20 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

Sorry guys, the first one of these got lost so doing it again. Simple poll to see what people expect from their pro builders when it comes to stretching the rules to keep you competitive.

It is not intended to be negative or start yet another argument about cheating, so don't try to read anything more into it than an attempt to get a sense of what people really expect. It is a private poll so others can't see how you voted.

[Steve Scheifler]

SHIT, happened again!,,

Will try to fix it...


OK, if you already voted on this one please check try again.

Damn Jim, it's not only slow but flaky too. Don't force me to take my poll somewhere else! 😉

[Jim Drago]

We are working on it

[Ron Alan]

Super slow...almost like a stock head

[Steve Scheifler]

Super slow...almost like a stock head

😂😂😂😂😂


And the emoticons aren't working.

Anyway, this get a huge laugh from me!!

[Ron Alan]

FYI Steve...I have never seen an emoticon from you. Just a colorless square each time...I thought that meant something but was to stupid to figure it out! 

[Steve Scheifler]

FYI Steve...I have never seen an emoticon from you. Just a colorless square each time...I thought that meant something but was to stupid to figure it out!

Now THAT's FUNNY!

[Tom Hampton]

The granularity is still to wide. The degree of "non-compliance" matters (minor, moderate, egregious). I'm Ok with anything done by a Scotch Brite pad.

[Jason J Ball]

Missing one option in your poll Steve.

"I have a machine shop head with legal valve job, unshroud, deck, and plunge cuts with no STR work."

[Steve Scheifler]

Not the point of the poll. The focus is on how people feel about builders pushing the limits, with STR work being a convenient example. I could list lots of prep-level variations and the results would be interesting, but that's an entirely differnt question and would blur the meaning.

[Steve Scheifler]

The granularity is still to wide. The degree of "non-compliance" matters (minor, moderate, egregious). I'm Ok with anything done by a Scotch Brite pad.

But that's impossible to quantify for the poll and people will have different definitions of "acceptable". For this it needs to be pretty much black & white, are you OK with YOUR builder taking risks on your behalf? No poll is perfect and I tend to be very critical of most, but sometimes it really is best to draw a fairly sharp line so people have to choose one side or the other. Follow-up comments like yours are always an option.

[john mueller]

Missing one option in your poll Steve.

"I have a machine shop head with legal valve job, unshroud, deck, and plunge cuts with no STR work."

 

Spot on Jason.  This is where I believe most of the heads land.

[Cnj]

Spot on Jason.  This is where I believe most of the heads land.

John,

Its hard to ask any question in the current forum climate of tension, so please take my question as a genuine one and not intended to be combative. Respectfully, how do you come to this conclusion?

My observation is that most people really do think that thier machined heads are legal to a strict interpretation of the current rule (as per Runnoffs inspections) - but I am skeptical. I think that probably the majority will fail the test. Legal would include, as I understand it, no use even of Emory paper to clean up the area, or what many (arguably most) builders, including the article linked earlier today, consider as normal machining cleanup. I'm not arguing the correctness or not of the rule interpretation, nor whether its possible to machine to the rule, simply whether most existing heads would pass this interpretation.

CNJ

[Steve Scheifler]

Exactly.

But again, that has absolutely nothing to do with this poll. If you have "pro head", pretend for a moment that you don't know exactly what was done to it. Financial considerations aside, would you be more disappointed that you got "less" for your money than what many others have run for years, or that you were expecting a "legal" head but got one that would have failed Runoffs tech this year? That's it, regardless of what you think you actually have.

[john mueller]

John,

Its hard to ask any question in the current forum climate of tension, so please take my question as a genuine one and not intended to be combative. Respectfully, how do you come to this conclusion?

My observation is that most people really do think that thier machined heads are legal to a strict interpretation of the current rule (as per Runnoffs inspections) - but I am skeptical. I think that probably the majority will fail the test. Legal would include, as I understand it, no use even of Emory paper to clean up the area, or what many (arguably most) builders, including the article linked earlier today, consider as normal machining cleanup. I'm not arguing the correctness or not of the rule interpretation, nor whether its possible to machine to the rule, simply whether most existing heads would pass this interpretation.

CNJ

 

Maybe I'm an optimist but I don't agree that "the majority will fail the test"...  Not sure why I feel that way, just do.  I have no data or evidence to support my 'claim" it's just my gut (hope).

 

I guess technically "even (use) of Emory paper to clean up the area" would get someone DQ'd. I don't have a rebuttal to that but can't say definitively yup or nope.  Remember, measuring the STR is stupid hard to do.  Irrespective of what folks here and what the petition suggests, it's tough.  It's a small area that even in a well lit room with flashlights it's nearly impossible to see let alone measure.  Some go/no-go tooling would have to be developed or a knowledgeable SM Tech Compliance Team to be created to handle such cases   (hint hint).

[Ron Alan]

John M,

 

with the current debate on plunge cuts and Peak HP...you have my permission to share any info you gathered on the dyno last weekend! You did dyno a 01, 99 and 95 and looked at all those heads. And pretty sure you dynoed a couple 1.6 cars as well? Hopefully you know the temps those cars dynoed at...that is pretty important.

 

I actually feel that should all be public knowledge anyways...

[Cnj]

Maybe I'm an optimist but I don't agree that "the majority will fail the test"...  Not sure why I feel that way, just do.  I have no data or evidence to support my 'claim" it's just my gut (hope).
 
I guess technically "even (use) of Emory paper to clean up the area" would get someone DQ'd. I don't have a rebuttal to that but can't say definitively yup or nope.  Remember, measuring the STR is stupid hard to do.  Irrespective of what folks here and what the petition suggests, it's tough.  It's a small area that even in a well lit room with flashlights it's nearly impossible to see let alone measure.  Some go/no-go tooling would have to be developed or a knowledgeable SM Tech Compliance Team to be created to handle such cases   (hint hint).

John,

Thanks for responding. OK, I'll bite on your hint...

So can we get a full time Mazda trained compliance team who can move around the country for random checks?

CNJ

[Bruce Wilson]

 

Maybe I'm an optimist but I don't agree that "the majority will fail the test"...  Not sure why I feel that way, just do.  I have no data or evidence to support my 'claim" it's just my gut (hope).

 

I guess technically "even (use) of Emory paper to clean up the area" would get someone DQ'd. I don't have a rebuttal to that but can't say definitively yup or nope.  Remember, measuring the STR is stupid hard to do.  Irrespective of what folks here and what the petition suggests, it's tough.  It's a small area that even in a well lit room with flashlights it's nearly impossible to see let alone measure.  Some go/no-go tooling would have to be developed or a knowledgeable SM Tech Compliance Team to be created to handle such cases   (hint hint).

 

 

It is my belief that the reliance of go/no-go tooling partly responsible for what got us into trouble.  When tech could visibly see there were modifications, those tools where no longer relevant.

[chris haldeman]

The current tooling is great at measuring the max diameter of plunge and un shroud cuts. Very good very repeatable Reguardless of user. Str will be subjective too new tooling or trained tech team

[Bruce Wilson]

The current tooling is great at measuring the max diameter of plunge and un shroud cuts. Very good very repeatable Reguardless of user. Str will be subjective too new tooling or trained tech team

The point I was trying to get across was that the go/no-go tools seemed to become the only measure that builders relied upon, and everything that they couldn't measure became tech shed legal (an educated hunch only).  I'm also guessing tech was disgusted with stuff that was clearly obvious even to the untrained eye..  It seems the definition of tech shed legal got pushed to the limits, but again, this is only conjecture, as I wasn't there.  The tools all have their place in the process, but solely relying upon them is dangerous for all.  Same with the Whistler.