150 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

I have and continue to be one of the biggest proponents of tech, especially at the Runoffs.. but I think the unspoken downside of this is the amount of dollars wasted to prove our cars are running legitimate.

This past weekend.. I had to completely disassemble my engine with a spun rod bearing to maintain my 15th  place starting position or start in the back and be labelled a cheater .  Todd Buras had to completely disassemble his car to pieces for what amounts to a 4th place finish, not a single contingency dollar to offset what will certainly be a $6500-8500 reassemble bill. He didn't even get a $10.00 trophy for 4th place.  He is basically paying to refresh a motor that has about 4 hours on it at this point. Complete trans rebuild and then all of this stuff needs to be reassembled. 

 

Each time these heads are coming off at majors... the average cost to competitors is $1500-2500. We all were and are ready for compliance checks, at some point checking the same cars and the same people for the same things seems pretty silly and very costly. I would much rather go to an extra event or two with these funds than spend that money proving compliance. If someone feels a competitor is cheating, we have a system in place, let them spend their money to investigate. Or start back with the compliance fund if none of want to protest. If found compliant, the people torn down should be reimbursed for the expenses.  

 

 Some of my customers who have already proved themselves compliant are ready to start refusing to pull off parts in post race impound and take the DQ. It is less expensive and they know where they finished as do their competitors.  We tried to hold off on the Buras tear down until the appeal of Goring was completed as we knew this was a possibility. We put it off until we were told start tearing it apart or we are bringing in 6th place. the end result was a huge tear down bill, no trophy, no contingency money. What is the upside here?  Before we start sprouting off about the STR gate and last year, please remember ALL those cars past post race inspection, but failed the protest. The competitors are still the best tech inspectors in our class as we all know the cars better than tech ever will. 

 

Tech and club have a tough job here. I think they did a great job all week if I am being honest. I just see the writing on the wall here.. This is becoming a problem. I have no answer, but there is definitely a problem.  Someone other than the competitor should be responsible for the tear down bond here. If Mazda and or SCCA wants to scrutinize our class 25x more than any other class, than they should reimburse those that pass this inspection, it seems only fair to me. Asking someone to pay the costs to get to the runoffs, the ridiculous parking, the weeks time and then another 6-7000 to reassemble their car for the privilege of racing in the event seems absolutely ridiculous. We have just conditioned ourselves to accept this as the norm.

 

Jim

[Tom Sager]

I'm glad you said this.  Yes, tech has a very tough job and I think there has to be invasive tech from time to time to validate results and compliance.  Given that, competitors should be compensated somehow.  Otherwise I think we will see people putting their cars on trailers and going home without going to tech.  I would do that in a heartbeat if nobody was readily available to help me take a car apart and if that meant watching the sun go down on a Sunday night before towing home.  Something should change before that (putting cars on trailers) forces the issue.  

[Jim Drago]

 I would do that in a heartbeat if nobody was readily available to help me take a car apart and if that meant watching the sun go down on a Sunday night before towing home.  Something should change before that (putting cars on trailers) forces the issue.  

 

I think it is closer than many think. Most at the front have always been ready, willing and able to prove compliance, still will. guys like me who have employees and can absorb the cost have no choice.. But guys like Todd, Danny,Craig,Blake and many other guys who run at the front and do none of their own work and have to pay full price are going to start getting tired of it. Many already are.  

 

I won't speak for anyone specifically, but I know more than a few are prepared to pull their head off once and only once unless compensated next year, after that they are loading up and going home with a DQ if that is what it means.  

[Mike Collins]

Jim, the problem is the way the rules are written its a DQ and 6 month suspension...

[davew]

I am not disagreeing with anything Jim has said, BUT;

 

We ran under the premise that it was the competitors who should do the protesting. And look what happened a year ago. And a year later we are still finding non-compliant parts on front running cars. Evan at the Runoffs. Let's face facts here, virtually every top engine builder and prep shop has had issues at some point in 2015.

 

If we allowed people to only accept a single tear down per year, do you think they would run legal after that? The history of the class has been to push every rule to the limit. All too often we have pushed beyond the legal limit. We have to prove that we can run compliant every time before we can even think about going back to competitor based policing.

 

Again, I agree with what Jim has said, but I do not feel we have a reasonable option based on our past behavior.

 

Dave

[Erik Hardy]

Measure my restrictor plate, throw my car on the dyno, look at my data in comparison to others, all cool with me. I'm not fast enough for it to matter a whole lot, but I'm taking the DQ if I ever get to that level where the car needs to come apart. I'm sure my head would get disqualified anyways just because its not something they are used to seeing. I'm not going to tear the transmission apart for you to look at it with your certified REM sensing eyes. Way to much work to put everything back together, I don't have that kind of time and it takes away the fun + money.

 

I showed up to an amateur race, had my fun and a post race inspection can't take that away. The level of scrutiny goes well beyond the inspection levels at the professional levels...maybe we shouldn't do this to ourselves...

[Blake Thompson]

This issue came up at the Pirelli game a few weeks ago.  One of the issues was inspection and re-inspection of the catalytic converter.  The support person for one of those crews said here, I took it apart, you saw it, now put a wire and a tag on it and don't ask me again.  That seal, if it stays in tact, should keep him off his back for at least the rest of their season.

[Jim Drago]

Jim, the problem is the way the rules are written its a DQ and 6 month suspension...

I haven't seen the 6 month suspension enforced before and doubt it would be enforced in this instance either. I think a 6 month suspension in this case would be all some of these guys need to justify moving to another class. 

 

Dave, 

Of all the cars checked at the Runoffs this year.. We had ONE relief cut of 16 slightly over.. I don't view that as a problem at all to anyone except the poor SOB that was Dq'ed after an excellent race and had ZERO advantage because of it.  Dare they look at any class remotely this close... The Runoffs tech last year found ZERO! The dq's were due solely to competitor protest.   

[FTodaro]

I think its worth giving this some thought. I agree that it can have a negative effect on the class, no matter what way you go.

 

Sagar brings up a good point, some people do not have the skill or the budget to carry mechanics to the track. The tech at this years runoffs was by far more that it ever has been.

 

Agree with Mike, maybe the penalty if you can't or won't comply, should be examined.

 

Dave, yes we have been finding non complaint parts, but the latest example was one valve relief out of sixteen was out of spec and cost someone a podium. Yes that is the rules, but we really punished someone who did not intend to cheat or have a competitive advantage. (we have also had a lot of disassemble  of the same part multiple times, of complaint parts.

 

 

 

Just suggesting we need to think about a middle ground somehow.

[Blake Thompson]

Just suggesting we need to think about a middle ground somehow.

 

that circle jerking at the national autoX level was a big part of what kept me away.  I am not going to argue on my vacation for hours about whether or not I won because of undercoating.

 

I'm to the point where I wonder if the class wouldn't be cheaper just letting people do whatever they want instead of dropping insane money to maintain cars to an unrealistic standard.  

[Tom Hampton]

I really have no dog in the hunt, as I'm not fast enough to likely be exposed to this.  On the other hand, no matter how fast I ever got, I won't participate in the Majors as a direct consequence of this.  Further, I wouldn't participate in the Runoffs either, for this and the stupid time/dollar commitment for the minimal fun-factor. 

[LarryKing]

It's just a darn shame that seals don't work on Miatas.

[Blake Thompson]

It's just a darn shame that seals don't work on Miatas.

[Michael Colangelo]

Is this primarily an issue within the Spec Miata community or is this also a problem in other amateur classes?

 

But, yeah, $6500-$8000 to prove you're compliant is a bit much.  Heck, I can buy two ITA cars for that!  :-)

[mhiggins10]

If the argument is on cost factor, that ship sailed long ago with the $35,000 NB.  IMO, we reap what we sow on "tech shed legal"/"pushing the gray area"/etc.  STR-gate certainly didn't help. If you want to go with the "if you aren't cheating/pushing the limits, you aren't trying" then this is what the sanctioning body will answer with.  I would guess that Mazda and SCCA didn't want another black eye, so they pulled on the rubber gloves and bent everyone over. Can't say I disagree with the approach.

 

Other classes are just as bad?  Maybe.  But they're nowhere NEAR as public as the biggest, baddest, most competitive class in SCCA.   I'm sure you'd find all kinds of things in the 15th finishing F500 as well, but that's not a story/PR issue.

 

 

Is there a better way to do this, like sealing parts?  Maybe.  But many have raised the concern about seals not being as effective as one hopes.  Better question is probably- what does PWC do?  What does IMSA do?  What things can we take from those programs and apply to ours?

 

 

Personally, I'd love to run Runoffs some day, but that's such a distant dream that these discussions are an academic exercise to me so take my input with a grain of salt.  I've never been tech'd more than belts and weight, and I certainly don't have the staff or experience to pull a crank or split a transmission housing, much less the funds to put it back together.  For your Joe-average regional guy like me that kind of tech is a season-ender (and would likely park me for a year to get the funds to reassemble the car).

 

Somehow though, I don't think folks like Tom or I are will really be terribly bothered by the concerns being addressed here.

[Blake Thompson]

Is this primarily an issue within the Spec Miata community or is this also a problem in other amateur classes?

 

But, yeah, $6500-$8000 to prove you're compliant is a bit much.  Heck, I can buy two ITA cars for that!  :-)

 

they don't cheat in other classes therefore they don't need to do tech.  duh.

[38bfast]

simple Don't cross the line up front.

[Mike Collins]

Its an automatic penalty...  Its not optional...

 

               

Refusing to allow teardown in Mechanical Protest,Request for Action, or Chief Steward’s Action

Event disqualification, 6 month suspension of competition privileges, $250 fine, and 6 penalty points

   

[FTodaro]

One of the answers may be to come up with better ways to check compliance that is not so invasive. Can we improve on how we test?

 

Tearing the transmission and diff out- Are there tools, scopes and so on that you could see the inside of a diff or transmission without pulling them out?

 

The Random impound should be non invasive to the extent possible.

 

Did we really need to tear them down to the oil pan at Runoffs.

 

Test them with Whistler or dyno, and scope parts. Move to the tear down if there is a failure.

 

I think your going to get more push back at the Majors than the runoffs. People go to a major's weekend, take two days off of work to go, race and want to pack up Sunday and come home, not dismantle a race car IMO.

[Ron Alan]

 

 

 Yes that is the rules, but we really punished someone who did not intend to cheat or have a competitive advantage.

 

 

Here is the problem with this statement...its never a problem until it is a problem! In other words, is it your buddy and or your pit mate? Or is it your least favorite competitor who just took away a podium from you??  We are all guilty of flip flopping our attitude i'm sure on the litle "no performance gain" tech offenses!!!!

 

Intentions are always noble through rose colored glasses!

 

Ok...with the black and white argument aside...I to agree there has to be a better way

 

NASA approach out West has been to dyno a lot of cars...usually ends up being the same cars and to date i have never seen one of these cars dyno drastically different. Unless a car pops up with 5-10HP/Torque over the "norm" nothing is going to happen. In fact, usually the tech doing the dyno has no idea what they are looking at. Some of us who watched cars being dynoed at the western NASA champs spotted something that was not normal...and it had nothing to do with the numbers...but the curve! So what is "norm"?? This is the million dollar question...

Ironically its way easier to fudge on the dyno as many on here have said...DOH! Back to teching parts!

 

Local a couple years ago we had a tear down refusal...in fact he was gone 6 months!(SCCA)