207 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

Taxation without representation, to borrow a phrase:

 

We are all patiently awaiting the outcome of the decision being considered regarding the future of this class on some significant issues going forward.

 

I am glad that many of the class members have taken an interest in the issues and the class and has expressed their opinion and written letters.

 

I do however have some concerns. Mainly that the decision is being made by the “Spec Miata Working Group” which is largely devoid of representation from representatives of the SCCA racing community. Generally our voice is heard and interests advanced in the rule making process by the SMAC,

 

There is no representative of the SMAC or an equivalent substitute, on the working committee. I mention “Equivalent Substitute” because I am aware that part of the reason for excluding some or all of the SMAC is because some perceived that they have contributed to the problem. My response to this is, that it does not prevent you from listening to what they have to say and weigh for yourself the value of the opinions given. Alternatively, you could look to other knowledgeable class members who may have good and valuable opinions to provide.

 

This is a concern because if the issue is what is in the best interest of the class up for debate, it only makes sense to me that representatives of the class participate in the debate.

 

Some of the best decisions are made when you bring people into the debate who voice totally opposite opinions, allowing all sides of the issues to be fully debated on both sides. One-sided opinions lead to one sided decision.

 

Transparency

 

 

We have been told that the intent is to be totally transparent in the process. We are told that we will be able to see the results of the independent testing that is underway which will be the basis of much of the decision making. This is a positive. I would also like to see a summary of the letters written in support or opposition, if you will, of the rules to see the collective opinions of the majority of the class. For example, it would be my view that the decision should be driven by what the class wants. At the end of the day you will need a majority to follow it. It would be sad if we were making 70% of the class bend to the will of the 30%, if in fact that was the case. I am just suggesting to let us see the underlying basis for the decisions that will be made and of course have a voice in the process.

 

I understand we have all had an opportunity to send letters with our opinion, but the next step in the process is that the letters, the data, the rules, the best interest of the class are going to be debated, and we should have a voice there too.

[Tom Hampton]

+1

[James York]

I hope we get the information shared with us so we can see and understand the basis of any decisions.

[dstevens]

Taxation without representation, to borrow a phrase:

 

 

You gotta be shittin' me...

 

it's nothing like that.  Rules are being changed in a hobby race car class.  The over abundance of angst and drama displayed for the circumstance is overblown.  Your opinion has been considered and found not to be the direction of where the sanction and the manufacturer supporting the class want to go. They read what you had to say and didn't want to go that way.  That's how life works sometimes.  People don't always do what you suggest.  They are making a decision in which you don't agree.  Others though, agree with it.  Taxes are compulsory.  Racing your Miata is a luxury afforded by a comfortable life.  Several of you folks need to reach out and grab a giant slice of perspective.

 

Taking the input of those racing on the class on the AC is what got the class into this mess.  In fact if you guys would have bitched about not having suitable tech half as much as you've bitched about this the situation may have been avoided.  You're likely going to have to spend some money and some time with the new parts or run some weight.  It's a shitty deal for many but that's how it goes sometimes.  In the big picture a couple of grand isn't going to break your budget.  

 

The class isn't doomed by returning to a more basic head config.  Hurdle?  Sure.  Inconvenient, without a doubt and at an additional cost that I'm certain no one that has to do it wants to incur.  A couple of grand is non trivial and stings but in the big picture those that drive $20-30k cars spending well into five figures a year racing as a hobby can likely afford the change.  Those that don't wish to do that can sell their stuff and take up another hobby.

[MPR22]

You gotta be shittin' me...
 
it's nothing like that.  Rules are being changed in a hobby race car class.  The over abundance of angst and drama displayed for the circumstance is overblown.  Your opinion has been considered and found not to be the direction of where the sanction and the manufacturer supporting the class want to go. They read what you had to say and didn't want to go that way.  That's how life works sometimes.  People don't always do what you suggest.  They are making a decision in which you don't agree.  Others though, agree with it.  Taxes are compulsory.  Racing your Miata is a luxury afforded by a comfortable life.  Several of you folks need to reach out and grab a giant slice of perspective.
 
