140 replies to this topic

[Sean - MiataCage]

Personal opinion.......

 

The implication that SCCA is looking to DQ or catch people in my opinion is not accurate.

 

As a group we have pretty much demanded more invasive tech (at least at the Majors level) due to the cheating (notice I didn't say rule creep) that has been going on in the last couple years.  Some of it was intentional some of it was not, but the bottom line is things got out of control and unless you knew the secret handshake or were buying a 7K pro built motor you were likely not playing on the same field as some others.

 

The bottom line for me is this.  The rule book is pretty clear.  There are still some areas that are not and we are working on those and hope to get them tightened up.  The rules are black and white and in a lot of cases have a tolerance that allows for appropriate variations.  It is in writing and is not ambiguous.  Regardless of the intent of the rule or why the rule was written, it is in the book in writing and not subject to complying with it or not.  If the rule seems wrong, then lets submit the proper letter and take it through the proper channels and fix it.

 

There are only a handful of reasons why something was .002 over....

 

A.) Someone didn't know what they were doing.

B.) Someone didn't care to be accurate.

C.) Someone chose not to buy the proper tool(s) for the job.

 

There is ZERO reason to take this stuff to the absolute ragged edge and risk getting DQ'd.  The rules are the rules, choosing to ignore the rule book or press the tolerance to the ragged edge is an active choice and one that has consequences.

 

As fas as the kill switch goes, it sounds like it wasn't wired properly.  It should kill the engine immediately.  I personally would have done the notation in the rule book thing, but in a volunteer organization like tech you don't always get uniform application of the rule book or logic.

 

Where is the personal accountability?  The rules are pretty clear..... follow them.

Sean

[James York]

You can't expect officials to value assess if a non-compliance is not a "substantial" gain or not.  If they start letting .002 slide, then people will build over using the fudge.  Or maybe if you are a friend of the officials you get .010 over....  

 

Its only the competitors fault (our fault) if we try to get so close to the edge as to go over.  Things can just as easily be built within a safe comfort margin if that is the need.  We are the ones trying to get every last bit out of our cars.

 

A non-compliant car deserves to be DQ'd (or moved to last) period.  

[Brian129]

I happy with real changes as compared to flopping around 25 pounds for years previous to these proposed to the CRB changes. 1.6er's write your CRB letters confirming you approve and want these changes.

 

Not to argue with Ralph, wrapping my intake snorkel tube cost approx $100.00, Pegasus heat barrier cloth # 1832 and high temp adhesive spray. Power doesn't get any cheaper. From day one, my car had cool air intake. 

 

After winter Dyno test/tune come spring I might need to put a capable spacer between the steering wheel and the seat. The only  proof we'll have that these changes are successful on track is when the complaining starts.  

shall we put this back on topic a little? 
maybe a little discussion on implementation for these changes.  
I see Bench's approach from Pegasus,  

I was looking at the tape offerings available like

http://www.designeng...rials/cool-tape

But there is also

http://www.designeng...er/reflect-gold

 

I wonder what the actual performance difference is between these. 

 

While I understand what you are saying. I think it is VERY important to realize there is a very real difference in an 'optimized " header that is meant to pass tech versus one that is fully legal to be ground on. I would guess that the gain will be 1.5 -2 x greater than optimized.

 

as for the header,  Jim's comment leads me to believe this is not about just cleaning up the welds a little.

So are we getting at this will be a grinding out almost the entire weld from the inside of the flange,  and then filing a bead around the outside of the tube? Don't grind the pipe, but the weld would be smooth with the tubing surface?    

 

I was looking in at the junction for the collector,  there is a small bead on the top edge,  but this does not look to be a major flow restriction.

The header I am looking at is already cracked through the joint of all 4 pips,  so likely not useable, but likely a good experimentation part.  

 

I was more worried about the weld in the top of my downpipe,  I guess we just look for the best one there?   

