856 replies to this topic

[NV Racer]

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

You have to admit the timing was suspicious

[Todd Tagget]

Damn Kyle, where have you been hiding? That's pretty clear 

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I will say this, I do respect Jim,and Dan for there apology. I know Jim feels bad about this and will make it right,as well as Dan. They are good guys and do not want to lose business or there reputation over this.

[KyleLoustaunau]

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?

It does not relate. I was one of the confused ones, but now I'm not thanks to the other Kyle and Charlie.

[Bruce Wilson]

You have to admit the timing was suspicious

 

Ken posted on the Nasa Eastern Champs thread seven weeks ago
 

[NV Racer]

Why not here?

[Yiannis Tsiounis]

It's a machine.  And not a perpetual friction-less one.  Losses will occur and as long as there are losses due to wear there is incentive to rebuild it more frequently.  Removing or adding rules or nudging toward a "crate" engine (What does this even mean?) won't solution the issue.

 

"Magic is practicing a trick longer than the audience thinks is worth while." - Penn Jillette.

Blake, do you agree with the rest of my comments? It's a different thing to have to refresh an engine after 100 hours than to have to do a new build every year (or more frequently) because the rules changed, or because someone figured some other window in the rulebook and now we all have to do it. 

Less development, more racing. I wish I were an engine builder so I could provide a roadmap of how to implement this the best (i.e.: cheapest, easiest) way. 

 

As drivers we gain nothing by spending an extra $10K a year on development/tuning/blah only to be trumped by someone with 5 more hp because their engine builder is better. Incidentally, I have been on both sides of this equation, i.e., with a slower car and with a faster car; and Stewart builds pretty damn strong engines, so I'm not saying all this because I feel disadvantaged on the engine component, but because it is not in the spirit of a Spec class. If we could all use sealed crate engines then that would be ideal, but apparently in SRF where the do that people buy a dozen engines and keep the strongest one, so that avenue is not a solution either. That's why I said "as close to crate engines as we can". I don't know what the solution is. I just know that constant amendment of the rules to allow more and more things is 180 degrees removed from the answer. 

[Bruce Wilson]

What?  Yes, here on a highly visible thread.

[gkmccready]

Ken posted on the Nasa Eastern Champs thread seven weeks ago
 

This comment? That's a pretty weak hint...

[NV Racer]

In the SM forum, not Nasa SouthEast I never visited it once 8 years I have been here. I have no issue with the protest just the timing. Seems to have been done at a time to inflict maximum damage to all involved.

[Blake Thompson]

Blake, do you agree with the rest of my comments?

 

I accept the fact that there is a certain budget that is right for me and a certain budget that is acceptable for the pointy end of the field.  I accept that no amount of rules will change that budget and I accept that there is only so much I can do with my committed budget, even considering diminishing returns.

 

I am not excited about a sealed motor program because I'm a cheap SOB.

[Ken SM94]

NV Racer, here's a bigger hint for you.....Are you ready? Bring a legal car to the track or you may get protested and loose what you have worked for.

I have brought up cheats on this forum and I get "do you want to name anyone particular?" Or "put your money where your mouth is and protest" that's what we did. Brian was not in our sights. We protested the top 10 so as to not single anyone out. The plan was to withdraw all but the top 3 but at the last minute decided to let them all stand. We figured we would be doing some a favor by paying for their engine reassembly an showing that their car was legal. Never in my wildest dreams did I think 8 of 9 would be bounced. Sad.

[NV Racer]

Could of been handled better I call them as I see them. I build my own motors I know what's in there protest away

[Brandon]

Okay, make me go to the GCR to get the exact wording...I was just trying to come up with something 'legal sounding' that fit the actual rule as opposed to my earlier paraphrasing.

 

 

9.1.7.1.f.1.3 describes the throat and what is permitted to be done to it (Operation A & Object B  ).  Here it is in its entirety:

 

 

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.

(what follows is a chart of allowable throat dimensions for each engine displacement)

 

 

9.1.7.1.f.1.4 is restraining what procedures (Operation(s) C) are available should you perform Operation A to Object B.

Again, here it is in its entirety:

 

 

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.

 

Again, Operation A (plunge cut), Object B (head/valve throat area), Operation C (non-removal of aluminum from Object B area).

I'd go as far as to say they also define Object D ("short turn radius").

 

Unfortunately after further reading I can see how there could be conflicting interpretations of both .3 & .4 thus the SOM's final ruling of 'back of field' as opposed to a DQ (in my observation).

And thus "kicking it upstairs" for further clarification if possible.

 

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)".

 

Anyway, what can be done to keep the "perceived illegal" heads from being made retroactively legal with a minor rule change (a la PCMs)?

Anything?

 

I see there's been zero comment on my suggestion of making SCCA-E the single-source for "properly-trued valve" head blanks.

