856 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

The past few days I've spent hours on the phone and exchanging email with some of the drivers, builders and machine shops involved, and kicked all of this around with people I respect away from the (understandable) noise and drama of this site. If I don't have more information than any other impartial observer, I've got more than any that are willing to speak up. While I'm not going to repeat specifics that I have been told in confidence I will share in general terms what I can.

As others have suggested, the degree of "blending" of the plunge cut edges in the protested heads varied from arguably nothing with no tool marks but "suspiciously smooth", to clearly visible tool marks and significant removed metal. The fact that some were so obvious only increased the scrutiny on the rest. And that's where there is still some debate. At least one machinist is adamant that even if it weren't routine to knock sharp edges off after cutting, the edge left from one cut to the next varies greatly depending on the shape of the casting at each port, the cutter, and just tolerances in the process. So a uniform sharp edge may not exist to begin with, and even routine cleaning can dull one. It is his contention that if his head failed then many heads would fail the "sharp edge feel test" even though they had not been intentionally altered and had no sign of tool marks. I have no evidence one way or the other but I think it needs to be investigated before rules are changed.

Meanwhile some of the heads were, no argument from anyone involved, clearly worked with a tool well beyond just knocking the sharp edge off, and based on tech's interpretation of the rules therefore undoubtedly non-compliant. Several others were somewhere in the middle but still clearly not unaltered. So most of the heads were a simple decision and probably never stood a chance in appeal, but if any really did get lumped in with the rest simply because the plunge cut edge didn't feel sharp enough or was too smooth, then that creates a real problem going forward.

I am told that the club did keep the heads and still has them. If that's true then hopefully they are all laid out on a table under bright lights being inspected. Given all that has taken place, I think every driver should have access to pictures and descriptions of exactly what "compliant" looks like, as well as examples of what will not pass tech. If there is ANY doubt about any of the heads, it may be too late to change prior decisions but it should be recognized while considering rule changes or clarification. If there is NOT any reasonable doubt about any of the heads then that needs to be confirmed and examples shown so people are not worried that their stock head or unaltered plunge cuts will fail. Ambiguity with that must be avoided.

As for exactly what should be done about the rules, I don't know that I have enough information yet. But something that has been said by others a couple times and rings true for me is, step back and set aside the issue of the Runoffs and all the questionable heads that may be out there, and focus on what makes the most sense going forward. That isn't to say the people stuck with those heads don't matter, but first craft the best possible rules, consistent with the spirit and goals of the class, clear, specific and documented so a conscientious car owner can check their own, and yet not so restrictive that a tired old stock head is at risk of failing. I honestly don't know if that's even all possible at the same time, but getting as close as possible seems like step 1. If it turns out that best possible rule leaves the class with hundreds of non-compliant heads then the next step is to deal with that. There aren't many options really: Accept that they are not compliant and leave everyone to deal with it as best they can; Let them run with a weight penalty; Deviate from the "ideal" rules to incorporate at least some of them.

I've never been particularly sympathetic to people caught breaking the rules, even if they have a degree of plausible deniability. I also realize that very few drivers are in a position to have even the remotest idea that something like this is in their engine. But I'll always end up having more sympathy for the poor schmucks that don't fuel the endless arms race by plunking down big money for magical pixie dust and blindly trust that whatever they are buying will pass tech one way or another. It certainly does not seem reasonable that the guys who did nothing wrong should end up with the short end of the stick on this deal.

So at the moment, pending more details of what's actually out there, I would craft the best rule possible going forward, and in my mind that is probably very, very minimal allowance for taking the edge off any cuts. Then I would estimate and write specs with a specific definition and dimension limits for this "blending" to cover most existing heads. Essentially write that rule as you would if the decision were to "make them all legal", but then assign a weight penalty as is done for an overbore. In this case though there must be no doubt that the penalty weight at least offsets the best-case gains from the allowed modification so as to avoid any chance that the builders will determine they can still get a net gain by pushing it to the limit and taking the weight.

That combination seems the only way to move the main rule set closer to the ideal, avoid placing any new burden on those who are following the rules, not reward those who have broken the rules, and give anyone who has unwittingly purchased a non-compliant head the option to race without additional expense if they are unable to work something out with their builder. There are no clear winners that way but also no clear losers, which I think is the best that can be achieved from this embarrassing debacle.

[Rob Burgoon]

"So a uniform sharp edge may not exist to begin with, and even routine cleaning can dull one. It is his contention that if his head failed then many heads would fail the "sharp edge feel test" even though they had not been intentionally altered and had no sign of tool marks. I have no evidence one way or the other but I think it needs to be investigated before rules are changed."

