Tom, Tom, Tom...where to start, where to start....you are entitled to your opinion about me and what I say/write as I am about you. Yet I think I'll find some maturity and keep it out of the public view - that's just me.
I'm not really sure about what you're attempting to do or your reasons but trying to 'call me out' about sharing anything in regards to what's discussed on the SMAC calls is beyond strange. The discussions are to be kept confidential yes (in an effort to disincline anyone from attempting to persuade any of us in one direction or another or to give away any specific decisions), but it does not preclude us from sharing our opinions in public. This is what I've done.
Stated facts (the WDYT, the general direction of responses to it), an opinion about those responses, and my own conclusion about the string of events.
It was a lead-in to my own personal opinion about what should be done with the 1.6L (including necessary caveats and "founding statements" about it not being a current avenue of SMAC discussion) and a suggestion about how it could be implemented. And there is such thing as 'off the record' but that would only need to be said if someone was sharing data explicitly not for public consumption. What I shared was nothing more than the same opinion I expressed on our calls and a gross generalization of the instigator of my opinion.
You missed my point. As a member of the SMAC, your opinion is ALWAYS reflective of some part of the SMAC. AT a minimum it is the opinion of one member: YOU. Saying "this is my personal opinion, not the opinion of the SMAC" doesn't change that fact. Frankly, I think it does more harm than good for the SMAC members to come out with opinions that differ from that of the SMAC consensus. the SMAC, CRB, BOD, and Spec Miata Working Group need to communicate with the SM community more regularly and transparently....but, that needs to be done as one voice, not by individual members stating things that may or may not be the concensus of the group.
I'll be the first to admit the SCCA does a poor job of communicating to the various constituents and perhaps that's where another function of advisory committees (AC) needs to be permitted: communicating to the participants in the class to which you are providing advisory services. That's something I'll take up with the BoD the next time I visit with any of the 3 in our division.
To your point about the "SM super committee" and its function/purpose? I think there was a lot of wrong information and presumptions all lumped into this overriding term. It was my understanding (and anyone with accurate information otherwise please clarify) that shortly after the 2014 Runoffs, there was a desire to catalog exactly what the allowed head modifications actually returned in terms of performance. I believe the idea was to test each stage/phase of head preparation (from stock, to mildly machined, to full-rules preparation) that was permitted by the rules. There was a single vendor selected to perform these tests using provided heads and it was a "consensus agreement" between Mazda, SCCA, & NASA to do this.
I can't speak to the exact goals of the testing (whether in support of 'return to stock', further allowances, or somewhere in between) or even the actual output numbers as I don't recall they were ever shared with the SMAC. Regardless, this was the "SM Supercommittee" as you have used the term and my only answer to accusations of not sharing the data is the head rules were not changed.
Now, there also was an additional amount of work done, by another vendor, in an effort to review the WDYT (or at least a subset of those recommendations). This was the batch of data Ralph mentioned about not helping where the 1.6L specifically needs it but rather putting it at a higher level of output across the RPM range.
From the November 14, 2014 letter (from the Spec Miata Working Group):
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.
(bold is mine).
While the goal of this data was (as you state) to determine the advantage of the STR variation, it would go a long way to comparing the performance variation between generations. I say this somewhat sarcastically, because the amount of work involved in the testing simply due to the number of configuration variations is well beyond what I think anyone had the understanding of, or the intent to fund:
By my count the above is 3-4-ish heads per engine variant, 4 engine variants (1.6, 1.8, 99, vvt), 2 each engines per variant. That's 24-32 engine/head test configurations, all of which need to be flow tested and dyno'd enough times to have confidence in the variations and account for measurement noise (systematic and random). That's a fair amount of money just in hardware, and we haven't started adding up labor.
There are a whole host of other issues associated with the "plan"; but even if incomplete, it would have gone some part of the way to estabilishing a basline set of comparisons between generations with and without STR mods of varying degrees---all on the same dyno, all by the same shop.
There was a LOT of discussion at the time that the WDYT came out, on this forum. The only concensus that we ever really reached was that asking us to choose between a set of mods with ZERO data to support *ANY* of them, is pointless. I suppose we all could have written in and asked for data. Now, its come out that some data was obtained that didn't support ANY of these as a good choice (one that helps in the region that the 1.6 is generally thought to need it (more Tq below the dreaded 5500 rpm).
Was that data shared with the community? What the fact that they were tested (or even going to be tested) shared with the community?
My last comment on the accusations of 'not doing my job' or 'blaming the class' or even 'copping out': we will gladly consider you for the SMAC in 2016 if you wish to put in your resume and the time and effort to participate. Otherwise I'll write the same thing I have on multiple occasions prior:
If you feel there are changes needed, write the letter and try to provide data to support your request.
Letters stating "Do X." will receive the typical 'thank you for your input'.
I am not qualified to do either one. As has been documented, this is my first year racing...and its everything I can do to remember the right flag colors. Someday maybe I will consider participating....but, now would be grosly premature. I would seriously question the judgement of anyone who WANTED me in one of those positions, at this time. A man's got to know his limitations.
I'm not an internal combustion engine engineer. I know about this much: suck, squeeze, bang, blow. Ok, I know a little more than that. But, I do not know the subtlies associated with eeking out 2-4 ft-lbs on a 1.6L miata engine with a black-magic and voodoo based ECU. I have zero spare parts in my possession, and I don't own a dyno. So, I have precious little resource at my disposal by which to gather data and make a reasoned decision about how to improve the car. Plus, I'm, at least, 15 years behind the likes of Scheiffler and Bennet. Besides, as a group our focus is to COMPLY with the rules, not break them. So, how are we going to gather race data while mod'ing a car to explicitly be non-compliant?
Whether you or I or anyone else likes it, the fact is that the SMAC *is* the defacto leadership of the class. Sometimes Mueller goes a slightly different way, but he's still part of the larger collective...and I think he participates in the SMAC conference calls (last I heard). So, the fact is that group *IS* the leadership. As such, I expect that LEADERSHIP to do just that: lead. That means direct the solution to the problem.
That does not mean sit back and say, WDYT...and then fold because no one responded with a letter.
To be clear, I don't know if changes are needed. I don't have the data---and I don't have the means to obtain the data (but, the Spec Miata working Group WAS on the path to collect that data..or a first approximation of it). I'm not a good enough driver on my own to say that my results are in any way affected by any performance differential---in fact I'm sure they are NOT. Second (assuming a change is warranted), I don't know what changes would have the necessary impact. Apparently, neither does anybody else.
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
Report
