856 replies to this topic

[TommyB]

Maybe do it like some local roundy round guys (and horse racing).

 Make our races "claimers".

For a certain fee at the end of the race you can buy anybody's motor.

So , go ahead spend a gazzilion dollars, but you could end up losing it for ???? + some kind of core charge..Perhaps the fee could be equivalent to the cost of a crate motor.

Might apply this to trannys and diffs also.

 

Just say'n.

Regards

 

Tom B.

[hf1]

Without putting too fine a point on it, a lot of drivers at the front would probably welcome such a plan because most people would be surprised by how small the power differences are.

 

If the power differences are truly insignificant then the runoff results should have stood, and this thread should have never been started. If the dyno charts after few major races showed that the cars are pretty much all equal, then the class would be a happier bunch, no one would protest, everyone's racing would become cheaper, and the engine builders would be out of business (Oops!). 

[Steve Scheifler]

If a car truly fails tech, you can't let that slide.

I didn't say insignificant. I'm talking about the guy's who are a second off per minute of lap time thinking that what was found here is the explanation. Power can make that difference, but not from this particular issue.

But if I had been there fighting for position and just got edged out again and again, I wouldn't consider ANY power gained outside the rules to be insignificant.

[Tom Sager]

My accountant sells audit insurance.  Maybe engine builders should sell tech insurance.  

[James York]

If the power differences are truly insignificant then the runoff results should have stood, and this thread should have never been started. If the dyno charts after few major races showed that the cars are pretty much all equal, then the class would be a happier bunch, no one would protest, everyone's racing would become cheaper, and the engine builders would be out of business (Oops!). 

 

Again, the SCCA doesn't work like that.  If you are found non-compliant, you are disqualified.  Whether or not it adds a fraction of a HP. (why the cars found non-compliant weren't DQ'd vs. moved to last place is still a mystery to me that as far as I know the SCCA hasn't explained).

[hf1]

Again, the SCCA doesn't work like that.  If you are found non-compliant, you are disqualified.  Whether or not it adds a fraction of a HP. (why the cars found non-compliant weren't DQ'd vs. moved to last place is still a mystery to me that as far as I know the SCCA hasn't explained).

 

I understand. My assumption is that the rules exist with the ultimate goal of minimizing the differences between the cars and making the racing as much as possible about the drivers and as little as possible about the cars. What better way of proving that said goals have been achieved (or not) than going straight to the source of major inequality: HP/torque curves? 

 

Come to think of it, the more complicated (hence vague, and open to interpretation) the rules become, the better off the engine builders become as the ways of concocting "magical potions" which they can offer for top $$$ to vane yet rich racers only grow. There are infinite number of ways to combine 50 +/- tolerances, each satisfying the rules in a "compliant" car, but only a few combinations offering superior HP/torque curves. Assume a "compliant" car existed that showed +5hp across the rpm range. Only one shop knows how to get these +5hp in a compliant car and it charged $100k to do it. Would this be good for the class as a whole? I, for one, would like to know if I had lost to a guy with extra 5hp, tech compliance be damned. 

 

Compliance without equalized HP/torque curves is meaningless, especially in a "spec" class. 

[Steve Scheifler]

hf1, I strayed from my own point to which you responded. In the dyno scenario I suspect that some guys who are (to pick a number) 1 second per minute of lap time off the pace would be disappointed to know that they are down relatively little power. So either they assume that much power makes a 1 second difference or they understand that it is just one of many factors, and in this class, one of the smaller. But I will always come back to admitting that in such a low power class it is also the easiest gain to apply, so keeping it (or at least the potential for it) equal is important. It absolutely matters, just don't delude yourself into thinking it is the main reason a lot of guys are much faster because then you stop looking for all the other areas to improve.

[James York]

 

 

Compliance without equalized HP/torque curves is meaningless, especially in a "spec" class. 

 

You, we and I can lobby the CRB for whatever rules we all think are best.  Parts specifications, HP/TQ curves, whatever.  But smart people will work within the rules to build a better mousetrap.  It always happens.  Heck, I bet I even know how to manipulate dynos to a wider HP margin then magically producing a motor with all the optimum specs between the different builders.  And I know there are people out there smarter and more experienced than me at this.

