422 replies to this topic

[EricJ]

Honestly, what planet are you living on? One of the best sponsors your class has (which just put a really, really big prize) is somehow at fault because some individual competitors attempted to get creative with the rules? That doesn't make any sense to me. 

Sorry I wasn't clear, if you don't race NASA again, you don't need to buy Toyos again.

I agree Toyo is a great sponsor and spent a lot of money on this race. It's unfortunate that they may end up selling less tires because of nothing that they have done.

I've always been very happy with their product and contingencies.

[Steve Scheifler]

I want to update my estimate of the potential benefit from the CV joint mods. I understand that the performance advantage if any is generally not considered relevant in whether or not parts are compliant, but it is important here for two reasons:

A decision needs to be made about rules if any going forward, and there’s no point creating another meaningless tech item.

In the explanation of their findings NASA refers to the estimated performance advantage of these CVs. Although they then point out that it doesn’t bare on whether or not it is compliant, they felt obliged to bring it ip, which implies to me that it was a consideration in the penalty phase. I quote item 6 directly and fully from the findings document:

“An argument was made that these cages are not a performance items. I have conferred with an outside expert, who is retired from SM and has no part in it. One bearing / journal couldn’t have a measurable effect. He personally tested a known-OEM axle from Mazda against one that had oversized journals and OEM balls, and found over several tests a definitive gain of 1-2 HP. I am not considering whether it’s a performance advantage as that is irrelevant to the rules, but I deemed it a performance item. One that, if modified, could measurably affect performance.”

As I think I have already proved, this is complete rubbish. If true then yes, in a class like this that would be relevant and positions or DQ would seem justified. But it is unquestionably false. I don’t know what tests their expert claimed to have run (back when he sold these maybe?) but they are total rubbish and unjustifiably influenced the decision makers in this case.

Now back to the actual “gains” that are theoretically possible. The angle of articulation of the joint is critical in that calculation. To stay well on the safe (high) side I initially used an angle of 5 degrees. As a reminder, at typical SM ride height the axle runs uphill from diff to wheel. If that angle is 8 degrees but you are running 3 degrees negative camber then the angle at the joint is 5 degrees. Let’s call that “negative” to be consistent with camber terminology.

Today I measured the axle angles on a pair of NBs at different heights but both within typical range. The lowest of the two had an axle angle of 3.2 degrees. We run between 2.8 and 3.4 degrees of negative camber. So the effective joint angle at that height is between 0.6 and -0.4 degrees. The other car is higher with an axle angle of just 1.7-1.9 degrees. Let’s call them 1.8, so using the same camber numbers the actual joint angle is between -1.0 and -1.6 degrees. Keep in mind that when running straight a CV joint is nearly as efficient as a solid axle. At FWD steering angles the efficiency drops off rapidly, but we never see that.

My original “safe” estimate of 5 degree already proved that the potential benefits are minuscule. These new more accurate angles move the total power *dissipation* by both axles combined down to between 0.15 hp and 0.21 hp for a car with 130 at the rear wheels.

Suffice to say, a few minutes with a grinder on a cage isn’t going to make fools of the guys who design them for a living, and that SAE paper HOPED there might be a way to improve them 20%. Well, in the highly unlikely event that these axles achieve that goal they are worth maybe 0.04 hp total, but likely only a fraction of that if any at all.

If NASA took their expert’s opinion into account in any way, and their own findings quote that number, then at a minimum the penalty phase is questionable.

I’m not railing on NASA in general about tech. I didn’t before and I won’t now, I’ll leave that for others who were actually there. Much of what’s been claimed are cause for concern, but with one important exception the basic fact of in-house reman is not contested, so the rest may be embarrassing if true but not change the core facts. Again, I leave that to others, but I think this CV efficiency issue had to be challenged since it may also influence future rules and tech.

[Tom Hampton]

I have conferred with an outside expert, who is retired from SM and has no part in it. One bearing / journal couldn’t have a measurable effect. He personally tested a known-OEM axle from Mazda against one that had oversized journals and OEM balls, and found over several tests a definitive gain of 1-2 HP.

Anyone who makes that claim is an absolute idiot, and clearly isn't an expert at anything related to physics. As is someone who would listen and the publish that sh*t in a formal position paper.

Seriously? 2 hp gain from decreased mechanical friction? That would imply 5-10 hp of total mechanical loss. That's absurd.

That's 3.5 to 7.5 kilowatts! Or more than a kilowatt in each joint. That's enough to make it glow. Pretty sure the temper would be lost.

The f*cking grease would liquify, the joint would run dry, and the rubber boots would melt on the dyno. Then it would seize.