[greengreengreen]

There is never a good time to get busted. I don't think anyone plans for it.

 

People believe what they want to believe. Some engine builders believed they could explain their work. Maximum impact or not the protestors were able to net nearly all the fish. If they only netted 10-20 percent this would be a very different thread and discussion.

 

The engine you run is a decision. We all make good ones and bad ones. Sometimes they come with penalties that hurt... our pride, and pocketbook! And in real life we have to live with them. So it should be the same in the hobby of choice.

 

To adopt the changes to accommodate those who have made the mistakes is counterintuitive and already happens all too often rewarding those who create havoc and misfortune. Let those responsible pay the price.

[SaulSpeedwell]

I plunge cut Hole 13 of Galion CC on 9/13, and all my competitors hugged me and cheered!

 

 photo-001.JPG   98.22KB   35 downloads

[Steve Scheifler]

I could write a book, but I'm trying to break my thoughts down under a few major questions:

Exactly what has been done?
Much of the debate seems pointless without at least really good pictures. I'll gladly pay shipping for a couple of actual rejected heads from different shops so I can see them for myself then return.

Were the rules violated?
That has been decided officially but I want all the facts so I can decide whether I agree.

How much difference does it make?
This does NOT relate to whether the heads are compliant, but it may be relevant to where things go from here as well as how irate people are as they reflect on races past and just the whole idea of the thing. The jury is still out on this despite a lot of assumptions and claims. I am well aware of the benefits of optimizing the STR, but unless they have been significantly reworked and reshaped then the benefits are small compared to what some people are imagining. TO BE CLEAR - in the absence of big gains I'll take small ones any day, it all counts, and even a small gain is too much to look the other way if non-compliant. BUT, those talking about other cars easily motoring them by need to shop elsewhere. This has been variously described to me as from de-burring to mild blending. I still need to see it but that sounds non-compliant as I interpreted the rules prior to this, though I admit to giving more weight to apparent intent than is customary in racing. But unless it is being far understated to me then it amounts to very little. Below the noise level when looking at your data logger, probably close to noise and repeatability on the dyno. YES, it matters and cannot be tolerated if ill gotten, but NO it does not gain you that last second per lap to catch the other cheaters who are walking you down the straights.

Intent?
This doesn't change the facts either but it does color our perception. Does it seem credible that this was less willful cheating and more honest, if optimistic, interpretation of the rules? I fought "tech shed legal 'prep'" for years because most of what people classified that way was willful blatant cheating, not exploiting gray areas. It was rampant, and comparing this to those days would be like taking all of Assad's chemical weapons then bombing the hell out of them because his receptionist has pepper spray in her purse.

I could certainly argue that in this case the builders had to recognize that they were at best in a gray area where some interpretation was required, and that they should have dealt with it differently. But I can't imagine that ALL of them were willing to gamble so much for so little when they know that sooner or later it would be questioned, unless they believed in their argument. There is NO WAY to mirco-spec everything, and there is at least some truth, if often overstated by people with a transparent agenda, to the idea that too many rules make things more expensive for everyone. So I acknowledge the existence of some grey area where multiple legitimate and at least arguable interpretations are possible. For better or worse that has always been true, and not just in racing. Hardened cynic though I may be, given a couple of the people involved, what they have done in the past and what they stand to lose, I find it much easier to believe that this is one of those cases.

But as I keep saying, all opinions are pending more facts.

[Todd Lamb]

I plunge cut Hole 13 of Galion CC on 9/13, and all my competitors hugged me and cheered!

 

photo-001.JPG

I see a flag on the play.

[DrDomm]

I read 24 pages, and I summarize this as there are many engine builders/team owners misinterpreting (or pushing past the perceived limit of) the rules (even though they helped write them).  A group of principled guys had proof of what was going on, and probably feel that it is just one small violation among the many that they commit.  So instead of calling them and discussing it, they salivate at the opportunity to embarrass them on the largest stage.

 

It's hard to know how to react.  Is the class getting away from what it should be, or is the intense competition causing excessive bitterness?  I'm not sure, but it's sad to see what was previously called "collateral damage".  Some of those guys came nearly 3000 miles for this.

[38bfast]

Steve I am with you on this one. I would sure like to see that actual examples that were dreamed non complainant. I am sure over the 10 examples that all 10 were not exactly the same. Something obviously lead the tech team, SOM and COA to deam non compliance. There also had to be some basics for the COA to request a rule change. Also the builders felt that they had compliant equipment and were found to be incorrect. There are some facts missing from the puzzle at this point. Was the blending / deburing .25, .5, 1, 2, 3 mm? Was it clear that it was just cleaning up the machining process or was it optimistic / overzelius blending with the intent of a performance advantage?