150 replies to this topic

[Blake Thompson]

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?

 

 

Dave

 

He gets the penalty.  What happens to you is between you and him.  In the business world of compliance where I wear a suit and tie if I don't do my job I get fired.  The business eats the penalty.  My vendor might get fired, or fined, depending on our conversation prior.

 

If the prep shop has an obligation to provide technical true-ness then there's related fines in a contract, same with a motor shop.  It is truly "you get what you pay for."

[Brandon]

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.   

 

Beg to disagree here Jim.  Your assertion that tech 'found compliant' all of the vehicles and yet the protest discovered non-compliance is a straw man (if I remember my debate terms properly).  These "compliant" vehicles were still non-compliant though just not known until the full processing of SCCA's guidelines were completed.

 

I will grant that our class has been subject to significant scrutiny over the past 2-5 years but that has been solely due to the close level of competition and the extent to which competitors (namely builders) have been asked to work within as close to the rule constraints.

 

What this thread is bringing out though is a potential need for SCCA to step-up their capabilities when it comes to pointy-end competitors and devising a mechanism to reduce the extent of tear-downs.  I can potentially see some draconian ways to ensure seals aren't modified yet that presumes the goal of a competitor is to cheat & thus violate the seal anyway so it's not necessarily a concern.

 

Anyway - getting something in front of the BoD would be helpful so perhaps that's something we put on the agenda to discuss at the National Convention come February?

[cam]

It was just a year ago that SM earned a bad reputation as a class with car who were willing to push the limits of what was considered to be legal performance modifications. I would assume that SCCA is treating the embarrassing multiple car DQ from last year has more at stake than a few annoyed competitors, it has the integrity of the whole club.  In the grand scheme of things, it is good that SCCA performed invasive compliance checking this year and for the most part the class has proved to clean up its act.   With knowing the personality of many racers are competitive by there nature, my concern is that; what about the racer who is predisposed to pushing the limits where to know that there was going to be light tech?  I think it is not too difficult to hypothesize that the gray area and beyond would be explored.   IMHO, SCCA would do the class a disfavor by relaxing tech at big events such as the run offs.  Furthermore, NASA would do well to do the same.

 

I draw a parallel to the US tax system, the IRS serves the purpose as a strong deterrent to cheating on your taxes.  All of the honest people pay a penalty but the extra hassle and a few honest are audited which is a huge PITA but as the theory goes, if the IRS did not do this, then many would not pay their taxes.

[Dan Tiley]

I personally think the level of tech at this year's Runoffs were both appropriate and necessary.  The fact that 4th place was also torn down after a podium finisher was DQ'd but later overturned is definitely unfortunate... no question.

 

If it is possible to overturn the result from a tech procedure by a protest and/or appeal, there is clearly an issue with either that procedure, and/or the way it was performed.  The go no-go gauges are ideal for the head throats and chambers, in that they are purposely produced to be slightly forgiving to the tune of about 0.005" over size.  I think Cory is a great guy, drove an incredible race, and had absolutely zero intent of trying to sneak something through tech.  Bottom line though, is if tool drops in, it's not just close,  it's over size... no question.  Even he agreed with that!

 

In the same way, I think all measurements should follow the same idea of "tolerance" into the measurment.  I DO NOT think tech should be able to disqualify a competitor for being over on compression by an amount that is less than the accuracy of the tools and/or process to measure it.   For example, the Whistler's documentation says it accurate to +/-0.2.  By that regard, you should not be able to disqualify a 99 that whistles 9.7.    Perhaps this would lead to a CC test, but not a DQ.  There again though, Even the holy grail of CR test's (CC'ing) has tolerances associated with it.  It's not hard to calculate.  You just use the same formulae, only use tool accuracy numbers instead of measurements (ie.  0.05cc for any buret measurement, or .0005" for a linear measurement such as bore or stroke).  So a car which cc's to a CR of 9.55, or possibly even as high as 9.6 could conceiveably be legal, based on the cumulative limitations in accuracy during the measurement process.  These tolerances need to be clearly defined and documented on the official forms and/or procedures. 

 

In my opinion, the benefit of ANY doubt goes to the competitor.  

[Mike Collins]

The GCR does allow for tolerances when making measurement decisions.  Its 1/2 of the last number (decimal place) used to define the measurement unless the GCR specially says absolute maximum.  So a car that was found to be over on compression and was less than 9.55 (1999) it would be legal.  Our rule does say "maximum" but not absolute and it does allow you to remove the carbon before the measurement takes place (excuse me while I get my die-grinder to remove that carbon)

[Dan Tiley]

The GCR does allow for tolerances when making measurement decisions.  Its 1/2 of the last number (decimal place) used to define the measurement unless the GCR specially says absolute maximum.  So a car that was found to be over on compression and was less than 9.55 (1999) it would be legal.  Our rule does say "maximum" but not absolute and it does allow you to remove the carbon before the measurement takes place (excuse me while I get my die-grinder to remove that carbon)

 

Agreed... but in many cases the tools and processes don't even have the accuracy of 1/2 of the last number, such as the Whistler.  For these cases, the tolerance should be specifically called out, otherwise they bring legitimacy to a protest or appeal of the procedure.

