Runoffs F-Prod

Let's we all back track to the beginning of restricted preparation production cars for a bit of the 1996 philosophy of restricted preparation production cars.

1996 SportsCar article, "Back to Basics"
Finding a future for production car racing.
Increasing technology with rising costs has lead to dwindling participation.
What the Comp Board has created, it hopes is a car that the average person can build and maintain in his garage and then run a serious challenge in National Club races. Then called restricted prep (cost effective for the average person) and today called prep level 2.
From here forward we have un-restricted prep cars (prep level 1 today, not cost effective for the average person) and restricted prep cars (prep level 2 today cost effective for the average person). Please don't anyone go down the road that there was no advantage of thermal barrier coating the intake manifold.

One rule example early on that has been discussed many times and was/is outside the 1996 philosophy of restricted prep and is not cost effective for the average person is as was called back then the "alternate control arm" and to day is called "un-restricted control arm".

Today some players believe there is a thermal barrier rule which allows thermal barrier coating the outside of the intake manifold (please check the 1996 philosophy, cost effective for the average person, not) and they also believe in some "intent" from years gone by along with there are "some things that need to be cleaned up".

The precedent set using GCR 1.2.3.C. Conflicts among or between portions of the GCR are handled as follows. The mandatory precedent set through these rules is that each of the three conflict rules, 1, 2 and 3 the succeeding rule overrides the preceding rule. Taking this mandatory precedent into account it would logically suggest that within any one of these three rule groups, 1, 2, and 3 that the a succeeding rule within a rule group would override a preceding rule within the same rule group.

Hence the following, there is no Specification Line rule for the intake manifold, therefore the very last intake manifold rule 9.1.5.E.2.b.7. and the last sentence within the intake manifold rule within Production Category Specifications is, "The intake manifold can not otherwise be modified" which by previous logically suggested precedent above overrides a preceding rule 9.1.5.E.2.a.3 "stock and permitted alternate components of the drive train can have thermal barrier and friction altering coatings applied" within the same Production Category Specification. Thermal coating the intake manifold is illegal. Oh, and it's not 1996 philosophy cost effective for the average person.

Didn't care to wait for or have for the FasTrack COA views cloud my GCR rules understanding. After the FasTrack I may or may not send in a letter with the above understanding/precedent.

I do agree one item should be cleaned up and that would be to add an item 4. to rule 1.2.3.C. Conflicts among or between portions of the GCR are handled as follows. Item 4. A succeeding rule within a rule group/portion/specification/spec line would override a preceding rule within the same rule group

Open for your thoughts and discussion.

David Dewhurst
F production Miata #14
SCCA #250772
 
I know it's sad that I just watched this race, but HOLY CRAP, that was exciting. Awesome race, guys.
 
I'm going to assume that Eric did not change his intake manifold during the week. If this is the case then why wasn't this brought up after the Monday qualifying session? His car was in impound and the compression ratio checked. It has to be impossible to do that and not see the exterior intake coating. If it wasn't an issue on Monday then why was it an issue on Sat.?
I don't know who's car Will is refering to but if the intake cannot be modified with a thermal barrier coating then can it be wrapped with a thermal barrier material which is removable? Remove the material and the manifold is stock.
 
It's the same manifold that has been on his car for the last 5 years and been in impound many times in those years. No change. I think a couple of competitors may have blown a whistle on this one. Sad to think an external intake manifold coating is the reason the guy is beating you. Agree 100% with Kevin Dennis that it just needs to be cleaned up a bit. Easy and done.

Jim, I've always liked you but I think the main problem may be in your demeanor towards the competitors and how you relay your thoughts and opinions. Just trying to help!
 
