296 replies to this topic

[KW78]

Whats the difference between a good casting and a bad casting?  Plunge cut, no plunge cut.  Spec valve job, short turn radius...  why do we care at all??  Why do we spend money on these things?  Why object to allowing some or none of this?

 

KISS!!  ITS ALL ABOUT AIRFLOW, RIGHT?! 

 

Instead of controlling airflow with rules where I have to pull my head off, scour for castings, dyno develop (remember we all care about this stuff because we are being competitive) ....  Instead of doing all that braindamage from competitors and hours of tech effort...

 

Instead of wondering if the guy who is leading the class and faster than me is legal because at this event, there were not enough volunteers to do any tech...

 

Instead of hoping a belabored process is happening at various majors and other paths leading to the runoffs....

 

Instead, drop a ball in a SIR..  Car died...  NEXT!!!..

 

How can this not be the answer?  Any answer, whether from clearer rules or not, will always hinge on what tech can get done that day, and what a competitor is willing to protest, and what a competitor is willing to push.    If so much of the equation is airflow, then spec an easy, very precisely made, sonic restrictor..   

 

 

BTW I agree with the statement about I want a spec class, not a stock class.  Allow anything that makes it more reliable, and clip performance even and level - the technology works already. 

 

Kyle

[Steve Scheifler]

Kyle, for us old guys SIR is Single Inlet Restrictor which is essentially what 1.8s have now. Please point us to readily available Sonic versions to achieve parity at a cost that would be widely accepted.

[FTodaro]

 

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. 

Bench if you have a plunge cut head you will be legal with Wt added but not beyond the grace period.

 

the only head that will be legal is an untouched head now and 1 to 2 years from now.

 

Since the 1.6 head is the least consistent, the new rule set the 1.6 back more than any other model year. but you knew that.

 

"

-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."

[davew]

I have kept my mouth shut on here for all 50+ pages of engine discussions. Here goes:

 

This was not a rules issue. The problem was simply greed. The rule was very clearly written and was written by an engine builder, who was found non-compliant at the Runoffs. One driver wanted to beat another driver, so he built an engine beyond the rules as WRITTEN. Then engine builder #2 decided to go a little farther. So the next engine had to be better, and better and better. The first engine builder wanted to sell more engines so he went a little farther than the rest. Then he advertised how much power his "tech shed legal" engine put out. Eventually what was illegal become industry standard for all engine builders. Plain and simple greed.

 

I have not seen the Runoffs heads myself. But I have talked with 3 people who did see them, and touch them. All 3 had the same opinion, the heads where cheaters. No if, no ands and no buts. All the heads that failed the short turn radius protest at the Runoffs where blatantly modified beyond anything remotely allowed by the rules. Some where so bad that the engine builder did not even try to hide what was done. He expected the inspectors to be poorly qualified.

 

Any engine builder, who knowingly builds an engine that is not compliant with the rules, should not be allowed to be in any kind of a management position within the sanctioning body. Let me point out that Mr Tiley Of Ti-speed is on the "Spec Miata Advisory Committee" (SMAC) and Mr Drago of East Street is a member of the SCCA Compitition Racing Board (CRB). Do you wonder why the new  "leadership Team" had to stay away from the current official rules makers.

 

SCCA (with NASA and Mazda's help) had 3 choices:

1)Leave the rule as currently written

2)Rewrite the rule to allow additional modifications

3)Rewrite the rule to allow less/no modifications

 

Option 1 would make every head modified beyond the plunge cut (including slight blending) non-compliant and need replacement

Option 2 would tell the cheaters that what they did was ok and force everyone who was legal to do the same modifications

Option 3 forces everyone to go to stock heads, with little or no mods

 

I am not saying which is the best decision. None of these options are good. They are all bad. But someone had to make a decision and the decision was made. Now we have to live with it. Maybe there is more info coming that has not been made public yet. Maybe the leadership team just got pissed at the Miata world.  Blame the people responsible for this problem, the ones that broke the rules.

 

Any of these options is going to force a lot of new heads to be purchased (if you wish to be compliant). I am making an assumption here, that most of the heads that have been plunge cut, also have some sort of blending. I doubt anyone ever ordered a pro built motor with the phrase "I want to be 100% legal and if I am down on power I do not care". Again an assumption, the majority of "pro built" heads would be illegal even if the current rule was enforced. Is there a small number of heads that have plunge cuts and nothing else, probably. But remember whom to blame.

 

Which brings me to another point. ENFORCEMENT. Primarily lack of it. Road racing has a history of lack of enforcement. In other forms of racing, tech is not just about safety. It is about finding cheaters. The current process puts too much emphasis on competitor vs competitor protests. Which never happens. Then once a year we have a tear down party at the Runoffs. Where a group of Stewards decide what is compliant and what is not. These people are not experts in Spec Miatas or even in engines or even mechanically inclined. They (supposedly) know how to interpret the GCR and how to shuffle the paperwork. This lack of expertise on the officials was taken advantage of by the offending engine builders. Bringing back the compliance team (or czar) in some form is part of my proposal that was posted here last week.

 

From my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) we had heads from East Street, Ti-Speed, Rush and X-factor found non-compliant at the Runoffs. For the record I have engines from Ti-Speed, and X-factor in the shop, I also have a good working relationship with East street. Although my primary engine builder is Stewart. A lot of you also do not realize that this website is owned by Jim Drago of East Street. I know his ownership has caused me to delete posts in the past.  It is for that reason that this post may not stay visible very long.

 

It is the notion started years ago by Jim Daniels of "tech shed legal". Meaning who cares, if what you did was legal or not. If it passes tech, who cares. Well, I for one care! It is the greed initiated by the phrase tech shed legal that got us into this mess. The engine builders who tore open the envelope in the name of profit and fame are too blame. The driver who turned a blind eye, saying make mine better but legal (wink wink). If you want somebody to blame, look no farther than the people promoting cheating in the name of tech shed legal. Whether it be ceramic wheel bearings, bent spindles or ported heads. It is all cheating. Call it tech shed legal if you want, I call it cheating and the cheaters should have to pay.

 

How should the cheaters be punished? Each and every one of us that has ever been beaten by an illegal car has been cheated. Maybe we lost a trophy or bragging rights. Maybe it was contingency money or tires. Maybe it was the time we have all wasted on this topic on this website.

 

I have volunteered to rejoin the SMAC, which I was Chairman of for several years. In an effort to eliminate the cheats. Whether the cheats be modified timing components, hidden resistors/switches, reprogrammed ECU, lightened ring gears or anything else.

 

I would also like to propose moving this discussion to the official SCCA forum which is currently unused (only a single post this year, and 3 last year) as a form of making all info posted unbiased. Visit www.sccabb.com

 

Thanks for listening

Dave

[Brian129]

An SIR is a max flow restriction
Therefor will only limit the max power, area under the curve will then be the issue. It is a bandaid fix if anything.

[FTodaro]

'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.  

At his point all you can do is laugh. I will work on my letters tonight and post when i get it done.

 

Did anyone see this coming? just when i thought things were pretty good.

 

I am thinking it will be 150 lbs or just running with 3 wheels.

 

Besides the CRB, who should we send emails to ?

http://www.crbscca.com/

 

 

the working group

 

www.clubracingboard.com

[Rob Burgoon]

I have kept my mouth shut on here for all 50+ pages of engine discussions. Here goes:

 

This was not a rules issue. The problem was simply greed. The rule was very clearly written and was written by an engine builder, who was found non-compliant at the Runoffs. One driver wanted to beat another driver, so he built an engine beyond the rules as WRITTEN. Then engine builder #2 decided to go a little farther. So the next engine had to be better, and better and better. The first engine builder wanted to sell more engines so he went a little farther than the rest. Then he advertised how much power his "tech shed legal" engine put out. Eventually what was illegal become industry standard for all engine builders. Plain and simple greed.

 

I have not seen the Runoffs heads myself. But I have talked with 3 people who did see them, and touch them. All 3 had the same opinion, the heads where cheaters. No if, no ands and no buts. All the heads that failed the short turn radius protest at the Runoffs where blatantly modified beyond anything remotely allowed by the rules. Some where so bad that the engine builder did not even try to hide what was done. He expected the inspectors to be poorly qualified.

 

Any engine builder, who knowingly builds an engine that is not compliant with the rules, should not be allowed to be in any kind of a management position within the sanctioning body. Let me point out that Mr Tiley Of Ti-speed is on the "Spec Miata Advisory Committee" (SMAC) and Mr Drago of East Street is a member of the SCCA Compitition Racing Board (CRB). Do you wonder why the new  "leadership Team" had to stay away from the current official rules makers.

 

SCCA (with NASA and Mazda's help) had 3 choices:

1)Leave the rule as currently written

2)Rewrite the rule to allow additional modifications

3)Rewrite the rule to allow less/no modifications

 

Option 1 would make every head modified beyond the plunge cut (including slight blending) non-compliant and need replacement

Option 2 would tell the cheaters that what they did was ok and force everyone who was legal to do the same modifications

Option 3 forces everyone to go to stock heads, with little or no mods

 

I am not saying which is the best decision. None of these options are good. They are all bad. But someone had to make a decision and the decision was made. Now we have to live with it. Maybe there is more info coming that has not been made public yet. Maybe the leadership team just got pissed at the Miata world.  Blame the people responsible for this problem, the ones that broke the rules.

 

Any of these options is going to force a lot of new heads to be purchased (if you wish to be compliant). I am making an assumption here, that most of the heads that have been plunge cut, also have some sort of blending. I doubt anyone ever ordered a pro built motor with the phrase "I want to be 100% legal and if I am down on power I do not care". Again an assumption, the majority of "pro built" heads would be illegal even if the current rule was enforced. Is there a small number of heads that have plunge cuts and nothing else, probably. But remember whom to blame.

 

Which brings me to another point. ENFORCEMENT. Primarily lack of it. Road racing has a history of lack of enforcement. In other forms of racing, tech is not just about safety. It is about finding cheaters. The current process puts too much emphasis on competitor vs competitor protests. Which never happens. Then once a year we have a tear down party at the Runoffs. Where a group of Stewards decide what is compliant and what is not. These people are not experts in Spec Miatas or even in engines or even mechanically inclined. They (supposedly) know how to interpret the GCR and how to shuffle the paperwork. This lack of expertise on the officials was taken advantage of by the offending engine builders. Bringing back the compliance team (or czar) in some form is part of my proposal that was posted here last week.

 

From my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) we had heads from East Street, Ti-Speed, Rush and X-factor found non-compliant at the Runoffs. For the record I have engines from Ti-Speed, and X-factor in the shop, I also have a good working relationship with East street. Although my primary engine builder is Stewart. A lot of you also do not realize that this website is owned by Jim Drago of East Street. I know his ownership has caused me to delete posts in the past.  It is for that reason that this post may not stay visible very long.

 

It is the notion started years ago by Jim Daniels of "tech shed legal". Meaning who cares, if what you did was legal or not. If it passes tech, who cares. Well, I for one care! It is the greed initiated by the phrase tech shed legal that got us into this mess. The engine builders who tore open the envelope in the name of profit and fame are too blame. The driver who turned a blind eye, saying make mine better but legal (wink wink). If you want somebody to blame, look no farther than the people promoting cheating in the name of tech shed legal. Whether it be ceramic wheel bearings, bent spindles or ported heads. It is all cheating. Call it tech shed legal if you want, I call it cheating and the cheaters should have to pay.

 

How should the cheaters be punished? Each and every one of us that has ever been beaten by an illegal car has been cheated. Maybe we lost a trophy or bragging rights. Maybe it was contingency money or tires. Maybe it was the time we have all wasted on this topic on this website.

 

I have volunteered to rejoin the SMAC, which I was Chairman of for several years. In an effort to eliminate the cheats. Whether the cheats be modified timing components, hidden resistors/switches, reprogrammed ECU, lightened ring gears or anything else.

 

I would also like to propose moving this discussion to the official SCCA forum which is currently unused (only a single post this year, and 3 last year) as a form of making all info posted unbiased. Visit www.sccabb.com

 

Thanks for listening

Dave

 

The runoff DQ'd heads weren't tech shed legal, they didn't survive a protest in the tech shed.

 

My best guess is the builders hoped to win any protests on appeal since there isn't a way to measure a debur called out in the rules and they felt their position was defensible.

 

It sounds like a tech offical grew some balls and teeth and made a (good) judgement call without a measurement spec spelled out in triplicate in the GCR.

[Mike Tesch]

Thanks for the well thought out post Dave.  Finally, someone with some common sense and the stones to back it up.  Great post  !!!

[JBlaisdell]

No, No, No, No and No....

I plan on writing a letter to Mazda...My (legal) plunge cut Rossini motor is NOW deemed illegal...because a select few streeeetched the rules...and the SCCA is too greedy to fund proper tech.

 

Mazda...are you listening?...My car will rot in my garage, before I adhere to this very-short sided decision...be on the look out my letter!

[pat slattery]

I have kept my mouth shut on here for all 50+ pages of engine discussions. Here goes:

 

This was not a rules issue. The problem was simply greed. The rule was very clearly written and was written by an engine builder, who was found non-compliant at the Runoffs. One driver wanted to beat another driver, so he built an engine beyond the rules as WRITTEN. Then engine builder #2 decided to go a little farther. So the next engine had to be better, and better and better. The first engine builder wanted to sell more engines so he went a little farther than the rest. Then he advertised how much power his "tech shed legal" engine put out. Eventually what was illegal become industry standard for all engine builders. Plain and simple greed.

 

I have not seen the Runoffs heads myself. But I have talked with 3 people who did see them, and touch them. All 3 had the same opinion, the heads where cheaters. No if, no ands and no buts. All the heads that failed the short turn radius protest at the Runoffs where blatantly modified beyond anything remotely allowed by the rules. Some where so bad that the engine builder did not even try to hide what was done. He expected the inspectors to be poorly qualified.

 

Any engine builder, who knowingly builds an engine that is not compliant with the rules, should not be allowed to be in any kind of a management position within the sanctioning body. Let me point out that Mr Tiley Of Ti-speed is on the "Spec Miata Advisory Committee" (SMAC) and Mr Drago of East Street is a member of the SCCA Compitition Racing Board (CRB). Do you wonder why the new  "leadership Team" had to stay away from the current official rules makers.

 

SCCA (with NASA and Mazda's help) had 3 choices:

1)Leave the rule as currently written

2)Rewrite the rule to allow additional modifications

3)Rewrite the rule to allow less/no modifications

 

Option 1 would make every head modified beyond the plunge cut (including slight blending) non-compliant and need replacement

Option 2 would tell the cheaters that what they did was ok and force everyone who was legal to do the same modifications

Option 3 forces everyone to go to stock heads, with little or no mods

 

I am not saying which is the best decision. None of these options are good. They are all bad. But someone had to make a decision and the decision was made. Now we have to live with it. Maybe there is more info coming that has not been made public yet. Maybe the leadership team just got pissed at the Miata world.  Blame the people responsible for this problem, the ones that broke the rules.

 

Any of these options is going to force a lot of new heads to be purchased (if you wish to be compliant). I am making an assumption here, that most of the heads that have been plunge cut, also have some sort of blending. I doubt anyone ever ordered a pro built motor with the phrase "I want to be 100% legal and if I am down on power I do not care". Again an assumption, the majority of "pro built" heads would be illegal even if the current rule was enforced. Is there a small number of heads that have plunge cuts and nothing else, probably. But remember whom to blame.

 

Which brings me to another point. ENFORCEMENT. Primarily lack of it. Road racing has a history of lack of enforcement. In other forms of racing, tech is not just about safety. It is about finding cheaters. The current process puts too much emphasis on competitor vs competitor protests. Which never happens. Then once a year we have a tear down party at the Runoffs. Where a group of Stewards decide what is compliant and what is not. These people are not experts in Spec Miatas or even in engines or even mechanically inclined. They (supposedly) know how to interpret the GCR and how to shuffle the paperwork. This lack of expertise on the officials was taken advantage of by the offending engine builders. Bringing back the compliance team (or czar) in some form is part of my proposal that was posted here last week.

 

From my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) we had heads from East Street, Ti-Speed, Rush and X-factor found non-compliant at the Runoffs. For the record I have engines from Ti-Speed, and X-factor in the shop, I also have a good working relationship with East street. Although my primary engine builder is Stewart. A lot of you also do not realize that this website is owned by Jim Drago of East Street. I know his ownership has caused me to delete posts in the past.  It is for that reason that this post may not stay visible very long.

 

It is the notion started years ago by Jim Daniels of "tech shed legal". Meaning who cares, if what you did was legal or not. If it passes tech, who cares. Well, I for one care! It is the greed initiated by the phrase tech shed legal that got us into this mess. The engine builders who tore open the envelope in the name of profit and fame are too blame. The driver who turned a blind eye, saying make mine better but legal (wink wink). If you want somebody to blame, look no farther than the people promoting cheating in the name of tech shed legal. Whether it be ceramic wheel bearings, bent spindles or ported heads. It is all cheating. Call it tech shed legal if you want, I call it cheating and the cheaters should have to pay.

 

How should the cheaters be punished? Each and every one of us that has ever been beaten by an illegal car has been cheated. Maybe we lost a trophy or bragging rights. Maybe it was contingency money or tires. Maybe it was the time we have all wasted on this topic on this website.

 

I have volunteered to rejoin the SMAC, which I was Chairman of for several years. In an effort to eliminate the cheats. Whether the cheats be modified timing components, hidden resistors/switches, reprogrammed ECU, lightened ring gears or anything else.

 

I would also like to propose moving this discussion to the official SCCA forum which is currently unused (only a single post this year, and 3 last year) as a form of making all info posted unbiased. Visit www.sccabb.com

 

Thanks for listening

Dave

Great post Dave

[KW78]

Kyle, for us old guys SIR is Single Inlet Restrictor which is essentially what 1.8s have now. Please point us to readily available Sonic versions to achieve parity at a cost that would be widely accepted.

 

We have a flat plate restrictor now.  Its principles are much different.  It behaves like a "restriction".  It is hard to pull air thru to some extent at all speeds.  Some percentage of efficiency loss is experienced by all motors.  If you have a 125hp unrestricted 1.8, then after the plate you have (guessing) 112 hp.  If you have a 134hp unrestricted 1.8 motor, then after the plate you have (not guessing) 122.  Torque experiences a similar, band width wide,  attenuation.

 

A sonic restrictor is virtually no restriction at all, until you ask enough airflow of it for the airspeed to become supersonic, which then the sound wave created becomes the restriction, as I understand it (choke flow point).  This means you can engineer the HP level the restrictor allows.  So if you make that 125 hp, then the 125 hp example above sees no attenuation at all.  The 134 hp motor gets clipped at 125. 

 

GTLite is using the technology to administer that class.  FIA has used it to merge P1 and P2 a few years back.  Imsa has used it as well.  It is the same technology used with side draft webbers by regulating the choke size. 

 

An SIR is a max flow restriction
Therefor will only limit the max power, area under the curve will then be the issue. It is a bandaid fix if anything.

 

This is true, but it is true now.  A high dollar motor has more area under the curve, and a cheated up motor has even more.  With a SIR, and our particular brand of racing between 5200 and 6950, at least the significantly larger difference in the area under the curve, the horsepower peak, is clipped even with each other.

 

It is all a bandaid. 

 

My most important point I want to make here is that whatever is done, tech has to be able to handle the enforcement, or as Dave W eloquently states, we will be right back there again!!

 

A side benefit of this idea is the performance envelope between the have's and have not's is significantly smaller.

 

And, the work we have done with a flat plate can be additive by putting that in line.  No reason that can't be explores, because I would think a SIR would be at the airbox.

 

http://www.raetech.c...or_Function.php

 

In a previous thread on this topic, I believe the cost was found to be about $375 - 2 tires!!

 

Kyle

[Keith Andrews]

Dave - Given your post, it sounds like SMAC should be directly involved in enforcement of the rules in some way.  The disconnect is rules written by a group of experts and enforced by a group of non-experts.  That doesn't work, as has been demonstrated numerous times.

[Glenn]

Dave - Given your post, it sounds like SMAC should be directly involved in enforcement of the rules in some way.  The disconnect is rules written by a group of experts and enforced by a group of non-experts.  That doesn't work, as has been demonstrated numerous times.

WHAT?  SMAC Member was taking advantage of these rules, why do you thing no one before the Runoffs ever looked at the heads in this detail?

[pat slattery]

I believe we had the same head scenario 4 years ago at the runoffs, they didn't want to throw out the top 5 or 6 and caved to writing new rules, which is what we were racing under up to the last runoffs.  Who knows who drafted those rules that we raced under up to this point?

[john mueller]

Heads with plunge cuts are not illegal but you may have to carry some additional weight. The weights will be determined soon.

[Duncan]

Heads with plunge cuts are not illegal but you may have to carry some additional weight. The weights will be determined soon.

 

And these weights are a temporary stop gap, correct? At some point those with plunge cuts will have to find new heads. 

Did SCCA/NASA look at how many heads this will affect, and whether the amount of used inventory will support the transition in the time required?

 

Duncan

[GROOTS]

I'm with you on that Jim. Exactly the way I feel !!! We have legal heads and now they are non compliant and we have to purchase a stock head ?? Because these guys were porting and polishing there runners   " BLENDING"       THATS BULLSHIT !! 

 

There are tons of "PRO" motors out there that have COMPLIANT Plunge cuts. We shouldn't be Penalized PERIOD !!!

[pat slattery]

I am betting 75% of the heads out there have the plunge cut, since the rule has been in effect for 3 years

[Steve Scheifler]

Kyle, understand the concept but I don't think it achieves the goal. Peak HP simply is not our biggest issue, particularly with the 1.6. Where such devices are used now they are trying to control/compress a much broader differential than we are. Most of those classes would be thrilled with the "unacceptable" range we have today, warts and all. That's what makes this class different and harder to fix. The thought to combine Sonic and plate may be worth testing but they both have similar weakness.

Also, I'm not sure but my impression of them that they were designed specifically to MAXIMIZE area under the curve for a given inlet size, which is the OPPOSITE of what we need. If that is not true I would like to read the white paper in them.

[GROOTS]

Your right Pat !  These days Mid-Packers have pro motors, Maybe some guys in the back and HPDE cars are running complete stock setups. So this affects a lot of people.