153 replies to this topic

[Andrew Charbonneau]

Dave one thing is for sure it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. Personally, i feel better about the situation in that I think everyone has or should have had by now, an opportunity  to voice their opinion. It seams that the decision makers are wanting and encouraging our input. I guess time will tell, what that really means, but i think we have voiced all the different points of view. You cannot complain about that. The best decisions are made when all points of view are exposed and digested. I think we have done that.

 

It is going to be interesting to see how the decision is made and where we go from here. . A difficult one for sure. There are no easy answers to this one. Good points being made in both camps.

 

We are guessing that at some point in the near future another announcement will be coming out letting us know where we go from here.

 

My point about Mazda is that they could be playing one or more rolls in this process. It could be to drive policy or direction of class, or it could be to provide technical assistance. Or Both i suppose.

frank what the hell wake up you none hip sindwinging freek

[Andrew Charbonneau]

Letter sent to the CRB today !! 

add this too your letter  

[Andrew Charbonneau]

here is my letter too scca , cbr, and powers to be

 

what the @#$%

[Andrew Charbonneau]

im back and hear me raw

[Andrew Charbonneau]

I will be sending my 2010  trophy  back too scca  today i am sad dont think i will send the money back spent it already the last three years on bullshit .

hope it will send a message  will give you youtube all the way putting gopro cameara in package too show new reality show.

[Andrew Charbonneau]

According to Frederick Douglass, "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."

They seem to be saying, that even when we begin with honourable intentions, there will be some of us who will let their base instincts take control. Orwell, in Animal Farm portrays this nature by parodying events in real history. Given the right conditions, those events could happen anywhere - a leader becoming overly ambitious, to the point of harming his people for more power. In A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens examines the inner soul, and shares with us how people are driven to the valley of human emotions, where desperation and anger reign, and what could happen afterwards if we let these emotions build up inside. Every human being is capable of becoming a ruthless, opportunistic being like Napoleon or Madame Defarge, if placed in the right place, at the right time.

 

 

sorry mr drago and mr riley and sorry for me

[Pete Maerz]

I'm probably not going to win any friends on this forum but here is a copy of my letter to the CRB (#15704). I think you guys have effectively sent the message that reverting to stock heads is an over reaction. However I cannot support the blending allowance.

 

Hopefully we can get this behind us and focus on the REAL problem which is parity between NA and NB cars.

 

Dear CRB,
I am writing to express OPPOSITION to any deburring or blending allowance that others in my class have proposed via online petition and letters to the CRB.

1. This allowance is unnecessary, inconsistent with the class philosophy, and merely opens up additional opportunity for the "boutique" engine builders to extract additional output.

2. I see no reason to adjust the rules to include cylinder heads that are currently non-compliant. Although the plunge cut rule requires some additional clarification, the text prohibiting blending is quite clear: "The area under the seat where the plunge cut ends and the casting resumes cannot be blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition." Any engine builder that did not adhere to this rule is either incompetent (can't be helped) or defiant (shouldn't be helped). It is unfortunate that unsuspecting customers have likely purchased noncompliant engines. This is something that should be addressed through customer service and not through a change to the competition rules.

Thank you for your service to the club and consideration in this matter.
Pete Maerz
#349994

[Cnj]

I'm probably not going to win any friends on this forum
 
[/size]

Hi Pete,

There are several viewpoints on this subject and I hope that reasonable people can respectfully accept this. While I have publically supported a modified rule with a de-bur tolerance, that's no reason for me to get irked with you because you publically present a different view. No problems from me.

As a group of racers this head issue has rocked our little world, but it will pass and hopefully most can get back to competitive and fun racing soon with a clarified rule - which I think is everyone's goal.

By the way, I agree with you that we need to work on parity. As a 99 driver, its my opinion that the NA's need just a little help (talk about not winning friends!). My hope though is that this can be done by empowering the 1.6 rather than further slowing down the NB's. I like racing against all comers and selfishly I don't want to win against a 1.6 feeling that my car had any advantage. Of course I don't want the NA to become an overdog

CNJ

[Andrew Charbonneau]

Hi Pete,

There are several viewpoints on this subject and I hope that reasonable people can respectfully accept this. While I have publically supported a modified rule with a de-bur tolerance, that's no reason for me to get irked with you because you publically present a different view. No problems from me.

As a group of racers this head issue has rocked our little world, but it will pass and hopefully most can get back to competitive and fun racing soon with a clarified rule - which I think is everyone's goal.

By the way, I agree with you that we need to work on parity. As a 99 driver, its my opinion that the NA's need just a little help (talk about not winning friends!). My hope though is that this can be done by empowering the 1.6 rather than further slowing down the NB's. I like racing against all comers and selfishly I don't want to win against a 1.6 feeling that my car had any advantage. Of course I don't want the NA to become an overdog

CNJ

this is not about parity its about the rules in the book scca

[Andrew Charbonneau]

sorry 1.6 drivers aka farmers

[dstevens]

Maybe it's just me but when I read Charb's posts the voice sounds like this guy...

 

[Ron Alan]

Or this....

http://m.youtube.com...h?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U

[FTodaro]

According to Frederick Douglass, "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."

They seem to be saying, that even when we begin with honourable intentions, there will be some of us who will let their base instincts take control. Orwell, in Animal Farm portrays this nature by parodying events in real history. Given the right conditions, those events could happen anywhere - a leader becoming overly ambitious, to the point of harming his people for more power. In A Tale of Two Cities, Dickens examines the inner soul, and shares with us how people are driven to the valley of human emotions, where desperation and anger reign, and what could happen afterwards if we let these emotions build up inside. Every human being is capable of becoming a ruthless, opportunistic being like Napoleon or Madame Defarge, if placed in the right place, at the right time.

 

 

sorry mr drago and mr riley and sorry for me

charbs where did you cut and paste that from? "freak" ?

[FTodaro]

I'm probably not going to win any friends on this forum but here is a copy of my letter to the CRB (#15704). I think you guys have effectively sent the message that reverting to stock heads is an over reaction. However I cannot support the blending allowance.

 

Hopefully we can get this behind us and focus on the REAL problem which is parity between NA and NB cars.

 

Dear CRB,
I am writing to express OPPOSITION to any deburring or blending allowance that others in my class have proposed via online petition and letters to the CRB.

1. This allowance is unnecessary, inconsistent with the class philosophy, and merely opens up additional opportunity for the "boutique" engine builders to extract additional output.

2. I see no reason to adjust the rules to include cylinder heads that are currently non-compliant. Although the plunge cut rule requires some additional clarification, the text prohibiting blending is quite clear: "The area under the seat where the plunge cut ends and the casting resumes cannot be blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition." Any engine builder that did not adhere to this rule is either incompetent (can't be helped) or defiant (shouldn't be helped). It is unfortunate that unsuspecting customers have likely purchased noncompliant engines. This is something that should be addressed through customer service and not through a change to the competition rules.

Thank you for your service to the club and consideration in this matter.
Pete Maerz
#349994

Pete, reasonable people can agree to disagree, not hold it personal and go have a beer afterwords IMO.

[Danny Steyn]

I'm probably not going to win any friends on this forum but here is a copy of my letter to the CRB (#15704). I think you guys have effectively sent the message that reverting to stock heads is an over reaction. However I cannot support the blending allowance.

 

Hopefully we can get this behind us and focus on the REAL problem which is parity between NA and NB cars.

 

Dear CRB,
I am writing to express OPPOSITION to any deburring or blending allowance that others in my class have proposed via online petition and letters to the CRB.

1. This allowance is unnecessary, inconsistent with the class philosophy, and merely opens up additional opportunity for the "boutique" engine builders to extract additional output.

2. I see no reason to adjust the rules to include cylinder heads that are currently non-compliant. Although the plunge cut rule requires some additional clarification, the text prohibiting blending is quite clear: "The area under the seat where the plunge cut ends and the casting resumes cannot be blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition." Any engine builder that did not adhere to this rule is either incompetent (can't be helped) or defiant (shouldn't be helped). It is unfortunate that unsuspecting customers have likely purchased noncompliant engines. This is something that should be addressed through customer service and not through a change to the competition rules.

Thank you for your service to the club and consideration in this matter.
Pete Maerz
#349994

 

Pete

 

I applaud you for taking a public stand against the petition. From what I understand the votes on the CRBSCCA site are about 50:50. So what we are NOT seeing on this forum are the people that are actively against the petition. So for that I thank you and I would encourage others who have diverging opinions to express them openly here. I appreciate the courage that it takes to express what appears to be an unpopular view, just because it apeats to go against the popular grain. Thanks for openly doing that.

 

My personal viewpoint is that the allowances being proposed in our petition are ACTUALLY CAUSING MANY DRIVERS TO VOTE AGAINST IT. Whether drivers fully understand the technical side or not, the proposed allowance in the petition appears to be supporting what appears to be the "cheating" that was exposed at the runoffs.

