. . .or they discovered how much fun they could have racing things with fewer wheels.Originally Posted by reidhazelton
. . .or they discovered how much fun they could have racing things with fewer wheels.
. . .or they discovered how much fun they could have racing things with fewer wheels.
Bingo brother. That's the conclusion I left out. Racing is like a drug addiction. Once you're clean you realize there are other aspects to life. Some bought boats, I found rock climbing, others scale back to a few vintage events.
Cost escalating rules changes, and rules changes that force people out are the methadone to the racing addiction. They force a lot of people to sober up. I'd still love to race. But, when I can go climb hundreds of times for less than $1,000 in ropes and cams, that $8k racing budget seems less compelling.
But think how much cheaper it would be if you didn't have to buy all that rope!
digg.com/video/alex-honnold-el-capitan-video
Marty
You won the internet today!
Loved that documentary. And, it's a good thing I didn't see that what I was 15 as I would have done that and not gotten into racing. I watched it with a group of friends and they were freaking out. I saw it differently. It wasn't a guy with a death wish, it was a guy who had practiced every move, and every hold hundreds of times on a rope, and had the ultimate trust in his abilities and practice to not fall. I kept thinking back to the movie "Rush" where Lauda was talking about how much risk are you willing to accept - it's calculated. The more training and practice, the less the risk.
Same as studying a track map, data, video, and running the laps over and over in your mind so that when it comes to that corner, you don't stuff the wall.
Also - fixed your link because everyone needs to see it. Who wants to join me?
http://digg.com/video/alex-honnold-el-capitan-video
Reid,
$8K racing budget? WTF I was the self proclaimed King o' Cheap and I always spent more than $8K a year*.
If I could only spend $8K I'd probably still be in SCCA.
* note: maybe i should have not included my Seibkens bills in my racing budget.
Hah! We can be Brethren in Cheap.
I love Seibkins, but diet Coke is a lot cheaper so for $5 I could stay all night.
The most I ever spent in a year was $11,417. That was with an engine rebuild that needed a cam, pistons, and rocker pedestals. It really helped to live within 2 hours of Blackhawk and Road America, and the Runoffs being at Road America. Tows were real cheap. Years I didn't have a rebuild was about $8k. Winning double majors netted a set of new tires from Hoosier and that was huge. I did 4 races (2 Blackhawk and 2 RA) and the Runoffs. One year I did Grattan and that broke the budget. Only went there twice.
Helpful hint; if you go late at night, and unspool the av gas hose all the way you can squeak about 2-3 gallons out of it.
Excuse me for interrupting, but does anyone know where this issue is in the process? Somewhere in the drivel, someone says that this is more than a proposal, and someone else indicated to me that it was happening. I looked through various SCCA propaganda and could not find a status report. It is that time of year, when people are prepping for the upcoming season, so if anybody knows anything about the status, or timeline, please advise. Thanks!
If you have info, but don't want to be involved in public debate, please contact me directly. Thanks!
Last edited by problemchild; 02.12.19 at 10:15 AM.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
The oversize bore, rings and pistons are listed in the Febuary GCR on the SCCA page.
Ken Hoovler
Page 232
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
Yep. It's a done-deal. It's in the Feb GCR. Which is just another one of those issues with the process.
I'm now wondering if it was discovered that the Honda Fit came stock with different sized pistons? I highly doubt it, but it wouldn't be unheard of. My Yamaha came from the factory with one of 4 sized pistons (A, B, C or D), they aren't overbores per se, but rather a difference in .03mm each, utilized to arrive at the desired piston to wall clearance after finish hone. The difference between A and D is more than this + .1mm that is now legal in the Fit powered FF. Perhaps, QS was blueprinting a stock FFit engine and discovered factory +.1mm pistons, alerted the SCCA that there could be an unknown number of stock FFit engines out there /HPD supplied kits with these factory +.1mm pistons. Anybody have a factory service manual for the FFit? Recall, Reid's call where the Honda parts guy was surprised they offer an overbore piston for the Fit?
Not impossible. In my days as SM/SSM steward for DC Region, I encountered a similar thing with Miata ECUs. When manufacturers grind out a million of some part, they are not thinking about the exigencies of club racing.
The fact still remains that, as with FB, the CRB sprang a meaningful change without notice, consultation, or explanation. This is wrong. There may be a perfectly good reason, but they should be doing this transparently.
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
Thank you for the links.
You guys can stop with the black helicopter watch now. This a is a meaningful change only because it will keep dozens of good used engines in use, and save FF racers thousands of dollars, accumulating into hundreds of thousands of dollars, which can be spent on entry fees, tires, and other participation expenses.
Last edited by problemchild; 02.12.19 at 4:21 PM.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Huh?
New word of the day.
Verschlimmbesserung
absolute insanity! a rule change with NO consultation with the class; taxation without representation comes to mind. the "club" just doesn't seem to be capable of learning; the last time they did this to supposedly save a few competitors the cost of resleeving, everyone had to buy new oversize pistons AND have their engines rebuilt! performance creep is performance creep; it's not a question of how much!! smells like "special interest politics" to me.....................
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
They aren't going to ask if they don't want to hear the answer. Asking for permission, being told no, and then doing it anyway is worse than not asking at all.
As long as people continue to renew memberships and continue to send in entry fees, all of the letter writing and forum discussions are just noise.
I, and from the sounds of it, did not realize this was a done deal when originally posted. I thought it was a request by someone to have this rule changed. Although I have said this will make no difference on the track, I do not like way this rule change unfolded.
How do people avoid SCCA memberships though? Even if you want to race FRP only don’t you require a SCCA Pro membership? SCCA membership is hard to avoid.
Last edited by Steve Bamford; 02.14.19 at 3:23 PM.
Steve Bamford
Amen.
Not everyone is as committed as you, or agree with your views.. I have an engine apart now that I hope will win big races and the Runoffs. My people advised against going to the 1/100" oversize pistons. We believe it is unnecessary in this application. To draw a parallel, despite your insistence that proper kent engines require electric water pumps pumping coolant through frost plug holes, how many kent racers out there are making those modifications? And how many are running 3-stage oil pumps with your sophisticated scavenging systems. Some people believe your mods will make several HP each, yet racers are not doing it. There is no reason to believe FF racers will spend money putting new pistons in perfectly good FIT engines, to perhaps make a fraction of a HP in the rpm range before the restrictor is restricting. Fortunately, the class has never been more about driving, and racecraft. Investment in the tracktime is most important, and honestly, much more expensive than insignificant engine repairs.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Yes FRP requires SCCA membership. Yes it can be hard to avoid depending on what and where you want to race. Apparently, racing with FRP has such a huge upside that paying SCCA membership is an easy pill to swallow.
You don't make rules based on an 'eh, whatevs man - no one can afford it anyway' basis. That's how Scott Tucker happens.
When fans started popping up, they were banned as they were seen as an advantage. With all due respect to our Kent engine mad scientist, Art, I think the extensive oil and cooling systems should also be banned - as much as I enjoy the creativity.
Last edited by reidhazelton; 02.14.19 at 3:26 PM.
As it seems to have been brought up a few times, I can say there was no nefarious intent that I saw. The members of the FSRAC are well intentioned volunteers who put a significant amount of their recreational time into assisting SCCA. I was on the initial FSRAC call and it was a simple letter, and a vote.
Not every bad rule is a result of self-dealing or conspiracies. Most are derived from good intentions creating bad unintended consequences.
Looking at Sandy's point of view, I can totally understand why he feels this is needed and suggested it. Looking at a pile of scrap blocks, it likely occurred to him that someday we are going to be in a pickle since we tossed all the blocks. Whether he is boring and honing an existing block, or honing a new block, it's a few hundred dollars he will make at best - in a few engines, in a portion of his business. Sandy has a better reputation, and clientele base than to have the need to orchestra a 10+ person conspiracy in order to make a few hundred bucks.
The process is broken, not most people's motivations.
Last edited by reidhazelton; 02.14.19 at 3:32 PM.
To be clear, I do not think this was done with any ill will or politically motivation to favour any one company or group of individuals.
Still doesn’t mean I like the rules process.
Steve Bamford
Totally agree my man. The process is fundamentally broken. I don't blame people for developing thier own theories when there is zero transparency or reasoning given in rules changes. See FB class consolidation. SCCA just lost an entire class to FRP.
Not after things have been listed as unrestricted in the good book for decades.
Then why were cooling fans banned?
New technology creates new advantages - you can't ban something if it doesn't exist. And once it does exist, it can be restricted. Otherwise, you'd be policing 2018 technology with a 1969 rule book.
The first FF rules never mentioned carbon fiber either.
Fair points. I guess the Smokey Yunick in me likes what's he done. I see no evidence, despite the objectively verifiable results of his efforts, that it's needlessly raised the cost of admission. If that's the litmus test.Then why were cooling fans banned?
New technology creates new advantages - you can't ban something if it doesn't exist. And once it does exist, it can be restricted. Otherwise, you'd be policing 2018 technology with a 1969 rule book.
The first FF rules never mentioned carbon fiber either.
You either get stable rules and end up with performance creep, or you get rules instability in an effort to contain costs and performance. Trying to straddle the fence just hurts.
I can sympathize with everyone who doesn't like the way in which this rule came to pass. I can even empathize to a certain point. Although I AM an SCCA member, I don't race under SCCA rules, but I DO race under CACC/ASN rules and I had the delightful experience of having to wonder whether a vote by all the CACC race discipline members to ban the Honda engine in Canada would pass.
It didn't seem very fair to me that people who weren't racing FF could decide what the FF rules would be, but that's the way it was.
Similarly, I get why people are upset that there was no chance for those who would be affected by this rule change to comment and discuss the proposed rule before it was passed. I think that if you're changing the rules of a game, you really should ask the people who are playing it what they think.
All that said, I still think that this is a tempest in a teapot.
Will there be some people who feel that they have to make this change to be competitive? Yes.
Are they right? No.
Simply put, this is still adding significantly less than 1% to power at best. In all likelihood, because the intake tract is restricted, it's even less than the simple math of proportionality would suggest.
It is technically an "advantage"... ...but it's just too small an advantage to go chasing for almost everyone.
So:
Process-->Bad!
Outcome-->Meh.
disappointing
disappointing to see the dialog has sunk to explicit name calling..................
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
That was a compliment my man. Like I said, I enjoy the creativity.
Maybe the Smokey Yunick comment seemed like a jab? I didn't mean to imply that Art was cheating (as is often the Smokey connotation), I was simply making the comparison to the tinkering, engineering and rule interpretation genius of Mr. Yunick.
I have avoided this thread like the plague but do feel a need to weigh in on a couple of things. I acknowledge that both of the individuals quoted have already indicated that they meant no harm but I want to make sure people understand a bit better.
Mad - Adjective 1) Angry; 2) Mentally ill.
I have spent a fair amount of time with Mr. Smith. An entire day at the dyno, a day testing, a day having my exhaust welded up. I have also exchanged numerous emails with him. I can assure you that in that time, he has never raised his voice nor indicated any sort of displeasure. I can also assure you that he is very much sane with complete mental faculties.
I can also assure you that in everything he has worked on with me, he is the first one to quote chapter and verse of the rule book and how his work is compliant. Go look for posts from him and note how many times the word "compliant" comes up. He is not out to cheat the rules. He is out to find every way to go faster provided that it is allowed by the rules.
Those that have not had the opportunity to sit and talk with Mr. Smith are at a loss. I find him to be knowledgable, entertaining, a mentor, and most of all honest in his treatment of the class. You might want rules changed after he figures something out but you will not be able to argue that it was not compliant with the rules as written.
Eric Little
Maybe the Smokey Yunick comment seemed like a jab? I didn't mean to imply that Art was cheating (as is often the Smokey connotation), I was simply making the comparison to the tinkering, engineering and rule interpretation genius of Mr. Yunick.
Eric, we haven't met. But I have met Art. Albeit, briefly when I gave him a bunch of Kent parts I no longer had any use for. He drove down from Ridgecrest and met in a Park N' Ride parking lot for the exchange. I respect what he's done a great deal. We've exchanged a few PM's over the years. I know he's never a fan of the "cheating" or "Kent vs. Fit" discussions. But, as with many things on the internet, tone can be lost.
Figuring out something that was complaint with the rules as written was something Smokey was very good at. Like rules limiting the size of a fuel tank, but not the fuel lines or fuel filters. 15' of 2" ID fuel line was certainly complaint at the time
Daryl,Figuring out something that was complaint with the rules as written was something Smokey was very good at. Like rules limiting the size of a fuel tank, but not the fuel lines or fuel filters. 15' of 2" ID fuel line was certainly complaint at the time
I do understand the difficulty of tone in forums like this and I hope that neither you or Reid took my post as an attack on either of you. I tried to point out that both of you indicated no harm intended and I believe both of you in that.
