150 replies to this topic

[Michael Novak]

First let me say I feel this is great that we can have this discussion as a group. I believe the competition is as good as it gets. I believe the tech at the runoffs proved how well the system is working in the mid-to the front of the pack.  The rules for the heads need a count up of some sort to allow a mistake to not change the results ie. you can have a total of XX off before you are found non compliant--this would have allowed Cory to keep his result for a simple mistake, but still have no allowance for cheating. 

 

 

Whistler and Borscopes can do wonderful things...

 

Whistle lots of cars.....   Check fuel often and plates on top 5 and 5 randoms---Qualify and Race. Put Borscopes in intakes, transmissions and diffs.

 

Once a weekend at least ---if not every time open hoods and trunks and MAKE every driver turn in a sheet saying he visibly looked at 3 cars.

 

I have no understanding of the dyno method as it proves nothing and there are lots of ways to cheat it. If the car is good or bad it tells nothing or where to head....

[davew]

Jim, I agree we only had one bad valve at the Runoffs. But we had cars DQed at Sprints (mine included) and Florida. So it is still happening. Whether the protest came from an Official or a Competitor, makes no difference. An illegal part is still an illegal part.

 

The issue comes down to honesty and personal integrity. If a competitor knew he/she was not going to be teched, would they push past the allowed modifications. Unfortunately many have proven that they would push beyond what is allowed. Unfortunately that is the history of this class going back 15 years.

 

Dave

[davew]

I have been in Runoffs tech the last 4 years, pulling motors apart. The supps say that the winners head is coming off, regardless. Cranks have been checked in 2011, 2012 and 2013. I know because I pulled them out. (2014 I ran only the T4 car, which had the head pulled)

 

Last year everybody was screaming for more tech. This year you are complaining about too much tech. When Runoffs tech has been the same for at least 3 years. As Ron stated above, when it effects the guy you don't like, or you suspect of cheating, the tech is too little. When it is you or your buddy it is too aggressive. We can't have it both ways. SCCA did what we asked for.

[Jim Drago]

The tech at this years runoffs was by far more that it ever has been.

Unfortunately that is not accurate. We have seen this several times before
Jim

[Jim Drago]

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

my sealed motor had to be reinspected this weekend.. yes, even the head that was sealed and inspected at Mid Ohio. Why? I can see the bottom, but why the head, again?

[KW78]

Jim, (and CRB)

 

I agree with the first post here completely.  THIS IS THE SINGLE REASON THAT THE MIDWEST SPEC MIATA GROUP GOT TOGETHER LAS DECEMBER AND PICKED NASA THIS YEAR.

 

Add to this that I don't think it is a given that we pass.  I took the rule book and had specific valve job tools created and then the rules morphed after doing 4 motors, to where another blend radius was altered by .020 - really?  this matters?  Furthermore, mine would pass but I could not get local tech to look at it until I was a majors competitor, and then they eyeball using tools I can no longer buy....    but I digress...

 

TECH PROCESS WAS OK?  I am sure all good intentions here, but I read on the Autox forum that Goring's tech problem was that they made a mistake entering measurements into the compression ratio formula.  Not a mistake measuring, but a mistake calculating.  This error was carried forward all the way thru the appeals process BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TRANSPARENT AND TECH WOULD NOT SHARE THE PROCESS ALONG THE WAY.  This lack of transparency has to stop before we move forward.

 

 

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

Accurately measuring combustion chamber volume, bore, and stroke (to the degree we need for a national championship) can be fidgety and time-consuming, and doing it in the field requires some skill and patience.

Accurately calculating compression ratio from the above-obtained information is a four-line Excel spreadsheet, easily obtained from the Googlez (assuming you don't already know how to do it).

I sure hope the error was in the latter, and not the former...

GA

 

It was a fat finger on the bore measurement that pushed it over and why re-CCing didn't change anything. They eventually found that they had entered an incorrect measurement for the bore and when run with the correct number it was on the conservative side of legal, just as intended.

SM can run standard or first over, which is why the spreadsheet calc did not have a default number for bore entered in from the beginning. They had to type it in, turns out if you type it in wrong you get wrong results. They only CC'd it twice before they told Goring's crew to tear down the bottom end. . Also, just as a note, this was not a transparent process. The error was only discovered after Goring's mother insisted that they show them the numbers that they came up with.

Cameron Conover

 

 

So, maybe this is a good thread to bring up suggestions I feel would move this class forward.  If you are looking for an air tight turn key engineered solution then stop reading.  If you are interested in a good faith leap of forward progress, then here is my opinion:

 

• Lead SCCA road racing with a culture shift.  Write into the SM specific rules a tech procedure, because the category rules trump the GCR
• Competitor revue tech period of some amount, of some cars.  Make sure last place is invited and comfortable in looking over the cars for 30 minutes, even if last place is not in the tech area.  I would have hood up and one side wheels off, like solo.  30 minutes would be good start.
• Change the requirement of a protest to be filed before the race to being allowed up to 45 min after the race.  AGAIN, OUR CLASS ONLY is fine.  This is critical to the new process working out.
• This mandatory tech period will create more friends than adversaries, and make the class feel better in general.  LET THIS PROCESS WORK FOR A YEAR AND ALL THE "GOTCHA" TECH THAT PISSES PEOPLE OFF WILL REDUCE SIGNIFICANTLY OR BE ELIMINATED...

 

The next piece of the puzzle I think is required is to make the cheats irrelevant on a case by case basis, as systematically as possible.   

 

The horsepower effective cheats, put behind a SIR sonic restrictor so they are irrelevant.  If you have a 115hp SIR on a 99, and then pull the head, pocket port the head, swirl polish valves, add some cam lift, and extrude hone the intake - then put it back together and you will have 115hp.  Our rules already have us so close that this piece of the puzzle really should make tearing apart the motor and head down to the valve keepers irrelevant.    If you can verify bore and stroke, comp ratio with a whistler, and a stall test - then Competitor A can rest assured that Competitor B is as close to the same HP output as any racing available.

 

Even if all this isn't perfect, the general feeling of the competitors and the general evaluation of SM by everyone else would improve greatly.

 

Add to that another televised race as good as daytona and the class is looking pretty damn good.

 

My .02,
Kyle

[Jim Drago]

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


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




Event disqualification, 6 month suspension of competition privileges, $250 fine, and 6 penalty points [/size]

Again, I have NEVER seen that enforced.. have you?

[Mike Collins]

I have seen it enforced, only twice in 14 years...  not specific to SM..

[MPR22]

Jim, (and CRB)

 

I agree with the first post here completely.  THIS IS THE SINGLE REASON THAT THE MIDWEST SPEC MIATA GROUP GOT TOGETHER LAS DECEMBER AND PICKED NASA THIS YEAR.

 

Add to this that I don't think it is a given that we pass.  I took the rule book and had specific valve job tools created and then the rules morphed after doing 4 motors, to where another blend radius was altered by .020 - really?  this matters?  Furthermore, mine would pass but I could not get local tech to look at it until I was a majors competitor, and then they eyeball using tools I can no longer buy....    but I digress...

 

TECH PROCESS WAS OK?  I am sure all good intentions here, but I read on the Autox forum that Goring's tech problem was that they made a mistake entering measurements into the compression ratio formula.  Not a mistake measuring, but a mistake calculating.  This error was carried forward all the way thru the appeals process BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TRANSPARENT AND TECH WOULD NOT SHARE THE PROCESS ALONG THE WAY.  This lack of transparency has to stop before we move forward.

 

 

 

 

So, maybe this is a good thread to bring up suggestions I feel would move this class forward.  If you are looking for an air tight turn key engineered solution then stop reading.  If you are interested in a good faith leap of forward progress, then here is my opinion:

 

• Lead SCCA road racing with a culture shift.  Write into the SM specific rules a tech procedure, because the category rules trump the GCR
• Competitor revue tech period of some amount, of some cars.  Make sure last place is invited and comfortable in looking over the cars for 30 minutes, even if last place is not in the tech area.  I would have hood up and one side wheels off, like solo.  30 minutes would be good start.
• Change the requirement of a protest to be filed before the race to being allowed up to 45 min after the race.  AGAIN, OUR CLASS ONLY is fine.  This is critical to the new process working out.
• This mandatory tech period will create more friends than adversaries, and make the class feel better in general.  LET THIS PROCESS WORK FOR A YEAR AND ALL THE "GOTCHA" TECH THAT PISSES PEOPLE OFF WILL REDUCE SIGNIFICANTLY OR BE ELIMINATED...

 

The next piece of the puzzle I think is required is to make the cheats irrelevant on a case by case basis, as systematically as possible.   

 

The horsepower effective cheats, put behind a SIR sonic restrictor so they are irrelevant.  If you have a 115hp SIR on a 99, and then pull the head, pocket port the head, swirl polish valves, add some cam lift, and extrude hone the intake - then put it back together and you will have 115hp.  Our rules already have us so close that this piece of the puzzle really should make tearing apart the motor and head down to the valve keepers irrelevant.    If you can verify bore and stroke, comp ratio with a whistler, and a stall test - then Competitor A can rest assured that Competitor B is as close to the same HP output as any racing available.