Jesse, or anyone else, not to argue, but taking into account the 1996 production car philosophy do you believe thermal coating the intake manifold is a cost effective process for the average racer? Do you believe these sort of rule slides is what got us to restricted cars to begin with? All the accumulative items (legal or illegal) is what wins races along with a wheel-man. Very intriguing no comments with respect to the conflict between portions precedent set and continued into each separate group of rules? This again continuous white wash brush will bring production car racing back to the dwindling cars as was in the 90's. There is a good reason why one class had 62 Runoff entries even if a pro car cost is $40,000.00 at the get-go. Had I owned an F production car when I first noticed the coated intake manifold several years ago I would have talked to the car owner/driver and went thru the rules as I did in my first post above.

David Dewhurst
F production Miata #14
SCCA #250772
 
David - Your response is typical of the guys who think that just because it is legal you have to have it to go fast. The early LP philosophy that called for the ability to be COMPETITIVE with a low dollar effort did not mean or imply that you would WIN the runoffs. Heck, there are plenty of people who have all of the goodies and run mid pack. It certainly takes more than a coated manifold to run up front at a national championship. Do you have to have Carrillo rods in an H Spridget? NO. But there are some that voted against it because it would, in their mind, increase the cost of racing.

Granted, the guys that run up front typically have everything, but that includes driving talent. Limited Prep does not mean limited dollars spent to run at the pointy end. Loshak's Honda or Craig Chima's "Limited Prep" Spridget comes to mind. If you want to be competitive during a regular season Majors event you can do it with a limited budget. If you want to run up front at the Runoffs, bring money, and that applies to EVERY class.
 
Its fun to watch you guys argue over something that had absolutely zero impact on the performance of this car. But I bet it did look nice.

It must be silly season.

-Kyle
 
I've been watching this for several days and if a scrutineer sees a non-compliant item on a car then puts it on the race/next qualifying session he/she is committing an unsportsmanlike :twisted: act. Such a non-compliance can result in a disqualification and letting a driver run knowing a DSQ will result sucks :-[... . Double secret probation anyone? I've had to work with people like this but I don't have to play with them :evil:
 
disquek":336z06j2 said:
Its fun to watch you guys argue over something that had absolutely zero impact on the performance of this car. But I bet it did look nice.

It must be silly season.

-Kyle
Click to expand...
Kyle - As I am sure you know, it is not a question of performance, it is a question of legality. There are a lot of little things that can be done that have almost zero effect on improving performance, but add up. As stated, the rules need to be cleaned up to take care of this ambiguity.

FIAT90FP":336z06j2 said:
I've been watching this for several days and if a scrutineer sees a non-compliant item on a car then puts it on the race/next qualifying session he/she is committing an unsportsmanlike act. Such a non-compliance can result in a disqualification and letting a driver run knowing a DSQ will result sucks...
Click to expand...
Bob - Since there was at first a DSQ and then an overturn it was not an obviously non-compliant item. You can't expect a scrutineer to call that out during a quick post-qualifying tech visit.
 
disquek":35tsosq9 said:
Its fun to watch you guys argue over something that had absolutely zero impact on the performance of this car. But I bet it did look nice.

It must be silly season.

-Kyle
Click to expand...


Bingo!
 
The issue of legality in the post-race tech shed is not trivial or comical and has nothing to do with performance potential. I watched my friend Bob Weber get screwed out of a National Championship for having valves that were a couple thousandths oversize on the face diameter. Dan C and I pleaded with the Tech Officials to allow it because we knew it had ZERO effect on performance but they wouldn't do it and he was DSQ'd.
 
Ron and others, I understand. My total point of backtracking to 1996 was/is to remind how and why limited prep came about, dwindling car count. It has NOTHING to do with driver talent, it has to do with the rule white wash brush being used. If this coating the intake manifold had zero added advantage, why coat the manifold. I had Bob Weber's deal in mind when I wrote my original post. No one wants to comment about the word "alternate control arm" that was allowed at the get-go of limited prep and how may times that error has been posted about, not required. A great example of not required would be none other than Jesse and his F prod Miata championships with basically OEM control arms with Delrin bushings. The bushings may have been eccentric adjustable, didn't want to get busted snooping deeper under Jesse's car, all tho I'm sure he would have allowed one to look.

