856 replies to this topic

[James York]

Is there more to this story? There are posts being edited and JDaniels post is gone now as well.
So who was declared the winner etc.? I keep seeing the ninjas in and out listed at the bottom of this thread.

 

No one yet on the SCCA website.  Results are still listed provisional.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Steve, I see that you like to answer back on a lot of diff. Post so my question to you is !

What is your solution to the problem at hand ?

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Once upon a at time the class did pay extra for exactly that. Vocal people didn't think they got much for it. Not sure when that ended, but I do know many front runners complain about constant teardowns and what that does to their schedule getting away from the track and cost to reassemble. All good points, no easy answers.

I remember when we paid the extra money,but I don't feel that we got our money's worth. Hell there was one National I won and all they wanted to check in tech was my socks,really ?

Now all tracks weren't that bad just a couple. I just don't think they wanted to spend that kind time checking all the cars unless someone complained.

[ECOBRAP]

Once upon a at time the class did pay extra for exactly that. Vocal people didn't think they got much for it. Not sure when that ended, but I do know many front runners complain about constant teardowns and what that does to their schedule getting away from the track and cost to reassemble. All good points, no easy answers.

 

The Spec E30 class in NASA Norcal has the top four get dyno'd after every race, which seems like a decent solution? People typically don't complain and are able to get home far more quickly than a teardown. The only cons I am aware of with this method are:

 

1. Dyno machines vary, and results vary with temperature/humidity etc. Would suck to be compliant on your local dyno but not when tech'd at the track.

2. Peak HP/TQ numbers don't mean much compared to the whole rpm range, and it's hard to set restrictions on a curve compared to max values.

3. Dyno jams while rear wheels are turning at 105mph and car launches into outer space 

 

Jokes aside, I feel that 1 and 2 have obvious solutions, so I am sure there are more reasons for this not being a widely adopted technique?

[Jim Drago]

I will let you guys start with me

 

I want to congratulate Mark Drennan, despite the final results, we all know who won on track and who deserved the title of National Champion and it was Mark. I feel for him as he is a good guy and deserved this one. The top six cars were all either set to the back or DQ'ed. The cars involved in the protest were sent to the back. Unfortunately the 88 car had one exhaust relief cut found non compliant. So it appears the seventh place finisher will move to position 1? That would be Erik Stearns. I can't speak for him, but I am sure this is not that way he wanted to “win” either.

 

 

My two customers involved in the protest, Craig Berry and Tyler Kicera. Both have no idea what the inside of their engines look like and all they have ever asked for is the best legal power that I could provide, that is what I felt I provided them. Both are stand up guys. Any ill will in their direction should be focused at me and only me. My apologies to both for getting them into this situation, it certainly was never my intention. 

 

Much has been said about Will. I don’t know Will all that well, but from what I do know, he is a stand up guy. He helped us with our Laguna exhaust and my interactions with him have all been very positive. I have no issue with Will for filing this protest, it is well within his rights and I genuinely feel that Will felt he was at a disadvantage and others were exploiting a rule that he felt was clear and a line he would not cross. I went up to him immediately after receiving the protest and said no hard feeling at all. After the protest, A crew member had some words with Will that were not appropriate at all. That did not reflect my position or opinion. I have apologized to Will privately and again here publicly. As always, I invite anyone to look at my car at anytime, so the protest was not something I would not have done if asked anyway.

 

 

As far as my position on all of this... I value my word and reputation above all else. I have no interest in running a non compliant car, ZERO. This issue was raised to me by a mutual friend last week. This was the second mention, so I decided to look at my stuff very close. So much so that on Saturday, I removed the heads from our cars, loaded them in our rental car and disassembled and inspected them in the kitchen of our rented house. All the intake valves were pulled out of the heads and this area inspected VERY close. We spent about 16 hours doing this from start to finish. I felt(still feel) we were compliant to the rule(3)as it is contradictory to (4). Admittedly pushed, but within what I felt was compliant or I simply would not have done it. I also had two new heads next day aired Friday in case we saw something “wrong” in any of the heads, we could change on Monday. I saw nothing that concerned me, so we ran the heads we came with. Not something we thought wouldn't be seen as it wasn't hidden and probably could have been if that was the intention. The COA disagrees with me and that is the final word and what we must abide by that decision. Ironically, for those concerned. When handed the final decision from the COA, we were told, ”We feel the rules are need to be addressed, we feel the heads in question are what most are running and we have asked the CRB to clarify the rules in such that these heads are all compliant for 2015”. So what is non compliant today, will be compliant in a few months. Not my doing, not CRB, not SMAC but coming right from the highest court of the SCCA.

 

In order to be completely transparent, I am pasting the appeal that was handed in on all of our behalf’s as all were written up for the same modification. There is a lot there admittedly, we were trying to win our case. My personal opinion is this.. How do you allow a plunge cut, then not allow to remove or radius the flashing? What is the definition of a plunge cut? Does it have to be round? Or better yet.. For ANYONE who has plunge cut your head to the current spec or close.. How did you do so without removing material from the short side radius? The answer is, you didn’t, it is impossible.. so put your cheater hat on and join us... You just violated the same rule we were protested for.

 

Good night, I am getting on a red eye shortly..

Jim

 

 

 

The appeal...

It is clear that this protest was specifically written against a rule which is unclear and can be interpreted in more than one manner. Based on the data from 9 cars inspected at the 2014 Runoffs, 89% of the competitors and/or engine builders constructed engines with the same interpretation of the rule which the Technical Inspected deemed non-compliant. The 8 cars affected by this judgement base their claim on the following points:

 

1. The protest and findings of the first court are based solely on rule: 9.1.7.1 F 4, as this was the specific rule cited in the protest. However it is our position that you can't perform the actions permitted in Item 3 without violating the rule constraints in Item 4, thus making the two contradictory. The two rules are listed below.

 

 

3. The throat area of the port consists of the 90 degree angle at the very bottom of the cast steel valve seat as it transitions to the aluminum casting below. It is permitted to plunge cut the throats in order to correct for core shift that is commonly found in many cylinder heads. This cut cannot extend further than the specified number below from the bottom of the ferrous valve seat. There can be no tooling or machine marks in the head below this point. The area under the seat where the plunge cut ends and the casting resumes cannot be blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition. The 90 degree bend at the bottom of the valve seat and the aluminum directly below it will be measured with a gauge and must conform to the maximum diameters and depths listed below.

 

Maximum Intake Maximum Throat

Throat Diameter Depth

1.178in 12mm

 

 

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.

 

 

In rule “3” builders are specifically allowed to plunge cut the heads to allow for the correction of core shift. There is no definition of “plunge” or 'plunge cut” in the GCR. There is no procedure spelled out in rule “3” or for the plunge cut. The plunge cut is solely defined as a cut that does not extend more than 12 mm below the valve seat and no wider than 1.178”, with no tool marks evident below 12 mm. It is VERY important to state that NONE of the competitors protested violated this rule in any way. The rule does not say “how” to do this plunge procedure or what tools may be used. The rule does not specify the “plunge” procedure to be in one step or many, one tool or many. Builders are free to do whatever they wish within the specified dimensions. It does not say you must use cutter “x: with a specified “x” degree radius or no radius at all. Reading “3” and the complete SM ruleset, a competitor will be 100% compliant if they chose to do the entire plunge cut by hand with a porting tool, Dremel or even a pocket knife as long as they stayed within these dimensions. Literally any manner of removing the material would be compliant. The profile of the cut is also unrestricted by the rule, so a multiple step procedure with multiple tools, a radius cut, a straight cut, an elliptical cut and anything else you could think of would be compliant as long as it was within the specified diameter and not to exceed 12 mm in depth. Again, none of the heads violated this rule.

 

Even using the strictest interpretation of “3”, If a machinist were to use a straight cutter and machine a cut straight down on the same plane(which is also not specified by the rule) as the factory Mazda plunge cut, material is being removed the short turn radius. By definition, this directly contradicts and violates “4” as “4” CLEARLY states and what we are being found in violation.

 

“ No material may be removed or added from the short turn radius in the port”

 

Any larger bored hole definitely removes material from the short side radius, as it is impossible not to do so. This is extremely important to state as this point alone makes EVERY cylinder head ever built for competition SM non-compliant.

 

 

2. Regardless of the definition of a “plunge cut”, we feel it is agreed that if we are permitted a cut, it is understood that standard machining practices are to clean and deburr the flashing left at the bottom of the plunge cut by the tool as the flashing and burrs would be ingested into the engine. Again, there are many accepted ways to do this. A machinist’s scraper, a rotary file, a cartridge roll. etc. These tool marks may or may not be evident at the end of the plunge cut, most are not hidden as none felt this is in violation of the rule as it is WELL within the specified 12 mm. The rule is so poorly written, at the core, it can be interpreted that anything within the stated depth and diameter is compliant. This is important to note as ALL the protested competitors are WELL within this 12 mm dimension. This de-flashing operation found on all 8 heads is actually contained within about 3mm of the plunge cut.

 

3. It should be noted that the top three finishers all passed an extremely thorough and invasive post-race engine teardown to the crankshaft, along with a transmission and differential teardown. Even with heads on an inspection stand, and valves removed, it took 7 inspectors over 5 hours to make the subjective determination that the cuts and deburring operation did not conform to Rule “4” based solely on visual inspection. Conflicting Rule “3” was not taken into account as it was not specifically cited in the protest.

 

4. In considering our appeal, those involved feel it is very important to consider the fallout and possible damage this decision will do to the largest and most successful class in the SCCA. Many competitors are now staying away at regionals for fear of protests for compression (last month’s scandal) The class does not need another reason to stay home. If the decision of the first court stands, Over 90% of the engines being used in competition, built by at least four different builders will all now be non-compliant. At least 750 engines countrywide are affected (a conservative estimate) as all of the builders involved have personally seen engines built by the two other remaining engine builders not present in this protest, and confirm that their cylinder heads are built with the same interpretation. That pushes the number to well over 95% of all SM engines in existence. It is very apparent that these rules are being interpreted differently by many who read them. Many respected competitors and builders are involved in this appeal. None would willfully violate the rules or want to run their equipment in a non compliant manner. All value our reputations above all else.

[bones240z]

Who hear does not have a pro built head? Would love to know???????????

I don't. Got one from the junkyard and slapped that puppy on.

[Sphinx]

For Immediate Release

 

Stearns Named Spec Miata Champion Following Post-Race Penalties

 

MONTEREY, Calif. (October 12, 2014) – Erik Stearns, of Van Buren, Ohio, was named 2014 SCCA Spec Miata National Champion Sunday after the first six cars from Friday’s race at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca were penalized following post-race inspection for unapproved modifications.

 

Stearns started the 20-lap, 45-mile race at the 11-turn, 2.238-mile circuit in 12th position in his No. 97 East Street Racing/Eds 24 Hour Service 2000 Mazda Miata. He moved into the top 10 on lap three, and advanced to seventh on lap 17, a position he would hold until the checkered flag.

 

Seventh place is the lowest position a driver has ever crossed the finish line and been crowned champion in the 51 National Championship Runoffs events.

 

“What happened this week, with so many cars being non-compliant, is unfortunate. We need to ensure that this moment is a trigger for a positive change in this class,” SCCA President Lisa Noble said.

 

Matt Schultz, of Clackamas, Oregon, who finished eighth on the track in his No. 11 SMI Motorsports Inc. 1995 Mazda Miata was awarded second. Matt Reynolds, of Boerne, Texas, finished right behind Schultz in his No. 74 Reynolds Brothers Racing/Vintage Connection/X Factor 1999 Mazda Miata, and was awarded third place.

 

The 51st SCCA National Championship Runoffs®, The Pinnacle of American Motorsports, crowned Sports Car Club of America’s Club Racing National Champions at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, Friday, October 10 through Sunday, October 12.

 

MONTEREY, Calif. -- Final results for Friday’s SCCA Spec Miata National Championship at the 51st SCCA National Championship Runoffs at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, with finish position, starting position in parenthesis, driver, hometown, car and laps complete.

1, (12), Erik Stearns, Van Buren, OH, Mazda Miata, 20.

2, (16), Matt Schultz, Clackamas, OR, Mazda Miata, 20.

3, (15), Matt Reynolds, Boerne, TX, Mazda Miata, 20.

4, (17), Jason Rawlins, Hillsboro, OR, Mazda Miata, 20.

5, (9), Will Schrader, Happy Valley, OR, Mazda Miata, 20.

6, (21), Rusty Dees, Phoenix, AZ, Mazda Miata, 20.

7, (18), Steven Powers, Mesa, AZ, Mazda Miata, 20.

8, (14), Tim Auger, Monterey, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

9, (19), Ken Sutherland, Sherwood, OR, Mazda Miata, 20.

10, (27), Barrett Tilley, Fremont, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

11, (20), Luke Bickham, Dallas, TX, Mazda Miata, 20.

12, (11), Marco Gallaher, Santa Rosa, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

13, (25), Eric Jones, Eugene, OR, Mazda Miata, 20.

14, (32), Joe Rombi, Pebble Beach, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

15, (22), Larry Fraser, Novato, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

16, (31), Jordan Wand, Portland, OR, Mazda Miata, 20.

17, (30), Mason Filippi, Alamo, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

18, (33), David Varco, Bonita, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

19, (28), Dean Busk, Chandler, AZ, Mazda Miata, 20.

20, (36), Michael Babcock, Surprise, AZ, Mazda Miata, 20.

21, (35), Leeson Grant, Danville, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

22, (39), Ramon Niebla, Arcadia, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

23, (34), Juan Pineda, San Francisco, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

24, (38), Russell Lindemann, Longmont, CO, Mazda Miata, 20.

25, (41), Kent Carter, Houston, TX, Mazda Miata, 20.

26, (43), Devin Dahn, Peoria, AZ, Mazda Miata, 19.

27, (42), Nels Lewis, Portland, OR, Mazda Miata, 19.

28, (40), Randy Cummings, Herriman, UT, Mazda Miata, 19.

29, (44), Brad Green, Seattle, WA, Mazda Miata, 19.

30, (45), Jim Graffy, Vancouver, WA, Mazda Miata, 13.

31, (24), Jason Starr, Portland, OR, Mazda Miata, 4.

32, (13), Jason Godfrey, Menlo Park, CA, Mazda Miata, 4.

33, (29), Michael Collins, Woodbine, MD, Mazda Miata, 3.

34, (1), Mark Drennan, San Jose, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

35, (3), Andrew Carbonell, Miami, FL, Mazda Miata, 20.

36, (4), Brian Ghidinelli, San Rafael, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

37, (10), Tyler Kicera, Manheim, PA, Mazda Miata, 20.

38, (8), Craig T Berry, Tyler, TX, Mazda Miata, 20.

39, (5), Jim Drago, Memphis, TN, Mazda Miata, 17.

40, (7), Joey Jordan, Fallbrook, CA, Mazda Miata, 16.

41, (6), Charlie Hayes, Walnut Creek, CA, Mazda Miata, 1.

DNS, (23), Seth Rowley, Bay City, MI, Mazda Miata, .

DNS, (37), Dave Dunning, Portland, OR, Mazda Miata, .

DQ, (2), Kyle Kaiser, Santa Clara, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

DQ, (26), Michael LaBouff, Los Gatos, CA, Mazda Miata, 20.

Overall Time of Race: 35:48.962

Average Race Speed: 74.983 mph

Margin of Victory: 12.086 seconds

Fastest Race Lap: Kyle Kaiser, 1:45.263 (76.540 mph)

Sunoco Hard Charger: #48 Joe Rombi

Lap Leaders: Laps 1-20, Mark Drennan

 

Notes: #2 Drago, #10 Drennan, #12 Ghidinelli, #17 Jordan, #22 Hayes, #29 Berry, #44 Kicera, #79 Carbonell moved to last finishing position in order of finish per SOM - GCR 9.1.7.C.1.f.4 (cylinder head)

#88 Kaiser - Disqualified per Chief Steward - GCR 9.1.7.C.1.f.5 (cylinder head)

#04 LaBouff - Disqualified per SOM - GCR 6.11.1 (On course driver conduct)

 

[zoomzoom22]

What is the significance of the cars not DQ but instead moved to last finishing positions? Everyone else in the history of the runoffs with tech issues has been DQ.
Why is Kaiser different and he was DQ instead?
Will 12 second margin of victory be the largest ever thus far and likely ever?

[Steve Scheifler]

topgear3793 - old topic but worth recapping, after the main discussion maybe.
Kuch - I have some thoughts, no magic, later. I yield the floor for now.
Jim - good post, plenty to chew on. Pics available? I have no real dog in this hunt but feel that history gives me more perspective than some.

[Sphinx]

What is the significance of the cars not DQ but instead moved to last finishing positions? Everyone else in the history of the runoffs with tech issues has been DQ.
Why is Kaiser different and he was DQ instead?
Will 12 second margin of victory be the largest ever thus far and likely ever?

 

I don't understand that either.  Look at the FV results - top 3 DQ'd, not moved to the back.

[Ron Alan]

The Spec E30 class in NASA Norcal has the top four get dyno'd after every race, which seems like a decent solution? People typically don't complain and are able to get home far more quickly than a teardown. The only cons I am aware of with this method are:

 

1. Dyno machines vary, and results vary with temperature/humidity etc. Would suck to be compliant on your local dyno but not when tech'd at the track.

2. Peak HP/TQ numbers don't mean much compared to the whole rpm range, and it's hard to set restrictions on a curve compared to max values.

3. Dyno jams while rear wheels are turning at 105mph and car launches into outer space 

 

Jokes aside, I feel that 1 and 2 have obvious solutions, so I am sure there are more reasons for this not being a widely adopted technique?

Ahhh, young grasshopper full of eagerness and enthusiasm...a wise man said once, sometimes silence while gaining knowledge keeps your dog from gathering flees!

[Rob Burgoon]

Short turn radius, from google, supposedly from a camaro.  Wasn't sure what that was.

 

[ECOBRAP]

Ahhh, young grasshopper full of eagerness and enthusiasm...a wise man said once, sometimes silence while gaining knowledge keeps your dog from gathering flees!

 

1. I have a cat. It stays indoors which vastly reduces the likelihood of it getting fleas.

2. "The man(young grasshopper) who asks a question is a fool for a minute, the man who does not ask is a fool for life." - Confucius

3. "Don't be a smart-ass. Go bother Ron Alan with your inexperienced and out of the loop tech questions at NASA West Championships instead of on a serious forum focusing on the future of the SM class" - Unknown

 

Unknown seems like a wise person so I'll leave the thread now before getting axed to death 

[Ron Alan]

[quote]In rule “3” builders are specifically allowed to plunge cut the heads to allow for the correction of core shift. There is no definition of “plunge” or 'plunge cut” in the GCR. There is no procedure spelled out in rule “3” or for the plunge cut. The plunge cut is solely defined as a cut that does not extend more than 12 mm below the valve seat and no wider than 1.178”, with no tool marks evident below 12 mm. It is VERY important to state that NONE of the competitors protested violated this rule in any way. The rule does not say “how” to do this plunge procedure or what tools may be used. The rule does not specify the “plunge” procedure to be in one step or many, one tool or many. Builders are free to do whatever they wish within the specified dimensions. It does not say you must use cutter “x: with a specified “x” degree radius or no radius at all. Reading “3” and the complete SM ruleset, a competitor will be 100% compliant if they chose to do the entire plunge cut by hand with a porting tool, Dremel or even a pocket knife as long as they stayed within these dimensions. Literally any manner of removing the material would be compliant. The profile of the cut is also unrestricted by the rule, so a multiple step procedure with multiple tools, a radius cut, a straight cut, an elliptical cut and anything else you could think of would be compliant as long as it was within the specified diameter and not to exceed 12 mm in depth. Again, none of the heads violated this rule.

 

Even using the strictest interpretation of “3”, If a machinist were to use a straight cutter and machine a cut straight down on the same plane(which is also not specified by the rule) as the factory Mazda plunge cut, material is being removed the short turn radius. By definition, this directly contradicts and violates “4” as “4” CLEARLY states and what we are being found in violation. 

 

“ No material may be removed or added from the short turn radius in the port”[quote]

 

 

 

Sorry...but i'm really struggling to even fathom this interpretation. Who is going to take there head to the bakery to get it worked on??

 

No one of course! You are going to take it to a machinist who is going to center his plunge cut in line with the valve guide which i assume is centered in the valve seat. The material removed down to 12mm and 1.178" in diamater with a very precise machine/tool is taking off all sides equally. Once this is done, defined as a "plunge cut", no further smoothing can be done...including a transition edge at the short side radius.  I assume this was specifically written in the current rules to avoid allowing a creep into porting? Knocking off microscopic flashing or burrs can not possible be what tech was looking at was it?