 

Whether there was any cheating or not, whether there was just deburring or not, I have NO IDEA as the results have NOT been made public. But to some it would appear as if there was outright cheating, and the way the dimensions are spec'd in our petition gives the appearance of endorsing that cheating. Perception is everything. Which is why I have openly expressed my opinion and responded to emails and IM's about my position.

 

PERSONALLY I AM DEAD AGAINST REVERTING TO STOCK HEADS AS I THINK THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE HAVES AND THE HAVE NOTS WILL ONLY INCREASE. It is also totally UNFAIR to punish ALL drivers for something done by others.

 

I have also signed the petition, even though I do not agree with the dimensions being proposed. I fully understand that there will be an opportunity to revise the STR allowance dimension and possibly offer something that is more in keeping with the current rule that specs that NO material be removed.

 

I have written letters to the CRB against reverting to stock heads, but if it goes that way I will embrace the change and encourage everyone to get out on the track and have some fun

 

We all want the same thing - large fields, close wheel-to-wheel racing, with lots of smiles in the pits afterwards with our fellow drivers, knowing that he kicked our butts because he was the better driver, not because he out-motored you.

[Parity]

 

 

My personal viewpoint is that the allowances being proposed in our petition are ACTUALLY CAUSING MANY DRIVERS TO VOTE AGAINST IT. Whether drivers fully understand the technical side or not, the proposed allowance in the petition appears to be supporting what appears to be the "cheating" that was exposed at the runoffs.

 

 

Several folks I spoke with would not sign because of the .25" blend even though they were in favor of preserving the plunge. I originally signed it when it stated .025" and removed my signature when it was changed to .25". With the main objective being to preserve existing legal heads, I ultimately I decided to sign it but sent a letter to John Mueller explaining my position.

[tony senese]

When the original plunge cut was allowed I was a little concerned..... if we allow .250" blending on the STR, we might as well allow open heads!!!!  That is ridiculous, there is NO OTHER REASON than to increase air flow for such a LARGE blended dimension. The extra machining within the original 9mm plunge cut depth is already against the reasoning for the plunge cut.  ALL the heads I saw at Sonoma had that extra bit of "smoothing".  CREEP my A$$, .250 blending is just plain WRONG!!!!!!!

[Waterboy]

Going back to stock heads is just plain stupid, but so isn't allowing the blending.

[tony senese]

Rob, allowing deburring I get, allowing  1/4 inch blending is allowing porting and polishing, if we are going to do that, we might as well go to open heads!   Verifying the degree of blending without taking off the head isn't possible, but if a head is taken off, it is easy to see deburring vs .250" blending, you can use a friggin ruler for that, no debate!  Having had to try to measure or verify in tech at Sonoma myself I can tell you I can verify .025 vs .250...... so blending/deburring .025.... I can live with.

[Brandon]

I can see where folks are a bit confused and I'd welcome being corrected myself if I misunderstand it.

 

If memory serves (and I suppose I could go find the picture and text associated with it to actually verify, but I'm lazy), said 1/4" was measured from the the "valve seat edge" (with the valves pointing down, the top-most ridge/edge of a 3-angle valve job) into the STR.  

 

NOT from the end of the seat 1/4" into the STR!

 

The issue is the plunge-cut REMOVES THE VALVE SEAT and so after seat installation and valve job you are then permitted to debur/blend/remove material within 1/4" of the this valve seat edge, of which some portion of that 1/4" is part of the seat itself.  The reason for the dimension being "so big" is to ensure compliance across a range of plunge-cut depths - some may need to go the full 12mm, others may only need to go 8mm but that 1/4" is still going to be measured starting at the same place - within the valve seat.

 

This is where I think people are hearing "Quarter inch?!  That's porting!!!" and presuming it's measuring virgin AL starting at the end of the plunge cut.

Another thing to remember is this measurement is taken along a curve so the absolute intrusion into the intake port is less than said 1/4".  And really, when was the last time you looked at 1/4" and thought "Man!  That's huge!"  

 

Because I am NOT an engine builder (but I like debating topics with people on the Internet  ), this debate was why I did not include a number/value with my proposal to the CRB.

 

I signed the petition, sent one letter denouncing the 'stock head rule' and sent a second indicating what I felt was needed to ensure repeatably verifiable compliance.  This second letter covered tightening up definitions of what pieces we're discussing (STR, axially concentric, some other items...) and ensuring there was an allowance for knocking down a sharp edge post-machining while keeping folks from getting greedy with their rattail files.