January 2022 Fastrack

One thing the PAC may want to adjust (unless this is intentional?)

There are three listing for verbiage change in camshafts in the TB. These changes state specifically (for example):

Comp. Ratio limited to 11.0:1. Valve lift limited to .425”.

The words "limited to" were added, and "max" was stricken. This means that these cars can only run the listed valve lift, without deviation. This means that anything less than that is not allowed.

Is this the intent? If so, I'd find that hard to understand...

Edit: GCR Appendix G.2.11 (p146, Dec 2021) states, "Valve lift is absolute maximum." I'm curious what the purpose of adding "limited to" is; seems confusing and (at best) redundant.
 
Oversite for sure.
What did I miss about the Spit 1500 and Spridget 1500? Are the engines the same? Why would the weights not be?


Glad to see SCCA trying to keep racing cost in check by tossing a carrot to Prod racers running 100TW tires.
Not even 2%?? Really .
 
"Comp. Ratio limited to XX.X:1. Valve lift limited to .XXX”."

That has been the standard verbiage/structure for listing those spec forever. Look through the Prod spec lines and you'll see it. The change you're referencing in this Fastrack was only done for consistency to this. The issue you're taking with it is one you could've had ten years ago, which is reading the word "limited" as "limited in option" and not "limited in max value". It's a point one could argue I suppose, but I think everyone understands the intent, and it's not anything new.


The PAC has zero interest in trying to balance the ability of one tire versus another through weight adders. Nothing in the rules stops you from using those 100TW tires, or a 200TW tire, or a DOT-R tire, or a bias ply slick, or a radial slick, or a Goodyear slick, or a Hoosier slick, whatever. But starting to toss weight adders or subtractors based on what tire you chose to run, in order to try and balance the performance ability of one versus the other? No thanks. And if that's not the point of the weight subtractor, to make it a competitive option, than what's the point at all?


I found this to be interesting under "Recommended Items":
GCR
1. #30855 (James Devenport) Request use of tire warmers
Effective 03/01/2022 In GCR 9.3.46., TIRE WARMERS, change as follows:
"Pre-heating of tires prior to competition by electrically heated covers or similar means is prohibited( on the grid)."

They removed the "on the grid" wording, so now not only is it still illegal on the grid *cough2020FPRunoffsracecough*, it's also now illegal in the paddock or anywhere else.
 
Protech Racing":1f2c4qm3 said:
Oversite for sure.
What did I miss about the Spit 1500 and Spridget 1500? Are the engines the same? Why would the weights not be?
Click to expand...

The chassis are entirely different, and per the PAC, warrant different weights.

Protech Racing":1f2c4qm3 said:
Glad to see SCCA trying to keep racing cost in check by tossing a carrot to Prod racers running 100TW tires.
Not even 2%?? Really .
Click to expand...

Racing has never been cheap. Unfortunately, you need to spend money to go fast. It's always been that way. But per Kevin's reply... you don't need to drop coin to have fun. You can run whatever tire you like to save money and still have just as much fun on track as the rest of the group.
 
Stiner0931":3r86g9ie said:
Protech Racing":3r86g9ie said:
Oversite for sure.
What did I miss about the Spit 1500 and Spridget 1500? Are the engines the same? Why would the weights not be?
Click to expand...

The chassis are entirely different, and per the PAC, warrant different weights.

How come I could not get a weight break VS the BMW 1600 with my solid axle Toyota? BMW is still l ighter.

Protech Racing":3r86g9ie said:
Glad to see SCCA trying to keep racing cost in check by tossing a carrot to Prod racers running 100TW tires.
Not even 2%?? Really .
Click to expand...

Racing has never been cheap. Unfortunately, you need to spend money to go fast. It's always been that way. But per Kevin's reply... you don't need to drop coin to have fun. You can run whatever tire you like to save money and still have just as much fun on track as the rest of the group.
Click to expand...

Racing cost money for sure . I am aware that SCCA has prided itself on being the best armature racing around.
Face the reality that H Production is one of the cheapest entry level classes that we have . Reducing the running cost per race is a large part of retention. A lousy 2% weight off may entice some racers to buy these tires, race for 4 weekends or more . Win for the regions, win for the racers. What is the downside?? Anything?

The cost per weekend for me is about 2000$ with slicks and 1000 or less on 100TW tires. How many races will I do at 2000 per? How many will I skip to save tires ? Am I the only one ? Doubt it. Just the loudest .
What is the result? 3-5 cars per class per race. That seems to be the number for many of the Majors and most regionals.
Now with the Runoffs qualifying being whatever it is. Racers stay home and pick a couple of races to drive around at. Maybe with cheaper cost per event, more would race more than the bare minimum. Econ 101 says that it is so. Inverse cost participation equation or something like that.

I will pursue a Regional level 100TW weight correction, put cash in for those racers, and try my best to promote HP 100.
The SE division has SM Toyo, SMSE and maybe more classes+ of SM Miata. All aimed to reducing cost and increasing participation. And those classes are flourishing . Simple math . It's not rocket science.
Keep in mind that all of the alternate series race on 200TW tires and kick our ass numerically . The tire cost was a major selling point of those series. We ran the same tires for at least 2 events. 24 - 30 hrs was not out of range .
Finally , I will try to make a couple of Northern races in 22 and try my hardest to beat Jason Stine with my 24HC 100 TW tires . :)
 
Protech Racing":i1kd0wvd said:
Finally , I will try to make a couple of Northern races in 22 and try my hardest to beat Jason Stine with my 24HC 100 TW tires . :)
Click to expand...

Come up any time! I’ll even take you out to dinner so you can save $$ and buy more 100 TW skins :D
 
Chris Crisenbery":5k12xztx said:
so the 1500 Sprite gets 1.25in Carbs?, I would certainly think that should be allowed on the Spitfire as well.
Click to expand...

I think THAT was an oversight. Looks like it was just a copy and paste from the 1275 spec line for carb allowances. Should be the same carb as the Spitfire 1500 and unless I’m mistaken, the 1500 never came stock with an SU carb in the US. It was an aftermarket upgrade and the ZS is standard. Therefore, that spec line should be changed to have the same wording as the spit 1500 and not allow 1.25 SU.

Kevin or Bill T - can you comment? I do not believe this was intended…
 
Yes, that's wrong. I've already sent in the request to have it corrected. It should be the same as what the Spitfire Prep2 1500 has.
 
Stiner0931":1nolihhz said:
Chris Crisenbery":1nolihhz said:
so the 1500 Sprite gets 1.25in Carbs?, I would certainly think that should be allowed on the Spitfire as well.
Click to expand...

I think THAT was an oversight. Looks like it was just a copy and paste from the 1275 spec line for carb allowances. Should be the same carb as the Spitfire 1500 and unless I’m mistaken, the 1500 never came stock with an SU carb in the US. It was an aftermarket upgrade and the ZS is standard. Therefore, that spec line should be changed to have the same wording as the spit 1500 and not allow 1.25 SU.

Kevin or Bill T - can you comment? I do not believe this was intended…
Click to expand...

I would rather run the 1.25" carbs than the Weber/ Pierce as I have lots of SU's and understanding of them over the alternative....heck lets go 1.5" as those did come on the 1500's
 
I still don't understand why my request to have cam lift checked the same on all cars (as raced) was denied and then not published in the October FastTrack as indicated. Letter number 31071 was answered but the answer contradicted itself and I don't believe the writer understood the question. I would love to see it revived by someone who knows motors.
 
Chuck , I put the same letter in . " We dont want racers to have to get new cams for the 010 in lash value. "
So some run at full lift and some run with l lift minus lash .
 
I understand Mike, BUT .010" ???? Perhaps in a class where less that a couple of hp makes a difference...I'm damn sure not going to change anything I've built for the extra lift. I get more performance from chassis tuning. AND, anyone that has been around long enough will know this will not cause a wholesale run on cams :roll:
My Request:
Title: Scrutinizing request: Cam Lift
Author's Request: Certain engines such as the Nissan "L" series are allowed to have cam lift checked as raced. Other engines are required to have cam timing checked at "0" lash. My request is to have all cam lift measurements made in production "AS RACED".

Unfortunately, since it was not published I can't include a copy. Maybe Kevin can help if he is lurking?
 
My letter #31227 for the same request of valve lift measurement has also vanished. I put in the request for consistency and simplicity from a scrutineer's viewpoint. As an engine builder, I also don't believe someone is to likely revamp their engine program over .010".
 
You can thank spec piniata for the cam lift checking rules. Cams were designed to jump off the lobes as raced to get around rules. Not sure it matters in Production with open profile.

And this place is slipping with no comment on the restrictor plate changes. :D
 
Steve Eckerich":14flmsvs said:
And this place is slipping with no comment on the restrictor plate changes. :D
Click to expand...

Probably because there is 100% consensus on its necessity! :lol:

AMIRIGHT? :whistle:
 
Our letters simply concern lift measurement as raced. Much easier to place a dial indicator over the valve tip and turn the engine , than it is to zero lash the valve and try to measure lift.
Our letters all look to measure the lift as raced , so that a closer correlation can exist between the pushrod cars and OHC cars.
IMHO all of the pushrod engines should be allowed an extra .010 lift if the rule stays the same .

There is no rule against lofting cams .
Lofting cam lobes and valve spring tension is not addressed and needs not to be addressed IMHO. Lots of shitbreaks too often to be useful for us.
 
Chuck Baader":1x4tam7h said:
My Request...Unfortunately, since it was not published I can't include a copy. Maybe Kevin can help if he is lurking?
Click to expand...
September 7th Club Racing Board Minutes, under the "Not Recommended" section:
1. #31071 (Charles Baader) Scrutineering request: Cam Lift
Thank you for your letter. How valve lift is to be measured on all Prep Level 2 cars is already defined in 9.1.5.E.2.f.7:
“Where maximum valve lift is specified, valve lift is measured at the valve with zero lash or clearance."

There are a few exceptions to this rule, where a spec line specifically allows for valve lift to be "measured as raced - w/ lash". These spec lines are from the original "Limited Prep" classifications that were made, many years ago, and that was the process/ruling at that time. As the "Prep Level 2" ruleset matured, and more waves of cars got classified to it, this measurement method was re-evaluated and changed to the current rule. Previous classifications have since been allowed to "grandfather" their original rules. Just as competition balance is monitored between Prep Level 1 and Prep Level 2 cars, the same is true for these original "pseudo-Limited Prep" classifications. Reverting this valve lift measurement process again would not make building these cars any easier, would not balance the performance potential of the field, and just tempt competitors to re-do their cam designs to chase an extra few thousandths of lift. Due to all of that, this request is not recommended.
Click to expand...

Chuck Baader":1x4tam7h said:
Letter number 31071 was answered but the answer contradicted itself and I don't believe the writer understood the question. I would love to see it revived by someone who knows motors.
Click to expand...
The writer was me, and reviewed and approved by the rest of the PAC and the CRB. It's was also way more thorough than a typical response, so not sure how much more you need. I was surprised I was allowed to even include that much reasoning! :lol:

Chuck Baader":1x4tam7h said:
I still don't understand why my request to have cam lift checked the same on all cars (as raced) was denied...
Click to expand...
We talked at the ARRC on why it was denied, and although you didn't like the answer because it didn't allow you guys to buy some off the shelf cams that would be legal to the max lift WITH lash included in the measurement, you understood why....because people will then absolutely try to get higher lift cams that meet the max rule WITH lash included. :wink:

Chuck Baader":1x4tam7h said:
...anyone that has been around long enough will know this will not cause a wholesale run on cams :roll:
Click to expand...
You've also been around long enough to know that you can't save racers from themselves. If you give them even a slight sliver of perceived gains to maybe be had, they WILL try to exploit them. So what's the point in even doing it?

Sam Moore":1x4tam7h said:
My letter #31227 for the same request of valve lift measurement has also vanished. I put in the request for consistency and simplicity from a scrutineer's viewpoint. As an engine builder, I also don't believe someone is to likely revamp their engine program over .010".
Click to expand...
October 19th Club Racing Board Minutes, under the "Taken Care Of" section:
2. #31227 (Sam Moore) Valve Lift Measuring Procedure
Thank you for your letter. Please see the response to letter #31071 in the October Fastrack.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top