Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: STL cylinder head porting

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Who is the crb member?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    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.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

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

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ashfield, MA
    Posts
    41

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by cchandler; 12-23-2014 at 12:10 PM. Reason: Smiley
    Christian J. Chandler
    BMW 318is
    #26 ITA
    JiM Power

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamjabaay View Post
    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
    Last edited by Knestis; 12-23-2014 at 04:51 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    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?
    Last edited by adamjabaay; 12-23-2014 at 10:12 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    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.
    Last edited by lateapex911; 12-24-2014 at 03:54 AM.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

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

    K

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,330

    Default

    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.
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arlington, VA USA
    Posts
    515

    Default

    Said far better (and with far fewer words) than I did.
    Gregg Ginsberg
    '96 Civic EX -- MARRS ITA #72
    WDCR-SCCA Rookie of the Year 2003
    MARRS ITA/T3 Drivers rep

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    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

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    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...
    Last edited by Chip42; 12-30-2014 at 10:43 AM.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Weare, NH
    Posts
    483

    Default

    I submitted my first ever letter to the CRB ... #16150

    #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.

    .

    Glenn Lawton
    GSMmotorsports
    #14 ITS RX7
    NARRC ITS Champion 2012
    NERRC ITS Champion 2013 12 11 10 09 08
    NERRC STU Champion 2010

    __________________

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •