150 replies to this topic

[38bfast]

an option would be to have a sealed motor program as a alternative. A shop that would provide a sealed approved compliant motor. Of course there would be a uncharge for the service. would not be mandatory but optional. Could be a current builder that fly John in to do the certification or something of the sort. Pay once extra up front and you are good to go. 

[Jim Drago]

I don't think I have read anywhere in the thread anyone advocating no tech? We need tech.. We need extensive tech. We simply need better implementation, procedures and policies.

[Johnny D]

Do we need extensive tech ?

Would a SIR sonic restrictor solve "some" of the issue or we don't want to put Dan and other out of biz ?
J~

[Sean - MiataCage]

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 agree and would support the compliance fee to be put back in to place or even possibly re-allocate some of the tow fund money to help offset some of these expenses especially for those that have been hit multiple times in one season.  I would even go so far as to suggest monetary fines throughout the year for aggregious violations at Majors events to be put toward this as well.

 

Sean

[davew]

an option would be to have a sealed motor program as a alternative. A shop that would provide a sealed approved compliant motor. Of course there would be a uncharge for the service. would not be mandatory but optional. Could be a current builder that fly John in to do the certification or something of the sort. Pay once extra up front and you are good to go. 

 

Not saying this is the answer, but to start the conversation...

 

XYZ engine builder assembles a motor and sends it to ABC engines who does not build SM motors, but is qualified to disassemble, certify and reassemble the engine. Then engine dyno to verify everything is ok and within normal readings. ABC then seals the engine and sends it back to XYZ engines for sale to the end user.

 

The cost would be about $2000 for ABC to perform this service. But the end user would never have to be torn down. potentially saving a bunch of money. Would you be willing to pay for this service?

 

Could the supps be written in a manner that over rules the seals and allows teardown inspection? Primarily at the Runoffs.

 

There would need to be a significant penalty for tampering with the seals.

 

There would need to be an approved method for removing the seals for maintenance and inspection. i.e. replacing a valve cover gasket or checking valve lash.

 

Potential problem, who bears responsibility if the engine blows up on the engine dyno? On lap #1? At race #3? Is ABC obligated to inform the customer of a low performing engine? Or one with manufacturing/assembly issues? Could this procedure be expanded to transmissions, or differentials or ECU's?

 

Again, I am not saying I am in favor, just putting out some ideas to ponder.

 

Dave

[Johnny D]

Speaking of XYZ and ABC ...

How much would it cost for Prather to tech the cars ??
J~

[Sean - MiataCage]

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

 

Hi Dave,

 

Agee that common sense would go along way. 

 

Example 1 - The driver per the GCR gets the penalty.  I get that it was not intentional, but we have a hard enough time teching things that are absolutes.  If we have to get tech to start trying to identify intent then we are in big trouble.  How does one prove that it was not intentional?  Maybe the common sense part of this is to look at prior infractions and see if said driver has a history..... Not sure, but at some point someone has to take responsibility for the car and per the GCR that is the driver.  Even if the infraction was not intentional (any infraction not your example) it still effected everyone that finished behind the car with the infraction as well as having a potential impact on contingency money.

 

Example 2 - I hate to be a broken record here, but I belive the GCR here is clear, so the driver gets the penalty.  If a competitor asks for something that is compliant and does not receive what he/she asked for then they should stop using that builder/vendor and very quickly the builder/vendor in question will be branded as one that did not build them what they asked for and word of mouth should have an impact on that builder/vendors future business.  Hopefully enough that they think twice next time (if it was intentional) about running on the ragged absolute edge or going over the edge.  What amazes me is how many times people get caught doing something blatently wrong and yet they keep getting and growing their business.  This is where the competitor who would be getting the penalty would be impacting the builder vendor with thier money by no longer using them.   We have had 2 very good examples of this in our past... One engine builder who is no longer around and a few competitors who consistently chose to blatantly break the rules and over time they were fortunatley run out of the class.  I agree the builder/vendor is not always the culprit as the competitor asks for it or tells them its for a different class.

 

Example 3 - I think this ship has sailed and we are best to simply move forward from it. 

 

What I read was not people saying they want less tech, but for all of us to consider an alternative to the amount of money being spent to put things back together after the various tech tear downs.  I think as many have said here that process and procedure might go a long way to help start the ball rolling in the proper direction.

 

Thanks.... Sean

[LarryKing]

Am I wrong thinking that the competition among vendors to be the "championship-winning builder" is at the root of this problem? Should rules be based on what is best for those businesses or what is best for members and the class.

A sealed, single sourced engine could eliminate a lot of tech shed drama.

There would still be a market of arrive and drive, shirt and tie racers for shops to offer build, maintenance and support programs. For example, there are numerous SRF shops.

As far as a 3 hp difference between me and my buddies sealed engine... Well... Let's just say that's probably within the current standard deviation of the peaches that builders supply to Runoff contenders and the off the shelf units that schmoes like me get.

[av8tor]

"I agree and would support the compliance fee to be put back in to place or even possibly re-allocate some of the tow fund money to help offset some of these expenses especially for those that have been hit multiple times in one season.  I would even go so far as to suggest monetary fines throughout the year for aggregious violations at Majors events to be put toward this as well."

 

I'm new to SM but not new to racing.  This level of scrutiny is Draconian.  I am most taken aback by the fact that if I am directed by the officials to tear apart my engine and transmission, (something I am patently unqualified to do, nor do I have the tools and equipment to reassemble it, so I am now a pawn to someone else) and I accept the DQ, it is possible that I can be penalized more severely than if I am caught cheating. As Sean eludes, deal ruthlessly with the cheats and they will go away.  Fund the compliance fee with the fines from cheats and it will require less money every year.  You all know one can tell in about 2 laps, who has a non compliant ECU/engine/transmission/or brakes.

 

All this scrutiny over metal parts when my son could put an AEM ECU in a Miata ECU case in about 3 hours...

 

The club officials are missing the point by trying to make a point.

[David L]

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.  

News flash PORTED HEADS ARE LEGAL in SM

[MPR22]

News flash PORTED HEADS ARE LEGAL in SM

You are like a whack-a-mole game. No matter how many times I beat your head down you pop back up.

Quit trying to prove you are smarter than me, I promise you that you are ill equipped to challenge me in that department. I bet I could spot you the C and the T and you would still struggle spell cat.

Go buy a car, race it, complain that everyone that beat you was cheating, sell the car and post about your experience. Wash rinse repeat.

[FTodaro]

Am I wrong

A sealed, single sourced engine could eliminate a lot of tech shed drama.

 

Yes

 

You also would have a supply and demand problem. As it is the multiple vendors are generally slammed near spring filling orders and refreshing motors. If we all had to get in line for a motor it would take years to get one.

[David L]

I love it when people boast about how smart they are!

[Tom Scheifler]

You boiled it down and made a great argument that the current system while benefiting the entire class is being paid by a few.

+1

[David L]

Listen to Ti Speed, SM needs pro motors there is no other viable option.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Listen to Ti Speed, SM needs pro motors there is no other viable option.

 

Not what he said.......

 

Left to Right, top to bottom a group of words makes a sentence.  Figure it out......

[MPR22]

I love it when people boast about how smart they are!

If you read it properly I was commenting on how dumb you are. Go away troll.

[Bench Racer]

Posted in the past and only two folks commented.

 

Measuring torque with strain gauge on track.

 

Read on.....

 

http://www.accumetri...measurement.pdf

 

https://library.e.ab...7R0101_-001.pdf

 

http://tecatperforma...taSheet2015.pdf

[MPR22]

Drago, I can't believe you started the silly season!!! You FUUCKER!

[Ron Alan]

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.

Top 3 found compliant in post race tech...move on to protests. Top 3 found non-compliant...bring in 4/5/6 and start tech. P4 DQ for something other than STR(I think this is why we now have the wording for the direction the plunge cut must follow?)and was the only DQ. All other protested heads, which included P5 and P6 found non-compliant(8 total)and moved to rear of field. Is this accurate Jim?