98 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

Does anyone know is the perceived advantage is as a power/torque % ?

Check main thread post earlier today. Seems to be not more than 1hp on average. Even with 100% margin of error it is between nothing and not much. Not that I would appreciate someone running against me with it!

[Lee Thomas]

The solution for what to do is simple:  Only enter NASA races until next year or until all of this is clarified.  If they don't resolve this to your satisfaction, I'm certain NASA will be happy to have you for the balance of 2015.

[Johnny D]

The solution for what to do is simple:  Only enter NASA races until next year or until all of this is clarified.  If they don't resolve this to your satisfaction, I'm certain NASA will be happy to have you for the balance of 2015.

 

Yes, ALL the PTE races, you'd like.

 

Lets face it, get it fixed or wait for new rules if you want to run SM.

J~

[Keith Novak]

Pretty sure any of the cylinder heads in question are compliant for STL.  So there's already a class to run in.  Also there's already ITE,A,S in many regions.  That's another option.  Not sure why they'd even make up SM1.

Don't the rules say that unless you meet all the STL rules, you must run an SM in SM trim except for the spec tire...specifically....in red text on page 608 of the GCR?

 

To run under the STL rules, they'd have to do things like add 2 drive shaft loops and for a '99 run at 2515 lbs (baseline weight + 3.5% for cars with strut front suspension and RWD).

 

I realize I'm probably one of the few cars that actually run in true SM trim with my restrictor plate in based on how lap times for SM drivers often get miraculously faster in STL, but still, it is a national class.  Rulez is rulez and I do play by them. 

[Keith Novak]

I like the weight penalty option.  When they allowed 1st OS rings, it came with a weight penalty.  If I remember the story, when all the builders were asked if they wanted them, they all said absolutely.  When they were asked that in regards to adding weight too, they said they weren't nearly as likely to use them.

 

Same story here.  If it might be a very slight advantage, and that's what the data is sounding like, add a corresponding weight hit.

[Johnny D]

If SCCA wants the turn out, get to figuring what the weight will be, if you're not working on it already.

SM1 isn't going to cut it.

 

If you blow the whistle with VC off, well...

J~

 

IDK, did you want to figure weight for the plunge cut and the difference of the whistle with the VC off?

Have I left something out of the whole non compliant engine package for adjusted weight ??

 

Seems like a lot of bending over backwards.

Or just being bent over.

J~

[mdavis]

Don't the rules say that unless you meet all the STL rules, you must run an SM in SM trim except for the spec tire...specifically....in red text on page 608 of the GCR?

 

To run under the STL rules, they'd have to do things like add 2 drive shaft loops and for a '99 run at 2515 lbs (baseline weight + 3.5% for cars with strut front suspension and RWD).

 

I realize I'm probably one of the few cars that actually run in true SM trim with my restrictor plate in based on how lap times for SM drivers often get miraculously faster in STL, but still, it is a national class.  Rulez is rulez and I do play by them. 

Well… it's kind of complicated but you can run STL with a  SM in a couple of different ways.  Declare your car SM legal and race it to those specs, declare it ITS (99+) or ITA(<99) legal and race it with those specs (at that point you could just run ITS or ITA), or as you said add weight and race it under true STL rules , or race it in ITE where pretty much everything goes but that's region by region. 

[Bi11]

plunge cut blending  Can you explain what this is?

[Johnny D]

Cyclinder shape down, flat bottom in made, and edges at the bottom touched/rounded from the machine surface to the casting surfaces.

Or the machined bottom not having sharp corners like this  U

Bench posted some pics in the runoff thread a couple times.

I think

J~

[MPR22]

plunge cut blending  Can you explain what this is?

depends on who you ask. 

[MPR22]

The big picture is a factory plunge cut, probably off of a 1.6.  Its very crude and has striations created by the dull ass tool that makes it over and over thousands of times.  The smaller picture below is a plunge cut with a very smooth cut and the transition has an area that is shiny (red arrow)  that has been found to be non-compliant. Not sure how big the area is, may be as much as a 1mm.  

 

 

 

 

[Miata25]

Reasonable people can come to very different logical and supportable conclusions when reading and applying very complicated rules.  Several of these cars raced in this configuration and were torn down and ruled compliant at multiple Runoffs.  This particular issue was probably not raised during those inspections, but a competitor could easily conclude that the plunge cut method being used was acceptable.  This instant case now says it was not.  However . . .

 

The fact that the Court of Appeals moved the non-compliant cars to last finishing position in class rather than disqualified speaks volumes regarding how the infraction was gauged.  The COA has always taken a strict posture when applying the GCR and, thus I suspect, concluded the cars were technically, but not willfully non-compliant (my personal reading of the ruling). I believe SCCA is working right now to address the situation and decide what is best for the long term health of the class and club.  But, whichever way we go, there will be a sizeable group not happy with the decision.

 

Would have been nice if this issue had been raised earlier in the season at a Majors or big regional event, then it could have been resolved before our biggest event.  Regrettably it was not, so now we have pandemonium, lots of angst, hurt feelings, and embarrassment.  How about we just go racing to finish this season and have a little fun.  I'll probably run mine as STL under ITA rules.

[Danny Steyn]

Signing in from Australia and catching up with news. All of us want to race EVERYONE. We want FULL fields and we want to race FAIRLY. Its tough to know with all the noise just how advantaged the transgressors are, it could be huge or it could be nothing. However I am thrilled to hear that everyone at VIR this weekend has chosen to race in one class (well at least that is what it was decided on test day). We all do this for FUN and we want to ENJOY ourselves. Perceived cheating, drama, hurt feelings, all of these things will drive us away from the class. We have to get it back to FUN!

 

Sad that it got to this level. I do not fault any of the protesters at all. As a class we have been blurring the lines for too long. This is a very public and vocal correction, that is probably well overdue, and we will be in a better place for it. I just feel so sad for the guys that drove their hearts out at the Runoffs, drivers that I have the utmost respect and friendship for.

 

I understand Mazda has got involved as well. For them this must be an embarrassing situation that surrounds their brand. I hope that who ever it is that puts the final touches to the new rules, or who reinforces the existing rule, does so openly and explains their position and encourages the exchange of ideas. 

[Keith Novak]

<edit> will discuss later...better fun entered the picture.

[tom1977]

I understand what you're saying, and I am writing a letter on this but riddle me this:  When you have a car that may be raced under multiple rulesets within a class, where do you have to declare which ruleset you are running under?  (note to anyone reading this...somehow the quote I was replying to did not post and this seems very random.  Please allow for technical dificulties while I fix)

Would a proper example be: Running a SM in ITA class must run in Spec Miata Trim... Therefore an ITA prepared miata that is not SM compliant is exempt from ITA?  I would also check what the local regions supplemental rules suggest... Hope this helps...

[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.

[Johnny D]

Have they got a schedule yet??

J~

[Keith Novak]

Tom,

A car has to fit the rules to race in the class.  When I started, I thought my car was going to be an ass stomper in ITA because in ITA I could pull the plate....except after telling people that I was shamed to learn I wasn't the first one to think that and a regional rule was already in place where I had to run SM rules.  Same with STL.  There are people breaking the rules, and if I decide I give a damn I will protest them. but it is a very clear set of rules.  For the most part, if you race a SM, when tossing your car into another class, you must just figure you're the underdog on power to weight but you'll have to wheel the car to make up for it.  

 

I'm good with that.                                           

[john mueller]

I honestly dont thing option 1 in the poll is an option at all...

 

I would feel terrible if I was allowed to race and possibly win when drivers like Drennan and other were denied their finish possitions in the most important race of the year, how that makes sense to anyone I have no understanding.  

 

I dont think my car and many others should be allowed to race in SM untill they are either deemed legal or changed to fit whatever rules we are running under. 

 

The club wants to have their cake and eat it to... Dont we all???  

 

An there lies the problem and why I've kept my head down most of the week.  I stopped reading the posts because few see the big picture and by that I mean there is no correct answer for a fix.

 

Those throwing stones and saying toss 'em all need to be sure what they have and how it will be interrupted under this new and IMO flawed/subjective definition.  Meaning, unless you stood next to or was the machinist milling your head you'd be taking the word of someone else who last week thought (for the most part) that they did the plunge cut correctly.  Some went to far and they knew it and Charlie's grandma could see it...  But those who hit the edge with some emery cloth or a brass wheel on a dremmel???  Yeah, should that be considered out of bounds?  We can fix the slippery slope by defining it and illustrating it.

 

Not allowing any or some deburring will:

• require mostly everyone to pull their heads, dismantle and inspect what they have.  Most folks don't want to or can't do this so they'll be spending to do this instead of buying tires and entering races.
• cause an even larger parts source problem with a spike in core prices
• eliminate so many cars the class may not recover from the exodus
• probably not be the reason someone beats you

You can't stand atop your high horse screaming toss the cheaters out while ignoring the fact that this protest has the potential to kill the class dead.  The economics of having +80% of the heads possibly tossed in the bin is a killshot unless Mazda starts production on heads again.

 

IMO the devil here is deep within the details...  Getting the measurements for a rewording of the rule (or a clarification) that corrects and spelling out EVERYTHING that can and cannot be done in the drivetrain is the only way to proceed.  It makes it crazy tedious and error prone but something has to be in place to remove the creativity that has plaged our class since nearly it's inception. (it was clutches when I built my first car).  

[Keith Novak]

Would a proper example be: Running a SM in ITA class must run in Spec Miata Trim... Therefore an ITA prepared miata that is not SM compliant is exempt from ITA?  I would also check what the local regions supplemental rules suggest... Hope this helps...I

The rules for an ITA car ar a lot more liberal than a SM....BUT...last I remembered, you depower the steering rack and it is no longer ITA compliant but perfectly fine n SM.  You put on 1st OS camshaft bearings and that's fine in ITA but not so much in SM