235 replies to this topic

[Ron Alan]

I for one appreciate the effort Steve! And I will gladly read any counter points to your post or Rich Powers(SMAC)...so far I too have seen nothing compelling. #rulescreep

[38bfast]

This rules slide because of CHEATING was the down slide of the production class until Restricted Prep entered the game in approximately 1997, when millennials were someplace between kinder garden college.
 
Wash, rinse and repeat, same $ame $hit different class.

The proposed rule change is not because of cheating. It is because it has been found that the variation between cars by design and manufacturing tolerances create an uneven playing field. Someone cheating just hilighted the issue at hand. The SMAC per the charter of the class has provided a sulution that is cost effective to solve this disparity.

It’s the same thing as adjusting weights and plates between model years. Getting all cars as close in perormance as possible. How can this be a bad thing.

[MPR22]

I don't want to be seen as arguing this to death and repeating myself countless times so I hope to make this lengthy post my last other than responding to what I believe to be factually incorrect or highly misleading statements. But don't count on it. So at the considerable risk of exposing myself as a clueless internet Einstein...

As I stated during the original discussion under a different topic, I was not firmly for or against the idea, in part because I needed to spend more time with our cars checking camber limits vs ride height. If it appears that I have been a strong proponent it is probably because so far the arguments against have been so weak that I can't help trying to shoot holes in them and at the same time wonder what unstated reasons might actually exist behind them. More on that later.

For me the arguments in favor are mostly simple and compelling, and given the cost/benefit ratio, positively obvious. Unless there are some not-so-obvious factors being missed. Unintended and unforeseen consequences have turned a lot of best intentions to total shit, so we need to look carefully even when something seems simple.

What I don't buy at all is the comparison to other have vs have-not issues such a tire costs, better radiators, whatever, or giving the low-budget guys an artificial advantage so they can compete. Even bringing that kind of crap up makes it tempting to dismiss you as either not knowing what you are talking about, not caring, or grasping for convenient arguments rather than stating your true objections. More bluntly, it stinks of arrogance, elitism and/or ignorance. I would certainly hope that if the CRB could magically eliminate every advantage that deep pockets have over the low budget racer, at little or no cost to anyone, they would do it immediately. That is, after all, the ultimate if unobtainable goal of the class.

And speaking of which, to those who actually try to use the original intent of the class as an argument against this proposal, WTF are you talking about?? The point of this class is to offer the levelest possible playing field at the lowest possible cost, in part by minimizing R&D and creative engineering. Even if there were no other arguments in favor of this, and there are many, that goal alone is compelling reason to consider the change. It's cheaper even than the adjustable spark timing, and a damn site cheaper and easier than the adjustable fuel pressure. Why start with a Mazda and not a Porsche? Why spec a bunch of less than optimal parts, spec tires, minimum wheel weights, and limited engine mods? Add to those the countless more difficult and more expensive changes over the years. They are all in one way or another to decrease the gap between the haves and the have-nots, whether in terms of budget, knowledge, or the willingness to stretch the rules. To suggest that allowing this change is somehow contrary to the philosophy of the class is at very best absurd.

I won't rehash all the arguments for the change, they have been covered multiple times here and in the original topic, and well summarized by Rich Powers. But I do want to look more closely at some of the potentially credible arguments against.

Safety: It has, inevitably, been implied that if your car has been damaged in a way that reduces you max camber then you are obliged to swap parts until you find the culprit, if for no other reason than safety. At first blush that may sound reasonable to someone without a lot of knowledge or experience in the subject but it just doesn't hold up very well to scrutiny. A lot of these cars have been hit hard and fixed in one way or another, if not as a race car then when they were on the street. Few will ever know if their cars were previously stretched on a frame rack or even had an entire corner replaced, or worse. A bent part is not necessarily a dangerous part and it would be dishonest to imply otherwise. We are each responsible for ensuring that our cars are safe and that we replace parts as needed to keep them that way. How many of you will stop in the middle of a race or give up the rest of the weekend just because contact has tweaked something that you can't replace immediately? If we are still in contention we keep racing unless it becomes obviously unsafe, and we pull, hammer, and pry things back into position so we can get out there the next session, leaving careful inspection to later. And we're damn proud of it when we succeed. We do want to be as safe as reasonably possible but a rear sub-frame pushed in by 1/4 inch in not a threat to anyone.

