SM protests of late

[lateapex911]

Recently there has been a real rash of protests..all from one guy, in SM. It could happen in iT of course, (if IT were national), so I thought I'd get some opinions.

I've tried to get the story on the recent SM protests, and here's the jist of it.

Background:

As far I as I can understand, the SM ruleset has some "unenforceble" areas and thats where the pro builders make the power. Among them has been cams. The old rule allowed some cams that really weren't stock, but the specs were loose. The new rule went into effect about 3 weeks ago, and i understand the official notice was short.

So....at the Watkins Glen national a week and a half ago, A guy protested 3 guys for cams out of compliance. Results were that 2 were out of current compliance, 1 was in. All engines were reported to be from pro builders. Apparently, these guys were caught on the wrong side of a rules change and hadn't converted over. Of course, the protestees left the race with the cars in peices, making it difficult for the following week. Maybe they have spare cams sitting around, and the time and money to do the work, maybe not.


Fast forward to Lime Rock. Same guy protests two guys again. This time the whole engine gets called out. Of course, the teardown is a big deal and it's decide to do it properly at a third party venue. The protestees object as they need to leave thurs for a Pocono double National which is apparently required if they want to attend the Runoffs. They request the engines be sealed, and the teardowns occur after the race. THe Protester declines, stating that seals are easily faked and can't be trusted, and insists that the teardowns occur this week. He does offer to buy them (on loan) both crate motors that they could use. Both decline on the basis of timing and the potential risks.

Some have said that if you are racing, You need to be prepared...that includes having backup engines, cams and shocks for just such incidents. On the other hand, wasn't Spec Miata supposed to be about driving?? Not having the deepest wallets to resist repeated protests that take your cams and engines away?

I also understand that the protester actually used another person as the "front man" on the Lime Rock protest, but admits to being the true originator. Perhaps to avoid a "vexatious" protest in return.

As a guy who has written serious paper before, I certainly agree that protests are a part of the checks and balances of our racing system and society. However, in our case, we approached the protested party to warn him of the potential for a protest, as we felt fair warning ws a gentlemans way of avoiding the conflict. In the end, he ignored and was found out of compliance on maliciously chosen engine parts.

On one hand, it's a protest or two, and they are by the book.

But on the other hand, it seems rather unsportsmanlike. The protestees have, to my knowledge, been protested before and have been found in compliance each time. The cam protest was clearly someone using a rule change as a weapon. Now, the follow up protest seems to be, to my eyes, designed to hinder the protestess abilty to score the points and track appearances needed to attend the Runoffs.

I understand the world is black and white when it comes to rules, AND I certainly am known as a bit of a 'rules nerd"....BUT...this is club racing.....should our ruleset allow a person to lodge protests that result in the protestees inability to race for the championship, regardless of the protests outcome??

It certainly appears that the protesters goals are that the guys he protested not race, as his refusal to allow the sealing of the motors flies in the face of his repeated claims that the class need to act more like SRF...where "they don't cheat"..per his quotes. Of course, they DO run sealed motors.

If nothing else, "sprortsmanship" has not been a goal on this one.
Thoughts?? Andy?? Greg? other SM guys?


For the full...well, kinda...story..head over to Specmiata.com, northeast section.

I also apologise as I am sure that my facts, while I have tried to get them straight, aren't exact. Tough to do in this case, feel free to correct where I've made errors, and i apologise in advance for any I have made.

[Greg Amy]

[Thoughts?? Andy?? Greg? other SM guys?[/quote]

I think I'm fairly "on track" with what's going on there, plus I was working Tech last weekend at LRP. I've been reading the SM forum, so I think I have everyone's point of view.

Frankly, I'm sitting this one out. There's just too many non-technical issues involved with this particular issue; it has degraded well beyond purely technical issues of rules compliance, instead venturing into accusations of sportsmanship. It has the potential for degrading into personal attacks as it has "over there." To top it off, we don't know the true intent of the protester, only what he says, and he says it's to keep the class clean; many of his peers vehemently disagree. Finally, we've not heard results from this last tear-down so it's hard to make judgement on that.

Generally speaking - and I'm not even inferentially referring to this specific issue - I support the protest process to determine if someone's legal, as long as you don't do it in such a way as to intentionally keep someone from competing. But, the rules are the rules, and processes are processes; how is bending the rules to install equipment any different than bending the rules to other advantages?

[jcmotorsports]

Jeez Greg
I didn't even see you!!! Of course I wasn't near tech all weekend :( I really struggled, but I will turn it around this weekend at Pocono!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think it's apples and oranges right now. NER SM are late adopters to the "Pro Motors" you need to have to run at the pointy end at some of the big tracks - and frankly there is some bad blood between a couple of camps. Sportsmanship? I don't know...part of me thinks it is lacking in the protests in SM up here.

Luckily, IT rules have provisions for a lot of this things that are 'grey' in SS and SM. Balancing and blueprinting, free R&P, etc.

Bottom line? I have to look at Greg's effort, the MSN cars, Blaney's stuff - and I have to decide how much they push the envelope (as do they of me) on the rules. It's not about sportsmanship when a group gets together and wants a teardown of a suspicious car, it is about sportsmanship when a guy protests one or two guys continually.

I think we are ok.

[lateapex911]

Agreed Andy! For the most part, I think IT is fine here, with the usual exceptions. More to the point, I think that the protest methods have been proper.

And this one is VERY complicated, with semingly significant historical background. The protester strikes me as very shrewd and cunning, but his actions and words are contradictory. Of course, "prooving" a protesters true intents is exceedingly difficult, and "vexatious" even harder. There's no doubt the proteser has the right, and I applaud any bona fide real efforts in keeping the class honest, and weeding out malicious cheating.

But the point here is:

Is there too great a possibility that a situation could result in perfectly legal competitors being removed from attending the required races due to off track "legal" actions?

To me, thats a dangerous side effect of the protest process, and one I'm very uncomfortable with.

Now, I'm not alledging this is the sole intent of this protester, but this situation has plainly shown how such a scenario could play out.

Are there mandates we can place in the rulebook that can avoid such possible situations in the future?