Any idiot capable of believing that and publishing it should just be fired. Total incompetence.

[Steve Scheifler]

Just guessing, but the guy who wrote it is probably not expected to be technical, just asses based on the facts given to him with the assumption that they are reliable. But clearly there was a breakdown in the process.

[Richard Astacio]

SCCA race memo posted, water meet fire:

 

https://www.scca.com...-08-sm/download

 

Wow......Nasa screwed this up royalty....My way to voice my disappointment and support our fellow racers that were DQ'd is not to participate in anymore Nasa races period...

[FTodaro]

Anyone who makes that claim is an absolute idiot, and clearly isn't an expert at anything related to physics. As is someone who would listen and the publish that sh*t in a formal position paper.

Seriously? 2 hp gain from decreased mechanical friction? That would imply 5-10 hp of total mechanical loss. That's absurd.

That's 3.5 to 7.5 kilowatts! Or more than a kilowatt in each joint. That's enough to make it glow. Pretty sure the temper would be lost.

The f*cking grease would liquify, the joint would run dry, and the rubber boots would melt on the dyno. Then it would seize.

Any idiot capable of believing that and publishing it should just be fired. Total incompetence.

Tom How do you really feel about this? Don't hold back. Lol

 

Glad to see SCCA get on this and publish a fix so that we don't have the same drama at the Runoffs.

[Tom Hampton]

Alleged facts.

Someone between this so called expert and the publishing of this finding should have the repsoibility to verify the technical claims.

As an engineer of 25 years... Ugh. That just pisses me off. I've designed more than a few thermal transfer systems...

[Bench Racer]

Tom, your a NASA race, correct.

 

RACING AND COMPETITION
78
23.0 Participant Conduct
23.1 Participant Conduct - Expectations
It is expected that every participant [Ref: (1.4.4)] and driver (entrant) at a NASA sanctioned event will conduct
themselves according to the highest standards of behavior and sportsmanship, particularly in their relationship
with other drivers and Officials, and in a manner that shall not be detrimental to the reputation of NASA, its
series, or other drivers. This rule also pertains to actions away from the track, such as posting comments on
social media or forums that are in violations of this rule.

[Tom Hampton]

Bench-

I mean this in the nicest possible way....

Thank you for your input.

[MPR22]

Tom, your a NASA race, correct.

RACING AND COMPETITION
78
23.0 Participant Conduct
23.1 Participant Conduct - Expectations
It is expected that every participant [Ref: (1.4.4)] and driver (entrant) at a NASA sanctioned event will conduct
themselves according to the highest standards of behavior and sportsmanship, particularly in their relationship
with other drivers and Officials, and in a manner that shall not be detrimental to the reputation of NASA, its
series, or other drivers. This rule also pertains to actions away from the track, such as posting comments on
social media or forums that are in violations of this rule.

Bench is spot on. NASA has a solo judge, jury, executioner system, no trial no hearing just a verdict, and if you don’t like it race with some other organization. I suspect that is what is going to happen in Texas.

Safelite Team Driver

[powerss]

Just got my video edited together earlier this week but thought it was too late to post but since a new video was posted I might as well too.

Starting in the kill zone at 27th and moving up to 16th(umm 13th).

Some nice views at the beginning especially the 1st lap and a drag race with Dargo in the middle.

Sorry, the audio sucks.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Tom, your a NASA race, correct.
 
RACING AND COMPETITION
78
23.0 Participant Conduct
23.1 Participant Conduct - Expectations
It is expected that every participant [Ref: (1.4.4)] and driver (entrant) at a NASA sanctioned event will conduct
themselves according to the highest standards of behavior and sportsmanship, particularly in their relationship
with other drivers and Officials, and in a manner that shall not be detrimental to the reputation of NASA, its
series, or other drivers. This rule also pertains to actions away from the track, such as posting comments on
social media or forums that are in violations of this rule.

Jim has earned himself a lifetime ban? So he can be appealed like broken windows in 12 months no big deal then!

[Jamz14]

I have no expertise to argue the physics with Steve. However, whether it is highly advantageous or not, the people that made the modification felt is WAS a performance advantage. This comment does not speak to whether it was legal or not. Just that it was thought to be an advantage and any argument of just servicing the joint is not being honest IMO. These mods were purposeful in their intent. The intent was to have an advantage over others that weren't as clever. I have no problem with cleverness. I do have a bit of a problem with trying to justify cleverness with misdirection or misinformation.

 

IMO Jim has been honorable in owning the intent. I disagree completely that NASA has an axe to grind with him though. I think Jim has had a target on his back for many years from competitors, not the organizations. But that target is a badge of honor. Wearing a badge of honor like that can be very fatiguing. Jims car has been stripped down and looked at more than most. As a multiple runoff Champion, that probably should be expected and I imagine (actually I know) Jim does expect it. I feel that that fatigue can cause one to think that an org has a vendetta against a person. Understandable position: but not true.

