856 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

IMO, Honestly it us, not the rules.

 

When one sees a issue, nobody talks (at least to the right people)

 

Pretty soon, "well everyone's doing it" instead of saying something.

 

Until someone finally does say something.

 

Then it boils over, Mike rewrite the rules to give everyone a warm fuzzy.

 

Hit the reset and wait for it to happen again,

 

Because nobody is saying anything to the right people.

 

People on the board that knew and didn't say, what did you expect to happen??, "oh that's tech shed" 

I guess it part of the game, but you're really getting an advantage? or the same people are still running up front.

 

J~

[Matt Busby]

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. 

 

If I'm understanding correctly, the rule in question was not written to enhance performance... It was written to compensate for the wide range of tolerances found in OEM heads, keeping factory heads with larger/deeper than normal plunge cuts/tolerances legal. What happened was, the builders saw this opening up tolerance as an opportunity to make ALL heads have the maximum of scope (which is perfectly normal) and it just got out of hand in the machining process. 

 

Perhaps the rule should be rewritten to allow for such tolerances without ANY machining. Therefore keeping these builders employed (and searching for heads with loose clearances) as well as keeping what I believe the "spirit" of the rule to be intact. 

[Peter Olivola]

I stand by both my posts in that thread and would add that it is the very nature of competition psychology that produces requests that, to outsiders, will obviously result in unintended performance increases but allow the requester to deny that to themselves.

 

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.......

[dstevens]

 

 

2000 Spec Miatas?  Two thousand individual cars?

 

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

A couple thouand built isn't so far fetched and may be a bit low.  I've got one that's been sitting for the last 3 plus years.   There are a couple of others in town sitting not including whatever happened to the cars Sammy build.  Dennis may know what a happened to those.  And we aren't in a very popular area for SM or even club sports car racing.  

 

People buy/build cars and race for a couple/few seasons and get out.  It's similar to what happens in other forms of racing.  They get into it, find out that it's difficult, time consuming and expensive.   And they aren't very good.  Let's say you only spend $10k/year.  If you aren't having $10k worth of fun better to do something else.   

[Steve Scheifler]

Matt, as I recall, the plunge cut was originally allied so that someone with a crappy head (due to core shift during casting) could improve it and be closer to the flow-queen someone else found by sifting though a pile of them.

The specs for the cut were then based on the worst-case dimensions of stock heads that were measured. Generally speaking, a "good" head will have a less obvious cut than a crappy one because the ports lined up properly with the valves. So in this case measurements of the dogs drove the tolerances such as how far into the bowl the cut could extend.

As it happens, we stopped actively racing soon after the rules changed so I have not personally flow tested any of them, before or after re-cutting the plunge, so I can't tell you how bad the dogs are or how close they get to the queens once both have been optimized. I suspect that the answers are not the same for all models but hopefully the rule did not do more harm than good.

[KW78]

One likely reason is special interests.  And history doesn't have to repeat itself.  I learn from my mistakes and manage to have excellent recall.

 

IMO This principle has shaped this class, ASedan, T3, GTL, ITA, ....   etc, etc...    It may be a fact of life I guess.... 

 

IMO, Honestly it us, not the rules.

 

When one sees a issue, nobody talks (at least to the right people)

 

Pretty soon, "well everyone's doing it" instead of saying something.

 

Until someone finally does say something.

 

Then it boils over, Mike rewrite the rules to give everyone a warm fuzzy.

 

Hit the reset and wait for it to happen again,

 

Because nobody is saying anything to the right people.

 

People on the board that knew and didn't say, what did you expect to happen??, "oh that's tech shed" 

I guess it part of the game, but you're really getting an advantage? or the same people are still running up front.

 

J~

 

Isn't the right people to talk to the fellow thinking about pushing a grey area because he is 2 seconds off the pace?   We need a formal session to talk at every race, that seems like a good place to start.  And making it formal makes it comfortable enough for people to participate in.  Making it formal and then allowing to bring a RFA in makes it have some teeth.  Also maybe that fellow racer realizes why he is 2 seconds off after talking. 

 

 

 

This works with closer competition in larger classes than we ever thought of having (yes people roll eyes if I say Solo).

 

Tweak the system.

[tferranti]

Whatever the solution may be, I really hope that both organizations are working together.

[Jim Creighton]

I'm posting this again since the pace picked up right after I posted it. It comes from a member who has seen what happens when you keep legalizing non compliant items. The costs go up and the number of drivers who can afford it go down. Only limited prep merging of IT cars into production saved the classes from a sure death.
Don't let this happen to SM just because some engine builders played games. The rest of you deserve to be heard.

"Before you start urging the rules folks to make what was found at the Runoffs legal (compliant), I will warn you that this is what causes rules creep and expense to all involved in the class. Once this happens, someone will find another place to fudge the rules and suddenly all the fast guys will have it. Then, that too will get caught and because the front guys have already spent the $$, all must do it and so on. And in the end, you will have an E Production car. We started in production in 1972 and it was mostly as delivered. Now, there nothing on the car as delivered.

If you make blending the cut legal, the blend will start to drift further until porting is allowed. Of course, then the motor will need more fuel and a higher compression ratio. Get the drift?

Is that what all want? If so, I'll see you in impound since I am production category chief for the Runoffs. If you do not want this made legal, I suggest you write the CRB now clearly stating this. Request they clarify the rule but not make it legal. Each of you now has a chance to contribute to the future of SM."

[KW78]

Here is a novel idea.  MAYBE we are using the wrong technology to control the power plant.

 

We are trying to control the motors by controlling the group of parts allowed and the machine operations allowed.

 

Maybe we should control the max air it breaths.   Unfortunately, a flat restrictor does not do this.  Put a 38mm  restrictor on a stock motor vs. a pro motor, and you have some significant spread of performance.  The flat plate acts as a resistor, not a flow limiter.

 

A sonic restrictor promises it acts like a flow limiter.  Build a 120hp sonic restrictor and it delivers a 120hp worth of air to a stock motor that is 125hp unrestricted or a pro motor that is 140hp unrestricted (or a prod motor that is 160hp for that matter).  Thats the promise anyway.

 

Add that to our current rules and the window between pro and junkyard might be 2hp, not 12hp.  While you are at it, we can fix a bunch of engine management problems such as these fatigued wiring harness connectors that is turning into half of the reliability issues I personally see.

 

And I say this keeping in mind that tech at a rocky mountain majors is never going to CC a compression ratio or know where to find a STR.  But they can put a rubber ball in a spec restrictor. 

 

If the technology is real, maybe that's an answer that trumps both the procedural problems, and the performance problems.

 

Kyle

[Steve Scheifler]

It is only of value if it limits power thoughout the usable RPM range. One of the problems with simple restrictors is that the 1.8s still have a fat torque curve, and the VVTs probably more so. But if you have already dismissed the poor 1.6 as irrelevant then you may have something there.

[High Chair]

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. 

No weight just get new heads and follow the rules. If the rules need to be clarified fine but allowing the heads that were found non-compliant to now be legal is going to be very negative for our class.  I have a pretty strong motor and according to my engine builder I am 100% legal. We will see when I get to the ARRC but I have no reason to doubt him as I know for a fact he has been comparing stock heads against his race heads just to double check. I know another well known builder who claims all of his engines are legal as well. If that is the case than it only seems fair to make the offenders spend the money and fix their engines and leave the masses alone.

[LarryKing]

 

A couple thouand built isn't so far fetched and may be a bit low

 

In 2013 there were a bit more than 1,400 SM entries nationwide. One car might account for a dozen of those entries, one car might account for one or two entries. I doubt that there are more than 500 currently active Spec Miatas.

 

Race cars gathering dust on jack stands are not germane.

 

Question: what was wrong with the spec requiring the MazdaComp exhaust?

[Steve Scheifler]

Well, raetech says that's the point of their restrictors so worth a closer look. 👍

Correction: taking more than 30 seconds to look this time, they appear to sell typical SIRs.

[KW78]

It is only of value if it limits power thoughout the usable RPM range. One of the problems with simple restrictors is that the 1.8s still have a fat torque curve, and the VVTs probably more so. But if you have already dismissed the poor 1.6 as irrelevant then you may have something there.

 

Well it is not a single magic bullet but it has value to the guy campaigning a home built car against the same car that is pro built.

 

Side:  If you want the 1.6 to accelerate like it has more torque, but not more top end in 4th or 5th gear, give it and only it a 7lb flywheel.   Or if you really want to add torque multiplication not HP, give it 4.44 gears.  But I digress from the utopia of this thread....

