856 replies to this topic

[Yiannis Tsiounis]

Ken SM94, on 15 Oct 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

50 lb weight penalty for modified heads. There, it's fixed.

 

That's absolutely right. No need to legalize more things in order to add even more cost to those that are legal. This is absurd! You are legal, but we are going to penalize you by forcing you to spend more money because a bunch of guys were found illegal  and they don't want to spend any more money!!! Some common sense please!

 

I don't know if the right weight penalty is 50lb, but it does sound about right. Certainly more than 25. 

[Yiannis Tsiounis]

pmiranda, on 15 Oct 2014 - 1:12 PM, said:

I thought about that, but at tracks where the draft comes into play it won't make any difference. 

 

RA, WGI, VIR are big drafting tracks, but you still need to get fast out of T7, T1 and the Oak tree respectively, and drive fast on the tight stuff. A 50lb weight penalty is going to hurt you in all of these places. Probably as much as 2hp is going to help down the straight. More or less, anyway. We can always tune the exact weight penalty later.

[Yiannis Tsiounis]

wreckerboy, on 15 Oct 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

As a WDCR SSM racer (as is David L) for the last five or six years I can tell you all of what you have writen is true. 40+ car fields are routine, more than what SM draws, and most of the top 15 are typically inside of two seconds or so. Our system of requring motors to be dyno'd and sealed at one dyno (Ed York's at York Performance in Mt. Airy, MD) works in our little sandbox. It's not perfect, but the competitors seem to like it, as witnessed by the level of participation.

When I was building my car in the '05-'06 timeframe it was with that class in mind specifically because I saw what was happening on the National level and wanted nothing to do with it. More power to those of you who choose to compete there. I've been around long enough to remember when the GCR included the "low cost, affordable racing" phrase and it is what drew me back to racing sedans.

Tempests in teapots like these are also in part what is going to push me out of even SSM now that it is time to build a new motor because it speaks to a rules mindset that I want nothing to do with. Frankly, we would be well served to look to IT and their slavish adherence to the Rolfe Theorem - If It says you can't you than you bloody well can't, and the counterpart - if it says you can than you bloody well can. Rules stability there is pretty damned good.
 

IT has rules stability because it doesn't have anywhere near as serious a competition as SM. Plus, I doubt it has: I've heard stories of rule creep in ITB and other classes when they used to be very popular.

 

The problem with sticking to one region is that you don't get to race with good talent from other regions and you only get to race in a few racetracks. More tracks and more competitors is where the fun is. As an example "15 cars within two seconds" is way lower than the current top Miata level of competition. There were 20 cars within the same *second* in the Glen Majors this year, and that's on a 2' 15" lap!!!

But, as many of us have said before, I like the dyno idea. It can't be a single dyno for all the cars, as we are all in different geographical regions, plus there are things you can do even to a sealed motor (different brand and quantity of oil, different spark plugs, different air filters, different spark plug cables… You can put junk in when the car is dynoed and change them before the race. And I'm not even an engine builder!). But bringing a dyno into every Majors race, dyno-ing the cars and sealing the hood before the race (you want an oil change? Do it before the dyno, or re-dyno your car) will go a long way towards making everyone comfortable with their competitors. Or simply dyno the cars after the race. You don't even have to change or penalize anyone, just post the FULL dyno results (the full torque and power curves) next to the results. "I won with my +10hp motor… oops"

[FTodaro]

Yiannis Tsiounis, on 15 Oct 2014 - 1:17 PM, said:

I don't know if the right weight penalty is 50lb, but it does sound about right. Certainly more than 25.

Based on what?
Data?
Educated guess?
Wishful thinking?

Over bore is 15lbs

[LarryKing]

Quote

 

this has been going on for over ten years . . . when I started hp 118 was a monster

 

There's wisdom in the lunacy.

 

Quote

 

IT has rules stability because it doesn't have anywhere near as serious a competition as SM. Plus, I doubt it has: I've heard stories of rule creep in ITB and other classes when they used to be very popular.

Mid-Ohio events would get 50+ ITB cars in the mid 1990s. Rules creep killed that. There's a warning in there somewhere.

 

2000 Spec Miatas?  Two thousand individual cars?

 

I'm finding that hard to believe! Where are all of them?

[Todd Green]

FTodaro, on 15 Oct 2014 - 1:31 PM, said:

Over bore is 15lbs

Speaking of which, were we not promised that that weight was "punitive" and just there so that people could reuse the diminishing pool of blocks?  I don't know about you, but I saw a rash of cars with 2415 stickers on them going through tech.  Perhaps that weight should be revisited while we're at it?

