296 replies to this topic

[steveracer]

Wouldn't it be easy enough to say that the plunge cut has to be concentric to the valve center line and spec a max diameter that could be measured easily enough with a snap gauge?

 

Something along the lines of inside diameter at the seat is XXX and can be no bigger between the seat and the edge of the STR?

 

Wouldn't that make heads that were legally plunge cut still legal, and give a quantifiable spec that would expose any hanky panky in the pocket? Hell, you could use the approved plunge cutter as a gauge since it indexes in the guide, put it in and rotate it slowly. If you see a gap bigger than .001-.002, it's out of spec and illegal.

 

Mr, Schieffler, what are your thoughts here?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

A few things to consider...

 

 

 

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)  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.  Which is why the parity between engines and builders was so close. 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. 

 

 

 

Ok, I know we have a 70% agreement for the most part that we should allow replung cutting to do away with cherry picking etc.

 

After this Fast Eddie post, I picked up the phone imediatly and talked to two people I  know who build or have built engines for a living.

 

Their take was this pettition would only gain their cutomers and customers of most Pro engine builders vote if a blend was spec'ed to be some abertrary number.  

 

I feel that 95% + of this class is affected by this new ruling, we are going to have to set our differences and new ideas aside and think seriously here.

 

Is it better to go backwards to buy all new stock heads?  Or should we go forward yes I will call it what it is and reward the cheaters by specing their latest cheat into the rules?

 

Mark my words if we dont swing a bat of 70% of our group any of this talk is just flat a big waste of time.

 

I propose Mr. Sager that although I may personally disagree about wanting blending or deburring legal, this petition in order to stand any chance of making a desired outcome must:

 

Describe how we want this spec to be written to allow blending to ??mm.

 

I will vote yes for this again not what I personally want but what I find to be the lesser evil at this point. 

 

I urge you Tom, to pick up your phone and call Jim Drago, Dan Tiley, Jim Stewart, Rush in CA. and maybe even Bob Thornton.  Find out what would cover 70% of the heads that have been made since 2009 we dont need to go out and cover to most blended but what would make most of those heads legal.  Come to a concensus after talking to them and then get this put up immediatly.

 

Again I know this looks like condoning cheating but I do believe that we cannot get enough people on board if we are dead set to do what I personally would like to see come from this. As many if not most of my best friends in this community will vote against my idea, as it does not go far enough to adress their particular situation.

 

further more I know I may not have named your engine builder, i could not possibly name them all so I went off the top of my head please forgive any omissions, I also tired to name those who have been known to blend not those who profess not to.

[MPR22]

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.

I agree 100%.  I would never advocate a path that did not have majority member support.  I will do whatever the majority wants, for that to happen there needs to ideas discussed, then formalized, then voted on by the SM racers.  

[Caveman-kwebb99]

If any of you agree with what I had to say i urge you to sign Tom Sagers petition if it covers the above, as well as follup with letters to crb and nasa via mueller to that affect.  

 

Even if you have written a letter prior asking for something different,  We serieously need to speek with one voice on this issue, it is the only way to have any clout. 

 

For me this is about the class and not my personal belief or adgenda.

 

Also the ones who gain the most from going back to stock heads are those builders who got us here to begin with, a stock head still needs an sm valve job and shaving to get to max compression, some of those builders of engines and/or cars are also junk head dealers who you will get to buy a new to you head from.

 

Making their cheats legal actually hurts them and their pocket books the most to be honest with you. 

[Duncan]

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.

 

As someone that looks at survey data professionally, I'll caution you to be careful drawing too wide an inference.  ONe of the most important parts of a survey is the careful consideration that goes into making sure that the sample population (those that responded to the poll) are representative of the community (all SM racers)

 

- Online message boards aren't typically representative of their broader constituent populations.  The polls are at best a representative sample of the board itself.

- Yes/No questions like this involving a change are generally biased in their response.  The 'no' contingent is more likely to be vocal and thus skew the results.  Similar effects are seen with reviews, where as people are much more likely to write a review for a negative experience, vs a neutral or positive one.

 

Just some thoughts to consider.

Duncan

[Pat Ross]

My counter to those that say CNC heads would be counter to the spirit of the class let me say:

 

We have spec shocks, springs, Fat Cats, etc. that are non-stock specified to make the class more uniform.  How would specifying a specific CNC pattern for the heads be any different?

 

It sure would simplify Tech Shed inspection.

[Jason J Ball]

What is the stock spec for all 4 heads? Is it well defined? If they cannot tech to the current set of rules, how are they going to tech to the stock specs? To me teching to our current rules and whatever the stock spec is the same thing. If you cannot accurately measure now, how will they accurately measure in the future? Say I have a bone stock factory head and the sand casting was jarred as they poured the mold and I have two runners are right on the edge of the factory tolerance. The post machine process plunge cut after the seats were installed. How can you tell if this was done in the manufacturers machine shop or Karl's? You will not be able to period! So tell me again how this rule change helps them be able to tech? 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

As someone that looks at survey data professionally, I'll caution you to be careful drawing too wide an inference.  ONe of the most important parts of a survey is the careful consideration that goes into making sure that the sample population (those that responded to the poll) are representative of the community (all SM racers)

 

- Online message boards aren't typically representative of their broader constituent populations.  The polls are at best a representative sample of the board itself.

- Yes/No questions like this involving a change are generally biased in their response.  The 'no' contingent is more likely to be vocal and thus skew the results.  Similar effects are seen with reviews, where as people are much more likely to write a review for a negative experience, vs a neutral or positive one.

 

Just some thoughts to consider.

Duncan

 

Duncan very thoughtful response, the problem is we have very limited time and maybe limited data in which to act for or against.  I do think the poll is fairly accurate but the response to NO or Hell NO is coming from multiple reasons.  This is also why I have said what I posted above. 

 

If 70% of the class is for Stock Heads them I am to, even though that is not what I want!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

What is the stock spec for all 4 heads? Is it well defined? If they cannot tech to the current set of rules, how are they going to tech to the stock specs? To me teching to our current rules and whatever the stock spec is the same thing. If you cannot accurately measure now, how will they accurately measure in the future? Say I have a bone stock factory head and the sand casting was jarred as they poured the mold and I have two runners are right on the edge of the factory tolerance. The post machine process plunge cut after the seats were installed. How can you tell if this was done in the manufacturers machine shop or Karl's? You will not be able to period! So tell me again how this rule change helps them be able to tech? 

 

J Ball, I'm sort of with you. that is why it needs to be limited to ??mm in and ??mm wide. that is measurable 

 

What Karl was doing was cheating, as nobody looking at his heads knew what they were looking at, they would not pass this runoffs protest either in this situation.  He is basilcally telling you its been around forever we just didnt know it.

 

He also did not win the national championships because of it, if that tells you anything.

[Duncan]

Duncan very thoughtful response, the problem is we have very limited time and maybe limited data in which to act for or against.  I do think the poll is fairly accurate but the response to NO or Hell NO is coming from multiple reasons.  This is also why I have said what I posted above. 

 

If 70% of the class is for Stock Heads them I am to, even though that is not what I want!

 

Kyle,

 

There's an interesting aside here, in that the motivations of the no votes might different.
1.  Group one voted no because the rule goes too far.
2.  Group two voted no as well, because the rule doesn't go far enough.

 

You see this all the time in poorly done political polls.  People will ask a question regarding a policy.  For example, do you agree with X piece of legistation.  More often than not, the majority of people disagree, but if you actually look at the disagree piece, a portion of them voted that way because they didn't think it did enough.

 

Anyways,  just more rambling.

Duncan

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle,

 

There's an interesting aside here, in that the motivations of the no votes might different.
1.  Group one voted no because the rule goes too far.
2.  Group two voted no as well, because the rule doesn't go far enough.

 

You see this all the time in poorly done political polls.  People will ask a question regarding a policy.  For example, do you agree with X piece of legistation.  More often than not, the majority of people disagree, but if you actually look at the disagree piece, a portion of them voted that way because they didn't think it did enough.

 

Anyways,  just more rambling.

Duncan

 

while that is possible, I know most of those names who voted and I also know why, its called knowledge of your community.  You seem like a good a guy and i appreciate your posts as to this poll.  also thank you for placing your vote, we need more people to actually vote here so we know more about the feeling of our community. 

[Brocodile]

Before "The Letter" came out, I proposed a practical solution: allowing the Plunge Cut, plus a minimal, quantified and measurable radius to clean up the edge. My rationale was two-fold. First, I felt that we should try to avoid needlessly outlawing heads. Second, I felt that a big part of the problem with the "no material must be removed" requirement is that it cannot be objectively measured. A specific maximum radius would remove subjectivity. By "minimal" I meant a radius which would not be expected to create a significant performance gain. I was aware that the determination of the allowable radius would require an educated guess, but such is the nature of rule-making, whether it be weights, restrictor plate size, etc.

 

Speaking of weight, I did not suggest a grace period or weight adjustments to compensate for any porting work. This injects even more guesswork into the process. It also encourages those who willing to accept weight to do as much port work as possible, creating another potential area of controversy and rules-gaming.

 

If there is a problem measuring the radius, I feel that there are enough smart guys in this class to find a practical way to do it.

 

Since my original proposal, I have followed the discussion. Nothing I have read has changed my mind. This approach is practical, simple and, though perhaps not perfectly fair, it does penalize the outliers whose heads will not be saved, while not requiring those who were compliant all along to buy new heads (per The Letter or the cnc suggestion) or go back and do porting work to catch up with former rule-breakers (per a more indulgent standard).

 

In summary, I find myself in agreement with Kyle. What? 

[Duncan]

while that is possible, I know most of those names who voted and I also know why, its called knowledge of your community.  You seem like a good a guy and i appreciate your posts as to this poll.  also thank you for placing your vote, we need more people to actually vote here so we know more about the feeling of our community. 

 

Kyle,  FWIW, I also don't think that's the case with regards to this particular poll.  At least not in amounts that would change the conclusion.  Just something worth mentioning.

What I do find interesting, is that John Mueller stated he's getting emails with an approximately 50/50 split between good idea/bad idea.   I'd be curious on why there's seemingly such a large disparity between the two samples.  Maybe there's a difference in how racers of the two sanctioning bodies are viewing this.

 

I'll also note, that although I voted not sure, given a little more granularity in the available responses, I would have picked something slightly more on the no side. 

Duncan

[PatrickCleary]

Wouldn't it be easy enough to say that the plunge cut has to be concentric to the valve center line and spec a max diameter that could be measured easily enough with a snap gauge?

 

Something along the lines of inside diameter at the seat is XXX and can be no bigger between the seat and the edge of the STR?

 

Wouldn't that make heads that were legally plunge cut still legal, and give a quantifiable spec that would expose any hanky panky in the pocket? Hell, you could use the approved plunge cutter as a gauge since it indexes in the guide, put it in and rotate it slowly. If you see a gap bigger than .001-.002, it's out of spec and illegal.

 

Mr, Schieffler, what are your thoughts here?

I'd ask you how concentric concentric is and how cylindrical the bore has to be and how you plan on verifying that measurement. And I'd mention that your solution to measuring the parts would require a .001-.002" tolerance band. You'd now need a batch of custom go/no-go gauges to measure and trained people to use them. I know at work we have problems measuring tolerances in that range, and we have a million dollar QC lab and people that make their livings measuring parts.

 

If someone wanted to pay for the most capable engine, they could buy a stack of heads and figure out what batch of tolerances makes the most power (if there's any change). And unless someone was willing to bring a CMM to runoffs, it would be hard to catch, and might still be within spec. Maybe my memory's wrong, but I thought the photo floating around of the modified STR showed a very small cut that doesn't necessarily open up both sides of the runner. If that's correct, I wouldn't put my name to that dimension on a tech sheet.

 

Stock heads might be a bad solution, but from a verification perspective, it at least makes all but the hard core cheats (willing to cast new heads, pay $10k to make one look stock, etc) easy to check.

[steveracer]

Approved plunge cut tool and a feeler gauge are not hard to come by. The tool is the gauge, and a .001/.002 nogo feeler is the tolerance. If Tech doesn't know how to drive a feeler gauge, we need new Tech people...

 

I'd be happy to teach the SoWDiv Tech team how to use a feeler gauge.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle,  FWIW, I also don't think that's the case with regards to this particular poll.  At least not in amounts that would change the conclusion.  Just something worth mentioning.

What I do find interesting, is that John Mueller stated he's getting emails with an approximately 50/50 split between good idea/bad idea.   I'd be curious on why there's seemingly such a large disparity between the two samples.  Maybe there's a difference in how racers of the two sanctioning bodies are viewing this.

 

I'll also note, that although I voted not sure, given a little more granularity in the available responses, I would have picked something slightly more on the no side. 

Duncan

 

I can only speak for myself I have not written letters since before the big powow in topeka, I am waiting to see what dirrection we want to take as a group, then and only then will I spend time emailing crb and mueller.  When someone puts ink to paper so to speak on what this ??mm spec really should be then i can write an effective letter, that articulates what it is that I want again not because I want it but because I beleive the community at large wants it.

[PatrickCleary]

What are the manufacturing tolerances on that tool? Compensation for wear? Free play tolerance in the valve guides? Allowable TIR in the mill/drill spindle? It's not impossible, but it's not as easy as people make it out to be, and the cutter will never be an acceptable go gauge for it.

 

I'm hesitant how much I trust my measurements below +/-.005" and I have a fair amount of inspection experience. Take a pair of calipers, set them to 0.002" and see what you're actually talking about. The only way I can see through them is to hold them up to my monitor and let light shine through.

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

It needs to be said that lots of parts are hanging on walls or have been tossed/sold over the years due to rule growing pains, this is not a big deal looking at long term.

 

TSW wheels, gone when 13 pound rule went into place.

 

Mazda Comp Exhaust, gone when JD / Sam Henry was made legal.

 

Cams, gone when we got a spec for them (this is very much like this head deal).

 

Shocks, gone when we got a spec on them.

 

What I forget old timers?

 

Oh, the DDG shirt was for sale on the Cafe Press site, not been there in a bit. He actually meant the other Jim.......    

 

http://www.cafepress.com/specmiata.

[Danny Steyn]

Letters written to CRB, NASA, and Mazda expressing my concerns with the direction they are taking.

[LarryKing]

 

What I forget old timers?

 

How could you forget the $1,200 lightweight clutch?