296 replies to this topic

[38bfast]

Chris one of the heads at the runoffs failed the plunge cut tool test. Just FYI

[Bench Racer]

Paul, as I am currently inspecting a head, simo with what your doing I thought, bore scope. Am familiar with the capabilites.

 

The SCCA currently has a comparison rule in place. Anyone care to send me a normal guy/non engine builder a head legal or illegal to see if I can visual inspect the head to be legal or illegal with reference to de-buring/blending/smothing before or after the engine builder plunge cut?

 

IMHJ, it would be respectiful of the SCCA to post pictures of the illegal head issues.

 

9.1.7. Spec Miata (SM) Specifications

If the factory manual or these rules provide only a partial specification or

no specification at all, the Mazda parts may not be modified beyond what

is allowed in these rules. Compliance of such parts will be determined

by comparison to new parts delivered by Mazda. Other approved parts

with only a partial specification or no specification available in these rules

may not be modified. Compliance of such parts will be determined by

comparison to new parts from the supplier.

[KentCarter]

Jim Drago was very proud of the go/no go gauges he had machined up when the plunge cut rule went into effect. Whatever became of those? 

 

The problem with the borescope idea is that it still requires an hour (or more) of labor to get there. Who is going to pay for all these random teardowns that NASA and SCCA want to do? The competitor? Or the clubs? 

 

Or the competitor when they find it illegal? If so, then there becomes a financial incentive for the inspector to find illegality. No bueno. 

[Bench Racer]

The problem with the borescope idea is that it still requires an hour (or more) of labor to get there. Who is going to pay for all these random teardowns that NASA and SCCA want to do? The competitor? Or the clubs? 

 

Or the competitor when they find it illegal?

 

If so, then there becomes a financial incentive for the inspector to find illegality. No bueno. 

Kent, with all do respect, the same people that pay now for a tear down.

 

Some of us Spec Miata members not involved with profit from Spec Miata parts with zero to gain may be very capable of doing a visual comparison per the SCCA rule posted in a previous post.

 

Time for grand daughter indoor soccer.

[Cnj]

Jim Drago was very proud of the go/no go gauges he had machined up when the plunge cut rule went into effect. Whatever became of those? 
 
The problem with the borescope idea is that it still requires an hour (or more) of labor to get there. Who is going to pay for all these random teardowns that NASA and SCCA want to do? The competitor? Or the clubs? 
 
Or the competitor when they find it illegal? If so, then there becomes a financial incentive for the inspector to find illegality. No bueno.

Kent,

I've been thinking about this. I see no way around applying a compliance fee as we had several years ago so that a roving SCCA team is able to work over the next year or two to clean up the class. If that is the goal. This is particularly important if the new rule goes into effect because (as Taylor has cynically commented) we simply can't rely on self policing in a system with 3 different weight systems (one stock and two penalty) over four different cars. What a confusing mess. No way anything but majors will get anything like decent compliance checks due to the complexity.

Regarding the go-no-go tool, I still don't see how this compliance check issue (with related specs) is obviated under a "stock" head condition. What's to stop progressive cheating of a "stock" head if there are no specifications or measurements? I have yet to hear a compelling argument that this can be done reliably by purely visual inspection by modestly qualified tech inspectors.

CNJ

[chris haldeman]

38fast. It failed a de shroud not plunge FYI

[chris haldeman]

One hole on exhaust side. In no way was it an attempt too cheat. And I don't even know who built it

[chris haldeman]

CNJ nobody can answer that question. This exact area of questioning is why the smac and crb studied a lot too come up with the maximum dimensions and developed a good repeatable tool too check them.

[Cnj]

^I have a stock unmolested head in my 1.6.

There's gold in the hills of California.

CNJ

[KentCarter]

I can't emphasize enough what a bad decision this is. If SCCA and NASA are going to send the posse around to all the events in the US to yank heads, people will get tired of the hassle and expense and do something else. SCCA is becoming less relevant every day and NASA is potentially on the same path. There are great options out there for people who want to race without the self-serving CRB and the political BS among parties with a skin in the rules making game. 

I remain convinced that the proper path is to surrender: heads are open, but claimable/swap-able. To claim:
1. Both cars get a leakdown test. If the claimer's head shows a higher percentage of leakdown than the head being claimed then cash is required in the swap by some formula to be determined (price of a valve job X 20/leakdown%)
2. Claimer must provide gaskets
3. Claimer must pay shop rate for a head R&R
4. Claimed head cannot be claimed again for 6 months or 6 races, whichever is longer
5. Both heads must remain on public display for 1 hour before installation
6. Refusing to submit to a head swap results in a DQ or all races run and a loss of all season points

Same system should be created for gearboxes, diffs and halfshafts. Too much money is being spent here, too, and all are easy to swap in the paddock. 