Greg, you're a tech guy....in my experience, the entire process of "discovery" is somewhat negotiated by the stewards between the protester and the protestee. It appears in this case that the entire sealed engine concept was rejected by the protester. What are the drawbacks to requiring that when the timing of protests is such that it will prevent the protesteee from attending a critical event that the engines be sealed and the tear down done later?

(Again, I know this is a he said she said deal, and the facts aren't out....and those that are out may be presented incorrectly, so if I have something wrong, please correct me...I'm NOT trying to start a word war, but rather looking at a larger picture)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Cooler heads have prevailed on that protest. The cars will be allowed to run should the drivers want to.

[Greg Amy]

Hey, John, I saw you guys over there by the press building, but you looked busy at the time; I'll catch you next time...

Jake, I don't know that there are enough GCR details to be able to cover any and all situations. There is a negotiation process whereas the bond(s) and detail need to be worked out between all involved and I suggest that common sense should be allowed to prevail. In most cases it does; in some it does not.

I was not involved in this LRP situation. Last Saturday I was a flunkie, directing traffic, assisting in weighing, and handing out agua. I knew nothing of the protest(s) other than their existence until The Internet provided details so I possess no special insights.

Andy, good to hear this was worked out. The only downside for the protestees is that if they are determined to be illegal, they get tossed from both (three? Is Pocono still a double?) races...

[dazzlesa]

i think there is a very fine line of using the rules for the good of all and abusing the rules.
also if you are the end buyer of a engine how is anybody except the actual builder supposed to know what is in that motor.this is club racing but i think some people take it more seriously then they should,

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, good to hear this was worked out. The only downside for the protestees is that if they are determined to be illegal, they get tossed from both (three? Is Pocono still a double?) races...
[/b]

I don't see that as a downside. If you thought you were illegal, just let the teardown go through as intended. If you are illegal - to bad, so sad.

[tnord]

the root problem in my opinion is SCCA making a change that i'm sure they knew would affect many people in the home stretch of the national racing season. if this change were made in the offseason and someone still had illegal cams per the updated rule during the 07 season, tough noogies. but throwing paper around a week or so after the update in fastrack is a bit harsh.

[zracre]

the guy was offering crate motors? thats pretty nice...

[Z3_GoCar]

Crate Motors??? :lol: :lol:

They'll be fodder for every Sunbelt and Hartzel prepped motor at Nats. I don't think anyone got even close to the top 10 with a crate motor out here, last year. It's really JD's class he just let's you play in it :P

[zracre]

well I guess it would be better than a box of parts...

[Z3_GoCar]

well I guess it would be better than a box of parts...
[/b]

:P True, but if your eye's are on the prize. Not making Nat's because your good motor was taken down to parts and found legal, and now you're running a crate that down 10-15hp from you box of parts :bash_1_: and everyone else.

I still say it's Jim Danial's class, he just let eveyone else play in it.

[tnord]

1) pro motors are not 10-15hp up on crates. more like 5-10 at most.
2) how is it jd's class? he's not even competing in it.

[lateapex911]

the guy was offering crate motors? thats pretty nice...
[/b]

I'm not so sure about that....

If YOU were in a position to make the Runoffs, and you got protested by a guy for the second time in two weeks, and your engine had to come out, would you want him loaning you an inferior engine?

Doubt it...you know you'll likely be off the pace, AND you'll be risking purchasing that engine if anything happens to it. And it's the last thing you want to buy, LOL.

Not to mention, your engine comes out, then the crate has to go in...and then you need to fully accesorize it, then you race, then you de accessorize it, then pull it, then reinstall your engine. Lots of fun that!!

I'm guessing it was a bit of "marketing" being done by the protester. And in the unlikely chance they went for it, he liked the idea of them on a crate motor. But thats just my "read" on it.

[Bill Miller]

Very interesting, lots of issues going on. Commenting on the situation at hand is hard, as I'm sure there's a lot of missing information.


Cooler heads have prevailed on that protest. The cars will be allowed to run should the drivers want to.
[/b]

Andy, I'm not sure what that means if the protestor didn't withdraw the protest.


I still say it's Jim Danial's class, he just let eveyone else play in it.
[/b]

James, that's just silly. I don't know you or Jim, or hardly anyone else that races SM, but no one person controls a class.


1) pro motors are not 10-15hp up on crates. more like 5-10 at most.[/b]

Travis, that's a big jump over a stock motor, on what's supposed to be a spec class. IIRC, SRF motors dyno w/in 2 hp of each other, before they're sealed.


the root problem in my opinion is SCCA making a change that i'm sure they knew would affect many people in the home stretch of the national racing season. if this change were made in the offseason and someone still had illegal cams per the updated rule during the 07 season, tough noogies. but throwing paper around a week or so after the update in fastrack is a bit harsh.[/b]

Need to research the timing on this before making a comment, but in general, I agree, mechanical changes should not be made mid-season.



They'll be fodder for every Sunbelt and Hartzel prepped motor at Nats. I don't think anyone got even close to the top 10 with a crate motor out here, last year. [/b]

I don't know how accurate this statement is, but I know there's a perception (and it may be backed up by results sheets) that you need one of these big-dollar pro motors to be able to run at the front. To me, that's not what a spec class is supposed to be about. Since Enterprises is probably going to be sold, having all the SM engines come through them is not really an option, and I'm not sure Mazda wants to be involved w/ managing everything either. However, I think something needs to be done about it. If it's a spec class, and everyone is supposed to be running stock motors, either have them sealed by Mazda (or at a shop that dynos them w/in 1-2 hp of a known stock motor, or put a claim amount on them. You can claim anybody's motor for the cost of a new crate motor and half of the amount for R&R. You would not be able to protest sealed motors, but you could claim them if you thought that the seals had been faked. In that case, the claim would be the cost of a new crate motor and the full R&R cost.

It's a real shame that we're hearing so much about this class being cheated up, especially in its first year of National eligibility. Over on the Prod board, there was a well known individual selling an SM from their shop w/ admittedly cheated-up shocks. When called on it, he got beligerent (sp?), nasty, and abusive and used the "Everybody's doing it" and "Nobody at the front uses stock parts" arguements. I could attribute that to the general perception that there's a "wink, wink" attitude about the rules among a lot of the Prod folks, which is why the Prod rules have evolved into the mess that they are today, but mostly I see it as someone looking for a way to rationalize and justify cheating.

As I said in another post elsewhere on this site, the penalties for cheating need to be harsher, if we want any hope of discouriging (sp?) it.

[ddewhurst]

***Over on the Prod board, there was a well known individual selling an SM from their shop w/ admittedly cheated-up shocks.***

Bill, give it a rest. All your doing by posting this stuff here is laying bait for those folks to slam this site.

[zracre]

I like the claimer rule...If the motor is cheated up and someone spent 10k on it...haha to them and the motor is in your truck. Why not the claimer from the beginning?

[Andy Bettencourt]

First off, there is nothing happening in SM that hasn't been going on in SS for years. Police your own patch.

Second, what I meant Bill, is that the engine have either been sealed or the cars have been under lock and key so that no 'changes' could be made to them by their owners until after the National this weekend. What was legal or illegal at LRP will be legal or illegal after Pocono. Teardowns will take place after this weekend. The schedule had back-to-back Nationals - then a 2 month layoff until the Runoffs. To me, the Division had better have a provision for something like this if they are going to schedule major events effectively on top of each other.

SM is spec in name only. Allowed right now are: 2 different body styles, 4 different stock hp engines, 3 different rear end configurations, 3 sizes of restrictor plates, 'open' air intakes on certain versions, 3 different minimum weights...and on and on.

I emphasize that nothing is happening in SM that is not happening in SS. The top preparers are maximizing their prep in the grey areas - while driving them just as well. I have seen SM's find 7whp just in an all-out driveline friction reduction program - it ain't all in the motor...it's about what gets to the ground as we all know. Is coating the pistons, REM finishing the tranny and diff, blueprinting axels and hubs in the grey? You bet. Having said all that, I think the SM motors are more legal now than ever. When Pro SM first came out, cheats were uncovered and brought to light. Today, these cars are going to have to go through the tech shed in Topeka with a very critcal eye watching them.

If IT went National, 95% of the people running the class would have to tighten up thier programs before even considering a full teardown.

[Bill Miller]

***Over on the Prod board, there was a well known individual selling an SM from their shop w/ admittedly cheated-up shocks.***

Bill, give it a rest. All your doing by posting this stuff here is laying bait for those folks to slam this site.
[/b]

David,

I'm not sure how I'm doing that. That's one of the reasons why we have rules creap and the whole 'wink, wink' thing, people don't like light being shined on what they're doing, and they try and shout down those that call them on it. Go back and look at the progression of that thread again. my initial response was simply a roll eyes at the cheated up shocks. He escalated it from there

[Andy Bettencourt]

I like the claimer rule...If the motor is cheated up and someone spent 10k on it...haha to them and the motor is in your truck. Why not the claimer from the beginning? [/b]

Because the way things work in reality is that the guy who owns the cheater motor pulls you aside and says that he knows of 3 little things that are illegal in his motor that you will never find - and if he sees you running it, he will protest each one individually at the next 3 races, making your life miserable. Dick move yes - but that is the way it works. Plus, do you call a "no claim-back" rule? Claimer rules just don't net you a motor, you have to either pay the owner for a new one or swap your for theirs...why would you want to PAY $3000 to have someones illegal motor on your doorstep (or in your car for that matter if you were really worried about the rules) when you can have them DQ'd and penalized for next to nothing via the protest process?

Protests, teardowns, humiliation, distrust and penalties are the way we work it - and if we are worried about the legality of another car, we have the means to do it.

[Tom Blaney]

"Bottom line? I have to look at Greg's effort, the MSN cars, Blaney's stuff - and I have to decide how much they push the envelope (as do they of me) on the rules. It's not about sportsmanship when a group gets together and wants a teardown of a suspicious car, it is about sportsmanship when a guy protests one or two guys continually."

Andy:

I"m not going to go on a major rant on this one (yea I am!), but it implies that we (collectivly) are bending the rules. Unfortunatly you (and many others) miss the point here. Greg, Anthony, and I are SEASONED SKILLED FOCUSED DRIVERS WITH TALENT AND EXPERIENCE. I am sure it will be the case with Greg when he sells his car, but both my CRX, and Anthony's Integra have been sold exactly as raced to less experienced (but eventually as capable) drivers who are not running the same consistant times that we ran.

Why is that? It is because we don't bend the rules or "cheat", we will spend the time and money to prepare both the equipment and ourselves to put out a maximum effort time and time again. That means that we really understand what a small spring or shock change will do, or that paying extra for the best brake pads makes a difference. We spend the extra time to rent track time on a Tuesday to fiddle with settings or our driving style, I have been to more Tuesdays than I want to count, and who is there ONLY THE FAST GUYS, what's up with that don't they have a life????

As I have mentioned on this site time and again that far too many of you assume that if somebody is more skilled and therefore faster than you then the friggen bast***rd must be cheating.

Our collective protest of Shane was obvious because we talked to each other before the protest, we discussed his driving skill, and the history of the car. We gave the guy a chance to fess up and to fix the problems. He didn't and therefore he paid the price (albeit far too light) and has lost a lot of credibity with his competiors. The same should apply to Windell and perhaps one or two others.

Learn from the experience, and take the time to study faster drivers, you will find that most are just putting out a better effort, and then the cheaters won't have to be pondered as much and a protest when warrented won't be a weapon, but a collective club because he didn't accept the sportsmanlike warnings in the past.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tom,

You missed my point completely. It was simply that everyone needs to take a long hard look at the cars at the pointy end of the field (like yours, MSN's, Greg's, mine, etc) and determine WHAT, WHY and HOW these cars are there before they go and assume wrong-doing. But when or if they do assume such a thing, there is a proper way to find out.

The majority of the people in an IT field have NO IDEA what kind of prep (both driver and car) make up a typical podium in a large field.

[Greg Amy]

...I agree, mechanical changes should not be made mid-season.[/b]

To be accurate, "mechanical changes" were not made mid-season.

What happened, to the best of my knowledge, is that the specs for camshafts in the Miati were somewhat sparse (lift only, I think, was specified). In addition, note that SM also has an "aftermarket replacement parts" rule. To take advantage of this grey area some engine builders were buying camshaft billets from Mazda - with all the regular Mazda markings and stampings on them - and grinding camshafts to maximize performance within this spec (changing overlap and duration, as I understand it).

SCCA got wind of this and decided to publish more-detailed camshaft specs via Fastrack. Immediately thereafter this person started dropping coin on camshaft checks and one particular engine builder got dinged a couple of times (rumor has it the other engine builders got wind of the change sooner and got the word out to their customers. PURELY speculation).

So therein lies the "tree falls in the forest" argument: given that these aftermarket camshafts met the published specs were they therefore legal up to the point of the Fastrack clarification, or is it because they did not meet all specs of the original stock camshaft (or any alternative camshafts, for that matter) were they illegal to begin with? Said differently, if they could have passed Tech the old way were they legal, or because they did not meet the true intent of the rules were they illegal?

Rules Nerd Greg says they were never legal camshafts; Competitor Greg says they were legal until the point that SCCA published more-detailed restrictions. It's neither here nor there, as the more-detailed specs have been published and competitors must abide by them.

Now, about that funny word "material"...

[Bill Miller]

Because the way things work in reality is that the guy who owns the cheater motor pulls you aside and says that he knows of 3 little things that are illegal in his motor that you will never find - and if he sees you running it, he will protest each one individually at the next 3 races, making your life miserable. Dick move yes - but that is the way it works. Plus, do you call a "no claim-back" rule? Claimer rules just don't net you a motor, you have to either pay the owner for a new one or swap your for theirs...why would you want to PAY $3000 to have someones illegal motor on your doorstep (or in your car for that matter if you were really worried about the rules) when you can have them DQ'd and penalized for next to nothing via the protest process?

Protests, teardowns, humiliation, distrust and penalties are the way we work it - and if we are worried about the legality of another car, we have the means to do it.
[/b]

Andy,

I hear what you're saying. I know claim rules aren't perfect, but something's got to be done to stop things like this. I'd love to see a sealed motor program (as well as all the other parts), but I realize you've got guys out there running the motor the car came w/ when new, or some other j/y motor, and you can't penalize them because someone else is cheating (they're probably not running at the front anyway).

That's one of the reasons why I think penalties for cheating need to be harsher. And don't think that they guy that you mentioned won't find some other way to retaliate against you if you protest him, have him torn down, and he loses a $6k motor and gets nothing for it, not to mention penalty points on his license. Someone that would do what you described would also find other ways to retaliate against someone.

BTW, you can out fox the guy above by not running his motor. He gets you torn down and then pays for your rebuild! :D



To be accurate, "mechanical changes" were not made mid-season.

What happened, to the best of my knowledge, is that the specs for camshafts in the Miati were somewhat sparse (lift only, I think, was specified). In addition, note that SM also has an "aftermarket replacement parts" rule. To take advantage of this grey area some engine builders were buying camshaft billets from Mazda - with all the regular Mazda markings and stampings on them - and grinding camshafts to maximize performance within this spec (changing overlap and duration, as I understand it).

SCCA got wind of this and decided to publish more-detailed camshaft specs via Fastrack. Immediately thereafter this person started dropping coin on camshaft checks and one particular engine builder got dinged a couple of times (rumor has it the other engine builders got wind of the change sooner and got the word out to their customers. PURELY speculation).

So therein lies the "tree falls in the forest" argument: given that these aftermarket camshafts met the published specs were they therefore legal up to the point of the Fastrack clarification, or is it because they did not meet all specs of the original stock camshaft (or any alternative camshafts, for that matter) were they illegal to begin with? Said differently, if they could have passed Tech the old way were they legal, or because they did not meet the true intent of the rules were they illegal?

Rules Nerd Greg says they were never legal camshafts; Competitor Greg says they were legal until the point that SCCA published more-detailed restrictions. It's neither here nor there, as the more-detailed specs have been published and competitors must abide by them.

Now, about that funny word "material"...
[/b]

Thanks Greg, that certainly clears things up for me.

[tnord]

bill -

without even looking over at the prod board i'm 90% certain i know who you're talking about. I know a couple members of that family personally as I race in the same division. these are good people, and their reputation both on and off the track shows it.

"cheated up shocks" in SM are not cheated up at all, and i think you are wrong for referring to them as such. call the guy at bilstein (i can get you his number if you want) and ask what their range of specs is for the shock being used in SM. then ask him how many of them he gets a week. the answer to both questions is A LOT.

people aren't rebuilding shocks that are out of spec, they are just rebuilding them within spec to the end of the allowance that gives them the best performance. if they aren't out of range for the specs bilstein provides, how are they illegal? how can you prove they are illegal?

[Andy Bettencourt]

bill -

"cheated up shocks" in SM are not cheated up at all, and i think you are wrong for referring to them as such. call the guy at bilstein (i can get you his number if you want) and ask what their range of specs is for the shock being used in SM. then ask him how many of them he gets a week. the answer to both questions is A LOT.

people aren't rebuilding shocks that are out of spec, they are just rebuilding them within spec to the end of the allowance that gives them the best performance. if they aren't out of range for the specs bilstein provides, how are they illegal? how can you prove they are illegal? [/b]

Trav, you are wrong my friend. The spec is VERY tight from Bilstein and will be published pre-runoffs. What people are doing is revalving to the spring rates in the SM package. Yes, there is no published spec but the valving is such that it will be VERY easy to determine a cheated up shock. The tech guys at teh runoffs will have a test for this. Just because there is no spec doesn't make it free.

[JIgou]

Trav, you are wrong my friend. The spec is VERY tight from Bilstein and will be published pre-runoffs. What people are doing is revalving to the spring rates in the SM package. Yes, there is no published spec but the valving is such that it will be VERY easy to determine a cheated up shock. The tech guys at teh runoffs will have a test for this. Just because there is no spec doesn't make it free.
[/b]

(continuing the minor hijack....)

Andy, do you happen to have any insight to the timing on the release of those specs? I'm considering sending my 5+ year old shocks in for a freshening before the Runoffs, and would love to know the official specs (and range :cavallo: :P ) before I do so....

Jarrod

[Andy Bettencourt]

(continuing the minor hijack....)

Andy, do you happen to have any insight to the timing on the release of those specs? I'm considering sending my 5+ year old shocks in for a freshening before the Runoffs, and would love to know the official specs (and range :cavallo: :P ) before I do so....

Jarrod [/b]

I don't but from what I understand of the testing and valving, you just ask for them to be redone at Spec Miata spec. Nothing custom, just as delivered in the SM package.

[tnord]

to toss out some numbers.....

jarrod our short friend was told by the bilstein guy that the "pointy end shock rebuild" ends up being 40% stiffer.

if that's not the case, then i retract my previous statement. but according to that specific person at bilstein, there are more than a couple shocks coming across his desk.

[Andy Bettencourt]

to toss out some numbers.....

jarrod our short friend was told by the bilstein guy that the "pointy end shock rebuild" ends up being 40% stiffer.

if that's not the case, then i retract my previous statement. but according to that specific person at bilstein, there are more than a couple shocks coming across his desk. [/b]

And you are probably right - about some of it. Here are some facts:

The revalve Bilstein does is JUST TO rebound. They have indeed done tons of them. They will do what you ask. Revalving to 'work' with 700lb springs may be a 40% increase in rebound, I don't know...but what we are missing is that the 'pointy end' isn't the as-shipped spec, it's the 'what people are doing' spec.

[MMiskoe]

To take advantage of this grey area some engine builders were buying camshaft billets from Mazda - with all the regular Mazda markings and stampings on them - and grinding camshafts to maximize performance within this spec (changing overlap and duration, as I understand it).[/b]

And probably changing the cam TDC points relative to each cam and/or the crank.

Andy - this is what I was trying to describe in July when you were going to swap heads.

The fact that people are doing this is no big surprise. The fact that people are protesting the hell out of each other comes when people are stretching what's legal.

Back to Jakes original question - it seems that if someone were to start doing this, the collective run group might start finding ways of making that person's life hard. I remember a post asking how to deal w/ a guy that no one wanted to race w/ because he was rough & stupid. Many of the suggestions included stuff like locking him in the porta-crapper and knocking it over. This is a prime example of the difference between a regional & national class I believe.

Matt

[Z3_GoCar]

Because the way things work in reality is that the guy who owns the cheater motor pulls you aside and says that he knows of 3 little things that are illegal in his motor that you will never find - and if he sees you running it, he will protest each one individually at the next 3 races, making your life miserable. Dick move yes - but that is the way it works. Plus, do you call a "no claim-back" rule? Claimer rules just don't net you a motor, you have to either pay the owner for a new one or swap your for theirs...why would you want to PAY $3000 to have someones illegal motor on your doorstep (or in your car for that matter if you were really worried about the rules) when you can have them DQ'd and penalized for next to nothing via the protest process?

Protests, teardowns, humiliation, distrust and penalties are the way we work it - and if we are worried about the legality of another car, we have the means to do it.
[/b]

There are two requirements for a susccessful claim rule. 1st, everyone runs the same basic motor, SM all run the same motor so check. 2nd, anything can be done to the engine. This is where the current rules won't work with a motor claim rule. How the claim rule works is to sets a dollar value on a slightly used race motor. In other words, how much does it cost to buy the Mazda blank's and grind out a set of cam's? How about a good blue print job? Set the value at the cost of buying a used junk-yard motor and I think you won't see anyone put a pro built motor in their car again. How can you build an illegal motor when anything goes? Make the long block open and claimable, the manifolds stay with the chassis and are protestable. Sure you can put in a custom ground cam set, forged pistons, titanium rods even, but be prepared to see it go for the cost of a junk-yard long block. Now where's the motivation to put that kind of money in only to see it go and run with someone else for so little? However, the RE motor, may become more popular than a boredello girl in a female starved mining town on pay day, and maybe as equally passed around :lol:

I'm glad to see that there's been effort to clean up all the rough driving, and now the gray areas are becomming black, :happy204: , There were area's that did turn me off of SM when I was looking to purchase.

Now for the JD comment. Yes, I was trying to be funny, I was applying the "Brat Pack" motto to him after seeing how he dominated the last MX-5 cup race. BTW, if you have a Miata, you should at least start with JD's set up guide published on the specmiata forum.

[tnord]

And you are probably right - about some of it. Here are some facts:

The revalve Bilstein does is JUST TO rebound. They have indeed done tons of them. They will do what you ask. Revalving to 'work' with 700lb springs may be a 40% increase in rebound, I don't know...but what we are missing is that the 'pointy end' isn't the as-shipped spec, it's the 'what people are doing' spec.
[/b]


well, maybe you have a more intimate knowledge of exactly what the specs are.....but in regards to this particular part, i have faith that the front runners are rebuilding within spec.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy - this is what I was trying to describe in July when you were going to swap heads.


Matt [/b]

Luckily, the FSM is specific when you are putting a stock head back on!

[Andy Bettencourt]

New info on the LRP protests against Brunk and Boxer...they have been pulled by the protestor. No info as to why yet. Multiple rumors but we will let the people directly involved speak out.



AB

[lateapex911]

Interesting!! I haven't read Specmiata.com, but.....

If the protester wanted to clean the class upas he said...and he was sure enough that the potestees were out of compliance to come up with the $10K bond, why would he pull the protests?? Unless his motivations were different. Or am I being too introspective?? ;)

[dazzlesa]

i appreciate what the shops and car guru's have done to make fast cars.the down side for many is that it costs money to go fast.when i started in 99 a rx7 with the standard go fast goodies could get it done. not anymore. you either have the money or the knowledge, time and skills.the sm's started cheap but do you want to run upfront?

[zracre]

that goes away from everything that class is supposed to be. SM is *supposed* to be a fair competitive *spec* class. What part of custom reground cams, revalves struts and 1k clutches is spec? Or 7-10k rebuilds on a *spec* motor??? It should be simple...Mazdaspeed just needs to build a bunch of crate motors and sell them sealed and dynoed. everyone gets one (for a fair price). If the seal is tampered with or broken, you get DQ'ed and lose ALL your points. That will learn them! Oh and simply make everyone run a stock pressure plate...

[JeffYoung]

See that last sentence for a very true statement on "progressing" in IT racing. Until you understand the legal lengths the fast guys are going to to go fast, you won't get there.

Evan, the problem with the crate motor rule is then the $$$$ teams buy 10, dyno them, and use the one that has 2 hp more. See Spec Racer Ford.

No way to legislate out spending money in racing, and it seems to be to be the First Rule of Racing that any spec class, over time, is going to turn into an expensive mess. In fact, perhaps more expensive than a class with some open rules as the fast guys and dollar guys work extra hard to exploit the SMALL advantages the spec rules may allow.



Tom,

You missed my point completely. It was simply that everyone needs to take a long hard look at the cars at the pointy end of the field (like yours, MSN's, Greg's, mine, etc) and determine WHAT, WHY and HOW these cars are there before they go and assume wrong-doing. But when or if they do assume such a thing, there is a proper way to find out.

The majority of the people in an IT field have NO IDEA what kind of prep (both driver and car) make up a typical podium in a large field.
[/b]

[tnord]

the real way to decrease costs in SM is to specifically allow B&B of the engine. it's happening anyway via much more expensive "parts bin" methods. allow it and you go buy a $200 junkyard motor, take it to joe engine builder for $2500, and you've got 98% of the power of a pro motor.

[gprodracer]

Let me throw another point of view into this mix. I have no answer to the cash wars approach to racing, but lets use the SRF example. Since I have never had the amount of cash it would take to buy 10 motors, dyno them, and take the one with 2 more horsepower, I hadn't even considered that a possibility.
Apparently, it has (or is) being done. That being said, my personal view is that if someone beats me because he has 2 extra ponies, then I need to learn how to drive faster! I mean, if they had 8-10 on me, I could live with myself saying someone "out motored" me, but I would truly chuckle if anyone said they got beat with 2 more horsepower! :(
We have all beaten cars with significantly more straight line speed haven't we? You have to be able to put that power to the ground in the corners, you have to have the balls (Ladies included) to steer the car around the corners, and to drive fast enough to scare the crap out of youself at least once a lap.
Anyone who thinks anything different is just kidding themselves IMHO.
O.K., I'm done, who wants a beer? :birra:

Mark P. Larson
Fast Family Racing
#83 GP Nissan 210

[RSTPerformance]

:birra: agreed 100%, but then again I have never driven a "spec car" so maybe I am wrong.

I can say that preventing someone from competing is a piss poor way of "winning" a championship and/or spot in a championship, you might has well been the person cheating. In my book your also a poor sport/looser, at least generally (I say that with emphasis) most cheaters cheat so they can at least stay up and compete, they generally don't just run away with a unchallenged victory.

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Let me throw another point of view into this mix. I have no answer to the cash wars approach to racing, but lets use the SRF example. Since I have never had the amount of cash it would take to buy 10 motors, dyno them, and take the one with 2 more horsepower, I hadn't even considered that a possibility.
Apparently, it has (or is) being done. That being said, my personal view is that if someone beats me because he has 2 extra ponies, then I need to learn how to drive faster! I mean, if they had 8-10 on me, I could live with myself saying someone "out motored" me, but I would truly chuckle if anyone said they got beat with 2 more horsepower! :(
We have all beaten cars with significantly more straight line speed haven't we? You have to be able to put that power to the ground in the corners, you have to have the balls (Ladies included) to steer the car around the corners, and to drive fast enough to scare the crap out of youself at least once a lap.
Anyone who thinks anything different is just kidding themselves IMHO.
O.K., I'm done, who wants a beer? :birra:

Mark P. Larson
Fast Family Racing
#83 GP Nissan 210
[/b]


Mark,

All else being equal, especially w/ a low-hp car, the guy w/ 2 more hp will beat the guy that doesn't have it, every time. Keep in mind, I said "all else being equal". That means equal prep and equal drivers. IF some folks didn't think squeezing 1-3 more hp out of the car was important, you wouldn't hear stories of $40/gallon go-fast juice.

[tderonne]

So, non-stock, legal to the service manual spec (lobe height only?), cams are ok anywhere until the SCCA gets better specs? Is that what I'm really reading here? And the guy who protests such a cam is the bad guy? (Maybe a bad example in this instance?)

[JIgou]

So, non-stock, legal to the service manual spec (lobe height only?), cams are ok anywhere until the SCCA gets better specs? Is that what I'm really reading here? And the guy who protests such a cam is the bad guy? (Maybe a bad example in this instance?)
[/b]

You've pretty much got it, Tim. The revised specs for the cams were released to the public on June 16, with an effective date of July 1; a couple of weeks after that the protest fun that is described above began.

The good is that the spec has been released and that loophole closed (or, more correctly, tightened significantly).

The bad is that it caught a significant number of competitors in a bad spot - their pro-built motors, which were "legal" in June, were now "illegal" in July; the only change being the tightening of the spec.

Jake, you're not the only one wondering.

Bill -- well said.

Jarrod

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, non-stock, legal to the service manual spec (lobe height only?), cams are ok anywhere until the SCCA gets better specs? Is that what I'm really reading here? And the guy who protests such a cam is the bad guy? (Maybe a bad example in this instance?)

[/b]

I am going to disagree here. Not hard to write a protest to get a cam like that deemed illegal. It's just that nobody did because most thought it was grey. Remember, the cam rule in IT is the same as in SM and SS. Only a 'lift' spec is published. So some would say that if no spec is there, they can build to suit. I say no way.

1. You write a protest that the cam is not stock and not a 'stock replacment part' per the GCR.

2. You alledge that the cam does not meet factory specs - and that not all factory specs are published

3. You provide all the factory specs

4. You request that the SCCA procure some used and some new cams for this model (on your bond)

5. You request that they compare lift, duration, overlap, weight, anything you can think of...

6. You ask them to apply normal factory tolerences for these specs to the results of the research and then compare to the protested cams. If they are illegal, you should be able to nab them.