Increased stress on other parts: I don't think so. If anything more likely the opposite because it keeps us from going even deeper into the bumpstops to achieve the desired camber, and bottoming the stops hard is one of the candidates for contributing to other failures. In any case, we're talking very small changes in loads at best. Pending a more convincing theory I give this argument no weight at all and suspect that just the opposite is more likely.

Rules Creep: I understand this in theory, but for reasons stated above I think that this recommendation is, at least on the surface, consistent with the class philosophy. Emphasis on surface.

Unintended consequences: I'll use front camber as an example. Although I am less than thrilled with the specifics of the available pieces for adjustable upper-inner front control arm bushings, I was in favor of a rule to provide more camber for many of the same reasons being discussed here. But, I can tell you that there are still people running bent spindles AND the new bushings, and not just because they didn't feel like replacing their spindles. Why? Because some people like to experiment with more camber than they can get without them at a particular ride height, or just more camber period. I can't get 4 degrees on some fronts at any reasonable height and that isn't an unheard of amount even if there is some cost under braking. It is very important to keep in mind that as you lower a car there are significant negative consequences that can't be corrected without other modifications. Sure, there are benefits of going lower than stock but at some point they are overshadowed by serious disadvantages. If you need to have them listed then you won't understand the suspension geometry issues, but you certainly know that you don't want to get too deep into the bumpstops.

Sebring is an example of a place where someone might benefit from keeping the bent spindles and/or slotting the rear uppers. Because it is notoriously bumpy many people raise their car up a bit to keep from bottoming the bumpstops and skipping off the track or into a wall. But of course that can limit the maximum camber available to less than they would otherwise run. So, I think the point is that even with the front bushings we are not at a point where people can easily get more than they want or need and that has already lead some to venture over the line again even on the fronts.

Even aside from specific tracks like Sebring, people have been experimenting with more camber than is commonly thought of as "enough" and may or may not be getting real net benefit from it. I think THAT may be what's behind some of pushback to this proposal from the bigger teams and faster guys. It has been touched on more than once in these discussions but not really spelled out clearly. They know that today they are at the front and if the current rules are enforced and other cheats are found and stopped, they will stay there. Not because they have an advantage now, and not because they fear the little guy will suddenly come up and challenge them. Most of them are justifiably confident that they can run at the front of a perfectly level field, so I'm not trying to imply that they in any way are trying to keep others down. They are not. But what does make sense to me is that they really do not want to find themselves in a situation where they need to spend a lot of time and money experimenting with more combinations of height and camber to ensure that they aren't giving an advantage to others who will absolutely be doing just that. Perhaps we shouldn't have any more sympathy for them on that than they seem to have for the little guy who needs to spend a lot of time and money replacing parts in the hope that it will solve his camber problem, but it is a very legitimate concern for unintended consequences. And frankly, if after all that the guy with a slightly compromised subframe can't attain the new ideal camber and height combination, what have we gained? If that's not the argument being presented against the recommendation then it probably should be because the rest varies from flat to just plain lame.

So the REAL answer may very well be to give us the extended front ball joints that sadly came out a little too late for us but are allowed by NASA and surely have had adequate testing now, and give us a long enough slot in the rear to get at least 4 degrees at a higher than normal ride height. That should achieve the goal of more than enough for everybody. Of course we will still have to deal with the possible issues of more testing to find the sweet spot at any given track and that isn't particularly consistent with the philosophy of the class, for those who still want to argue that angle more convincingly. And we may even find that "fastest" is not the same as what looks best when checking tire temps or wear rates, so reduced tire life may prove to be another consequence. But since the fast guys run them only a few sessions anyway I think that's less likely.

 

Steve,
I find most of your past posts have been intelligent and articulate in the past, sometimes you see things one way and that is how it comes across, however, this post is one of your best.

You took the time to dissect most of the points and counterpoints and i believe you will find there will be very little pushback because of your thoroughness. Well done.

Edited by MPR22, 11-17-2017 11:22 AM.

[Tom Sager]

The various points of view, personalities and range in ages around here make this a fun and educational place. A great slice of life. 

[Parity]

The proposed rule change is not because of cheating. It is because it has been found that the variation between cars by design and manufacturing tolerances create an uneven playing field.

This seems to be the point of contention here. Dave, Jim, and one other builder state that (-3.5º ?) camber can be achieved with ANY car as long as parts and chassis are straight. These guys have built hundreds of cars so unless some one is accusing them of misrepresenting the facts I think they would qualify as experts. Other than individual cases which could certainly be affected by tired components, what evidence is there to the contrary? If those who are pushing for the rule could prove this point they would make a better case.

 

I do get the point about making it easier to adjust camber but I'm not persuaded that reasoning justifies a rule change.

[Mike Collins]

The proposed rule change is not because of cheating. It is because it has been found that the variation between cars by design and manufacturing tolerances create an uneven playing field. Someone cheating just hilighted the issue at hand. The SMAC per the charter of the class has provided a sulution that is cost effective to solve this disparity.

It’s the same thing as adjusting weights and plates between model years. Getting all cars as close in perormance as possible. How can this be a bad thing.

This statement is simply not true.

 

If I take my subframe and rear suspension components out of my car and bolt them into ANY OTHER CAR...  It will still have the same rear camber. There are no variations in parts that give one chassis over another an advantage in rear camber....

 

The success of the class is that the car AND parts are STOCK.

[FTodaro]

The proposed rule change is not because of cheating. It is because it has been found that the variation between cars by design and manufacturing tolerances create an uneven playing field. Someone cheating just hilighted the issue at hand. The SMAC per the charter of the class has provided a sulution that is cost effective to solve this disparity.

It’s the same thing as adjusting weights and plates between model years. Getting all cars as close in perormance as possible. How can this be a bad thing.

You should run for office on that one, But the compelling reason is that people feel others have the upper hand and want a quick, cheap fix.

[EMatoy]

Mike and Frank -

You are missing the point that all parts have tolerances and as a result variations. These variations can be put together (when not bent) and yield different results. Because of the tolerances cars get different camber numbers.

[FTodaro]

Mike and Frank -

You are missing the point that all parts have tolerances and as a result variations. These variations can be put together (when not bent) and yield different results. Because of the tolerances cars get different camber numbers.

I am not missing the point. My stock motor does not put out as much as your stock motor, so i should get a bigger plate? I will not write as long of a counter point to steve, but i will give you my point. I have taken the time over the years to learn the car, how to work on the car, build cars, do the set up work.

 

There are drivers who have more skill than i do( mostly all) and one of the ways i can level the playing field is the ability to understand the car and come to the track with a well prepped car. doing your own work and understanding the car, is one of the attractions to racing it. By giving people quick cheap short cuts, it takes away a little of the advantage of someone like me that relies on that part of the sport to try and stay competitive.

 

There should be some type of a bonus for those who are willing to go the extra mile in car prep. Now you can go to the track crank up the camber without even setting the toe.

[EMatoy]

I am not missing the point. My stock motor does not put out as much as your stock motor, so i should get a bigger plate? I will not write as long of a counter point to steve, but i will give you my point. I have taken the time over the years to learn the car, how to work on the car, build cars, do the set up work.

There are drivers who have more skill than i do( mostly all) and one of the ways i can level the playing field is the ability to understand the car and come to the track with a well prepped car. doing your own work and understanding the car, is one of the attractions to racing it. By giving people quick cheap short cuts, it takes away a little of the advantage of someone like me that relies on that part of the sport to try and stay competitive.

There should be some type of a bonus for those who are willing to go the extra mile in car prep. Now you can go to the track crank up the camber without even setting the toe.

Ok so we agree on the variations.

