136 replies to this topic

[Doug Makishima]

For those that don't know that I have been very vocal about rule changes and other issues with SSM, here's a reminder:

http://forum.specmia...1015;p=0#000000

-Doug

[Ron Alan]

Thanks Doug for posting your thoughts. Many good points.

But before I or anyone else waste's our time(any more!), can we get a definitive answer on whether the entire BOD is going to look seriously at this? Tam has posted his thought very clearly...does he speak for the entire BOD?

I will just say this in regards to improvements in achieving compliance/parity before and after sealing. Any item that can effectively improve performance(HP)needs to be either standardized or sealed. If not, it just makes it to easy and tempting for some to be "clever" in finding legal improvements within the gray area.

Improvments to the car that affect performance but not HP are fair game of course within the normal SMT/SSM rules.

Sealing and dyno's should be wide open to all...complete transparency and public information!

My opinion on all stated of course

[Juan Pineda]

Hey Doug,

Thanks for your reply. To follow up on two points:

First: I vehemently deny "doing" anything to the car at all, esp. anything that could be considered cheating. I feel just as much a victim here. I paid entry fees and incurred the cost of that Sunday race. I did nothing to the car except change the fluids, tires and brakes.

I want to be clear about what you are saying here. As I understand it, you "sandbagged" your car before it was sealed last year, had it sealed, and then restored the higher performance parts/adjustments/fluids, thus resulting in the car's current performance. MCE measured that higher performance to be 121HP (although you might have measured it a little differently on your dyno.) And what you are saying is that you believe that your "sandbagging" procedure was within the rules. I'm not judging here, I'm just trying to clarify what happened and what you are saying.

Third: Season Opener Sunday race results: Many seem fixated on the track record. Even though there is no way to challenge the results of that test and have it validated, I will agree to relinquish the track record set on that day.

Thanks for offering to do that. There are also the qualifying records earlier in the weekend. You enjoyed the same power advantage on those days too, so those records should also be amended as well. Will you relinquish those voluntarily also? I note that after giving up all the records recorded for the weekend, you will still hold the qual and lap records at Thunderhill as set last year.

Thanks,
-Juan

[Doug Makishima]

Hey Doug,

Thanks for your reply. To follow up on two points:



I want to be clear about what you are saying here. As I understand it, you "sandbagged" your car before it was sealed last year, had it sealed, and then restored the higher performance parts/adjustments/fluids, thus resulting in the car's current performance. MCE measured that higher performance to be 121HP (although you might have measured it a little differently on your dyno.) And what you are saying is that you believe that your "sandbagging" procedure was within the rules. I'm not judging here, I'm just trying to clarify what happened and what you are saying.




Thanks for offering to do that. There are also the qualifying records earlier in the weekend. You enjoyed the same power advantage on those days too, so those records should also be amended as well. Will you relinquish those voluntarily also? I note that after giving up all the records recorded for the weekend, you will still hold the qual and lap records at Thunderhill as set last year.

Thanks,
-Juan

No, I did not sandbag the car before sealing. I did not remove parts, add parts, use different fluids, or anything else to affect the dyno results. I did make a couple adjustments after sealing, but it was redynoed after the first race of last season. I did nothing to it after that. Nothing!

[Juan Pineda]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the reply. So it is your position that it would be against the rules to do anything to the car to improve its dyno power once it is sealed? And so you did nothing to the car to change its dyno power after it was sealed? To your knowledge your car should have dyno'ed at the same 113 HP level that MCE sealed it at?

Thanks,
-Juan

[Doug Makishima]

Hi Juan,

I made no changes after the car was rechecked at last year's season opener.
So, yes, at that point I had no reason to believe that the car was not compliant or would dyno at any result different than it did at that compliance check.

In terms of you suggested rule addition, I do think that's a good idea.
However, as I stated, it's hard to prove and even harder to determine intent.
Some may argue that if you come out on the low side at initial sealing and you know by doing your own dyno work, why would it be a problem to try to at least get up to parity or high end of the allowable range.

-Doug

[Juan Pineda]

Doug,

Thanks for the reply. You said you made a few adjustments to it after sealing. What were those adjustments?

-Juan

[hoverducky]

From http://forum.specmia...1015;p=0#000000 :

-------------------------------------------------------------------
posted 06-14-2010 08:20 PM

From the supps:

"13. SEALED SPEC MIATA (SSM): Sealed Spec Miata is a limited preparation class. To be eligible for
points, trophies and any other rewards, cars must meet all of the rules for Spec Miata T plus the following:
The engine utilized in the car for any session or race shall be sealed by MCE Racing located at Thunderhill
Park, Willows, CA [530-934-3237] or another San Francisco Region designated supplier. The seals installed
on the motor shall be registered by MCE Racing and shall remain intact and untampered with at all times.
Any seal that is missing or damaged is grounds for disqualification from the event."

And from the SSM contract, above:

"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."

Well, see, that's interesting. We (as competitors) must comply with the rules, including the supps. SFR's contract with MCE has nothing to do with us. So if an SSM dynos higher than the target after a race, but all the seals are in place and untampered with, it _can't_ be DQed under the rules as they are currently written.

No?

Actually, without looking into it too hard, I suspect a Sealed competitor would be within his rights to refuse to allow the car to be dyno tested. There's nothing in the rules about horsepower, so does SFR have a right to check it? It isn't like dyno testing is particularly good on a vehicle.

Scott

--------------------------------------------------------

Just saying. Again.

