101 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

As many cars as we have built, I have never put a car together that did not get 3.3-3.5 degrees negative camber at a normal ride height in the rear (4 1/2 in at pinch weld) at the rear. That is with no special tricks or black magic.  I am sure that others like Steve have seen this and for whatever reason cant get there. But my experience would lead me to believe in most instances it should be obtainable. I have seen MANY running camber numbers in the rear that I KNEW was not available within the rules and brought it to techs attention in February or March. It was checked at Cota this year as well.  We have all added camber over the years and what was 3.0-3.2 in the front and 2.8 - 3.0 in the rear has morphed into 4 and 4 in many cases.  I don't think these numbers are something we should strive for, I also don't think specing a camber is a good idea for the reasons mentioned above. However, I don't think we need any help in the rear with more rules changes or additional parts either.  Not a good place to be.. but I think getting back to numbers under 3.5 would be a good direction. 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

As many cars as we have built, I have never put a car together that did not get 3.3-3.5 degrees negative camber at a normal ride height in the rear (4 1/2 in at pinch weld) at the rear. That is with no special tricks or black magic.  I am sure that others like Steve have seen this and for whatever reason cant get there. But my experience would lead me to believe in most instances it should be obtainable. I have seen MANY running camber numbers in the rear that I KNEW was not available within the rules and brought it to techs attention in February or March. It was checked at Cota this year as well.  We have all added camber over the years and what was 3.0-3.2 in the front and 2.8 - 3.0 in the rear has morphed into 4 and 4 in many cases.  I don't think these numbers are something we should strive for, I also don't think specing a camber is a good idea for the reasons mentioned above. However, I don't think we need any help in the rear with more rules changes or additional parts either.  Not a good place to be.. but I think getting back to numbers under 3.5 would be a good direction. 

 

 

I dont care if we make it legal to slot or camber bushings, or not at all either way I am fine with it...  

 

However I am not for writing more damn rules to enforce like some stupid camber rule that will frustrate the hell out of everyone in the field if done it tech every weekend, We have a hard enough time enforcing the damn rules we have! witnessed every year by yet another area being exploited!  

 

This was not a case of a grey area exploit, it was a case of a rule completly disobeyed by a competitor, there was already a rule in place "do not modify"!  

 

It is is easy to tech and not invasive at all.  I think it is being done by more then just the one man that was caught!  But often times unless your at a super tour there little to no tech...

[davew]

I will agree with Jim and Kyle. NO NEW RULES

 

My cars can get 3.5+ on all of them. But I have jigs to measure every component for stock dimensions. If you can not get the numbers you want, something is bent.

 

My cams do not get you more camber. They make it easier to get max camber. The slots in the subframe are the determining factor. Mazda cams rotate a full 360*. meaning the bolt is not forced all the way out to the edge of the slot. To get max camber (or caster at the front) you need to pry the bolt to the edge of the slot. My cams are slightly offset from factory and will not fully rotate. This means the bolt is maxed out against the slot. The slot does not change, so the total available camber does not change. It just makes it easier to get max.

 

My guess is that some teams are running set-ups that want more rear camber. Thus they do some creative engineering. Work within the rules to make the car handle and you won't have this problem.

 

Dave

[Danny Steyn]

Steyn, RRP, OPM, we are all to blame. No-one else. I made a poor decision that will cost us dearly.

 

As the driver I take full responsibility. It is always ultimately my decision. There are winners and learners, and this, believe me, is one incredibly painful learning lesson for us all.

 

Tech was exceptional. The way they handled everything was detailed, thorough and professional.

[Mark]

How about we move the camber discussion to its own thread? Discussion is also going on in the 2017 Runoffs Smack thread.Though I don't think a rule change is warranted (yet) this topic certainly deserves further discussion and getting all the comments in one place would be a good thing. 

[Blake Clements]

I will agree with Jim and Kyle. NO NEW RULES

 

My cars can get 3.5+ on all of them. But I have jigs to measure every component for stock dimensions. If you can not get the numbers you want, something is bent.

 

My cams do not get you more camber. They make it easier to get max camber. The slots in the subframe are the determining factor. Mazda cams rotate a full 360*. meaning the bolt is not forced all the way out to the edge of the slot. To get max camber (or caster at the front) you need to pry the bolt to the edge of the slot. My cams are slightly offset from factory and will not fully rotate. This means the bolt is maxed out against the slot. The slot does not change, so the total available camber does not change. It just makes it easier to get max.

