98 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

PM sent John.

Are your findings more of a regional area, then across the country?

J~

[Bench Racer]

Title of this thread:
Select the best short-term policy for cars believed to be non-compliant due to "plunge cut blending"

 

We receive a letter from, Lisa Noble, SCCA President & CEO and John Doonan, Mazda Motorsports Director which references, Rules, Runoffs and Remaining 2014 Races.

 

We receive a letter from, Mazda MotorSports which references,  will work with sanctioning bodies to make sure rules are understood and enforceable. 

 

I'm here to question the above folks, do you really really beleive the SCCA members and the Mazda MotorSport members are able to be involved with improving the clarity of rules when many of us outside the loop don't really know the full detailed depth of the cheating at the 2014 SCCA Runoffs? With what I'll call a gag order with reference to the cheats, we the members can not develope a root cause of the rule issues when we don't know what was cheated up other than it was the head. 

 

David Dewhurst

SCCA #250772

[Tom Sager]

Title of this thread:
Select the best short-term policy for cars believed to be non-compliant due to "plunge cut blending"

 

We receive a letter from, Lisa Noble, SCCA President & CEO and John Doonan, Mazda Motorsports Director which references, Rules, Runoffs and Remaining 2014 Races.

 

We receive a letter from, Mazda MotorSports which references,  will work with sanctioning bodies to make sure rules are understood and enforceable. 

 

I'm here to question the above folks, do you really really believe the SCCA members and the Mazda MotorSport members are able to be involved with improving the clarity of rules when many of us outside the loop don't really know the full detailed depth of the cheating at the 2014 SCCA Runoffs? With what I'll call a gag order with reference to the cheats, we the members can not develope a root cause of the rule issues when we don't know what was cheated up other than it was the head. 

 

David Dewhurst

SCCA #250772

 

We may never get all the fine details of this situation but I think we all need to be a little patient and have some faith that both NASA and SCCA will come to the right conclusion on this and relatively soon. I for one don't really care to know who's head was most out of bounds, etc...  Just getting to a good conclusion and soon is most important.  

[Caveman-kwebb99]

We may never get all the fine details of this situation but I think we all need to be a little patient and have some faith that both NASA and SCCA will come to the right conclusion on this and relatively soon. I for one don't really care to know who's head was most out of bounds, etc...  Just getting to a good conclusion and soon is most important.  

 

Ok i will solve the riddle...  Your head is the most out of bounds...  Can it even fit in your helmet anymore Mr. big bad track record holder...

[FTodaro]

We may never get all the fine details of this situation but I think we all need to be a little patient and have some faith that both NASA and SCCA will come to the right conclusion on this and relatively soon. I for one don't really care to know who's head was most out of bounds, etc...  Just getting to a good conclusion and soon is most important.  

I agree Tom, what is important right now is the "going forward part" The past is now in the past. I hope we get a clarification, that the majority can live with, take what we can from the ordeal and move on. I do not think the sky if falling, do not think there are lots of cheats at the front of the pack. I think there are a lot of good drivers up there that make the rest of us look bad.

 

I think the benefits of what we have been talking about are out of proportion with reality.  But when you have no facts to go on you can pretty much argue what ever you want.
 

[Bench Racer]

 I think there are a lot of good drivers up there that make the rest of us look bad.

 

I do not think the sky if falling, do not think there are lots of cheats at the front of the pack.

 

No question about top notch drivers up front, don't care if their driving makes me look bad.

Lets see now 7 out of the top 7 at the 2014 Runoffs were moved to the rear of the line along with a couple others. What say you about not a lot of cheats at the front of the pack. Thru rose colored sun glasses some folks beleive the engine builders thought they were providing legal engines. Some how reality is not sinking in for some people. Me and my 1.6 could care less, it's the longevity of the class that matter most. It would be a good start if the friking cheated heads, if they have not been, should never be returned to the event enterant. < That's how the class turns the corner, not by allowing more cheats to be legalized by changing the rules as has been done way to much in the past.

[Brocodile]

I believe the plunge cut in my head is legal, but I voted to let everybody race in the short term (Note that I said, "I believe" - I have not personally inspected my head). Although I tend to be a hard-liner, my decision is based on pragmatism. It is now clear that material has been removed from the prohibited area on many heads. Common sense tells us some shops have pushed it farther than others. A little work on the transition may have a negligible effect - more work may produce a significant advantage. Without pulling and disassembling the head, there's no way to know where a specific head falls on the continuum. Eventually, this needs to be done, but only after the current rule is addressed - and probably changed ( I do mean changed, not clarified, because it is perfectly clear as currently written). That way, corrections can be made if possible while the head is off, thus saving time and labor (and money). Yes, some drivers will continue to enjoy a temporary uncertain yet unfair advantage, but most will be only technically non-compliant. I believe it is the uncertainty over the extent of the advantage gained which at least partly explains the weak support of the "Scarlet Letter" SM1 option. This same uncertainty makes a weight penalty problematic. I know that this solution is not perfectly fair, but all things considered in the real world, it's fair enough for the time being.

 

Jumping ahead to a potential rule change, pragmatism should again prevail. As well as possible, the line between neat machining and potentially performance-enhancing port work should be found. It should be easily measurable and entirely objective. NASA is on the right track. This will probably save a number of heads from being junked. It would be bad for the class to require a big pile of heads to be junked when no substantial advantage was gained. As for the heads with more extensive material removal, they just have to go.

 

 

CAVEAT: The foregoing applies only to the plunge cut issue, and NOT Whistlegate. The performance gain from increased compression ratio was very substantial for the VVT engines and not insignificant for the 99's. Excessive CR should not receive even a temporary pass.  

[Craig Berry]

Bench, I respect everyone's opinion, especially when they are well thought out and not personal attacks. Yours tend to be well thought out and not personal.
But with engines and cars being bought and sold everywhere and all the time, how do you know that it is only the front guys "cheating" with the head? How do we know that this relatively small group are the only racers who need to trash there heads? Is it OK to not check for one of these heads if you have never run at the front....would that be fair to the guys racing hard for 20th?? Maybe just maybe this is a bigger issue than we think. I do not know, but I do know I NEVER intended to bring a Non Compliant car anywhere, and I think most racers want to be compliant as well.
Is there maybe a solution that would be simpler and cheaper than everyone tearing their engine apart to double check? I do not have it....just askin

[Bench Racer]

 It would be bad for the class to require a big pile of heads to be junked when no substantial advantage was gained.

Enjoy your posts with respect. A cheated up head, little gain or no gain does not follow the written SCCA rules............ A big pile of junked heads, so be it. If there are no serious consequences with respect a to cheaters actions, their actions will never change. Shall we make a list of past cheaters actions with no serious consequences which has helped get us to today? Shall we return to the days of SCCA production cars pre mid 199's the limited prep/level 2 prep cars when the bottom was falling out of the class. NO, we don't want to go there and neither should the SCCA with the current Spec Miata issues.

[MPR22]

No question about top notch drivers up front, don't care if their driving makes me look bad.

Lets see now 7 out of the top 7 at the 2014 Runoffs were moved to the rear of the line along with a couple others. What say you about not a lot of cheats at the front of the pack. Thru rose colored sun glasses some folks beleive the engine builders thought they were providing legal engines. Some how reality is not sinking in for some people. Me and my 1.6 could care less, it's the longevity of the class that matter most. It would be a good start if the friking cheated heads, if they have not been, should never be returned to the event enterant. < That's how the class turns the corner, not by allowing more cheats to be legalized by changing the rules as has been done way to much in the past.

Is the competition between cars closer than ever?  

 

If yes, then what is the problem with changing of rules to balance the competition? 

 

 

If they are going to make wholesale changes to the rules how bout we let the 1.6 go to 10.5-1 compression.  Give them a little more oomph out of the hole.  If that isn't enough then maybe let them turn the flywheel down to 11lbs.  

 

The 1.8 needs 2-3 hundred more RPM, allow an ecu mod for them?  

 

Are you ok with those rule changes or should we just dumb every car down to the lowest common denominator, a bone stock 1.6 with zero mods.  lets say 105 HP and 95 ft lbs.    That was suggested by KW, basically restrict everything down until the worst junk yard engine is the baseline and then go racing.?  

[Tom Sager]

Ok i will solve the riddle...  Your head is the most out of bounds...  Can it even fit in your helmet anymore Mr. big bad track record holder...

Isn't there a lawn to be cut somewhere today?  

[FTodaro]

Bench let me be devils advocate. if a bunch of heads had to be junked and many drivers either could not afford to do it or the issue of supply and demand puts it out of reach of many and some people decide to either walk away or delay racing next year till when they can get their house in order. does that benefit the class, if the insistence on a vary small and potentially insignificant part of the rule book was expanded?

 

From a region point of view, not only will it cost drivers but the regions holding events.

 

sometimes the punishment has to fit the extent of the crime.

 

I know that you and many others see this as a black and white issue, in my business nothing is black and white, and there is always room for compromise. A good resolution of a problem is when nobody gets everything they want.

 

Can you see my horns.

[Bench Racer]

Craig, I wouldn't question for 1 second that "X' number of Spec Miata cars througout any race group are cheated/illegal. With respect to cars outside the top end not being checked, there should be some random cars drawn along the way. When folks throughout a race group start loosing the $1,500.00-$2,000.00 heads they will learn fast along with many others. As much as it hurts entrants, by SCCA rule, the entrant is accountable for the entered car. The current situation sucks, changing the rule to meet the cheat will not accomplish anything for those that don't cheat, and will not make the cheaters accountable.

 

I kind of chuckle when posting some of this cheat stuff, while thinking about politican Paul Ryan from Wisconsin with his latest boob tube comerical. He's busting the IRS chops and says, this could get me audited and I welcome the audit. If someone gets pi$$ed and protest me for a gussed cheat or a random pick for tech, knock yourselfs out. To many players not playing with posts, surely their lurking/thinking. Are we Having Fun.

 

EDIT:

Referencing Miachael and Frank's latest posts a couple posts above. It's rules guys, it's not rules through rose colored glasses. If I comprended what each of you posted in your up stream posts, nothing you posted is written within the rules. Please look above/read the underlined sentence.

[Johnny D]

I think somebody should check if the heads can be reworked.

 

"I thought" you could weld "add material" to Aluminum and then machine off to the spec.

 

But I'm not sure if it could be done or how much $ but if you could it would take off the table "were throwing them all away if we don't change the spec"

J~

[greengreengreen]

I think somebody should check if the heads can be reworked.

 

"I thought" you could weld "add material" to Aluminum and then machine off to the spec.

 

But I'm not sure if it could be done or how much $ but if you could it would take off the table "were throwing them all away if we don't change the spec"

J~

They could be Laser Welded.  We do it every day on all type of molds to rebuild damaged features in the mold.  The most common wire is 0.010".  Sometimes we don't even have to clean up the surface.  I'll try and post a before and after pic.

[Johnny D]

Is it worth it to have in place, that the engine builder to certify an engine/head as legal ?

 

Then if something shows up, the dime to fix it is on them.

J~

[Craig Berry]

Bench, your correct, Rules are Rules and I think most agree now without anger that the Protest was obviously valid. That is now in the past, but your saying to change a rule to "meet the cheats would be unfair to the non cheats".... my point is that without tearing down and putting MOST cars through the same inspection as at Runoffs, WHO really knows if they are or are not a "cheat"
And how is your random tear down for non front runners going to feel, when a guy at the track alone on a tight budget is selected to take his head off after finishing 36th.....if he refuses will he be labeled a "cheater"

I really think we need to be careful. The valid protest has pointed out a problem that we should all take time to not make personal but think about the overall good of an amazing class. Those protested have been punished and have lost large amounts of money and time and credibility. We do not need to punish the class.

[Bad Rusty]

Bench, your correct, Rules are Rules and I think most agree now without anger that the Protest was obviously valid. That is now in the past, but your saying to change a rule to "meet the cheats would be unfair to the non cheats".... my point is that without tearing down and putting MOST cars through the same inspection as at Runoffs, WHO really knows if they are or are not a "cheat"
And how is your random tear down for non front runners going to feel, when a guy at the track alone on a tight budget is selected to take his head off after finishing 36th.....if he refuses will he be labeled a "cheater"

I really think we need to be careful. The valid protest has pointed out a problem that we should all take time to not make personal but think about the overall good of an amazing class. Those protested have been punished and have lost large amounts of money and time and credibility. We do not need to punish the class.

I totally agree with Craig's statement.  I ended up finishing 6th at the runoffs and guess what.  UNTIL I see the description and infringement areas of those who were DQ'd AND more details on what is and is not legal, I cannot be 100% certain my motor was legal.  Did my builder blend, NO, did he plunge cut, YES.  Did he deburr, NO.  But until I see it in writing (And pictures for me and Von C.) I can't know for sure.  Nor can anyone else, unless you built it yourself AND you know what they DQ'd everyone for.  Even the Oregon guys (Who obviously filed a legitimate protest, and happened to finish right in front of me D*mn it!) are probably looking for some clarification too.  I know they believe they have followed the rules to a T, but even tech stewards have some interpretation differences.

 

 

As for the pole, I don't know how we can "adjust" or "penalize" until we know what the performance increase is from the "illegal" component.  And don't just give me HP/TQ or CFM, I'm guessing that it might be far more important for what it does "below peak HP" that really makes a difference.

 

In addition to having trouble telling my friends I "Race Miata's", I can't imagine having to tell them about this man drama, I'm going to shop this out to a few networks as a TV show, I think I'll have Brad Pitt play me.

[john mueller]

I believe the plunge cut in my head is legal, but I voted to let everybody race in the short term (Note that I said, "I believe" - I have not personally inspected my head). Although I tend to be a hard-liner, my decision is based on pragmatism. It is now clear that material has been removed from the prohibited area on many heads. Common sense tells us some shops have pushed it farther than others. A little work on the transition may have a negligible effect - more work may produce a significant advantage. Without pulling and disassembling the head, there's no way to know where a specific head falls on the continuum. Eventually, this needs to be done, but only after the current rule is addressed - and probably changed ( I do mean changed, not clarified, because it is perfectly clear as currently written). That way, corrections can be made if possible while the head is off, thus saving time and labor (and money). Yes, some drivers will continue to enjoy a temporary uncertain yet unfair advantage, but most will be only technically non-compliant. I believe it is the uncertainty over the extent of the advantage gained which at least partly explains the weak support of the "Scarlet Letter" SM1 option. This same uncertainty makes a weight penalty problematic. I know that this solution is not perfectly fair, but all things considered in the real world, it's fair enough for the time being.

 

Jumping ahead to a potential rule change, pragmatism should again prevail. As well as possible, the line between neat machining and potentially performance-enhancing port work should be found. It should be easily measurable and entirely objective. NASA is on the right track. This will probably save a number of heads from being junked. It would be bad for the class to require a big pile of heads to be junked when no substantial advantage was gained. As for the heads with more extensive material removal, they just have to go.

 

 

CAVEAT: The foregoing applies only to the plunge cut issue, and NOT Whistlegate. The performance gain from increased compression ratio was very substantial for the VVT engines and not insignificant for the 99's. Excessive CR should not receive even a temporary pass.  

 

IMO this post sums everything up well.

[john mueller]

Is it worth it to have in place, that the engine builder to certify an engine/head as legal ?

 

Then if something shows up, the dime to fix it is on them.

J~

 

Never happen.  Who to say you're not messing about after I just sold you a perfectly legal lump?