207 replies to this topic

[davew]

I love you too Kyle, thanks for the prayers, my health is much better. I plan on driving this weekend at Blackhawk. LOOKOUT everyone.

 

The rules should apply to everyone, including Kyle

Everyone should remember rule #1

The rule book would be much smaller.

Everyone would have fun again.

The same people would still win all the races.

 

Dave

[Jamz14]

Here Here Dave.

[Bench Racer]

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

 

With engine builder (which I'm not) hat on, with that ^ progression, let's bump the R up to .060. How'll they ever prove a .060 R doesn't exist. 
 

[38bfast]

pros and cons to .060

Pro
Everyone would be compliant as it stands today.

Con
Those that don't have .060 may feel compelled to have it (belive that it is an advantage over sharp) and have to purchase a new head to get it.

[MPR22]

pros and cons to .060

Pro
Everyone would be compliant as it stands today.

Con
Those that don't have .060 may feel compelled to have it (belive that it is an advantage over sharp) and have to purchase a new head to get it.

Ralph, 

 

If the intent of the change is to clarify the rule and tighten up the language to take more of the gray area off of the table the revised language should accomplish that.  

If the intent is to save the class money then it would appear doing nothing would be the answer.  Those that have the gray area mod are probably the same people that would spend what ever it takes to win.  Those with the means to do so but but feel it is not gray area but illegal would spend the money to "upgrade" 2 hp makes a difference at the super sharp pointy end of the field.  Those who don't want to spend the money because they are budget conscious, were probably blissfully ignorant until now, that being said I doubt 2hp (if that is the number) affects their current finishing order.  

 

I get both sides of the argument, don't care which way it goes.  How is that for apathy. 

[davew]

I had an old boss tell me "You have a bad attitude"

 

I replied "That's better than no attitude at all"

 

AHHHH, to be an arrogant smart ass again.  And 20 years old with no responsibilities would help too. Youth is wated on the young

 

dave

[wheel]

I thought apathy was a big deal, now I don't really care.

[Keith Andrews]

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

 

 

Sean - Sorry for the miscommunication.  I had no questions for you whatsoever.  The sole purpose of my reply was to point out the misleading and inaccurate nature of your post.

 

I do find your latest explanation of a compromised rule change to be absolutely ridiculous.  To change the rule and make legal heads illegal does not strike me as a compromise. 

 

The idea that hundreds of SM competitors will have to disassemble their engines to have more metal removed, to go from a roughly .060 radius to a .040 radius, is totally disruptive and expensive for hundreds of competitors. 

 

This does not sound like something I would promote as better for the health of the class.  It just sounds like an attempt at a rules change to disrupt competitors on and off the track.  

[Sean - MiataCage]

Sean - Sorry for the miscommunication.  I had no questions for you whatsoever.  The sole purpose of my reply was to point out the misleading and inaccurate nature of your post.

 

I do find your latest explanation of a compromised rule change to be absolutely ridiculous.  To change the rule and make legal heads illegal does not strike me as a compromise. 

 

The idea that hundreds of SM competitors will have to disassemble their engines to have more metal removed, to go from a roughly .060 radius to a .040 radius, is totally disruptive and expensive for hundreds of competitors. 

 

This does not sound like something I would promote as better for the health of the class.  It just sounds like an attempt at a rules change to disrupt competitors on and off the track.  

 

Hi Keith,

 

Still not clear on what about my post was in-accurate.  You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

 

I did not change the rule to make legal heads illegal.  I don't have that power.  SCCA reviewed it found the current heads you speak of as "legal" to actually be the opposite.  They were found to be illegal.  The new rule was written as a compromise to allow time for those that went that path to be able to rectify the situation next year. A non compromise version of the rule would have said they were illegal and needed to be changed immediately.

 

Instead of blaming me for this, why don't you ask your motor builder or builders why they chose to take the liberty of doing something that was clearly gray that could have the potential to be deemed non-compliant. 

 

What about the other motor shenanigans that are going on?  Should we just over look those as well?  As long as your in the in crowd, it's ok?  You talk about 100's of engines, what about the other thousand or so that didn't go down this path?  I think this is the part where you tell me it's not a performance advantage.......

 

Sean

[Keith Andrews]

Sean -

 

In your original comment you said "one specific motor builder" VS. It turns out according to Mr. Provitz (SMAC member) "3" known builders that have been building this way for a many years."

 

That makes your original comment misleading and inaccurate.  You stated something that is factually incorrect.

 

Then you went on to this:

 

"a limited competitive advantage (less than 2 hp) but a competitive advantage none the less" VS. it turns out according to Mr. Provitz (SMAC member) "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." 

 

So again I would say your competitive advantage comment is inaccurate and without any data or proof.

 

Now Sean you are saying "SCCA reviewed it found the current heads you speak of as "legal" to actually be the opposite.  They were found to be illegal."

 

What are you talking about?

 

No heads other than the first Major weekend (Homestead I think) have been found illegal to my knowledge.

 

Here is a quote from Jim Drago -

 

Topeka tech ( Chris Blum) was there and I believe there was post race tech with at least one head coming off ( Dillons)  and it was fine. Not sure who/what else was checked. My info is second hand.

Jim

 

I have no idea what your other complaints are.  I can hardly wait to hear those atrocities.

 

My point about the rule change is this.  Currently the heads that are built to the current rules are legal.  By specifying a .040 radius (in the proposed rule change) that will make them illegal.  If you specify a radius of .060 or greater, all heads remain legal. 

 

I can't make this much clearer.

 

As a point of reference, at the VIR Major this weekend 16 drivers qualified within one second of each other.  There was likely a half with and half without this radius cut. To my knowledge the guy on top of that sheet did not have the radius unshrouding cut.

 

[wheel]

4. there must be a sharp edge where the valve relief cut meets the chamber. 

.060" us not sharp.  There's the rub.  

 

The proposed rule just puts numbers on what was the original intent of the rule.  The .040" is actually a compromise beyond just saying sharp is 90º, with no margin for error.  Pretty liberal.

[Michael Novak]

 

4. there must be a sharp edge where the valve relief cut meets the chamber. 

.060" us not sharp.  There's the rub.  

 

The proposed rule just puts numbers on what was the original intent of the rule.  The .040" is actually a compromise beyond just saying sharp is 90º, with no margin for error.  Pretty liberal.

 

I understand---I also know there is nothing new here except it will cost us all a bunch more money when the SCCA had a chance to fix it earlier in the year when they had all of the heads and lots of time to talk..  Many peoples heads will last long beyond one year---but yet will be illegal.. 

 

HOPEFULLY someone at the SCCA comes to their senses and realizes some of us will have had enough. I have three engines $8000 plus to fix for this.... I thought the word was the rules are set going forward on heads----and now the season is barely started and we are at this again after just fixing the last problem....

 

EVERYTHING SEEN HERE WAS ON THE RUNOFFS HEADS FROM WHAT I WAS TOLD........

[Bench Racer]

 

4. there must be a sharp edge where the valve relief cut meets the chamber. 

.060" us not sharp.  There's the rub.  

 

The proposed rule just puts numbers on what was the original intent of the rule.  The .040" is actually a compromise beyond just saying sharp is 90º, with no margin for error.  Pretty liberal.

 

 

Using your point 4. and words from your point 4. in conjunction with the .060 R leaves a bunch of confusion for me. My understanding the "sharp edge where the valve relief cut meets the chamber" is the line where the outside diameter of the cutter no longer cuts the cast wall of the chamber. In effect a parting line of cast material and material which has been machined by a cutter.

 

My understanding is the R is the corner where the combustion chamber wall and combustion chamber roof meet. Or when de-shrouded the R is the corner where the outside diameter of the cutter and the end of the cutter meet.

 

It seems your post has merged two different items into one.

 

 

[Tom Hampton]

 

4. there must be a sharp edge where the valve relief cut meets the chamber. 

.060" us not sharp.  There's the rub.  

 

The proposed rule just puts numbers on what was the original intent of the rule.  The .040" is actually a compromise beyond just saying sharp is 90º, with no margin for error.  Pretty liberal.

 

 

I always stay out of these things...and I KNOW I should this time, too.  But f-it, I'm bored.

 

The intent may have been different, however the actual words in the statement above are defining the intersection of two surfaces, and the shape that it is required to have (aka sharp):

 

1.  The combustion chamber

2.  The swept volume of the valve relief cut

 

The "chamber" is actually the open volume that is between the top of the piston and the cylinder head casting.  The valve relief cut forms an edge with the casting *surface*, where the two volumes intersect (meet).   The machined surface at the bottom of the relief cut is NOT "the chamber".  The shape that the valve relief cut makes with the bottom surface isn't an edge (or that's a very loose and poor usage of the word), its an interior-corner.  As such it can't be "...blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition".  All of those processes will create an even "less-smooth" transition when applied to a concave shape.  So, the rule doesn't even make sense. 

 

This interpretation is further supported by the new wording.  The same wording is present in the new rule, and a NEW sentence has been added to define the shape of the bottom of the cut. 

 

So, its fine to say "there's the rub".  And maybe that WAS the intent. I have no issue with codifying that intent.  But, no finding was ever made that declared a cylinder head non-compliant to the rule.  Let alone was there ever a rejected appeal of any such ruling where the imprecise wording was challenged.  So, saying heads with a non-zero radius between the wall and the floor of the cut are ILLEGAL to the letter of the rule is just plain wrong. 

 

The proposed rule does MORE than just put numbers to the original intent---it is defining a new limit on a previously UNSPECIFIED area.  the previous rule said that the surface could be machined, but it did NOT define the shape of the cutter.  Nor did the rule define the shape of the intersection between the wall and floor---it only defined the shape of the edge between the wall and the chamber (as sharp). 

 

 

Quite frankly the whole idea that you can specify machining operations and allowed tolerances down to the fraction of a mm and degree USING PROSE and the occasional table is just obsurd.  Nobody does that in the real world.  We use these things call "control drawings" with defined tolerances, and explantory notes. 

[Keith Andrews]

 

4. there must be a sharp edge where the valve relief cut meets the chamber. 

.060" us not sharp.  There's the rub.  

 

The proposed rule just puts numbers on what was the original intent of the rule.  The .040" is actually a compromise beyond just saying sharp is 90º, with no margin for error.  Pretty liberal.

 

 

Thank you. now I see why a clarification may be needed.  If there is a misunderstanding about where a cut enters the chamber, I agree that should be clarified. 

 

In my mind the cut that is being defined is not the one that meets the chamber.  The cut that is being defined is after the tool meets the chamber.  What I read in the rule change was talking about the bottom of the cut where the 90 degrees is formed by the tool at its final depth, that tool doesn't leave a radius where it enters the chamber.  It is a sharp edge where it meets the chamber.

 

EDIT: Tom Hampton said it much clearer than I ever could.  Read the above statement.

[wheel]

The debate here shows why the rule needed to be clarified.  The clarification, with diagram, should put all this to rest.  Some won't like it and some will tolerate it, but the likelihood of protests and appeals and the whole thing being decided by a group of Stewards in a CoA, will be greatly reduced.  The biggest problem was that we should have done this when we settled the STR issue.  For that, apologies.

wheel

[Michael Novak]

The debate here shows why the rule needed to be clarified.  The clarification, with diagram, should put all this to rest.  Some won't like it and some will tolerate it, but the likelihood of protests and appeals and the whole thing being decided by a group of Stewards in a CoA, will be greatly reduced.  The biggest problem was that we should have done this when we settled the STR issue.  For that, apologies.

wheel

Wheel---thank you....   Please take the timing( Many of us just replaced heads) in consideration if a new rule is made. We took the SCCA at their word that things were settled and we could/should spend the money for fixes.

[Keith Andrews]

The debate here shows why the rule needed to be clarified.  The clarification, with diagram, should put all this to rest.  Some won't like it and some will tolerate it, but the likelihood of protests and appeals and the whole thing being decided by a group of Stewards in a CoA, will be greatly reduced.  The biggest problem was that we should have done this when we settled the STR issue.  For that, apologies.

wheel

 

 

My only comment here is, there is a big difference between a clarification and a new rule as Tom has pointed out.  Defining an area previously undefined is a change of the rules.

 

A clarification that turns a legal head into an illegal head is a rule change.    

 

If the rule is clarified (defined) to include the heads currently being used and that clears things up for tech inspectors, great.

 

If the rule change is left as proposed it will be very expensive and disruptive to a large group of competitors on and off the track.

[wheel]

Keith, et al.

 

Yes.  It is a rule change.  That is precisely why it is in the system as a RECommended rule change for 2016, not a clarification.  There was considerable input to make it a clarification, which would have taken effect upon publication.  The CRB chose not to do that.  The CRB voted to make it a REC for 2016, which gives everyone a chance to run out the season and take their chances with someone protesting them for a cut that is not "sharp" at the Runoffs.  

 

Personally, if I was King, I would have made it a clarification, for immediate implementation, and would not have allowed ANY deviation on the bottom of the cut.  Sharp is sharp.  But, my personal opinion did not prevail, and the result is a compromise REC for 2016.

[Mike Collins]

Wheel...  If its a "rule change"  Why isn't it out for member input instead of posted as RECommended?????  I think you are doing it wrong....