150 replies to this topic

[Ron Alan]

Edit

[Ron Alan]

"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.

How about a Piggyback? Does he ship?

[JBlaisdell]

Ok...here I go again...I've presented this option several times...and it gets shot down...but I'm a little like a broken record... .

 

Adopt a HP cap for Majors/RunOffs events...and simply Dyno the cars...no evasive tech/teardown.

 

I know...most all the excuses/reasons why some do not want Dyno's and please...I know that there are ways to "fool" the Dyno.

But I STILL believe that we, as a club/clan, should be putting our efforts towards adopting this tool, and ways to improve it's use.

[Michael Novak]

Ok...here I go again...I've presented this option several times...and it gets shot down...but I'm a little like a broken record... .

 

Adopt a HP cap for Majors/RunOffs events...and simply Dyno the cars...no evasive tech/teardown.

 

I know...most all the excuses/reasons why some do not want Dyno's and please...I know that there are ways to "fool" the Dyno.

But I STILL believe that we, as a club/clan, should be putting our efforts towards adopting this tool, and ways to improve it's use.

Jim,

 

While I don't agree. Please explain how it would work?

 

Example: Engine builder X builds SM engines and they produce 130HP and 120TQ for example? Would the Dyno number be larger then the highest known number---In this case maybe 135hp....  I say this as I have no idea as to what I would do beyond a RP to cut the power down by some increment...  And I am not sure before coming to the track what your dyno might read as compared to mine?  

 

I don't think the tech is far off at this point --It just needs a little more tweaking....

[Blake Thompson]

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 your 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.

 

you're*

[Todd Green]

Adopt a HP cap for Majors/RunOffs events...and simply Dyno the cars...no evasive tech/teardown.

Please don't.  As has been posted here many times, dynos vary.  Read this thread for what a nightmare HP caps can be.  IMO better to do it how NASA does for SM which is to look for outliers in a group and not absolute numbers.  If something looks fishy send them off for more invasive tech.  I'd be interested in hearing how you can cheat the dyno in this situation if you have an official watching the car as soon as it comes off track and you put it on a DynaPack(*) to eliminate tie-down/tires etc. etc.  It isn't like we have reprogrammable ECU's and if an official is watching to make sure FP isn't adjusted etc. how are you going to cheat the dyno?  Maybe I've just not thought about it enough.

 

* If SCCA Solo can afford a truck to drive around to all the Nat events, surely club racing can afford a DynaPack to take to Majors?

[Jim Drago]

Ok...here I go again...I've presented this option several times...and it gets shot down...but I'm a little like a broken record... .
 
Adopt a HP cap for Majors/RunOffs events...and simply Dyno the cars...no evasive tech/teardown.
 
I know...most all the excuses/reasons why some do not want Dyno's and please...I know that there are ways to "fool" the Dyno.
But I STILL believe that we, as a club/clan, should be putting our efforts towards adopting this tool, and ways to improve it's use.

Can't use this as the rule.. but dynoing a cars as a first step and tearing down outliers would help. ( although you would likely only get the stupid people : ) ) But no one should be dq'ed on a power number unless found non compliant to a rule.

[MDixon]

Edit

[Jamz14]

 I'd be interested in hearing how you can cheat the dyno in this situation if you have an official watching the car as soon as it comes off track and you put it on a DynaPack(*) to eliminate tie-down/tires etc. etc.  It isn't like we have reprogrammable ECU's and if an official is watching to make sure FP isn't adjusted etc. how are you going to cheat the dyno?  Maybe I've just not thought about it enough.

 

 

Im the stupid one without experience but even I could easily defeat the dyno with GPS triggered switches of all sorts. Doesn't even have to be as sophisticated as a GPS switch. If VW can do it, you smart guys can.

[Johnny D]

Jims request is valid but IMO more of a region by region case.

 

2 SM out west at a majors is a big difference than 60 at Daytona.

 

Did you want a tear down contingency program, more you do more cash back ??

J~

[Jim Drago]

Did you want a tear down contingency program, more you do more cash back ??

J~

 

Just want a system in place that techs the entire class, is paid for by the entire class. No just the front. That means a compliance fee and cars pulled in at the front, middle and back of the pack. Compliant cars should not be out any money.  This should be for the majors only IMO.. Regional racers don't want to deal with this stuff or they would be running majors  

[Johnny D]

Ok...here I go again...I've presented this option several times...and it gets shot down...but I'm a little like a broken record... .
 
Adopt a HP cap for Majors/RunOffs events...and simply Dyno the cars...no evasive tech/teardown.
 
I know...most all the excuses/reasons why some do not want Dyno's and please...I know that there are ways to "fool" the Dyno.
But I STILL believe that we, as a club/clan, should be putting our efforts towards adopting this tool, and ways to improve it's use.

This is the type of idea I'd like to hear more about with SIR sonic restrictor. If it has holes in the idea let me know and I'll drop it.
I don't see a dyno involved unless it only used to check the SIR.

Doesn't this restrict the HP to a set number ??

So if you have a 125hp engine or a 120hp with a 118HP SIR all run at 118 ??
Please explain.
J~

[Johnny D]

Just want a system in place that techs the entire class, is paid for by the entire class. No just the front. That means a compliance fee and cars pulled in at the front, middle and back of the pack. Compliant cars should not be out any money.  This should be for the majors only IMO.. Regional racers don't want to deal with this stuff or they would be running majors

Just a general fund or a race weekend by race weekend ?

If tech had an idea about how many they'd check/tear down then the fee could be for that.
Then again maybe the racers would do the math and figure out only X are being torn down or none with no fee.
I just don't want to see it absorbed.

I hear the mid season "they only checked RP" etc.
J~

[Jim Drago]

Just a general fund or a race weekend by race weekend ?

If tech had an idea about how many they'd check/tear down then the fee could be for that.
Then again maybe the racers would do the math and figure out only X are being torn down or none with no fee.
I just don't want to see it absorbed.

I hear the mid season "they only checked RP" etc.
J~

 

compliance fee for all major entries from entire country.. all goes into a fund.. 

price chart for various common tear downs.. 

cars that are selected and pass compliance checks are reinbursed for their costs.  

just major issues like heads, transmissions etc. Not plates, fuel etc. 

[Johnny D]

Sound fine with regions with good turn outs.

How do regions with a low to no turn out with an added fee and nobody knowing how to do tech do ? No difference ?

I'd like to hear what would make them show up. (And then they really do it)

I hear SMAC can't do anything unless you send a letter....
J~

[Bench Racer]

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.

 

Each time these heads are coming off at majors... the average cost to competitors is $1500-2500.

 

Jim

The Majors folks asked for tech and proved tech is required.

 

The cost of maintaining your qualifying position when you had a misfortune.

 

$6,500-$8,500 reassemble bill. Cost of being a hands off arrive and drive driver.

 

Head coming off is a $1,500-$2,500 bill. Cost of being a hands off arrive and drive driver.

 

What​ percent of the drivers that finished 25th through 62nd would pony up for a compliance fee to absorb the above suggested costs?  

 

Only comments and a question, nothing more or less.

[Johnny D]

Price goes up for a Major, Not sure what the added expense is if it's not tech, why's it not covered ?
J~

[Jim Drago]

The Majors folks asked for tech and proved tech is required.
 
The cost of maintaining your qualifying position when you had a misfortune.

No issue with it, never had, never will. But I can absorb these costs far more easily than 99% of the rest.
 

$6,500-$8,500 reassemble bill. Cost of being a hands off arrive and drive driver.
Head coming off is a $1,500-$2,500 bill. Cost of being a hands off arrive and drive driver.

So because a competitor is a better driver or has a better race, he should have to spend 6000 plus to make the rest of us feel good? I disagree. Not a personal attack, but knowing this wont likely be you spending this money, it is easy for you to have this position.
 

 

What​ percent of the drivers that finished 25th through 62nd would pony up for a compliance fee to absorb the above suggested costs?  

All of them as it will be mandatory, just like SRF.. We as a class want compliance, we as a class should share the financial burdens as well

[Tom Hampton]

It looks to me like you would need an fee per entrant of hundreds of dollars PER RACE just to cover removing the heads of just a couple of cars. 

 

Looking at the runoffs:

 

I understand that 5 cars were torn down post race to the tune of $7,500 each (median of drago's costs above).  That's a $37,500 bill to spread across the 62 competitors.  That's $605 each.  If you add in a couple of tear downs for engine swaps like Drago's....say $3000 each?  That's another $50 per engine tear down.  So, that would be total fee of $700+ on top of the existing costs. 

 

I don't know if that's feasible or not....just doing some simple math to put the idea into some concrete context.  2015 Runoffs quality tech costs $700+ each, for 60+ entrants. 

[Johnny D]

Don't tear down the car and the problem goes away, all solved.

J~