71 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

Oh, and sealed engine program sucks!

[Jim Drago]

Give me a break. You guys want to be thought of as magicians when it comes to engines but are upset when the slight of hand is scrutinized?

None of us are innocent of trying to take advantage of the rules and the system. Imo, nothing wrong with that. But you should expect that the system will fight back.

Sometimes the lion will eat the poacher.

FWIW, the last thing I want to be known as is a "magician" I want to produce a better product through better quality work and done within the rules.

 

It is my job to take advantage of the rules, look for advantages within the rules.. Sometimes the sanctioning body pushes back as in this case. No problem from me. 

The problem comes when the sanctioning body picks and chooses what rules they want to enforce and which they don't. The competitors need to be held accountable as does the tech officials and the sanctioning body. In this case, only the competitors were held accountable.  Which is why I said the end justifies the means. We were done and NASA (IMO) felt that while they may have blew a few things procedurally, they were not letting this slide.  

 

We can debate for days on whether what we did was outside the rules, ( again some claim nothing was done and I believe them) but there is not ground to stand when we talk about the rules not being followed on the sanctioning body side, they weren't.   Just like you can be acquitted of murder if you aren't read your rights..  There is a process and rules to follow in tech, they were not. 

[Ron Alan]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Alan]

Ron,

Don’t get me wrong I don’t believe the SCCA is perfect. I suspect if Rick Harris did what the NASA tech inspectors did at COTA the SCCA would at least listen to the argument regarding chain of custody. In any equitable legal system if there is no chain of custody process or if the chain of custody process of broken then the finding of facts as they relate to that part, test, or component, is suspect and should be invalidated.

NASA has individuals that own and run their business how they see fit. As Chris pointed out above, the power of the appeals process lies with a few individuals who apparently aren’t interested in getting it right just in getting it over so they can go about cashing their checks. The racers only true option is to vote with his/her pocketbook, which individually is of little consequence the organization. However, if eyes are opened to the reality of what they are and stand for and is discussed openly maybe others will start voting as well.

As you too will find out, if you speak unkind words against NASAs leadership, organization or methods you will find yourself excommunicated.


.

As I suspected with your first post...IMO this thread title should be renamed. Random tech is not accurate.

 

In the court of public opinion...would've, could've, should've always wins! I have agreed with most here in private conversations the perception of malfeasance was there. But...was it consider malicious, purposeful or egregious errors? No. Did the one error in procedure that was truly looked at change the facts? No. Was OJ found not guilty? Yes. 

 

I cant argue nor would I the factual statements that Michael, Jim and Chris have stated. Can I disagree with some of their opinions as one man alone in the desert...sure. 

 

The guilty sometimes dont go free. NASA is a business...and it does draw a line in the sand(when it comes to excommunications for sure). I for one do not fault them for this! 

[MPR22]

As to the seals being cheated, I know that can be manipulated, but If one of the front guys wants to take the time to cheat that then they have a lot more cheats up their sleeve already. 

 

The eye test is the best test.  When you are on the track and you get a run off the corner on the guy in front of you, who slides his car sideways then pulls away from you, that is when you can break out your checkbook and file a protest. 

 

I have raced at the pointy end of the field with everyone of the guys who has won a version of the "national championship"  it is very clear what cars capable of what they aren't.  I have seen plenty of things that make my eyebrows go up and even had me cussing and watching frame after frame of videos all night trying to figure out if I was crazy or the cars weren't right.  

 

It has been a long time since I have seen that type WTF stuff at a Super Tour event.    I can say I have seen maybe two cars in the last 3 years that I felt were not right.  

 

Jim's stuff is always strong, Chris' stuff is always strong, Danny's stuff fluctuates more but recently his stuff has been strong and his driving has been on point.  The SCCAs tech system has worked and it has cleaned up a lot of the "grey area" especially with the heads.  

I spent an entire year pulling my hair out at regional events when the go to cheats were to pull the shim and up the compression on the engines.  It made me a better driver because I learned to drive the car on the edge for longer periods of time.  So I guess its not all bad.  

 

I don't want to have the same group of guys tearing down engines race after race.  That isn't why we do this and it drives the costs up.  I know most of the folks don't care what the top guys/builders have to do, they see that is there just rewards.  

[Jamz14]

Jim,

I agree that tech has responsibilities to ensure procedural integrity. But is it really in the spirit of what NASA and scca tech are trying to do to overlook obvious "machining" just because a potential procedural mistake happened? I haven't heard anyone that modified their half shafts say they didn't.

Hp has gone up and up. Incongruent with rule changes. People are finding more "grey". That isn't just producing quality workmanship. I'll say it again: I think you guys are brilliant in how you identify performance grey areas. I want to emulate that with the engines I build.

The half shaft I saw, which wasn't yours, was far from quality workmanship. It was obviously opened up with the sole purpose of gaining an advantage. We should own it, not crucify, and go racing again next month.

[MPR22]

Jim,

I agree that tech has responsibilities to ensure procedural integrity. But is it really in the spirit of what NASA and scca tech are trying to do to overlook obvious "machining" just because a potential procedural mistake happened? I haven't heard anyone that modified their half shafts say they didn't.

Hp has gone up and up. Incongruent with rule changes. People are finding more "grey". That isn't just producing quality workmanship. I'll say it again: I think you guys are brilliant in how you identify performance grey areas. I want to emulate that with the engines I build.

The half shaft I saw, which wasn't yours, was far from quality workmanship. It was obviously opened up with the sole purpose of gaining an advantage. We should own it, not crucify, and go racing again next month.

James, 

 

The problem is, without the proper chain of custody being followed, how do you know what half shaft came from what car.  In no world I work in would that be allowed to happen and have the results validated.  The rules are in place for a reason, spirit has nothing to do with it when you can't validate the origin of the part. When the organization steps outside the lines of the chain of custody procedure the entire process is tainted.  I suspect if this went to court it would take a judge/jury about 30 seconds to invalidate the findings of the officials once they understood chain of custody snafu. 

 

The original post isn't pointing only to this one example, although it is the most egregious.   The random inspections I started with are clearly not random.  If you sit quiet in the paddock and listen to the conversations going on you get some serious insight into what is really going on behind the scenes.  

 

NASA is particularly guilty of this as they truly don't have any nonparticipant experts helping them.  

[Tom Hampton]

Jim,

I agree that tech has responsibilities to ensure procedural integrity. But is it really in the spirit of what NASA and scca tech are trying to do to overlook obvious "machining" just because a potential procedural mistake happened?

Um, yes...that's exactly what I'd expect. If a procedural mistake happens that makes it questionable who's part is who's, then ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do is to admit the mistake, and let everyone go.

I haven't heard anyone that modified their half shafts say they didn't.

Then you really weren't listening. Or you are being willfully being ignorant.

But, this conversation wasn't about the half-shafts. It's about singling people/builders out in what is supposed to be a "random" selection process.

[Danny Steyn]

good points..  BUt IMO sealing doesn't work. Sealing keeps honest people honest.   I have heard and so have many stories of SRF seals being compromised, Mx5 cup seals being compromised as well.  It is my belief if someone made it, most likely someone else can unmake it, reproduce it or figure it out with enough time and money.  Will they? Who knows.

 

So following this same train of thought, how is it going to be different for tire stickers?

[Tom Hampton]

So following this same train of thought, how is it going to be different for tire stickers?

That can't be the sole argument against so type of control. Given enough creativity, everything can be cheated. There has to be a better reason than just, "it can be cheated". Maybe it's too expensive. Or maybe it actually makes it HARDER to catch the cheat, than just inspecting the part.

At the end of the day, all of this is just keeping honest-people-honest, and hopefully making it harder to cheat/easier to catch. But, the truly willful ARE going to cheat. 

[Jim Drago]

So following this same train of thought, how is it going to be different for tire stickers?

You really don't want to lose that advantage do you ?

 

First of all, you don't have to pay to fly in Rick Harris and have him apply your tire stickers.  

Nor does he have to be here a few days to do several of your customers tires. 

 

The tire stickers only needs to make a weekend, not multiple events. 

 

The only way to beat the tire stickers if done properly is to have replica stickers made yourself and apply them to an alternate set of tires.  I don't think it will be easy to do that though as the stickers will be serialized and handed out with tech card and you won't know your serial number for the weekend until you get to the track. 

 

If someone needs to win that bad and pulls that off, punishment should be a kick to the balls and a 1 year suspension.  

[Jim Drago]

Jim,

I agree that tech has responsibilities to ensure procedural integrity. But is it really in the spirit of what NASA and scca tech are trying to do to overlook obvious "machining" just because a potential procedural mistake happened? I haven't heard anyone that modified their half shafts say they didn't.

Hp has gone up and up. Incongruent with rule changes. People are finding more "grey". That isn't just producing quality workmanship. I'll say it again: I think you guys are brilliant in how you identify performance grey areas. I want to emulate that with the engines I build.

The half shaft I saw, which wasn't yours, was far from quality workmanship. It was obviously opened up with the sole purpose of gaining an advantage. We should own it, not crucify, and go racing again next month.

Jamz

So I am clear, its Ok to trample the competitors rights and we can do what we like in regards to procedure, chain of custody and a host of other things as long as we think you are guilty, you are going about the cages.. While I respect your opinion and you are entitled to it, these axles were legal in SCCA and spelled out legal in SCCA after this fiasco. So it was more than just a few competitors that disagreed with NASA's decision.  

 

And who says the power is going up and up? You?  FWIW, if I am being completely honest we are making the exact same numbers we made in 2012-13. My car right now is not as good as it was in 2016.   We are getting more good cars and the numbers from best to worse are tightening, but they are no better. It hurts my business to say that, but that is the truth.  If people are "finding" things in the engine at this point, it is my opinion, they are likely cheating. 

[Jim Drago]

That can't be the sole argument against so type of control. Given enough creativity, everything can be cheated. There has to be a better reason than just, "it can be cheated". Maybe it's too expensive. Or maybe it actually makes it HARDER to catch the cheat, than just inspecting the part.

At the end of the day, all of this is just keeping honest-people-honest, and hopefully making it harder to cheat/easier to catch. But, the truly willful ARE going to cheat. 

You are exactly right.. the only other reason is to not wanting to give up a small advantage you think you may have.. Which is perceived, not real. Those at front would sell their first born if they  needed tire money to win. It just costs us all more

[Bench Racer]

Jamz

 these axles were legal in SCCA and spelled out legal in SCCA after this fiasco. 

Not ball busting, were the cages not deemed legal because of the potential loss of competitors for the SCCA Runoffs. 

[Jim Drago]

Not ball busting, were the cages not deemed legal because of the potential loss of competitors for the SCCA Runoffs. 

No, they allow remanned axles, always have.. remanned cages are ground. They did not feel anyway possible to make that call with 100% certainty.  Axles are cheap, changing axles isn't running anyone out and no way people go away because of it IMO

[chris haldeman]

I have come up with a question for all the pro Nasa people.....
So let’s say I am at any Nasa race and I feel James,Ron,or Xavier are running non compliant engines who inspects them? I am asking mostly because I plan to have a few torn down and want to know that justice is served

[Jamz14]

Chris, are you asking who decides if they get torn down? If so, it can happen two different routes; tech inspector, any competitor can pay $25 to have a specific part to a specific rule looked at. I do think, don't know for sure, that if found compliant the person that requested it has to pay for the tear down and rebuild.

[Jamz14]

Tom, I get what you are saying. But I don't hear people saying that wasn't my shaft. If so, no problem. But Jim and Chris don't seem to be saying that. They are saying they are allowed to machine their shafts. Jim, no we shouldn't let tech off the hook and allow competitors to be harassed. My point is that that seems a technicality that doesn't seem to be critically relevant when there doesnt seem to be a dispute that your shaft and Chris shaft were "remanned" (altered). And bench is right, disingenuous to say that it was allowed before cota. It was allowed specifically after cota. Imo, mostly to give the bird to NASA. It was not specifically allowed prior to.

I can reman and service a shaft without grinding. How about oil pumps? Can I reman the oil pump and grind away the openings?

[Jamz14]

Jim, maybe I am wrong but I didn't see power numbers above 130 being touted 8 years ago.

But I am often wrong.

[Jamz14]

Why does a remanned shaft NEED to be ground?