 

Even if all this isn't perfect, the general feeling of the competitors and the general evaluation of SM by everyone else would improve greatly.

 

Add to that another televised race as good as daytona and the class is looking pretty damn good.

 

My .02,
Kyle

Kyle so on to something.  We need to write the actual tech procedures!! 100 percent transparency!!  Before you start saying well if you know what they are going to tech then you can cheat around it, that is not what I am saying.  I am saying there needs to be a specific procedure manual for each item to be inspected.  Nobody knew what method they were going to use to calculate compression ratio and from what I understand that is a big problem.  Make it clear, build to it not over it and move on.  

 

Hell they couldn't pull a restrctor plate properly in qual 1 because there was no written procedure on how to work with the officials.  This would have been simple to hand a check list with instructions to each impounded car, assign a tech official to each car or several cars and begin the process.  Instead it was Whos on first situation.  Chris and I were hoping to get torn down to prove the legality of our cars.  Kind of sad when you want to spend tens of hours and thousands of dollars to prove you are legal.   

[FTodaro]

Unfortunately that is not accurate. We have seen this several times before
Jim

Stand corrected, as since i never been there how would i know. all i know is the pictures i saw looked to be pretty complete what else is there?

[Sean - MiataCage]

It is my belief that until there are serious penalties for intentional cheats like hogged out restrictor plates, compression, cams etc that there will always be the desire by some to try to get away with it.  If there is no big penalty for pushing and going over the limit then I see the need to validate the winners and keep people honest with invasive tech at the runoffs for sure and possibly at some of the majors.  I don't see the need for anything but basic tech (outside of a protest) at regional events.

 

It is also my belief that the rule book is a work in progress and will only get better with time as we clean up some of the areas being exploited.  At some point the rule book will get to be so clear that acts that violate the book will indeed be intentional and if we follow through with penalties for these violations then hopefully things will continue to get better. 

 

I don't subscribe to the it passed tech in the past so therefore it is legal mentality.  For 5 years I was told STR was fine that tech had seen it and it was all good.  Clearly it was not all good. 

 

I get that there are mistakes that can be made, but when I am paying top dollar for a motor (and I have the ability to be up front and get teched) I expect that the motor builder make sure that the motor is in compliance and not to make mistakes.  If they can't be certain then don't get right up on the edge of legality.  If we now allocate some fudge factor for mistakes then the motor guys are just going to build to that number and we will be right back in the same situation.

 

I was not at Daytona, but it sure seems to me like it was a job well done by all.  Competitors, Tech, Officials etc.  Congratulations to those who competed.

 

Sean

[Jim Drago]

Jim, I agree we only had one bad valve at the Runoffs. But we had cars DQed at Sprints (mine included) and Florida. So it is still happening. Whether the protest came from an Official or a Competitor, makes no difference. An illegal part is still an illegal part.
 
The issue comes down to honesty and personal integrity. If a competitor knew he/she was not going to be teched, would they push past the allowed modifications. Unfortunately many have proven that they would push beyond what is allowed. Unfortunately that is the history of this class going back 15 years.
 
Dave

Dave it was a valve relief cut, not a valve.. In Florida it was literally a scratch in one hole on my head and one relief cut in Dannys head.To this day I don't believe my head in Florida was non compliant, certainly not a performance advantage. But SCCA drew their line and were proving their point, so I went along with it and provided a replacement head free of charge. I don't even remember the Dq's other than the plate at the Sprints. Ironically I saw one of the heads that passed at the Sprints and it shouldn't have. So I question the validity of these inspections in the first place.

I have ZERO problems with all of this tear down and compliance checks. I think I am like 25 and 1 at this point My concern and argument is for the private guys who are paying guys like you,me and other shops to put their stuff back together after being found compliant.

If we all want this level of compliance and I do. Always have, always will. But I am not fine with the compliant competitor absorbing all the costs because he finished well. I don't agree with front runners paying an extra 10k in tear downs to make guys running in 25th feel good about the guys in the front. If we as a class, or SCCA or Mazda as part of this class want to hold us to this level of scrutiny, the costs need to be shared by all! There needs to be a $25 per car per race or weekend compliance fee. A scale assigned for various tear downs. If a competitor is compliant, he is reimbursed from this fund. that way the costs of our class being viewed as compliant are not paid for by the few at the front.

