SM Runoff protest

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I am not sure I see the correlation between slowing the class down with IIR's and cheating, or cost of an engine.

This rule says you can plunge cut up to 12mm deep and that the maximum diameter of said cut can be no more than 1.178".

Why does my cutting tool have to leave a ridge? Why can't it be done with a CNC mill that blends everything nice and smoothly while not touching a single piece of metal deeper than 12mm while staying inside that 1.178" x 12mm window?

While I'm not an expert machinist in any definition (even my own ), as I understand, the purpose of the plunge cut is to basically vacate the space, the width of the valve seat for 12mm to correct the misalignment of the seat and the port from the factory.
The dimensions, not the rule, are unique to SM. It applies to sedans as well.

GCR says: " The area under the seat where the plunge cut ends and the casting resumes cannot be blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition."

It does not say you can plunge to 9mm and blend to 12mm......
Absence of disallowance is not permission.....
The technique many of us use with our spouses (forgiveness is easier than permission) does not work here..

So, what is considered a standard plunge cutting tool? What is the definition of a plunge cut?
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb...plunge-244038/

Is using a plunge cutter required? If not does it just become machining the head?
Does using a rounded bit as opposed to a square bit violate the rule? the spirit of the rule?

[Daryl DeArman]

While I'm not an expert machinist in any definition (even my own ), as I understand, the purpose of the plunge cut is to basically vacate the space, the width of the valve seat for 12mm to correct the misalignment of the seat and the port from the factory.
The dimensions, not the rule, are unique to SM. It applies to sedans as well.

GCR says: " The area under the seat where the plunge cut ends and the casting resumes cannot be blended by hand, machined, or chemically processed to create a smooth transition."

It does not say you can plunge to 9mm and blend to 12mm......
Absence of disallowance is not permission.....
The technique many of us use with our spouses (forgiveness is easier than permission) does not work here..

So, what is considered a standard plunge cutting tool? What is the definition of a plunge cut?
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb...plunge-244038/

Is using a plunge cutter required? If not does it just become machining the head?
Does using a rounded bit as opposed to a square bit violate the rule? the spirit of the rule?

For the sake of this debate:


The purpose of the plunge cut can be whatever you want. Once it is "Specifically allowed", then you can do it no matter what its purpose.

As to the "area where the plunge cut ends and the casting resumes can not be blended....blah blah blah". The logical argument is that the area you believe to be blended is still the "plunge cut".

Agreed, absence of disallowance is not permission. The rule specifically allows me to "plunge cut" a defined space and as long I stay in that envelope, that is my plunge cut.

As to your cut to 9, blend to 12 and the argument about the cutting tool requirement to be square....who says my tool has to be 1.178" diameter?

As to the spirit/intent of the rule...I don't know what their intent was other than what they wrote.
If they intended the rule to mean something else, it should have said something else.

You want to clarify the rule to SAY what you meant, do so. But don't make it retroactive.

[Rick Kean]

IIRs, properly sized, would reduce or eliminate engine power development Return On Investment. It wouldn't stop preparation creep, cheating, or misinterpreting poorly written rules.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

For the sake of this debate:


As to the "area where the plunge cut ends and the casting resumes can not be blended....blah blah blah". The logical argument is that the area you believe to be blended is still the "plunge cut".

Agreed, absence of disallowance is not permission. The rule specifically allows me to "plunge cut" a defined space and as long I stay in that envelope, that is my plunge cut.

As to your cut to 9, blend to 12 and the argument about the cutting tool requirement to be square....who says my tool has to be 1.178" diameter?

As to the spirit/intent of the rule...I don't know what their intent was other than what they wrote.
If they intended the rule to mean something else, it should have said something else.

You want to clarify the rule to SAY what you meant, do so. But don't make it retroactive.

For arguments sake - taking "intent" out of the picture:

Not all machining is plunge cutting but all plunge cutting is machining, agreed?
So they are allowing a specific type of machining. Plunge cutting. Agreed?

I agree your tool doesn't have to be the specific diameter, but should the lack of the correct tool allow an advantaged result? Should it yield a result different than the correct size tool?

I've searched and have found NO cutter called a plunge cutter that IS NOT SQUARE at the bottom. So the definition of a plunge cutter must one be that the resulting cut WILL have a lip.

Otherwise you are just machining the head within a certain area - which is forbidden....

When this first came up I also thought - why not use a tool with a curved end?
But when looking at the pictures they didn't even try that...

Thoughts?

[Daryl DeArman]

IIRs, properly sized, would reduce or eliminate engine power development Return On Investment. It wouldn't stop preparation creep, cheating, or misinterpreting poorly written rules.

Agreed all around. Reducing ROI seems to be the effect of "cost savings" rules most of the time.

[Daryl DeArman]

Not all machining is plunge cutting but all plunge cutting is machining, agreed?

Disagree. My VENN diagram has a lot of plunge cuts outside of the machining definition.

So they are allowing a specific type of machining. Plunge cutting. Agreed?

Per how they ruled, yes that's what they were allowing. Despite the rule stating that a machining process in a certain envelope was allowed and that this process was referred to as the "Plunge Cut".

I agree your tool doesn't have to be the specific diameter, but should the lack of the correct tool allow an advantaged result? Should it yield a result different than the correct size tool?

The correct size tool is the tool that allows you to make the permitted modifications within the envelope dimensionally defined in the GCR.

I've searched and have found NO cutter called a plunge cutter that IS NOT SQUARE at the bottom. So the definition of a plunge cutter must one be that the resulting cut WILL have a lip.

All cuts have a lip, it's just a matter of how closely you have to look.

Otherwise you are just machining the head within a certain area

agreed.

- which is forbidden....

That may have been how they ruled, and may have been their intent. But, that's not what the rule says.

[Tiago Santos]

Disagree. My VENN diagram has a lot of plunge cuts outside of the machining definition.

huh? You mean there's a way to do a plunge cut that isn't considered machining?

All cuts have a lip, it's just a matter of how closely you have to look.

I think there's a bit of confusion here. The plunge cuts (or in practice, the machining of the hole - everyone is either boring or interpolating the hole, no one in their right mind will be using a 1.175" cutter and just plunging into the head) will create a lip/floor 12mm down. If you use anything with a noticeable corner radius (that is, something that isn't a square, finishing end mill or similar), there will be a blend between the wall and the floor of the newly cut surface. As far as I can tell, that is not a problem, knock yourself out. The issue is blending the sharp edge between this newly cut floor/lip and the rest of the intake port. No matter what cutter you use, if you stay within the 1.178" envelope and only go 12mm down, there's no way to blend that transition. Hence, any further blending is illegal.

See pics 13 and 14 for what I mean by floor/lip.

http://www.allenskillicorn.com/wp-co...ut-details.pdf

[Daryl DeArman]

huh? You mean there's a way to do a plunge cut that isn't considered machining?

Yep, just google "plunge cut". Lacking a GCR definition, plunge cut can mean many things to many different people.

All machining isn't plunge cutting.
All plunge cutting isn't machining.
There is an area of the Venn Diagram where plunge cutting is a machining operation.

If you use anything with a noticeable corner radius (that is, something that isn't a square, finishing end mill or similar), there will be a blend between the wall and the floor of the newly cut surface. As far as I can tell, that is not a problem, knock yourself out. The issue is blending the sharp edge between this newly cut floor/lip and the rest of the intake port.



No matter what cutter you use, if you stay within the 1.178" envelope and only go 12mm down, there's no way to blend that transition. Hence, any further blending is illegal.

I'm not talking about making the cut 12mm down and then blending the transition. I'm talking about all cutting/machining above that 12mm point.

You can do it with an end mill if you wish...they are available in some incredibly small diameters.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

And its clear why the "problem" exists...

I agree - the problem is they used a term that they thought implied certain things.
Without a definition we are peeing in the wind.

It would be curious to see of those people involved in writing the rules also produced a cut that was considered a violation

[Jnovak]

I am not sure I see the correlation between slowing the class down with IIR's and cheating, or cost of an engine.



This rule says you can plunge cut up to 12mm deep and that the maximum diameter of said cut can be no more than 1.178".

Why does my cutting tool have to leave a ridge? Why can't it be done with a CNC mill that blends everything nice and smoothly while not touching a single piece of metal deeper than 12mm while staying inside that 1.178" x 12mm window?

Because they found that the cut they are using makes more power.

[mblanc]

seems you guys are on to correctly defining the issue now, and since in Dragos appeal, he insisted absolutely no machining done below the 11? millimeters limit, then how did this get ruled as an illegal modification? Given their grey rules and no specified definition of how to make said plunge cut?

They didn't like the look of it? It wasn't the same as some others?

Seems pretty simple to me:
If there's a maximum diameter listed, & a limit of how low you can go with that machining, and no other definition/specification of the cut/tool/radius/or process, then how can you possibly be in trouble for machining within those limits?

[Josh Pitt]

I bought a new head for my SM in 2010 to keep the car legal for basically the same thing, only to find out about the bent spindles being sold for cars to increase front camber. these were not addressed in tech, as they were called "tech shed legal", though the rules don't allow for any modifications (like this) to this part.

the confusion lies with the idea that the class is Spec Miata=SM
in reality its Similar Miata.


it will never end.

[Daryl DeArman]

seems you guys are on to correctly defining the issue now, and since in Dragos appeal, he insisted absolutely no machining done below the 11? millimeters limit, then how did this get ruled as an illegal modification? Given their grey rules and no specified definition of how to make said plunge cut?

They didn't like the look of it? It wasn't the same as some others?

Seems pretty simple to me:
If there's a maximum diameter listed, & a limit of how low you can go with that machining, and no other definition/specification of the cut/tool/radius/or process, then how can you possibly be in trouble for machining within those limits?

Agreed. What 3 different engine builders, all building front running engines for the RunOffs, interpreted the rule to allow isn't what was "intended". They didn't like the look of what was done and didn't know how to word the GCR to disallow it.

"I don't know how to define it, but I'll know it when I see it!"

I had a very similar debate with a FV engine builder years ago over the carb rule in FV. He doesn't chose to interpret it the way the rule actually reads. He's been around FV long enough to know the "intent", even though the carb rule read(s) differently.

[DanW]

I very interesting and complete read. Some very good comments about persons with a commercial interest in the class are also the ones who write the rules and make up the committee....

http://goaheadtakethewheel.com/rwrt/...ate/#more-3577

[Roland V. Johnson]

This basically requires you to run a cheater head in order to qualify for the RunOff's. Then you are required to find a legal head to race there.

[Hardingfv32]

... run a cheater head

Your being a little cavalier with your words.

Modified (per the new rules) heads will possibly require a weight penalty. I see the burden as one of determining if the modified head is worth using during the season compare to an un-modified head (required for the Runoffs).

In case anyone new to SCCA Club Racing thinks this situation is special to SM… it is not. Any restricted class using OEM production car parts is always chasing their tails try to equalize 'stock' parts. Just part of the nature to this type of racing competition.

Brian

[Marshall Mauney]

In case anyone new to SCCA Club Racing thinks this situation is special to SM… it is not. Any restricted class using OEM production car parts is always chasing their tails try to equalize 'stock' parts. Just part of the nature to this type of racing competition.

While this is generally true, it's not universal to "stock" rules. F500, for example, hasn't had much of this type of problem, as no internal mods are allowed at all. Similarly, the motorcycle-based classes get around it by using the intake restrictors and a "no-mod" rule.

Of course, a "no-mods" rule means that you end up with guys buying a bunch of motors to mix and matching parts - or dyno'ing a bunch of prepped engines to find the "golden ticket" and selling the rest off to low-$$$ competitors. Pick your poison.

[Jnovak]

Thanks for the article, an excellent read.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Perhaps you are correct HardingFV32. To be politically correct it is a head which wasn't legal this year, will not be legal at the RunOff's next year, but somehow becomes legal during the preceding racing season next year. (as I under stand what is written)

[CenDiv4]

This whole thing for both SM and FV is a crock. I really could care less about anyone's feelings if it sounds that way but I am really getting sick of trying to compete against "how the rules are interpreted". Seriously some of us have better things to do with our free time of every waking minute than bending rules on our cars.

I grew up racing karts and saw this at an early age where my engine builder would take apart 20 engines and give the two best to his son and then all the rest to us. It's not a secret, really if some of us were that good of a driver we would not have day jobs outside of a professionally prepped racecar. There are a lot of great drivers in our series but there are just as many great cars and engines don't kid yourself.

It would be great if these classes could really be regulated especially before spending tens of thousands of dollars to go out to Cali and come home empty handed. Sure makes me glad I did not waste money to go out there and really reconsidering going to Daytona next year. Btw I have done the Runons since 06' so I have put the time in to make such statements.

All in all what makes it worthwhile for the guy that just wants to race and hopes to do well? You can't just show up anymore and anyone who tells you that is lying to your face.

Thanks in advance for letting me vent on a miserable business trip as I would rather be at a track.....

[jimf42]

http://goaheadtakethewheel.com/rwrt/...ate/#more-3577

[AjC Jr]

SRF

[racerdad2]

It starts in Kiddie Karts. 1.5 hp two strokes. A buddy sold his fast engine for $5k at the end of a season. Build ten. Keep two. Then there's the clutches

Prepare the flame throwers !

The Champions Optimize.

The Cowardly Cheat.

Optimizing can push one past the limits. A fine line between legal & not.

Cheating. Well, that's usually blatantly obvious. That's what really gets under my skin...

