207 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

Ralph I hate to even respond to this thread but your example is compelling regarding the guy that re did his stuff at the beginning of this year who may now not be compliant with this proposed rule change,

 

My thought is, if there is an argument that the rule was legitimately subject to two different interpretations, and you want to clean up the rule fine, but fairness would dictate that you build in a pretty good sunset provision, or give plenty of time for compliance,  Because if the rule was ambiguous, the racer should not be punished for that, that is the clubs problem with the way the rule was written. 

 

In the legal world, ambiguity is construed against the drafter, meaning that the shortcomings of the rule should not work against the racers who were just trying to follow a ambiguous rule.

 

If there is going to be a rule clarification, then information needs to be communicated to the class about when it would become law and how much time people have to comply, that is what the debate should be about.

 

Now can we work some parity into this discussion

[wheel]

The old compliance review section was based on sending in a request which went directly to a Court of Appeals, consisting of a group of Stewards.  The new proposed rule allows you to ask whether something you are doing (or want to do) is compliant with the GCR.  This question will be answered by technical folks and experts in the class in question, not by Stewards.  The fact is that this will only be used on very rare occasions. If a compliance review had been requested for this issue, the CRB would probably have suggested that the rule be clarified and that the fee be refunded to the person who asked for the review.  Because this rule is not now in place, the CRB reacted to a letter in the letter system, and asked the SMAC for their input.  In addition the CRB sought input from other experts in the class.  The result is the REC rule for 2016.

 

wheel

[Tom Hampton]

I thought it was obvious that this rule change hurts the 1.6 more than it does the other years.  It's clearly a VAAAASSSST SCCA (NB-fan club, SMAC, CRB, BoD) conspiracy to further relegate the 1.6 into obscurity. 

 

I've already taken my piddly little stupid popup headlights....and I'm going home. 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I'm hoping I've not taken anything here out of context Kyle...

 

I'm now a contributor to SMAC.  While I have to respect the process of rule making I can't stand by and listen to constant hyperbole.  

 

 

1.  The touted performance advantage folks have been tossing around is utter bullshit.  To my knowledge it has not been tested by someone not connected to SM and oh won't ever be.  Why? Because any advantage would be lost in the correction factors of a chassis dyno or in the many many many friction points of the drivetrains of various cars that would have to be tested to get a large enough sample size to provide relevant data. MEANING: If you have a position to prove you can get a dyno to say what you want it to say.  Agree

 

2.  We are several years down the road where the radiuses/beveled/chamfered cuts have not been disputed via bygone review process or via a protest.  Intent of the rule may be disputable but is completely irrelevant this far removed from it's inception. Passed tech but never a protest!

 

3.  We just did this shit.  And now another pissing match between engine builders have yet again held the class hostage, well at least our wallets.  Who does this sort of change harm???   Everyone except the engine builders.  Now, those with radius'd cuts won't need to toss their heads but they need to have them re-cut and some of those haven't run a race in 2015 yet, but for next year they'll need to have them worked again.  Bullocks if you ask me.  And for what?  A disputed gain that is not proven is an advantage???  Someone remind me how many 90 degree cut heads have won RunOffs since this rule has been in place?  Oh yeah, ALL OF THEM!  I do not feel sorry if they have not run a race this year as I have not since I am still working on a legal engine thanks to scca/nasa and super group.  

 

4.  I call bullshit on your "anyone who is competitive"...  Rules should not be made for the pointy end of Majors fields.  Maybe Majors should be splintered off to go mess themselves up and not the whole class.  You and I both know full well the rules are for the pointy end except the dent in the door or quarter pannel rules.  Little to no tech has ever been done at a regional or a nasa race other then the podium of a majors or a nasa nats. so call bullshit all you want and till you put the nasa money where the mouth is you know you aint winnin that argument

 

5.  This is where I get frazzled.  While I don't think this rule change is necessary I have no problem with it ultimately.  Making the rules more spec is a good thing.  I feel the timing of this rule is poor and when it goes into effect is at minimum 12 months too soon.  Cleaning up the grey areas is something SMAC should be doing and the CRB should take their advice to heart.  And Nasa should be doing the same!  the grey areas are a huge comtributor to where races are won or lost at least at the major events.  Driving is still king but if you have two hpand two tq.  on everyone and are a normal p5 driver you can win against the very best in class period amen.  

