101 replies to this topic

[Parity]

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.

From and engineering standpoint I would say the cam is more than an eccentric washer. Its a cam. It's primary purpose to to drive the screw inboard/outboard to adjust camber. However, it cannot give more camber that the control arm will allow and as Dave said the same camber can be achieved with a stock bolt. If you slide a screwdriver tip between the stock cam and the control arm tab or if you pry the control arm over you can get the same results. Wouldn't be a bad idea to address it in the GCR just to remove any doubt.

[dstevens]

A cam washer is a specific type of eccentric washer.  An eccentric washer functions to position a bolt or screw.

[Danica Davison]

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.

 

Oh come on. This is taking it too far. It is JUST AS EASY to cheat up a car if you are a DIY driver. It actually might even be EASIER because the person may make mistakes as they may not know all the rules as well an experienced builder ... and/or ... a prep shop isn't looking at the car more closely and letting the driver know of any wrongdoing before they get to the tech shed. It makes it easier to intentionally put illegal modifications on your car when no other set of eyes is looking at it...

 

If the same shop is being caught for cheating over and over again ... then customers will go to different shops. SCCA/NASA penalizing the shops is not the answer. Let the customers control their fate.

 

And I don't think the event was tarnished at all. Preston won in a LEGAL car from bumper to bumper. Selin and Haldeman had LEGAL cars. It is not the "same old bullshit" like we saw in 2014 ... we had ONE car that had an illegal modification and it didn't even win.

 

I seriously doubt that Danny didn't know that was on the car, no matter who put it on.  If he knew it and he let it go, then that is his responsibility to do the right thing. He will learn his lesson, and I hope for his sake, and for the whole SM community's sake ... that he won't do it again.

[Johnny D]

Do you think this is something Tech would of caught fairly easily and was stupid to try to get away with it or maybe somebody dropped a dime ?

 

J~

[Jim Drago]

Do you think this is something Tech would of caught fairly easily and was stupid to try to get away with it or maybe somebody dropped a dime ?

 

J~

This was teched at Cota in March. I think it was clear that it was something tech was going to look at. 

[Ron Alan]

 

 

If the same shop is being caught for cheating over and over again ... then customers will go to different shops. SCCA/NASA penalizing the shops is not the answer. Let the customers control their fate.

 

 

What utopia do you live in? I would say more often than not it's the client driving the shop

 

There has been mention of bump stops...was there a ruling on this in tech?? Can someone elaborate? 

Someone mentioned the theory behind this(softer) would be to allow a truer spring rate...and lower the car. I think we are already pretty limited by a wheel well!?

 

EDIT...just saw the other thread!

[MazdaSteve]

The fact that the control arms were non-compliant has been established. I am curious to know if the rear camber was checked before tear down to determine if it was in the normal -3.4 to -3.6 range or if it was substantially greater. My point being, the DQ is warranted based on a non-compliant parts but if the camber was in the “acceptable” range, did they really provide a competitive advantage?

Awesome drive by all SM drivers involved.

[High Chair]

damn

[Ron Alan]

The fact that the control arms were non-compliant has been established. I am curious to know if the rear camber was checked before tear down to determine if it was in the normal -3.4 to -3.6 range or if it was substantially greater. My point being, the DQ is warranted based on a non-compliant parts but if the camber was in the “acceptable” range, did they really provide a competitive advantage?

Awesome drive by all SM drivers involved.

A thief came into my house last week and stole my big screen...but he gave it to charity therefore had no gain from his actions...still a thief?

[Chris Lefferdink]

The fact that the control arms were non-compliant has been established. I am curious to know if the rear camber was checked before tear down to determine if it was in the normal -3.4 to -3.6 range or if it was substantially greater. My point being, the DQ is warranted based on a non-compliant parts but if the camber was in the “acceptable” range, did they really provide a competitive advantage?

Awesome drive by all SM drivers involved.

It isn’t that simple. Suppose the modification allowed them to run a higher rear ride height while still obtaining “acceptable” camber? Yes I realize you can check ride height AND camber. I’m just making the point that determining whether the camber was in an “acceptable” range or not isn’t sufficient to determine if an advantage was gained.

[Tim Wright]

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.    

 
Right!..... This wasn't just modify the control to get to legal camber #s because of a possibly bent car. This was the illegal mod AND non-compliant bump stops.! Go race with Sammy.

[MazdaSteve]

Ron, I never said the DQ wasn’t justified.

Chris, thanks for the explanation.

[Ron Alan]

Ron, I never said the DQ wasn’t justified.

Chris, thanks for the explanation.

Agreed...but I feel "competitive advantage or not" has no point in the same paragraph with a DQ justification. It is more useful in a rules change discussion...my only point! 

[BorisB]

Were both sides "modified" or just one ?

[Danica Davison]

So ... I would like to request $40 from Danny Steyn. I lost $40 on a bet with Jim Drago for losing to Danny at Daytona back in August ... and I find it unfair that I lost to a non-compliant car. I would have won if it wasn't for those control arms. I will accept cash, check, or venmo for payment. Thank you.

[Steve Scheifler]

So ... I would like to request $40 from Danny Steyn. I lost $40 on a bet with Jim Drago for losing to Danny at Daytona back in August ... and I find it unfair that I lost to a non-compliant car. I would have won if it wasn't for those control arms. I will accept cash, check, or venmo for payment. Thank you.

 

 

[Bench Racer]

So ... I would like to request $40 from Danny Steyn. I lost $40 on a bet with Jim Drago for losing to Danny at Daytona back in August ... and I find it unfair that I lost to a non-compliant car. I would have won if it wasn't for those control arms. I will accept cash, check, or venmo for payment. Thank you.

I forget on what bet you lost $20 to me, but when you get this $40, please forward my $20.

[Jim Creighton]

Is this a kind of off track betting? Need to check Florida laws Code section 849.1 et. seq,: 550.001 et. seq. I believe the limit per bet is $10 so I'll save you by taking the excess over $10. If the bet was made outside Florida, there maybe even more limitations. If betting was on track, there is a cut due the state. You may need to consult a good CPA.

 

And the beat goes on, la de da de da....

[Richard Astacio]

Is this a kind of off track betting? Need to check Florida laws Code section 849.1 et. seq,: 550.001 et. seq. I believe the limit per bet is $10 so I'll save you by taking the excess over $10. If the bet was made outside Florida, there maybe even more limitations. If betting was on track, there is a cut due the state. You may need to consult a good CPA.

 

And the beat goes on, la de da de da....

 

 

I think Danica is banking on being a CPA since his racing career is not as exciting as his post. 

[Danica Davison]

Is this a kind of off track betting? Need to check Florida laws Code section 849.1 et. seq,: 550.001 et. seq. I believe the limit per bet is $10 so I'll save you by taking the excess over $10. If the bet was made outside Florida, there maybe even more limitations. If betting was on track, there is a cut due the state. You may need to consult a good CPA.
 
And the beat goes on, la de da de da....

 

$40 and on track 4 times that weekend. $10 per session which matches the limit   come on .. finding loop holes is an accountant's job !