I think you will find that just becuse there isn't a spec in the book, doesn't mean you can't prove it is 'out of spec' when a sampling of known stock parts are used for comparision.

[gran racing]

I guess I'm another who doesn't understand that 2 hp is so important. When watching some of the pro race interviews (World Challenge & GrandAm - yes, I realize they're not spec cars) several drivers were talking about how they were not too concerned that they are down a few HP on some of the other cars. They then went on to talk about how in road racing it isn't as important than in oval racing. Thought it was interesting that was being said even at that level.

Especially important in low HP cars...my car is 110 HP stock (similar to a Miata, no?). I would love to be within 2 hp of other cars. Alright, I would really like to have way more hp. :) If I had a decision of spending several thousand dollars on getting an extra 2 hp or obtaining lots professional coaching, I'd take the coaching everyday.

[zracre]

problem is we are not talking about 2 hp with these cams...try 6-8...and yes they are illegal. If anyone is manipulating the rules to fit the spec in their head (the one on their shoulders) they are cheating. Same goes for IT. It says stock cams. Not stock specs. A re-profiled cam is not legal period in my humble opinion. These motors are taking away from our sport the ability and talent of our drivers. Yes the guys at the front will spare no expense for that power like any series, but c'mon we need to keep it equal so the talent is what wins...not budget and rules manipulation. That is the point of spec racing. Get the benders out now and keep em scared so we have legal equipment out there and good racing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am going to disagree with Evan on the hp potential of these cams as I have talked extensivley with engine builders about them. The point is that in a spec class where most of teh IT variables are taken out, you try and grab 2hp here and 2hp there in order to maximize your effort.

The cars in IT are so different that you will never notice 2hp. But in SM, 5hp can be a 4% increase - with all the same suspension, aero, tranny ratios, etc. It's all about driving and power. If everyone in IT ran ITB Preludes, you had better believe you would notice who had more power.

[gprodracer]

The 2 hp example was from a previous thread regarding SRF, and someone buying 10 to find the one with 2 extra hp.
Let me try another approach as to why (in my opinion) the 2 hp is of little consequence. Are we all so confident in our driving skills that we think we are getting 100% out of our cars every lap?? I have logged thousands of hours of seat time in my old ITC car, and ran every race, ECR, practice session, test day etc. that I could afford. I can honestly say that my car was still faster than I could drive it, even with all that seat time.
I would bet the farm that if I let Randy Pobst drive my car for a couple of hours, he could beat all the lap records at every track I ever held one at (which is a few). I stand by what I said. Keep your $40 go-fast juice. Learn how to drive faster, and more consistantly. I know I learn a few things EVERY time I go to the track. Again, 6-8 hp, then you're getting into the range that I would say was an acceptable reason to complain about!
I'm also with Evan on the reground cam thing. In my old school way of thinking, all those SM cams that were "legal" before were, IMHO, illegal from the beginning. All my cams came from 100,000 mile street cars.
Mark P Larson
Fast Family Racing
#83 GP Nissan 210

[RickyBobby]

Evan, the problem with the crate motor rule is then the $$$$ teams buy 10, dyno them, and use the one that has 2 hp more. See Spec Racer Ford.

[/b]

Ricky thinks this makes racing cheaper. Now 9 motors are released back to the racing public at a discounted price from those high dollar chrome and fancy paint racing teams.

Shake and Bake Baby!!!!

Ricky

[zracre]

I still think it i more than 2hp on cams...that with the cheated up ecu's I saw in January at homestead and rebuilt/revalved shocks with decent drivers will make everyone else look like beginners...thats why im sour on SM...oh and Andy its not about peak HP as you said before its all under the curve....

[Andy Bettencourt]

I still think it i more than 2hp on cams...that with the cheated up ecu's I saw in January at homestead and rebuilt/revalved shocks with decent drivers will make everyone else look like beginners...thats why im sour on SM [/b]

And how many of these cheated up ECU's did you protest? I hate to hear stuff like this. Protest the known cheaters and the class will clean up - ANY class. You can't be sour if you don't act.

[zracre]

I ran a friends car in January and was helping support 2 others. I was in the worlds slowest SM (a friends street car) and got passed on the front straight after I hit the rev limiter in 4th AND shifted to 5th during qual. by 2 cars well over the rev limit in 4th (front runners). It was not unnoticed. I race ITA mainly and when I go full on to SM if ever you know I will throw papers at them. I was just disgusted and turned off from it and had too much to do than argue with some idiots. In retrospect I should have done it and wish I did but you can't change the past. I was just too busy changing transmissions in 3 cars and replacing 2 diffs for others. priorities.

[x-ring]

WARNING: Hijack in process.



I am going to disagree here. Not hard to write a protest to get a cam like that deemed illegal. It's just that nobody did because most thought it was grey. Remember, the cam rule in IT is the same as in SM and SS. Only a 'lift' spec is published. So some would say that if no spec is there, they can build to suit. I say no way.

1. You write a protest that the cam is not stock and not a 'stock replacment part' per the GCR.

2. You alledge that the cam does not meet factory specs - and that not all factory specs are published

3. You provide all the factory specs

4. You request that the SCCA procure some used and some new cams for this model (on your bond)

5. You request that they compare lift, duration, overlap, weight, anything you can think of...

6. You ask them to apply normal factory tolerences for these specs to the results of the research and then compare to the protested cams. If they are illegal, you should be able to nab them.

I think you will find that just becuse there isn't a spec in the book, doesn't mean you can't prove it is 'out of spec' when a sampling of known stock parts are used for comparision.
[/b]

A minor disagreement here WRT IT cam protests (SM is different as the spec is now published). GCR 13.4.1.E.2 requires that the protestor supply a known stock cam from the same make, model and year of the protested car. I suppose that's in there because Jeremy and/or John do not have the time to chase down a stock comparison cam for every protest that comes in the door.

Now the question becomes where do you get a "known stock" cam, especially since "known" isn't defined. There is no provision for simply providing factory specs, if you could even find them.

For my car, for example, I don't think you bop on down to your neighborhood Datsun dealer and pick one up.

If it's not brand new, in the factory wrap, can I argue the comparison cam isn't a "known stock" cam? If so, can I now run any cam duration I want, assuming only lift is specified in the FSM? I don't think so, but how would anyone prove otherwise?

[zracre]

I guess we are lucky (drivers of current cars) where we can bob down to the local Acura/Honda/Nissan/Mazda dealer and just buy a set of new ones and bring them along to races for that purpose...as for an out of prod car...see if anyone has protested cams in the past and see if the profile info is on a database somewhere...

and you may be surprised...go to the Nissan dealer and ask for a new cam for the 240z...they will probably have the part number and may have them. I was amazed when I worked for nissan that they had computer based info and current part numbers for cars built in the 60's! And parts still available for them...

[lateapex911]

WARNING: Hijack in process.
...... GCR 13.4.1.E.2 requires that the protestor supply a known stock cam from the same make, model and year of the protested car. I suppose that's in there because Jeremy and/or John do not have the time to chase down a stock comparison .........
[/b]


That's not exactly how the passage reads, as the word "protester" isn't specified. It does say though, that the cam be "Supplied". But by who?

Which leaves open a huge conflict of interest issue. The protester can NOT supply comparision parts during a protest, even if he is the formost expert in a particualar field. Its a blatant conflict of interest. (A similar situation occurred during a protest we made requiring compression measurement. They didn't have the tools. We offered. They said,'no'. They were right to, of course, because we could provide doctored measuring tools.)

I read that passage and am unclear as to the channel that that cam is to travel on it's way to being compared in Kansas. Thats worrisome. I thought Miata cams were on file in the databanks in Kansas.

I think one of the issues adding to the gray area is the replacement parts rule. In IT, it's doesn't have to be a part made by the stock manufacturer, so it becomes incumbent on the protester to prove the new part doesn't meet the specs in a meaningful way.....

[Daryl DeArman]

Just wondering if a STOCK CAM is required why bother listing a max. lift value? It can't/shouldn't be used as a guide for tech when the protestor is to supply a known stock part for comparison.

I bought a past mulitple championship winning car (not a Miata), which had been protested several times for various things and always found legal. After winning my first race in that car in a new to me class very easily, I took it to my motor builder for a closer look--for my own peace of mind.

That cam had stock lift , timing and duration at .050" lift. What wasn't as apparent is the lift measurements at every 10 degrees of crank rotation. This motor was a cam in block design so wasn't readily apparent with rounder looking lobes. In the end it might have made (3-4%) difference in HP. Was it cheating? Absolutely! But only because our rule spec called for a "stock OEM cam" this cam was ground to appear stock under the normal tech inspection standards and practices for determining compliance. Had our rule specified stock lift, timing of opening and closing of the vavles, duration at .050" lift and lobe centers it absolutely would have been a legal cam. Now about the slightly modified rocker arms. Instead of a 1:1 ratio (stock) they were about 1.04:1--there is another 4% lift at the valve.

[ddewhurst]

***Protest the known cheaters and the class will clean up - ANY class. You can't be sour if you don't act.***

I use the words of Andy only because they are handy.

I started the process of building a Spec Miata. Bought a bunch of stuff including a highly regarded on the Spec Miat site bent & notched roll cage which they all raved about including the GREAT instruction manual with good photos. The car was prepared for the cage instalation by time the cage arrives. The roll cage bends, notches & cage workmenship instruction manual including photos is fantastic.

ONE very large issue, the photos show that one MUST take the torch & burn out the WELDED box members of the chassis between the A pillar & the air cowl at the firewall. NOT LEGAL per my understanding of the SS, IT, SM rules. NOT LEGAL per three top guns from the CenDiv who drive Spec Miata per their understanding of the SS, IT, SM rules. NOT COMPLIANT per SCCA Topeka understanding of the SS, IT, SM rules.

Golly, what would the thread on the Spec Miata good ol boys site have to say about someone protesting their chassis because the chassis is not complete as delivered per OEM.

This sort of illegal issue would get the same work around as the Spherical bearing. ;)

[JIgou]

Golly, what would the thread on the Spec Miata good ol boys site have to say about someone protesting their chassis because the chassis is not complete as delivered per OEM.

This sort of illegal issue would get the same work around as the Spherical bearing. ;)
[/b]

Not necessarily, David - go do a search on that site for "seat belt towers" and see what it turns up.

Jarrod

[x-ring]

Jake - Good point about the conflict of interest. I was reading this as the protestor was required to supply a new factory part in a factory sealed box, else all bets were off. On the Miata issue, the profile is on file in Topeka, and it's available at the SCCA website. I assume that means you don't have to send in a stock comparison cam on a Miata protest, but the good book doesn't actually say that...

Evan - They might still be able to get one, I was just trying to illustrate a point.

Daryl - Tech will sometimes do a field check of cam lift with calipers. That doesn't tell them anything about duration, but it's something. We do it that way here sometimes because it won't stop a guy from racing the next day (assuming he's got compliant cams) and it is a lot quicker and cheaper than sending them off for a check on the cam doctor.

[ddewhurst]

***Not necessarily, David - go do a search on that site for "seat belt towers" and see what it turns up.***

Jarrod, do they continue to race the cars with the torched seat belt towers?

IIRC one of those torching the seat belt towers last year is one of the same who was/is involved in the latest NE protest stuff.

[JIgou]

***Not necessarily, David - go do a search on that site for "seat belt towers" and see what it turns up.***

Jarrod, do they continue to race the cars with the torched seat belt towers?

IIRC one of those torching the seat belt towers last year is one of the same who was/is involved in the latest NE protest stuff.
[/b]

Probably, but I haven't been paying that much attention to them this year.

I was moderately interested that a fellow competitor who I've only raced with two weekends - one last year and one this year - noted this year that my new car didn't have the towers removed. (He and I had chatted/wondered about the legality of said removal a year ago while standing around in impound beside my old car.)

I don't remember if one of those involved now was involved last year or not - there were enough of them gone from these parts that I lost track....

Jarrod