Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: STL cylinder head porting

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default STL cylinder head porting

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    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....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    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.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamjabaay View Post
    I was surprised to see the question in fastrack. I'll be writing a reply....
    Wait...what??? That did not come out of the STAC...

    GA, re-reading Fastrack as we speak...
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 12-20-2014 at 09:55 AM.
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    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.)
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 12-20-2014 at 09:57 AM.
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Yup...

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

    Default

    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    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".
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dickita15 View Post
    well, Kirk i would rather think that given the recent unpleasantness is SM smart people are thinking about bigger philosophical issues.
    Yeah, that's probably what it is.

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

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    I feel bad for pointing out something that might have ruined tGAs Saturday. Ha

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamjabaay View Post
    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...

    No matter what, there's always something else...

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

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    PHEW!

    I'll go back to work now.... keep having fun!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dickita15 View Post
    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".
    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.

    K

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    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.

    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.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    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

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    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.
    Only because I "opened my mouth " above, I want to clarify this above post to correct an inaccuracy.

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

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC US
    Posts
    1,626

    Default

    Deleted. Total waste of time.
    Last edited by seckerich; 12-22-2014 at 12:03 PM.
    Steve Eckerich
    ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
    ITR RX8 (under construction)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    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

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    107

    Default

    I love how this happened the same day I was put on stac. Lol?
    Last edited by adamjabaay; 12-21-2014 at 06:29 PM.

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
  •