856 replies to this topic

[Keith Andrews]

Sure sounds like this was beyond the capabilities of the sanctioning body.  

[Bench Racer]

 

Not in agreement with changing the rules to bless color blind folks. With that said follow below for a potential solotion.

 

This post has zero intent to find fault with anyone, purely technical. I am not an engine builder.

 

I viewed the two intake throats of a 1.6 engine. Don't have any 1.8 heads. The OEM valve seat inside diameter and OEM plunge cut diameter are approx 1.080 inches diameter. I'm a little shaky with an inside bore gauge. There is a plunge cut showing a full 360* machining marks. There are no signs of any metal shaping or removal after the plunge cut was finished.  Presume the 1.8 shows a similar 360* plunge cut.

 

Is the 1.8 maximum intake throat diameter of 1.178 inches the same diameter as the valve seat inside diameter, smaller or larger? For this conversation let's presume both the valve seat and plunge cut diameters are the same and to keep the conversation simple let's call both diameters dead nuts the same, no tolerance. It would seem that a plunge cutter that would leave a finished plunge cut diameter of 1.175 inches diameter by 12 millimeters deep, machined .003 of  center (or enough to not cut what is considered the circumference length of the short turn radius) to the centerline of the valve stem hole 180 degrees opposite the radial center of the short turn radius would be 100% legal. We might presume all diameters are expected to be concentric to the valve stem hole, except nothing specifies that diameter concentricity. The flow impact of the plunge cut being smaller and eccentric to the inside diameter of the valve seat could be answered by a engine builder.

 

As far as metal shaping or removal after the plunge cut, from my minimal eyeball viewing OEM dose not shape or remove metal after their plunge cut. If OEM does something maybe Mazda should let us know what the OEM process is.  

David Dewhurst  

[James York]

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?

Everyone has the opportunity to file an appeal in the process and argue their case to the court.

[bones240z]

Danny Steyn wrote:

"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."

Agree100%

[Johnny D]

I'm late to the drama but saw this morning



SCCA.com
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)

Attached: Erik Stearns (right-click and “save as” for larger)
Credit: Jay Bonvouloir/SCCA


Click here to unsubscribe.


Sports Car Club of America, Inc.
6700 SW Topeka Blvd
Building 300
Topeka, KS 66619

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

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.

Frank, I'm just wondering if there is no advantage gained from it,then why would they waist there time doing it ?

Just asking not sure either way !

[Terrell Garrett]

Jim, your asking the question of whether or not a plunge cut has to be round troubles me.  Can you explain the logic?  My strange brain picks up on small details that piss most people off but are important to me.  

 

Did SCCA tear down Stearns' car?  This is the elephant in the room no one has addressed.

 

What a sad state of affairs.

[LarryKing]

 

I'm late to the drama but saw this morning

 

Apparently too late to see the identical cut and pasted SCCA release on page 17.

 

OK - I have to ask - where were all those mythical West Coast One Sixes that I've heard so much about? Maybe they all decided to spend the weekend relaxing on Catalina island instead, with Jimmy Hoffa, JFK and Elvis.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=4c7HGXaPPp4

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Now time for a commercial !

Just think 1.6 guys, are cars might be competitive again !

Just kidding guys now back to are paid program !

Sorry someone had to do it, why not me ! Lol !!!!

[Brian Ghidinelli]

No cars beyond P6 were impounded after the race nor torn down. Stearns, Schultz and Reynolds were released as they were not one of the top 9 qualifying cars who were protested.

[AJ Roderick]

Now time for a commercial !

Just think 1.6 guys, are cars might be competitive again !

Just kidding guys now back to are paid program !

Sorry someone had to do it, why not me ! Lol !!!!

You got excited when i txted you this morning

[Todd Lamb]

My take on the Spec Miata tech debacle at Runoffs:

The competitors in question, as well as most (if not all) of the field, brought what they thought would be the best equipment to win the race, knowing full well that a full or partial teardown would be likely.

There was no "cheating" or "hope to get away with it" on the part of competitors or engine builders.

The engine builders built what they believed were legal motors by the ruleset, which has a contradiction. It wasn't just one engine builder. In fact, at this point the ruling from the Runoffs makes the majority of engines in SM illegal at the moment.

The SM world isn't crumbling, this isn't the "ah ha!" reason you're getting beat at the track. The performance advantage in this instance is negligible. That in and of itself doesn't make it ok, but the rules need to be clarified so they do not contradict themselves. If you're making more of it than a rules clarification, you're thinking about it wrong.

Sad showing for the class as a whole, being the biggest and most competitive class in racing, but it's not because of rampant cheating. Does the situation look bad to the public eye? Sure. Should it? No.

It's a shame there isn't some way to get rulings at this level without protests and appeals at the biggest club race of the year.

Expect a rule change to make it clear for 2015. In the meantime, let's get back out there and race.

Congrats to Mark Drennan for the championship that almost was. And to Erik Stearns for the championship that I'm sure he doesn't want (at least the prize money spends the same!)

[James York]

Jim, your asking the question of whether or not a plunge cut has to be round troubles me.  Can you explain the logic?  My strange brain picks up on small details that piss most people off but are important to me.  

 

Did SCCA tear down Stearns' car?  This is the elephant in the room no one has addressed.

 

What a sad state of affairs.

 

While not 100% sure, I would say no.  The Runoffs will only impound the top 6 cars for inspection (podium plus 3 as contingency in case of DQs) plus any cars protested.  

 

Therefore, the podium as announced in the press release had no tech at all.  (assuming this years protocols are the same as all the Runoffs I attended previously)

 

Meaning it is possible the new podium would not pass the same scrutiny that was applied to the protested cars either.  But it is what it is and that's the way this process works.

[Dan Tiley]

Never before in my 10 years with the SCCA have I reached such a high and low in such a short period of time.  We worked all year analyzing data for this one track trying to decide which package would give our drivers the best shot at victory, and obviously chose correctly with our VVT cars crossing the line 1-2-3.  

 

Mark Drennan, Andrew Carbonell, and Brian Ghidinelli, did not ask for anything that was not specifically allowed in the rulebook.  They all made it very clear to me that they were headed to the Runoffs, and all three felt they had a legitimate shot at winning.  They wanted, in fact demanded 100% legal engines.  They were right, and I sincerely hope that nobody holds any of these drivers, car builders, or trackside support groups accountable for what has transpired here.   When building an engine, I have the rulebook, and make hundreds of choices along the way to arrive at the final product.  One of those choices was clearly a bad one.

 

All three cars completely passed, what I believe, was the most invasive technical inspection SM has ever seen, including engines removed and torn down to the crank, transmissions disassembled, and differentials disassembled.   The tech inspectors did not begin the protest inspections until Saturday. The actual list is shown below.  Note that CR was CC'd (not whistled), cams were removed and checked on a cam doctor.

 

 

Regarding the specific violation... I make no excuses.  On my three engines, we made the plunge cut and used a round file to break the sharp corner at the bottom of the cut into the STR.  This was in violation of the rule, as it was considered by the officials to be "blending" of the plunge into the short turn radius.  It was defintely a subjective judgement call, and not blaringly obvious, but there all the same.  Was it absolutely necessary?  No.  Would the finishing order have changed had we not made that choice?  I doubt it.  Hindsight is clearly 20/20, and given the outcome I would have made a different choice.  

 

This will clearly affect what I believe has been a good reputation for myself and my company up to this point.  I have no idea how this will impact my business moving forward (other than tossing our round files!)  As I always have, I will continue to stand behind my product, and will work with our customers to ensure that they are able to compete on a fair, legal, and competitive level.  

 

Like Jim and most others, I carry no ill feelings toward the protestor... in fact, we've never even met.  He took a huge risk to his own reputation, put his money on the line, and was right.  This weekend's result will have a huge impact on how this class continues into the next several years.  I sincerely hope to be part of that future.

[Mike Collins]

This is certainly an unfortunate event but lets take a step back and look at what really happened....

 

Jim Drago - 2 time National Champion who has been through more tear downs than just about anybody in the last 3 years

 

Dan Tilley - Engine Builder and SMAC advisor on Engine Rules

 

Both had engines that were non-conforming....these guys helped write the rules and both felt the product they bought with them would pass tech and were rules compliant.

 

There are going to be a lot of eyes on these rules over the next few weeks.  This is going to be top down type stuff....  The rules will get fixed, not to allow illegal cars but to better define the rules as they exist.

 

Please remember two things here....sans protest its likely all these cars pass tech because EVERY CAR that was torn down looked the same.....there is a reason they all looked the same from same multiple builders its the way the builders applied the rules.  Tech and the SOM applied it differently...  That tells me we need more clearly written rules.

[mmcspecracer]

So, if I am reading Dan's post correctly, it contradicts Jim's post. Jim's position, as I understand it, is that you cannot plunge cut without taking material from the bowl area or blending because it would leave metal  burrs that could get sucked into the engine. Dan says that the round filing he used in the bowl area was a subjective call and was not absolutely necessary. If Dan is correct, then there is no contradiction in the rule and its not an issue of clarification, but simply, as Dan says, a judgment call, and in hindsight it was a bad call. Do I have this correct ? Anyone care to elaborate on this?

[LarryKing]

Wouldn't it be clearer and easier to police if NO MACHINING of the head was permitted?

 

Just asking.

[Yiannis Tsiounis]

Danny Steyn, speaking of vocal drivers: add me to that list. 

 

Jim Drago: This will be a tough one to protest. I think you are the SM representative for SCCA, right? (sorry, I don't know the details, I just drive here). If one rule was inaccurate, or even more so, contradictory, it would seem to me you should have asked for clarification or rewrite it before all this ensued.

 

Todd Lamb: I agree with your comment about drivers and builders not wanting to be illegal. I am not sure I agree with most engine builders' practice of pushing the "gray" area (or according to others, not so gray; I don't really know) and I do not agree about allowing more changes in the future. Yes, the drivers who did well did not get there just because of their equipment, they had to drive really well - I've raced with many of them and I have a lot of respect for their abilities. But I have also seen first hand that the performance advantage of some cars is not always negligible (I cannot comment on this particular situation as I wasn't there). 

 

 

My opinion is that as drivers we are victims here. I personally did not choose a Spec class in order to gain an advantage by having the fastest car (although it definitely helps!) but to compete with equal material and improve my racing skills. 

Since all the cars need to be as close to each other as possible, the LESS modifications allowed the CLOSER they will be and the CHEAPER the class will be for everyone. Therefore, the logic "let's legalize this change because many people do it" is false and should be abandoned. In fact, we should start going backwards and deleting modifications that have been allowed so far, or at the very least not make the situation worse.

 

There is no need for us to be building racing engines in this class. We should all be able to use something as close as possible to a crate engine (I wish I could elaborate more, but my technical skills end just about here).

And yes, we will always need to have our engines tuned and massaged and maybe even select the parts that work best, etc, so the engine builders won't go out of business, but with fewer modifications allowed the HP difference between the best and the worst engines might shrink to 1-2hp instead of the current 5-10hp, *and* it will be a cheaper proposition for everyone. 

 

I think following such a minimalistic approach will have broad benefits for the class:

- Less man drama at major events and bad press surrounding our class

- Drivers will have less of a chance to say "I lost because that guy/girl/toddler had more power"

- We might be able to keep our engines for a few seasons instead of having to change them or rebuild them every year in order to stay at the top.

- Increased parity will force everyone to improve their driving. If you know your car is up to par then there is no excuse. Conversely, if your car trumps everyone else's, you are not forced to drive at 100% in order to win and you never improve. You have to lose (occasionally) to improve! (The Ayrton Sennas of the crowd are excluded from this rule).

- The increased parity between cars (of course, there will still be differences, but hopefully smaller) and reduced cost will attract more drivers into the class.

- More drivers means better racing, and more total expenditure, so everyone servicing the class, from engine builders to renters to those providing car support, will benefit in the end. 

 

And by the way, if we jump at the other end and there are engine changes that are disallowed going forward, and my engine builder has already done these, I will be happy to cover a one-time expense to "downgrade" my engine, if it resulted in a better outcome long term. Conversely, if SCCA approves this year's "cheater" engines as legal for next year, I'm keeping mine unchanged (for the moment; until I get frustrated finishing at the back). I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of people I can race with that have similar equipment. 

 

Am I the only one who feels this way? Am I off the mark? If we all ran sealed and pre-tested engines would it be better/cheaper for everyone? 

 

Please comment and help keep the class as close to Spec as possible. 

 

Yiannis

[LarryKing]

 

Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

I use to feel that way - before I stopped caring.

 

(just wait'n for the next low-cost spec class)

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Denny that is a lie! If true you would already be running b-spec, or what you consider to be the messia of all classes sm5...