Taking the input of those racing on the class on the AC is what got the class into this mess.  In fact if you guys would have bitched about not having suitable tech half as much as you've bitched about this the situation may have been avoided.  You're likely going to have to spend some money and some time with the new parts or run some weight.  It's a shitty deal for many but that's how it goes sometimes.  In the big picture a couple of grand isn't going to break your budget.  
 
The class isn't doomed by returning to a more basic head config.  Hurdle?  Sure.  Inconvenient, without a doubt and at an additional cost that I'm certain no one that has to do it wants to incur.  A couple of grand is non trivial and stings but in the big picture those that drive $20-30k cars spending well into five figures a year racing as a hobby can likely afford the change.  Those that don't wish to do that can sell their stuff and take up another hobby.

Says the guy who has yet to turn a lap. His opinion as all opinions are all valid. The SCCA has knee jerk decioms not even following their own rules and procedures. And yes we should call them on it.

[38bfast]

The SMAC has been told to review all the letters and make their recomendation to the CRB. The CRB will review the SMAC recommendations as well as the "the special task force" and then make their recomdation to the BOD and the BOD will approve the final ruling.

[Johnny D]

James, the last part of the latest letter said that they would disclose the findings on which they would propose/make their decision. Posted on page 1 on the thread the "Latest, SCCA..."

 

 

But lets face it, this has/will effected most everyone who's been doing this for a season or 2 and nobodies happy.

 

So lets bottom line this. It's all about parity. I mean why are were here without it ??

 

Bringing the have nots, closer to the haves, with stock heads, fine, that works for closer parity at least for a while.

I think they've seen some leave for Chump and Lemons because of price and the fun factor.

 

The unknown is can there be parity with the combo?? Ok test, flow, dyno, calculate, test and run. with stock heads, HP/TQ drops for everyone so how does this bring parity, IDK ??

 

I hope they find it, maybe it will take some time, even after their best guess. Maybe the BoD will not approve their suggestion if their not close enough. IDK.

 

But bottom line, if there's parity, everyone, who's anyone, will return over time, no matter what the change are.

Parity is key.

J~

[Ron Alan]

 

 

 

I do however have some concerns. Mainly that the decision is being made by the “Spec Miata Working Group” which is largely devoid of representation from representatives of the SCCA racing community. Generally our voice is heard and interests advanced in the rule making process by the SMAC,

 

There is no representative of the SMAC or an equivalent substitute, on the working committee. I mention “Equivalent Substitute” because I am aware that part of the reason for excluding some or all of the SMAC is because some perceived that they have contributed to the problem. My response to this is, that it does not prevent you from listening to what they have to say and weigh for yourself the value of the opinions given. Alternatively, you could look to other knowledgeable class members who may have good and valuable opinions to provide.

 

This is a concern because if the issue is what is in the best interest of the class up for debate, it only makes sense to me that representatives of the class participate in the debate.

 

Some of the best decisions are made when you bring people into the debate who voice totally opposite opinions, allowing all sides of the issues to be fully debated on both sides. One-sided opinions lead to one sided decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Unless you have insider information Frank, i would assume you are making some assumptions here? Besides what i'm sure is a HUGE pile of emails and opinions from "class" members, I cant imagine the 3 organizations involved here at the highest level are going at this blindly or without pros in their respective fields. My guess is its not a one-sided decision...nor has anything been knee jerk from what I've seen.  At this point we will get what we get...after that you can vote...participate or dont! 

 

Is the current SMAC under gag order? At least half of them are normally pretty vocal but here its crickets?

 

My guess is it will be found plunge cuts do not create a huge bump in power and weight if any will be minimal. STR modes will have an extremely short window life...like none? 2 years back to stock heads regional...majors, 1 year starting with Daytona.

 

Says a guy who in 5 years has never turned a lap   

[FTodaro]

You gotta be shittin' me...

 

it's nothing like that.  Rules are being changed in a hobby race car class.  The over abundance of angst and drama displayed for the circumstance is overblown.  Your opinion has been considered and found not to be the direction of where the sanction and the manufacturer supporting the class want to go. They read what you had to say and didn't want to go that way.  That's how life works sometimes.  People don't always do what you suggest.  They are making a decision in which you don't agree.  Others though, agree with it.  Taxes are compulsory.  Racing your Miata is a luxury afforded by a comfortable life.  Several of you folks need to reach out and grab a giant slice of perspective.

 

Taking the input of those racing on the class on the AC is what got the class into this mess.  In fact if you guys would have bitched about not having suitable tech half as much as you've bitched about this the situation may have been avoided.  You're likely going to have to spend some money and some time with the new parts or run some weight.  It's a shitty deal for many but that's how it goes sometimes.  In the big picture a couple of grand isn't going to break your budget.  

 

The class isn't doomed by returning to a more basic head config.  Hurdle?  Sure.  Inconvenient, without a doubt and at an additional cost that I'm certain no one that has to do it wants to incur.  A couple of grand is non trivial and stings but in the big picture those that drive $20-30k cars spending well into five figures a year racing as a hobby can likely afford the change.  Those that don't wish to do that can sell their stuff and take up another hobby.

Relax Dave, I was just making a point that the announcement of who is on the working group are class outsiders and the indication was that they were excluding the SMAC due to the conflict of interest issues. If they did not want to rely of the SMAC members then I hope they go elsewhere in the class and consult. 

 

This was before Ralph (38bfast) who is on the SMAC posted that they are going to make a recommendation and present that to the CRB who will in turn submit to the BOD. That was new information to me.

 

I realize that you do not agree with my opinions about this that is fine by me, but i thought the post was pretty neutral no matter what way you think this should go, to just make sure that they include someone on our behalf in the room. 

 

Yes I can afford to buy new heads, but surprisingly my opinions are not driven by that alone. Its more of the practical problem of enforcement of the rule going forward. I predict many people will not convert heads or take weight for two reasons. 1) they feel they will not be torn down or protested based upon the events they run and 2) they really do not know for sure what is done to the head. The easy part of this will be passing a rule.

[MPR22]

Unless you have insider information Frank, i would assume you are making some assumptions here? Besides what i'm sure is a HUGE pile of emails and opinions from "class" members, I cant imagine the 3 organizations involved here at the highest level are going at this blindly or without pros in their respective fields. My guess is its not a one-sided decision...nor has anything been knee jerk from what I've seen.  At this point we will get what we get...after that you can vote...participate or dont! 

 

Is the current SMAC under gag order? At least half of them are normally pretty vocal but here its crickets?

 

My guess is it will be found plunge cuts do not create a huge bump in power and weight if any will be minimal. STR modes will have an extremely short window life...like none? 2 years back to stock heads regional...majors, 1 year starting with Daytona.

 

Says a guy who in 5 years has never turned a lap   

Ron, 

 

With all do respect from one red neck to another (even if yours is from drinking too much Cab),  the first e-mail regarding a rules change was total knee jerk reaction.  You don't tell a class that a majority of their cylinder heads will become non-compliant and need to be replaced because you had a problem with people seeing the grey area in a rule set with rose color glasses.  You penalize, clarify if you feel necessary and move on.  What should really be addressed at this time are any competition adjustments that had been shelved for 3 years.  You should be shouting from the roof tops you need 1mm more on restrictor plate  and 200 rpm for your NA 1.8.  Instead we are all debating what the weight penalty should be for running what has been a legal head for 3+ years.  

 

I dare say nothing will be done to make the competition closer between model years, and if it is being discussed, they are better at keeping secrets than CIA.

[pat slattery]

I think OBAMA said we would have full transparency also 

[Ron Alan]

I think OBAMA said we would have full transparency also 

And that he is not a King or Emperor as well  God, dont get this red neck started...

