856 replies to this topic

[Jaime Florence]

It is way off where it was.
It is far less broken than at many points in the past
You can reasonably assume that that pictures I posted are representative of some actual hardware that failed tech

I will pay to have at least two of the actual heads shipped to me and back so I can do what you ask. So far all I get are pictures.

 

I believe all of the heads at the Run-offs were kept by SCCA, so you aren't going to see pictures of those heads unless they (SCCA) make them available.

[Steve Scheifler]

I thought maybe, since they were not DQ'd and given the suggested rule change to make them legal, the heads were not confiscated. Can someone confirm?

[Yiannis Tsiounis]

What??, it's the circus.

Everyone's got a agenda

Danny's running for Class Prez.

Dan's pushing for change so he doesn't loose everything fixing the prob.

High Chairs doing what right.

Steve's looking for something that will make this not happen again.

Tune in next for....

J~

:-) Mine is to beat everybody! (not with a stick)

[Yiannis Tsiounis]

... the spacer between the seat and the steering wheel.

 

 

 

That's a good one :-) In my case the spacer keeps changing shape too

[Andrew Charbonneau]

hey yiani didn't your country give us the statue of liberty  bye the way sorry I ran you off at vir on purpose jim danials taught me that 

[FTodaro]

I am a bit taken aback by the responses to this issue at this point.  I seem to be the only one who wants to see the what was deemed non-compliant at the run-offs. 

 

Not one person that has personally inspected the heads in question has posted a description of what was found let alone a photograph.  

 

This is absurd, the usual suspects are wanting to re-write the rules and now we have Danny and other well respected drivers jumping off the cliff  over something they have no first person knowledge of.  

 

 

We have let the class doomsdayers scream everyone is cheating yet have no hard evidence of the actual infraction.  

 

Before you say, "  the SCCA Tech called the heads illegal"  think about this,  they were so uncomfortable with their findings that they only moved the drivers to the back and didn't DQ.  I personally have never seen anything like that in any racing organization for a non-compliant car.  

 

 

Instead we have people begging to re-write rules, we have people wanting to do away with all allowed modifications, we have people wanting to change entire engine packages.  

 

How bout we just tech the stuff we have "for real" and hold people accountable with real punishments when found non-compliant.  

 

This need to reshape the class is ridiculous.  IT IS THE MOST POPULAR AMATEUR ROAD RACING CLASS IN THE USA.  If its so fuckking broke why does it continue to thrive !!? 

 

I think you and I are close to being on the same page.

 

There are three different camps that i see developing.

 

Those who think they may have one of the non complaint heads they are looking for reasonably fast or cheap solution to fix it. First choice is to make the rules clear to comply with what 4 motor builders interpreted the rules to be. If the rule does not include the modified heads, then the solution should be based upon FACTS that the modification is nullified by adding weight to the car. Since NO ONE has seen the modification or flow tested or dyno'ed the difference between the two, till we get to that point, this is just a bunch of Jaw boning as 5 lbs may make it even for all we know.

 

The second camp, Those who were told or otherwise believe that their head is virgin snow, those folks do not want to permit the rule change even if it was shown to be no significant advantage because they do not want to be at any disadvantage and they want to dispense with some punishment. They advocate that those heads should be scrapped. This is true even though they justify "no creep" because we need to keep the rules from creeping and costing people more money to compete, however  its ok  to punish those innocent drivers who will will have to buy new heads and tear into the motor.

 

The third camp want wholesale rule changes from sealing motors to new resistor plates, running a different power train, and suggesting any other change they can think of encompassing everything they dislike. This seems over the top when we are discussing the clarification of what is permissible in a plunge cut.

 

For anyone who has ran this year and felt that they were disadvantaged on the track because your competitor had a better motor than you, Take this challenge.

 

Find one of the fastest guys in the paddock and have him drive your car. I did that last year after my run on Saturday. I lent Justin Hille my car to race and i sat out on Sunday. Same weekend, same car, set up. Guess what? He hated my setup but still drove it faster than i could.

 

The rules in this class are not broke, several talented drivers from many different motor builders have won races this year. You can do what ever in the Hell you want with the rules to make the playing field level, but i submit that a vary small percentage of your disadvantage in in the motor.

 

I hope the CRB rules on this quickly so we know where we stand and know what needs to be done to get back to racing.

[Johnny D]

 

I hope the CRB rules on this quickly so we know where we stand and know what needs to be done to get back to racing.

 

Wouldn't Tapeka be playing with the head to see what the possible advantage would be.

Then they could do an informed discision/change? 

J~

[MDixon]

What a shitshow, beginning to think I made the wrong choice. Anyone what to buy a fast SM that I think is legal? 

[David L]

No way it's a 96

[Caveman-kwebb99]

How much?

[MDixon]

No way it's a 96

Really? Do tell...

[Todd Green]

even if it was shown to be no significant advantage

Except that is not the case. There has been no tangible data either way. Just a bunch of speculation.