David Dewhurst
F production Miata #14
SCCA #250772
 
David Dewhurst":35ad6wob said:
The precedent set using GCR 1.2.3.C. Conflicts among or between portions of the GCR are handled as follows. The mandatory precedent set through these rules is that each of the three conflict rules, 1, 2 and 3 the succeeding rule overrides the preceding rule. Taking this mandatory precedent into account it would logically suggest that within any one of these three rule groups, 1, 2, and 3 that the a succeeding rule within a rule group would override a preceding rule within the same rule group.

Hence the following, there is no Specification Line rule for the intake manifold, therefore the very last intake manifold rule 9.1.5.E.2.b.7. and the last sentence within the intake manifold rule within Production Category Specifications is, "The intake manifold can not otherwise be modified" which by previous logically suggested precedent above overrides a preceding rule 9.1.5.E.2.a.3 "stock and permitted alternate components of the drive train can have thermal barrier and friction altering coatings applied" within the same Production Category Specification. Thermal coating the intake manifold is illegal. Oh, and it's not 1996 philosophy cost effective for the average person.

Didn't care to wait for or have for the FasTrack COA views cloud my GCR rules understanding. After the FasTrack I may or may not send in a letter with the above understanding/precedent.

I do agree one item should be cleaned up and that would be to add an item 4. to rule 1.2.3.C. Conflicts among or between portions of the GCR are handled as follows. Item 4. A succeeding rule within a rule group/portion/specification/spec line would override a preceding rule within the same rule group

Open for your thoughts and discussion.

David Dewhurst
F production Miata #14
SCCA #250772
Click to expand...

I am right there with you. I first spotted a limited prep intake with a thermal barrier in impound a few years back and thought it went against the idea of the intake must be stock less the allowed porting. Brought up the question to a few people that I thought were in the know (weeks after the event), and got the response that coatings were open. If people are confused about it it needs to be cleared up.
 
I know this is not popular and I have no dog in this hunt. I was in impound and Tech when H and F were in there. It is not Jims or any other tech inspectors job to decide what advantage an illegal modification has on a given race, nor take into account who the driver is. Cars are inspected and any items thought to be illegal acted on. Then it is up to the COA to make a decision. The intake in question was illegal given the current wording in the GCR, regardless of what todays version of intent was. If it is supposed to be open then write it up properly. I would suggest a chart in the GCR for production that has a checklist of modifications allowed for level 1 and level 2 so it is no longer an issue. Simple list of what general allowances are yes or no for LP.
 
My data logger from the dyno runs shows 10* change in intake temps equals about 2hp. I isolate/wrap everything thatI can before the TB . I would coat the intake if i thought it was legal .
At the top level , every little thing that may make a difference over the course of a race gets some thought, IMHO.
If it was my car that Will looked at , my intake track is wrapped, not my manifold.
Edit. After racing with the Perry's ,I am pretty sure that they would talk to me about legality before tossing paper. The Prod guys have all been above board and nice.
 
Joe -

In my opinion (fwiw) I don't think tape or similar shield is a coating. Having said that I'd rather (on my VW anyway) add a stick on thermal barrier than a "coating" - I think it would be cheaper and more effective in rejecting radiated header heat.

I've been wanting to add a reflective/fiberglass cloth shield underneath the intake manifold on my Scirocco as I'm sure a lot of heat radiates from the headers into the bottom of the intake manifold. But I haven't been able to convince myself that it's legal. "If it doesn't say you can, you can't etc.."

OTOH I was sure that an external thermal barrier on the intake was illegal and I guess I was wrong...??

I do think that it's possible to fit a legal and effective barrier by making/calling it a part of the exhaust manifold which is unrestricted. Just easier and more practical to tie or stick something to the bottom of the intake manifold that to suspend something above the exhaust so that it's plausibly an exhaust part.

So - and taking David's point about cost effectiveness -

If the rule is going to be clarified / changed (whichever fits) to allow external intake manifold coatings, I suggest that it also explicitly allow a stuck on or tie on thermal barrier (tape, blanket etc) for the intake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top