 

Michael...respect accepted! Maybe for me knee jerk is a time thing, It didnt happen overnight and many were involved. And I get why they went there...but I'm with you and think it over-reached. Still time to rectify I believe and hope. We are paired up in the gunny sack race with everything else you mentioned! And it should be 2mm and 300rpm

[Johnny D]

Ron, 

 

With all do respect from one red neck to another (even if yours is from drinking too much Cab),  the first e-mail regarding a rules change was total knee jerk reaction.  You don't tell a class that a majority of their cylinder heads will become non-compliant and need to be replaced because you had a problem with people seeing the grey area in a rule set with rose color glasses.  You penalize, clarify if you feel necessary and move on.  What should really be addressed at this time are any competition adjustments that had been shelved for 3 years.  You should be shouting from the roof tops you need 1mm more on restrictor plate  and 200 rpm for your NA 1.8.  Instead we are all debating what the weight penalty should be for running what has been a legal head for 3+ years.  

 

I dare say nothing will be done to make the competition closer between model years, and if it is being discussed, they are better at keeping secrets than CIA.

 

You must be missing something here, IMO.

 

They are taking all the model, all the head, weights, flow, dyno, test to get everthing as close as possible (with stock heads being rule)

And until you do that, how can you complain about your RP, because you don't even know what that is yet ??

J~

[pat slattery]

So they are testing 1.6, 1.8, NB, and NC cars all on the dyno with and without plunge cuts, I would like to see that data

[Johnny D]

So they are testing 1.6, 1.8, NB, and NC cars all on the dyno with and without plunge cuts, I would like to see that data

 

Yes. Also for those who haven't seen it...

 

 

TO: Spec Miata Participants

FR: SCCA, NASA, Mazda Motorsports, and the Spec Miata Working Group

RE: Class Intent, Direction and Regulations

DT: November 14, 2014

 

 

In the spirit of open communication, we wanted to update you with where we are at in the process layed out in last week's memo to the SM community. Additionally, we have been asked to share more details regarding what the working group of industry experts uncovered in Topeka, Kansas, where the non-compliant cylinder heads are stored, during the investigation into the illegally modified cylinder heads protested at the 2014 SCCA Runoffs; below we shed a little more light. Thank you to all of those who have spent the time sharing their thoughts with us.

 

As a reminder:

 

The Spec Miata (SM) class is intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost, production-based cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.

 

The rules are intentionally designed to be more open than the Showroom Stock class but more restricted than the Improved Touring class.

 

The working group that visited Topeka discovered that there was a variance in the amount of smoothing, blending and porting of the sharp edge from the plunge cut among the illegal heads; some were egregious - a clear violation of the rules in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. Others were less severe, but still a violation of the rule. Some have suggested that we should adjust the rule in order to allow for a certain level of blending and porting. In keeping with the intent and integrity of the class, NASA and the SCCA, with council from Mazda, determined that would not be the best course for the class. It would increase costs for the competitors who have not violated the rules and for the future entrants of the class; this is in direct contradiction of the spirit of this class, which we desire to keep costs manageable and to have a fair and level playing field.

A challenge we are presented with is that there are competitors who have plunge cuts that had engine builders who de-burred and smoothed the sharp edge in their belief of practicing "good clean-up." This is inevitably an issue that the plunge cut provides, along with additional costs to perform, and to measure or tech. As a result, returning to stock cylinder heads is ultimately the goal and in alignment with the intent of this class. Many of those who have compliant cylinder heads, per the rule set, have asked a very fair question of why they may receive a weight adjustment. First, please know that if weight adjustments are given, this adjustment would not be punitive; the weight adjustments, if any, would be targeted to offset the advantage in horsepower of the plunge cut over a stock head - to equalize them. The benefits of the weight adjustment to the class would be as follows:

• It will allow all racers with currently compliant heads to continue to race those engines.

 

• It will encourage anyone building a new engine to use a stock head, rather than spend money on performance increases that would be neutralized with additional weight.

 

• It will also give racers who currently race with stock heads an equal chance against engines with legally performed plunge cut heads.

Recognizing the number of modified cylinder heads in the community (both compliant and non-compliant), the expense to replace these and the potential parts availability concern, the working group agreed to have an independent, third party test and determine the effect of the individual and collective modifications; this process is underway. The testing group is currently gathering various cylinder heads and engines. The group will flow test heads first, then run all heads on the same engine, then do the same exercise again with another engine. The testing group will dyno various cylinder heads to determine what horsepower advantages the modifications have, ranging from those egregious to the compliant, compared to one another and to stock heads. These findings will be shared with SCCA, NASA, and Mazda and in turn be shared with the entire Spec Miata community.

 

Using these data, the weight adjustments, if any, will be determined and outlined during the December 14 SCCA Board of Directors meeting, in conjunction with NASA's determination. NASA, SCCA, and Mazda are working together to help make the right decision for the good of the class - one where members will have the opportunity to compete in low-cost, production-based cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.

 

As always, we appreciate your support,

 

Lisa Noble, SCCA President and CEO

John Doonan, Mazda Motorsports Director

John Mueller, NASA Spec Miata National Director

Robert Clarke, SCCA Pro Racing President/SCCA VP of Business Development

Tony Ave, SCCA Club Racing Board

Steve Sanders, MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development Manager

Mike Allen, MAZDASPEED Motorsports Development Specialist

[Parity]

 

So they are testing 1.6, 1.8, NB, and NC cars all on the dyno with and without plunge cuts, I would like to see that data

 

 

NC?? Did I miss something? I hope this is a typo. I haven't seen anything stating NC is being considered in SM.

[Brandon]

I'd consider the inclusion of the NC as a type-o...

 

And as others have noted, they (both sanctioning bodies & MSP) are currently gathering a significant volume of data in cooperation with someone who is able to perform all the instrumented tests they wish to run.  It is my understanding these data points will then be used to formulate any changes/alterations in the current weight/plate or any allowed machining.

 

The lack of information and/or involvement of the SMAC at this juncture is because they've not been asked to participate.  I have my own thoughts on why that is the case and have heard opinions from others but those weren't necessarily shared with me to be disseminated across the Internet.  

 

Rightly or wrongly, the SMAC has been excluded from this data gathering process and going forward, it is my understanding (and reading of the information releases) the working group, combined with letters to the CRB, will make the proposal to the Board for any changes.  

 

Remember folks, the SMAC is just that, and advisory committee to the CRB.  The SMAC reviews various components of the SM environment, determines if any proposals need to be made to the CRB, and from there, any proposals the CRB thinks should be implemented are forwarded to the Board for approval.

 

Patience & procedures are needed at this point.

[Bench Racer]

It's way to quite on the site.

How about some speculation/WAG's on who is doing the dyno tests and gathering the data. 

[Qik Nip]

"Those that don't wish to do that can sell their stuff and take up another hobby."

 

Admittedly I've pulled this phrase somewhat out of context, but lest we forget the Rule of Price Elasticiity from Economics 101, an increase in the cost of a good will reduce the amount of the good sold. In this case that ultimetly means fewer race entrants if the cost of campaigning a SM increases. Also let's not lose track of how few $40K SM's exist, versus the many in the $10K range. Let's hope the CRB makes a Solomon like recommendation to the BOD for its decision....

Rick 

[MPR22]

You must be missing something here, IMO.

 

They are taking all the model, all the head, weights, flow, dyno, test to get everthing as close as possible (with stock heads being rule)

And until you do that, how can you complain about your RP, because you don't even know what that is yet ??

J~

Recognizing the number of modified cylinder heads in the community (both compliant and non-compliant), the expense to replace these and the potential parts availability concern, the working group agreed to have an independent, third party test and determine the effect of the individual and collective modifications; this process is underway. The testing group is currently gathering various cylinder heads and engines. The group will flow test heads first, then run all heads on the same engine, then do the same exercise again with another engine. The testing group will dyno various cylinder heads to determine what horsepower advantages the modifications have, ranging from those egregious to the compliant, compared to one another and to stock heads. These findings will be shared with SCCA, NASA, and Mazda and in turn be shared with the entire Spec Miata community.

 

It does not say they are performing a comparative analysis from model to model.  I read it as they are just trying to get comparative analysis between stock heads and plunge cut heads of same model year.  Hopefully on the same test mule.  

 

They should really be testing about 20 stock heads of each model year and see what the variance is between those heads.  If they randomly choose a great head or a bad head out of the stock pile then the comparison isn't really valid.  I would go a step further and test each stock head, then perform the plunge cut on each of them and retest those.