 

Agree.  From some of the sample photos floating around it looks to me like an obvious "step" only formed if you plunged deep or plunged a particularly badly core shifted head.  If you don't go deep you might only get a "glancing blow" on the port walls.

 

 

Thanks for your efforts Steve, I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates it.

[AW33COM]

The only solution:

Remove all engine "builders" from Amateur SPEC Racing, and create true spec racing with one car, and sealed drive train.  

[john mueller]

I sent this out to the drivers registered for the 2014 NASA Western Champs.  It may not be the ultimate answer but for right now it works for NASA.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SM Driver;

Given all that has happened in our community over the past 10 days, I just wanted to send a quick email to touch base.

 

The plunge cut protest at last week’s Runoffs has had my phone and email rather busy for days.  I’ve been gathering info and working with some great folks (thanks Craig) to come up with a way to make it work best we can given the time frame and complexity of the issue.  So, for the 2014 NASA Western Championship we’re leaning toward this:

• There will be an a moratorium on “plunge cut protests” for the Western Champs and the remainder of the NASA season.
• NASA Tech will still inspect the plunge cut just as we would normally when the valves are out of the head.  Tech will act accordingly based on NASA’s clarification of the rule.
• The Clarification will allow some deburring but not egregious blending.  My goal is to have illustrations and photos to help make our interpretation of the machining process less subjective.

 

I’m still working on the wording of NASA’s clarification and should have something out to you and have it published somewhere on NASA’s website and/or Facebook page(s) hopefully by the middle of next week.

 

Please feel free to reply to this email if you have specific questions about this or anything else regarding tech and this year’s Western Champs.

[john mueller]

That isn't how the dyno is used in SM (and Mueller please correct me if I'm wrong).   It doesn't matter what HP/TQ you make as long as it is in line (within some delta) of the others.  This gets rid of the calibration/weather issues etc.  If there is an outlier they will do more checks via other methods.  Unless you were referring to moving SM to a power/weight class like PT.   That would be a nightmare given the competitiveness of the class.

 

 

Yes, kinda.  It is used as a tool to identify outliers at that particular moment.  Meaning there is no comparison of pulls done at different times during an event or even from a different time from the same day.  However, it is looked at as an aggregate and the data is logged to help with the inevitable offseason parity discussion.

 

I never see NASA, who has a long track record of successfully hosting power-to-weight classes,  instiuting a hard HP/TQ cap (much like SE30 has done, well with the exception of the mess NorCal has made of the class)...  I see something more like a suggestion of where the cars should fall with well sorted drivetrains.  When a cars numbers go above the "line-in-the-sand" more scrutiny may be applied.  So, it's not a DQ if your there or over but it's a warning that you should consider sending someone to bring tools to impound.

 

We'll see...

[FTodaro]

The past few days I've spent hours on the phone and exchanging email with some of the drivers, builders and machine shops involved, and kicked all of this around with people I respect away from the (understandable) noise and drama of this site. If I don't have more information than any other impartial observer, I've got more than any that are willing to speak up. While I'm not going to repeat specifics that I have been told in confidence I will share in general terms what I can.

As others have suggested, the degree of "blending" of the plunge cut edges in the protested heads varied from arguably nothing with no tool marks but "suspiciously smooth", to clearly visible tool marks and significant removed metal. The fact that some were so obvious only increased the scrutiny on the rest. And that's where there is still some debate. At least one machinist is adamant that even if it weren't routine to knock sharp edges off after cutting, the edge left from one cut to the next varies greatly depending on the shape of the casting at each port, the cutter, and just tolerances in the process. So a uniform sharp edge may not exist to begin with, and even routine cleaning can dull one. It is his contention that if his head failed then many heads would fail the "sharp edge feel test" even though they had not been intentionally altered and had no sign of tool marks. I have no evidence one way or the other but I think it needs to be investigated before rules are changed.

Meanwhile some of the heads were, no argument from anyone involved, clearly worked with a tool well beyond just knocking the sharp edge off, and based on tech's interpretation of the rules therefore undoubtedly non-compliant. Several others were somewhere in the middle but still clearly not unaltered. So most of the heads were a simple decision and probably never stood a chance in appeal, but if any really did get lumped in with the rest simply because the plunge cut edge didn't feel sharp enough or was too smooth, then that creates a real problem going forward.

I am told that the club did keep the heads and still has them. If that's true then hopefully they are all laid out on a table under bright lights being inspected. Given all that has taken place, I think every driver should have access to pictures and descriptions of exactly what "compliant" looks like, as well as examples of what will not pass tech. If there is ANY doubt about any of the heads, it may be too late to change prior decisions but it should be recognized while considering rule changes or clarification. If there is NOT any reasonable doubt about any of the heads then that needs to be confirmed and examples shown so people are not worried that their stock head or unaltered plunge cuts will fail. Ambiguity with that must be avoided.

As for exactly what should be done about the rules, I don't know that I have enough information yet. But something that has been said by others a couple times and rings true for me is, step back and set aside the issue of the Runoffs and all the questionable heads that may be out there, and focus on what makes the most sense going forward. That isn't to say the people stuck with those heads don't matter, but first craft the best possible rules, consistent with the spirit and goals of the class, clear, specific and documented so a conscientious car owner can check their own, and yet not so restrictive that a tired old stock head is at risk of failing. I honestly don't know if that's even all possible at the same time, but getting as close as possible seems like step 1. If it turns out that best possible rule leaves the class with hundreds of non-compliant heads then the next step is to deal with that. There aren't many options really: Accept that they are not compliant and leave everyone to deal with it as best they can; Let them run with a weight penalty; Deviate from the "ideal" rules to incorporate at least some of them.

I've never been particularly sympathetic to people caught breaking the rules, even if they have a degree of plausible deniability. I also realize that very few drivers are in a position to have even the remotest idea that something like this is in their engine. But I'll always end up having more sympathy for the poor schmucks that don't fuel the endless arms race by plunking down big money for magical pixie dust and blindly trust that whatever they are buying will pass tech one way or another. It certainly does not seem reasonable that the guys who did nothing wrong should end up with the short end of the stick on this deal.

So at the moment, pending more details of what's actually out there, I would craft the best rule possible going forward, and in my mind that is probably very, very minimal allowance for taking the edge off any cuts. Then I would estimate and write specs with a specific definition and dimension limits for this "blending" to cover most existing heads. Essentially write that rule as you would if the decision were to "make them all legal", but then assign a weight penalty as is done for an overbore. In this case though there must be no doubt that the penalty weight at least offsets the best-case gains from the allowed modification so as to avoid any chance that the builders will determine they can still get a net gain by pushing it to the limit and taking the weight.

That combination seems the only way to move the main rule set closer to the ideal, avoid placing any new burden on those who are following the rules, not reward those who have broken the rules, and give anyone who has unwittingly purchased a non-compliant head the option to race without additional expense if they are unable to work something out with their builder. There are no clear winners that way but also no clear losers, which I think is the best that can be achieved from this embarrassing debacle.

Steve I have never met you but i appreciate your thought into the subject. So often is the case that people get on the forum to bitch but do nothing to try and find a solution. 

 

what you have pointed out is there are varying  degrees of "modification" to the heads from taking off the burrs to tool marks and material removal beyond the cut.

 

The challenge is that the rules are subject to interpretation of these cuts when each head presents a different landscape. So they will never look 100% uniform so the examiner is going to have to make a judgment call. Anytime you have Humans make judgment call your going to get inconsistency. That is a fact that we have to live with.

 

Its not a perfect world, I like John's comment above that a plunge cut with a deburr would be allowed by the rules. if its limited to that, there can be no big HP benefit to it. No tool marks and no removal of material beyond the edge of the plunge cut, seam to be a good place to draw a line.

 

Under the current rule that could be interpreted as a violation. so if you permitted a de burr at the plunge cut at a 45 degree angle, Like a counter sunk hole, your done.

[MPR22]

The only solution:
Remove all engine "builders" from Amateur SPEC Racing, and create true spec racing with one car, and sealed drive train.

They have that class, it's called SRF. That is not what Spec Miata was ever meant to be.

[dstevens]

 

 

Its not a perfect world, I like John's comment above that a plunge cut with a deburr would be allowed by the rules. if its limited to that, there can be no big HP benefit to it. No tool marks and no removal of material beyond the edge of the plunge cut, seam to be a good place to draw a line.

 

For NASA right now that is the rule.  I'd reckon they'd carry it over until next season and make it permanent.  SCCA could follow suit if they chose.  It's clear that over the last several years the class has strayed from the original intent of affordable racing for all.   That's not a bad thing in and of itself but the sanction and Mazda need to decide  where they wish to position the class.  Offer that class to the racers and they choose to race it or not.

 

 

The issue with a subjective rule and the SCCA tech and organization structure is that someone that isn't well trained or qualified may be making the call on a regional or local level where as in NASA has someone that can overide those decisons.  The SCCA organization model is dated and hasn't kept up with the times and the realities of the market.  There are too many cooks in the kitchen and there has to be buy in from everyone involved.  That's not an effective way to operate any organizaton, member based not for profit or otherwise.  The issues with in the SCCA and national club racing are largely due to a structure that hasn't evolved with the way hobby racing or the racers have evolved. 

[Johnny D]

There has been suggestions of...

 

a SMEBC (SM Engine Builders Council)

Or

SM Tech Advisor.

J~

[Ron Alan]

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.

You have no reason to apologize James! Glad you feel comfortable coming on and speaking up Here is reaching out with a big internet hug in your direction 

[Steve Scheifler]

If you aren't already following it there are a bunch of new pictures and explanation of the plunge cut in the "Writing the rules. 9.1.7.f 3 & 4" topic.

http://mazdaracers.c...view=getnewpost

[George Willet]

Something I created in a management class many years ago

 

Steps in Analyzing a Problem

By George Willet

• Recognizing that there is a problem
• Identifying exactly what is the problem?
• What is the cause of the problem?
• What is the effect of the problem?
• What effect does the problem have on our goals?
• What effect does the problem have on our staff?
• What effect will solving the problem have on our staff?
• Do we need to solve the problem?
• What can be done to solve the problem?
• How many will be helped by solving the problem?
• How many will be hurt by solving the problem?
• What is the cost of solving the problem?
• What will be the benefit of solving the problem?
• Who should be the one to solve the problem?
• Will solving the problem help us come closer to achieving our goals?
• Should we admit there isn't much of a problem, and move on?

 

I have always maintained there are no simple solutions to complex problems. My .02 cents.

I hope this helps. George

[Andrew Charbonneau]

ok each of the 13 colonies fight against england agian or alamo, evan the great wall of china dont join the maginall wall

[Mitch Reading]

42 pages about cleaning up burs on a head... 

 

More concerned about the regional cars out there with the high compression motors built to "2014 whistler spec".  Remember that drama the week before the runoffs guys?!!  A much larger performance advantage there I believe. 

 

Don't let the high compression motors be yesterday's news please!  I applaud Cliff for the self policing. 

[Doug Makishima]

FYI, This just arrived in my email inbox:  

 

Dear Doug,

   

 

Over the past ten years, Spec Miata grew from a racer idea to a nationwide phenomenon.  The rules were created by racers, for racers.  The team here at Mazda Motorsports has been thrilled to be a part of it and watch it grow from a small regional class to the single largest race in the 51 years of the SCCA National Championship Runoffs.  In addition to the large SCCA and NASA fields, Spec Miata has been embraced by tracks like the Autobahn County Club, and multiple regional clubs across the U.S. and Canada; it is some of the greatest road racing today.  

 

At times we have contemplated stepping in as it related to rules, but we have opted to stay out of the regulatory side of the sport.  Recent circumstances are such that we will be working much closer with all parties: racers, teams, engine builders, and sanctioning bodies to ensure what has grown over the past decade continues to be the strongest class of road racing in North America.

 

For those who have not heard the details of what happened last week at the SCCA Runoffs in at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, it involved the interpretation of what was, and was not legal regarding head modifications.  Nine cars were protested, impounded after the race, and deemed non-compliant by the SCCA Technical Inspectors.  The Mazda team was not involved in the review process, although the SCCA kept us informed as to its findings.

 

We want all racers to have the maximum opportunity to showcase their talents in one of the deepest talent pools in all of road racing.  We also want to keep costs to a minimum such that racers can compete more often.

 

What Mazda will do:

• Work with all sanctioning bodies to develop systems to make rules more easily enforceable.
• Listen to all of our stakeholders to better understand all the perspectives.
• Find answers to these questions.
• Collaborate with the SCCA in making the right short-term and long-term decisions to this challenge.

 

What Mazda would like our racers to do:

• Direct constructive input to Support@MazdaMotorsports.com or 1 (800) 435-2508.
• Have confidence that Mazda is working with the needs of our customers as the #1 priority.

 

We appreciate everyone being patient and working together here.  We all share the common goal of maintaining the best, most affordable, racing in North America.

 

Thank you,

 

Your Mazda Family

 

MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development

www.mazdamotorsports.com
Mazda North American Operation
1421 Reynolds Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

800-435-2508

[Jason Holland]

It appears Mazda has gotten through the first item on Georgia Willet's post above. Good luck!

[Johnny D]

Fastrack is out too, but no Runoffs appeals unless I'm missing something 

http://scca.cdn.race...track-Nov 1.pdf

J~

[James York]

Fastrack is out too, but no Runoffs appeals unless I'm missing something 

http://scca.cdn.race...track-Nov 1.pdf

J~

You can't appeal post event like other races.  At the Runoffs, the court is there and hears appeals on the spot.

 

Runoffs are done, no changes now.

[John Nesbitt]

Runoffs appeals (and there were appeals) will likely be in the next Fastrack.

[Johnny D]

Thanks James.

 

 

Runoffs appeals (and there were appeals) will likely be in the next Fastrack.

 

But will just reflect that they were sent to the back of the line ??

J~