mark kibort

I was walking by the tech tent.... its a nut-house for sure..... all these guys pulling engines out of the formula cars, taking things apart, like this was the indy 500. the most crazy thing is, is that these tech guys are all working for free too!

hf1

Amazing development. Hopefully SM racing benefits from this going forward.
Something to be said for picking your race car out of a hat, which is what I'll be doing with Skippy at Limerock on Fri & Sat.

ep3_lol

I guess NASA isn't the only organization with this type of problem. I agree with the above comments blaming the competitors/engine builders. If there's an ambiguity, you should absolutely seek clarification before making a decision.

baddogz28

"I loved the game. Maybe I'd have four of five new things on a car that might raise a question. But I'd always leave something that was outside of the regulations in a place where the inspectors could easily find it. They'd tell me it was illegal, I'd plead guilty, and they'd carry it away thinking they caught me. But they didn't check some other things that I thought were even more special."

-Junior Johnson

hf1

LINK

Video coverage of the race
(After 2:50:00).

paradocs98

Perfect.

ProCoach

This is not new. The engine builder who posted on Mazda Racers (who I would use if I were running that class) was very clear in his mea culpa. He said his error in judgement was to decide against asking for clarification of the STR wording. He didn't, went with his own interpretation (as did several others, so this was not some isolated case) and another group of competitors decided to ask for a clarification (by protest, they HAVE to identify pretty exactly what they think is wrong) SO LATE in the deal that there was no way for the protested parties to fix it. That's the way the system works, and it's worked for a long time.

The problem began when SM was elevated to a National class. Once people "have license to spend," the sky is the limit and rules will be further pushed. While I applaud the folks that do well in National Championship racing, in the end, that trophy and $5 will get you a cup of Starbucks...

It's a game...

hf1

"Rule creep" is just a symptom. The problem (cause) is the infiltration of governing bodies by engine builders ("pro-shops") whose interest is to make rules as vague and open to interpretation as possible so that they can keep selling their "secret magic juice" at top $$$ premiums to vane rich racers. A $30k buys you only a "mediocre" SM today. Some people are convinced they must give $60k+ to one of these "pro-shops" in order to get a nationally competitive car. If rules were simple, rigid, and clear then all cars would be contained within a tight 2% performance band. No one would pay $30k for a <2% advantage.

Nothing will change until racers take control over their governing bodies.

sbelles

What was the justification for the rule in the first place? If it's to fix a reliability issue then it should have been written better. If it purely for performance then it's idiotic in a spec class.

MUSSBERGER

The plunge cut sounds like an excuse to get away with some "clean up" of the ports.

Circuit Motorsports

To balance out variation in factory parts. Intent was so that all heads were equal in that area. There was a fair amount of variation in that part of the head from the factory.

sbelles

Got it. That's a tougher one. Perhaps they should allow a single aftermarket head.

hf1

Here's the history (a 2009 thread). Some folks predicted this outcome even then.

Now, the argument by the pro-shops goes (as always), since so many have cheated the illegal should be made legal for 2015 -- forcing all legal cars to pay said shops for the "adjustment". The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I like two possible solutions.
(1) Sealed engines (prepped, dynoed, certified, and sealed by a group of selected shops.)

or, to avoid games with parts outside the engine block

(2) Put the podium cars and three other cars chosen at random on the dyno right after each race. Plot the hp and torque curves for all to see right next to the race results. So you "won" with +10hp across the whole rpm range? Good boy. Congrats!

FullThrottle64

Two observations:

1) Apparently, the Fomula Vee podium was also wiped out, with one of the cars being DQ'd for a .001" valve lift violation. Limits are limits, and rules are rules - they (SCCA tech) were being consistent.

2) Sealed engine classes also exist in SCCA, for those who don't want to argue over the build of their engine. I drive one - FE - and there are also FM and SRF as options. I bought my FE right after I sold my Spec Miata; I found that I could go faster for a lot less money buy buying into a true spec class, even if the initial outlay for the car seemed more expensive. FWIW, SCCA has done the "dyno chart" testing mentioned above; they impounded and tested the top three Runoffs engines, then posted the dyno charts on their website.

3) If you're going to run in a "spec" class that uses "stock" engines, you need to have the money to buy 5 engines from the top prep shop, dyno them, sell the 3 weakest, run the 2nd-strongest through the season, and save the best for the Runoffs. If you're not ready to do this, then you're not going to be at the pointy end of the grid.

9.5 Degrees

Is anyone here really surprised? It's been a LONG time since Spec was in Spec Miata racing. The costs to run a competitive car has gone up steadily since the inception. Cheap and Spec Miata do not belong in the same sentence.

Even though it's "Porsche", Spec 944 racing is much more affordable at both the PCA and NASA levels of racing.