153 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

What we have attached is a petition seeking signatures of SCCA and NASA members to support a Rule proposal to retain the original plunge cut rule to allow a definable, measurable deburring. Several folks put a lot of time in doing homework to make sure that we have it right.

 

This proposal will allow 70 to 75% of the heads to remain legal. The Proposal will not save the over the top porting that was reported. The rule allows only 6.4 mm; 0.250" beyond the plunge cut to deburr. Part of this number is required due to variances in the heads themselves.

 

We have confirmed that this rule will be measurable, definable and easy to tech. Along with the understanding that there are significant changes coming as to how each or organization will approach tech, we are convinced that there will be a much closer eye on "Creep" 

 

Now is the time as a class to come together and get behind this proposal, while we all have our differences, this IS what is in the best interest of the class.

 

We have debated this for days its time to take action.

 

The diagram in the petition would not copy over on the cite, and the file was to big to attach. So please go to this link, read the Petition and Vote.

 

http://www.petitions...nder_head_rules

 

It is important that YOU vote and send the link to any and all SM members. You will need your SCCA and NASA membership numbers to vote.

 

I want to thank Tom Sager and Craig Janssen for their help in making this possible.

 

 

Class Petition

An appeal to SCCA and NASA

 

Intent:

Compromise Spec Miata racers proposal to the SCCA/NASA Spec Miata Head Rules

 

To:

SCCA/NASA Spec Miata Rules Committee.

 

A Call To Action By The Spec Miata Community

Due to a protest and disqualification of several racers and pro motors at the runoffs, SCCA and NASA have met and have proposed reversing the current plunge cut head rule, in favor returning to the rules in place in 2009. The Stock Head Rule. This means that any competitor who had built a head to the current rule over the last 5 years will no longer be compliant.

The goals of the class have been to promote participation, close competition, and low cost across multiple platforms. The SCCA/NASA proposed rule change does not address these goals. We submit this alternative proposal to address those goals and the concerns of the class.

The current proposal is to add a weight penalty to the current competitor’s non-compliant heads, such that it will encourage them to convert to a stock head, over the next year or two. There are not sufficient heads to meet the immediate demand. The conversions to a stock head will entail hundreds of heads and hence hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost to Spec Miata competitors.  The proposed weight penalty will likely promote conversion making hundreds of cars noncompetitive while they wait for available heads.

The signers of the class petition wish to express their desire to propose a compromise that will allow the vast majority of the existing heads to remain complaint. Our proposal incorporates the existing rule with a slight modification and will address Testing and Measuring.

 

Proposal:

Permit the current plunge cut rule to stand and allow deburring to .250”.

See diagram below.

 

Diagram would not copy see the link to the Petition...

 

 

 

Discussion:

Testing and measuring.   We have confirmed with technical members of the club that measuring tools can be produced and/or measurements can be taken to confirm compliance to the rule. This rule will allow for specific guidance as to what is permitted and what is a violation.

Petitioners fully support the appointment and training of a technical position (a technical Czar) within the SCCA/NASA who will be trained and have the expertise to consistently evaluate compliance.

 

 

 

The compromise proposal will resolve several issues that will be created by reverting to the 2009 rules. For example:

1. It will prevent the entire class from being punished for something they did not do.
2. It  will allow the vast majority of existing heads to continue to be legal
3. It will avoid a huge cost to the entire class.
4. It will create a definable rule that will be able to be checked in tech.
5. It will eliminate a pile of non-complaint heads currently in circulation.
6. It will not enrich the motor builders.
7. It will NOT move the rules significantly from where we have been for 5 years.
8. It will allow home builders to now compete with the pro builders.
9. It will prevent head rules with no specs, thus encouraging exploitation of the stock heads for additional power.

 

This is the most productive and orderly way to resolve our problem. A permitted deburr of 0.250” is in no way a major expansion of the rules.

 

The following signers urge the organizations to reconsider the extreme nature of the proposed SCCA/NASA rule changes and consider implementing our proposed changes that will result in no cost to racers while concurrently providing greater technical compliance and performance parity.

[James York]

Frank,

 

Thank you and the others that I know have been working behind the scenes to produce a proposal that is workable and does not punish the majority of the racers who have been and are legal to the existing rule set.

[FTodaro]

You know no matter how hard you try.

 

the diagram showing the Deburr at .250" is correct the text in the Petition that says .0250' is not the diagram has the correct number.

[jedd fahnestock]

This proposal seems like a reasonable set of rules to me. I plan to continue racing on my almost two year old Rossini built motor thats still kicking ass (took pole at last MARRS race but got dqed for being three pounds underweight after the race because i pooped before the race) and im not even sure what if anything is done to my STR. I know some of my competitors probably have this mod and id hate to see them have to replace motors they paid good money for. Maybe my next Rossini will have the modded STR and be even stronger!

[DionJ]

Diagram shows .250" not .025" I'll gladly sign if that's fixed. Thank You..

[FTodaro]

Petition is fixed Go for it.

[James York]

The second to last paragraph still contains the dimension error.

[FTodaro]

Its being addressed lets go with 6.4 mm

[Parity]

.250 (6.4 mm) Should read .025" (.64MM) - I'm not on board with .250"

[FTodaro]

The spec is 6.4MM and 0.250"

[Jim Creighton]

All, I'm looking at this totally from the outside, but would it not make a little more sense to offer a small penalty for those who already have deburred the plunge cut? That way, those who have not will not feel the necessity to have further work done on a head that was properly prepped. Since it has already been determined that 15 lbs is the weight added when a motor is bored .020 which equals about a 2 cubic inch increase, why not use that same weight addition for those who have already deburred the plunge cut. That way, those who have not already plunged cut can decide to either get the plunge cut and no additional weight or get the plunge cut and deburr and 15 additional lbs.

 

If I were a current SM driver who has a compliant head, I would think that I was the one being penalized not those who went beyond the written rule.

 

And I will state clearly for all, I believe as a 30 year SCCA engine builder for various SCCA classes and a 10 year Runoffs tech inspector, I have the ability to look at a SM head and determine whether the plunge cut is complaint within the written rules and if the radius deburring is allowed, I will be able to measure it. And I will be able to repeat my measurements just as I have been able to do with the whistler.  If you make the plunge cut 12mm & the deburring blend .025, it can be verified as compliant or not. And then, if the competitor is not satisfied, the head can be sent to someone else to verify the measurements at whatever the costs for shipping and service.

 

The proposal to not junk all the heads has merit but I believe the deburr needs come with a cost since it does improve flow and performance.

 

 

[Brian129]

Not that I disagree I think this is great work, thank you for organizing this.
This seems to make a lot more sense! Imagine, logic can work!

On the diagram
The ferrous seat is called out, and the outlines only shows consistant material in the outline.
The blend is then shown directly on the back edge of the ferrous valve seat.
My only concern here is is that correct, I see to remember seeing the plunge go from ferrous to non ferrous before the end of the plunge

Not even sure I'm right, but thought I would mention it.
I'm just thinking the picture should be 100% representative so if it ever is a question.

[FTodaro]

All, I'm looking at this totally from the outside, but would it not make a little more sense to offer a small penalty for those who already have deburred the plunge cut? That way, those who have not will not feel the necessity to have further work done on a head that was properly prepped. Since it has already been determined that 15 lbs is the weight added when a motor is bored .020 which equals about a 2 cubic inch increase, why not use that same weight addition for those who have already deburred the plunge cut. That way, those who have not already plunged cut can decide to either get the plunge cut and no additional weight or get the plunge cut and deburr and 15 additional lbs.

 

If I were a current SM driver who has a compliant head, I would think that I was the one being penalized not those who went beyond the written rule.

 

And I will state clearly for all, I believe as a 30 year SCCA engine builder for various SCCA classes and a 10 year Runoffs tech inspector, I have the ability to look at a SM head and determine whether the plunge cut is complaint within the written rules and if the radius deburring is allowed, I will be able to measure it. And I will be able to repeat my measurements just as I have been able to do with the whistler.  If you make the plunge cut 12mm & the deburring blend .025, it can be verified as compliant or not. And then, if the competitor is not satisfied, the head can be sent to someone else to verify the measurements at whatever the costs for shipping and service.

 

The proposal to not junk all the heads has merit but I believe the deburr needs come with a cost since it does improve flow and performance.

Jim, we felt that the best approach was to draft a rule that would prevent all those hundreds of heads from hitting the scrap pile. We know that decisions are likely forthcoming on parity adjustments and felt with out all that information there was nothing helpful we could add.

 

This was our focus, Parity we suspect will be addressed separately.

 

Not that I disagree I think this is great work, thank you for organizing this.
This seems to make a lot more sense! Imagine, logic can work!