[Matt Busby]

That would definitely help the more well fed folks  

[MPR22]

S. A. Crebleu, on 15 Oct 2014 - 1:38 PM, said:

There's wisdom in the lunacy.
 

Mid-Ohio events would get 50+ ITB cars in the mid 1990s. Rules creep killed that. There's a warning in there somewhere.
 
2000 Spec Miatas?  Two thousand individual cars?
 
I'm finding that hard to believe! Where are all of them?

That's probably a reasonable number, we own 4 of the damn things. Now does that mean there are 2000 non compliant heads, probably no where near that number

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

Obviously not. I waited for a call but it never came. I could have audited this but im still black balled for wanting SM to be a national class. This is not rocket science but does require engine builders to be involved. Its simple to me, have Skirmants and staff audit the rules, fix items like this 3/4 vagueness, then do a proper full engine inspection of the winner at all top events. Perhaps the requirement to post a winner that weekend needs to be revisited to allow time for proper tear downs too?

My new idea is to phase the MX5 sealed motors into all cars and form one class. Would be much better than what we have now, parity wise.

Waterboy, on 15 Oct 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

Isn't that exactly what was supposedly done the last time this happened.

[Peter Olivola]

Jim,

 

That's not the role I play in the club. I think the categories/classes should be deciding their own rules with the caveat that enforce-ability needs to be part of the consideration process.

 

Jim Daniels - FIG, on 15 Oct 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

Peter, why not motor kits like SRF putting all SMers on the MX5 motor/tranny package?
 

[Bad Rusty]

Here's a jewel that got posted into a runoffs facebook post last night.....Hear me ROAR>.......

 

• Sue Haldeman Its a damn shame that it all comes down to a protest by someone who most likely wouldnt ever win anyway ! you work your but off , drive your ass off and some jealous so called racer protests the cream of the crop for doing what they feel is legal and were never disqualified for in the past . SHAME ON THAT PERSON !!!

  14 hrs · Like
• 

  Glen Porter Sue, I don't know you, but I have to respectfully disagree. I think it's never wrong to stand up for what you believe in, and although I don't like the way it turned out, I don't believe that it was Will's fault. It took courage on his part to stand up...See More

  13 hrs · Like · 3
• 

  Sue Haldeman the only flaws are the ones in the scca rule book . read it . look at the heads and then decide . you are saying that lets just say that mr drago didnt have what is called an illegal head he wouldnt win races ?? I say bull crap !! I have seen heads done by my son for spec miata . I have seen my husband who has been involved in racing of all types and has built many many engines also look at the rules and My sons heads and deemed them with in the specs for the class . my husband has also flowed a few heads for miatas and found there isnt much if any differance in the stock head with a good stock valve job and a head with short side work . especially on a restricted engine !!! in some cases the heads lost flow !!!! I think once again scca screwed the pooch . they should reinstate the winner and finishing order then clearify the rules on the heads for 2015 . !! and for my 2 cents , the protester needs to drive harder and not worry so much about what the others are doing !!!!!!!!

  13 hrs · Like
• 

  Juan Pineda I would rather that this thread not become a debate over the protest. If you want to debate that, please post on this other (30 page) thread: http://mazdaracers.c...hing.../page-30 I know many involved and call all friends. From my view,...See More

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

Peter Olivola, on 15 Oct 2014 - 3:35 PM, said:

Jim,

 

That's not the role I play in the club. I think the categories/classes should be deciding their own rules with the caveat that enforce-ability needs to be part of the consideration process.

 

Only issue is that if we followed your comments in 2002, there would be no SM class.  Sanders, Daniels, McMasters sent in the rules, CRB re-wrote yet left our names on it meanwhile the GCR itself was being altered to say NO NEW SINGLE MAKE CLASSES.  The masses wanted SM, club not so much.  So, it needs a bit more pushing than just to assume what the masses want will be realized. In my experience anyway.

 

But in theory, you are 100% correct. 

[Bad Rusty]

• Sue Haldeman Its a damn shame that it all comes down to a protest by someone who most likely wouldnt ever win anyway ! you work your but off , drive your ass off and some jealous so called racer protests the cream of the crop for doing what they feel is legal and were never disqualified for in the past . SHAME ON THAT PERSON !!!

