SM protests of late

See that last sentence for a very true statement on "progressing" in IT racing. Until you understand the legal lengths the fast guys are going to to go fast, you won't get there.

Evan, the problem with the crate motor rule is then the $$$$ teams buy 10, dyno them, and use the one that has 2 hp more. See Spec Racer Ford.

No way to legislate out spending money in racing, and it seems to be to be the First Rule of Racing that any spec class, over time, is going to turn into an expensive mess. In fact, perhaps more expensive than a class with some open rules as the fast guys and dollar guys work extra hard to exploit the SMALL advantages the spec rules may allow.

Tom,

You missed my point completely. It was simply that everyone needs to take a long hard look at the cars at the pointy end of the field (like yours, MSN's, Greg's, mine, etc) and determine WHAT, WHY and HOW these cars are there before they go and assume wrong-doing. But when or if they do assume such a thing, there is a proper way to find out.

The majority of the people in an IT field have NO IDEA what kind of prep (both driver and car) make up a typical podium in a large field.
[/b]
Click to expand...
 
the real way to decrease costs in SM is to specifically allow B&B of the engine. it's happening anyway via much more expensive "parts bin" methods. allow it and you go buy a $200 junkyard motor, take it to joe engine builder for $2500, and you've got 98% of the power of a pro motor.
 
Let me throw another point of view into this mix. I have no answer to the cash wars approach to racing, but lets use the SRF example. Since I have never had the amount of cash it would take to buy 10 motors, dyno them, and take the one with 2 more horsepower, I hadn't even considered that a possibility.
Apparently, it has (or is) being done. That being said, my personal view is that if someone beats me because he has 2 extra ponies, then I need to learn how to drive faster! I mean, if they had 8-10 on me, I could live with myself saying someone "out motored" me, but I would truly chuckle if anyone said they got beat with 2 more horsepower! :(
We have all beaten cars with significantly more straight line speed haven't we? You have to be able to put that power to the ground in the corners, you have to have the balls (Ladies included) to steer the car around the corners, and to drive fast enough to scare the crap out of youself at least once a lap.
Anyone who thinks anything different is just kidding themselves IMHO.
O.K., I'm done, who wants a beer? :birra:

Mark P. Larson
Fast Family Racing
#83 GP Nissan 210
 
:birra: agreed 100%, but then again I have never driven a "spec car" so maybe I am wrong.

I can say that preventing someone from competing is a piss poor way of "winning" a championship and/or spot in a championship, you might has well been the person cheating. In my book your also a poor sport/looser, at least generally (I say that with emphasis) most cheaters cheat so they can at least stay up and compete, they generally don't just run away with a unchallenged victory.

Raymond
 
Let me throw another point of view into this mix. I have no answer to the cash wars approach to racing, but lets use the SRF example. Since I have never had the amount of cash it would take to buy 10 motors, dyno them, and take the one with 2 more horsepower, I hadn't even considered that a possibility.
Apparently, it has (or is) being done. That being said, my personal view is that if someone beats me because he has 2 extra ponies, then I need to learn how to drive faster! I mean, if they had 8-10 on me, I could live with myself saying someone "out motored" me, but I would truly chuckle if anyone said they got beat with 2 more horsepower! :(
We have all beaten cars with significantly more straight line speed haven't we? You have to be able to put that power to the ground in the corners, you have to have the balls (Ladies included) to steer the car around the corners, and to drive fast enough to scare the crap out of youself at least once a lap.
Anyone who thinks anything different is just kidding themselves IMHO.
O.K., I'm done, who wants a beer? :birra:

Mark P. Larson
Fast Family Racing
#83 GP Nissan 210
[/b]
Click to expand...


Mark,

All else being equal, especially w/ a low-hp car, the guy w/ 2 more hp will beat the guy that doesn't have it, every time. Keep in mind, I said "all else being equal". That means equal prep and equal drivers. IF some folks didn't think squeezing 1-3 more hp out of the car was important, you wouldn't hear stories of $40/gallon go-fast juice.
 
So, non-stock, legal to the service manual spec (lobe height only?), cams are ok anywhere until the SCCA gets better specs? Is that what I'm really reading here? And the guy who protests such a cam is the bad guy? (Maybe a bad example in this instance?)
 
So, non-stock, legal to the service manual spec (lobe height only?), cams are ok anywhere until the SCCA gets better specs? Is that what I'm really reading here? And the guy who protests such a cam is the bad guy? (Maybe a bad example in this instance?)
[/b]
Click to expand...

You've pretty much got it, Tim. The revised specs for the cams were released to the public on June 16, with an effective date of July 1; a couple of weeks after that the protest fun that is described above began.

The good is that the spec has been released and that loophole closed (or, more correctly, tightened significantly).

The bad is that it caught a significant number of competitors in a bad spot - their pro-built motors, which were "legal" in June, were now "illegal" in July; the only change being the tightening of the spec.

Jake, you're not the only one wondering.

Bill -- well said.

Jarrod
 
So, non-stock, legal to the service manual spec (lobe height only?), cams are ok anywhere until the SCCA gets better specs? Is that what I'm really reading here? And the guy who protests such a cam is the bad guy? (Maybe a bad example in this instance?)

[/b]
Click to expand...

I am going to disagree here. Not hard to write a protest to get a cam like that deemed illegal. It's just that nobody did because most thought it was grey. Remember, the cam rule in IT is the same as in SM and SS. Only a 'lift' spec is published. So some would say that if no spec is there, they can build to suit. I say no way.

1. You write a protest that the cam is not stock and not a 'stock replacment part' per the GCR.

2. You alledge that the cam does not meet factory specs - and that not all factory specs are published

3. You provide all the factory specs

4. You request that the SCCA procure some used and some new cams for this model (on your bond)

5. You request that they compare lift, duration, overlap, weight, anything you can think of...

6. You ask them to apply normal factory tolerences for these specs to the results of the research and then compare to the protested cams. If they are illegal, you should be able to nab them.

I think you will find that just becuse there isn't a spec in the book, doesn't mean you can't prove it is 'out of spec' when a sampling of known stock parts are used for comparision.
 
I guess I'm another who doesn't understand that 2 hp is so important. When watching some of the pro race interviews (World Challenge & GrandAm - yes, I realize they're not spec cars) several drivers were talking about how they were not too concerned that they are down a few HP on some of the other cars. They then went on to talk about how in road racing it isn't as important than in oval racing. Thought it was interesting that was being said even at that level.

Especially important in low HP cars...my car is 110 HP stock (similar to a Miata, no?). I would love to be within 2 hp of other cars. Alright, I would really like to have way more hp. :) If I had a decision of spending several thousand dollars on getting an extra 2 hp or obtaining lots professional coaching, I'd take the coaching everyday.
 
problem is we are not talking about 2 hp with these cams...try 6-8...and yes they are illegal. If anyone is manipulating the rules to fit the spec in their head (the one on their shoulders) they are cheating. Same goes for IT. It says stock cams. Not stock specs. A re-profiled cam is not legal period in my humble opinion. These motors are taking away from our sport the ability and talent of our drivers. Yes the guys at the front will spare no expense for that power like any series, but c'mon we need to keep it equal so the talent is what wins...not budget and rules manipulation. That is the point of spec racing. Get the benders out now and keep em scared so we have legal equipment out there and good racing.
 
I am going to disagree with Evan on the hp potential of these cams as I have talked extensivley with engine builders about them. The point is that in a spec class where most of teh IT variables are taken out, you try and grab 2hp here and 2hp there in order to maximize your effort.

The cars in IT are so different that you will never notice 2hp. But in SM, 5hp can be a 4% increase - with all the same suspension, aero, tranny ratios, etc. It's all about driving and power. If everyone in IT ran ITB Preludes, you had better believe you would notice who had more power.
 
The 2 hp example was from a previous thread regarding SRF, and someone buying 10 to find the one with 2 extra hp.
Let me try another approach as to why (in my opinion) the 2 hp is of little consequence. Are we all so confident in our driving skills that we think we are getting 100% out of our cars every lap?? I have logged thousands of hours of seat time in my old ITC car, and ran every race, ECR, practice session, test day etc. that I could afford. I can honestly say that my car was still faster than I could drive it, even with all that seat time.
I would bet the farm that if I let Randy Pobst drive my car for a couple of hours, he could beat all the lap records at every track I ever held one at (which is a few). I stand by what I said. Keep your $40 go-fast juice. Learn how to drive faster, and more consistantly. I know I learn a few things EVERY time I go to the track. Again, 6-8 hp, then you're getting into the range that I would say was an acceptable reason to complain about!
I'm also with Evan on the reground cam thing. In my old school way of thinking, all those SM cams that were "legal" before were, IMHO, illegal from the beginning. All my cams came from 100,000 mile street cars.
Mark P Larson
Fast Family Racing
#83 GP Nissan 210
 
Evan, the problem with the crate motor rule is then the $$$$ teams buy 10, dyno them, and use the one that has 2 hp more. See Spec Racer Ford.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Ricky thinks this makes racing cheaper. Now 9 motors are released back to the racing public at a discounted price from those high dollar chrome and fancy paint racing teams.

Shake and Bake Baby!!!!

Ricky
 
I still think it i more than 2hp on cams...that with the cheated up ecu's I saw in January at homestead and rebuilt/revalved shocks with decent drivers will make everyone else look like beginners...thats why im sour on SM...oh and Andy its not about peak HP as you said before its all under the curve....
 
I still think it i more than 2hp on cams...that with the cheated up ecu's I saw in January at homestead and rebuilt/revalved shocks with decent drivers will make everyone else look like beginners...thats why im sour on SM [/b]
Click to expand...

And how many of these cheated up ECU's did you protest? I hate to hear stuff like this. Protest the known cheaters and the class will clean up - ANY class. You can't be sour if you don't act.
 
I ran a friends car in January and was helping support 2 others. I was in the worlds slowest SM (a friends street car) and got passed on the front straight after I hit the rev limiter in 4th AND shifted to 5th during qual. by 2 cars well over the rev limit in 4th (front runners). It was not unnoticed. I race ITA mainly and when I go full on to SM if ever you know I will throw papers at them. I was just disgusted and turned off from it and had too much to do than argue with some idiots. In retrospect I should have done it and wish I did but you can't change the past. I was just too busy changing transmissions in 3 cars and replacing 2 diffs for others. priorities.
 
WARNING: Hijack in process.

I am going to disagree here. Not hard to write a protest to get a cam like that deemed illegal. It's just that nobody did because most thought it was grey. Remember, the cam rule in IT is the same as in SM and SS. Only a 'lift' spec is published. So some would say that if no spec is there, they can build to suit. I say no way.

1. You write a protest that the cam is not stock and not a 'stock replacment part' per the GCR.

2. You alledge that the cam does not meet factory specs - and that not all factory specs are published

3. You provide all the factory specs

4. You request that the SCCA procure some used and some new cams for this model (on your bond)

5. You request that they compare lift, duration, overlap, weight, anything you can think of...

6. You ask them to apply normal factory tolerences for these specs to the results of the research and then compare to the protested cams. If they are illegal, you should be able to nab them.

I think you will find that just becuse there isn't a spec in the book, doesn't mean you can't prove it is 'out of spec' when a sampling of known stock parts are used for comparision.
[/b]
Click to expand...

A minor disagreement here WRT IT cam protests (SM is different as the spec is now published). GCR 13.4.1.E.2 requires that the protestor supply a known stock cam from the same make, model and year of the protested car. I suppose that's in there because Jeremy and/or John do not have the time to chase down a stock comparison cam for every protest that comes in the door.

Now the question becomes where do you get a "known stock" cam, especially since "known" isn't defined. There is no provision for simply providing factory specs, if you could even find them.

For my car, for example, I don't think you bop on down to your neighborhood Datsun dealer and pick one up.

If it's not brand new, in the factory wrap, can I argue the comparison cam isn't a "known stock" cam? If so, can I now run any cam duration I want, assuming only lift is specified in the FSM? I don't think so, but how would anyone prove otherwise?
 
I guess we are lucky (drivers of current cars) where we can bob down to the local Acura/Honda/Nissan/Mazda dealer and just buy a set of new ones and bring them along to races for that purpose...as for an out of prod car...see if anyone has protested cams in the past and see if the profile info is on a database somewhere...

and you may be surprised...go to the Nissan dealer and ask for a new cam for the 240z...they will probably have the part number and may have them. I was amazed when I worked for nissan that they had computer based info and current part numbers for cars built in the 60's! And parts still available for them...
 
WARNING: Hijack in process.
...... GCR 13.4.1.E.2 requires that the protestor supply a known stock cam from the same make, model and year of the protested car. I suppose that's in there because Jeremy and/or John do not have the time to chase down a stock comparison .........
[/b]
Click to expand...


That's not exactly how the passage reads, as the word "protester" isn't specified. It does say though, that the cam be "Supplied". But by who?

Which leaves open a huge conflict of interest issue. The protester can NOT supply comparision parts during a protest, even if he is the formost expert in a particualar field. Its a blatant conflict of interest. (A similar situation occurred during a protest we made requiring compression measurement. They didn't have the tools. We offered. They said,'no'. They were right to, of course, because we could provide doctored measuring tools.)

I read that passage and am unclear as to the channel that that cam is to travel on it's way to being compared in Kansas. Thats worrisome. I thought Miata cams were on file in the databanks in Kansas.

I think one of the issues adding to the gray area is the replacement parts rule. In IT, it's doesn't have to be a part made by the stock manufacturer, so it becomes incumbent on the protester to prove the new part doesn't meet the specs in a meaningful way.....
 
Just wondering if a STOCK CAM is required why bother listing a max. lift value? It can't/shouldn't be used as a guide for tech when the protestor is to supply a known stock part for comparison.

I bought a past mulitple championship winning car (not a Miata), which had been protested several times for various things and always found legal. After winning my first race in that car in a new to me class very easily, I took it to my motor builder for a closer look--for my own peace of mind.

That cam had stock lift , timing and duration at .050" lift. What wasn't as apparent is the lift measurements at every 10 degrees of crank rotation. This motor was a cam in block design so wasn't readily apparent with rounder looking lobes. In the end it might have made (3-4%) difference in HP. Was it cheating? Absolutely! But only because our rule spec called for a "stock OEM cam" this cam was ground to appear stock under the normal tech inspection standards and practices for determining compliance. Had our rule specified stock lift, timing of opening and closing of the vavles, duration at .050" lift and lobe centers it absolutely would have been a legal cam. Now about the slightly modified rocker arms. Instead of a 1:1 ratio (stock) they were about 1.04:1--there is another 4% lift at the valve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top