296 replies to this topic

[38bfast]

Cost? What is a cheaper national class that you can race a Miata in preped to win the runoffs? Of the 28 national classes what classes can be run cheaper than SM in runoffs winning trim?

Rules? What national class has a better rules package vs cost?

Of all the classes only SRF may come close to SM but they as well are undergoing big expensive change.

DSR / CSR just went through change that made every car non compliant without change to move into P1 and P2

Ask any touring friends how happy they are with their rule set and how much change has cost them.

Ask the GT gang how much their engine program cost are and how long they last.

Ask the AS guys what their consumable cost are.

Ask the FE guys how many cars they get to race on average. A completely spec class.

Let's all keep things in perspective. Even in our current state of perceived disorder we are still way ahead of the bell curve. Are there things we can do to improve? Well sure it's a never ending task. But with everything in life comes compromise.

The sky is NOT falling! Its simply partly cloudy right now.

[Steve Scheifler]

👍

[KentCarter]

.....How will the tests be performed, flow bench, dyno, on track?  Other?  

Kent Carter might be about to have a stroke by the use of the term 'scientific data'.  

 

Even if the data is collected scientifically, who the frack and how the frack do they decide what the appropriate weight penalty?  Is it just weight or should there be a plate modification also?  

 

What if the data is inconclusive, do they arbitrarily add weight to keep from having to explain their lack of conclusive evidence?  

 

Not a stroke... merely a chuckle. Okay, a guffaw. Maybe even a side splitting laughing fit. 

[38bfast]

I do wish that the SMAC was part of the solution. They have the most knowlage of the class for the good or bad. To be completely excluded was to me not the best plan and honestly came off as extremely arrogant.

[KW78]

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.

 

Steve, the point of sonic restrictor is it is a better mousetrap than the restrictor we have.    All the things GT classes do to maximize the area under the curve are easy to catch in the spec miata ruleset, namely different cam profiles and compression..   

 

The main point of exploring this solution is it defeats the motives of a pro motor arms race, the rule escalation that comes with it, and makes the teching of the motor somewhat feasible at an event that isn't the runoffs.  A secondary benefit is if you pick some performance target that is within reach of a standard build then more people out of the box will have the confidence that they can jump in spec miata without this perceived "pro effort" to be competitive. 

 

The current flat plate restrictor still benefits from machine operations that are subtle and very hard to tech (mostly because of the time it takes to see it, and then evaluate it).  These benefits I would argue are at the top end, right at or near the horsepower peak. 

 

I stress I am not saying replace our rules with a SIR managed class like GTLite, but add it to our rules because it makes the class have a closer performance envelope, and is easy to tech.

 

Easy to tech all season IMO is the most important lesson to learn here.  I think we should get every compliance check outside of dissassembly we can.  Simply using a single compression testing gauge across 5 cars in tech is a good start.  Follow up with a whistle to some spec that is in line with our current rules (Comp ratio -.3 for valve cover maybe) and then when you have an motor that is suspect over another, and has 195 vs 170 on that day on that gauge, you start to have a picture. 

 

Cam doctor is another check that has worked, albeit more invasive. 

 

Add to this a SIR stall test that keeps the max benefit of (gray area massaging thru blatant cheating) in check to some HP target, and it seems you have a class that has the big points of performance checked in a short time, at events all year long. 

 

Again, compliance enforcement in tech is the key here.  The examples are already in this thread.  BR says 1.6 heads are plunge cut at the factory, which they are.  Some tech volunteer is going to tell a mazda one versus a second one??  Five side by side virgin heads fail a comparison visual test!  Make the second one have greatly attenuated benefit.  In fact allow it, if it indeed is so watered down that the only point is to keep using parts, not bin matching cores.

 

All this will not change the racing, just make the losing of a race more likely to result in self examination rather than an arms race. 

 

===

 

Another comment on this announcement:

 

This smacks of a troubling notion of SCCA saying we are regulating the class with what we meant to say, or mean, or create, not what we actually passed out in the rule book.    That's why I don't circle track race any more.

 

My 02

Kyle

[38bfast]

Kyle I agree that tech is the root cause of the issue. Checking compliance on a regular basis is key. Also having a SM expert doing the examination is key. The guys in tech now can not be a expert on every car competing in SCCA much less expert in SM. We need a dedicated team specific to the class. If this was cought in tech years ago when it first started it for the most part would have shut that door for the builders to exploit. Same with whistlegate. I do still put blame on the builders but they are the foxes in the hen house. And what do we expect out of the fox is to be a fox. Thats what they are and we will never chage that. We need the farmer with the shotgun to keep the foxes at bay. The fox is not going to take the risk looking down the barrel of the shotgun guarding the coop.

It's like having laws with no police. Or having laws in the city of Detroit with one part time cop from Tampa.

