535 replies to this topic

[Andrew Charbonneau]

all kidding aside the truth is there is no fix someone gets hurt weather the simple driver or the motor builder or scca or even prep shops and even the zar .

[Johnny D]

all kidding aside the truth is there is no fix someone gets hurt weather the simple driver or the motor builder or scca or even prep shops and even the zar .

 

https://video.search...1-s&fr2=piv-web

J~

[Andrew Charbonneau]

so my vote is kill the witches and david copperfeilds  oops did he die from the tiger bite

[Andrew Charbonneau]

so vote today to save the day take a stand and do what is right even if it hurts.

vote von c

[Andrew Charbonneau]

please adv I will arise no question denied . TRUTH

I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE

[Andrew Charbonneau]

[Andrew Charbonneau]

PS THANKS TOO ALL My PALS AND FOLLOWERS  you do count im sorry for everything and nothing from the ashes and asses there will be a fix hold hands and pray for it may save you money mazdaniss 67;1

[Andrew Charbonneau]

time for fine wine talk about the past for the future you must pass the glass or live in the past  charbonneu 67;2

[FTodaro]

We need to be a little patient.  While this is taking longer than many would like it, we shouldn't expect it to move any faster than it is.  A number of people are involved across multiple organizations.  With the outcome will come some transparency.  Until then enjoy the mid-term elections, football and Thanksgiving. 

 

I think we have been patient under the circumstances. The next big major is in less than 8 weeks. I have two cars sitting in the shop and one at the cage shop and all wrenches are still. At least some kind of an email with a status or timeline of what will happen and when, would ease the tension.

 

In the sprite of election night, the majority of the class should rule. If not, we can always veto with our checkbooks. 

 

I get the sense that a large percentage of the class was expecting that the rule would be clarified to keep the plunge cut rule in place and focus on an enforceable, clearly definable, go/no go standard that would keep many of the existing heads excluding the clearly over the top modified heads, in competition. 

 

Admittedly, we do not know what the new rule is going to be, we have been relying on rumors, credible rumors, that the direction they are wanting to go is to go with bone stock heads. 

 

I feel that I am an open minded person, but i really do not understand that as a viable option. The current rules have been in place since 2009. I would guess there are hundreds of heads out there that were plunge cut.

 

Someone argue the other side and tell me why a deburr of a plunge cut should not be allowed. Or a fair wt restriction would not solve the problem? At least well meaning racers would have a way to race compliant, for little or no monetary cost. There would be no advantage to the plunge cut taper.Just as we have done with the over bore.

 

Why make this painful, difficult, and costly to comply when it is not necessary to keep the cars close and competitive.

 

The objectives of this class should be to provide a low cost entry level racing of cars that are equal in terms of cost and performance for the vast majority of the class. Keeping the cost down is a goal of the class. The stock head rule needed to be passed in 2009, not in 2015, to much water over the dam. You can't put the Jeanie back into the bottle. 

 

Is it worth what we will spend to bring the cars back somewhere between 1 to 3 HP depending on your luck of finding a good head casting?

 

Rant... part 29

[HoneyBadger - BrianW]

We need to be a little patient.  While this is taking longer than many would like it, we shouldn't expect it to move any faster than it is.  A number of people are involved across multiple organizations.  With the outcome will come some transparency.  Until then enjoy the mid-term elections, football and Thanksgiving. 

I'm actually OK that it's taking a little while. It's still a bit frustrating, but I don't want a knee jerk decision so I actually want them to take their time and get it right. What I'm upset about is the lack of any clear communication. Half of this stuff is about setting expectations. They need to tell us what the exact process is and approximate timeframes for various milestones along the way. Then actually update us when milestones have been hit or there is a significant delay... I mean come on, this is basic project management/customer expectations kind of stuff here. (that last part wasn't directed at you, just ranting)

[MDixon]

I have two cars sitting in the shop and one at the cage shop and all wrenches are still.

 

The objectives of this class should be to provide a low cost entry level racing

 

Hmmm

[FTodaro]

Hmmm

There not all mine but i work on them.

[Tom Sager]

 

I get the sense that a large percentage of the class was expecting that the rule would be clarified to keep the plunge cut rule in place and focus on an enforceable, clearly definable, go/no go standard that would keep many of the existing heads excluding the clearly over the top modified heads, in competition. 

 

Admittedly, we do not know what the new rule is going to be, we have been relying on rumors, credible rumors, that the direction they are wanting to go is to go with bone stock heads. 

 

 

I have no view to what's going on behind closed doors but would be shocked if no plunge cut as previously allowed (go back to stock head) was the outcome. Rumors or not, that doesn't make any sense at all.  That's the kind of thing that only governments do.  

[Steve Scheifler]

...
Someone argue the other side and tell me why a deburr of a plunge cut should not be allowed. Or a fair wt restriction would not solve the problem? At least well meaning racers would have a way to race compliant, for little or no monetary cost. There would be no advantage to the plunge cut taper.Just as we have done with the over bore.
...:

That still makes the most sense to me. The quick calc I mentioned originally was +50 for people who have heads with the "blend" or radius after plunge. Unfortunately that still requires a quantifiable limit to the post-plunge work or people will take the extra weight and go crazy in the ports. So with or without a weight penalty you need specs, and apparently the collective opinion was that it would be impractical. Where does that leave things? Seems like allow the plunge only and toss everything else, or force some kind of specs and make the weight punitive. I too think it is too late to go all the way back to no-plunge because anyone with a currently legal head with just the plunge should not get the same penalty weight as the cheater heads.

A mess, a total f'ing mess.

Note: Let's not use the term debur because that's not what's going on here. At BEST it is the only excuse anyone could come up with to touch things at all after the plunge, and if that's all they had done we wouldn't be here, period. Even the least modified head had more than that.

[john mueller]

 

Honestly, the way this whole affair is being handled has almost turned me off of the class. All the secrecy about what is or is not going to happen is seriously pissing me off. This is OUR GOD DAMNED CLASS. TELL US WHAT YOU ARE THINKING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!!!!

 

The secrecy had to do with being sure the correct message was being given...  A few dots on I's and a few crossed T's.   Expect it in the morning.

 

I'll be traveling to Sonoma for the Western Champs all day tomorrow so I'll have very little access to this site until late.  So if you have my cell number please txt me your question or IM me here or send an email (it will be included with joint communication tomorrow.

[Bench Racer]

OEM head punge cut, OEM does nothing to eliminate after machining leftovers other than high pressure water wash. Standard machine shop practices eliminating the machining leftovers for doing whatever the SM engine builders did is nothing more than a builders excuse after they created illegal heads. No different than the over the limit cheating the Whistler. Get the heads out of the system.......................

 

Oh, there are no more 99 heads. So what's stopping Mazda from making a run of heads. Sure the new heads will be more expensive, so what. Why should the entire class have to cover for the SM engine builders creativite crap, the engine builder new every inch of the way what he/she was doing. And don't use the excuse that without a spec, no one can view if the plunge cut has been played with. What one views on an OEM plunge cut is what one should view on a SM builders plunge cut. SM engine builder do your best to massage a couple plunge cuts, send me the head for viewing or bring it to a track near me, if I correctly identify your massaged plunge cuts, you pay for the shipping both ways. Just like any other MAZDA part, compare to OEM. Nuff said on this subject by me.

 

On another point brough up over and over within this thread (I didn't read the entire thread, boring), gaining some torque for the 1.6. Same SMAC and CRB folks saying the same crap over and over. You people on the SMAC and CRB know exactly what will get the most bang for the buck when it comes to improved torque. Stop with your excuses and throw some torque to the 1.6. It's not about a seventy two year and his SM, it's about those with enough talent to harness their 1.6 while bringing it to the pointy end and getting new folks into the class without spending 40 big ones.

[Steve Scheifler]

I seriously doubt that Mazda could revive the molds and tooling for a run of heads from more than a decade ago. I don't know how many '99-00 are still on the road but they are aging so maybe enough to satisfy demand in a year or so while many people opt for a weight penalty instead.

[Tom Sager]

OEM head punge cut, OEM does nothing to eliminate after machining leftovers other than high pressure water wash. Standard machine shop practices eliminating the machining leftovers for doing whatever the SM engine builders did is nothing more than a builders excuse after they created illegal heads. No different than the over the limit cheating the Whistler. Get the heads out of the system.......................

 

Oh, there are no more 99 heads. So what's stopping Mazda from making a run of heads. Sure the new heads will be more expensive, so what. Why should the entire class have to cover for the SM engine builders creativite crap, the engine builder new every inch of the way what he/she was doing. And don't use the excuse that without a spec, no one can view if the plunge cut has been played with. What one views on an OEM plunge cut is what one should view on a SM builders plunge cut. SM engine builder do your best to massage a couple plunge cuts, send me the head for viewing or bring it to a track near me, if I correctly identify your massaged plunge cuts, you pay for the shipping both ways. Just like any other MAZDA part, compare to OEM. Nuff said on this subject by me.

 

On another point brough up over and over within this thread (I didn't read the entire thread, boring), gaining some torque for the 1.6. Same SMAC and CRB folks saying the same crap over and over. You people on the SMAC and CRB know exactly what will get the most bang for the buck when it comes to improved torque. Stop with your excuses and throw some torque to the 1.6. It's not about a seventy two year and his SM, it's about those with enough talent to harness their 1.6 while bringing it to the pointy end and getting new folks into the class without spending 40 big ones.

I have heard more than once (and I believe it) that the current plunge cut rule (which does not allow a plunge cut to be massaged) helps to make more heads more similar in performance and would reduce the need to find the plum casting, the pick of the litter.  So even if NASA and SCCA don't want any rules creep, what would be the objection to keeping the current plunge cut rule which defines the depth, diameter, position and finish of that cut?  

 

Going back to stock heads (no plunge cut allowed) would seem to favor those that have the wherewithal to inspect and test a bunch of heads or pay top dollar for the few plums that builders set aside for their "special customers".   

 

...And, don't the plunge cut rules as written benefit a 1.6 unrestricted engine the most?  

[Steve Scheifler]

^^ that

Did I do that correctly?

[john mueller]

it's funny...  There were a sizable number of emails and calls sent in to the CRB and Mazda  saying PLEASE DO NOT DEEM STR SMOOTHING LEGAL!   Those folks must stay away from this site or just not post for fear of being flamed.

 

Perspective is important.

 

Good night.  Kiss your wife and hug the kids cuz that's what's important, not this silly stuff.