In your example above.. there is a huge difference from when a protest comes from the chief steward or the competitor. Right now the CCC can demand parts and we must comply bond free. If protested by a competitor and found compliant.. The protestor pays a realistic bond as they should.

[Jim Drago]

It is my belief that until there are serious penalties for intentional cheats like hogged out restrictor plates, compression, cams etc that there will always be the desire by some to try to get away with it.  If there is no big penalty for pushing and going over the limit then I see the need to validate the winners and keep people honest with invasive tech at the runoffs for sure and possibly at some of the majors.  I don't see the need for anything but basic tech (outside of a protest) at regional events.
 
It is also my belief that the rule book is a work in progress and will only get better with time as we clean up some of the areas being exploited.  At some point the rule book will get to be so clear that acts that violate the book will indeed be intentional and if we follow through with penalties for these violations then hopefully things will continue to get better. 
 
I don't subscribe to the it passed tech in the past so therefore it is legal mentality.  For 5 years I was told STR was fine that tech had seen it and it was all good.  Clearly it was not all good. 
 
I get that there are mistakes that can be made, but when I am paying top dollar for a motor (and I have the ability to be up front and get teched) I expect that the motor builder make sure that the motor is in compliance and not to make mistakes.  If they can't be certain then don't get right up on the edge of legality.  If we now allocate some fudge factor for mistakes then the motor guys are just going to build to that number and we will be right back in the same situation.
 
I was not at Daytona, but it sure seems to me like it was a job well done by all.  Competitors, Tech, Officials etc.  Congratulations to those who competed.
 
Sean

I am not allocating any fudge factor.. My stance is check and enforce to the rule. Not so sure a DQ is the right penalty for one relief cut, but that is an entirely different discussion.

My opinion on this is if we want true compliance for the entire class and are choosing to enforce the rules on just a very select few.. These few should not be burdened with all the cost and all the work for the entire class. I am very ready, willing and able to pull any car/engine we have ever built completely apart in tech. I just don't feel that I or anyone else should be penalized for running at the front with a compliant car. if non compliant, it will show up and I am not reimbursed. Many have NO IDEA how much work is involved putting this stuff back together. It is VERY easy for those standing on the sidelines or not competing at the front or at all to stand on the side lines and beat the drums of tear em all down to the ground.. All the while knowing full well it will never be them for whatever reason. These costs for fully compliant cars need to be shared by all, not just the same 10-15 guys.

[KW78]

 Ironically I saw one of the heads that passed at the Sprints and it shouldn't have. So I question the validity of these inspections in the first place.

I have ZERO problems with all of this tear down and compliance checks. I think I am like 25 and 1 at this point My concern and argument is for the private guys who are paying guys like you,me and other shops to put their stuff back together after being found compliant.

If we all want this level of compliance and I do. Always have, always will. But I am not fine with the compliant competitor absorbing all the costs because he finished well. I don't agree with front runners paying an extra 10k in tear downs to make guys running in 25th feel good about the guys in the front. If we as a class, or SCCA or Mazda as part of this class want to hold us to this level of scrutiny, the costs need to be shared by all! There needs to be a $25 per car per race or weekend compliance fee. A scale assigned for various tear downs. If a competitor is compliant, he is reimbursed from this fund. that way the costs of our class being viewed as compliant are not paid for by the few at the front.
 

 

 

This is a good point.  Realistically we base the tech of the class on a batch of great volunteers.  I understand there was a specialist this year for the majors, but still this is basically true: 

 

• SM competitors know more about the class then the people enforcing the rules.
• Simple tech procedures that can be done on a given weekend in a given region has to be the base of a class that feels legal. 

 

Kyle

[Jim Drago]

It is also my belief that the rule book is a work in progress and will only get better with time as we clean up some of the areas being exploited.  At some point the rule book will get to be so clear that acts that violate the book will indeed be intentional and if we follow through with penalties for these violations then hopefully things will continue to get better.

That was the same attitude I had 7-8 years ago It gets better and has gotten a lot better, but it will ALWAYS be a work in progress and always have its issues.. One certainty.. it gets thicker every year

[Johnny D]

Jim, (and CRB)
 
The next piece of the puzzle I think is required is to make the cheats irrelevant on a case by case basis, as systematically as possible.   
 
The horsepower effective cheats, put behind a SIR sonic restrictor so they are irrelevant.  If you have a 115hp SIR on a 99, and then pull the head, pocket port the head, swirl polish valves, add some cam lift, and extrude hone the intake - then put it back together and you will have 115hp.  Our rules already have us so close that this piece of the puzzle really should make tearing apart the motor and head down to the valve keepers irrelevant.    If you can verify bore and stroke, comp ratio with a whistler, and a stall test - then Competitor A can rest assured that Competitor B is as close to the same HP output as any racing available.
 
