856 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

I think we have given the problem a fair amount of discussion, can we talk about solutions. 

 

Lets assume that the rules are not rewritten to make the non compliant heads legal.

 

Lets assume that there is a fair number of heads out there that are not compliant.

 

Lets assume that the car owner only wanted a complaint motor and was asking for the same.

 

Option 1:

 

Make them go out find a stock head redo it to the current rule. Costly, time consuming and may run into time issues either because of the surge in demand or the difficulty in finding a stock head. For a 99 for example, no more crate motors are available and they only made this car for two years so we have a limited supply.

 

Option 2:

Get some real data to find out just what the repeatable difference is between a legal head and a non compliant head. if there is a measurable difference, measure it and then either make a weight or plate adjustment on the motor, just as we did with the overbore blocks so that people can race in two weeks.

 

Option 3: if the data analyzed in Option 2 shows no definable difference. the revert back to just changing the rule.

 

It would be nice if we could come up with a solution that does not penalize people who are totally blindsided by all this, and either do not have the money or the time to respond to a new head.

[FTodaro]

Oh and come up with a way then to get rid of all the non complaint heads out there. Or they will come back at the regional level

[MPR22]

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.

It appears you have first hand knowledge of the work that has been done out side of the defined areas.  A picture of one of the heads that didn't pass tech would be most helpful.  My grandmother would like to see it.  ( I know that wasn't your quote but it was so good I had to refer to it again).

[Waterboy]

I don't know what a damn plunge cut, short side radius, or any of that other crap is.

But, reading that rule seems pretty clear you're allowed to plunge cut within parameters but you are NOT allowed to in anyway modify any transition created by such plunge cut.

Doesn't matter if it's an advantage or not , DON'T do it.

And by the way quit "finding" more hp and torque. It's NOT there, you're creating it.

This message is not intended to harm any engine builders, I like you all. But damn it quit the games.

[Glenn]

I don't know what a damn plunge cut, short side radius, or any of that other crap is.

But, reading that rule seems pretty clear you're allowed to plunge cut within parameters but you are NOT allowed to in anyway modify any transition created by such plunge cut.

Doesn't matter if it's an advantage or not , DON'T do it.

And by the way quit "finding" more hp and torque. It's NOT there, you're creating it.

This message is not intended to harm any engine builders, I like you all. But damn it quit the games.

And racers/builders.........While your at it quit bending parts to gain camber......

[M Louis Thibaut]

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.

 

I take full responsibility for Charlie's, Kaiser's & TFB's engine non compliant. They ask for a 100% legal engine program without cossing into any gray areas I thought I had if figured out but screwed up along the way. I am not here to make excuses but to make a public apology to the guys that worked so hard and failed due to my error in judjment and workmanship. Again, I am sincerely sorry for the let down.

[Glenn]

So who exactly will be developing the "new and revised" rule this time..............

[Waterboy]

While your at it quit bending parts to gain camber......

If that's pointed at me I'd be glad to show you my alignment. I can tell you it's no 4 degrees like some.

[Glenn]

If that's pointed at me I'd be glad to show you my alignment. I can tell you it's no 4 degrees like some.

Fixed it.........Not at you specifically.....but I have seen  a few

[pat slattery]

If most of the pro built motors are illegal now,  and there is a shortage of heads all ready, where does that leave the class.  I can see it now, $2000 core charges

[Glenn]

If most of the pro built motors are illegal now,  and there is a shortage of heads all ready, where does that leave the class.  I can see it now, $2000 core charges

Doner cars just doubled in value overnight......

[KyleLoustaunau]

Legal

http://postimg.org/image/9juqrnon5/

 

 

Not so Legal

http://postimg.org/image/f6r3p4r5t/

[tony senese]

Thank you Kyle, I think that is QUITE clear.....

[Brian Ghidinelli]

Like most, I don't open up my motor to verify it's legal but it's my car, my responsibility to field a compliant entry and my 3rd place thrown away.  I accept all those things and hold no hard feelings toward Will and Ken for the protest itself. 

 

However, I do take issue with the fact that Will and Ken have known about this for a year since they took possession of some high-performing cylinder heads from well-known engine builders.  For 12 months, they had a long list of options for addressing it ranging from making their fellow competitors aware of their suspicions, to contacting the SMAC/CRB for clarification to protesting at a regional or Majors event.  A lot of collateral damage might have been avoided by taking action before the Runoffs.

 

 

[Charlie Hayes]

Legal
http://postimg.org/image/9juqrnon5/
 
 
Not so Legal
http://postimg.org/image/f6r3p4r5t/

Wrong side Kyle. You need to check the side not pictured

[Ken SM94]

Yes Brian, we're to blame.  Feel better now?

[Kyle Freiheit]

Lemme help a bit. Only took someone 20 pages to use google.

 

[Bench Racer]

Not to get drug into things here, but the rule states quite equivocally the following things:

 

This cut must be in a parallel plane to the position of the valve (not shifted off-center in any direction) and is intended to enable the use of a head which might otherwise be unusable without realigning the valve's position.

 

 

Where within the plunge rule can I find your above words? Mostly these words, "This cut must be in a parallel plane to the position of the valve (not shifted off-center in any direction)".

[Glenn Davis]

Legal

http://postimg.org/image/9juqrnon5/

 

 

Not so Legal

http://postimg.org/image/f6r3p4r5t/

 

OK, now I'm confused.  That certainly is not de-burring, and it looks like it's opposite to the STR.  How does this relate to the topic?

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Like most, I don't open up my motor to verify it's legal but it's my car, my responsibility to field a compliant entry and my 3rd place thrown away.  I accept all those things and hold no hard feelings toward Will and Ken for the protest itself. 
 
However, I do take issue with the fact that Will and Ken have known about this for a year since they took possession of some high-performing cylinder heads from well-known engine builders.  For 12 months, they had a long list of options for addressing it ranging from making their fellow competitors aware of their suspicions, to contacting the SMAC/CRB for clarification to protesting at a regional or Majors event.  A lot of collateral damage might have been avoided by taking action before the Runoffs.

I do not agree,these engine builders should know the rules period. If they are going to sell and build legal pro motors for 6-7k they SHOULD be legal. Sorry guys but that's the way it should be. We shouldn't have to police these builders,it's not our job it is there job to give us the product as advertised a legal pro motor.

They got there hands stuck in the cookie jar,so now they have to face the consequences.
We need to stop coming up with excuses for them. Let them deal with the problem and hope it doesn't happen again.