 

This explanation just doesn't pass the common sense test in my opinion.  #3 and #4 seem very clear to me. Maybe just add "after the plunge cut is complete" to the last sentence of #4 so it is crystal clear?

 

Files and dremel tools are used for removing materials.

[Ron Alan]

1. I have a cat. It stays indoors which vastly reduces the likelihood of it getting fleas.

2. "The man(young grasshopper) who asks a question is a fool for a minute, the man who does not ask is a fool for life." - Confucius

3. "Don't be a smart-ass. Go bother Ron Alan with your inexperienced and out of the loop tech questions at NASA West Championships instead of on a serious forum focusing on the future of the SM class" - Unknown

 

Unknown seems like a wise person so I'll leave the thread now before getting axed to death 

Very wise and funny for a young man  Your suggestion is for another thread at some point!

[Ron Alan]

" Ironically, for those concerned. When handed the final decision from the COA, we were told, ”We feel the rules are need to be addressed, we feel the heads in question are what most are running and we have asked the CRB to clarify the rules in such that these heads are all compliant for 2015”. So what is non compliant today, will be compliant in a few months. Not my doing, not CRB, not SMAC but coming right from the highest court of the SCCA."

 

 

Give credit were credit is due....good call BENCH!  

[Ron Alan]

Jim or someone in the know. What specifically on rule  GCR 9.1.7.C.1.f.5 was Kaiser found non compliant? Did he have the oppportunity to appeal?

[Danny Steyn]

The 2014 SCCA Runoffs was a BLACK DAY in the Spec Miata Diary. Congratulations to all of you who prepped all year long and drove your hearts out, you put on a fine show for us spectators. I am so sad  for those drivers who lost their positions, particularly for Mark Drennan who was focused all year on this one event. And I feel for those drivers that moved up in the positions post-tech, as their new finishing positions will never provide the satisfaction of having been earned on the track.

 

However this amazing class has been corrupted by its own popularity, and while this result will be tough for us a class to accept, no matter which side of the fence we sit, what will come out of this will be good for the class. Sometimes these disasters are necessary for us to see things clearly. There are way too many UNHAPPY people in this class, some have been saying it quietly behind the scenes for years and there are a few vocal ones that have been pointing out to us that we might have been moving in the wrong direction.

 

However I urge you to be cautious when tempted to throw anyone under the bus, as we all are likely to have some skeletons in our closet. 

 

I suspect that there will be a much more defined ruleset that will diminish the gray area open to interpretation. Note that there is NO gray area in the part of the spec 9.1.7.c.1.f.4 that says….”No material may be removed or added from the short turn radius in the port”. However the plunge cut aspect of the same ruleset will most certainly have to be cleared up, as will many other areas.

 

JIm Drago - that was a well written appeal, and I for one appreciate you sharing it with us. 

 

However I do want to point out that one line in particular is likely to irk many of the drivers here. The part about drivers staying away due to possible tear downs does not address the multitude of drivers that are currently staying away due to perceived cheating. 

 

The SMAC, CRB, SCCA and us, the drivers, ALL have work to do. We as drivers need to get involved. My suggestion to those in charge is to involve as many people in drafting the NEW rules as possible, make sure that the new rule-set is NOT being written to LEGALIZE THE NON COMPLIANT ENGINES.

[FTodaro]

It is hard to believe that this creep over the line of touching material in the short radius area would have any measurable performance advantage particularly in a plate car. If that is true, Facts would be helpful, then I see the SCCA changing the rule to make 89% of the cars compliant.

 

If there is no measurable advantage then those who do not have that in their head would not need to incur expense to obtain it.

 

I see this as more of a technical violation rather than a big performance advantage, so lets not declare  the sky is falling and this is the reason that people were or are getting beat at the track.

 

my understanding of the purpose of the original head rules was to allow motor builders to make all the heads more consistent do to MFG imperfections.

[Marc Cefalo]

 

must have been the new color scheme.....looks awfully familiar.....lol

 

congrats Erik, i'm sure you wish it was under different circumstances.