[Bi11]

WOW

[dstevens]

There's gold in the hills of California.

CNJ

And another couple in Vegas.  Both came off street cars that hadn't been opened until I got to them.    No unicorn though...  

 

I can't emphasize enough what a bad decision this is. If SCCA and NASA are going to send the posse around to all the events in the US to yank heads, people will get tired of the hassle and expense and do something else. SCCA is becoming less relevant every day and NASA is potentially on the same path. There are great options out there for people who want to race without the self-serving CRB and the political BS among parties with a skin in the rules making game. 

I remain convinced that the proper path is to surrender: heads are open, but claimable/swap-able. To claim:
1. Both cars get a leakdown test. If the claimer's head shows a higher percentage of leakdown than the head being claimed then cash is required in the swap by some formula to be determined (price of a valve job X 20/leakdown%)
2. Claimer must provide gaskets
3. Claimer must pay shop rate for a head R&R
4. Claimed head cannot be claimed again for 6 months or 6 races, whichever is longer
5. Both heads must remain on public display for 1 hour before installation
6. Refusing to submit to a head swap results in a DQ or all races run and a loss of all season points

Same system should be created for gearboxes, diffs and halfshafts. Too much money is being spent here, too, and all are easy to swap in the paddock. 

Claimers generally don't work and can be easily exploited for competitive advantage.  It still puts the onus on the competitors to enforce the rules rather than the sanction.  Not having a tech process that is definitive and consistent is how this mess started.  To get around this rule me and my buddy could claim each other and be good for most of the rest of the season. Then repeat.

 

How is the claimer going to work with four different type cars?  Let's say I'm the only 1.6 in the field.  How is claiming another head going to help me?  

[KentCarter]

And another couple in Vegas.  Both came off street cars that hadn't been opened until I got to them.    No unicorn though...  

 

Claimers generally don't work and can be easily exploited for competitive advantage.  It still puts the onus on the competitors to enforce the rules rather than the sanction.  Not having a tech process that is definitive and consistent is how this mess started.  To get around this rule me and my buddy could claim each other and be good for most of the rest of the season. Then repeat.

 

How is the claimer going to work with four different type cars?  Let's say I'm the only 1.6 in the field.  How is claiming another head going to help me?  

Well... the 1.6 is dead. Bury it and move on. There are other organizations in which you can go race it and enjoy the run, but the SCCA and NASA are done with the 1.6. 

 

The buddy scenario is easily broken up. Other competitors can step in and claim the head. In fact, if multiple people want to claim it, a number can be drawn out of the hat. The onus for tech will always be on us... neither NASA nor SCCA can afford to put strict tech in place because:

1. They suck at it. 

2. It runs customers off because they suck at it. 

 

[Danny Steyn]

I want to reiterate how the SCCA system works before we get lost in an unproductive path.

 

Letters go to the CRB.  One letter at a time, one subject at a time.  Submit them on the web site so they are date and time stamped.  Consider these as your votes.  Don't get caught up in the "thank you for your input response" as that is not what matters here.   The votes will be counted if they are as clear as a yea/nay for a given subject and then this information will be passed on to the BOD for their vote for the rules ratification.  The BOD is VERY unlikely to vote against a massive letter campaign (unless there is malfeasance or financial impact on the club).

cnj

 

THIS is the way - individual letters to the CRB from every driver, reflecting your opinion, whether you are for or against the direction the SCCA, NASA and Mazda are taking OUR class

 

I personally consider their direction to be MISGUIDED and VERY DESTRUCTIVE to the class. As was said earlier, the are punishing ALL drivers for the greed of a few engine builders. There is NO need to deviate from the current rule set. Just tighten up the rule and tighten up the tech and compliance. 

[dstevens]

Well... the 1.6 is dead. Bury it and move on. There are other organizations in which you can go race it and enjoy the run, but the SCCA and NASA are done with the 1.6. 

 

The buddy scenario is easily broken up. Other competitors can step in and claim the head. In fact, if multiple people want to claim it, a number can be drawn out of the hat. The onus for tech will always be on us... neither NASA nor SCCA can afford to put strict tech in place because:

1. They suck at it. 

2. It runs customers off because they suck at it. 

 

I've raced in claimer classes, easy to beat.  The ship has sailed on the 1.6 but what about a 1.8 NA vs a 99 vs a VVT?  Claimers usually don't work on like make/model cars let alone trying to span it over 11 or 12 model years with a few variations.  Claimers are used to enforce limited modification parts, not for unlimited parts. The prices are set on the low side to encourage others not only to claim but for those that might break the rules to think twice about investing the time and money for the cheats/mods.  Adding those costs you list isn't how a claimer works in fact it discourages claiming.  The rule as you proposed isn't a claimer, it's a used parts transaction.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

If there is no other changes ( parity ) where can I donate my 1.6 for a tax wright off ? lol

[KentCarter]

I've raced in claimer classes, easy to beat.  The ship has sailed on the 1.6 but what about a 1.8 NA vs a 99 vs a VVT?  Claimers usually don't work on like make/model cars let alone trying to span it over 11 or 12 model years with a few variations.  Claimers are used to enforce limited modification parts, not for unlimited parts. The prices are set on the low side to encourage others not only to claim but for those that might break the rules to think twice about investing the time and money for the cheats/mods.  Adding those costs you list isn't how a claimer works in fact it discourages claiming.  The rule as you proposed isn't a claimer, it's a used parts transaction.

If the head is illegal, there is no reason to claim it. Therefore, allow heads to be open and the cost of acquiring your enemy's well-worked head is the cost of a gasket set and compensation for any difference in the condition of the head you are swapping. If the head you are swapping has good valves (low leakdown) then your cost is just a set of gaskets. If it leaks like a sieve, then you owe them money for a valve job. If your bottom end is leaky (the other cause of a big leakdown number) then you might want to reconsider the claim because you are still gonna pay for that bad leakdown value. 

 

One shouldn't claim willy-nilly. But a gasket set is not a big cost to get Jim's hot head that he spent a billion dollars on when you have a stock junkyard head with good valves. After a bit of time, all will sort out and no one will be spending big money on head work and people will have similar heads: a bit of porting, a bit of cam work, a bit of unshrouding but nothing exotic or expensive. The result will be reasonable mods without the cost of hiding the work. 

And... all the BS about tech goes away. The SCCA is NOT capable of implementing a meaningful tech program in SM. The heads have too much variation in factory trim and the good builders are good at hiding the modifications. This adds up to ZERO ability to tech Miata heads. It will all be about judgment calls and the attitude of the stewards. Same with gearboxes, diffs and half-shafts. All are cheated up and no tech program is going to catch it. And we'll all pay big compliance fees with nothing to show for it... again. 

[Brian129]

If the head is illegal, there is no reason to claim it. Therefore, allow heads to be open and the cost of acquiring your enemy's well-worked head is the cost of a gasket set and compensation for any difference in the condition of the head you are swapping. If the head you are swapping has good valves (low leakdown) then your cost is just a set of gaskets. If it leaks like a sieve, then you owe them money for a valve job. If your bottom end is leaky (the other cause of a big leakdown number) then you might want to reconsider the claim because you are still gonna pay for that bad leakdown value. 
 
One shouldn't claim willy-nilly. But a gasket set is not a big cost to get Jim's hot head that he spent a billion dollars on when you have a stock junkyard head with good valves. After a bit of time, all will sort out and no one will be spending big money on head work and people will have similar heads: a bit of porting, a bit of cam work, a bit of unshrouding but nothing exotic or expensive. The result will be reasonable mods without the cost of hiding the work. 
And... all the BS about tech goes away. The SCCA is NOT capable of implementing a meaningful tech program in SM. The heads have too much variation in factory trim and the good builders are good at hiding the modifications. This adds up to ZERO ability to tech Miata heads. It will all be about judgment calls and the attitude of the stewards. Same with gearboxes, diffs and half-shafts. All are cheated up and no tech program is going to catch it. And we'll all pay big compliance fees with nothing to show for it... again.

What about the comments about just bolting on parts available from Mazdaspeed and returingnthenclassntoma car that could be built at home?
If a tool is made standard and readily available, then Joe Schmo can buy the tool and have the machine shop down the street touch the plunge cuts, if he so chooses. Your proposal sounds like the best thing to do will be a mass production built head shop that might be using CNC to cut manual labor time. Someone will do it and then all but the budget racer will have pretty significantly worked heads, and we are back to the same issue. And this is promoting rules creep

[MPR22]

Dad suggested we just all send the heads out to CNC shop that has programmed profiles and mass produce each model head. If each head is effectively maximized then there wouldn't be much left to cheat up.  Seems like something SCCA/NASA/Mazda should be able to do.  They find 3-4 shops that have CNC machines, send them the profiles and competitor sends the core and poof, Spec Head Miata.  

[Keith Andrews]

Dad suggested we just all send the heads out to CNC shop that has programmed profiles and mass produce each model head. If each head is effectively maximized then there wouldn't be much left to cheat up.  Seems like something SCCA/NASA/Mazda should be able to do.  They find 3-4 shops that have CNC machines, send them the profiles and competitor sends the core and poof, Spec Head Miata.  

 

If we can't reverse the decision, that's a great idea.  The SCCA is basically telling a majority of their customers they need to buy new heads as it stands.  The cost is already a given factor.