Printable View
any thoughts , if it were to be made a "legal" thing, what it would to to competition balance ?
I think, for the "worse " motors it would help more (miata 1.6 bp, Honda D series, older 1980's stuff) than the front runner engines like K series honda (and I guess, some miata bp's, hah), but would it just be a bigger hoop to jump to build a "top flight" engine?
I'll give you the philosophical argument, you guys can talk technical.
IT head prep is the cornerstone of three categories: Improved Touring, Super Touring (Light), and Limited Prep Production. All were created to try and minimize modifications in a (Sysiphian) goal of minimizing expensive modifications.
Unless and until we are willing to move STL into a realm of prep similar to Super Touring Under (e.g., porting, bigger brakes and tires, sequential gearboxes) and/or full-prep Prod (which is on the wane due to costs) then I suggest porting does not have a place in the class. and as/when we do that, it moves further toward reducing the differentiation of the class from other existing classes.
GA, "The Philosophy Guy"...
I completely agree it should not be in the class....
I DO think it would help some guys more than others. It'd likely help myself a LOT, as I picked an oddball engine (d15 non VTEC, and I picked it on purpose! So dumb)
I was surprised to see the question in fastrack. I'll be writing a reply....
while i do not disagree with the philosophical argument i am curious what people think about Adam's actual question in who would benefit the most and what effect that would have on competitive balance.
Wait...what??? That did not come out of the STAC...Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjabaay
GA, re-reading Fastrack as we speak...
1. #15577 (Club Racing Board) Cylinder Heads
Should STL allow cylinder head porting at a 1% weight penalty, similar to STU? Please send your response through the CRB letter system at crbscca.com.
(Comments deleted. I need to go spend the afternoon in the garage and calm down before I publicly write anything about this.)
Yup...
Crystal ball says...
Someone on the CRB with an interest in STL, and particularly a make/model of STL car that may be benefiting from new "clarified" headwork allowances in another class, has gone around the STAC to slide a request into the queue? A request that will be decided on pretty much independently by the person who submitted it, given the CRB's inclination to defer to a category "expert" on a technical question like this...?
Dick P. - If this is what it looks like, you all have GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST SHIT. It's embarrassing. And I was a member back in the bad old "what brand of car is Doug Reed driving?" days of choosing a Showroom Stock ride...
K
well, Kirk i would rather think that given the recent unpleasantness is SM smart people are thinking about bigger philosophical issues. but as Regan said "trust but verify".
Yeah, that's probably what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickita15
I'm done; I think it's high time people get the hope and change they're asking for. You want it? You got it, bro!
I feel bad for pointing out something that might have ruined tGAs Saturday. Ha
tGA picked up parts for his soon-to-be HSR vintage racing car, cut a deal on the engine build for it, picked up an interior for his 914 street car, and spent some time with an HSR/914 buddy at a local micro-brewery, tasting some pretty good beers. He picked up a couple growlers for future spending time with family at Christmas this next week, and picked up some hardware for the street 914 at the Big Orange Race Car company (who also sponsors a NASCAR team). Tonight's plans are to spend the rest of the evening with the wife and some friends. Just can't ruin that...Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjabaay
No matter what, there's always something else...
GA
PHEW!
I'll go back to work now.... keep having fun!
I'm not entirely sure I'm following, Dick, but I struggle to come up with any issues bigger than governance for an organization the size of SCCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickita15
K
sorry if i lost you. in post #8 you suppose that the reason the discussion on porting in STL is happening is nefarious. I have no way to say of you are right or wrong however it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that given that rules that can be enforced is a popular topic as of late it is also possible that people are rethinking what prep rules should be in a bigger picture way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knestis
So, the individual on the CRB who submitted the request, if his motives are pure, then he should be glad to submit the topic for consideration to the STAC. He didn't. Instead, he went around the exact body charged with making recommendations to the CRB about "what prep rules should be" for that category. If the most confident we - as members - can be that we're not getting railroaded is "not beyond the realm of possibility," then we have a PROBLEM. Still. The same. Exact. Kind. That led to the SM meltdown this fall.
Of course, it occurs to me at this point that I'm taking as given that the BoD and CRB really give a shit about the ad hocs' recommendations; or more accurately, their role in the process rather than SPECIFIC recommendations... If they are just window dressing, someone should tell the idiots that keep volunteering to serve on them. That was certainly the case when the ITAC got bent over a few years ago but I was of the understanding that we were working past that.
K
Only because I "opened my mouth " above, I want to clarify this above post to correct an inaccuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knestis
Letter #15577, submitted by a CRB member, was originally a request to detail/allow head machining allowances - basically, "plunge cuts" (stupid term) - for all cars in STx, under the premise that everyone is already doing it as part of the blueprinting allowances (which is compliant) and that, if seen, could cause a lot of cars to get tossed out. The request was also a response to (rumored) threats from (implied) Spec Miata drivers who were going to begin wholesale protesting of cars in many different categories for non-compliant head work (I'm inferring to demonstrate the 'absurdity' of their situations at the Runoffs).
This letter was submitted directly to the CRB, bypassing the STAC. However, when we (STAC members) discovered that and pointed it out we were told it was unintentionally submitted to the CRB "in error", and the letter was subsequently sent to the STAC queue for committee discussion.
The STAC discussed this letter in significant detail via email, the internal forum, and in the last conference call. During that correspondence the idea of "well then let's just let everyone port so there's nothing to scrutineer" was advanced as an option, in my opinion completely as a "straw man/reductio ad absurdum" argument. While there were a limited, minority group of members that took the idea of open porting in STL as a good idea, the STAC as a body forwarded the letter to the CRB as "Not Recommended" due to (primarily) being against the philosophy of the class, with a suggestion to the CRB to improve/clarify the GCR definitions of blueprinting such that all categories can benefit from the clarification.
It was the CRB's decision to forward the letter to the membership as a "What Do You Think?" of porting in Super Touring Light.
Let's put aside the whole idea of philosophy for a moment, and address the basic idea. Problem #1 is that this suggestion as presented does not resolve the issue at hand. If the base premise for advancing the idea of allowing porting in Super Touring Light is to end run potential cheating - i.e., we can't scrutineer porting properly so let's let them do it for a 1% penalty - then how are we going to scrutineer when someone is supposed to be properly applying the 1% adder?
But Problem #2 is that in the end we cannot put aside the whole idea of philosophy. And the current philosophy of Super Touring Light - and Improved Touring and Limited Prep Production and yes even Spec Miata - does not support open head porting.
I will, as an SCCA member, be submitting a letter to the CRB opposing this suggestion, noting to the CRB that this does not resolve the compliance issue and again stressing that if this is a problem with blueprinting in general then it needs to be addressed at the GCR level, potentially with a significant re-write of the regs regarding blueprinting. This is not a Super Touring issue, this is a Club issue that should be addressed at that level.
And most importantly, as per post #2 above it is my position that this is not within the philosophy of the class, or that of IT, LP Prod, or Spec Miata.
And with that, I'm cutting out of this discussion except to correct any facts that may pop up...
GA
Deleted. Total waste of time.
I apologize for getting it wrong vis-a-vis where/when (or how many times?) the CRB went around the STAC but my concern stands. When a CRB member submits a letter that "accidentally" bypasses the ad hoc and goes straight to his committee, there's something wrong. Make no mistake that the CRB is clearly not bound to accept the ad hoc's finding of "not recommended" but this is a case where a paper trail and determination of who is supporting what would be a valuable tool of transparency for the membership.
K
I love how this happened the same day I was put on stac. Lol?
Who is the crb member?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I would be surprised if that name is released.
The desire for transparency among the clubs operators is far less than I would prefer.
It's a fucking CAR CLUB folks. We are not hiding our weapon technolofy from a world menace. Just follow proper procedures, name names, and cut it with the back channel end around BS.
so....crb member, races STL potentially, that might narrow it down?
Seems to me, non-compliant SM heads are just looking for a place to play. I say ok, but add a zero to the adjustment. :rolleyes:
100% dead lock it was either Drago or Keane. It really makes no difference which. They are both "playas" when it comes to this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjabaay
EDIT - just noticing now that items from real members list the proposer's name; items from the mist just list "Club Racing Board." That's bad practice, assuming we care about transparency.
EDIT EDIT - LMFAO! I crack me up!!
K
But....1% weight? Maybe 5%.....???
Could this ACTUALLY be a field "leveler" for some cars, eliminate the "plunge gate" problems (some of these heads SUCK from the factory, and suck more than the other heads off the same engines). I'd suspect that the CRB might actually be seeking opinions! Write some letters?
I Personally think it won't benefit big k20's.
It will barely benefit b18cs.
It will barely benefit b16"s.
It will give 6-10 whp to d15/d16/Mazda bp.... although I'm a bit rusty on BP stuff
What are the "other" engines I'm not thinking of/don't see much?
Ford stuff? Chevy? Nissan sr20?
Yea, when the ITAC created something SOMEbody penned it and took charge. I did the vent window thing, I think, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knestis
Having a name attached from the CRB WOULD be cool, except, it would mean little if they just assigned a guy to sign it in leau of the actual originator.
Sure. CRB-member-name-attribution is what we call "necessary but not sufficient" for real transparency.
K
I have submitted CRB Letter #16076 on this proposal:
Quote:
Completely opposed to this proposal.
First, if the base premise for allowing porting in STL is because we cannot properly scrutineer blueprinted heads, then how does the CRB propose to properly scrutineer when the 1% adder is supposed to be applied?
Second, if that's the premise...why are you not proposing it also be applied to other classes that allow blueprinting, such as Limited Prep Production, Spec Miata, and Improved Touring? Why just SuperTouring Light?
Third, if that is not the base premise, then I'd sincerely appreciate why the CRB suddenyl took a liking to STL in order to change a major preparation cornerstone. I think you owe it to the membership to explain exactly why you suddenly decided to pull "porting in STL" out of...thin air.
Because, most importantly, that word: "philosophy". This so flies in the face of the whole original concept and philosophy of STL and why it was created as to be ridiculous.
Opposed.
Said far better (and with far fewer words) than I did.
I haven't determined what to write , or even what I feel about this....
The only thing I'm sure of is that 1% is NOT the number id assign ported cars....that's 20-30 lbs. Lololol
I think tGA nailed the intent in that the SM debacle has shed light on the tech shed grey area of allowed bluepringting vs. porting. I believe the thought is that blueprinting should allow correction of lesser STOCK head castings to be as or nearly as good as the best STOCK head castings of the same part. SM allowed and specified the dimensions for this work which makes it scrutineerable. The fact that there was full on blending and porting being done and not caught for so long is another issue and has been beaten to death, but in short we need a culture change if we want our rules to be enforced. Non-spec classes have too much variety to make plunge cuts reasonably scrutineerable, and thats AFTER everyone agrees to the allowances under blueprinting in the first place, which they do not. In SM there is a huge data set from which to cull the known maximum dimensions of factory work. I doubt there's many other engines, if any, even popular ones in SCCA, where that can be said. A single example from the OEM parts counter cannot be considered as an exemplar as it will only show another sample within the supposed maximum stock dimensions, and that's assuming you can get a NIB head casting inthe first place. Don't even try to protest someone against a used part, see runoffs 2013 STU turbo miata protest.
I think the fact is that, dispite what any philosophy statement allows, the club leadership is going to spare themselves the embarassment of the 2014 SM runoffs and be far more lenient in the declared allowances for head work. BUT - they are going about it all wrong with this proposal. Step one should adding language to the blueprinting rules of the GCR Technical Glossary regarding "plunge cuts" and other casting-matching practices as "normal range" is usually not "defined by the manufacturer" in any form the club or its membership has access to. Alternatively, consider the creation of a universal allowance based on things we DO specify, CAN observe and measure objectively, or that can be determined in another defensible manner. As Len Hoffman (performance head specialist) has pointed out, it's not hard to police if you use some numbers based on valve sizes rather than allowing "blueprinting" to indeterminant stock dimensions. He's one of those expert types we would do well to consider the input of.
The problem of weight vs. expected gains isn't a problem. Due to the improvement in design, knowledge, CFD, and casting techniques over the years, more modern heads are likely to see less benefit than older ones. older ones are likely to have a greater distribution of benefit accross the sample set of castings, which isn't a big deal as those unmodified castings will have a simillar distribution under current rules. Why set a single weight penalty for the whole of the field under such a system? How do you reconcile the performance variation of differently designed heads, if we try to at all? Currently it's not considered in STL and only marginally so in IT. LP Prod has some sort of methodology to determine weights on cars but I have no idea what it is nor how well it really works. I don't see this allowance upsetting the apple cart, and in all cases except STL, it would be fixable if it were to.
In short - I'm not against the proposal's intent as I see (imagine?) it, but I'm firmly against the single class implimentation. as worded it is myopic, poorly thought through, and implies a lack of understanding of the breadth of the subject. If this is allowed, it should be allowed in a single, universally defined set of rules for all "stock" and limitted prep heads. To do otherwise will create multiple different versions of the same intended allowance, or worse, set up additional opportunities for confusion, embarrassment, etc...
I submitted my first ever letter to the CRB ... #16150
Quote:
#15577 (Club Racing Board) Cylinder Heads. I am OPPOSED to this concept. This does not solve
any existing problem, and causes many new ones.
If it was intended to make it easier on tech personnel because they have no way of determining
whether a car is compliant or not, how will they be able to determine whether a car should have
a penalty adder applied? Therefore, if this is the perceived problem, this concept does not solve it.
Since cylinder head porting is against the philosophy of the class as originally defined, this
proposed change creates the problem of rules creep. This would cause people who have already
prepared their cars to the limit of the legal landscape to now expend futher effort and money
to chase the efforts of those who have already done so illegally.
.