296 replies to this topic

[Tom Sager]

I think its the wrong decision. It feels punitive. "those engine builder did not even try to hide tool marks"

 

So the average guy to be complaint will have to spend 2000 to 2500  and the front runners will be spending much more.

 

I hope we get to see the results of the independent testing to see what we are really talking about in terms of a gain. I hope the wt penalty if fair and if it is, why not just leave it in place, if you tested it and its fair.

 

Forcing the change rather than offering an alternative choice is punitive.

 

Lets see where we are when the other shoe drops.

 

Lets start a pole when those final numbers come out and see if the people who support and pay for this class agree.

 

I do not think this was the only option on dealing with this issue. It is a sad day, i think its going to drive people away who have entered or thinking of entering the class.

 

Put a fair wt restriction in and allow that for those who do not want to change.

Frank, not saying I agree or disagree with the SCCA and NASA response but it seems to boil down to this...

 

They found the non-compliant heads to be obviously out of bounds and not due to any vagueness in the rules.

They recognize that it would be painful to tell everyone with similar heads that they cannot run them and instead are willing to approve a period of time in which they can be used but that a weight penalty will apply.  They want the cars compliant for the championship event.  They want to develop better tech methods.

 

What part of this is a problem for you or anyone else and what would be a better outcome?  

[Steve Scheifler]

Something to keep in mind: Even if a "fair" weight penalty is assigned and kept going toward, the guys who can find/buy a "10" head will have the edge because they don't carry the weight. That still gives mid-pack drivers a cheap out, so I'm for it at least in theory, but it does not address the issues at the front.

[Yosh]

 

Anybody else confused by this? I think I understand that the excessively modified heads (a.k.a. STR massaged) will be will have weight penalty and sunset in 2 yrs but the actual plunge cut/unshrouding is still allowed. But then it says "un-modified heads will be required for Runoffs" disallowing plunge/unshrouding work??? Which is it? 

 

-Permit plunge cuts and unshrouding per the current rules, but with clarification of concentricity, as well as some level of blending of the plunge cut (language TBA). These modifications may require that additional weight be added to the car.

-The allowance of these modifications will have a sunset period of one to two years, based on parts availability. The intention is for this to happen sooner than later, but with appropriate competitor notification.

-Only un-modified heads would be permitted for competition at the 2015 SCCA National Championship Runoffs.

 

 

The plunge cut was allowed in order to "level the field" in a production part (the valve seats in the head) so that there would be less cherry picking of parts, right?

 

I see no reason to get rid of the plunge cut.  What needs to happen is that the folks who then went to extra step(s) of PORTING and blending after the plunge cut need to be penalized.  And I don't buy the rationale that there aren't enough stock heads to go around.  If you cheat and you get caught, you should pay the price for the infraction.  Get yourself legal and then you can go back to racing in a SPEC class where the modification you are permitted are SPEC'd.  Or go race in another class that allows such modification.

[Mike Collins]

I think its time for a trip in the way back machine.....SM was started with old SS cars.  So do we get to do what we did to the old SS motors....If thats the case, I'm all in...  So don't bitch when SM motors cost 10k...  I know mine will make 140+ at the wheels if thats how they want to do it....

 

Now you will pay for not only the best machining around via the builder of your choice, you will also pay to make it look like he was never there.... Want to talk about the have and havenots....  The best part is you will have to be in the Secret Club to get the secret engine builder that nobody knows about.

 

 

Or a few guys will go out and have heads cast....  Think I'm kidding...wait and see.....

[FastEddie]

Dear SCCA,Mazda and NASA

We would to thank you and the infinite wisdom of this "cracker jack " panel of experts ! We appreciate you removing the negative PR cloud we have been under since the Runoffs and shifting directly over yourselves.  Another solid thanks for the bonus, not only did you remove all the blame from us with the new "stock" head rule, but you also just increased our bottom line by 50% for 2015. Life is good!

Sincerely

SM engine builders of America

 

 

"stock" what a joke, if we touched them before with a rule with specifications, what do you think we will do without one?  Do any of you remember where the class was pre 2009? .   

[Rob Burgoon]

One thing that I can't stand is when people making decisions hide behind the "class philosophy" which is and always was a load of BS.

 

I don't want a car that's showroom stock.  I want a car that's cheap to build and cheap to race with great parity.  If we gotta increase the build cost slightly to improve the parity and reduce cost to operate/tune, that is a good tradeoff, showroom stock roots be damned.  

 

Make decisions to make the class BETTER.  Not more stock.

[Duncan]

What I saw surprised the hell out of me.  The blending work wasn't even tried to be concealed, plunge cuts not done on the correct plane....  All were egregious except for one that was slightly over the line.

 

The problem was this is what was thought to be acceptable, even with tooling marks by the builders three of who are in leadership positions.  It changed my mind on the sort of action that was required.  And that last part of the above sentence was a huge driving factor inside the meeting room.

 

 

 

my last easily made post until 10pm tonight... flame away.

That's an emotional response, and the reaction seems emotional as well. 

 

I don't see how going back to stock heads increases the parity in the class.  If the modifications found at the run-offs were illegal under the current rule set, then the DQ's were the correct action.  A clarification to the rules, along with the risk of future DQ's will stop these modifications on the front running cars.  Why go further?  To punish people?  Cut off your nose to spite your face?

 

Duncan

[wheel]

An unofficial explanation:

If you have stock heads with a three angle valve seat as required in the current GCR, you can run at the regular weight.  In order to not require that all the heads out there be dumped immediately, there will be a way to run the (legal) plunge cut heads with an amount of weight that has yet to be determined.  If you have the plunge cut and your short radius has been cleaned up (currently non-compliant), (say by 3 mm or so - also TBD) you will have to carry additional weight, but you can still run the heads.  If your short radius is blended, ported and cut back, shame on you and don't run the heads at any weight.  By the end of next season only the stock heads will be compliant for the Runoffs.  NASA will determine at which point the stock heads will be required for their Championship races.  

Dyno testing is underway to determine how much the plunge cut and blending are worth.  Expect the weight to be sufficient to encourage everyone to change to stock heads sooner, rather than later.

All of this will be coupled with an aggressive tech program.  So, declare what you are running and expect to be called on it at some point.  This tech program will not be just for the Majors.

Again, this is unofficial and comes from my attending the Topeka meeting as a consultant to the group as Chairman of the CRB.

[FTodaro]

Frank,

 

What part of this is a problem for you or anyone else and what would be a better outcome?  

The rule to plunge cut was a good rule (allows more heads to be useable and even) that is good

The rule did not need to be abandon, but modified

The going back to stock brings its own problems that we now do not have

more cost

Disparity

and an endless supply of non complaint heads.

 

A better outcome would be a compromise that removes an advantage or cost from the outcome.

Stock heads increases cost and increases disparity IMO

[TommyB]

Would it not make more sense for the rules makers to have said something like:

 

"Car owners who come forward before the season begins and declare their heads to be "non compliant "and initiate the prescribed weight penalties will not be subject to sanctioning body protest and will be eligible to compete in all events. This does not preclude protests from fellow competitors.

 Those that do not follow this process will forfeit eligibility for any championship whether it be regional, divisional or national in nature.

 

Yes, no, maybe?

 

Flame away.

Tom B.

[steveracer]

Damn! Looks like I'll be building my backmarker 1.6 to STL trim...

[Kyle Freiheit]

STL or bust!

[Mike Collins]

An unofficial explanation:

If you have stock heads with a three angle valve seat as required in the current GCR, you can run at the regular weight.  In order to not require that all the heads out there be dumped immediately, there will be a way to run the (legal) plunge cut heads with an amount of weight that has yet to be determined.  If you have the plunge cut and your short radius has been cleaned up (currently non-compliant), (say by 3 mm or so - also TBD) you will have to carry additional weight, but you can still run the heads.  If your short radius is blended, ported and cut back, shame on you and don't run the heads at any weight.  By the end of next season only the stock heads will be compliant for the Runoffs.  NASA will determine at which point the stock heads will be required for their Championship races.  

Dyno testing is underway to determine how much the plunge cut and blending are worth.  Expect the weight to be sufficient to encourage everyone to change to stock heads sooner, rather than later.

All of this will be coupled with an aggressive tech program.  So, declare what you are running and expect to be called on it at some point.  This tech program will not be just for the Majors.

Again, this is unofficial and comes from my attending the Topeka meeting as a consultant to the group as Chairman of the CRB.

Too bad nobody from the SMAC was included in the meeting to explain why and how the rules came to be.  What the "philosophy" behind it was and why we continue to have the largest most successful class in the SCCA and NASA.  Thats OK...Go ahead and screw the last 7 years of work I put in growing and maintaining the class...  I think the engine builders got out of line and righting the ship is a good way to go about it...Too bad this ain't it...  

[Caveman-kwebb99]

my only comment today on these rules...

 

I will not attend a race in 2015 that I need to take convince me to change my head faster weight...

 

I would think I am not alone on that.

 

Now back to justifying what was done and not done.

[FastEddie]

One thing that I can't stand is when people making decisions hide behind the "class philosophy" which is and always was a load of BS.

 

I don't want a car that's showroom stock.  I want a car that's cheap to build and cheap to race with great parity.  If we gotta increase the build cost slightly to improve the parity and reduce cost to operate/tune, that is a good tradeoff, showroom stock roots be damned.  

 

Make decisions to make the class BETTER.  Not more stock.

 

 

What did these changes provide?

 

Better parity in the future? Absolutely not!!!

 

Cost savings to the racers? Absolutely not!!!

 

ask yourself who gains here...   

[LarryKing]

 

I will not attend a race in 2015 that I need to take convince me to change my head faster weight...

 

???

You are not attending a race in 2015?

Convince you to change your head faster?

What do you need to take?

[steveracer]

Seems like a really heavy handed response and not at all what I asked for in my letter to the CRB.

 

Is that the death knoll I hear ringing?

[mdavis]

I think its time for a trip in the way back machine.....SM was started with old SS cars.  So do we get to do what we did to the old SS motors....If thats the case, I'm all in...  So don't bitch when SM motors cost 10k...  I know mine will make 140+ at the wheels if thats how they want to do it....

 

Now you will pay for not only the best machining around via the builder of your choice, you will also pay to make it look like he was never there.... Want to talk about the have and havenots....  The best part is you will have to be in the Secret Club to get the secret engine builder that nobody knows about.

 

 

Or a few guys will go out and have heads cast....  Think I'm kidding...wait and see.....

All true.

 

 

An unofficial explanation:

If you have stock heads with a three angle valve seat as required in the current GCR, you can run at the regular weight.  In order to not require that all the heads out there be dumped immediately, there will be a way to run the (legal) plunge cut heads with an amount of weight that has yet to be determined.  If you have the plunge cut and your short radius has been cleaned up (currently non-compliant), (say by 3 mm or so - also TBD) you will have to carry additional weight, but you can still run the heads.  If your short radius is blended, ported and cut back, shame on you and don't run the heads at any weight.  By the end of next season only the stock heads will be compliant for the Runoffs.  NASA will determine at which point the stock heads will be required for their Championship races.  

Dyno testing is underway to determine how much the plunge cut and blending are worth.  Expect the weight to be sufficient to encourage everyone to change to stock heads sooner, rather than later.

All of this will be coupled with an aggressive tech program.  So, declare what you are running and expect to be called on it at some point.  This tech program will not be just for the Majors.

Again, this is unofficial and comes from my attending the Topeka meeting as a consultant to the group as Chairman of the CRB.

 

Why make any announcement before the dyno data is available?  We've had multple builders state that on a restricted engine plunge cutting is not worth much. 

 

 

I'm going to write in- both of these points will be part of my letter.

[Chris70]

Way to cure the disease by killing the patient.

Lets ban fire because someone burned themselves.

While at it lets ban  cars, driving and alcohol because some people do all three at the same time.

Starting to look like an episode of Twilight Zone, I can hear Rod Serling.

Hi Karl.

Ademir Fedumenti

S.A.C. racing

[Tom Sager]

An unofficial explanation:

If you have stock heads with a three angle valve seat as required in the current GCR, you can run at the regular weight.  In order to not require that all the heads out there be dumped immediately, there will be a way to run the (legal) plunge cut heads with an amount of weight that has yet to be determined.  If you have the plunge cut and your short radius has been cleaned up (currently non-compliant), (say by 3 mm or so - also TBD) you will have to carry additional weight, but you can still run the heads.  If your short radius is blended, ported and cut back, shame on you and don't run the heads at any weight.  By the end of next season only the stock heads will be compliant for the Runoffs.  NASA will determine at which point the stock heads will be required for their Championship races.  

Dyno testing is underway to determine how much the plunge cut and blending are worth.  Expect the weight to be sufficient to encourage everyone to change to stock heads sooner, rather than later.

All of this will be coupled with an aggressive tech program.  So, declare what you are running and expect to be called on it at some point.  This tech program will not be just for the Majors.

Again, this is unofficial and comes from my attending the Topeka meeting as a consultant to the group as Chairman of the CRB.

That's helpful, BUT, I think both organizations are going to have a hard time explaining and justifying to racers the decision to eliminate a once legal plunge cut altogether and/or penalizing with weight those that currently have a legal plunge cut.  Essentially that's telling people that played by the rules that they have an advantage and now must take a penalty.   Also that has the potential as others have pointed out to give the advantage back to engine builders and big budgets teams (who can test so many parts) which is exactly the group whose influence and control you're trying to reduce.