296 replies to this topic

[Jim Daniels - FIG]

It's as expected. See you on track.

[Steve Scheifler]

I question how many heads delivered from the leading builders in the past few years are plunge-only. I suspect very few. If they took any beyond that, it seems likely they did them all.

[James York]

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

 

They will be illegal in 1 to 2 years.  Mazda, NASA, and the SCCA threw both cheaters and totally legal racers under the same bus to be crushed.  You know the thing is, the group you aim to hurt, the evil engine builders, are going to see a boom ($$) in request for new heads....  ironic. 

[pat slattery]

They will be illegal in 1 to 2 years.  Mazda, NASA, and the SCCA threw both cheaters and totally legal racers under the same bus to be crushed.  You know the thing is, the group you aim to hurt, the evil engine builders, are going to see a boom ($$) in request for new heads....  ironic. 

That sucks

[Cnj]

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

 


 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.
 
Dave

Dave,

Thanks for taking time to post. Respectfully I dissagree with the paragraph above.

1. "Now we have to live with it." No we don't. A decision has been presented but not yet ratified. It ain't over till the fat lady sings and frankly I don't like the tune. Ill think about singing it when the BOD votes. I have an aversion to supporting a decision that financially penalizes a whole community for complying with a legal rule - and then changing it. I have no problem with penalizing non-compliance.

2. "Maybe the leadership just got pissed at the Miata world". This i do agree with because that's exactly what it feels like. But the role of leadership is to, well, lead, and an emotional response is not appreciated.

3. "Blame the people responsible for this problem". No I don't blame engine builders for a bad SCCA desicion. Again I expect good decisions from leadership and not punitive decisions which, in this case, actually will benefit the very people are being blamed for the problem.

It is indeed a mess but a better decision could have been made.

CNJ.

[Bench Racer]

 

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

The friken OEM heads have OEM plunge cuts. Mazda, summit hotshots, SMAC, CRB, it's time to step up to the plate with some OEM facts.

[James York]

That sucks

 

The result of unintended consequences from short sighted decision making.  I thought the government was only great at screw ups like this.  

[FTodaro]

The best idea i have seen posted today is " i want a spec class not necessarily a stock class"

[James York]

 

The friken OEM heads have OEM plunge cuts. Mazda, summit hotshots, SMAC, CRB, it's time to step up to the plate with some OEM facts.

 

Bench,

 

You just read Dave's lengthy post.  The SMAC, summit hotshot, a CRB member are all culpable parties and cheaters that he and the committee just pissed on.  You read it, the greedy evil doers are out of the picture.  You think they are going to help work this issue out now after character attacks?

 

They had supposed "experts" at the viewing last week.  If your head is not untouched factory, it's noncompliant.  So if you plunge cut, line up for a new head.

[Greg Kimble]

With respect to the discussion on having to find a good flowing stock casting, will that really be the case?  I know very little about this, but since most of us have a restrictor plate, I would expect that max airflow of the casting would be less important than in a motor running without a plate.  So I guess my question is will an average flowing head meet the requirement of a restricted intake.

 

Greg

[James York]

With respect to the discussion on having to find a good flowing stock casting, will that really be the case?  I know very little about this, but since most of us have a restrictor plate, I would expect that max airflow of the casting would be less important than in a motor running without a plate.  So I guess my question is will an average flowing head meet the requirement of a restricted intake.

 

Greg

 

It will become extremely important for the 1.6 to search heads.  Less so for the restricted cars, but any little bit extra helps.

[Greg Kimble]

James,

 

I agree this is going to make it tough (expensive) going on the 1.6 guys, we saw the costs on carb castings in go karts go off the charts for a good casting.  I am sure the same will apply here as well.

 

Greg

[Keith Andrews]

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?

 

Dave said he was volunteering to clean up cheating.  I'm thinking he has probably seen it all.  I think he could bring a wealth of knowledge to the tech shed.  Not only would the rules be enforced as intended, if something needs clarification, that's what could happen, through the SMAC.  If he questioned the STR relative to the existing written rule he has the expertise to clarify.  Not like this uniformed weak punt by the SCCA.

[David L]

Jim Drago, Dan Tiley, X-factor, Rush any thoughts on this?

[Glenn]

[quote name="Keith Andrews" post="69173" timestamp="1415236701"]

Dave said he was volunteering to clean up cheating. I'm thinking he has probably seen it all. I think he could bring a wealth of knowledge to the tech shed. Not only would the rules be enforced as intended, if something needs clarification, that's what could happen, through the SMAC. If he questioned the STR relative to the existing written rule he has the expertise to clarify. Not like this uniformed weak punt by the SCCA.[/quote
Dave is the right guy. I will also be reapplying.

[MPR22]

With respect to the discussion on having to find a good flowing stock casting, will that really be the case? I know very little about this, but since most of us have a restrictor plate, I would expect that max airflow of the casting would be less important than in a motor running without a plate. So I guess my question is will an average flowing head meet the requirement of a restricted intake.

Greg

Ask yourself this question, if proved flow doesn't matter because its restricted then why are all the people up in arms about a little blending. Ignorance is likely the answer but I am just as ignorant. The only way to know is to start testing. I assume the engine builders did that for us or they wouldn't have been plunge cutting and deburrimg. Also as has been mentioned the static flow rate isn't necessarily the appropriate test, dyno dyno dyno.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

So how long have these builders been plunge cutting and blending ?

How can you tell and is it easy to see on a 1.6 ?

The reason I ask is I had a couple of heads done between 3 to 5 years ago and was wonder if they did that back then.

[FTodaro]

I am going to propose to our region that we establish a class to allow those who do not want to swap out their heads and who are not planning on going to race at Daytona to run a SMM Spec Miata Modified. in the regional series, don't know where that will go but it will be a way for people to decide how they want to contend with the issue.

[Glenn]

Ask yourself this question, if proved flow doesn't matter because its restricted then why are all the people up in arms about a little blending. Ignorance is likely the answer but I am just as ignorant. The only way to know is to start testing. I assume the engine builders did that for us or they wouldn't have been plunge cutting and deburrimg. Also as has been mentioned the static flow rate isn't necessarily the appropriate test, dyno dyno dyno.

The comment has been made the real benifit is below the max HP. IE make max earlier and hold it longer...any advantage there....you bet. But thats rumor i heard.....

[Jim Drago]

Jim Drago, Dan Tiley, X-factor, Rush any thoughts on this?

I have posted my feelings in my first and only post on this deal. I have nothing new to add. If I didnt feel what I was doing was compliant, I would not have done it. COA spoke and was found non compliant.  I  think that makes me like 14 complete tear downs where my cars were found compliant and this one where they weren't compliant.

So what do I think? I think I will race next year to whatever the rule is, continue to win and continue to pass tech everytime I am checked as I have done everytime except this one. If you or anyone else want to check my car at any point. Come by and ask.  That has always been my policy. I dont need to "cheat" to win, nor was it ever my intention. Of ocurse I am bothered by this, who wouldn't be.  This will be my last comment here, regardless of any further baiting. 

 

As far as Daves post, I feel it is way out of line, hypocritical and not entirely accurate, he has a lot on his plate right now. So I will just let it go at that.  

 

As far as SMAC, Dave will not be considered for the SMAC as he was dismissed due to a conflict of interest while he was the chair of the SMAC