Hey, I don't dislike anyone, this is technical.

 

Now out to finish prep on the car.

 

Are you saying without any doubt that a new plung cut can be done without taking even the slightest material form the short side radius?  I have a hard time beleive that but maybe you can assure me to the degree neccessary.

 

I am not trying to save anyones ass... My engine builder has already admitted what he has done as well as taken full responsibility.  I am responsible for what is in my car ultimatly but I have no plans to tear any engine I buy down to be certain...  

 

I would like someone who does this type of work for a profession that can be checked to be a legit person to come on here and answer this question!

 

I believe we are barking up the wrong tree!  I believe any head that has been re plung cut is now illegal just as much so as one that is deburred.  Doing away with the allowance to plung cut solves all problems end of story!

 

Now I am just a simple man so I may be unfounded in my beliefs, that is why I have continued to ask this same question over and over and those that are all spun up about this seem to be declining to answer this question...

[Steve D]

Like Jason Holland, I am retired so I really don't have a dog in this fight.  At least you know I am not a shill for one guy or another.  

 

I don't have the background in machining heads to know what standard practices are, what should be allowed, etc.  Kudos to Will for protesting.

 

I know Jim Drago to be someone who has devoted a TON of time serving in the SCCA structure and on a personal level I like Jim.  I would ask those who think he serves in SCCA in order to further some nefarious goal to take a deep breath.  I'd compare it to our political system.  Don't make the costs of serving so high that nobody qualified will serve!!

 

Some engine builders thought the grey area existed.  It was determined that it didn't.  SM is a great class and with a few needed changes to the rules it will survive. 

[Bruce Wilson]

 

I was in the room looking at both the #88 head and my #22 head and yes there was a difference and yes my grandma could notice it. 

 

Quote of the day