422 replies to this topic

[LarryKing]

Does anyone know if the the "new" podium had the same level of teardown as the "original" podium? Do we know their CV joints were "legal"?

[Danica Davison]

Does anyone know if the the "new" podium had the same level of teardown as the "original" podium? Do we know their CV joints were "legal"?

 

Guarantee you ~50% of the field had the same shit lol

[Mitch Reading]

So results are official... congrats Danny, Preston and Peter on getting paid! 

[Johnny D]

Does anyone know if the the "new" podium had the same level of teardown as the "original" podium? Do we know their CV joints were "legal"?

I believe Danny said he put his tub in the trailer with a fork lift.
Congrats to the podium. TMC drivers well done.

 

In case you missed it. Official Results.

http://timingscoring...es Classic).pdf

J~

[Jim Drago]

First, Congratulations to Danny Steyn, Preston Pardus and Peter Ensor as well as all the people who help in their efforts to get their cars on track.  Regardless of my opinions of these findings, it had nothing to do with these competitors and I am sure they would have preferred to have won on track and not this way. So, my congratulations to you guys.

 

As most know I am the builder of the 156 car driven by Todd Buras.  The goal here as always is to build and prep a car that can win these events and pass all technical inspections.  The driver has no part in any of this other than driving the car.  While many may be expecting an apology, I have only one apology to make, that was to the driver and has already been done.   

 

Regarding the axle cages.. most have formed their own opinions.  Hard to claim any of those opinions are “wrong” and not trying to change anyone’s opinion with this post. Just figured I owed the community an explanation.  Unlike SCCA,  NASA can and does basically do what they like and then try to use whatever rule they feel is appropriate to validate what they don’t like.  My interpretation of the rules is the same now as it always has been and it won’t change moving forward. I won’t be debating anyone regarding this opinion moving forward either. Once this was opened up to the aftermarket industry certain things had to change. Most have read by now that all remanufacturers grind cages as needed to rebuild them. it is the industry standard procedure. That implicitly allows cage modification, (ironically what we were Dq’ed for).  It also completely does away with the old “if it doesn’t say you can, you can’t.  While not spelled out, it is clearly allowed as that is exactly what remanufacturers do. When you allow remanufacturers the ability to grind cages, you allow competitors the same ability to grind cages. So you have the ability to grind the cages and the only specification would be to be to stay within half of the next decimal point in terms of tolerance.  Any cages within that tolerance with or without tool marks should be compliant to the current rules. Not the “spirit of the rule, Not the intent of the rule, but it does comply with the written rule. There is no rule that says you need to have company ABC reman your axles. There is no rule that says your axle cages need to comply and look exactly like the cages from reman company ABC. There is no rule that says your ball can’t pass through the cage window. To be clear, the axles in car 156 and most of our builds, the axles are built here, by us. They were NOT bought from a reman company.  Despite the attempt by the NASA tech photographer to make our axle cages appear coated, polished or remmed, in person they all looked the same in terms of finish. NONE were polished etc. The picture with the huge gap at the bottom is also another attempt to sway public opinion. The ball is overlapping on the top of the cage window to exaggerate the gap on the bottom of the cage window. The axles would likely lock up and most definitely LOSE efficiency with a gap that large. You only need to clearance these cage a few thousandths of an inch if the goal is to allow the balls to pass through the cage. We built the axles to insure smooth operation and hopes that there would be less friction. Claims of 1-2 hp gains in our executive appeal made by the NASA “expert” (sited as a former Sm competitor) are pure ignorance. Most know this‘expert” and you would be hard pressed to find anyone in SM that agree with his status as an “expert” There is also a clear bias evidenced in his misleading facebook posts.  Moving forward, we will not be changing anything regarding how we prep axles here. While I regret and disagree with the findings of NASA, our team will likely never race NASA again. Through the end of the 2018 season at a minimum, the axles will be compliant in the SCCA. Expect to see a race memo in the next few days. There may be a rule coming for the 19 season that addresses this, if so we will certainly change and comply to the new rule. So it is entirely possible that the winner of the 18 Runoffs could be running the same axles that were dq’ed here.  

 

Rumors of how this was the most invasive and complete tech are VERY far from the truth. I’m sure many will look at this as sour grapes. It isn’t. I have never hid that we build our cars and push the rules, however it has never been our intention to run a part we feel will be found non-compliant in any technical inspection.  In 40 plus times, twice now the sanctioning body has pushed back. I am ok with that and I understand their position.  I have no problem with that, its racing. However, there were MANY issues in tech that were simply inexcusable.  

 

The tech shed was honestly a disorganized mess. There were no passes, hundreds of people walked in and out tech that had no business being there. Tech was not locked up overnight. All the parts were left out for anyone to see or touch. Many procedures and rules were broken. The chain of custody on almost every part touched was broken at some point.  Haldemans shocks and Buras shocks were mismarked and even now we have no idea which shocks each of us have.  Our parts, against the rules and procedures were taken apart by the tech staff after hours with none of us there to witness. Our CV joints were disassembled, after hours by tech against the rules and by tech( which they denied btw).  That should have completely been the end of this. The chain of custody broken completely. Who is to say that any of those cages weren’t mixed up just like our shocks? We were not there to witness any of it.  However, it is NASA and they can choose to ignore their own rules and supps when it suits their agenda it seems. 

 

About the worst part of tech was that in this “most invasive tear down ever” the tech staff did not check actual compression on the cars or pull fuel samples from top cars. While I am certain axle cages are what won this race, I would like to think that something as small and insignificant as compression and fuel may also have a small effect ? Granted not as much as these cages, but perhaps a little.  I can only assume that tech did not have the knowledge or confidence to properly CC the engines.  We have all seen and know the games played with the whistler.. You can’t rely on that tool in a race of this caliper. If competitors/builders knew this going into the event and I firmly believe some did, compression was basically open. FWIW, none of the top five had compression measured other than with a whistler and only p3,p4 and p5. Ironically P1 and P2 were not checked by ANY METHOD!  Not saying any were wrong, just that we will never know as none were even checked.

 

Lastly, this was aimed at me and me only.  I apologize to Chris and Brian as I think in NASA’s attempt at “getting me”, Chris and Brian were caught in the crossfire. I won’t bore you with the long history. But it is there. I will simply say while in tech waiting for Henderson's engine to clear tech. This was about four hours after Henderson’s axles cleared and a full day after Haldeman's cleared.  I asked the chief scrutineer if I could sit at the table and examine the axle cages. I had provided 4 samples after the event as I was asked to do by NASA tech. So there were two piles of cages on this table.. I assumed mine and the samples as all the other competitors were CLEARED by this point. Upon examination, I noticed that a ball bearing on the table( no idea who it belonged to, probably the Mazda sample axle)  it went through all six holes on all four cages that I examined. I asked Xavier which cage from the 156 car, assuming the cages were the 156 and the samples I provided. He pointed to what they claim was Todd's cage .  I responded, well which are these pointing to the remaining three in the stack.  To which Xavier responded "Haldeman, Henderson and one of the samples". THAT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION. I should have never been allowed to touch or see any competitors parts, NEVER! Let alone handle and inspect them. Then you must ask, how screwed up is this that they wanted me so badly that they would ONLY DQ my customer for something that they felt was somehow wrong in my car, but not wrong in the others? This was intentional. For the damage caused to Chris and Brian, I wish I never even looked at those cages and let them just serve us up. That was the goal from the start it seems. From this point forward they knew they had an issue they could no longer hide and IMO why it took a week to make a decision.  A week later, NASA sent Chris and Brian, who were already cleared tech  btw a DQ letter.  If I were Chris(the only one with enough on the line IMO) , I would absolutely sue NASA and he would absolutely win in real court. The facts and the rules matter there.  IMO, NASA does not have a leg to stand on.  You can’t pick or chose what rules you want to apply and which you don’t.  His axle was well within all specifications, they have NO case against him whatsoever IMO!  Chris will always be the real winner of this race and IMO it was taken from him unfairly and against the rules, regulations and procedures.  

[Danny Steyn]

My heart goes out to Chris Haldeman, Todd Buras and Brian Henderson. These are drivers that I consider good friends and tough competitors that I love to race with. Definitely not the way any of us want to win or lose.

 

A big thanks Mike Rossini for a great engine and Tom Fowler and the entire team at OPM for building a prepping a great car that passed tech, and of course to Danny and Chris Puskar for their amazing G-Loc Brakes.

 

Hopefully we got the car put back together right so we can compete at Sonoma in two weeks’ time.

 

And Walter, as well as anyone else sitting on the sidelines, these big events bring out the best in drivers, and I was thrilled to be battling among my friends, and props to everyone at Mazda, NASA and TOYO for putting on a really memorable event at COTA.

[Bi11]

Just curious? How much faster will I go with these modified ,remanufactured cv joints. CAUSE I WANT TO GO REAL FAST

[trimless]

Bi11, have you not heard? It's 95% driver..\\

These cars are all fast, it's the driver that makes them REAL fast.

[Tom Hampton]

My heart goes out to Chris Haldeman, Todd Buras and Brian Henderson. These are drivers that I consider good friends and tough competitors that I love to race with. Definitely not the way any of us want to win or lose.

And Walter, as well as anyone else sitting on the sidelines, these big events bring out the best in drivers, and I was thrilled to be battling among my friends, and props to everyone at Mazda, NASA and TOYO for putting on a really memorable event at COTA.

 

I think "our" issue from the peanut gallery, is that it seems like its the ONLY way anyone wins either of the Championship races, anymore. 

 

But you are right, we don't have any skin in the game and this is NOT a spectator sport.  If this is the way you guys WANT to "race" after the checkered flag...enjoy. 

 

Its not how I want to race, and it anything remotely similar started in regional comp, I'd quit THAT day.  Also, if certain racing friends of mine stop racing NASA as a result of this incident...so will I. 

[Johnny D]

Just trying to follow here...

So Jims on NASA Shit list? I see the connection with Todd. There's a connection with Chris and Brian and thats why they were focus on/ DQ'd? Had Jims CVs??

And maybe Todd had legal (to NASA) cages and Chris and Brian had mods??

 

Just asking.

J~

[Tom Hampton]

So you have the ability to grind the cages and the only specification would be to be to stay within half of the next decimal point in terms of tolerance. Any cages within that tolerance with or without tool marks should be compliant to the current rules.

Jim you lost me....in the bolded part.  Well, not exactly "lost", I understand the concept...but, we are all under the impression that there is NO SPEC---simply by the application of the "sample the field and average the result" rule (9.1.1 or whatever it was).  But, your statement would imply a "spec". 

[Jim Drago]

Jim you lost me....in the bolded part.  Well, not exactly "lost", I understand the concept...but, we are all under the impression that there is NO SPEC---simply by the application of the "sample the field and average the result" rule (9.1.1 or whatever it was).  But, your statement would imply a "spec". 

There is no spec.. But when no spec NASA uses the rule you stated.. You would need to be within that spec 

 

Just trying to follow here...

So Jims on NASA Shit list? I see the connection with Todd. There's a connection with Chris and Brian and thats why they were focus on/ DQ'd? Had Jims CVs??

And maybe Todd had legal (to NASA) cages and Chris and Brian had mods??

 

Just asking.

J~

Jims been on NASA shit list for awhile..  none of the rest there is accurate there at all.

No connection between chris and brian

None had CV axles from me but Todd

[Johnny D]

Got it thanks

 

J~

[Tom Hampton]

got it.  So for example:  NASA samples the field (a shit rule, but I digress), and computes an average of 34.025 mm.  You are saying the limit should THEN be, 34.025 +/- 0.0005. 

 

The entire concept of sampling the field is dumb squared...well probably dumb cubed.  Nevertheless, if you are going to try and apply a statistical sampling method to the field...it would be more useful to take into account the SPREAD in the field, as well as an average.  3.50, 3.50. 3.50 is very different from 3.0, 3.5, 4.0.  So, sample the field, take the average, and compute the standard deviation, and use  Avg + 3*stdev + (measurement tolerance) as your standard. 

 

Whatever, its a moot point.  and the idea is dumb on its face, anyway.

[FTodaro]

Now that the results are out, Congrats to Danny, Preston and Peter. All of this is not their issue. There are always winners and losers in every race. I would say NASA was the big looser here. A loss of confidence in the organization. Just not a fair way to handle the situation. Say what you want, but I assume NASA put on this big money race as a way attract SM racers to their events. Well this is not confidence inspiring. When I first started racing in the mid west, 9 year ago, NASA was the place to race we had 40+ car fields. Today in our region if they get 6 SM's racing its a big field. Everyone around in our neck of the woods races with SCCA. Many like me were treated unfairly and unequally in tech and with DQ's. I could go on and on, but i wont.

 

Its Sad

[Johnny D]

Well they compared to an "OEM" cage. This no longer exist ?  Wrong way to sample or no sample?

There was a missunderstanding of rule or lack of one for sure with some passing and others not.

But the thinking is I can get an aftermarket cage with the balls passing through and with no spec, I'm good and shouldn't be speced.

thus its open but that's not stated either.

 

Sounds like SCCA may state something soon. Will see what comes from this from both clubs.

 

J~

[Caveman-kwebb99]

This will likely end up like extended lower front ball joints.  Whats good in one organization isn't necessarily good in the other.  It just means less and less cross over as we go down this path.  

 

I dont care what the rule ends up being, I have stacks of OEM axles here, but I also think NASA would have been hard pressed to find 2 cars in the top 12 that could pass their idea of Axles Spec!  If this method of DIY remaning or buying ones from cardone or elsewhere remanned wont pass tech,where does that leave us?

[Danica Davison]

Just curious? How much faster will I go with these modified ,remanufactured cv joints. CAUSE I WANT TO GO REAL FAST

 

You need a lot more help than CV joints, Billy.

[Johnny D]

Champ Photos

http://redlinephoto...._campaign=event

 

J~

[EricJ]

I would say NASA was the big looser here.

or is Toyo the big looser? They put up the money and many may never buy a Toyo again.