856 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

Johnny, if you think for a minute that I am feeling better. You don't know me or my son. I have something I'd like to say to you right about now.

 

I have no clue of what you're going through or how hard it's is.

 

If it feels better, yell at me, let it out.

 

I'm glad you're here, typing, not in a dark spot.

Sorry,

J~

[Waterboy]

I think maybe we need a new thread on here call CA "Cheaters Annonymous" were we can hold on line meetings.

 

I will go first " I am a Cheater" I have the dreaded STR or RTS or whatever they call it, if you get too close to me you could catch the disease.

 

I find it hillarious I am about the only one who has the balls to even say that my car is now non compliant when there are hundres if not a thousand out there that are from either CC or SRT or BOTH...

 

Very highly doubt you are the only one with the balls, I think you are just the only one that doesn't stop talking

[Jamz14]

Apology accepted, and sorry for being a bit sensitive.

 

It doesn't feel better to yell at you. Nothing makes me feel better (accept maybe being at the track with you guys and talking with his friends). I am typing in a dark spot. But it is the only thing I know to do. It is this (and other things), or put the gun to my head right now.

[RazerX]

Shunning "intentional" cheaters huh?

 

So now we assemble a jury to bring them to trial and convict them of intentional cheating and banish them from the kingdom. Would you have these latest drivers booted? Do you accept their word that they didn't do it intentionally? Do you go with the insinuations of some here that they were intentionally cheating? Are you the judge of "intentional"? How about customers that bought these? Boot them too? How about drivers that might have asked for extra? How is it that you are going to determine "intentional".

 

Banish me from the kingdom then. I want no part of this type of thing. Is my engine legal, hell yes!!! But do I push the gray as much as I can outside the engine.....yes. Hell, here on this forum you could purchase a "speed secret". I'll come clean and tell you about one of my little "cheats" that I intentionally did and do. Protest me all you want.

 

On the 97 at least, the wiring harness runs right in front of the snorkle. A 1" diameter blockage right in front of the intake. So I pushed the wiring harness underneath the snorkle. I moved a stock part from its original location 1" away in order to pick up the air intake the way it is supposed to be. I didn't move the entire harness. I move a 3 " section 1 " away from the stock location. I also have relays that aren't mounted up to their stock bracket. They are just hanging in the engine compartment. Another cheat you can banish me for.

 

These people have been punished. Many may have been punished beyond their culpability. Entire seasons have been screwed up. Hasn't everyone paid a high enough price? Let it go!! The process worked and everyone has their pint of blood. The rules are clear, if you want to build a compaint head you can without changing the head builders tools. If a builder can't make the plunge without violating, then the plunge doesn't get made. But at least some head builders can make the plunge cut without blending and deburring. Everything worked here as intended!!!!! The rules, the protest format, the punishment. The idea of shunning should be shunned and banished.

 

And this doesn't even take into account young drivers trying to make a career. I know all us old guys might be bitter about not being able to make a career out of driving. And as much as all y'all saying this is amateur fun racing, there are young talented drivers trying to use this as a launching pad for careers. What are these young guys supposed to do when they have an extremely limited amount of time to make it and they are going up against some of the best builders and drivers in the world? Sit back for years and not push the gray areas while everyone around them does? Again the processed worked. The solution in my opinion is to use the process more!!!!! I made a suggestion because someone said that there were a lack of suggestions. I saw not one response to that suggestion.

 

Let it go. Get prepped for next season. Go have some fun. F*&%ing eh, you guys get to be race car drivers for christ sakes. Isn't that enough? I know plenty of people that would give anything to be in your guys ( and ladys ) shoes. And I know some guys that want to be in lady shoes.

 

If you read my post i am supportive of investigating gray areas.  Some may cross the line and some are brilliant ideas and something that give you an edge.  I do it.  But running tweaked fuels, making switches to defeat dyno tests, having someone call your phone saying your relative died to avoid tech because you have left the RP out, have someone put a gallon of water in your trunk as you are in line for the scales is intentional, premeditated cheating.   As my post indicated I feel for the runoff guys, immensely and feel they have paid a very high price for actions of others they trusted.  I would drink merry with them as I with you.   I am supportive of the process that is working. 

[Glenn]

For 1, isn't the season over for most, so you don't have anything to bitch about for a while ??

 

If not, then you have one race?

I suggest..

https://www.youtube....h?v=yeRSksvG9E0

 

J~

2015 SE Division Season begins this weekend!

[Johnny D]

2015 SE Division Season begins this weekend!

 

Sorry, what track ?? I'm way over on the west coast where it's 2014.

J~

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Very highly doubt you are the only one with the balls, I think you are just the only one that doesn't stop talking

Lol hmm lol...

[Waterboy]

2015 SE Division Season begins this weekend!

 Should be a good weekend for someone, with a legal car, to get some points for 2015 season.

[Jamz14]

RazerX,

 

Understood and I guess that was point. All you guys are good people, the finest people I have ever met in fact. And the people that were affected by this whole thing I consider my friends. Even the guys I don't personally know. And that is the only reason I am sensitive to the idea of banishment.

 

Thank you for your comments.

[pat slattery]

I heard the punishment is going to be a 25 lb weight added to the 1.6

[Glenn]

Sorry, what track ?? I'm way over on the west coast where it's 2014.

J~

VIR.

[Todd Green]

We will never know, but to assume that all cars checked failed in some way is just a strange coincidence is short sighted.

All cars protested didn't fail the STR test.  And since multiple cars were from the same builders, it isn't surprising that it if one motor from the builder failed, then the rest did as well.  However, if you look at it from a builder perspective 3 out of 4 failed.   You have to assume that Lyons-built motors wouldn't have failed.  (No one in their right mind is going to bring a motor that fails the very test they are "mass" protesting, IMO.)  So that would take it down to 3 out of 5 (Now we are down to 60% rather than the previously quoted 89%).  What was really needed was heads from Rossini, RE, Stewart, etc. to be examined at the same time.  Then we'd have a much clearer picture if this was a "standard" practice or just a few builders.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

All cars protested didn't fail the STR test.  And since multiple cars were from the same builders, it isn't surprising that it if one motor from the builder failed, then the rest did as well.  However, if you look at it from a builder perspective 3 out of 4 failed.   You have to assume that Lyons-built motors wouldn't have failed.  (No one in their right mind is going to bring a motor that fails the very test they are "mass" protesting, IMO.)  So that would take it down to 3 out of 5 (Now we are down to 60% rather than the previously quoted 89%).  What was really needed was heads from Rossini, RE, Stewart, etc. to be examined at the same time.  Then we'd have a much clearer picture if this was a "standard" practice or just a few builders.

 

Finally someone is getting it...  

 

You also need to weight how many engines are produced and sold by each builder and are they non complaint or complaint builders.  anyone can be a engine builder and build a few engines many are building hundres...

[Steve Scheifler]

I have been trying to get a better sense of the potential power advantage from a modestly blended plunge cut. Needless to say, not everyone who has already tested it is in a hurry to speak up but I have gotten some information and attempted to corroborate it through an independent source.

One source which has tested the modifications to a late 1.8 head on a flow bench found a surprisingly significant improvement from taking off a small amount of metal to just break the edge of the plunge cut. Sharp edges can be very disruptive to flow and this is at the edge of a critical area, so in a simple flow test the results were promising. However, with the intake manifold bolted to the head the benefits dropped dramatically, and with the restrictor plate added the advantage was largely lost at all cam lift points. More aggressive blending did not significantly improve flow of the assembled unit. So, according to this source, what looked like a possible gain of up to a couple HP turned out to be likely well under 1. Granted even a flow bench can't account for a lot of real-world variables, but it seems unlikely that something would restore that lost advantage.