Scott

[Johnny D]

Yes, it was.
In the 1st post of this thread they added 2 sentences with concerns to HP.

Still some loop holes (IMO) were tring to seal (literally and figuratively), thus the long thread.
J~

[Juan Pineda]

Hey Doug,

So according to you, this is what happened: you brought an SMT prepared engine that dyno'ed at 118 into SSM competition. You had it sealed and you did nothing to increase its power beyond the 113HP spec that it was sealed at. Then this year a compliance check found your car at 121 while the 2nd and 3rd place cars dynoed within spec at 113. I'm sure you will understand that some may be skeptical of that scenario.

Nevertheless, even if for the sake of argument we assume that's what happened, you still have to accept some responsibility here. This is in the category of: if you keep dynamite in your basement then you really shouldn't be surprised if your house burns down every once in a while.

What could you have done differently? If you had a beast of an engine (by SSM standards) then perhaps you should have spent the extra effort to ensure that whatever part or adjustment that was used to detune the engine did not change. How much does MCE charge for a quick dyno check, $75? Alternatively you could have started with a cheap $300 stock engine and have been assured that your car would always be within compliance. In my view it is suitable justice and discouragement that someone that brings an SMT prepared engine into SSM be occasionally surprised by non-compliance and get DQ'ed.

In any event, you enjoyed 121HP all weekend, 8HP greater than your competitors. Regardless of the reasons that happened, it is clearly not fair that you retain your weekend results. You have offered to withdraw your Sunday lap records. I would ask you to voluntarily withdraw your Friday and Saturday records as well. Better to promote good will here and look toward the future.

Peace.
-Juan

[Rob Burgoon]

This is not a matter of someone exploiting a clever loophole in the rules. This is a case of a poorly written contract where all the parties agree, but the contract wording itself is nonsense due to poor drafting.

Yes, the whole thing is stupid.

-Juan

Best post.

[Johnny D]

How does the dyno and/or testing work at LS and Infineon.
J~

It doesn't... Please don't cheat?

I like this one, but it's not a rule so we don't need to follow it.
J~

[Doug Makishima]

Hi Juan,

Back on the mainland now...

I should have paid for rechecks myself? Huh? My car was tested post-sealing and post-competition last year, and it passed. So it was tested, and for free by the SCCA. I understand there is skepticism, but it's not my fault. I put 91 gas in it and drove it. That's all. BTW, I offered for anyone to dyno my car (on their dime) last season. No one took me up on that.

I didn't spend a bunch of money for an SMT engine and bring it into SSM -- I had that car since 2005, and it was just sitting around. I decided I wanted to run a full season of spec miata so I dyno'd it to see what it was putting out. Found ~117-118. Not enough to compete against the 125 some have up front in SMT, so I decided to go SSM. That was cheaper than buying a $300 motor and installing it in my car, since my car was basically "free" as it was at the time.


-Doug

[Juan Pineda]

Doug,

Thanks for your reply. Yes, IMO you should have paid for the dyno rechecks. MCE web site shows the price as $60. It's the driver's responsibility to ensure the car is maintained to specification. No different than maintaining your car at weight. Since you had an SMT prepared engine with significantly higher power than a donor or crate, you should have been even more vigilant as your engine was capable of exceeding the SSM spec by a large margin. Given that your car was "free", the $60 dyno cost sounds like a reasonable burden.

What adjustments were you referring to when you wrote: " I did make a couple adjustments after sealing."

-Juan

[Johnny D]

Remember Juan, the only thing he needed to maintain was the seals not missing or being damaged, the way the rules were written.

What adjustments were you referring to when you wrote: " I did make a couple adjustments after sealing."
Is a good question.
J~

[Doug Makishima]

I assumed the sealing process "worked" and was reliable. And, I was retested and found compliant so why would I do redundant testing?

[Juan Pineda]

Doug,

What adjustments were you referring to when you wrote: " I did make a couple adjustments after sealing."

Thanks,
-Juan

[Alberto]

One other thing and I'm not sure how relevant this is to the issue at hand but...

There are changes in dyno settings and dyno maintenance that could throw off the readings. Weather as in ambient air temps could also affect dyno results. We have noticed plenty of that in the RX7 community tuning our turbo rotaries w/ standalone ECUs.

[Doug Makishima]

[snip]

Thanks for offering to do that. There are also the qualifying records earlier in the weekend. You enjoyed the same power advantage on those days too, so those records should also be amended as well. Will you relinquish those voluntarily also? I note that after giving up all the records recorded for the weekend, you will still hold the qual and lap records at Thunderhill as set last year.

Thanks,
-Juan

Even though there is no way to know when during the weekend the power advantage emerged, and no way to protest and validate the high reading, sure, I'll also relinquish the other SSM records from this past season opener weekend. I'll talk to SFR-SCCA about this and I hope they will also refund my entry fees for this mess.

[Dan Cooper]

Even though there is no way to know when during the weekend the power advantage emerged, and no way to protest and validate the high reading, sure, I'll also relinquish the other SSM records from this past season opener weekend. I'll talk to SFR-SCCA about this and I hope they will also refund my entry fees for this mess.

I have kept quiet through this because I don't really have much of an opinion in the matter and haven't spent ANY time reading the rules of the class, new or old. But what I will say is I don't feel the rest of Dougs weekend success should be questioned because no testing was done right after any other session. The only way I feel a car (or driver) can be questioned is straight from the track to impound.

...my opinion...

Off to bed...work in...ughhh...5 hours...