Sean-
The contrast I see is your:
"one specific motor builder" VS. "3" known builders that have been building this way for a many years.
"a limited competitive advantage (less than 2 hp) but a competitive advantage none the less" VS. "As far as performance advantage goes claims from none to +2hp have been announced. This is a very hard modification to compare. No 3rd party testing has been done to date to my knowledge."
As has been stated this is just a pissing match.
If all that was desired was a rules clarification, and a known radius of 1.5mm or .060R is being used and has been deemed legal why not put forward a rule that reflects that radius.
Just my .02, if this was really worth any HP, all builders would be doing it. Maybe there is some technical reason others can't do a valve job with a radius cut, I don't know.
In my view this is more about being disruptive to competitors on and off the track than it is about rules clarification. That is my opinion.
Keith.... To answer your questions:
I was only personally aware of one builder. That builder who was directly involved in the STR gate and admitted publicly to building motors with more compression because he knew the whistler process wouldn't catch it. A motor builder with history. There has been testing done and we have seen advantages, but there are others who have done testing and say it does nothing. The testing that has been done has not been done by anyone independent so all of the data can always be looked at as flawed. Common sense applies here.... It is my understanding that the cutter required to make this cut is not a cutter that is just sitting around the shop. It had to be custom built to perform this exact cut, so it was an active choice to try to improve the flow. I applaud the ingenuity, but I and others don't believe it to be legal with the rule and wanted a clarification. If it does nothing then what's the problem tightening up the rule?
If it was just a pissing contest, why not just show up and protest one of his cars and potentially cause him some more public humiliation? I don't build motors or sell motors so I'm not sure what the pissing contest would be about.
I am the one who penned the first pass of the rule that was sent directly to the CRB. It has (rightly so) changed quite a bit to be better and more clear. It was at this point that .060R was added in. I asked for .040. as a compromise given discussion that there were motors in existence that had these radius cuts performed. After lengthy discussion with several of the people involved it seemed the right thing to do was to limit the amount of expense to the racer. Limiting that expense in my mind is means is cheaper for people to re-machine an existing head that has a radius to bring it into compliance with the new rule (if they chose to go that route) versus having to go out and buy new heads for those that were straight cut since that material can not be put back.
I'm not involved in determining what is or is not legal, I just want a clarification so myself and others can choose to make the change or not based on written enforceable rule and not verbal hearsay. I'm not sure how you can be pissed at me for wanting a simple clarification. Coming off the heels of the 14 Runoffs, now is the time to make the appropriate changes to tighten up areas of the rule book that need help.
The rule in my mind is and was very clear as the opening statement in the engine rules section says the following:
No modifications to this engine are allowed, except where specifically authorized within these rules. This includes, but is not limited to, all fuel injection and engine manage- ment components, as well as electrical, cooling, and lubri- cation systems. All systems are subject to test procedures and must conform to OEM specifications as stated in the Mazda factory service manual.
There are obviously differing view points on this which is why the clarification is needed. The fact that this is even an issue again speaks to how good and close the class is.
"In my view this is more about being disruptive to competitors on and off the track than it is about rules clarification. That is my opinion. "
Your are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But I would argue that if you look at actions here it clearly shows that this could have been handled in a MUCH larger way which would have been disruptive to competitors as well as the overall health of the class.
I had a technical question about a rule and was not able to get an answer. When that happens you only have 1 current choice in SCCA Land and that is a protest. There is no longer a way to ask for a clarification within the GCR. If you call Topeka, they can't give you anything either... They refer you to the GCR. So, as I see it me taking the time and public heat to try to get this clarification is the exact opposite of being disruptive to the class. I asked questions for years about the STR and I was always told not to worry about it. I was told it has passed Runoffs inspections several times so that means it's legal. I need more than hearsay and rumor.... I simply want a public clarification so that myself and others can choose to make the changes or not.
Sean