All that said... Nothing feels better than beating a cheater with your totally legit ride

[RussMcB]

If SCCA/NASA/Mazda move forward with their proposal (towards stock heads), it's really going to be a mess for the class for several years. I predict it will be very common for a majority of SM racers to say fugget and leave their (perfectly fine running) engine in place. That will be very frustrating for the (very few?) mid/back-pack racers who do run a stock head (likely several HP down on everybody). It might make the class better eventually (arguably), but it's not going to make that complete transition in one racing season. There will be years of "He's probably still running a cheater head".

Personally, I have really enjoyed racing in SM for the past two years. At each race I've been in, I haven't been anywhere close to a battle for the lead (too many drivers with a better package of skill/prep/money), but I've always had plenty of cars all around me, battling for position. Driving/Racing formula cars is great (nothing compares), but full fields (in SCCA Club Racing) was pretty rare in recent years. Constant W2W racing (in any car) is better than racing against very few other cars (or the clock). The Pro FF1600 series was great when they were in town, but my budget wouldn't allow that series.

[racerdad2]

I have to agree. Racing for any position is far more fun than doing follow-the-leader parade laps at speed.

[John Robinson II]

most people don't know or realize it, but a very similar thing almost happened in FFord at the 07 runoffs. it was due to a drawing NOT being in the GCR. There was a new tech inspector that went by exactly what was there, there was a drawing for the Cortina part and not the Kent. after 6 hours or so in the tech shed with arguments from every engine builder there, the stewards finally accepted the top 6 finishers as legal and we all went on our merry way. I was at the point that I said to hell with this and was gathering my parts and fixing to leave. one of the SE div stewards came up to me and said to wait another 45 minutes and all would be resolved. what is another 45 minutes when you have been waiting 5 hours, she said.until that point they were going to award the win to the 7th place finisher who had already packed up and left Holy Topeka.

I feel for the guys who were disqualified that were not the engine builders. Has anyone here pulled apart their professionally prepped engine to make sure it complies with the rules? I have NEVER pulled apart one of mine. as far as the engine builders that were ruled not legal, well shame on them and I don't think the punishment was severe enough. especially for the ones who helped write the rules.

John

[Roland V. Johnson]

I agree, John.

[Steve Demeter]

Obviously I have no dog in this fight.

But having been reading the posts a thing or two becomes obvious:

1. Many honest legitimate engine builders think that the blending of the sharp edge left by the legal plunge cut is legal as well.
2. Most everyone in SM has done exactly that.
3. It seems that doing the plunge cut is where the cost associated with this particular blueprinting step is. How much can it cost to dress up a sharp edge with a hand grinder.

The smartest thing would be to allow hand dressing of the edge as long as it stays within the 12mm limit and size specifications called for and be done with it. IMHO.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Obviously I have no dog in this fight.

But having been reading the posts a thing or two becomes obvious:

1. Many honest legitimate engine builders think that the blending of the sharp edge left by the legal plunge cut is legal as well.
2. Most everyone in SM has done exactly that.
3. It seems that doing the plunge cut is where the cost associated with this particular blueprinting step is. How much can it cost to dress up a sharp edge with a hand grinder.

The smartest thing would be to allow hand dressing of the edge as long as it stays within the 12mm limit and size specifications called for and be done with it. IMHO.

The pictures I saw showed absolutely NO lip/step at all. The result should have a step. None existed - that's what broke the rules....

And suggesting that anything goes within 12mm is also bad. Rules say no porting.

Some argue there's no definition for a plunge cut, but that's like saying there's no definition for a hole.

When the rule makers brake the rules and claim they were vague - that's a joke.
Some innocent racers were victims.....

[glenn cooper]

In an effort to quell the rage, disappointment and confusion surrounding this debacle, the major sanctioning bodies today released the pictures of the new SM spec intake manifold.
The thought process is essentially "All head mods are legal, just so long as it breathes through THIS.

[Rick Kean]

In an effort to quell the rage, disappointment and confusion surrounding this debacle, the major sanctioning bodies today released the pictures of the new SM spec intake manifold.
The thought process is essentially "All head mods are legal, just so long as it breathes through THIS.

IIR

[SEComposites]

looks like it would work well in FB too. And it should fit the Honda in FF to peg it back to the Kent. Come to think of it stick it on the Zetec too.

[racerdad2]

Coop is a genius ! And no more $1k FV manifolds Once, again, Peace Reigns throughout the World of Racing !

[Parker]

WOW! What a multi-use part. Works for SM, FB, FC, FV, Fit, and as a coolant manifold to keep the cylinders in the Kent round and at equal temperatures.

Brilliant!

[SEComposites]

And the F500 guys can use it instead to flog the dead horse. Or the 600 guys.