 

That being said... the part or vehicle spec can still be an "absolute maximum" , but we need to understand that the measurement tool has tolerance associated with it that should be allowed for.

[Jim Drago]

Beg to disagree here Jim.  Your assertion that tech 'found compliant' all of the vehicles and yet the protest discovered non-compliance is a straw man (if I remember my debate terms properly).  These "compliant" vehicles were still non-compliant though just not known until the full processing of SCCA's guidelines were completed.

I beg to differ with you as well You should read what I posted. I said tech found Zero in post race tech inspections. Which is 100% accurate, I never mentioned compliant/non compliant, nor did I assert it. You added that all on your own. What they found was after the technical inspection was completed and dealing with the protests. I know the way it went down, unfortunately I was there and involved.

[LarryKing]

Wouldn't it be great if Mazda and SCCA Enterprizes got together and sold a sealed, single source engine?

[Jim Drago]

The GCR does allow for tolerances when making measurement decisions.  Its 1/2 of the last number (decimal place) used to define the measurement unless the GCR specially says absolute maximum.  So a car that was found to be over on compression and was less than 9.55 (1999) it would be legal.  Our rule does say "maximum" but not absolute and it does allow you to remove the carbon before the measurement takes place (excuse me while I get my die-grinder to remove that carbon)

I believe compression and a few other numbers are absolute, I'm too tired to look.
Only FV can remove carbon in post race inspection.. I just sent in a letter.

[Blake Thompson]

Wouldn't it be great if Mazda and SCCA Enterprizes got together and sold a sealed, single source engine?

 

I'd sooner buy direct from Mazda Enterprises.

[Mike Collins]

I did look....  In the GCR, SM does not use the word absolute, and it does specifically say "without carbon".  It technically doesn't say you can remove the carbon but it does say to measure without carbon.

[Jim Drago]

I did look....  In the GCR, SM does not use the word absolute, and it does specifically say "without carbon".  It technically doesn't say you can remove the carbon but it does say to measure without carbon.

Check the front of the book. pretty certain all compression numbers are absolute.From talking with Bauer in tech, he did use discretion and did not right anything up on compression that was close. I feel that is the right call... especially when my 9.9 engine CC'ed at 9.45 When we changed to my numbers it came up to 9.85.

[Mike Collins]

This year in the tech shed my restrictor plate was measured with a Harbor Freight caliper where the face glass on it was cracked in more than one location, indicating that the tool had been dropped or improperly handled.  In addition said measurement was done freehand, not on a flat surface.  A few "tech" procedures could go a long way...

[Jim Drago]

This year in the tech shed my restrictor plate was measured with a Harbor Freight caliper where the face glass on it was cracked in more than one location, indicating that the tool had been dropped or improperly handled.  In addition said measurement was done freehand, not on a flat surface.  A few "tech" procedures could go a long way...

Nice to know the expensive tools we have made to check the restrictors are still being used. I haven't seen them in several years? But they were really nice and accurate go/no go tools

[Dan Tiley]

Wouldn't it be great if Mazda and SCCA Enterprizes got together and sold a sealed, single source engine?

 

I 100% agree that it makes total sense to put about 10 small shops across the country out of business, each of which are owned and operated by your peers and fellow racers and employ dozens motorsports enthusiasts.  I have no doubt Mazda, a multi-billion dollar corporation, is better suited to handle the engine programs for our amateur racing class. 

[Dan Tiley]

... And by the way.  Enjoy the holding music when you call Mazda to let them know that engine #423584874 is 3 HP down from your buddies car.  Your call will be answered in the order in which it was received.

[Johnny D]

I 100% agree that it makes total sense to put about 10 small shops across the country out of business, each of which are owned and operated by your peers and fellow racers and employ dozens motorsports enthusiasts.

J~

[Rob Burgoon]

 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.

 

Essentially this is requesting a purse funded by the back markers.  No.  If SCCA wants X because it makes the whole club look bad, the whole club can pay for it.  Same for mazda.  

 

Or we can let the winners put their cars back together because they clearly have a knack for it and/or writing checks.

[MPR22]

Essentially this is requesting a purse funded by the back markers.  No.  If SCCA wants X because it makes the whole club look bad, the whole club can pay for it.  Same for mazda.  

 

Or we can let the winners put their cars back together because they clearly have a knack for it and/or writing checks.

Why does SRF have to pay for SM?  I don't have a problem with MAZDA paying but will they?   The back marker benefits from the tech just as much as the front runner.  If you don't think so then get rid of tech and we can be back to the wild west days of ported heads, super light crank shafts, cams........   Tech is necessary and it shouldn't be just for those that happen to win.  I think the back markers should be torn down from time to time too, I have seen many of those cars that are out of bounds not so much at the front.  

[Johnny D]

Tech is necessary until we start using other tools on the car or in tech to control HP/TQ.

Don't like the tech, come up with the tool.

And I don't agree with a tech fund pool. The same people and same tools will show up.

J~