 

Short of a entirely sealed package (which has some pitfalls also), the racers with money, time and experience will always gain advantage.  That is the way racing works.  We can do our best to limit creativity, but there are some very smart people out there.  Today though, the cars and engine packages from the major builders are as close as I ever have seen.  Leaps and bounds ahead when I started in 2004.

 

To me, what happened in Laguna is a minor hiccup.  Things like that happen.  Sometimes builders read and apply the rules differently than the SCCA does at the time which results in a DQ.  It's happened in the past and I am sure it will happen again.  Hell, even mutli-million dollar F1 teams get caught mis-interpreting rules and get a re-alignment.

 

For me, what we have, SM, is pretty damn good.  No overhaul to the class is needed just another tweak (and I am sure more in the future to follow) to the ruleset to either 1) make compliant the heads seen in Laguna, or 2) be more specific about not allow the blending.  Just need to decide (smart people) and add some clarity to the rules and move forward.

 

Tomorrow it might be something else that is written a little fuzzy in the rulebook that is the hot topic.

[hf1]

You can lobby the CRB for whatever rules you think are best.  Parts specifications, HP/TQ curves, whatever.  Smart people will work within the rules to build a better mousetrap.  It always happens.  Heck, I bet I even know how to manipulate dyno's to a wider margin then magically producing a motor with all the optimum specs between the different builders.  And I know there are people out there smarter and more experienced than me at this.

 

I admit that my mechanical knowledge is limited to changing pads, rotors, and fluids, so cannot argue with you on this. 

[James York]

I admit that my mechanical knowledge is limited to changing pads, rotors, and fluids, so cannot argue with you on this. 

I guess it all depends on what we think the window is out there between the builders.  I think small. (<3hp)  Others may think differently.

 

And yes, I for sure would rather have the motor from the builder that was +3, obviously.

 

And I am talking about just motors.  There is a lot more to making your car move quickly than just the lump under the hood.

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

The answer is two fold and real easy. Unfortunately neither will help you improve your average finishing position, sorry.   In fact, I don't think 10 more HP would help very many who think its all power and cheaters.  

 

1. Uphold the previous tech inspections since 2006 where these heads were in the hands of tech and passed.  So, explain the rule in a way that makes all those heads legal, AGAIN.

 

2. Or, define the rule as the decision was made last week.  In that case, the motor builders simple get more retail business to supply heads based on the new tech inspection.  

 

Such is the life of racing.........

 

That said, ill buy some old heads that may be illegal once the rules are determined.  They make for great EP and STL heads.   

[Ken SM94]

Hey Ron, can you cut and paste those rules one more time?  Maybe highlight the important parts in red this time.  I'm still confused.

 

I really hope they get them clarified soon.

[Cnj]

Ken,

Mike has called it out pretty clearly on the other thread (with color) and there is a good discussion there on the detail. Perhaps you had a separate point to make however.

Certainly clarifying this issue quickly will be good for the class, the SCCA, the competitors and all who make thier living supporting this sport.

CNJ

[pat slattery]

What would happen if they made the head open to any treatment,  you must maintain the Compression, and number of valves and cam restrictions. Wold this make the heads way to expensive, 

[Steve Scheifler]

See my post earlier today. Short answer, yes if you want to match the best, and that's not even the best reason to not go there.

[Johnny D]

 number of valves and cam restrictions.

 

I was hoping for more valves after the rule change, how about you.

J~

[Johnny D]

Hey Ron, can you cut and paste those rules one more time?  Maybe highlight the important parts in red this time.  I'm still confused.

 

I really hope they get them clarified soon.

 

Pretty sure he was being facetious.

 

How about verbage of "it can't be illegal"

"modified into a grey area"

"modified to pass tech on a given weekend"

J~

[Ken SM94]

Or how about "if you already have your appeal written before a protest is even filed and you're on the CRB or SMAC committee claiming unclear rules, you're probably illegal"

I like that one.

[Johnny D]

Or how about "if you already have your appeal written before a protest is even filed and you're on the CRB or SMAC committee claiming unclear rules, you're probably illegal"

I like that one.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=TcxpbhM0DaA

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=wtfCRaNg5EU

 

They must have been in the Boy Scouts.

J~

[Andrew Charbonneau]

really hate too say this a few years ago the appeal was written before also humm trend

THE NO GO TOOL

should i go to for advice

Spec Miata Garage
Tech Tips and Car Construction information and discussion.
Sponsored & Moderated by East Steet Automotive! 505 5902     Archive: Read-Only Forum