153 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Trust me, I thought of this while showering and before Rich's post.

 

Proposal:

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

I'm sure then egine builders are licking their chops with this propsoed rule.

 

Everyone has excusses why items are not correct, including the engine builders. The SMAC/CRB/BoD should look at this quickly created proposal by good people (no disrespect on anyone) and say, do they have a clue.

[cpdenis]

Petition signed.

 

Has anyone drafted a letter or letters that we could all use to express our opinions to the SCCA and NASA. Can it/they be posted here or on a new thread with instructions. I believe it will make it a lot easier to have more people submit. 

 

Thank you to all.

 

CP Denis

[Cnj]

Petition signed.
 
Has anyone drafted a letter or letters that we could all use to express our opinions to the SCCA and NASA. Can it/they be posted here or on a new thread with instructions. I believe it will make it a lot easier to have more people submit. 
 
Thank you to all.
 
CP Denis

Hi, I intend to simply cut and paste the language of the petition and possibly modify to personalize. Many of the Texas continent that met yesterday at TWS felt the easiest way was to use the exact language. Personal choice.

CNJ

[Todd Lamb]

Signed - much better option than reverting to stock heads.

[Chris Ashcraft]

Signed - I hope that this will also spark some give into helping the 1.6 as well

[Alex Bolanos]

Signed, I'll spread the word down here in North Cuba

[Tom Hampton]

Signed. Ill spread the word down here in new zealand.

[pat slattery]

OVER 150 SIGNATURE.  kEEP THEM COMING

[AW33COM]

What about existing heads with off plane plunge cuts cutting into STR?  This proposal allows for old heads that have off plane cuts to be legal, and it allows to create legal off plane cuts.  Even if that is taken care of, how exactly will they tech the squareness of the cut?

 

More, will the deburring profile be the same from head to head?  It has to be in order to equalize air swirl from engine to engine.  That is also important.  The proposal assumes the profiles are the same across 70% of cars that you're trying to safe. 

 

This proposal does not talk about those two and how to test it 

[Todd Green]

As for the size of the spec, again for the benefit of you non motor builders, If you have not done your homework, Blending, porting, flowing a head, does not necessary improve a Plate motor. Its more complicated than that to get HP from a Plate head.

 

Could you please address the issue that not all heads in SM are "plate heads"?

[FTodaro]

Could you please address the issue that not all heads in SM are "plate heads"?

I am not an expert,  i would guess that this type on mod would be more beneficial on a 1.6 that does not have a plate, so There you go the parity problems is fixed.

 

Two birds with one stone.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

I am not an expert,  i would guess that this type on mod would be more beneficial on a 1.6 that does not have a plate, so There you go the parity problems is fixed.
 
Two birds with one stone.

That's wrong Frank,the 1.6 would have the greatest loss with the new rule change. It will also change the parity and the 1.6 wouldn't have a snowball chance in hell if they kept the current plate and weight rules the same.

[Raw Knuckles]

Thanks to Tom, Craig & Frank for the work you have put into this. Also thanks to all for such a robust dialogue across multiple threads. (I don't know where you all find the time!). I have signed the petition and forwarded in letter form to SCCA CRB and BOD. I have followed that up with a personalized copy to my Area Director, and I suggest others may want to consider this as well. I have also reached out through our regional leadership and asked the to forward a note to other SM competitors that they know, asking them to sign the petition and send letters. Hopefully all our efforts will lead to a resolution that is less radical than what's proposed by the "SM Leadership Team".

[Parity]

Disclaimer - I've signed the petition because I feel it may be the best way to preserve the existing plunge cut rule and the vast majority of heads in circulation. I do not agree with the .250" blend area.

[Andrew Charbonneau]

sorry wrong must try too keep spec von c

[Andrew Charbonneau]

starting in 2004 have been chasing the top in everything  remember i had a ecu wake up  tood lamb you are writer start writing

[chris haldeman]

It has been said many times by myself and others. It's not .250 of blend area it is .250 of anything touched below the hardened seat on the short side. And yes the 1.6 does in fact benefit the most from any plunge or debur, and would be hurt the most by stock heads.

[James York]

It is great to see that as of now 225 of us at least agree that going back to "stock" heads is not the correct solution to address the issues brought to light at the Runoffs. Details can always be settle by the team.

Remember we all also need to submit our letters stating the same position as the petition to the CRB and email Mazda along with the BOD.

[FTodaro]

It has been said many times by myself and others. It's not .250 of blend area it is .250 of anything touched below the hardened seat on the short side. And yes the 1.6 does in fact benefit the most from any plunge or debur, and would be hurt the most by stock heads.

Chris I know you have made this point before, if you have not posted that over in the Why we came up with this number thread please do.

 

Its an important point about the measurement, where you are measuring from and the fact that we are doing it on different heads. \

 

But at this point lets keep our eyes on the ball, and that is we want to open the door to a discussion about this and hopefully that will happen.

[Bad Rusty]

Signed, thanks for trying to bring some common sense to organizing bodies, I wonder if they'll listen?