136 replies to this topic

[Numbersix]

I want the wins that were stolen from me

[Numbersix]

121 .... what a surprise ... shocking ....

[Numbersix]

who would have thought one of the sealed spec miata's had 121 .....

[Juan Pineda]

Brian,

This is not right. There was no way for anyone to protest since the dyno numbers were kept secret at the event. The officials handling compliance that knew the numbers should have appealed/protested to National for a ruling instead of letting the non-compliant car off the hook that day. No way that a 121HP pro motor could have passed initial compliance without sandbagging. There is no ambiguity here. This is an appeal/protest worth making, even now.

Car numbers should be published with the dyno numbers. The 121HP car should be public. Until that happens, all three drivers that day are suspect, and that is not fair to the two that were playing within the rules.

What is the necessity for any secrecy here?

-Juan

[Edited to clarify who should have appealed what.]

[Brian Ghidinelli]

Phillip, that's the sealing process but not the supplementary rules. To be blunt, this was a loophole that has been closed. Unfortunately the tech officials can only request action by a steward based on the GCR and any supps in action for the weekend. This is why had the officials didn't take action: it would have been easy to appeal and overturn.

Ron - the compliance check was done post-race on Sunday FYI.

I agree with Johnny although perhaps in a different tone than he intended it: rules are rules. We have to play by the rules when we like the results and when we don't. That's why the record stands, that's why the competitor wasn't DQ'd and that's why we've updated the supps.

As for why to have seals and still dyno, the answer is simple: defense in depth.

[Johnny D]

So how do you make 121 and not break a seal?
J~

[Numbersix]

holifield should be 2010 ssm champion

[Numbersix]

niemann should have a checkered flag from the first event

[Johnny D]

Isn't this a post race inspection?

From time to time SFR will ask MCE to provide compliance testing services. SFR will select the cars to be tested. MCE will validate, that all seals are in place, the car falls in the target HP and negative HP range. MCE will notify the SFR Chief of Tech if the car passes or fails.

The car will fail inspection only if any of the following is determined from the dyno process:
1) The car’s HP was above the target levels
2) The car’s negative HP was above the target range.
3) If any compliance seals are broken or tampered with.
The SFR Chief of Tech will be told the car failed for which of the above reasons.

MCE will provide an SCCA witness statement and meet with the SOM as required to document the results of the testing for the purpose of assessing penalties. In the event of failure, a copy of the dyno sheet will be supplied to the SFR office.

J~

[Numbersix]

this is why myself and others left the class ... someone appeared to have wayyy too much power .... ridiculous

[Ron Alan]

Brian, I know when the dyno was performed as I was there. What I was not sure of was if the new track record was set right before the car was driven to the dyno and found to be non-compliant?? If so am I crazy for thinking this should be thrown out as fast as sour milk?

IMO...the way this was handled and has come out gives many a real taste of sour milk! A DQ should have been issued...then let the appeal process take its course. If the appeal is upheld for lack of proper wording(though no one will or can argue the "intent/spirit")then so be it. As it sits now it looks like no one had a pair and only considered 1 over the many.

Many are pointing a finger saying "we told you so!". I hope the region will consider more member input and change more than just one sentence to the existing SSM rules and compliance process.

But again, I do thank you for coming on here and trying to explain...and take a little heat

[Numbersix]

A year plus of racing a car with 8 extra hp and the mysterious .... car in question is found out ... exposed ... caught ... I have a feeling the person will just go into smt & pretend like nothing ever happened

[Johnny D]

A year plus of racing a car with 8 extra hp and the mysterious .... car in question is found out ... exposed ... caught ... I have a feeling the person will just go into smt & pretend like nothing ever happened

I don't defend what he did and I don't sugar coat or do PC but lets be correct about the info.
If he's been doing the post race dynos and MCE has published all the runs. Then he's only had the 121 the last race.

Also it would be nice to know who you really are.
J~

[Numbersix]

4/10/11 121.15 103.78 = bragging rights ..... checkered flags .... track records .....

[Numbersix]

not that it's even necessary since the damage has already been done ... but post all the dyno pulls with car numbers .. names ... dates .. blood type .... shoe size

[Johnny D]

4/10/11 121.15 103.78 = bragging rights ..... checkered flags .... track records .....

I'm not sure he's bragging right now or what looks he's going to get at the track but.
He may have taken advantage of the rules (legally) and that's worth bragging about.
Every top race team reads the rules to take advantage them. It's how the game is played.

Try to keep to Jim Dragos comments "The only thing I wont tolerate is constant flaming"
http://mazdaracers.c...st=0

SFR is trying to make it better and listening, which is the step in the right direction we're looking for.
J~

[Numbersix]

I'm definitely not trying to constantly flame anyone ... maybe a few jabs here and there ..... but I personally have been affected by the 121 as much or more than anyone in ssm ...
I understand that when there is racing there's gonna be people who (legally) will take advantage of the rules ....... but this is CLUB racing ... none of us are going anywhere in the sport ...
except to the next event on the schedule ... imo to take advantage at this level is beyond weak .... but I'll keep your comments in mind johnny ...

Matt

[Johnny D]

Hey Matt,
So should we start a poll to DQ the Record/Driver/Points?
Penalties, Probation, return prize $, Toyo, whatever?
Recommend visiting a psychiatrist for domanent behavior?

Sounds like you're clear to come back now to SSM.

Are these last minute, damage control rule correct or need to be treaked?
J~

[Brian Ghidinelli]

IMO...the way this was handled and has come out gives many a real taste of sour milk! A DQ should have been issued...then let the appeal process take its course. If the appeal is upheld for lack of proper wording(though no one will or can argue the "intent/spirit")then so be it. As it sits now it looks like no one had a pair and only considered 1 over the many.

Ron, I don't like the dyno result any more than you. Perhaps even less as it exposes a mistake. However, you need to read the rules and understand the protest and appeal procedures. Spirit and intent are not rules. You can't DQ someone on spirit. You can, however, be penalized for filing an unfounded protest (see GCR 8.3.2).

Think of this from the tech officials perspective for a moment: you're in tech and you're working to do the best job possible at enforcing the rules for 250 cars in ~35 classes in 7 groups over the course of the weekend. It's a big job and SMT/SSM is - by volume - a large portion of it. Would it be professional to file a protest that you know is unfounded? Do you want to sign your name on what you know is a waste of time and money? What if you file that request for action with the chief steward, he looks at the evidence and turns you down on the spot? Would you still feel professional like you're doing a good job? You know the answer, just like I do.

Nobody on 4/10 was "lacking a pair" - on the contrary - the tech officials were the most level-headed and professional people involved.

I hope the region will consider more member input and change more than just one sentence to the existing SSM rules and compliance process.

I think folks often confuse "discussions in the paddock" with "member input". In my time on the board since last November, I do not recall receiving any member input regarding SSM rule changes. We would love to receive input on how the class could be better! If you have a considered, concrete idea, please email them to the board so we can review!

[Johnny D]

Viet-Tam Luu
Slow


Region: San Francisco Region
Car #: 14
Year : 1999
Posts: 453
Status: Offline
posted 05-25-2010 01:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We discussed people's concerns with SSM at some length at last night's BOD meeting.

I was not able to convince Mike et al that releasing/publishing dyno sheets would be a good idea; I reasoned that it would be better to provide more data and leave less to people's speculation/imagination, but I've yet to sway the BOD's opinion on this particular point. Moreover, releasing/publishing dyno sheets (for newly sealed and passing cars) falls outside of the current SSM contract that SFR has with MCE; it doesn't, as far as I know, prevent MCE from doing so, but the contract exists to make sure every SSM competitor receives exactly the same treatment so I can see why publishing dyno sheets on new seals without being able to do it retroactively for already-sealed cars might be a problem.

Anyway, what we did agree to, in the spirit of improving transparency and increasing competitors' confidence in the process, is to publish the parts of the MCE contract that specify the sealing procedure and specifications; and here they are:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCE will perform the dyno process as follows:
1) MCE will supply, gap and install a standard spark plug, Autolite AR3935 gapped at positive electrode end to 0.028 inch +/-0.003 inch.
2) MCE will check for proper oil levels using MCE retained Miata oil dipstick and will check to insure the oil measurement system has not been altered.
3) MCE will tune the SSM engine to target HP target window of 113 HP +/- 1.5 HP and 100 +/- 3 ft lbs of torque by adjusting the distributor and/or the MAF valve, All testing will be performed before engine cooling fan starts at 180° engine temperature.
4) While checking the HP, MCE will look for any indication of an out of range power train drag issue by performing the negative HP test, using Dynojet 224X Dynamometer.
5) A Miata that cannot be raised to meet the HP target will be sealed with the owner’s approval after notification of result.
6) If the Miata fails, the driver will be only told the following; your car could not meet the SSM sealing criteria for the following reason(s):
a. The HP could not be raised to the proper target and was sealed per #5 above.
b. During the dyno process your car’s negative HP test was above the target range.

Once the Miata is set for the proper HP target, MCE will perform a sealing process using proprietary color/bar code detection system. The following items will be sealed:
1) Oil pan
2) Valve cover
3) ECM
4) Airflow Sensor
5) Cam Sensor

From time to time SFR will ask MCE to provide compliance testing services. SFR will select the cars to be tested. MCE will validate, that all seals are in place, the car falls in the target HP and negative HP range. MCE will notify the SFR Chief of Tech if the car passes or fails.

The car will fail inspection only if any of the following is determined from the dyno process:
1) The car’s HP was above the target levels
2) The car’s negative HP was above the target range.
3) If any compliance seals are broken or tampered with.
The SFR Chief of Tech will be told the car failed for which of the above reasons.

MCE will provide an SCCA witness statement and meet with the SOM as required to document the results of the testing for the purpose of assessing penalties. In the event of failure, a copy of the dyno sheet will be supplied to the SFR office.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, we intend to direct Impound to more thoroughly inspect seals etc. on SSM cars to verify compliance.

Additionally the BOD intends to look into the matter of SSM-sealed "built" engines, i.e. non-SSM "pro" engines that have been detuned by MCE to conform the SSM limits. It has been anecdotally observed that such engines sometimes do not run very well and it's possible that such engines may perform differently than other crate/stock-engine SSMs. The above procedure does not have explicit provisions for engines that start out above the HP limit and cannot be practically detuned to fall within the allowed range. We will look further into this and may direct MCE to not seal the relatively few engines that fall into this category.

--------------------
Viet-Tam Luu (a.k.a. "Tam")
SFR-SCCA #14 ITS
Director, SCCA San Francisco Region


Brian,
Can you tell me why we wouldn't have a protest and appeal procedures case for DQ, based on the info above?
I see no spirit, just the process, which was followed, but was not made public at the time.

I'm not even sure why we would need to protest "IF" MCE and SFR followed the procedures after the results of the dyno.
J~