296 replies to this topic

[James York]

I read the release. Possibly confused?

 

 

-        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.

 

Like I said, with a weight penalty and that is only TEMPORARY.  The allowance to plunge cut will go away.  You are not reading close enough, or a bad copy paste not including all the data from the PR.

[Kyle Freiheit]

 and

 

-Weight additions will compensate for the power gains from the head modifications, while also encouraging the behavior of changing back to an unmodified head as soon as possible.

-The allowance of these modifications will have a sunset period of one to two years, based on parts availability.

For some reason I thought it was referring specifically to adding weight for the non concentric plunge cut and blend not spefically to the plunge cut. Possibly misread. 

[James York]

I suspect that Kyle is reading RM-14-20 and not the FULL SM realease

 

You are probably correct.  Lots of various information out there and hard to keep up with it all for sure.

[Strongbad]

Besides the CRB, who should we send emails to ?

[Tom Sager]

 

 

 

-Weight additions will compensate for the power gains from the head modifications, while also encouraging the behavior of changing back to an unmodified head as soon as possible.

-The allowance of these modifications will have a sunset period of one to two years, based on parts availability.

'01 cars are gonna be about 2550 pounds with parity adjustments, STR adjustment and plunge cut adjustment.  Even you, Frank, are going to be breaking front hubs now.  If too soon, I apologize for the attempt at humor.  

[Tyler Dahl]

What do the engine builders that created this have to say?
I mean from the sounds of it they didn't even look close to legal and I'm 99% sure that's not what the customers asked for.

[Chad Martin]

I can see the blipshift shirt now:   "The SCCA!  Turning heads into Boat Anchors for more than 70 years!"   Sorry, couldn't help making that joke.

 

As an aside, all these heads are Performance Touring Legal!   PM for classing help anytime!

[GROOTS]

If a plunge cut head (Without blending) is totally compliant with our rules as they stand now, then why are we going to be penalized for it. The plunge cut should be good no matter what. Going back to a totally stock factory head is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money. WHY !!! ???  The only thing that needs to change is to clarify the rules to say No blending, porting in those areas. If you have a head that has been blended or ported GET RID OF IT or if you admit it ,take the weight penalty ?

[GROOTS]

Why ??  Its legal now !  Blending and porting are the problem

[Parity]

I sincerely hope you're putting this in letters to the CRB and NASA.

 

 

If a plunge cut head (Without blending) is totally compliant with our rules as they stand now, then why are we going to be penalized for it. The plunge cut should be good no matter what. Going back to a totally stock factory head is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money. WHY !!! ???  The only thing that needs to change is to clarify the rules to say No blending, porting in those areas. If you have a head that has been blended or ported GET RID OF IT or if you admit it ,take the weight penalty ?

[Keith Andrews]

 

Mazda, SCCA and NASA all agree that changes must be made for the long-term health of the class, regardless of which sanctioning body operates the races.

 

What a joke!  If the above is true.  Why didn't they make a change that improved the long term health of the class?  This is just another reset that will cost a large group of SM competitors money.  The ability to keep all the weights and specs straight is unenforceable.  I'll kiss The Caveman's ass the first time a car gets its Head Tech'd at a Carolina Motorsports Park regional race.  The Club just doesn't have the ability to do it.

[pat slattery]

Thanks to all the engine and car builders that put the SM community in this Shite

[Johnny D]

What a joke!  If the above is true.  Why didn't they make a change that improved the long term health of the class?  This is just another reset that will cost a large group of SM competitors money.  The ability to keep all the weights and specs straight is unenforceable.  I'll kiss The Caveman's ass the first time a car gets its Head Tech'd at a Carolina Motorsports Park regional race.  The Club just doesn't have the ability to do it.

 

There could be a "Scarlet Letter" for each mod on the front of the head.

Just saying

J~

[GROOTS]

I hope everybody writes a letter !!! 

[James York]

Quote

 

Mazda, SCCA and NASA all agree that changes must be made for the long-term health of the class, regardless of which sanctioning body operates the races.

 

What a joke!  If the above is true.  Why didn't they make a change that improved the long term health of the class?  This is just another reset that will cost a large group of SM competitors money.  The ability to keep all the weights and specs straight is unenforceable.  I'll kiss The Caveman's ass the first time a car gets its Head Tech'd at a Carolina Motorsports Park regional race.  The Club just doesn't have the ability to do it.

 

And if the above was true, these people would spec the same fukin tire if they really cared.  They can't even do that to ease the dollars its takes to crossover.  So any bogus statements about health of the class is just smoke and mirrors.  I didn't even know our class was unhealthy.....  What class had the most or 2nd most entrants this year in the SCCA again?