Even if all this isn't perfect, the general feeling of the competitors and the general evaluation of SM by everyone else would improve greatly.
 
Add to that another televised race as good as daytona and the class is looking pretty damn good.
 
My .02,
Kyle

Has there been testing on a SIR sonic restrictor ?
Can we get some if not ??

This really seems like a no brain to me.

Covers engines, Labor, tech, evens the playing field. What's not to like?
J~

[Blake Thompson]

 

The issue comes down to honesty and personal integrity.

 

Dave

 

It comes down to how a competitor behaves when they are fairly certain they're not going to be teched at all.  

[MPR22]

My opinion on this is if we want true compliance for the entire class and are choosing to enforce the rules on just a very select few.. These few should not be burdened with all the cost and all the work for the entire class. I am very ready, willing and able to pull any car/engine we have ever built completely apart in tech. I just don't feel that I or anyone else should be penalized for running at the front with a compliant car. if non compliant, it will show up and I am not reimbursed. Many have NO IDEA how much work is involved putting this stuff back together. It is VERY easy for those standing on the sidelines or not competing at the front or at all to stand on the side lines and beat the drums of tear em all down to the ground.. All the while knowing full well it will never be them for whatever reason. These costs for fully compliant cars need to be shared by all, not just the same 10-15 guys.

 

 

I think this paragraph should have been the one to start the discussion.  You boiled it down and made a great argument that the current system while benefiting the entire class is being paid by a few.  

[davew]

It is my belief that until there are serious penalties for intentional cheats like hogged out restrictor plates, compression, cams etc that there will always be the desire by some to try to get away with it.  If there is no big penalty for pushing and going over the limit then I see the need to validate the winners and keep people honest with invasive tech at the runoffs for sure and possibly at some of the majors.  I don't see the need for anything but basic tech (outside of a protest) at regional events.

 

 

Sean

 

Sean, I agree but some common sense needs to be used.

 

Example 1, the hogged out restrictor at June Sprints. It was in a car that I work on. I did not build the car, I did not install the plate, I did not modify the plate. But I should have checked it. The owner driver is a suit and tie guy. He does not work on the car. He did not ask the car builder to modify the plate. So who gets the "serious penalty" you request?

 

Example 2, the overly modified Valve Relief Cut ( I used the right term this time  ) at Daytona. The driver did not do his own engine work. I assume he did not ask for anything non-compliant. Then add in that it was an older engine that may have been compliant when built. Again whose fault is it. Who should get penalized? Would the penalty have been the same 3 years ago, for the same infraction?

 

Example 3, STR-gate. I am sure none of the effected drivers asked for their short turn radius to be modified. But they asked for as good an engine as possible. It was the engine builders who did the non-approved work. Yet it was the drivers who got penalized.

 

As the title of this thread says, BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU ASK FOR. We as a group asked for more scrutiny. Mazda and SCCA agreed to do what we asked for. Now we are complaining because what we got, has affected our fun/budget. Sorry, we can not have it both ways. I do agree with Jim, that only a small percentage of the SM competitors have every been torn down. And that many of them have been torn down many times. If the front running SM cars had never been found non-compliant, this would be overkill. But we have been found non-compliant, many times. And that is why we need to prove to ourselves and the officials that we have the integrity to play fair without being inspected at every event.

 

Dave

[KW78]

Has there been testing on a SIR sonic restrictor ?
Can we get some if not ??

This really seems like a no brain to me.

Covers engines, Labor, tech, evens the playing field. What's not to like?
J~

 

SCCA uses this in GTL.  It was introduced when GT4 and GT5 had to be combined for numbers, as well as some of the prod guys going gt racing.  A small bore engine builder in KS did work with them when it was new, and told me how effective it was then.  That was with 1.4 to 2 litre motors and open rule sets...  Also FIA used this in prototype racing years ago.

 

SM Testing?  Not that I know of, but to satisfy my general curiosity I plan on it this winter.  I have half a dozen different combos around here from stock, ita, and stl motors that all would be good test mules.  I think I can engineer some after hour dyno time, so that is my plan.  The first sonic restrictor from a GTL friend is making 130hp for him so I will probably have to order a smaller one to have on point R&D here.  Time and money, but working on it.

 

Since the WRL has come on line we are busy with that too, but since HP to Weight seems to be the rule model of the future I think it would be good to get a handle on it.

 

Kyle