I have heard speculation from others about Mr. Smith and simply wanted to provide my real-life experience. To give you a bit more, when I first saw posts from him, I called my engineer and said, "is he the real deal?" I then was introduced to Art and had him tell me, (paraphrasing) don't blindly believe me, verify that what I am saying is true. In my experience he is the real deal and always mindful of the rules.
Your point about Smokey above is true but it is also true that he built a 7/8 scale Chevelle that was clearly not compliant. I have seen no 7/8 scale Chevelles from Art. Just wanted to make sure that the general audience here learns a bit more about a man that is really trying while not crossing the line.
And with regard to that "line", I suppose I get frustrated that there seems to be a belief that FF is a spec class. The first F is for Formula. Unfortunately, the translation of Formula has come to mean "open wheel". In reality it means, here is a formula, build within that formula without crossing it and come up with whatever solution you want. Art is looking for all the variables that can fit within that formula and still solve. Good on him. If he comes up with a solution that we don't like (too expensive, too upsetting to the class, etc.) we can look to adjust the formula. In the mean time, we will all make decision about which changes we will implement and which we won't based upon our own constraints (e.g. budget, ability to utilize the advantage, etc.). But we need to recognize, that if it is not Art pushing the Formula, it will be someone else. To think that we will never come up with better solutions under the current formula is myopic.
Finally, if you find yourself at an SCCA event here in CA, be sure to stop by and say high. The orange and blue Swift is hard to miss.
Eric Little
Last edited by Eric Little; 02.15.19 at 12:40 AM. Reason: Format... Formula... What's the difference?
Eric,
I've worked with him as well. Likely, long before you.
A mad scientist is someone who toils away to find clever and unique developments where others would have long given up. Twist and parse my words as you wish, that's your choice, but claiming I said he is 'not in control of his mental faculties' is 180* off.
I never said what he does is illegal.
Last edited by reidhazelton; 02.15.19 at 11:23 AM.
Reid,
I am not twisting anybody's words. I acknowledged explicitly that you meant no harm. Unfortunately, your definition above is not the one that is most commonly thought of. Merriam-Webster does not define the term 'mad scientist' but here are the sources that I have found, in addition to the definition of 'mad' which I provided before.
Mad scientist (also mad doctor or mad professor) is a caricature of a scientist who is described as "mad" or "insane" owing to a combination of unusual or unsettling personality traits and the unabashedly ambitious, taboo or hubristic nature of their experiments. As a motif in fiction, the mad scientist may be villainous (evil genius) or antagonistic, benign or neutral; may be insane, eccentric, or clumsy; and often works with fictional technology or fails to recognize or value common human objections to attempting to play God. Some may have benevolent or good-spirited intentions, even if their actions are dangerous or questionable, which can make them accidental villains. (wikipedia)
Mad Scientist - A stock character in popular fiction; a bumbling scientist working on unlikely ways to save the world, or a villainous one bent on destroying it. (yourdictionary.com)
I was simply trying to point out that by those common definitions, Art Smith does not qualify for any of them. And given those common definitions, I can see how Art could have taken offense.
As for never having said what he has done was illegal, I agree that you did not. Daryl himself acknowledged that his reference to Smokey may have led to a belief of him doing things in violation of the rules which was not Daryl's intent either.
Again, I acknowledge now and then that this was not your intent (and was not Daryl's intent either) and I am not attempting to say that you were purposefully being offensive. My message was much more to let others that do not know Art understand that he does not fit what a common understanding of the term 'mad scientist' or the individual component of 'mad' would entail.
Eric Little
IMO, the colloquial definition of a "mad scientist" can mean someone diligently working at or beyond the limits of common knowledge. That fits Art perfectly. If I were to call Art that in this context it would be a high compliment, which he deserves.
However, the literal definitions of "mad scientist," as pointed out, do not fit Art at all.
YMMV.
Dave Weitzenhof
And now back to your regularly scheduled programing... Don't make me turn this into a side pod thread.
Smokey (R.I.P) probably wouldn't mind too much about the 7/8 Chevelle legend, but it was not true. He lowered the roof line and shifted the body rearward on the frame. The 7/8 Chevelle is just folklore. There's a reason NACRAP uses all those templates now.
Smokey is also one who pioneered reverse cooling systems and doesn't Art have some version of the Smoketron in his shop?
Smokey's sidepod car or the FF sidepod snafu?And now back to your regularly scheduled programing... Don't make me turn this into a side pod thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote