+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 96
Like Tree85Likes

Thread: 2014 SCCA Runoffs

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    77
    Liked
    65 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeColangelo View Post
    Drago's post was very illuminating.

    The protest clearly addressed a gray area in the rules and, IMHO, wasn't about competitors deliberately cheating.

    Did these guys really have to get DQ'd? Seems a bit harsh and counter-productive. Why not simply address this gray area in the next revision of the rules? Maybe just define the plunge cut better?

    Also, as Drago points out, most SM pro heads have material removed from the short side radius. Are they now suddenly illegal? Does this mean that the SMs running pro motors at the Cal Club race in two weeks are most likely non-compliant and subject to DQ?

    How much performance gain does one get with this material removed?

    Many of you guys are a lot more knowledgeable about this than I am. What's your opinions?
    Didn't get DQ'd as all of the drivers including my son had heads from engine builders and was determined no one intentionally cheated, they were moved to the back or last based on finishing positions, We were already there due to an on track incident with Drago.

    Was no fun at all. We pulled our head apart fully expecting to get $1400 bond money, caught totally unaware, glad it's over. Think the rules will be cleaned up a bunch which is a good thing in the long run. My hope is the 1.6 will be competitive again!
    Steve35 and MikeColangelo like this.

  2. #62
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Liked
    1495 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe jordan View Post
    Didn't get DQ'd as all of the drivers including my son had heads from engine builders and was determined no one intentionally cheated, they were moved to the back or last based on finishing positions, We were already there due to an on track incident with Drago.

    Was no fun at all. We pulled our head apart fully expecting to get $1400 bond money, caught totally unaware, glad it's over. Think the rules will be cleaned up a bunch which is a good thing in the long run. My hope is the 1.6 will be competitive again!
    Joe, do you have a pic of the head that was ruled out of spec? It's tough to tell whether this is about the plunge cut, the deburring/transition, the plunge cut cutting material from the short radius side rather than favoring the center of the head, or what the actual DQ was for.

  3. #63
    Administrator ucfbrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ventura, Calif.
    Posts
    5,642
    Liked
    2357 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robburgoon View Post
    So far this protest sounds pretty lame. Need pictures.

    Here's a few of what I think is the portion of the ports that are in question. I took these when my head was being prepared according to the rule citations mentioned in the protest.

    The plunge cuts were made on a Serdi valve grinding machine by inserting the bit shaft into the valve guide and plunge-cutting to the specification listed in the rules. Why anyone would make the plunge cuts any other way, especially by hand as noted in the appeal, is a mystery to me because it would be easy to make a mistake and render the head unusable/illegal.

    As the appeal points out, it's difficult if not impossible to make this cut, which is permitted to correct for core shift during the casting process, without removing material from the short side radius.

    Heads differ greatly, but there was no casting flash or burrs left on my head after the plunge cuts were made. Removing casting flash or deburring the ports is prohibited in the text of the rule.

    I hope these images help.





    head3.jpghead1.jpghead2.jpg

  4. #64
    Administrator ucfbrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ventura, Calif.
    Posts
    5,642
    Liked
    2357 times

    Default

    Another image of the plunge cut being made.

    head4.jpg

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    841
    Liked
    278 times

    Default

    On another note, I find the personal attacks on mazdaracers.com to be absolutely revolting. This was not a good wekend for the Spec Miata community.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    841
    Liked
    278 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe jordan View Post
    Didn't get DQ'd as all of the drivers including my son had heads from engine builders and was determined no one intentionally cheated, they were moved to the back or last based on finishing positions, We were already there due to an on track incident with Drago.

    Was no fun at all. We pulled our head apart fully expecting to get $1400 bond money, caught totally unaware, glad it's over. Think the rules will be cleaned up a bunch which is a good thing in the long run. My hope is the 1.6 will be competitive again!
    Sorry to hear about your bad luck, Joe. I was hoping your team would have had a better outcome.

