296 replies to this topic

[Parity]

Well if that becomes the direction then here you go:

 

http://www.drmachine.com/

 

Nearly 40 CNC's, 8 of them 5 axis machines

[Bench Racer]

Well if that becomes the direction then here you go:

 

http://www.drmachine.com/

 

Nearly 40 CNC's, 8 of them 5 axis machines

You may need to be a lights out facility.

[Parity]

We do run lights out on several stations.

[Tom Sager]

Back to petitioning NASA and SCCA... Would it fair to say (given the results of the poll which stands at 71.6% feel the wrong decision back to stock heads is being made, 14.8% aren't sure and 13.5% like the idea) that the significant majority position is that the current head prep rules should stay in place?  That is preferred over allowing plunge cut blending?  That tighter enforcement is preferred over a rule change?

 

After reading a lot of posts and talking to a few it seems like this is the majority position and the one that would best satisfy both the racers and the organizers who desire to keep competitor prep levels and costs tight.  

 

If so then I'll write a statement (and gladly take input) and publish a petition over the weekend and the individual letters to the CRB and to NASA should continue.

[Parity]

Back to petitioning NASA and SCCA... Would it fair to say (given the results of the poll which stands at 71.6% feel the wrong decision back to stock heads is being made, 14.8% aren't sure and 13.5% like the idea) that the significant majority position is that the current head prep rules should stay in place?  That is preferred over allowing plunge cut blending?  That tighter enforcement is preferred over a rule change?

 

 

 

Yes, I'm in agreement with this. Plunge cut should remain but better enforcement is required. Here's what every member affected will face:

 

Head, $1500, core if/when available $600-$1000. So we're looking at $2500 if we do our own wrench turning because my car was compliant is not an acceptable solution.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Back to petitioning NASA and SCCA... Would it fair to say (given the results of the poll which stands at 71.6% feel the wrong decision back to stock heads is being made, 14.8% aren't sure and 13.5% like the idea) that the significant majority position is that the current head prep rules should stay in place?  That is preferred over allowing plunge cut blending?  That tighter enforcement is preferred over a rule change?

 

After reading a lot of posts and talking to a few it seems like this is the majority position and the one that would best satisfy both the racers and the organizers who desire to keep competitor prep levels and costs tight.  

 

If so then I'll write a statement (and gladly take input) and publish a petition over the weekend and the individual letters to the CRB and to NASA should continue.

 

Tom, my take is overwhelmingly the class feels the descision is wrong for the class, but dont read blending and deburring being allowed is what that vote means.

 

Many do NOT want deburring and blending to be allowed, but would prefer to be able to re plung cut their heads, and what this vote really tells me is most of us already have heads that have been re plung cut, some others of us have re plung + things many dont want.

 

This is why I asked Ross to make this a yes or no.  We need as a group to find a position that we all agree on.  Re plung cutting is just that IMO.

 

Those in charge IMO should get busy finding a way to allow re plung cuts yet defitively making blending deburring illegal as well as tech inforceable rather then coming up with the answer that we cant find a way to spec it or tech it other then looking at it and making a judgment call.  Many said we could never put a man on the moon or sail around the world yet it could be done and it was, surely finding a way to spec and check a plung cut for rules creep is must less complex then going to the moon, and we have some very damn smart people in this class.  I am not one of those people but at least I am smart enough to know we can do it just not the how.

[Pat Ross]

As Michael said, if we could develop a Spec Miata head for each Miata engine by CNCing the heads to maximum flow rate, any further work would be futile and probably counter productive.  Once this had been implemented, we could then adjust weights and restrictor size to equalize all cars. 

 

If you had a CNC'd head and decided to leave the class, you could probably get a premium price for your car. 

 

The 1.6 and NA 1.8 could then become relevant again.

 

BTW I had Lingerfelder CNC a pair of Corvette heads using their CNC patterns this included new valves, springs and retainers for $1800.  That's about $900 for each head using my core.  That is less than we are paying for pro built heads right now.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

As Michael said, if we could develop a Spec Miata head for each Miata engine by CNCing the heads to maximum flow rate, any further work would be futile and probably counter productive.  Once this had been implemented, we could then adjust weights and restrictor size to equalize all cars. 

 

If you had a CNC'd head and decided to leave the class, you could probably get a premium price for your car. 

 

The 1.6 and NA 1.8 could then become relevant again.

 

Problem is that will not be supported by a majority in the class, many just want to race what they feel is a legalally re plung cut head with no blending dburring done, many are being punished by this descision, they are not happy that they need to spend to replace a head when they followed the rules from the very begining.  Having to send your heat off to CNC it is the same as making them have to go to a stock head, maybe the result is beter in the end but making them spend more money when they were already compliant is the problem here with all these descision!

 

These and other ideas are why we will not get the descisions already made overturned because we are not speeking with one voice!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

This is simple!!!!

 

I believe that 70+% will agree we should be able to re-plung cut and stop there and call it a day!

 

SCCA and mueller need to hear a very Simple message!  Nothing more nothing less.

[MPR22]

Problem is that will not be supported by a majority in the class, many just want to race what they feel is a legalally re plung cut head with no blending dburring done, many are being punished by this descision, they are not happy that they need to spend to replace a head when they followed the rules from the very begining.  Having to send your heat off to CNC it is the same as making them have to go to a stock head, maybe the result is beter in the end but making them spend more money when they were already compliant is the problem here with all these descision!

This solution isn't about the past, it is about the future.  Too much is being made of the activities at the Run-offs.  We, as a class, need to look to the future.  If we leave it up to the powers that be we deserve what we get.  

 

I assume if we mass produce these things we will get a reasonable price.  Once the heads have been optimized we can move on to leveling the playing field with weights and plates (may not solve 1.6 tq issue).  If anyone has a problem with making the playing field level FOR ALL YEARS then they will be the obstructionists.   

 

As has been said by CNJ and many others this is about going forward, if we don't provide the SCCA, NASA, Mazda with reasonable options we are no better than that sorry group of people who represent us at the highest level, CONGRESS.  Let's be better than them and make this work. 

[Pat Ross]

Kwebb,

 

I feel the same way.  We have both a '99 and a 2001 that we are having to replace the heads on and I don't like to spend the money just for the sake of the SCCA and NASA's stupidity, but if the final solution is to CNC the heads so that all have the same flow profile and air flow rate, then I will spend the money to end this fiasco.

 

If we CNC the heads then there will be no need to tear down the heads in the tech shed since all heads will be at their maximum.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Mr. Ross, you surely are a smart dude...

 

We cannot look to the future before we secure TODAY!

[Pat Ross]

Kyle,

 

I'd much rather pay $500 - $600 to have my existing heads CNC'd and use my existing valves and springs than to spend $1000-1500 for a new core, valve job, springs and valves.  I would think that any smart person would feel the same way.

 

Pat

[Caveman-kwebb99]

nobody wants to spend another 500 even we just want our heads that are replung cut to be legal! Dont get that?

Ok I said my peace, just keep popping out 1million different ideas and writing letters to no avail!

I have better things to worry about then whatever idea will pop up next that cannot get 70% behind it!

I do not support CNC not because I would t want to do it but because that is not what the class wants. This is about the class not what I you or anyone else thinks is best for someone. If people want apples give them apples. Not kiwi or shit on a stick
Good luck guys

[MPR22]

nobody wants to spend another 500 even we just want our heads that are replung cut to be legal!  Dont get that? 

 

Ok I said my peace, just keep popping out 1million different ideas and writing letters to no avail!

 

I have better things to worry about then whatever idea will pop up next that cannot get 70% behind it!

 

Good luck guys

 

Short term yes, stop the current path the SCCA is taking.  Long term come up with solutions that can be tested, verified and repeated.  

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Short term yes, stop the current path the SCCA is taking.  Long term come up with solutions that can be tested, verified and repeated.

No come up with solutions that people want. Nobody needs to be told what they want. I have served on the bod of a non profit and it should always be about the member and the benefits they want, not the benefit those in charge want to hand out.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

When majority wants CNC that's when I want that. Let's get this convo back on track here.

What does 70% agree on today. Now you have a mandate. Move forward on that and discuss these other ideas as later date.

When a group cannot find common ground the group will eander aimlessly.

Focus your time for change is short or already passed.

[FastEddie]

Back to petitioning NASA and SCCA... Would it fair to say (given the results of the poll which stands at 71.6% feel the wrong decision back to stock heads is being made, 14.8% aren't sure and 13.5% like the idea) that the significant majority position is that the current head prep rules should stay in place?  That is preferred over allowing plunge cut blending?  That tighter enforcement is preferred over a rule change?

 

After reading a lot of posts and talking to a few it seems like this is the majority position and the one that would best satisfy both the racers and the organizers who desire to keep competitor prep levels and costs tight.  

 

If so then I'll write a statement (and gladly take input) and publish a petition over the weekend and the individual letters to the CRB and to NASA should continue.

 

 

A few things to consider...

 

1) You would need to change the "intent" of the class in order to even entertain the idea of CC ported heads. The intent of this class has definitely changed over the years, but I don't think changing it will go very far. CC ported heads would be a good solution however they are absolutely contradictory to the intent of the class.  With that being said, there is no way the SCCA, NASA or Mazda would go that radical in a solution. It is just completely opposite the original intent of the class.

 

Spec Miata purpose and intent (SCCA General Competition Rules):

The Spec Miata (SM) class is intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost, production-based cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.

 

The rules are intentionally designed to be more open than the Showroom Stock class but more restricted than the Improved Touring class.

 

 

                                                                               Your only REALISTIC OPTIONS 

2) The ban the cheaters mentality needs to GO AWAY.. It is now a racers against the sanctioning bodies. As long as there is divided camps here, you have no chance.  The ban the cheaters group need to ask themselves " Is it coincidence that all of these non compliant heads were touched in the exact same spot?"  If all the competitors open their eyes for a minute and check their emotions they would see this is the last spot the builders are pushing. When these things are exposed and put into rule, it brings the class closer. The non axial plunge cut has been clarified so those gains are now gone.   If we put a spec there enough to cover a reasonable amount of blending , say the same 12mm that is allowed on the long side radius already. You will end up with a near perfect rule set.  You guys were so close to a great ruleset. Which is why the parity between engines and builders was so close less. This should have been the rule since day one.

 

3) The rumor is 75% or more of the pro heads out there have this blending. If the powers that be are left with hurting 25% for the greater good it is a much more easier sacrifice to make. 

 

4) If the 75% that have blended heads will need to take additional penalties and/or change to new heads anyway. MOST will not support this petition unless they too are not effected financially. Maybe 10-20% of these drivers will for the better of the class, but most won't.  Human nature! If I have to change, so should everyone else. 

 

 

ANY chance of this going anywhere will have to be a united group of drivers, the only way to do this is set aside personal vendettas and revenge to get the cheaters and ban together with what I posted above. Anything other than that is complete waste of time. 

 

Good luck

[Flash]

For over 20 years I raced competitively in the APBA Stock and Modified series.  I just completed my first year in SM and find the class and its competitors to be very rewarding, making many new friendships.  I am following the issues with the current head rules and have a very simplistic view.  The issues here are no different than issues we went through while racing boats.  The bottom line should be simple: if found to be non-compliant with the rule, penalize those who choose to do so.  Do not make blanket changes that penalize the masses for the few that made the decision either out of lack of diligence to insure compliance or blatant disregard to follow the rules.  If the rule has issues with vagueness, clarify the rule.  The idea of mass punishment goes back to when you were in kindergarten, where one kid talked you all lost recess.

[FTodaro]

I do not think we have discussed this point much but i did express it in my recent letter to the CRB and to John. It will be difficult to tech the stock head due to the vast inconsistency in the stock heads.

 

One of the main reasons given for not expanding the rule to allow blending and the reason to go backwards 5 years and disallow plunge cuts all together was that they could not articulate a standard that would limit the blending or cut, such that it could be reviewed in tech consistently. They gave the reasons that the contour of the heads would be different and basically impossible to draw a line in the sand allowing a plunge cut.

 

I submit that it will also be difficult to inspect the vast array of stock heads as they will be inconsistent too, from the factory. Yes you will be able to determine if there is a fresh plunge cut, but these heads have been manufacturer  likely by different suppliers over the last 20 to 25 years. It will be difficult to detect where stock stops and modified begins IMO. 

 

As to the point about 75% of the heads are affected, i would argue much more like 95% anyone who had a head done in the last 5 years who took their head to a local machine shop, handed them the rule and said do my head, likely got a plunge cut, If there are racers who have been racing on their stock head without a rebuild since 2009, there cannot be many, that only leaves the drivers who have come into the class recent enough that they are still on a stock motor.