 

My guess is that some teams are running set-ups that want more rear camber. Thus they do some creative engineering. Work within the rules to make the car handle and you won't have this problem.

 

Dave

 

Where does it say in the rules that we can use non-mazda cams that sound visibly different?  I would assume this is very similar to using non-fat cat bump stop kits?

[DrDomm]

Where does it say in the rules that we can use non-mazda cams that sound visibly different?  I would assume this is very similar to using non-fat cat bump stop kits?

 

Nuts and bolts are open...???

[Ron Alan]

Among all the threads and comments that have been posted with regards to Danny and his disqualification...I appreciate some positive things I see...mostly a lack of real piling on by many people...especially silence from those who have been caught up in similar situations!

A few who seem to have made it personal I understand..."teams/shops" stick together and it would seem there is no lack of rivalry(bad blood) in the Florida region and some obvious past grievances that now are flooding out(no pun intended).

 

It doesn't matter "who" was responsible for the illegal part and "who" new about it. Danny has made no excuses and a very black and white apology. He has and will suffer the consequences(along with others)...and I for one find no glee in this. But rules are rules and the penalty is just. Getting caught up in "severity" or no "performance gain" changes nothing current or in the past! Just my 2 cents worth a penny.

 

Steyn, RRP, OPM, we are all to blame. No-one else. I made a poor decision that will cost us dearly.

 

As the driver I take full responsibility. It is always ultimately my decision. There are winners and learners, and this, believe me, is one incredibly painful learning lesson for us all.

 

Tech was exceptional. The way they handled everything was detailed, thorough and professional.

[Tom Sager]

Where does it say in the rules that we can use non-mazda cams that sound visibly different?  I would assume this is very similar to using non-fat cat bump stop kits?

There's a rule about "similar" fasteners being legal but it's not handy to cite right now. 

[john mueller]

Where does it say in the rules that we can use non-mazda cams that sound visibly different?  I would assume this is very similar to using non-fat cat bump stop kits?

 

 

There's a rule about "similar" fasteners being legal but it's not handy to cite right now. 

 

 

 

My cams do not get you more camber. They make it easier to get max camber. The slots in the subframe are the determining factor. Mazda cams rotate a full 360*. meaning the bolt is not forced all the way out to the edge of the slot. To get max camber (or caster at the front) you need to pry the bolt to the edge of the slot. My cams are slightly offset from factory and will not fully rotate. This means the bolt is maxed out against the slot. The slot does not change, so the total available camber does not change. It just makes it easier to get max.

 

My guess is that some teams are running set-ups that want more rear camber. Thus they do some creative engineering. Work within the rules to make the car handle and you won't have this problem.

 

Dave

 

 

These aftermarket eccentric bolts are not "similar fasteners" if they are "slightly offset from factory and will not fully rotate".

[john mueller]

Steyn, RRP, OPM, we are all to blame. No-one else. I made a poor decision that will cost us dearly.

 

As the driver I take full responsibility. It is always ultimately my decision. There are winners and learners, and this, believe me, is one incredibly painful learning lesson for us all.

 

Tech was exceptional. The way they handled everything was detailed, thorough and professional.

 

OPM & RRP, I'm sorry Danny could not un-implicate you guys.

 

Now is the time for you clean your house up, change your policy of looking the other way and come back from this better than before.  It's not worth the stigma of being a cheater.

[Tom Sager]

These aftermarket eccentric bolts are not "similar fasteners" if they are "slightly offset from factory and will not fully rotate".

Similar does not equal identical and I'm pretty sure Dave has gotten SCCA approval on the legality of the bolts and they have likely passed tech in the past. 

[Jamz14]

OPM and RRP have zero blame. Doesn't matter if they did the work or knew about it. Shops don't enter races, cars and drivers do. Doesn't matter if Danny asked for it specifically or asked for a winning car in general.

 

It was out of compliance, penalty was given. Thats it. Move on to the next race.

[john mueller]

OPM and RRP have zero blame. Doesn't matter if they did the work or knew about it. Shops don't enter races, cars and drivers do. Doesn't matter if Danny asked for it specifically or asked for a winning car in general.

 

It was out of compliance, penalty was given. Thats it. Move on to the next race.

 

I could not disagree with you more James...  Put yourself in a position of managing this class and your opinion would probably change.

 

• Very few of those getting on the podium for these sort of 'big races' are the "DIY guys" (Sammy V always was).  
• The offending shops are a big part of the problem, by going along with it (Danny @ INDY Runoffs) or doing it when the owner/driver is unaware (several @ the Laguna Runoffs & in SoCal Club).  

 

So until there are teeth in the punishment beyond the Driver/Owner this bullshit will continue...  SM will continue to be way awesome on track while still owning the cheater's reputation that is deserved.

 

   And everyone FLAME away...   I DGAF and won't be responding cuz I no longer DGAF.    

[Tom Sager]

I could not disagree with you more James...  Put yourself in a position of managing this class and your opinion would probably change.

 

• Very few of those getting on the podium for these sort of 'big races' are the "DIY guys" (Sammy V always was).  
• The offending shops are a big part of the problem, by going along with it (Danny @ INDY Runoffs) or doing it when the owner/driver is unaware (several @ the Laguna Runoffs & in SoCal Club).  

 

So until there are teeth in the punishment beyond the Driver/Owner this bullshit will continue...  SM will continue to be way awesome on track while still owning the cheater's reputation that is deserved.

 

   And everyone FLAME away...   I DGAF and won't be responding cuz I no longer DGAF.    

 

John, did you have a bowl of nails for breakfast?

[dstevens]

So until there are teeth in the punishment beyond the Driver/Owner this bullshit will continue...  SM will continue to be way awesome on track while still owning the cheater's reputation that is deserved.

 

SCCA isn't going to be in a position to penalize anyone but members.  They'd have to "license" or require memberships from builders, suppliers, etc to enforce beyond the driver.  That's not going to be practical.  Even then the only penalty could be not allowing them at the track.  There is nothing they could do with respect to not allowing members to do business with them.  I think in this case word of mouth is the best deterrent to keep the shops in line.  For example how many of you would allow Sammy to build or field your car? 

[Jamz14]

John, he was DQed. What more do you want? When people get tired of being DQed, then they will choose to go to a different shop and offending shop is out of business. What more do you want? This is the American way.

 

What we need is better tools to check things. When it becomes fast and easy to check a car for compliance, then shops will have a harder and harder time doing weird stuff. If we want to focus on something, focus on things that aren't being checked. Spend some time on the ECU or something. The system worked. None of this bothers me any more. STR gate and now UCA gate. Next year something else. This is racing.

 

And as far as the drivers not knowing: I don't believe it. They may not be aware of what specifically is being done. But they know that the car is "special". Shops don't build special cars for people that don't want a special car. I was specifically asked what kind of car I wanted when approaching a shop. It was my choice to say I wanted the fastest legal engine allowed. It is not against the law to build something other than that. There is a predetermined penalty to doing something outside the rules. That penalty was applied fairly. Asking for something beyond that is what isn't fair.

 

Next race.

[john mueller]

John, did you have a bowl of nails for breakfast?

 

Tom,

I stepped away, not looking at anything SM related for pretty much a year...  I come back to watch how awesome the INDY Runoffs is gonna be and the same old bullshit happens, tarnishing what was an absolutely epic event and SM race.

 

I had to censor myself for the past 9yrs on where I (and many in racing leadership) KNOW where the core/cause of the problem is.  It's the Shops that enable or create this stuff.  Just look at the rules creep...  It all drives revenue into the shops, many are alive because of this stuff.  

 

So now that I am 18+ months from my role in NASA and just about fully out of everything racing related I feel I can finally speak my mind.  

 

 

Add in suspensions (trackside support revenue loss) for the shops and the majority of this cheating and rules creep will stop. 

[dstevens]

Where does it say in the rules that we can use non-mazda cams that sound visibly different?  I would assume this is very similar to using non-fat cat bump stop kits?

 

The cam is an eccentric washer.  The bolt is simply a bolt though specific to the application.  I don't see how it could be defined as anything but a fastener.  If one were to carry that to other fasteners what would stop the rules to prohibit changing a 6 point to a 12 point, or a hex head cap screw to a bolt?  If cam bolts and washers exempted I think it would have to be called out in the rules.

[Nick Soriano]

Maybe I’m too new to vehicle dynamics but isn’t the reason we search for the extra camber because of the tire??

The SM7 won’t be around forever. Wouldn’t it be better to talk to Hoosier and tell them what we want?

We want it to last 6 cycles instead of 3. Want it to be just as good at 3 degrees as 3.5. Want it to have a bit less lateral grip.

If we talk to Hoosier about the “SM8” then we can cut down on a lot of the problems we are talking about.

Correct me if I’m wrong though. But that’s the way I see it.