[Keith Andrews]

This sure sounds like the SCCA has decided to disband the SMAC. 

[GROOTS]

Next thing they will come up with is that we are all going back to the R-888, so you can toss all the tires you have now. LOL

[Bench Racer]

 

If a plunge cut head (Without blending) is totally compliant with our rules as they stand now, then why are we going to be penalized for it. The plunge cut should be good no matter what. Going back to a totally stock factory head is going to cost a lot of people a lot of money. WHY !!! ???  The only thing that needs to change is to clarify the rules to say No blending, porting in those areas. If you have a head that has been blended or ported GET RID OF IT or if you admit it ,take the weight penalty ?

My reading of the releases tells me, if I have a head legal to the current rule, I'm good to go with no weight added including the 2015 Runoffs and beyond. Adding concentricity tolerances are required, adding the plunge cut decreasing diameter/radial shape is required and because OEM has no process after plunge cut other than a high pressure water wash we should follow suite. Skip the after plunge cut crap because, it takes things down the slippery slope to cheat again. Most anyone with an eye piece could compare an engine builders head to an OEM head. We have a comparison rule in the SCCA. Don't play by the rules, BUSTED. 

[Yosh]

For Spec Miata to be a healthy, growing and economical class across organizations, where a racer can be competitive utilizing a stock Mazda Miata that is enhanced with bolt-on performance parts acquired through Mazdaspeed Motorsports Development.

 

To achieve the long-term goal, the class must ultimately return to stock cylinder heads with a permitted industry-standard valve job.

 

 

Recognizing the number of modified (both compliant and non-compliant per the current rules) cylinder heads in the community, the expense to replace these and potential parts availability concerns, the group agrees to the following path, with details to be finalized no later than theDecember 14 SCCA Board of Directors meeting:

-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.

-Independent testing will be conducted to determine the effect of the individual and collective modifications. Only once this scientific data is collected and evaluated will weight levels be determined.

-Weight additions will compensate for the power gains from the head modifications, while also encouraging the behavior of changing back to an unmodified head as soon as possible.

-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.

 

Additionally, the group unanimously desires greater resources and efforts with regard to season-long compliance checks. Collectively, it is developing an enhanced compliance program to address this. The group will also evaluate class parity and additional concepts to ensure parity and compliance moving forward.

 

 

So in one document, the "Working Committee" has managed to:

 

- consider making legal something that was clearly illegal (blending)

- Not define rules and terms. ("un-modified")

- created vague language around terms they do use ("industry-standard?")

- penalize everyone who has touched a motor instead of using penalty rules as laid out in the GCR

- talk about an outside vendor and partner (Mazdacomp) becoming a sole supplier

- come up with all of this while promising future testing.  What happened to the concept of testing it before releasing something?

- created another set of rules, just for the Runoffs

 

 

If you have a plunge cut head that was further ported and massaged, it is illegal.  Has been illegal, should continue to be illegal.  Full stop.  Sounds to me that SCCA Tech failed to police porting that had been happening (and was illegal in all the cars they teched at the 2014 Runoffs).  All of those cars and builders should be shamed for that.  But those cars that have "to the rule" plunge cut heads SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CHANGE A DAMN THING.

 

Now, personally, I have a lowly 1.6 that I competitively drive in regional races.  I don't know if there are engines with those illegal modifications that I am running against, but I can assume there are a few.  Through the protest process, those cars should be brought through the tech process and discovered.  In my opinion, tech efforts should be made in every Majors race and the majority of Regional series races as well.  I think that no one will feel like running one of those heads for very long.  I'm perfectly ok with that.  No need for weights, or other crap - they are cheating, they should pay to fix their cars.  Why should it be any different for anyone running any performance cheat? 

 

Oh, and can we just go to a single engine?  Uncorked preferably, with different weights.  Hell, if you want Mazda buy-in, give us all sealed Skyactiv motors and ECUs and have us phase it in over 2 or 3 years.  You want this to become a more inclusive, large contingent again?  Either that or take away the national championship potential (give that to the SM5) and give us back our grassroots, fun racing.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Gosh scca and nasa want to keep getting paid by us knowing many will drag feetto make this change. They don't want us to sit out any races. I will not race in 2015 without making the change. So I may not be at any races for a while as the cost to go racing is the same with a competitive car as it is with carrying weight to be non competitive . but with new rules it will take time to get my engine very competitive via sorting through heads.

I personally don't need to race I want to race but if I can't show up with the a car as good as what the best will have I would rather not show up at all.