But that was just one source which may or may not feel compelled to be entirely accurate. Fortunately someone not directly involved with this mess offered to reproduce the same tests on his flow bench. In this case it was a 1.6 head but the configuration is the same and the results would be enlightening if not 100% comparable.

In this independent test, a "slight blend" yielded an average flow increase of 1.8%, interestingly most beneficial at higher lift (above .250"). I confess, that surprised me a little as I expected closer to 1%, but flow dynamics are far too complex to predict all that closely, at least for me. With the intake bolted on the flow decreased, dropping the blend benefits to 0.7%. And although the 1.6 doesn't run a restrictor one was added to test the claim that it further decreased the benefits of the blend. The impact of that was less than claimed for the 1.8 but did reduce the average gain to 0.6%. However, even with intake and plate in place there were gains as high as 1.5% above .250" of lift. (Miata cams max lift is quite low, ~.310 for the 1.6 if I recall correctly).

So the separate test of the 1.6 does at least generally support the results given for the 99+ cars. If we use the more optimistic numbers from the 1.6 then the real world benefits might be in the neighborhood of 0.6% more flow potential on average. Certainly not insignificant if you are the guy without it, but likely less than 1 HP and far from an observable advantage.

Actual testers are of course welcome to elaborate or correct anything I have said here, directly or through me. If anyone else has done similar testing or is willing to do so, please chime in.

Meanwhile, I am having trouble finding a shop which has done a bunch of plunge cuts who will let me film the tools and process as they do a head for me. Not sure why? But if you know someone, I am willing to travel to their shop.

[Keith Novak]

This may have already been brought up but is this only a NB issue? 

 

 I heard about this late and have only made it through the first 20 or so pages.  I looked at one of the heads I have for my '95, and it looks like I have plunge cuts.  Granted I'm no expert but the end of the cuts on mine seem to blend in pretty well without any obvious tool marks that I can see.  I don't know whether that means 1) this is not an issue on my head due to the profile differences between a '95 and a '99 or 2)  I have no clue what I'm looking at.

 

[Johnny D]

I have been trying to get a better sense of the potential power advantage from a modestly blended plunge cut. Needless to say, not everyone who has already tested it is in a hurry to speak up but I have gotten some information and attempted to corroborate it through an independent source.

One source which has tested the modifications to a late 1.8 head on a flow bench found a surprisingly significant improvement from taking off a small amount of metal to just break the edge of the plunge cut. Sharp edges can be very disruptive to flow and this is at the edge of a critical area, so in a simple flow test the results were promising. However, with the intake manifold bolted to the head the benefits dropped dramatically, and with the restrictor plate added the advantage was largely lost at all cam lift points. More aggressive blending did not significantly improve flow of the assembled unit. So, according to this source, what looked like a possible gain of up to a couple HP turned out to be likely well under 1. Granted even a flow bench can't account for a lot of real-world variables, but it seems unlikely that something would restore that lost advantage.

But that was just one source which may or may not feel compelled to be entirely accurate. Fortunately someone not directly involved with this mess offered to reproduce the same tests on his flow bench. In this case it was a 1.6 head but the configuration is the same and the results would be enlightening if not 100% comparable.

In this independent test, a "slight blend" yielded an average flow increase of 1.8%, interestingly most beneficial at higher lift (above .250"). I confess, that surprised me a little as I expected closer to 1%, but flow dynamics are far too complex to predict all that closely, at least for me. With the intake bolted on the flow decreased, dropping the blend benefits to 0.7%. And although the 1.6 doesn't run a restrictor one was added to test the claim that it would further decrees the benefits of the blend. The impact of that was less than claimed for the 1.8 but did reduce the average gain to 0.6%. However, even with intake and plate in place there were gains as high as 1.5% above .250" of lift. (Miata cams max lift is quite low, ~.310 for the 1.6 if I recall correctly).

So the separate test of the 1.6 does at least generally support the results given for the 99+ cars. If we use the more optimistic numbers from the 1.6 then the real world benefits might be in the neighborhood of 0.6% more flow potential on average. Certainly not insignificant if you are the guy without it, but likely less than 1 HP and far from an observable advantage.

Actual testers are of course welcome to elaborate or correct anything I have said here, directly or through me. If anyone else has done similar testing or is will to do so, please chime in.

Meanwhile, I am having trouble finding a shop which has done a bunch of plunge cuts who will let me film the tools and process as they do a head for me. Not sure why? But if you know someone, I am willing to travel to their shop.

 

Alot of unknowns. were in a wait and see mode, IMO, from SCCA.

Can't really add weight until you know what the mod'd head does.

 

And were not just talking plunge cut, the whistle test with the valve cover off is a tech bulletin (i believe) so it's in effect.

So it's hit the fan with a number of people, but how many ???

J~

[AW33COM]

Sounds like trouble in paradise.

[MPR22]

I have been trying to get a better sense of the potential power advantage from a modestly blended plunge cut. Needless to say, not everyone who has already tested it is in a hurry to speak up but I have gotten some information and attempted to corroborate it through an independent source.
One source which has tested the modifications to a late 1.8 head on a flow bench found a surprisingly significant improvement from taking off a small amount of metal to just break the edge of the plunge cut. Sharp edges can be very disruptive to flow and this is at the edge of a critical area, so in a simple flow test the results were promising. However, with the intake manifold bolted to the head the benefits dropped dramatically, and with the restrictor plate added the advantage was largely lost at all cam lift points. More aggressive blending did not significantly improve flow of the assembled unit. So, according to this source, what looked like a possible gain of up to a couple HP turned out to be likely well under 1. Granted even a flow bench can't account for a lot of real-world variables, but it seems unlikely that something would restore that lost advantage.
But that was just one source which may or may not feel compelled to be entirely accurate. Fortunately someone not directly involved with this mess offered to reproduce the same tests on his flow bench. In this case it was a 1.6 head but the configuration is the same and the results would be enlightening if not 100% comparable.
In this independent test, a "slight blend" yielded an average flow increase of 1.8%, interestingly most beneficial at higher lift (above .250"). I confess, that surprised me a little as I expected closer to 1%, but flow dynamics are far too complex to predict all that closely, at least for me. With the intake bolted on the flow decreased, dropping the blend benefits to 0.7%. And although the 1.6 doesn't run a restrictor one was added to test the claim that it further decreased the benefits of the blend. The impact of that was less than claimed for the 1.8 but did reduce the average gain to 0.6%. However, even with intake and plate in place there were gains as high as 1.5% above .250" of lift. (Miata cams max lift is quite low, ~.310 for the 1.6 if I recall correctly).
So the separate test of the 1.6 does at least generally support the results given for the 99+ cars. If we use the more optimistic numbers from the 1.6 then the real world benefits might be in the neighborhood of 0.6% more flow potential on average. Certainly not insignificant if you are the guy without it, but likely less than 1 HP and far from an observable advantage.
Actual testers are of course welcome to elaborate or correct anything I have said here, directly or through me. If anyone else has done similar testing or is willing to do so, please chime in.
Meanwhile, I am having trouble finding a shop which has done a bunch of plunge cuts who will let me film the tools and process as they do a head for me. Not sure why? But if you know someone, I am willing to travel to their shop.

Thanks for the analysis. Curious if Ken Sutherland would care to share his thoughts on the subject. He seems to be of the opinion that the gains are significant. Or maybe he was referring to the STR being modified. I have heard that some of the heads had more than a smooth transition from the plunge cut, actual tool marks on the STR side of the port. I doubt anyone could successfully argue that tool marks in the port area " grey" area.

[Jack Marr]

 

...... the whistle test with the valve cover off is a tech bulletin (i believe) so it's in effect.

 

I have heard this before but can not find the Tech Bulletin or Fastrack that tells us this. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[Johnny D]

Very interesting when you do a search for "bulletin"

You get different comments of having and not finding.

J~