422 replies to this topic

[Tom Hampton]

great race upfront. Now the shitty part of the event.....

That would make this comment rather ironic.

[zoomzoom22]

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

 

Cat/bag now once I caught up reading.

 

And that is funny to say the least.

[OrangeCrush86]

I'm still confused on how Drago got the other two guys (who passed tech) DQ'ed. Can someone clarify that statement?

[Jim Drago]

I'm still confused on how Drago got the other two guys (who passed tech) DQ'ed. Can someone clarify that statement?

Only car that was mentioned with any compliance issues at the event in tech was the 156.. Tech afforded me the opportunity to provide sample axles from competitors which I did. Sunday afternoon, long after Haldeman had been cleared. Tech pulled in Henderson(4th).  The first thing they checked was axle cages and told him that he was good.( otherwise they weren't going to pull the entire car apart and move to position 5, as it made no sense and they were running out of time.)  

So while waiting for Hendersons engine and transmission ( mine) to clear tech. The axle cages were on the table. I asked for and was granted permission to inspect them. I had been told earlier that none of the samples that I provided tech matched my cage. I was suspect of this as I was fairly certain I provided at least 2 samples that were in my favor.  There was also a stock Mazda ball on the table.  While at the table, I was able to pass this stock ball through four cages. None of these cages had car numbers or names, just letters. I WRONGLY assumed that the four that had balls passing through the cages were mine and the samples I provided.  At this point I was convinced that I was being lied to as they told me none were similar to mine when in fact I saw four cages that the ball passed through the cage windows.   I asked which these four cages were, assuming they were mine and three of the samples. I was prepared to ask why I was told none of the samples were similar. So when Xavier mentioned that these axle cages were mine, Chris, Brian and one of the samples, I was more than surprised.  From here forward, It is my belief that tech knew that I would blow this up at some point and changed their findings a week after the event.  Although I believe Xaviers  intentions were genuine in allowing me to inspect the cages.  Allowing me to handle a competitors part is in clear violation of the rules and I should not have been afforded that opportunity.   IMO, had I ONLY been allowed to inspect my part, the OEM Mazda axle cage and the samples I provided Chris and Brians positions would have held.  It is also important to remember that I did not inspect ANY of these cages with the corresponding balls, I used the one that was on the table. Chris has publicly stated here his balls measured 16mm, I can say with no doubt a 16mm ball would not pass through his cage.  From memory both Chris and Brians cage were .003-.004 larger than OEM.  That is within the tolerance of the tools we are using to check cylinder heads and for reference less than thickness of a piece of paper. 

[RWP80000]

Now that SCCA has declared the internal cage and bearing dimensions are unrestricted, it now puts some Runoff's competitors suspecting they may now be at a competitive disadvantage and in the position of deciding if or how to take action to become more competitive in the time remaining.

 

My preference here would be for all of the front running competitors who might know that they either have remanufactured axles or axles optimized based on modifying these dimensions to  commit to running only OEM unmodified axles during the Runoffs so as to demonstrate that this issue is not what gives them their competitive edge but is rather their driving and overall vehicle preparation skills.  This would eliminate the need of those just becoming aware of what may or may not be a performance advantage, having to take action to get to the same playing field.

 

For those unfamiliar with the Rzeppa joint design, it is important to understand that the balls used in this joint have nothing to do with the joints ability to run in axial alignment to the center line of the half shaft.  This is controlled by the clearance of three parts; the inner race, cage thickness and outer race (bell shaped housing).  The balls only provide the ability of the half shaft to transmit torque between the inner and outer races.  It is possible to have only a single ball in this joint and still transmit torque (obviously with a significantly reduced torque capacity and durability and is not recommended in any way here).  If the intent was to obtain reduced friction, eliminating half or even two thirds of the bearings would help but GCR rules specifically forbid removal of parts so running fewer balls would continue to be non compliant even though their dimensions are unrestricted.

 

Knowing this, and with what SCCA is allowing, it would not be against the rules to substitute smaller diameter balls with the main impact being an increase in the driveline back lash (similar to what happens when ring and pinion gear back lash is improperly set).  So if Competitors are not willing to police this themselves, this is something Competitors desiring to have a freer joint could do without any machining operations.  A basic bearing substitution would be a quick way to be on a similar playing field as those using the "specially remanufactured" joints.

 

Disclaimer: I will not be a participant in the 2018 Runoffs and will not be modifying any axles before updated GCR rules on this issue are released and approved.

Rich Powers

[FTodaro]

Now that SCCA has declared the internal cage and bearing dimensions are unrestricted, it now puts some Runoff's competitors suspecting they may now be at a competitive disadvantage and in the position of deciding if or how to take action to become more competitive in the time remaining.

 

Rich do you really think that in of it self this amounts to more than just noise on the dyno?

[Cnj]

Mmm. Steve and Tom spent several pages on the other thread making the cogent argument that there is no meaningful mathematically derived advantage to the alleged modification. So far no one - to my knowledge - has provided data that contradicts their view.

So the engineer in me wonders whether (1) this is just noise about nothing, or (2) the data exists to prove that there is a method to modify the CV in a way that meaningfully increases effective HP and this info is not public yet.

Either way, asking competitors to follow a gentlemen’s agreement on using a part that some don’t even agree has been modified, much less provides an advantage - seems premature.

CNJ

[Steve Scheifler]

The best argument against meaningful benefits from ANY modifications to the outer CV joint is how little power it dissipates to begin with. It would be worth discussing if we were running a Yaris in Solo or maybe “racing” one in B-spec at Grattan. Then we would spend a lot of time trying to accelerate with the CVs bent at a significant angle where the efficiency falls off.

But our outer CVs typically run nearly dead straight, roughly 0 degrees +/- *maybe* as much as 2 degrees but typically less. Indeed, if you want to maximize the efficiency of that joint then by FAR the most effective means is to set the combination of ride height, camber and toe such that there is zero articulation when accelerating. It uses so little power at small angles that trying to meaningfully improve efficiency by opening up the cage a little is just folly.

Of course the inner joint is typically at a greater angle because it isn’t offset by camber, but you probably don’t want to adjust ride height enough to straighten it out, and if you did then the outer will be more bent by camber.

Even on the list of little things that eventually add up to something, this is way, way down the list on our cars even assuming that it does reduce total friction losses in actual use, which is by no means certain. It seems like a trick brought over from FWD cars and even there it’s probably not worth what people think it is. In fact I’d bet on it because these things are always over hyped. Remember the inevitable and repeated debates about flywheel weight? But I digress.

So no, other than falsely perpetuating the idea that this issue is worthy of future attention in tech and/or additional expense by the masses, I don’t think any kind of agreement for the Runoffs would accomplish much.

[powerss]

I have one, maybe two questions for everyone.

Is it OK to REM CV Joints?

If you answered "NO"

How much benefit could you measure?

........... Why is this OK if Remming is not OK?

[Tom Hampton]

Other than the fact that REM outlawed outright?

There's no power loss to begin with. So there's nothing to gain. The same argument applies to ALL methods to reduce frictional losses.

[RWP80000]

RWP80000, on 07 Oct 2018 - 10:09 AM, said:

Now that SCCA has declared the internal cage and bearing dimensions are unrestricted, it now puts some Runoff's competitors suspecting they may now be at a competitive disadvantage and in the position of deciding if or how to take action to become more competitive in the time remaining.

 

Rich do you really think that in of it self this amounts to more than just noise on the dyno?

 

Frank,

My personal belief is that gains from reductions in friction from either a "loose" joint or from a REM process are probably in and of themselves undetectable from a horsepower standpoint. 

The only thing that I can conceive is that there could be some type of brief dynamic situation associated with suspension articulation and vehicle roll dynamics that possibly could occur under torque application when the axle is effectively in a bind/locked condition.  Could there briefly be a higher pure rotational torque (vector) component from the freer joints providing for a period of enhanced acceleration? This is purely speculation coming from a "what might I be overlooking" perspective and believe best proven in back to back testing of OEM vs Modified axles in the vehicle under track conditions rather than on a dyno.  

 

As for the question of only noise on a dyno, I have to admit that after running our car on a hub dyno and observing the vehicle attitude with the front wheels on the floor and the rear higher and with noticeable half shaft articulation, I did introduce blocks under the front tires to level out the vehicle to correct this condition. I did not see any change in the dyno results.  So, yes I do think that the friction from the higher driveline angles was masked within the noise of the dyno.

 

Realistically I did/do not expect to see a Competitors agreement and I personally do not believe these modifications are likely to be a determining factor for the eventual race winner.  I just wish that this issue could have been taken off the table for the Runoffs so there is not some cloud as to this being a factor for the eventual winner.  It would be much easier for the few having these parts to correct this situation than for all those just learning of this to try and match the competition in such a short window.

[Bench Racer]

I have one, maybe two questions for everyone.

Is it OK to REM CV Joints?

If you answered "NO"

How much benefit could you measure?

........... Why is this OK if Remming is not OK?

Steven, the plating, coating, or impregnating rule. I'd say REMing the CV joint is not covered in the rule.

 

"The use of any painting, coating, plating, or impregnating substance (e.g.,anti-friction, thermal barrier, oil
shedding coatings, chrome, anodizing, REM, isotropic finishing, etc.) to any internal engine surface, internal
transmission or differential surface, internal or external surfaces of the intake manifold, exhaust manifold or
downtube is prohibited."

 

 

RWP80000, on 07 Oct 2018 - 10:09 AM, said:

  I just wish that this issue could have been taken off the table for the Runoffs so there is not some cloud as to this being a factor for the eventual winner.  It would be much easier for the few having these parts to correct this situation than for all those just learning of this to try and match the competition in such a short window.

Rich, you may have missed the SCCA Oct. 4, 2018 racing memo.

 

"The half-shaft CV joints shall be an OEM or OEM equivalent part. The internal cage and bearing dimensions are unrestricted. This rule is effective until 12/31/18." 

[Steve Scheifler]

Bench, I think you may have missed Rich’s point.

[Bench Racer]

Steve, I read the sentence "I just wish that this issue could have been taken off the table for the Runoffs so there is not some cloud as to this being a factor for the eventual winner.", thought I understood and responded even tho I was thinking Rich is on the SMAC. Rich, sorry if In misunderstood your sentence. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Well, you’ve quoted it twice, but have you actually read it?

[Bench Racer]

Well, you’ve quoted it twice, but have you actually read it?

It has been taken off the table for the SCCA Runoffs via the SCCA Memo dated OCT. 4, 2018

[MPR22]

 

RWP80000, on 07 Oct 2018 - 10:09 AM, said:

Rich do you really think that in of it self this amounts to more than just noise on the dyno?

 

Frank,

My personal belief is that gains from reductions in friction from either a "loose" joint or from a REM process are probably in and of themselves undetectable from a horsepower standpoint. 

The only thing that I can conceive is that there could be some type of brief dynamic situation associated with suspension articulation and vehicle roll dynamics that possibly could occur under torque application when the axle is effectively in a bind/locked condition.  Could there briefly be a higher pure rotational torque (vector) component from the freer joints providing for a period of enhanced acceleration? This is purely speculation coming from a "what might I be overlooking" perspective and believe best proven in back to back testing of OEM vs Modified axles in the vehicle under track conditions rather than on a dyno.  

 

As for the question of only noise on a dyno, I have to admit that after running our car on a hub dyno and observing the vehicle attitude with the front wheels on the floor and the rear higher and with noticeable half shaft articulation, I did introduce blocks under the front tires to level out the vehicle to correct this condition. I did not see any change in the dyno results.  So, yes I do think that the friction from the higher driveline angles was masked within the noise of the dyno.

 

Realistically I did/do not expect to see a Competitors agreement and I personally do not believe these modifications are likely to be a determining factor for the eventual race winner.  I just wish that this issue could have been taken off the table for the Runoffs so there is not some cloud as to this being a factor for the eventual winner.  It would be much easier for the few having these parts to correct this situation than for all those just learning of this to try and match the competition in such a short window.

 

Rich, 

 

I would say those that would have to pull their CVs and inspect for possible aftermarket alterations, that may or may not exist would have a substantially higher burden than those that would spend the money to buy a set of modified CV's to gain what has, to this point, been widely acknowledged as less than noise on a dyno.  If they think that is why they are finishing mid pack then let them buy the CVs.  

 

Driving has and always will be the deciding factor in a majority of SM races that have proper tech.  

 

We are to the point where too many people are looking for excuses as to why they can't win and see the real problem and look in the mirror.  Every single Spec Miata racing is illegal.  If you don't believe me then take the time to look for missing bolts.  If its missing its illegal.  That is what people are starting to chase with this non-sense of SPEC at all costs.  

 

NASA and TOYO put themselves in a tight spot with the money that was put up for this race.  So much to gain and lose on compliance to the rules and if in doubt they went to the DQ.  Guilty until proven innocent is the new normal in our society. 

 

I am certain there will be short term fallout over the results that hurts their business model.     

[OrangeCrush86]

I think most tech in racing is guilty until proven innocent. At least the challenge part of the system.

[Steve Scheifler]

It has been taken off the table for the SCCA Runoffs via the SCCA Memo dated OCT. 4, 2018

Only in terms of tech. Rich’s point, unless I’m very much mistaken, is that the SCCA memo puts ON the table the possibility of a perception that these CVs are an advantage, temporarily allowed, and could impact the results. That perception leaves people stuck between accepting said disadvantage or going to the time and expense of “catching up” before the event. In other words, the memo does not address/solve his concerns as you seem to suggest, rather it creates them. Hence his very reasonable thoughts about a gentleman's agreement. I don’t see any way to argue that he is wrong, even though I lean towards assuring people that there is no point in worrying about it.

[RWP80000]

From Bench's post:

 

Steven, the plating, coating, or impregnating rule. I'd say REMing the CV joint is not covered in the rule.

 

"The use of any painting, coating, plating, or impregnating substance (e.g.,anti-friction, thermal barrier, oil
shedding coatings, chrome, anodizing, REM, isotropic finishing, etc.) to any internal engine surface, internal
transmission or differential surface, internal or external surfaces of te intake manifold, exhaust manifold or
downtube is prohibited."

 

Bench,

I happen to agree with your take on the Rule language which was alluded to during the last SMAC meeting on this issue.  SCCA has made a very clear rule change as to what is acceptable for the 2018 Runoffs but the rule is only in place until the end of the year which means this could go any number of ways going forward.  What kind of constraints (if any) should be put in place? With respect to engines we currently put many restraints on many standard engine remanufacturing processes for this class (use of Sleeves, bushed valve guides, spring shimming all quickly come to mind).  Maybe a survey is in order.