 

There was no malice on NASAs part in how they conducted tech and the decisions they made. Many of you have complained for years that NASA hadn't stepped up when it came to tech. Well they stepped up. Now you want to crucify them for trying hard? Thank you Xavier for stepping up and putting yourself out there when you knew in advance that you were going to have a target on your back to. Much respect. MAYBE, mistakes were made. But I have a hard time believing that chain of custody issues led to any unfairness to any competitor. That doesn't mean that unfairness didn't happen, just that chain of custody wasn't germane to any unfairness. So again I say, lets own this, move on, and not attempt to misdirect from potential legitimate concerns. I hope one day that I have the credentials that Jim, Chris, Todd and others have, and that I have a chance to test whether I have the character and conviction of what I am saying here. I pray to the gods for that strength.

 

As far as Toyo. I suggest everyone should be very cautious. Toyo did a wonderful thing. You might think that you will never run NASA again so running Toyos isn't an issue. But how we talk about a major sponsor may have visibility to other sponsors from the opposite organization and they may be able to see the connection to how they will be treated when the same thing happens over there. Its not like SCCA events have been squeaky clean (Laguna Seca). And even if we aren't directly attacking a sponsor, how we talk about the events that either org puts on might have a detrimental affect on decisions that sponsor make for associating its name with any large prestigious event. If you want large purses, lets not bad mouth the orgs that put them on. IMO it isn't good for any racing to be trashing events from a sponsor partnership perspective.

 

I challenge any of you to put on an event of this size and with this much prestige and pull it off for the first time without upsetting people over something. And let me raise my hand to own up to screwing up my responsibilities at this event. I learned something at COTA that I never want to learn again.

 

What I do appreciate is Steves efforts to prove out whether it was in fact a performance advantage with the intent of providing information for potential rule clarifications and/or changes. I really appreciate the time and effort he is putting in to look at this. Much respect.

 

NASA is my home and I am proud to be part of that family even if I don't agree with everything.

 

Then again, I am completely nuts. Just ask Johnny.

[Jim Drago]

I have no expertise to argue the physics with Steve. However, whether it is highly advantageous or not, the people that made the modification felt is WAS a performance advantage. This comment does not speak to whether it was legal or not. Just that it was thought to be an advantage and any argument of just servicing the joint is not being honest IMO. These mods were purposeful in their intent. The intent was to have an advantage over others that weren't as clever. I have no problem with cleverness. I do have a bit of a problem with trying to justify cleverness with misdirection or misinformation.

 

IMO Jim has been honorable in owning the intent. I disagree completely that NASA has an axe to grind with him though. I think Jim has had a target on his back for many years from competitors, not the organizations. But that target is a badge of honor. Wearing a badge of honor like that can be very fatiguing. Jims car has been stripped down and looked at more than most. As a multiple runoff Champion, that probably should be expected and I imagine (actually I know) Jim does expect it. I feel that that fatigue can cause one to think that an org has a vendetta against a person. Understandable position: but not true.

 

There was no malice on NASAs part in how they conducted tech and the decisions they made. Many of you have complained for years that NASA hadn't stepped up when it came to tech. Well they stepped up. Now you want to crucify them for trying hard? Thank you Xavier for stepping up and putting yourself out there when you knew in advance that you were going to have a target on your back to. Much respect. MAYBE, mistakes were made. But I have a hard time believing that chain of custody issues led to any unfairness to any competitor. That doesn't mean that unfairness didn't happen, just that chain of custody wasn't germane to any unfairness. So again I say, lets own this, move on, and not attempt to misdirect from potential legitimate concerns. I hope one day that I have the credentials that Jim, Chris, Todd and others have, and that I have a chance to test whether I have the character and conviction of what I am saying here. I pray to the gods for that strength.

 

As far as Toyo. I suggest everyone should be very cautious. Toyo did a wonderful thing. You might think that you will never run NASA again so running Toyos isn't an issue. But how we talk about a major sponsor may have visibility to other sponsors from the opposite organization and they may be able to see the connection to how they will be treated when the same thing happens over there. Its not like SCCA events have been squeaky clean (Laguna Seca). And even if we aren't directly attacking a sponsor, how we talk about the events that either org puts on might have a detrimental affect on decisions that sponsor make for associating its name with any large prestigious event. If you want large purses, lets not bad mouth the orgs that put them on. IMO it isn't good for any racing to be trashing events from a sponsor partnership perspective.

 

I challenge any of you to put on an event of this size and with this much prestige and pull it off for the first time without upsetting people over something. And let me raise my hand to own up to screwing up my responsibilities at this event. I learned something at COTA that I never want to learn again.

 

What I do appreciate is Steves efforts to prove out whether it was in fact a performance advantage with the intent of providing information for potential rule clarifications and/or changes. I really appreciate the time and effort he is putting in to look at this. Much respect.

 

NASA is my home and I am proud to be part of that family even if I don't agree with everything.

 

Then again, I am completely nuts. Just ask Johnny.

James

Very good post. I agree with most in your post. 

 

Regarding me, I agree with what you said 99-100%. I expect and welcome additional looks and tech on my car based on the reasons you mention,  even more so when my car dynoed higher than the others two years in a row. No problems there, I get it. I agree with most right up until I caught tech INTENTIONALLY disqualifying my customer only until I caught what they were doing and called them out on it .  I will forever hold that against them because tech is supposed to be fair,impartial and non biased, it CLEARLY was not.  To make matters worse, my findings caused grief and Dq's for two other competitors who didn't deserve it. It is important to remember, those two competitors claim they did not touch their axles, so its not fair to them to assume they are not telling the truth. I admitted that "we do", I did not claim they did anything, I have no reason not to believe the others.  Xavier and Ron Gayman can comment as what I said was 100% truthful. If they don't want to post/cant post they can pm or email and explain where I am wrong or misleading and i will gladly pull it.   I am not crucifying tech.. just telling a first hand account of what I saw. Had tech followed their own rules and procedures, teched the same parts and added compression and fuel testing, added a little organization. I would have been pleased with it. While disappointed in the final ruling, that IS NOT what I am upset by. Just the apparent agendas, bias and targeting. 

 

Sadly, I enjoy/enjoyed all the NASA Championships I have attended, I like the event very much and like the shorter format and had no intentions of not coming in the future. It is generally run well and fun, way too many meetings, but that is fine.  I feel that I completely gave one away last year and missed a good opportunity and almost certain podium this year.  I have been thinking about this and events in the future, sadly I have come to the conclusion that it makes no sense for me personally to ever race the NASA Championships again. None of my top customers want to come back for fear they will be treated unfairly as well and saw much of it first hand. I have no desire to spend money getting qualified, then the time and money required to get ready and run the championships when I feel the deck is unfairly stacked against me. I have no issue with whatever tech they want to put on my car, but I feel regardless of what they tech, they will somehow find me non compliant as that seems to be the goal.  As long as I am of that opinion, I certainly can't consider racing in NASA champs again.  I'm hoping next years event is somewhere that I don't want to go( Mid Ohio hopefully)  as that will make the decision an easy one.  If it is somewhere I want to go, perhaps a long talk with Jerry,Ryan<jeremy and or Xavier is warranted.  While I didn't agree with decision of the executive appeal, it seemed he was very reasonable and fair. Unfortunately IMO, Jerry was intentionally misled by a biased jackass claiming to be an "SM expert" and that couldn't be further from the truth.

[MPR22]

Why is everyone protecting the identity of the “SM Expert”.

[Danny Steyn]

Why is everyone protecting the identity of the “SM Expert”.

Michael

I do not believe anyone is protecting the identity of the NASA man in tech - that was Xavier Calderon

Anyone that knows him knows that he truly cares about our class, and IMHO he is not a jackass, but hey that is just my $0.02

[Jim Drago]

Michael

I do not believe anyone is protecting the identity of the NASA man in tech - that was Xavier Calderon

Anyone that knows him knows that he truly cares about our class, and IMHO he is not a jackass, but hey that is just my $0.02

Wrong guy Danny We are not talking about Xavier. We are talking about John Mueller who we feel was referenced in our appeal as Jerry's "SM Expert"

[MPR22]

Michael
I do not believe anyone is protecting the identity of the NASA man in tech - that was Xavier Calderon
Anyone that knows him knows that he truly cares about our class, and IMHO he is not a jackass, but hey that is just my $0.02

Jim answered my question below. I have nothing but excellent things to say about Xavier.

If it was Mueller that was giving technical advice to NASA, what are his creditials other than being a two faced former Spec Maiata National director?

[Cnj]

If it was Mueller that was giving technical advice to NASA, what are his creditials other than being a two faced former Spec Maiata National director?

Gas.
Fire.

[Dave D.]

Wrong guy Danny We are not talking about Xavier. We are talking about John Mueller who we feel was referenced in our appeal as Jerry's "SM Expert"

Isn't that the guy who. before he left NASA put the 15 extra pounds on the VVT to cover "future developments"?