296 replies to this topic

[Tom OPM]

Page after page on how we are going to fix the MOST popular class in SCCA racing.

 

Yes we have issues that need to be addressed but I do not see how a bunch of so called experts that do not race in our class plus a few SM people can decide how the fix a class that's not broken.

 

Look at the results from 2014, close racing-10,15,20 cars within a second on the grid, large fields, mostly happy customers. So we had an incident at the Run-Offs and now its broke and to fix it we are going to run off a lot of the customer base and the ones that stay have to spend a bunch of money. What ????

 

I'm no expert but in my business if I piss of my customers they go elsewhere. Has SCCA and NASA ever considered this and asked us what WE want ??

[Tom Sager]

 

 

I'm no expert but in my business if I piss of my customers they go elsewhere. Has SCCA and NASA ever considered this and asked us what WE want ??

Not yet but that seems like an excellent next step.  

[Brian129]

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.

 

this is what makes sense to me, 

I was going to write this out in the rules proposal before, but kept my mouth shut,  Hind sight is 20/20, not that it would matter. 

 

so if we had a cutting tool,  that was set,  could not be modified, and was available from Mazdaspeed or Enterprises.

The tool would have a center axial alignment to the valve guide, a set outside diameter, and a set end of tool profile(this could be round or square,  whatever, just all the same)

Then we could make a simple go/no go gauge that would be simple for tech.  what is hard is teching this down in the port. what if we use either a profile gauge type device,  that had a center pin to axially align this to the guide. 

or maybe a formable foam that can be formed in the port, and a profile go/no go gauge to compare it to.  

 

then the rule would stay almost the same,  clarifying that material is taken away from the inside only for the allowed cut with the use of this too, and no blending or reshaping allowed.  

this way what is allowed is clear, how to tech it is clear,  the rule holding it is clear, and all heads that currently run a plunge would just need a touch with the allowed tool, to clean the end of the plunge to match the profile.  yes, we have to pull heads,  yes they need to be slightly machined, but this eliminates "hunting" for castings, and allows almost all heads currently used to be reworked.  The heads that have been taken too far with port blending would still likely be out. 

 

my $.02

[Bruce Wilson]

Agree with JD1.  This is not surprise.

Agree with most of Dave's post.

"Conflict of interest", yup (most everyone involved, past and present)

Best mantra of the long forgotten past...  Go race IT!

 

Already have my head, but the car is parked until parity is addressed.

[Mike Ferrara]

Page after page on how we are going to fix the MOST popular class in SCCA racing.

 

Yes we have issues that need to be addressed but I do not see how a bunch of so called experts that do not race in our class plus a few SM people can decide how the fix a class that's not broken.

 

Look at the results from 2014, close racing-10,15,20 cars within a second on the grid, large fields, mostly happy customers. So we had an incident at the Run-Offs and now its broke and to fix it we are going to run off a lot of the customer base and the ones that stay have to spend a bunch of money. What ????

 

I'm no expert but in my business if I piss of my customers they go elsewhere. Has SCCA and NASA ever considered this and asked us what WE want ??

 

 

I agree with Tom. Why don't we get our own panel of RACERS and come up with a solution we can take to the BOD. Get something workable in writing and have all who agree sign it as a petition. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. 

[James York]

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.

 

This is spot on.  The proposed rule change on the table does not achieve any of the goals they hope, nor make any of these issue above "better".  I would like to hear from this team on "how" they think this makes SM better in which ways.  

 

I would encourage everyone to write in to the CRB and contact BOD member.  In SowDiv we plan to meet with our BOD rep Saturday to voice our thoughts.  Perhaps this can be stopped at the BOD meeting.

[FTodaro]

Page after page on how we are going to fix the MOST popular class in SCCA racing.

 

Yes we have issues that need to be addressed but I do not see how a bunch of so called experts that do not race in our class plus a few SM people can decide how the fix a class that's not broken.

 

Look at the results from 2014, close racing-10,15,20 cars within a second on the grid, large fields, mostly happy customers. So we had an incident at the Run-Offs and now its broke and to fix it we are going to run off a lot of the customer base and the ones that stay have to spend a bunch of money. What ????

 

I'm no expert but in my business if I piss of my customers they go elsewhere. Has SCCA and NASA ever considered this and asked us what WE want ??

Agree 100% we can on on and on about how much BS this is, But

 

We need to get to work and come up with a better proposal than the one on the table and get the class behind it.

 

However someone smarter than me who knows how to articulate the spec needs to come up with a proposal that will allow most of the heads to stay compliant and offer a way to draw the line that is understandable.

 

According to John M. post they could not come up with a way to define and draw the line on a plunge cut with limited blending that did not lead to massive porting. 

 

if we could maybe they will sign off on it.

[James York]

Agree 100% we can on on and on about how much BS this is, But

 

We need to get to work and come up with a better proposal than the one on the table and get the class behind it.

 

However someone smarter than me who knows how to articulate the spec needs to come up with a proposal that will allow most of the heads to stay compliant and offer a way to draw the line that is understandable.

 

According to John M. post they could not come up with a way to define and draw the line on a plunge cut with limited blending that did not lead to massive porting. 

 

if we could maybe they will sign off on it.

 

Like you, I am not an engine person.  But I struggle with how a plunge cut only with a specified tool and use, with absolutely no blending or additional work, could not be implemented and teched.  

 

I read previously over and over in the Runoff thread on how clear the rule was and how easy it was to tell the non-compliant heads from strict plunge cut compliant heads, so I miss to see what the problem is.  

[Parity]

Please Read !!!

 

"... 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."

 

 

In order to keep the plunge cut legal we HAVE TO BE ABLE TO VERIFY IT. We can rant all day about "doing something" but we're running out of time and need to be specific. I believe we can solve the inspection problem and have submitted this to NASA/SCCA.

 

If we ask NASA/SCCA to consider solutions to the inspection problem rather than throwing it all out we have a better chance at solving the actual problem.

 

MY $2.00

[Dennis Valet]

I agree that the rule change is about tech enforcement, not parity or cost. The problem is the memo from the SCCA claims the change is being made because of parity and cost, not because of tech enforcement. If they had just come clean and said "it's impossible to police the plunge cuts" then I doubt there would have been such an angry initial reaction. 

 

The plunge cuts were a solution, but a flaw has been found which requires a rule change. I'm sure everyone here has noticed a growing gap between regional and national prepped SM cars. I believe the SCCA wants to reduce that gap and they believe this rule change will help move towards that goal. 

 

If you have a better solution, contact the appropriate individuals who can raise these issues with the CRB. 

 

 

 

[Craig Berry]

Tom, will you PLEASE volunteer to clean up SM! I know, except maybe one time a year I am not under your tent, but I would completely trust your common sense approach.
I wonder how close the top 20 will be now?? One thing I do know is that a most of the Majors it would be hard to be any closer.

[Pat Ross]

If Paul's statement above is correct, then, in my opinion, the SCCA has left themselves wide open for legal action.  They disqualified people at the runoffs for a violation they say is nearly impossible to verify.  If we had gone to the runoffs and had been disqualified, I would now be contacting my lawyer to file suit against the SCCA for defamation of character (I am now a cheater).  They can't have it both ways.  Either they can verify that the plunge cut was illegal or they can't. 

 

Pat

[Cnj]

I agree that the rule change is about tech enforcement, not parity or cost. The problem is the memo from the SCCA claims the change is being made because of parity and cost, not because of tech enforcement. If they had just come clean and said "it's impossible to police the plunge cuts" then I doubt there would have been such an angry initial reaction. 

 

The plunge cuts were a solution, but a flaw has been found which requires a rule change. I'm sure everyone here has noticed a growing gap between regional and national prepped SM cars. I believe the SCCA wants to reduce that gap and they believe this rule change will help move towards that goal. 

 

If you have a better solution, contact the appropriate individuals who can raise these issues with the CRB. 

Dennis,

 

I am not sure what the backstory is to the SCCA's decision - because thier PR communication has been so bad.  

 

What I do have confidence in is that the normal process of SMAC delivering recommendations to the CRB (who also get individual input from racing community), who then propose rule changes to the BOD has been totally usurped in this situation.  So everyone is saying "write a letter to the CRB" but in fact the CRB are now apparently minority players in this process which is currently being run by the president of the SCCA (who would normally be exclusively charged with running the business of the SCCA and never rule setting).  If you think that I am wrong on this, then read the SCCA memos from Lisa Nobel again, read Jim Wheelers post on this forum about his level of involvement as chair of the CRB and read Mike Collins comments as leader of the SMAC and his lack of involvement.   That this abnormal process has been ratified by the BOD of the SCCA (October meeting) does not assuage my concerns that a tried and true process which allows genuine and transparent member input has totally run off the rails.  I don't for a minute suggest malfeasance - simply very poor process.  

 

So my view of this is that (1) no rule is changed until the BOD votes on it and (2) therefore my goal is to speak to my local BOD to express my concerns both about the decision, the process and a better plan.

 

Someone "in the know" tell me i have it wrong.  

 

cnj

[Parity]

Pat,

 

Maybe I should reword my comments since that's not the point being made. Folks who have seen the heads affirm they are grossly in violation so no question stands there. However, the challenge to properly consistently inspect at an event is a challenge. If a rule stands, it must be enforceable without requiring the level of effort observed here. If it's not than it's reasonably foreseeable protests and contentions will continue which no one wants. Therefore being able to verify enforcement on site in the tech shed is key. 

[LarryKing]

 

I would now be contacting my lawyer to file suit against the SCCA for defamation of character

 

I can't think of another action with greater potential to end ALL club racing.

[davew]

You have some nerve Dave I'll give you that. "Tech Shed Legal" was out of context. Facts sure get distorted. A quick visit to the archives will show my comments and their context. Many rules you have today are a direct result of my efforts to make SM more spec. What have you "contributed"?

DW, we have one thing in common. I too was fired as SMAC Chairman when I informed the community that SCCA intended to prevent Spec Miata from going national.

Irony that you conment here about racers being rules makers. Remind us why you was fired from the Chairman position?

If you have not forgotten, I've been in a few Runoffs tear downs myself. I've seen your cars. Glass house pal.

 

Mr Daniels I will address your comment directly.

The first time I ever heard the phrase tech shed legal was from you back on the old SpecMiata.com.

 

I believe my personal contributions to the Spec Miata community speak for themselves.

 

The reason I left the SMAC was because I very vocally asked the SCCA BoD, at the Runoffs tent meeting, why they did not accept Mr. Gorarrians offer to purchase ECU's for tech purposes at the Runoffs. There was no conflict of interest accusations and you where not involved with any of it. In fact when I left the SMAC, Mr Drago was still involved (although he may have moved to the CRB and was the SMAC liason), Mike Collins was (and still is) a member of the SMAC along with Dan Tiley. So conflict of interest has never been an issue with any member of the SMAC to my knowledge.

 

I have no idea how many Runoffs tear downs you have been involved in. And I really do not see the relavance to this issue.  I have had 3 tear downs on my cars and one on a customer basis. All cars have been found compliant with no need to file any appeals or questionable items. My house may be glass, but it has no cracks. If you have any truth to shed, let me know.

 

Mr Drago (thank you for staying quiet) you where the one who called me and informed me I was not returning to the SMAC following the Runoffs incedent. Please do not distort the truth. You and I where on that phone call and no one else was. I ruffled the feathers of the SCCA corporate brass and they did not like it. Conflict of interest had nothing to do with it.

 

Dave

[FTodaro]

I make a motion to elect Tom Fowler as the class spokesperson AKA "ass Kicker" to go tell the upper ups that this is not going to be a workable solution.

 

It may take the ability to move Mountains, but we can still have a spec class that is not stock.

 

Who is for pushing the limits up, save money and go racing vs Pushing the limits back spend more money and worry about who really converted over to the stock head?

[Pat Ross]

The reason we are in the position we are now in is because both the SCCA and NASA failed in their duty at previous runoffs.  The blending and STR modifications didn't just happen during the last two to three months.  It has been going on for a long time, and both organizations had perpetuated it by not ruling the heads illegal several years ago.  At all levels of racing the contestants push the limits until the managing organization says "NO".  You see that in Kart racing and you see it in NASCAR and F1. 

 

SCCA should not have waited until someone protested to clean up this mess.  They have had chances to every time there was a "teardown" at the June Sprints or the Runoffs.  NASA is just as culpable as SCCA for the same reasons. 

 

As a result of their inaction, it appears that Tech Inspections at these events are a sham.  Surely someone in the Tech Shed noticed the excessive smoothing of the STR before now and chose to ignore it, making it "Tech Shed Legal"

 

My $0.02 

 

BTW I have a dog in this fight since I am the major source of funds for Michael's racing.

 

Pat 

[Steve Scheifler]

Pat & Paul, just to put a finer point on it and other arguments aside, I believe the issue for not allowing the plunge & blend in the future is about quantifying what would be allowed. It is not about avoiding invasive tech. After all, you still need to tear one down to check if they broke the rule.

What I don't understand is why a clarified plunge-only rule can't be just as effective as no-plunge. People determined to do it anyway and hide their work will manage regardless.

Going beyond that may be politically impossible at this point but I have not heard why going back to no-plunge makes sense.

[Tom Sager]

I suggest we do one or both of the following...  

 

1. Create a letter and petition to send to both NASA and SCCA (there are online services for this and I will set it up if there is support for it)  explaining the racers position on maintaining the plunge cut rule.  This way we can sign it quickly and easily.

 

2. Request a meeting with both NASA and SCCA to present the position and talk through it.  Someone should be designated to do this.  I have an abundance of air miles and will donate 1 plane ticket the designee or volunteer to go myself.  My wife will give me some grief on the air miles because she really likes those but it's worth it.  

 

Racers weren't invited to the table for the initial discussion, so we need to ask for the opportunity to be heard face to face.