I agree with your point on taking the time to get the right parts ( I know this very well and did it on my 1.6 to get the results I did). I do it on suspension parts too- but not all get the same result.

Now for where we have issues let me give you a real example: a guy gets 3.8 on his car. You try everything legal and can't get there. You are at a disadvantage. He didn't cheat (supposedly). What do we do?

Everyone rejects a camber limit so you can't stop that guy from running what he got. You are now at a disadvantage. Some choose to accept it. Some cheat. There are no ways to prove he cheated. Maybe he found a unicorn. Do we search for unicorns or level the field?

[BNaumann]

I am not missing the point. My stock motor does not put out as much as your stock motor, so i should get a bigger plate? I will not write as long of a counter point to steve, but i will give you my point. I have taken the time over the years to learn the car, how to work on the car, build cars, do the set up work.

There are drivers who have more skill than i do( mostly all) and one of the ways i can level the playing field is the ability to understand the car and come to the track with a well prepped car. doing your own work and understanding the car, is one of the attractions to racing it. By giving people quick cheap short cuts, it takes away a little of the advantage of someone like me that relies on that part of the sport to try and stay competitive.

There should be some type of a bonus for those who are willing to go the extra mile in car prep. Now you can go to the track crank up the camber without even setting the toe.

I'll bring the beer if you're willing to teach me the best way to bend these spindles.

[Jim Drago]

It is my firm belief that ANY car at a "normal ride height" let's say 4 1/2- 4 5/8 at the bottom of the pinch weld can achieve 3.25 plus degrees of camber on ALL four corners with straight parts, even with tolerance stack against you, 3.25 as many will get 3.5.  I hear stories of this not happening. It is my believe something must be bent in this instances, not just tolerance stack. Either that or we are the luckiest people on the planet as it has not been an issue here in the 100 plus cars cars we have built?  In my personal car raised to 4 3/4 at Sebring with no bent or tweaked rear parts.. I was still able to get 3.25 at Sebring, after adding some thrust to compensate for ls weight, the left rear maxed at 2.9. Good enough for pole and 1&2 in qualifying races.  Why do we need 4 plus again? 

 

Many of the people and prep shops supporting this rule change are those I have seen running 4 plus on their cars now.  It is my belief that can NOT be had within the rules at a normal ride height and I have NEVER seen this in any car we have built. This is why I sent a control arm into tech after the runoffs last year and provided an explanation of how to check for it. It was obvious the rule was being exploited.  

 

Although I disagree, there may be a few here that may have a genuine problem. I have compassion for them, but I feel this rule change is being pushed by some that simply want to run more camber and/or more camber at a higher ride height.  We haven't needed 4 degrees for 15 years, we don't need it now.  If anything, we need less camber and less parts.   Throw the front bushings out as well.

[Steve Scheifler]

I am not missing the point. My stock motor does not put out as much as your stock motor, so i should get a bigger plate? I will not write as long of a counter point to steve, but i will give you my point. I have taken the time over the years to learn the car, how to work on the car, build cars, do the set up work.

 

There are drivers who have more skill than i do( mostly all) and one of the ways i can level the playing field is the ability to understand the car and come to the track with a well prepped car. doing your own work and understanding the car, is one of the attractions to racing it. By giving people quick cheap short cuts, it takes away a little of the advantage of someone like me that relies on that part of the sport to try and stay competitive.

 

There should be some type of a bonus for those who are willing to go the extra mile in car prep. Now you can go to the track crank up the camber without even setting the toe.

 

 

Frank, I can respond to that in two words. "Wrong class", but I'll take a few extra to reduce misunderstanding.  While I genuinely appreciate your point, I think that argument does infringe on the generally understood philosophy of this particular class, if that's still worth anything.  And of course, it's more than just "prep" in the sense of dedication and effort.

[Johnny D]

 want a quick, cheap fix.

What's wrong with that ??

 

I get your side of taking the time, learn the car, spirit of racing, etc....a couple a 10th's of *'s your clawing for is your edge, huh?

I read someplace it was a spec class, drivers class, idk.

 

So no rule change, you have bent parts your throwing away and you need to buy Dave's fixture and after checking you're current parts you're probably buying new parts. $$$

 

Rule change, all you're bent parts, questionable spares, current parts on the car that you can't get 4*, future questionable parts from the junkyard can all be used and no real need to buy the fixture, at least for this part.

 

How is this bad ??

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

It is my firm belief that ANY car at a "normal ride height" let's say 4 1/2- 4 5/8 at the bottom of the pinch weld can achieve 3.25 plus degrees of camber on ALL four corners with straight parts, even with tolerance stack against you, 3.25.  I hear stories of this not happening. I believe something is bent. Either that or we are the luckiest people on the planet as it has not been an issue here in the 100 plus cars cars we have built?   In my personal car raised to 4 3/4 with no bent or tweaked rear parts.. I was still able to get 3.25 at sebring, after thrusting the wheels, the left rear maxed at 2.9. Good enough for pole and 1&2 in qualifying races. 

 

Many of the people and prep shops supporting this are those I have seen with cars at 4 plus and why I sent a control into tech after the runoffs last year and provided an explanation of how to check for it. It was obvious the rule was being exploited.  

 

Although I disagree, there may be a few here that may have a genuine problem. I have compassion for them, but I feel this rule change is being pushed by some that simply want to run more camber and/or more camber at a higher ride height.  We haven't needed 4 degrees for 15 years, we don't need it now.  If anything, we need less camber and less parts.   Throw the front bushings out as well.

 

 

The reason I withheld any conclusions in the prior discussion was that I suspect your assertions about height vs camber are correct, meaning that we are running close to 4 3/4 when I find they max out at 3.2 degrees.  Prior to that discussion I believed, in part by observation at the track, that it was common to get significantly more than that.  Unfortunately I have yet to have time at the shop to take a series of measurements but I have no reason to doubt you.  You'll notice, I hope, that none of my subsequent posts there or here have featured that aspect of the debate.  If the argument can't be made without claims of significant variations between new parts then it probably shouldn't be made.  Not that there aren't variations, just that they are small and you probably need very bad luck for them to add up to a big difference.  More on that when I can get back to the shop and document one or two.

 

HOWEVER (you knew there was more), despite the unequaled experience of Dave W, for a price I will provide proof positive that you can receive brand new parts directly from Mazda, correctly labeled (not the wrong actual part) and unmodified from original manufacture, which do in fact provide a significant benefit over the "typical" part.  Whatever you are willing to put up, individually or collectively with other investors, I will quadruple back if you can prove me wrong.  Am I sounding sufficiently confident that you have overstated the "facts"?  And if you can get a better part, you can get a worse one.  They just aren't very common.

 

BTW Jim, is your post an indirect confirmation of the real argument against the proposal, the opening up of a new wave of testing to find the best setup?  I've already conceded that it has merit, more so than anything else offered.

[mhiggins10]

It just all adds up, doesn't it?  The concept that you can take a straight car, put in a cage and seat and bolt on the spec suspension parts, some cheap wheels and tires and go race semi-competitively is pretty well broken, and that's how the class is sold to the raw newcomers who see this as a great, cheap, exciting way to get into motorsports, like it or not.

 

Now you don't need just those things- you need offset front bushings, a cleaned up header, slotted rear control arms, fuel pressure regulator, radiator(?) not to mention a tweaked calipers, special hubs with the secret grease, and a pro motor (where is the equality with these?  Nobody wants to talk about that)

 

This will be bandied about for weeks, and nothing will change in this thread- still folks going for and against.  And in the end, there are likely all of 40 people in the class nationwide (if that) who will be able to feel whether they have -4.2 or -3.5 that this will make a difference for.  But if that's worth making everyone now feel that they have to go slot THEIR arms too, that's cool I guess. 

 

I'd also be REALLY curious if you went to the majors races last year and measured the camber of the top 10 or 15 at each race, how that looks.  Are we doing this for the benefit of one or two people each race?

 

I'm glad the SCCA allows input, my letter will be against the change.  But that's just the view from the back.  I honestly couldn't tell you how much rear camber I run- I just know my car prep guru said it was "where he wanted it to be, but without much more room to adjust negative."  Fine with me.  I'll still go out and have fun racing with folks who are about my pace.

[Jim Drago]

 

HOWEVER (you knew there was more), despite the unequaled experience of Dave W, for a price I will provide proof positive that you can receive brand new parts directly from Mazda, correctly labeled (not the wrong actual part) and unmodified from original manufacture, which do in fact provide a significant benefit over the "typical" part.  Whatever you are willing to put up, individually or collectively with other investors, I will quadruple back if you can prove me wrong.  Am I sounding sufficiently confident that you have overstated the "facts"?  And if you can get a better part, you can get a worse one.  They just aren't very common.

 

 

 You slipped me this nugget a few years ago.. so I would have to excuse myself That being said, I think that was a screw up and you may actually get Dq'ed if they compared it to 10 other new parts from Mazda 

All my experience is/was with parts that came on production cars off the street, not new parts. In many cases the replacement parts tolerances and quality control is not held as tight as when cars were being built on the line. No idea if this is a factor here. Anything that I represented in my earlier post was using those parts.  It is a common belief that the VVT subframes don't get as much camber as the 99's, I haven't seen it, but I have heard that, I have not really been looking.  FWIW all the NEW rear subframes for 99-05 would be the VVT version, they don't produce the new 99/00 frames any longer to my knowledge.   

[38bfast]

This statement is simply not true.

 

If I take my subframe and rear suspension components out of my car and bolt them into ANY OTHER CAR...  It will still have the same rear camber. There are no variations in parts that give one chassis over another an advantage in rear camber....

 

The success of the class is that the car AND parts are STOCK.

 By design Mazda has put adjustment in the lower control pivot point to be able to get there factor settings. If what you were saying is true the would have been no need for cam bolts at all because all the parts are so perfect. The fact that Mazda has designed in a .470" slot for the cam bolts to take up the tolerance of the OE components when they built the car. There was so much variation in tolerance that a .470 slot was needed. 

[Jim Drago]

Now for where we have issues let me give you a real example: a guy gets 3.8 on his car. You try everything legal and can't get there. You are at a disadvantage. He didn't cheat (supposedly). What do we do?

Everyone rejects a camber limit so you can't stop that guy from running what he got. You are now at a disadvantage. Some choose to accept it. Some cheat. There are no ways to prove he cheated. Maybe he found a unicorn. Do we search for unicorns or level the field?

IMO, this is the ONLY valid argument for this proposal. 

 

But... If the slotting rule is allowing enough for those poor SOB's who cant get there "legally"  and we think people are getting there illegally by tweaking parts.. You really don't think that will stop do you?

 

Let's say the new slots allow all to get to 3.75 degrees at 4.5 in ride height.. 

 

What if we test and the cars like to to 4.75 and 4.2 degrees rear camber?  Guess what.. the guys cheating now and getting 3.5 plus at this height will have no problem getting 4.2 now. And no, tech likely will not be able to catch them.   

 

So I ask, what is this accomplishing? We help a very small few that cant get to a decent number for whatever reason but we give more adjustment to those who are already cheating and more options..  It also adds lots more testing for all of us to see what really works best.  I would prefer not to do it and I better equipped to do it than 95% of the class.

 

To all those who say, well there is a limit to how much negative camber is a gain.. You are correct.. But I remind you.. 5-6 years ago 99.9% of us were saying.. "it's not like people will start showing up with 4 Plus degrees of camber".. Guess what   

[Jim Drago]

 By design Mazda has put adjustment in the lower control pivot point to be able to get there factor settings. If what you were saying is true the would have been no need for cam bolts at all because all the parts are so perfect. The fact that Mazda has designed in a .470" slot for the cam bolts to take up the tolerance of the OE components when they built the car. There was so much variation in tolerance that a .470 slot was needed. 

I trust that the Mazda engineers more than a bunch of salivating racers holding a dremel and a camber guage