It's not a SMAC issue, It's not a rules issue, it's not a Mazda issue its a policing issue.

At this point do you think thre is a builder out there that will mess with the STR? Or compression? If they do and get cought hang them by their balls.

[Karl]

Steve and John,

 

If you guys are hearing that some heads had the STR modification done and they didn't see an improvement or they just saw a torque curve shape change....

 

...then they either didn't do it right or they changed something else at the same time.

 

Suggestion for your testing:

 

Please make and follow an exact plan.  Be bold enough to post the plan here so the many bright minds can direct you to a better more comprehensive plan.  i.e. How you take the car apart and put it back together is obviously critical.  Don't just throw all the valve springs in a pile for instance and come up with a GOOD way to protect the valve seats while the STR is being filed smooth.  

 

I know you are bright enough to know all this, but based on some of the replies above, you might just have to reprove it to them.

[Karl]

Can we apply some logic and remove the emotion?

 

Are you guys:

 

-willing to bolt on parts that cost money to go faster (a suspension kit, exhaust, new crate motor or rebuilt head for example)?

-willing to pay more for more/better tech?

-looking for an inexpensive place to race where your skills and not your wallet shine?

 

 From what I've read and heard while at the track, the answer to all three is yes.

 

If so, why is your emotion for "cheaters" getting in the way of creating a rule set that gives you what you want?  If the rules allow the simple modifications you won't need to pay more for better tech.  

 

Before seeking revenge, dig two graves.  (though if you have been reading carefully, it seems you are helping to dig a mass grave) 

[Blake Thompson]

A policy governing conflicts of interests is perhaps the most important policy a nonprofit board can adopt. To have the most impact, the policy should be in writing and the board (and staff) should review the policy regularly. Often people are unaware that their activities or personal interests are in conflict with the best interests of the nonprofit so a goal for many organizations is to simply raise awareness, encourage disclosure and discussion of anything that MAY be a conflict, and constantly encourage a “culture of candor.” Many charitable nonprofits make it a regular practice to take time at a board meeting at least once a year to discuss the types of hypothetical situations that could result in a conflict of interest, and then discuss how the board would manage that potential conflict, role-playing so that when a real conflict arises the board will be ready to handle it effortlessly.

What should a conflict of interest policy include?

A conflict of interest policy should (a) require those with a conflict (or who think they may have a conflict) to disclose the conflict/potential conflict, and ( prohibit interested board members from voting on any matter in which there is a conflict. Beyond including those two basic directives, each nonprofit needs to determine how the board will manage the conflict. Keep in mind that the IRS Form 990 asks not only about whether the nonprofit has a written conflict of interest policy, but also about the process that the nonprofit uses to manage conflicts, as well as how the nonprofit determines whether board members have a conflict of interest.

WARNING: Conflicts that are not managed can result in significant penalties to the person who benefits and to the organization, called "intermediate sanctions." (See IRS information on excess benefit transactions and inurement/private benefit that can result in penalties called intermediate sanctions.)

 

http://www.councilof...ict-of-interest

 

[High Chair]

 

 The group, established by SCCA President Lisa Noble, also includes John Doonan, Steve Sanders and Mike Allen (Mazdaspeed Motorsports Development), John Mueller (NASA), Tony Ave (SCCA Club Racing Board) and Robert Clarke (SCCA Pro Racing/SCCA Inc.).

 

The group met face-to-face at SCCA’s offices in Topeka, Kansas October 30, 2014. Also attending in consultation were: Eric Prill (SCCA), John Bauer (SCCA), Jim Wheeler (SCCA Club Racing Board), Steve Knapp (Elite Engines) and Jim Stewart (Stewart Engines).

 

Interesting group to decide the fate of Spec Miata.  

 

In the group, only John Mueller races SM with any regularity.  

 

Why were engine builders (who's heads were not inspected at the run-offs) invited to the meeting?  Is it because they were thought to never have produced a non compliant head?   Is it because they could look at the work done by others and shake their heads and say, " yep they are fracking cheating". 

 

I assume there are "detailed" minutes from this illustrious meeting and that as a member I should be able to review the minutes from this meeting.  

 

Jim Stewart who as far as I know only builds legal engines (he does my heads) drove to Topeka on his own dime to try to help our class. I don't want to speak for him but I am sure he was already aware of what the other builders did so I doubt that was even an issue. He along with the others in that group are working towards a solution and we should all be thankful. Personally, I hope the rule changes that they proposed go into affect with one change; the head should be milled to achieve the correct compression ratio. It sucks that honest people bought engines from builders that were worried more about their pockets than that of the class but we can't change that now. But the outrage should not be directed at the group trying to fix it but the builders who got us here in the first place. By the way I doubt 10 stock heads would vary by more than 1 or 2 horsepower if everything else remained the same which is a lot closer than we had in just the top 10 at the ARRC.

