STL cylinder head porting

[lateapex911]

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.

[adamjabaay]

so....crb member, races STL potentially, that might narrow it down?

[cchandler]

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.

[Knestis]

so....crb member, races STL potentially, that might narrow it down?

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.

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

[adamjabaay]

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?

[lateapex911]

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.

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

Yea, when the ITAC created something SOMEbody penned it and took charge. I did the vent window thing, I think, and so on.
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.

[Knestis]

Sure. CRB-member-name-attribution is what we call "necessary but not sufficient" for real transparency.

K

[Greg Amy]

I have submitted CRB Letter #16076 on this proposal:

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.

[Gregg]

Said far better (and with far fewer words) than I did.