 

see above

[Tom Hampton]

Ok.  That makes sense.  If the new compliance review rules allows for a determination on PROPOSED work, then I understand. 

 

My read of what you posted was that it was only for completed (not proposed) modifications.

 

The old compliance review section was based on sending in a request which went directly to a Court of Appeals, consisting of a group of Stewards.  The new proposed rule allows you to ask whether something you are doing (or want to do) is compliant with the GCR.  This question will be answered by technical folks and experts in the class in question, not by Stewards.  The fact is that this will only be used on very rare occasions. If a compliance review had been requested for this issue, the CRB would probably have suggested that the rule be clarified and that the fee be refunded to the person who asked for the review.  Because this rule is not now in place, the CRB reacted to a letter in the letter system, and asked the SMAC for their input.  In addition the CRB sought input from other experts in the class.  The result is the REC rule for 2016.

 

wheel

[38bfast]

Frank you are completely understand the issue before us all. Thank you for your objectivity. No joke serious.

If we indeed want all our poop the same color (all the same rad) yes I would have to agree that time would need to be allotted for people to comply. IMHO min of two years. That my HO not the voice of the SMAC.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle just to play delves advocate.

Lets say you do have a head with a larger blend and the rule would make you non compliant. Per the GCR you MUST change your equipment to become compliant. You have just spent a boat load of money changing your head out due to STR and etc rulings so you can become complaint. Your car has yet to hit track and now comes down a rule that you have to do it all over again. I know this is a argued point but for this example lets say the big rad is legal. Remember the big rad has never been found non compliant.  As I have understood the rule change does not take plac till 2016????

There is no option for him. Per the our rules comply or don't race. Yes I know people will run non compliant but given the situation they were compliant and spent a lot of money and time to be compliant and now they are not again.  sorry Ralph i feel this has been my option so far this year and I have not raced because I am not yet legal.

Pointy end guys will switch heads like they are disposable toilet paper. So there would be no impact to them. Mid pack guys or regional guys are much more frugal. from what I have seen front runner replace their heads at least once a season. Mid pack guys (are largest customer base) seem to be on a 2-3 year cycle on head maintenance. Back of the pack guys one time for the life of the car. Yes I am generalizing lots of exceptions to that.  What do they really risk by not changing their heads out till they want to?  will we be now tearing down heads in the regionals etc to enforce this new rewright?  Hell no we wont because it would kill the class

So just after he spent a bunch of time and money to be compliant (witch he did not want to spend in the first place) you ask him to do it again at the end of the season. see above
just for numbers sake to pull the head, send it out, get it remachined, get it back, all new gaskets and etc. The cost to have it done $1500 to $2000. 3 sets of tires. I can not imagine that this guy is a happy camper at this point.Nobody but front end or majors racers wil do this anyway

So lets assume 400 heads need to be redone X $2000 = $800,000.00. I don't know about you but thats not a small number to me. Above

Then you tell the guy that the item he has to change has little to no impact on his performance.  So tell him that its 15hp if that makes you feel better

Remember per our rules bring a compliant car or don't race. He has NO option. But he is told the class will be much better for it.  Again many are racing cars they know or dont know to be non compliant and nothing is ever done about it.


now the flip side.
A lager blend is spec. Everyone in compliant per the rules. Now the guy with the small rad has a CHOICE. He can leave his head alone because it is compliant or if he can't live with out the radius he can lay down the cash or maybe in the future when the at the opportune time arises he can make the change. He does not HAVE to scrap anything. He has a choice. I am sure a mid pack guy or regional guy would be more than happy to purchase that sharp cut head.  I dont feel I am at a disadvantage to the RAD or DAR or whatever we want to call it, but if you want rules more spec then make them more spec!!!!!!


Either way someone is not going to jumping up and down with joy.  I hate freaking rules you know this about me!  its a neccessary evil to keep Danny Steyn from selling more machines and spending all his money and selling his wife into slavery to run an F1 car in SM... laugh all you want you know he would!!!!! 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Kyle, I think we do agree more than you think.

 

I am not on any rules or advisory committee. And do not go on facebook except for personal/family items. What happens/happened on the SM facebook page, I have no clue.

 

Please remember that 99% of the SM competitors do NOT refresh their cylinder head twice a year. Or even once a year. The majority of the people that make this class great, run the same motor for many years. Without ever taking it apart. That should be a testament to the quality of the basic product from Mazda, but also to the quality of all the engine builders out there. I am NOT an engine builder, I buy mine just like everybody else.

 

95% of the new rule is wording changes. No real change in the intent of the rule. Just cleaning up the language.

 

From what I read here, the issue is the radius cut at the bottom of the relief cut. If the rule is a max, then anything done under the max is legal. What this radius spec is doing is adding a minimum dimension to the spec. Now we have to be somewhere between a 90* sharp corner and a 0.040" radius. Who can determine that my radius is not 0.042". Putting a min and a max makes tech harder, not easier. 

 

For the record, I can not tell you which engine builder does it which way. In fact, I can not tell you what my engine builder does. I really do not care. And neither do 99% of the people running SM. This bickering needs to stop, for the well being of the class as a whole.

 

Everyone needs to remember that just because a part, as complicated as a cylinder head, passed tech, does not mean that it is legal. It means the particular area that was inspected was found legal. It does not mean the entire head was legal.

 

Can't we all just get along

 

dave

 

Yes rodney king we can all get along. Did I miss something with this rule?  you have to redo you head twice a year?  only 10 people in the country that dont over rev will do that.  a small potion of us will redo each year, most will do when they feel they need to. and who will ever know or care?  If I had one of these eledged super turbo charged heads and i was going to race 90% regionals and wasnt going to go the biggest majors I would roll the dice and not change a damn thing and go have fun which is what i would advise anyone in that boat to do!  and you know that your builder of choice does or does not do this radius, even i know if they do or do not!  

 

and you know i got nothing but love for you dave!  I pray for your health quite often and glad your still with us the class wouldnt be the same without you!

[Johnny D]

https://www.youtube....h?v=tgiR04ey7-M

 

J~

[Tom Hampton]

https://www.youtube....h?v=tgiR04ey7-M

 

J~

 

too soon J~, too soon.

[Johnny D]

Sorry.
https://www.youtube....h?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM

J~

[Johnny D]

https://www.youtube....h?v=3EOAXrTrsOE
J~

[38bfast]

Lol Kyle. I will bring up your point in the next SMAC meeting. "The rules that we generate don't matter because no one other than a few top teams will comply" Maybe we should just put in the box that rules only apply to the top 10 finishers at majors races. That should cover it.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Lol Kyle. I will bring up your point in the next SMAC meeting. "The rules that we generate don't matter because no one other than a few top teams will comply" Maybe we should just put in the box that rules only apply to the top 10 finishers at majors races. That should cover it.

 

and you if you believe different i have some beautiful land in florida to sell you for retirement

[Tom Hampton]

I thought 10 sounded high.

[38bfast]

new rule number 1 for SM. "you can do whatever you want unless you podium at a majors event or top 10 at the runoff. In that case all rules below apply"

We can call it the Webb rule.

I will be looking for your letter to the CRB Kyle.



Thinking about that could be fun. Might turn into a parking lot just before start/finish at the end of the race.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

The rules clearly prevent you from doing whatever you want. Its just like a speed limit sign ralphy...

I see all kinds of non compliant cars everytime I am at the track yet never seen anyone get popped for it. Hell we even had a guy run an sm6 tire on a car and it passed tech for a majors podium, not that the tire mattered at all but it was still non compliant.

Without enforcement even a speed limit sign is useless.

I like that I am getting a new rule named after me though. Its the least you could do as a smack member!

[LarryKing]

So last night I read the article about James Wilson in the May issue of SportsCar.

 

How much is a B-spec kit?

[Bench Racer]

As I continue reading about this de-shrouding radius I say to myself, hmmm, when looking at an OEM head there is no radius between the relief wall and the top on the valve guide seat. Might that have been a guideline.

[38bfast]

Bench from Mazda there has been variation from sharp (.010), champer (.02) and radius (.025) depending on the vintiage of the head.