[David L]

Well it depends on what someone wants to do with it. If you want to go out and have a blast running regionals it is a great car to have. if you want to be competitive on a national level that is not the right car to have. It has been discussed to death on these forums and while some say the cars are equal if you look at the results from any major races you will see what car is the car to have.

 

Have fun   

[LarryKing]

 

For anyone who has ran this year and felt that they were disadvantaged on the track because your competitor had a better motor than you, Take this challenge.

Find one of the fastest guys in the paddock and have him drive your car.

 

 

Valid argument Frank.

 

But what do you say to the driver that has raced relatively evenly with another driver - until that other driver shows up with the latest wiz-bang SM and promptly disappears into the sunset?

 

Just add money?

 

SM has become wallet racing, plain and simple. (and the majority seem fine with that)

[hf1]

Well it depends on what someone wants to do with it. If you want to go out and have a blast running regionals it is a great car to have. if you want to be competitive on a national level that is not the right car to have. It has been discussed to death on these forums and while some say the cars are equal if you look at the results from any major races you will see what car is the car to have.

 

Have fun   

 

New here (and to SM) but not new to racing and tracking. Do you mind telling me which are the cars to have? Some links would be fine, too. 

 

Fascinated by the latest and unprecedented runoffs predicament. Hope it makes SM stronger/better going forward. 

[AJ Roderick]

 

 

But what do you say to the driver that has raced relatively evenly with another driver - until that other driver shows up with the latest wiz-bang SM and promptly disappears into the sunset?

 

That is my goal for next year while I start building a new car. lol we are keeping the old 99 if you ever wanna try it....

[SaulSpeedwell]

I don't really subscribe to the Chicken Little slippery slope idea that engine builder machinining is "rules creep" that will turn SM into tubeframed timebomb Spridgets overnight. The incremental cost of the engine machining is pennies compared to the sunk capital and operating costs.  Almost all of the rule changes made in SM have leveled the field, saved costs, and brought engines closer to Showroom Stock than they ever were when Showroom Stock classes actually mattered and SM wasn't even an idea yet.  

 

"Car Parts Inflation" (+40% since 2008?), non-speed-parts prep creep (anyone run an Autopower cage or $250 data system anymore?), and "Car Of The Year" is what has really driven up the costs, to my eye.

 

I remember the lunacy of trying to find "peach" 1989 headers and heads and downpipes and every other flowable thing, when it would have been a lot easier and cheaper and fairer to just let EVERYONE hog the dang things out.  Cam blanks, "special subframes", "special shocks", etc.  All were in SSB, before SM was even a thing. 

 

Can SCCA Enterprises make (or sell) the plunge-cutting tool and go/no-go gauge, combine with a port volume rule? 

 

Is simply allowing porting an option here?  Write a rule ASSUMING everyone will port the thing, and specify the diameter and the checking method and the port volume?  If every port and bowl is going to get "machined", then you don't have to worry about whether Mazda made a magical one or what its cast surface looked like?

 

Just ideas, maybe bad ones.  I'm not an engine internals expert.  Maybe you need a SMEBAC (Spec Miata Engine Builders Advisory Council).

[Jim Creighton]

"Just ideas, maybe bad ones. I'm not an engine internals expert. Maybe you need a SMEBAC (Spec Miata Engine Builders Advisory Council)."

Would this be the foxes guarding the chicken house?

[hf1]

How about dyno the three podium cars and three others cars at random (six cars total) RIGHT after every major race and post the HP/torque curves + the engine builder along with the race results? "Wow, you won with +10hp against everyone else across the rpm range. Good work!". 

 

 

[Steve Scheifler]

... Is simply allowing porting an option here? Write a rule ASSUMING everyone will port the thing, and specify the diameter and the checking method and the port volume? If every port and bowl is going to get "machined", then you don't have to worry about whether Mazda made a magical one or what its cast surface looked like.

I'm right with you until that point, but I don't think opening up porting is the answer. I had hoped, but without testing to support it, that the plunge cut rule would on average bring things a little closer for anyone who actually wanted to be competitive without costing much, but be small enough to not leave the rest totally in the dust. But even with that small allowance the flow bench work began so they could eek out yet a tiny bit more at much higher incremental cost. Predictable, but maybe overall still closer than before we took the plunge. Maybe.

Any more porting means a lot more flow bench work and those with access to a bench and a big pile of old heads or the ability to keep replacing and removing metal in search of the perfect shape within the specs will do whatever it takes. Meanwhile the guy with a Dremmel tool and specs will try not to slip and ruin his one head, and at best end up with vanilla porting. I have little doubt that the net differences will increase, the cost of a "pro" engine will increase, and the guy who can't go there or wants to keep the car legal for multiple classes will be significantly further behind.

I'm not totally paranoid about rules creep but each option needs to be projected forward knowing that the same bunch, or those who inevitably come next, will find every legal advantage from it and then start looking for more in the shadows, just like this time. I think more porting would give the "haves" a much bigger legal advantage than they have now even with the grey area. It would take a lot of testing to prove that one way or the other but I think it is probable, and for certain that would be the perception promoted by the builders to sell more heads.