[Steve Scheifler]

Steve and John,

If you guys are hearing that some heads had the STR modification done and they didn't see an improvement or they just saw a torque curve shape change....

...then they either didn't do it right or they changed something else at the same time.

Suggestion for your testing:

Please make and follow an exact plan. Be bold enough to post the plan here so the many bright minds can direct you to a better more comprehensive plan. i.e. How you take the car apart and put it back together is obviously critical. Don't just throw all the valve springs in a pile for instance and come up with a GOOD way to protect the valve seats while the STR is being filed smooth.

I know you are bright enough to know all this, but based on some of the replies above, you might just have to reprove it to them.

Well Karl, that's a little vague. But we aren't doing any of the testing, and I don't recall anyone talking about just a torque curve change. And I don't recall anyone describing the actual power gains from dyno tests before & after re-plunge then again after the STR work. Most of the talk has been based on flow testing, and I have said that I would like to see how much of that translates into true power. It sounds like the tests to be conducted by the club will attempt to quantify it. Surely nobody thinks there is NO improvement, it is SOP stuff where allowed and flow testing proves it here. What we need is to quantify the real-world gains at the wheel for each stage of the process so someone can then translate that into appropriate adjustments. Or, as you say, do more thinking about the rules. But that's not in their current plan.

[Blake Thompson]

 By the way I doubt 10 stock heads would vary by more than 1 or 2 horsepower

 

Those outside the class see cheating as a binary, not a greyscale.  Now ~2,500 individuals are regarded as cheaters by the "public" because of this issue.  Don't think that doesn't discourage potential new buyers to the class, don't think that doesn't lower the resale value of your car.

[Dave Cox]

Also, Steve Knapp from Elite Engines is not a SM engine builder he is one of the top open wheel engine builders and has a lot of experience and knowledge with many different engines (FV/super Vee to a lot of the pro series engines) and as an outsider can bring an unbiased view into the issue and the solution.

[Parity]

Folks,

 

I just received a reply to my letter explaining at least in part the technical reason for the direction they are taking. Currently it's nearly impossible to verify the plunge cut due to the varying contours. As has been stated here, no tool exists that can specifically inspect the area. I think Imay be able to produce something to reasonable inspect the plug cut which could be used during a tear down. I asked SCCA/NASA to consider this option as a possible solution.

 

As a group we can collectively petition to work on solving the verification challenge rather than just eliminating the plunge cut. If it were to work we may be able to save our heads.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

RED Paul, i think you have an excellent idea but you better hurry. and i still think you have only a small chance and making any meaningful change.

[Steve Scheifler]

But first you need to cough it up so we can understand the idea and discuss any issues with it.

[Parity]

John Mueller inferred they are still taking input so hopefully it's not too late. My letters have been sent.

 

We can continue our diatribes here or...As a group we can collectively petition to work on solving the verification challenge rather than just eliminating the plunge cut. If it were to work we may be able to save our heads.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

then you steve and karl get to cracking, i dont have the slightest idea of how to check it.  but think it could be done.

[Todd Lamb]

Are we done trying to place the blame yet so we can move on to fixing the problem?

 

I do not agree with the rule change. I do not believe it is in the best interests of the class.

 

Which stock heads will be best: The old ones in donor cars, the ones all the builders just bought from Mazda, or the new ones Mazda is making to be sold later?

 

Is this going to make it less expensive to build a competitive motor? Is it going to make the competition better?

 

Why are we breaking something that has worked for so long? There has to be a better solution than this knee jerk reaction that doesn't cost everyone so much money.

[MPR22]

Jim Stewart who as far as I know only builds legal engines (he does my heads) drove to Topeka on his own dime to try to help our class. I don't want to speak for him but I am sure he was already aware of what the other builders did so I doubt that was even an issue. He along with the others in that group are working towards a solution and we should all be thankful. Personally, I hope the rule changes that they proposed go into affect with one change; the head should be milled to achieve the correct compression ratio. It sucks that honest people bought engines from builders that were worried more about their pockets than that of the class but we can't change that now. But the outrage should not be directed at the group trying to fix it but the builders who got us here in the first place. By the way I doubt 10 stock heads would vary by more than 1 or 2 horsepower if everything else remained the same which is a lot closer than we had in just the top 10 at the ARRC.

While I admire your loyalty you tend to be a tad myopic on most issues, using personal feelings as a basis for your posts.
I asked the question about the builders because I want transparency in all this process.

If the SM racers voted to go stock heads, untouched I would be good with that. Being told completely legal parts on my car will become mom compliant because a group of people met in a room in Topeka doesn't sit well with me. Dialogue, the exchange of ideas and transparency are the ways to solve problems. Several inteligent people on this board are offering to help with the process. Once a series of options are identified input from the members should be sought out.