 

Kyle

[Mike Collins]

In 2013 there were a bit more than 1,400 SM entries nationwide. One car might account for a dozen of those entries, one car might account for one or two entries. I doubt that there are more than 500 currently active Spec Miatas.

 

Race cars gathering dust on jack stands are not germane.

 

Question: what was wrong with the spec requiring the MazdaComp exhaust?

 

The Mazdacomp Exhaust is no longer in production or available...

[Mike Collins]

In 2013 there were a bit more than 1,400 SM entries nationwide. One car might account for a dozen of those entries, one car might account for one or two entries. I doubt that there are more than 500 currently active Spec Miatas.

 

Race cars gathering dust on jack stands are not germane.

 

Question: what was wrong with the spec requiring the MazdaComp exhaust?

 

And besides when we had to run those...there were good ones and there were REALLY good ones....  just like everything else...

[Juan Pineda]

 

• Sue Haldeman Its a damn shame that it all comes down to a protest...

  14 hrs · Like
• 

  Glen Porter Sue, I don't know you, but I have to respectfully disagree...

  13 hrs · Like · 3
• 

  Sue Haldeman the only flaws are the ones in the scca rule book...

  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

 

 

Sheesh Rusty, I thought FaceBook was private. For the record my original FB post:

 

"Racing can be so brutal. Surely it makes little sense to the outsider why we choose to put ourselves through this. Huge respect to those that worked so hard this year and put up such fearsome battles at Laguna. I'm proud to have shared it with you. (I don't have everyone's FB, so feel free to share with other SM racers/teams.)"

 

And the complete text of my reply to Sue Halderman:

 

"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 ...  I know many involved and call all friends. From my view, protestor and protestee acted honorably. We need to respect the protestor for sticking his neck out to fix a situation that had gotten out of hand. And just the same, we need to acknowledge the skill and hard work of drivers that were sent to the back through no fault of their own. How the outcome might have changed with conforming parts, we will never know for sure. But we will have a chance for rematch next year. Peace."

[davew]

In 2013 there were a bit more than 1,400 SM entries nationwide. One car might account for a dozen of those entries, one car might account for one or two entries. I doubt that there are more than 500 currently active Spec Miatas.

 

Race cars gathering dust on jack stands are not germane.

 

Question: what was wrong with the spec requiring the MazdaComp exhaust?

 

According to SCCA.com, there where 2460 Spec Miata entries in "non-Majors" events. Add another 599 for SMT and SSM classes. There where over 300 individual drivers who participated in at least one "Majors" event. I could not find a total, but a simple guess would put the total number of entries in the 1400 area. This matches the number quoted above. That puts Spec Miata and its sub classes at over 4500 entries in 2014, and counting. Not to mention the off shoots and double dippers in ITA and STL.

 

My guess would be that cars built to SM specs combined for over 5000 entries in SCCA alone this year. Not to mention NASA, Midwestern Council or the other local organizations.

 

Dave

[Steve Scheifler]

I've been chewing on the suggestion some have made to let the modified heads run with a weight penalty. There is no perfect solution but that one may have some appeal. If it were truly punitive then it effectively flips the table so people with them have to chose between being at a small disadvantage, or spend the money to get back to spec. Surely that's better than the currently legal guys making that choice if the specs are changed (again) but it doesn't immediately obsolete a pile of heads. Heck, it would even create a new market of low-cost heads for the budget racer who doesn't mind carrying a little extra weight (or has not choice anyway). 😗

[Dennis Valet]

Forgive my ignorance, but maybe someone could answer some of these basic questions for me which would help me understand why the class arrived at pro built engines that cost thousands upon thousands of dollars.

1. Was the difference in stock heads really so great that it warranted allowing engine builders to open up the engine and begin machining them? 
2. Did people really used to spend thousands of dollars and hours digging through the parts bin to find the best "stock" parts? If yes, was that really worse than the current situation where everyone is forced to open their engines up to machine them?
3. Besides the issue being discussed now, is there anything else inside the engine that can be machined by an engine builder? That is, how open is this can of worms? (again, forgive my ignorance). 

It just seems to me that there are two competing interests which you will seemingly never be able to complete merge - low cost vs absolute parity. If you want to have parity, you need to accept higher costs. If you want to have lower costs, you have to accept less parity. Is that completely off base?