[Bench Racer]

Brian, when I chose the insulation product, I did look at the reflective gold material and the silver material with and without self adhesive material. Talked with heat transfer engineer/racer friend and he from education and practice guided me to the silver stuff. He suggested the reflective stuff is more for radiant and what we have going is convection. Good enough for me and I chose to use the sheet material with the spray adhesive. It could have been a more PITA deal using the sheet stuff over the tape. Either way there is most likely a lot of cutting and fitting around some real odd shapes.

 

The header grind will be determined as I get the header off the engine. Hey, it'll be snow here until the end of March.

[Jim Drago]

I was looking in at the junction for the collector,  there is a small bead on the top edge,  but this does not look to be a major flow restriction.

The collector is the choke point, not the head side. looks can be deceiving there.

[KW78]

A gentle reminder to Kyle.  Andy did not lose a National Championship to the carb issue.  Although he was written up for the carb, that was determined to be a rule clarity issue, which the ASAC and the CRB cleaned up for the next season.  So, the CoA let the carb issue slide after testimony that the rule was not clear and it was common practice to clean carbs with scotchbrite pads. 

...

 

wheel

 

Thanks for the reminder.  Sorry for the CRS issues!  I wasn't trying to have a good story despite the facts ... lol..  

 

I was trying to cite the issue Andy had that then was let go for eveyone else later, except Andy left already so he lost out.  It is a tale that goes to the point of my rules posts...

 

Somehow now there has to be added pretty formal point in the process that someone (my vote is leaning towards a small competitor sample of that class at that event) asks "Is this relevant to the class and the race?  Has common sense been applied here?  Is this a performance advantage?  Does the punishment fit the infraction?"

 

SCCA no longer can afford to blindly administer rules in black and white IMO...  

 

Kyle

[KW78]

...

 

As fas as the kill switch goes, it sounds like it wasn't wired properly.  It should kill the engine immediately.  I personally would have done the notation in the rule book thing, but in a volunteer organization like tech you don't always get uniform application of the rule book or logic.

 

Where is the personal accountability?  The rules are pretty clear..... follow them.

Sean

 

 

This is an example of the problem, both with the written rule and the smug use of them.

 

The kill switch rule says 4 things.  Location, marking, installation directly in a battery cable, and that it cuts all electrical circuits...  

 

It doesn't say kill the car, immediately or otherwise.  It is a poorly written rule.  

 

"cuts all electrical circuits"...??  To the battery? that is where the rule says install a switch.  So if a kill switch isolates the battery, how is a car running off of the alternator in violation?  Or does it mean cut all electrical circuits?  Then when the car is shut off, the kill switch is shut off, and I can ohm meter the headlight switch to headlights to prove that that circuit is not cut, is the kill switch non compliant?  (How would a switch in one circuit cut all others?)  

 

So, the "common sense" interpretation from the administers of this rule (tech and stewards) is that they would like to see a switch that a corner worker can shut off when arriving on the scene of a wreck or a car in distress.  Throwing this switch should shut off the car and keep as much as possible of the electrical system dead to prevent shorting or other hazards (such as a fuel pump feeding a leak) that could make the situation worse.   Pretty common sense.

 

I am advocating that common sense goes the other way too.  When tech writes up a competitor that the common sense version of this rule isn't working, don't be an a$$hole about the situation.  When a steward wants to say technically that the race results have to be pulled, then we better look technically at the rule being used to pull the results - in this case the competitor was technically correct, not the tech steward.  The switch killed the car with the fuel pump, not the alternator, but neither is required from the rule.  All aspects of the rule were satisfied.  But the results, and the customer was lost.

 

AND remember what this is about, we need to retain racers and keep close racing.  That's why the bogus comment "The rules are pretty clear.. follow them" is a cheap bigshot comment that is immaterial to a solution.

 

I am just using this example to illustrate the bigger issue and concerns that are happening.  In this case, the rule and the goals of the rule could be re-written pretty easily.  BUT refining every rule in every class is impractical and we find DOZENS of unclear examples every year creating this sort of conflict.  We need a new global solution to the handling of the rule book that incorporates the authority of common sense and checks and balances applied in situations, rooted in the class participants.

 

Using the head example, make a rule book that allows this kind of conversation:  We have a non-compliant valve of .002, and 15 compliant valves.  He beat the guy behind him by 20 seconds, and this doesn't add a measurable amount, only theoretical.  5 second penallty.... 

 

OR keep losing members...

 

my .02

Kyle

[Bench Racer]

Folks, yes this is a tangent, BUT it is rules discussion which is already within this thread.

 

Kyle, please read the following and then read the Production class Level 2 rules. How would you find the F Production car # 7 intake manifold, legal or illegal.

 

COURT OF APPEALS
SCCA National Championship Runoffs JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CSOM Reference Number 105 Jim Creighton vs. SOM, COA Ref. No. 15-07-RO September 27, 2015

 

FACTS IN BRIEF
On September 26, 2015, after the F Production (FP) race at the 2015 National Championship Runoffs, Tech staff filed a Technical Inspection Report indicating that car #7, driven by Eric Prill, had a thermal coating on the exterior of the intake manifold that was non-compliant with GCR 9.1.5.E.2.b.7. which states: “The intake manifold may be port matched on the port mating surface to a depth of no more than one inch. Balance pipes or tubes on all intake manifolds can be plugged or restricted. The intake manifold cannot otherwise be modified.”  A Chief Steward’s Action (CSA) was filed to disqualify Mr. Prill.   Mr. Prill protested the CSA penalty. 

 

The Stewards of the Meeting (SOM), Ken Jones, Pat McCammon, John Switzer, and Barb Knox, met on September 27, 2015, reviewed the presented evidence and heard testimony.  The SOM determined the modification is specifically allowed per 9.1.5.E.2.a.3. The intake manifold is part of the drive train by the hierarchy of the GCR section and per Club Racing Board (CRB) witness testimony.  The SOM upheld the protest. 

 

Jim Creighton, Production Line Chief, appealed the SOM decision.

 

DATES OF THE COURT
The SCCA Court of Appeals (COA) Laurie Sheppard, Rick Mitchell and Michael West (Chairman) met on September 27, 2015 to review, hear, and render a decision on the appeal.  

 

DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED
1. Letter of appeal from Jim Creighton, Production Line Chief, dated Sept. 27, 2015. 2. Documents from the SOM dated Sept. 27, 2015. 3. Phone call with Chris Albin, Club Racing Board, Sept. 27, 2015.

 

FINDINGS
Mr. Creighton asserted that GCR 9.1.5.E.2.b.7. is specific to the intake manifold and takes precedence over GCR 9.1.5.E.2.a.3. which is more general, relates to the drive train, and states that “Stock and permitted alternate components of the drive train can have thermal barrier and friction altering coatings applied.”
The COA agrees the intake manifold is a component of the drive train but as written the two passages are at the same level of priority, conflict with each other, and are ambiguous.  GCR 9.1.5.E.2.b.7 specifically addresses mechanical changes (cutting, grinding, etc.) that are allowed for the Intake Manifold.  The rule referenced by Mr. Creighton sets forth mechanical modifications (port matching, plugging, etc.) that may be made to the Intake Manifold.  The sentence relied upon by Mr. Creighton when taken in context with the rest of the rule prohibits any further modifications to the flow of air and fluid through the manifold.  Mr. Creighton’s definition to the sentence is only applicable in context with the specific rule in which it appears.
Additionally, Chris Albin, speaking for the CRB, stated that thermal coatings are allowed on the intake manifold.

 

DECISION
The COA upholds the decision of the first court.  Mr. Creighton’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee will be returned.  The COA urges the CRB to review and simplify the GCR 9.1.5.E.2.a.3 and GCR 9.1.5.E.2.b.7.

[Sean - MiataCage]

This is an example of the problem, both with the written rule and the smug use of them.

 

The kill switch rule says 4 things.  Location, marking, installation directly in a battery cable, and that it cuts all electrical circuits...  

 

It doesn't say kill the car, immediately or otherwise.  It is a poorly written rule.  

 

"cuts all electrical circuits"...??  To the battery? that is where the rule says install a switch.  So if a kill switch isolates the battery, how is a car running off of the alternator in violation?  Or does it mean cut all electrical circuits?  Then when the car is shut off, the kill switch is shut off, and I can ohm meter the headlight switch to headlights to prove that that circuit is not cut, is the kill switch non compliant?  (How would a switch in one circuit cut all others?)  

 

So, the "common sense" interpretation from the administers of this rule (tech and stewards) is that they would like to see a switch that a corner worker can shut off when arriving on the scene of a wreck or a car in distress.  Throwing this switch should shut off the car and keep as much as possible of the electrical system dead to prevent shorting or other hazards (such as a fuel pump feeding a leak) that could make the situation worse.   Pretty common sense.

 

I am advocating that common sense goes the other way too.  When tech writes up a competitor that the common sense version of this rule isn't working, don't be an a$$hole about the situation.  When a steward wants to say technically that the race results have to be pulled, then we better look technically at the rule being used to pull the results - in this case the competitor was technically correct, not the tech steward.  The switch killed the car with the fuel pump, not the alternator, but neither is required from the rule.  All aspects of the rule were satisfied.  But the results, and the customer was lost.

 

AND remember what this is about, we need to retain racers and keep close racing.  That's why the bogus comment "The rules are pretty clear.. follow them" is a cheap bigshot comment that is immaterial to a solution.

 

I am just using this example to illustrate the bigger issue and concerns that are happening.  In this case, the rule and the goals of the rule could be re-written pretty easily.  BUT refining every rule in every class is impractical and we find DOZENS of unclear examples every year creating this sort of conflict.  We need a new global solution to the handling of the rule book that incorporates the authority of common sense and checks and balances applied in situations, rooted in the class participants.

 

Using the head example, make a rule book that allows this kind of conversation:  We have a non-compliant valve of .002, and 15 compliant valves.  He beat the guy behind him by 20 seconds, and this doesn't add a measurable amount, only theoretical.  5 second penallty.... 

 

OR keep losing members...

 

my .02

Kyle

 

Hi Kyle..... Fair enough on your example of the kill switch.  Thanks for pointing out a concrete example.  We can easily fix the wording and tighten it up and as you have pointed out it looks like it would be in our best interest to fix it.  I agree that in some cases common sense and logic should prevail, but I would personally rather have a clearly written defined rule to follow then have to rely on the mood or subjectivity of a volunteer who may not know the SM rules.  As far as the other classes, I honestly don't care about any of those right now just ours, even though I race in and have cars for some other classes.  The entire GCR is 937 pages in length.  The SM rules section is 19 pages.  Lets address the 19 first and let our good decisions find their way into the other sections.

 

Trying to get a volunteer tech person to apply logic and common sense is impossible.  What is common sense to one is not common sense to another so we would put ourselves in a position that there would always be an argument with no clear winner.  That in my opinion is a lose/lose situation.  How do you define, much less regulate common sense?

 

As far as the "cheap bigshot comment" I disagree..... You sound like you want to insert subjective interpretation to rules that in most cases are very clear and well defined.  At what point do you feel the competitor needs to take responsibility for their vehicle?  There needs to be accountability and consequence for running afoul of the rules, otherwise you get total chaos.  The solution you speak of is not necessary if we have written enforceable rules not subjective scenarios.

 

With your head example what about the guys behind the 20 second behind guy?  They all paid the same entry fee and should be entitled a proper finishing position regardless of how far back it may be based on the written rule.  It is not fair to them or even tech for that matter to try to determine where to place someone that did not comply with the written rule.  It is my understanding that even with well defined and written rules the Stewards have some flexibility in the amount and type of penalty for a given violation.  So, maybe we can both get what we want. 

 

In my eyes the close racing and camaraderie is what will continue to keep the class alive and prospering.  A loose and subjective rule set accomplishes neither of those things in my personal opinion.

 

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I really want to know when you think the personal accountability comes into play and by whom?  Do you believe the racer should be held accountable for their vehicle?  

 

Most of the invasive tech we are discussing is at Majors not at regional races.  So, I still stand by my comment.  Most of the rules are clear and they should be followed.  Anyone who chooses not to follow them should be subject to some penalty at the Majors and higher profile events.

 

Thanks.... Sean

[Jim Drago]

Folks, yes this is a tangent, BUT it is rules discussion which is already within this thread.
 
Kyle, please read the following and then read the Production class Level 2 rules. How would you find the F Production car # 7 intake manifold, legal or illegal.
 
COURT OF APPEALS
SCCA National Championship Runoffs JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CSOM Reference Number 105 Jim Creighton vs. SOM, COA Ref. No. 15-07-RO September 27, 2015
 
FACTS IN BRIEF
On September 26, 2015, after the F Production (FP) race at the 2015 National Championship Runoffs, Tech staff filed a Technical Inspection Report indicating that car #7, driven by Eric Prill, had a thermal coating on the exterior of the intake manifold that was non-compliant with GCR 9.1.5.E.2.b.7. which states: “The intake manifold may be port matched on the port mating surface to a depth of no more than one inch. Balance pipes or tubes on all intake manifolds can be plugged or restricted. The intake manifold cannot otherwise be modified.”  A Chief Steward’s Action (CSA) was filed to disqualify Mr. Prill.   Mr. Prill protested the CSA penalty. 
 
The Stewards of the Meeting (SOM), Ken Jones, Pat McCammon, John Switzer, and Barb Knox, met on September 27, 2015, reviewed the presented evidence and heard testimony.  The SOM determined the modification is specifically allowed per 9.1.5.E.2.a.3. The intake manifold is part of the drive train by the hierarchy of the GCR section and per Club Racing Board (CRB) witness testimony.  The SOM upheld the protest. 
 
Jim Creighton, Production Line Chief, appealed the SOM decision.
 
DATES OF THE COURT
The SCCA Court of Appeals (COA) Laurie Sheppard, Rick Mitchell and Michael West (Chairman) met on September 27, 2015 to review, hear, and render a decision on the appeal.  
 
DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED
1. Letter of appeal from Jim Creighton, Production Line Chief, dated Sept. 27, 2015. 2. Documents from the SOM dated Sept. 27, 2015. 3. Phone call with Chris Albin, Club Racing Board, Sept. 27, 2015.
 
FINDINGS
Mr. Creighton asserted that GCR 9.1.5.E.2.b.7. is specific to the intake manifold and takes precedence over GCR 9.1.5.E.2.a.3. which is more general, relates to the drive train, and states that “Stock and permitted alternate components of the drive train can have thermal barrier and friction altering coatings applied.”
The COA agrees the intake manifold is a component of the drive train but as written the two passages are at the same level of priority, conflict with each other, and are ambiguous.  GCR 9.1.5.E.2.b.7 specifically addresses mechanical changes (cutting, grinding, etc.) that are allowed for the Intake Manifold.  The rule referenced by Mr. Creighton sets forth mechanical modifications (port matching, plugging, etc.) that may be made to the Intake Manifold.  The sentence relied upon by Mr. Creighton when taken in context with the rest of the rule prohibits any further modifications to the flow of air and fluid through the manifold.  Mr. Creighton’s definition to the sentence is only applicable in context with the specific rule in which it appears.
Additionally, Chris Albin, speaking for the CRB, stated that thermal coatings are allowed on the intake manifold.
 
DECISION
The COA upholds the decision of the first court.  Mr. Creighton’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee will be returned.  The COA urges the CRB to review and simplify the GCR 9.1.5.E.2.a.3 and GCR 9.1.5.E.2.b.7.

I agree with Jim Creightons interpretation, but there is/was the general drive train rule on coatings as well. Most never thought coating was never an issue b/c of drivetrain rules, but others never felt this was legal and did not coat their intake as they interpreted the rule the same way as Jim Creighton did,one being on the CRB. I think both sides felt they were 100% within the rule, but the two rules led to the confusion. I think they ended up getting it right, I would bet this gets addressed before 16

[Steve Scheifler]

I think they got it right, though I certainly don't fault Jim Creighton for challenging with his interpretation so that it gets settled. This seems to be a case where interpretation of a rule is influenced by intent, but removing that factor I think it ends in a draw which surely must go to the racer.

[wheel]

coating is not a "modification" or everyone who applies clear coat to their car's body would have modified their body.  The rule will be clarified, but calling coating a modification is wrong.

[Steve Scheifler]

I agree, but unless explicitly stated aren't you are letting intent, however obvious it may be, influence interpretation?

[wheel]

That is why the PAC and the CRB are clarifying the section on manifolds for Prod.  If they don't want them coated, they need to say no coatings, like the SMAC did.

[Jim Creighton]

If coating is not a modification, why do the Spec Miata rules clearly state it can not be done. Rule reads--

The use of any painting, coating, plating, or impregnating substance
(e.g.,anti-friction, thermal barrier, oil shedding coatings, chrome, anodizing,
REM, isotropic finishing, etc.) to any internal engine surface, internal
transmission or differential surface, internal or external surfaces of the
intake manifold, exhaust manifold or downtube is prohibited.

 

I was told that the wording concerning drive train coating appeared in the level two preparation when the GCR was rewritten in 2007 with no explanation. All former CRB Chairman except the current one says the coating was a modification and not intended for level two, limited prep.

 

Just to be clear, this was not paint. It was a baked on ceramic coating. This is from a from a ceramic coating company, "Increase engine performance, eg. a 30^oC drop in intake air temperature can deliver a 6% increase in power, or can increase engine efficiency leading to less fuel usage; " And for the fun of it, I asked one of the guys who builds Late Model Stock cars about this type of coating and he agreed it helped. And with a grin, he refused to say how much it helped even though I work registration, not tech for that series.

 

Although I pointed out this wording in the prod section to the COA, 

A rule that pertains to a specific component supersedes a general rule that might otherwise apply.

 

and the intake manifold rule reads

The intake manifold may be port matched on the port mating surface to a depth of no more than one inch. Balance pipes or tubes on all intake manifolds can be plugged or restricted. The intake manifold can not otherwise be modified,

 

the COA had their mind made up before I entered the room.

 

None of the current CRB was on the Committee when limited prep started and Level 1 & Level two was introduced (I was on the Prod Ad Hoc Committee then).

 

BTW,  this was the only car with this modification. Even the winner in FP did not have it on his car and he served many years on the Prod Ad Hoc Committee! I was also told a competitor was DQ'ed at a prior Runoffs at Mid Ohio for having the coating on an intake manifold. So, based on this ruling, everyone competing in limited prep will need to spend $250 or so because of this ruling.

 

And what happened to

1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically cover all possible situations.

 

But, it is what it is. Time to move on to other things.

[Bench Racer]

That is why the PAC and the CRB are clarifying the section on manifolds for Prod.  If they don't want them coated, they need to say no coatings, like the SMAC did.

From my perspective it would be very interesting to know where/from whom the thermal barrier/friction coating rule came during the 2008 PCS re-write for Level 2 preparation cars. I ask this ^ question knowing Level 2 preparation came about during the mid 90's because of dwindling car counts and the high cost of Level 1 preparation cars. 

 

Side question Jim Wheeler, when did it come forward that no new cars would be classed within Level 1 preparation?

[Jim Drago]

Anything 2008 will be before all of current CRB. So doubtful Wheel can answer that one. It was before my time as well.

[wheel]

That was before my time and before the current system, which saves all correspondence and actions.  I will see if I can find out.

[Bench Racer]

Thanks Wheel.

[pat slattery]

I can see guys running castor oil in there engines to increase the carbon on the piston.  Why not just make it as raced.  If you build it so close that you can't pass with carbon sorry about your luck.