On the diagram
The ferrous seat is called out, and the outlines only shows consistant material in the outline.
The blend is then shown directly on the back edge of the ferrous valve seat.
My only concern here is is that correct, I see to remember seeing the plunge go from ferrous to non ferrous before the end of the plunge

Not even sure I'm right, but thought I would mention it.
I'm just thinking the picture should be 100% representative so if it ever is a question.

The diagram is not a scale drawing it was just for demonstration of the location of the deburr and the proposed dimension .

 

Can someone re post the link in a locked thread so it does not get lost in the comments. ??

[Bench Racer]

I understand great effort has created this document, but.

 

The cross section picture shows .250 inch from the bottom of the seat.

Your verbage specifies, The rule allows only .0250 beyond the plunge cut to deburr.

These two specs ^ don't jive. Even if the numbers are the same the distance for deburing are not the same.

 

EDIT:

The proposal suggests:

 

"We have confirmed with technical members of the club that measuring tools can be produced and/or measurements can be taken to confirm compliance to the rule."

 

IMHJ, this ^ means nothing. Suggest the proposal includes the measuring tools and process.

 

Someplace within the proposal there is a 4 place decimal used. Can the measuring process measure to 4 places.




 

[FTodaro]

I will re post again there was a typo that has been fixed in both the online petition and in the text above.

 

the spec is 6.4mm or 0.250" The diagram is correct

 

The diagram controls. All the motor builders who reviewed this understood it.

 

Refresh

[RWP80000]

While I am in full support of the purpose for this petition, I am having a problem supporting the large specification window that is being proposed.  Allowing those that have taken what was intended to be a "zero" tolerance on smoothing (that could of/should have been covered with something like a .020"/0.5 mm specification to become a 1/4 inch is just creating too large a sand box to play in.

 

After looking at Pro built heads that participated in the 2014 Runoffs which would be covered with a .080 "/ 2 mm allowance, I could be supportive of up to double of that (.160" / 4mm) to save the vast majority of heads in the hands of the unsuspecting who were victims of the plunge cut blending rules creep.

 

Any heads needing a .250 allowance need to be removed from competition. My assessment is that .250 would make virtually every head legal and open an area to work in that will start a new head development race war. 

 

Rich Powers

[chris haldeman]

Too clarify the .250 is from the bottom of the seat. It includes the .125-.150 of straight down plunge. It is not!! .250 after the bottom of the plunge

[Steve Scheifler]

Decent effort but:

You are getting pushback from some who think 0.25" is too much, but to those who think that, draw 0.025" wide line on paper and see if that looks reasonable.

Your diagram addresses only the STR edge but I think many of the heads are "blended" in the "corners" as it transition around the port to the sides and the LTR. Are you intending that metal can be removed there but only to a width of 0.25", or no touch there at all?

Jim, we can go just 0.010" over for that 15lbs, so depending on what HP number is assumed here the compensation weight may need to be more. However, I tend to agree with you in principal for exactly the same reasons. Some people make that sound like a big deal combined with the overbore rule but to me that sounds like smoke. I'm sure that if people will correctly indicate the weight on their cars, tech can be given a simple quick-reference chart to keep things straight.

[Cnj]

.
 
EDIT:
The proposal suggests:
 
"We have confirmed with technical members of the club that measuring tools can be produced and/or measurements can be taken to confirm compliance to the rule."
 
IMHJ, this ^ means nothing. Suggest the proposal includes the measuring tools and process.
 
Someplace within the proposal there is a 4 place decimal used. Can the measuring process measure to 4 places.

Bench, thanks for your insight. It was intentional that the proposal not include a high degree of specificity to the measurement process for three reasons. (1) the petition is focussed on the premise that a stock head rule with all its challenges should not replace an easily modified existing and widely implemented rule which will save most racers from having to junk their motor heads (2) the rule set does not include measurement as its core - that is a compliance effort and separate from a rule proposal (3) there appears to be more than one effective evolving path to the measurement and insisting that a specific path be implemented is not key to the message, and more importantly, may in fact create problems for us down the road. Far better that the sanctioning bodies make this final determination for compliance approach, not the racers.

CNJ

[James York]

Members,

 

Also remember, this petition is not the official way the SCCA processes member input.  I plan to use the content of the petition to send letters to the CRB, BOD, my BOD member, NASA and Mazda.  We met with our BOD member today and he highly stressed the importance of submitting letters using the process.