  14 hrs · Like
• 

  Glen Porter Sue, I don't know you, but I have to respectfully disagree. I think it's never wrong to stand up for what you believe in, and although I don't like the way it turned out, I don't believe that it was Will's fault. It took courage on his part to stand up...See More

  13 hrs · Like · 3
• 

  Sue Haldeman the only flaws are the ones in the scca rule book . read it . look at the heads and then decide . you are saying that lets just say that mr drago didnt have what is called an illegal head he wouldnt win races ?? I say bull crap !! I have seen heads done by my son for spec miata . I have seen my husband who has been involved in racing of all types and has built many many engines also look at the rules and My sons heads and deemed them with in the specs for the class . my husband has also flowed a few heads for miatas and found there isnt much if any differance in the stock head with a good stock valve job and a head with short side work . especially on a restricted engine !!! in some cases the heads lost flow !!!! I think once again scca screwed the pooch . they should reinstate the winner and finishing order then clearify the rules on the heads for 2015 . !! and for my 2 cents , the protester needs to drive harder and not worry so much about what the others are doing !!!!!!!!

  13 hrs · Like
• 

  Juan Pineda I would rather that this thread not become a debate over the protest. If you want to debate that, please post on this other (30 page) thread: http://mazdaracers.c...hing.../page-30 I know many involved and call all friends. From my view,...See More

[Brandon]

While some are thinking the baby has left the building (along with the bathwater), why don't we shift focus back to the soap we're using to clean said baby?

 

Instead of focusing on sealed motors (whether SCCA-E or Mazdaspeed performing said sealing), can we instead look at a smaller piece that's been found to be difficult to police: aka the head blank itself?

 

Is there viability for having SCCA-E perform their own minimal machining (and say verification with "tech inspection tool matching" post-machining along with some sort of tracking) of bare heads that would enable all competitors to be operating from a "known legal & approved baseline"?  Granted, with our current configuration that would involve 4 different heads (1.6L, 1.8L hydraulic, 1.8L non-VVT, 1.8L VVT) but does that give us any incentive to achieve a single-engine part for the long-term?

 

Any by collapsing the class structure into a single spec-line (a la IT in permitting update/backdate), could we settle on using an '01+ VVT engine with heads provided by SCCA-E beginning with year 2017 or something?

 

I'm just spitballing but it seems to me we've got rules creep, a decent level of inertia AGAINST making said head modifications legal, and a reasonable enough justification to support settling on a single-model engine to keep the class competitive and ensure continuity.

[Peter Olivola]

The perfect is the enemy of the good.  Somewhere in the differences among various models of sanctioning body structures is a best practices that would be the ideal.  We're talking about human beings here.  Absent a compelling reason (survival comes to mind,) this won't happen.

 

I'm also reminded on a regular basis of the standard comment made by then NY Region Driver's School Chief Instructor Bruce MacInnes, "50 years from now this won't make a difference."
 

 

Jim Daniels - FIG, on 15 Oct 2014 - 3:55 PM, said:

Only issue is that if we followed your comments in 2002, there would be no SM class.  Sanders, Daniels, McMasters sent in the rules, CRB re-wrote yet left our names on it meanwhile the GCR itself was being altered to say NO NEW SINGLE MAKE CLASSES.  The masses wanted SM, club not so much.  So, it needs a bit more pushing than just to assume what the masses want will be realized. In my experience anyway.

 

But in theory, you are 100% correct. 

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

The good old days...... Wait, its still the same only more modification have been made legal.

 

http://forum.specmia...1081;p=0#000018

 

Peter, you were there.......

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

Don Wiseman said it best....

posted 11-20-2002 03:25 PM         

You may be right, but what with trying to get the class recognized etc, it's easier to go with what the SCCA is used to, and "creep" thereafter.

 

He predicted it perfectly. 

[Todd Green]

Jim Daniels - FIG, on 15 Oct 2014 - 4:24 PM, said:

Don Wiseman said it best....

posted 11-20-2002 03:25 PM         

You may be right, but what with trying to get the class recognized etc, it's easier to go with what the SCCA is used to, and "creep" thereafter.

 

He predicted it perfectly. 

This thread is what you were trying to link to.  (At least I assume you were.)

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

Todd Green, on 15 Oct 2014 - 4:52 PM, said:

This thread is what you were trying to link to.  (At least I assume you were.)

Linked to it in my first post 

[Glenn]

Todd Green, on 15 Oct 2014 - 4:52 PM, said:

This thread is what you were trying to link to.  (At least I assume you were.)

Great thread....its like they knew where we would be today......Time to put the genie BACK into the bottle once and for all!!!!  Engines, drivetrain, suspension all need rules written to ELIMINATE the possible/probable mods that enhance performance beyond what the factory intended.