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    77
    Liked
    65 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robburgoon View Post
    Joe, do you have a pic of the head that was ruled out of spec? It's tough to tell whether this is about the plunge cut, the deburring/transition, the plunge cut cutting material from the short radius side rather than favoring the center of the head, or what the actual DQ was for.
    No dont have the head back LOL. It is the deburring that is the issue not the plunge cut. They simply ran their finger over the short side radius and said if it did not have a hard edge it was illegal. Rumor was some could see file marks etc, mine did not could barely tell any difference from what I felt, but what are you gonna due? Wasn't worth the fight as we didn't finish.

  8. #68
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Liked
    1495 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe jordan View Post
    No dont have the head back LOL. It is the deburring that is the issue not the plunge cut. They simply ran their finger over the short side radius and said if it did not have a hard edge it was illegal. Rumor was some could see file marks etc, mine did not could barely tell any difference from what I felt, but what are you gonna due? Wasn't worth the fight as we didn't finish.
    Ok, so the rule protested was rule 4 "no material blah blah short radius", and the material in question was the deburr. Thanks, that makes more sense.

  9. #69
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Liked
    1495 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeColangelo View Post
    On another note, I find the personal attacks on mazdaracers.com to be absolutely revolting. This was not a good wekend for the Spec Miata community.
    Yeah, those northwest guys need to take a chill pill. Don't know what's in the water up there.

  10. #70
    Senior Member bellwilliam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    La Verne, California, United States
    Posts
    7,902
    Liked
    2531 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe jordan View Post
    No dont have the head back LOL. It is the deburring that is the issue not the plunge cut. They simply ran their finger over the short side radius and said if it did not have a hard edge it was illegal. Rumor was some could see file marks etc, mine did not could barely tell any difference from what I felt, but what are you gonna due? Wasn't worth the fight as we didn't finish.
    Sorry to hear that. Was rooting for your kid
    S1 Supermiata - 220whp
    13 Tesla, ma: no engine !!
    17 GT350R
    03 Miata Club Sport
    96 NSX
    06 EVO MR
    15 Mini Cooper S
    Beck 550 Spyder

  11. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    77
    Liked
    65 times

    Default

    The ruling on the appeal of the RFA from tech was based on rule #3 and #4 because some believe their is some contradiction in the wording where as the plunge cut does remove material......whatever I am personally glad things are getting cleared up. My bet is a large percentage of cars have this issue as all cars that were inspected got put in the back and the #88 who passed the original test was DQ'd on a go/ nogo test on the exhaust port. From my count 4 different engine builders had one problem or another. The key to winning this one was do not get inspected LOL!

  12. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    77
    Liked
    65 times

    Default

    Thanks William. Was bummed to get knocked of the course, but that's racing.

  13. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    841
    Liked
    278 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robburgoon View Post
    Yeah, those northwest guys need to take a chill pill. Don't know what's in the water up there.
    I know most of those Oregon/Washington guys. Frankly, I lost respect for a few of them. Their online behavior is pretty bad right now.

  14. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    549
    Liked
    192 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeColangelo View Post
    Their online behavior is pretty bad right now.
    One nice thing to see in that cloud of crap is how well Charlie Hayes is taking things... top notch guy for sure.
    MikeColangelo and markn like this.

  15. #75
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Liked
    1495 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmoe Money View Post
    One nice thing to see in that cloud of crap is how well Charlie Hayes is taking things... top notch guy for sure.
    I'd rather he throw his engine builder under the bus properly and name him.

  16. #76
    dirty smack talker hakeem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,077
    Liked
    977 times

    Default

    Notes: #2 Drago, #10 Drennan, #12 Ghidinelli, #17 Jordan, #22 Hayes, #29 Berry, #44 Kicera, #79 Carbonell moved to last finishing position in order of finish per SOM - GCR 9.1.7.C.1.f.4 (cylinder head)
    #88 Kaiser - Disqualified per Chief Steward - GCR 9.1.7.C.1.f.5 (cylinder head)
    #04 LaBouff - Disqualified per SOM - GCR 6.11.1 (On course driver conduct)

  17. #77
    http://www.trackhq.com/Banners/yellowsitesponsor.gif emilio700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,767
    Liked
    2589 times

    Default

    If I am reading this all correct, the SCCA wording assumes the engine machinist will use a parallel bit to cut a clean cylinder down past the valve seat. The width and depth of which are the restriction. No blending of any kind is to be done outside of this cylindrically defined work space. The creative solution, and exactly what I would have done, is to employ multiple tools to create a more radiused throat whose boundaries exist entirely within the workspace. So basically an venturi or "hourglass" shape within the soda can shaped workspace. This clever workaround which involved non traditional engine building tools is where the engine builders ran afoul.


    It's a poorly worded rule and assume engine builders are not creative enough to find a better tool for a traditional head servicing task. Based on what I think happened, I think all the drivers with those heads should be reinstated and the rules more carefully worded in next months Fast Track.
    Last edited by emilio700; 10-13-2014 at 04:56 PM.
    MikeColangelo and ebruner like this.
    WWW.949RACING.COM
    SuperMiata

    Aside from their cost I never understood why people race them.
    But obviously I just dont get it. -fatbillybob

  18. #78
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Liked
    1495 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emilio700 View Post
    If I am reading this all correct, the SCCA wording assumes the engine machinist will use a parallel bit to cut a clean cylinder down past the valve seat. The width and depth of which are the restriction. No blending of any kind is to be done outside of this cylindrically defined work space. The creative solution, and exactly what I would have done, is to employ multiple tools to create a more radiused throat whose boundaries exist entirely within the workspace. So basically an venturi or "hourglass" shape within the soda can shaped workspace. This clever workaround which involved non traditional engine building tools is where the engine builders ran afoul.


    It's a poorly worded rule and assume engine builders are not creative enough to find a better tool for a traditional head servicing task. Based on what I think happened, I think all the drivers with those heads should be reinstated and the rules more carefully worded in next months Fast Track.
    That's possible, and it's mostly guessing without pics, but from the sound of it at least one of the builders made a plain cylinder cut, then used a round file to debur.

    Post by Dan Tiley, builder of the engines in the top 3 cars:

    "Regarding the specific violation... I make no excuses. On my three engines, we made the plunge cut and used a round file to break the sharp corner at the bottom of the cut into the STR. This was in violation of the rule, as it was considered by the officials to be "blending" of the plunge into the short turn radius. It was defintely a subjective judgement call, and not blaringly obvious, but there all the same. Was it absolutely necessary? No. Would the finishing order have changed had we not made that choice? I doubt it. Hindsight is clearly 20/20, and given the outcome I would have made a different choice.

    This will clearly affect what I believe has been a good reputation for myself and my company up to this point. I have no idea how this will impact my business moving forward (other than tossing our round files!) As I always have, I will continue to stand behind my product, and will work with our customers to ensure that they are able to compete on a fair, legal, and competitive level.

    Like Jim and most others, I carry no ill feelings toward the protestor... in fact, we've never even met. He took a huge risk to his own reputation, put his money on the line, and was right. This weekend's result will have a huge impact on how this class continues into the next several years. I sincerely hope to be part of that future."

  19. #79
    Senior Member robburgoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,009
    Liked
    1495 times

    Default

    I agree with you that funky hourglass machining would be the Smokey Yunick solution, but that would only help you win 1 runoffs and just piss everyone off once people found out.

  20. #80
    The Real Captain Slow Red_5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    4,335
    Liked
    765 times

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe jordan View Post
    My hope is the 1.6 will be competitive again!
    Do you have a stash of good 1.6s laying around or something?
    99 Mazda Miata SuperMiata #515 - AKA Sparky SOLD
    '91 Mariner Blue Miata project AKA Napoleon

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts