207 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

 

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.

Wheel

 

The CRB needs to consider the Risk Reward analysis for a Rule change that in effect will cost some of the racers out there to spend additional money.

 

I do not oppose a rule clarification or a Change in rules, This rule will not cost me personally as my builder was not doing this, but as others have said this class cannot take another budget hit on heads for the foreseeable future.

 

My suggestion:

 

Change the rule in 2016 with compliance enforced in 2017.

 

Why?

 

Their are people looking at walking out the door as it is, we cannot give them anther reason for no good reason. Yes this needs fixed but its not critical. Move in that direction but do it slowly.

 

The last thing we need is another head gate budget buster. IMO.

[wheel]

meathead,

We put it out as a REC, which means that it is now out for member input as a recommended rule change.  It still has to be approved by the BoD after member input.

Frank,

www.crbscca.com is the place to make your comments.  They don't count here.

[Keith Andrews]

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.

 

 

Ok. 

 

There has to be more to this.  With all the noise being generated by those Championing this change I find it difficult to believe the Class Compliance Team hasn't made a ruling on this already. 

 

The idea that the BOD and or CRB are setting up the possibility of a protest at the Runoffs seems remote.  If that is true it just makes no sense.  I have more faith in the BOD, CRB and Class Compliance Team than that.  

 

Is there a reason the BOD, CRB, or the Class Compliance Team can't voice their determination on the current rule as it relates to 9.1.7.C.1.a.1.f.5.

 

Why aren't these Heads being rejected (DQ'd) in post race inspection at the Majors if there is something wrong with them? 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Im not sure I'm either reading wheels comment right or maybe he didnt really mean what he said there.

 

If the heads are deemed ok for the rest of 2015, seems ridiculous that it would be a protestable offense at the runnoffs.  It would certainly be a chicken shit protest IMO.

[mhiggins10]

Here's a dumb idea, since we don't seem smart enough to figure out how to define what is legal for head work- why doesn't the CRB specify a process and tool to use for a plunge cut (or other controversial process)?  Must use xyz bit without radius or chamfer, straight down into the valve guide, extending no further than abc depth into the head as measured from the deck.

 

I know this takes "creativity" out of the engine builders hands, but that seems a bit preferable to all this mess, no?  Admittedly I know jack about machining heads, so this may be a lousy idea.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Higg, I think your on to something there...  I think this boils down to some of us believe there should be some grey areas left for creativity and others think there should be none.  We could go as far as spec'ing brake pads if we really want to take all individuality out of this.

 

I could see a big problem if the 3 builders who are doing the radius are blowing everyone else off the face of the earth with their power, but I havent seen a dominant car other then dillons in any vid I have seen, and before anyone takes that comment out of context I am not implying the car is a cheat, it is just a very very very good race car for the foreseeable future, and it is being driven very well week end and week out.

[LarryKing]

How 'bout we ask Mazda to make a spec head for each generation and make it effective 1-1-16 that only that head is compliant. All machine work is identical, no manufacturing variation, no engine builder tricks.

 

Any discovery of tampering with the spec head results in 2 year suspension from SM competition.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

 All machine work is identical, no manufacturing variation, 

 

.

 

Seems easy peasy japaneezy to me...

[38bfast]

I said this long ago. If we were really serious we would single source CNC cut heads. 0 variation, Tech would be black and white. Of course we are not that serious. 

[Jim Drago]

Since I wrote the rule in 2009... I know, as does those on the SMAC at the time know the intent of the rule. The intent of the rule was to spec the best possible stock head that "could be" produced. None of the stock heads have a radiused relief cut.  No one on smac at that time would feel that a radius relief cut was compliant.  We should have written the rule better then as it can and has been interpreted more liberally than what was intended. 

 

You can make a clear case that radiused cuts are compliant to the current rule and and IMO opinion a slightly stronger case that the radius cuts are non compliant to the existing rule. I asked the SCCA about this last summer and was told these cuts were not compliant by two of the people that have acted as the CCC so far this year.  I agreed with their assessment then, still do. When the cuts passed this year, I asked the same people the same question. The opinion of the CCC was the that they didn't feel the rule was clearly defined enough to disqualify a competitor and perhaps the rule should be addressed. It is important to remember the CRB makes the rules, the CCC enforces them. If the CRB does not agree with the interpretation taken by the court, the CCC or whomever they will likely clarify or rewrite the rule so that is enforced in the way they want it to be enforced. 

 

What the CRB is proposing is a clarification. It is being put forward as a rules change in order to give those in violation of the new wording time to fix their heads, as a compromise. Don't take that as anything more than that. This is a clarification, not a rules change.  It amounts to almost a year if you are not doing Sebring/Homestead next year. Enough time for most, maybe not enough for some who just put heads on cars and that is understandable. 

 

Here are my opinions..

 

 

The rule needs to be clarified/changed or whatever you would like to call it so all are doing the same thing here.

 

There is a gain regardless of how small, I also do not agree it is 2 hp.  My best guess is .5-1.0, but it is that a guesstimate.  Quite simply, this is a better method of making this transition. No one in this class wants to give up anything to anyone, nor should they have to.   

 

People who followed the strictest interpretation of this rule can not go back and put in a radius, the material is gone. they need to start over to put in a radius. 

 

It is easy to say the radius cut doesn't matter when you have it, but when you don't have this cut and cant install without starting over, it is a little harder to swallow.

 

Results have not changed post STR gate either, but was still unfair to those who were not touching that edge.  

 

The .040 compromise in the proposed rule is a mistake IMO. The difference between .040 and .060 is silly. I can certainly understand how silly it must seem to those with a .060-.080 radius to have to barely touch this cut. It makes it even harder for those people to swallow IMO.  At this point guys like me are still going build a head with .040 radius which will likely amount to absolutely nothing, but we will still do it. So we will have guys on both sides readdressing heads and spending more money. There should be no compromise in the rule IMO other than perhaps time. ( .010-.015r to be safe would be more than adequate.)

 

I don't see the rush to clarify this either, Personally, I would be fine with this taking effect for 1/1/2017, if it means guys like me and a few others put a .060-.080 radius in a new head until then and then cut it out,  I am fine with that as well as it will effect the least in the class.

 

Jim

 

This cut and area of the head is not putting anyone in the winners circle, however I feel all should be building to the same rule and a clarification here is in order. I will likely send in a letter supporting the change( with less radius) and ask the effective date be pushed to 1/1/17

[Jim Drago]

How 'bout we ask Mazda to make a spec head for each generation and make it effective 1-1-16 that only that head is compliant. All machine work is identical, no manufacturing variation, no engine builder tricks.

 

Any discovery of tampering with the spec head results in 2 year suspension from SM competition.

Mazda has no interest.. but what Ralph just stated and so have myself and others.. We could get heads from a single source CC and all be identical for less than we spend now. I have no problem with that either as we are close to that now.  

[wheel]

Since some of you don't seem to know how the system works, I need to point out that this is a recommended rule and, until passed by the BoD, is not in effect.  So, don't go building heads until the final rule is either passed, or not by the BoD.  Some parts of this, including the .040" radius, may change as a result of member input.  Also, there will be a diagram up shortly. 

I think Drago's post #110 pretty much tells the story.  

 

wheel

[LarryKing]

 

I need to point out that this is a recommended rule and, until passed by the BoD, is not in effect

 

awwww, come on Wheel, you're taking all the fun out of it.

[wheel]

That's my job.  

[FTodaro]

Good summation Jim, you will be after my job soon, you will have to show me how to make money selling used parts.

 

Lets just try and focus on where this issue stands.

 

1. I think most agree that if a rule is subject to two legitimate but different interpretations we need to clarify to get all on the same page. 

 

2. The exact wording of the rule the .40 to .80 issue that Jim referenced ( over my head) needs to be agreed upon and firmed up in a final version

 

3. The last point, and the most important point IMO is the timing of when the rule takes effect. Get everyone on the same page but do it in a way that is not going to be painful.

 

 

So I propose that everyone who agrees with this post Write to the CRB now and reference each of the points above so someone reviewing all the letters can get the correct message, I vote for a 1/1/2017 deadline.

[Bench Racer]

SM
1. #16783 (Club Racing Board) Update to 9.1.7.C.1.a.1.f.5
Replace the entirety of 9.1.7.C.1.a.f.5

New: 5. Unshrouding of valves is explicitly limited as follows:
 
The wall of allowed relief cut must be a single cut parallel and concentric within .??? inch with the valve guide full length for the full depth of the cut.
 
Perfect concentric is not real world or cost effective.
 
The wall cut must be cylindrical with .???  taper maximum.
 
No taper is not cost effective, it's the same as expecting a dead sharp inside radius ®.
 
The bottom of the cut must form a 90º angle to the wall cut with an allowance for a bevel or curve whose length is not to exceed .040". 
 
Do you really mean curve, because curve and radius ® are not the same or equal. 
 
There must be a sharp, non-modified and non de-burred edge where the valve relief wall cut first meets the cast chamber.
 
No part of this relief cut wall or bottom is to be blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition. The maximum dimensions are listed below, measuring valve guide center line to chamber wall cut surface.

 
For your consideration from a non letter writer. As you have found, what you consider written common sense is not so common. Yup, I get the sketch your going to include. Do the words override the sketch or does the sketch override the words?

[Johnny D]

I don't think I said that, like that ^^

Just saying.

J~

[Tom Hampton]

.... and IMO opinion a slightly stronger case that the radius cuts are non compliant to the existing rule. I

 

I'm curious what this "slightly stronger case" would be, because I don't see it. 

 

I understand that your intent was different, but the "words on the page" don't describe intent.  And, as I described above, I don't think the words on the page support the stated intent.  I've read it many times trying to see a set of definitions for the nouns and verbs in the sentence that supports the "intent" and I just can't do it. 

 

Yes, I recognize that its a moot discussion....but, I'm bored again today.

[Bench Racer]

I understand Johnny. Use your magic skills to eliminate your name. I tried with zero results. New computer, Windows 8.1, me, whatever %@#&^.

[Keith Andrews]

Good summation Jim, you will be after my job soon, you will have to show me how to make money selling used parts.

 

Lets just try and focus on where this issue stands.

 

1. I think most agree that if a rule is subject to two legitimate but different interpretations we need to clarify to get all on the same page. 

 

2. The exact wording of the rule the .40 to .80 issue that Jim referenced ( over my head) needs to be agreed upon and firmed up in a final version

 

3. The last point, and the most important point IMO is the timing of when the rule takes effect. Get everyone on the same page but do it in a way that is not going to be painful.

 

 

So I propose that everyone who agrees with this post Write to the CRB now and reference each of the points above so someone reviewing all the letters can get the correct message, I vote for a 1/1/2017 deadline.

 

Frank - I put together a second comment to the CRB last night.  Regarding your first point what do you recommend?  I wrote something about clearly defining where the Chamber is and where the first cut meets the Chamber. 

 

This is the only thing I can think of that people don't understand or can bamboozle tech inspectors who are unfamiliar with the term Chamber.  Is this the interpretation you refer to?

 

I did recommend .080 and 1/1/17.