For your input: proposed compression rule change for CMC

[Al Fernandez]

I recently suggested to the CMC leadership to consider altering the compression rule to simply state a limit of 10.0:1 for iron head cars and 11.0:1 for aluminum head cars. That should give plenty of room for rebuilds on every factory offered combination, and allows some room for bumping up compression on the older (read 302 and 305) cars to assist making 2010 numbers.

Your thoughts appreciated.

[michaelmosty]

I personally think this is a bad idea. IIRC the 5.0 had a stock compression ratio of 9.0/1. I think the 305's were in the range of 8.5/1.
This change could promote unnecessary changes to engine internals. It is much easier to bolt on a cheap set of headers to get the power needed.

I would much rather see a compression ratio range. I do not know what the change is in CR due to the clean up of a set of heads but I would think a +/- .25 in CR would be a good range.

Just my thoughts.

[AI#97]

Building to a compression ratio in a mod motor that is not available by use of used 96-98 2V pistons, used 99+ 2V pistons or 4V flat tops would force you to buy an $800 set of pistons and rings. Just a point for thought. Parts for these motors aren't cheap!

Micheal has a very good point that you should allow changes to things that can easily be seen in tech with a quick look and not a compression guage or partial tear down.

[Al Fernandez]

The information we have is that with the right parts on a 302 and machine work to lowest allowable specs (as per Ford and typical of multiple rebuilds) you'll end up with ~9.7. My goal of this number is not specifically to prompt people to go out and rebuild for compression, rather to enable them to rebuild using their existing heads and not having to go buy another set. You can go well over 1/4 point with an overbore and fixing of warped heads.

You are right though that an elevated compression ratio is NOT what we'd use as a guide to get 2010 numbers. We'll shoot for getting those using closer to stock compression regardless of how this rule ends up.

[mitchntx]

....

[jeffburch]

It is much easier to bolt on a cheap set of headers to get the power needed.


Once again, BS.
260 minus 230 is 30.

30 horsepower.
A set of headers, by themselves, are not gonna give you 30hp on a 305 Chevy.

jb

[BryanL]

First-I applaud Al for asking for everyones input.

I am not in favor of this even though its quite likely that it is already happening.
Also, I don't think this proposal is to help people make the numbers for 2010 but to clarify the compression ratio rule-please clarify Al.

MM-says 5.0's came with 9.0/1 so by that theory my LS1 should be allowed 11.8/1. I don't know what the factory compression is on the mod motors, chime in MFW, but isn't it around 9/1? I would assume they have aluminum heads as well which would allow them a possible 2 point increase?

The problem is what Al points out that you can mix/match parts on so many motors to get such an increase in compression. Its my understanding that this has been done for years and has been considered perfectly legal (ala the tony g issue). And in my eyes they are breaking the rules concerning compression ratios. This seems like a way to make their motors legal.
Just seems like the ability to mix/match parts has trumped the compression ratio rule to keep it within factory tolerances. Meaning people don't have to follow the compression ratio rule if they mixed/match legal parts. To me that isn't following all the rules in the rulebook and is illegal. But enough of that-this is about moving forward and clarifying the issue on compression ratios.

Al-I know your goal isn't to have everyone go out and build 10/1 motors but you can bet there will be some who do it. Seems with this type of rules massaging we are headed to the 'do whatever you want to the motor as long as you are under the number'. Where do we end up drawing the line?

I am more in favor of Mitch's suggestion. Or if a certain motor can't make the numbers then maybe it should be done on a motor model basis only. Basically only helping the motors that are underpowered as the LS1's, LT1's, 4.6's don't need any compression help to make the numbers.

Last thing-How could compression ratios be checked at the track? Or at a dyno cert day?

[michaelmosty]

It is much easier to bolt on a cheap set of headers to get the power needed.


Once again, BS.
260 minus 230 is 30.

30 horsepower.
A set of headers, by themselves, are not gonna give you 30hp on a 305 Chevy.

jb
I phrased that wrong, I didn't mean for the headers to give a full 30 hp. Just as I'm sure Al didn't mean for a CR change to get the extra 30 either.
I meant that if you are "close" to the number it would be easier and cheaper to get that final extra from a bolt-on change vs. going deep inside the motor.

[GlennCMC70]

two things:
1) like Bryan said, its about clearifing the comp ratio limit. at this point in time we have cars who are following the legal parts update/backdate rule and ending up w/ comp ratios never seen in those applications. this will allow a limit placed thats hard and fast, no gray area. this has nothing to do w/ trying to add power to one platform or another.

as it is now, these numbers posted are not much higher that what has been legally seen already. the other option is to list a comp ratio per engine platform (302, 4.6, LT1, 305, LS1, bla, bla, bla).

2) JB - quit your panicing everytime someone mentions 30hp from headers. no-one involved in helping spec a set-up believes 30hp is gonna get there. they also could have been talking about the small bump a 302 needs to get there a little more easily.

the reality is, a number has to be defined one way or another. we are just looking for input on how it should be worded or limited.

[mitchntx]

....

[AllZWay]

I appreciate the effort Al and I think the intentions are well placed, but I think this is something that I don't see a happy ending for everyone no matter how it is worked out.

I personally think a stock motor shoud be stock with a minor tolerance for rebuilds, but definitely no cross year compression bump should be allowed.

Also, the combining of the classes CMC & CMC2 look to be opening lots of new challenges that will make unhappy racers no matter how it is solved.

Realistically, I see the quandry you guys are in, because eventually CMC2 will replace CMC in quantity of cars, but I think the change might be easier to take this way.

Of cours, It is easy to say that since my car is lucky enough to run either right now, so I understand the fear and anger the 3rd gen and Fox guys are feeling.

[Al Fernandez]

Come on Mitch, I was trying to have a discussion about how to move something forward. If you keep jumping into every thread telling people you think I'm a dishonest jerk pretty soon someone might believe you! :wink: :lol: Seriously, I'm just trying to get perspectives on how to fix this going forward.

[michaelmosty]

so I understand the fear and anger the 3rd gen and Fox guys are feeling.
Nuthin but love from me!! I got my new 5th gear installed for TWS and am ready to have some Proctor for dinner!! :twisted:

I'll bring the "Stones". :lol:

[GlennCMC70]

You know guys ... this is absolute bullshit.

I feel incredibly stoopid for spending as much cash as I did on my motor rebuild just to follow the rules. What a freaking moron I was for thinking that folks leading this series were honest and upstanding, all playing by the same set of rules.

Well screw it ... the rules and INTENT of the rules are now quite clear ... catch me if you can.

/end trans

so each one of us should just sell out and not have any inegrety? how long do you think the class will last w/ a mindset like that?
keep doing the right thing like most of us have been doing and all will be well. i'm not gonna start cheating cause someone else has.

[mitchntx]

....

[ShadowBolt]

Either let us run what we want as long as we stay under the numbers and adjust the cars with weight or I see a lot of problems in the future. I have a motor way under the numbers and even though I'm slow as hell and could use all the power I could get I have not spent a dime (or a minute) on trying to make more power. I hope I get another year out of this underpowered motor. I just don't see people in CMC trying ten different combos to get more power under the curve. Who has time for that? What a huge can of worms we have opened! We all thought we were doing the same thing the others were doing then this.......

JJ

[AllZWay]

I just don't see people in CMC trying ten different combos to get more power under the curve.
JJ

Never under estimate the wallet sizes of some folks.

Most racers are their own worst enemy.... if they rules don't limit them, nothing will....and many cases the rules won't stop them either.

There are some folks that will always be willing to spend whatever it takes to get an edge. Just read up on Spec Miata and what folks are spending to work around the rules.

[AllZWay]

so I understand the fear and anger the 3rd gen and Fox guys are feeling.
Nuthin but love from me!! I got my new 5th gear installed for TWS and am ready to have some Proctor for dinner!! :twisted:

I'll bring the "Stones". :lol:

Bring it Wing Boy. :lol: I'll supply the quality beer this time.

[AI#97]

You know guys ... this is absolute bullshit.

Well screw it ... the rules and INTENT of the rules are now quite clear ... catch me if you can.

/end trans

Here's one for you mitch... watch all the vids from the AI guys in Cali...you think WTF?! they are coasting through the corners then somewhere at the apex, a downshift occurs and they pound the gas. There is also a strong hint of gear whine. AI rules state NO DOGRING TRANNIES and trans must be synchro type.

Well, rumor is that they are all running TKO's with synchros on 1-2, and dog box setup on 3, 4 and 5... bullshit in my mind and there is a certain Body in White that was recently built the same way....I hear of another car too so guess what....tech might get cinched up soon! Granted it hasn't proven to be an advantage over ME yet...but it's probably a little unfair to midpack AI guys..

I built a car as close to the AI rules as I could afford and have been whipping ass with it from day one....and will continue to do so with my hooptie.

Funny thing is that this "compression gate" scandal makes "hallett gate" seem like a fugg'n joke!!!! :roll:

I am sure EVERY race group has been through crap like this and survived but it sure leaves a shitty taste in a lot of mouths.... :x

[ShadowBolt]

I just don't see people in CMC trying ten different combos to get more power under the curve.
JJ


Just read up on Spec Miata and what folks are spending to work around the rules.

Point taken.

JJ

[BryanL]

What are all the reasons for the proposed increase in compression?

Are we only trying to allow an increase in compression so that during the course of a rebuild a head can be milled so it will save money for everyone? If that is the case then I don't see the need to give a full point allowance. I am not an engine builder so I don't know what should be allowed during the course of a normal factory rebuild????

I understand we need to clarify the rule. But why does the rule need to be clarified in the first place? Has the rule been abused? Do we change the rule to help the abusers or do we rewrite the rule so it isn't abused anymore?

Again, can compression be tested at the track and how is it done? If it can't be tested then based on what has happened some will continue to run increased compression no matter what. Would that get into if we can't check for it then just open it up for everyone to make it fair?

[Rsmith350]

I am sure EVERY race group has been through crap like this and survived but it sure leaves a shitty taste in a lot of mouths.... :x

I gotta say that this isn't what I signed up for. Al, Todd, Glenn all of the guys that are officials for Texas.......I firmly believe that you will do the right thing...in the right spirit. I know there are alot of guys that have been in this series ALOT longer than I have and have alot more invested, and there's alot of unhappy people. All I ask is that you make us proud. If I can help in any way let em know! :D

[mitchntx]

....

[GlennCMC70]

we all know a limit needs to be set.
so why dont each of you do research on your respective platform and post up what the stock comp ratio is, and what you think the limit should be set at.
LT1's and LS1's are easy. 10.4 and 10.1 respectively. so a max of 10.9 and 10.6 for those.
someone pick up the 305's, the 302's, and the 4.6's.
remember to account for the update/backdate parts swapping to account for a legal comp ratio. then add a fudge factor for rebuilds and cost effective re-use of parts for re-builds. not smart to me to mill the crap out of heads only to have to replace them for each rebuild due to milling for max comp ratio.

lets be a part of the solution.

[jeffburch]

There is also a strong hint of gear whine. AI rules state NO DOGRING TRANNIES and trans must be synchro type.
Nope.
Big diff tween straight/under cut and doggies.

jb

[michaelmosty]

so I understand the fear and anger the 3rd gen and Fox guys are feeling.
Nuthin but love from me!! I got my new 5th gear installed for TWS and am ready to have some Proctor for dinner!! :twisted:

I'll bring the "Stones". :lol:

Bring it Wing Boy. :lol: I'll supply the quality beer this time.
Your on! :D

[GlennCMC70]

You know guys ... this is absolute bullshit.

I feel incredibly stoopid for spending as much cash as I did on my motor rebuild just to follow the rules. What a freaking moron I was for thinking that folks leading this series were honest and upstanding, all playing by the same set of rules.

Well screw it ... the rules and INTENT of the rules are now quite clear ... catch me if you can.

/end trans

so each one of us should just sell out and not have any inegrety? how long do you think the class will last w/ a mindset like that?
keep doing the right thing like most of us have been doing and all will be well. i'm not gonna start cheating cause someone else has.

You are right. Nothing will change regardless.

See you guys at TWS

thanks for your vow of confidence. thanks. rest asured that none of the things i have learned about over the last few days will ever happen here. and i'm slowly working towards making sure it doesnt happen anywhere else either.

[ShadowBolt]

[/quote]

thanks for your vow of confidence. thanks. rest asured that none of the things i have learned about over the last few days will ever happen here. and i'm slowly working towards making sure it doesnt happen anywhere else either.[/quote]

Go get um Glenn. We are with ya!

JJ

[Al Fernandez]

Either let us run what we want as long as we stay under the numbers and adjust the cars with weight or I see a lot of problems in the future.



I just don't see people in CMC trying ten different combos to get more power under the curve. Who has time for that?

Dude, Jerry...you should wait at least one full post before you contradict yourself! :wink: :lol:

Just remember, the next guy looking to rebuild a motor might be you. There is no point specifying a compression rule based on "year" because we've already established mixing of parts is legal. Therefore, what is the year? The year the block was made? The heads? The front subframe? The K member? My car is literally half 93 and half 97 for chrissakes, you can see the seam right behind the driver seat!

Most of the AL headed cars are between 9.8 and 10.4 stock. The iron cars are around 9-9.3. That's why I proposed what I did. It sounds like you guys would prefer to see a list of allowed engines and upper bounds, like 302s are allowed 9.5, 305s 9.6, LT1s 10.9, LS1 10.5,etc? I dont think that will make a functional difference, but thats just me. I'm also not convinced 1/2 a point is enough to overcome overbores and warped heads.

Bryan...the entire point is to enable you to rebuild your motor without having to go buy new parts as long as you stay within some semblance of normality. Everyone needs a fresh motor sooner or later and we cant on the one hand complain that parts are hard to find and on the other hand throw parts away because they make compression 0.1 too high. Some of us have, so lets learn from that and make it better.

[GlennCMC70]

so w/ the numbers Al just posted, who now thinks 10:1 for iron and 11:1 for Aluminum is really out of line now?

[ShadowBolt]

Either let us run what we want as long as we stay under the numbers and adjust the cars with weight or I see a lot of problems in the future.



I just don't see people in CMC trying ten different combos to get more power under the curve. Who has time for that?

Dude, Jerry...you should wait at least one full post before you contradict yourself! :wink: :lol:

Dude, Al

These two quotes are not contradicting at all. It was though when I said point taken to James post about the SM series. I never thought about what those guys are doing. :wink:

JJ

[RichardP]

I think the rule should read something like:

"All cars must have a compression ratio."


Why are we getting our panties in a wad over something that can't realistically be checked without tearing down the motor to measure it?

I'm just a bit confused. Maybe the rules should focus on parameters that can be policed?


Richard P.

[silversvo]

I think the rule should read something like:

"All cars must have a compression ratio."


Why are we getting our panties in a wad over something that can't realistically be checked without tearing down the motor to measure it?

I'm just a bit confused. Maybe the rules should focus on parameters that can be policed?


Richard P.

I agree with this as we really cant check compression without a tear down...

[GlennCMC70]

it was checked at nats in 2007.

[Boudy]

Then 11.1 is ok with my new aluminum heads?

rb

[GlennCMC70]

Robert, lets find a table and i'll shake your hand under it, and it will be fine.

[mitchntx]

....

[jeffburch]

...... get a percieved "hot set up" ... protecting the racers from themselves. Just an example; remember the fricassee over ceramic coated exhaust manifolds with Mike Tomlinson.
He wanted to cruise up and down cmc road because he was crazy about a little Capri. The steady hand on the tiller said no wayno. Does anyone have his contact info?


...... Let the racers decide if light and low HP is the way to go or build some monster power and try and get it stopped for a corner. American Iron?
jb

[mitchntx]

....

[RichardP]

it was checked at nats in 2007.


I've heard that. Do you know what method/tools they used for that? I'm interested. If you could point me to some technical information on the theory behind it I would really appreciate it.


Richard P.

[Rob Liebbe]

I've seen a tool used by the Spec Miata crowd called the whistle that if I remember correctly was used to measure compression ratio. It screwed into the spark plug hole and used compressed air. I'll check with my SM buddies and get back.

[jeffburch]

Contact Brady Flaherty himself.
It was his machine (from Honda challenge bunch).
"Whistler"

jb

http://www.katechengines.com/corporate_services/whistler.php

[BryanL]

So now all we need to do is have a fundraiser and sell brownies so we can buy a whistler. I like it-though it depends on what the new ruling will be.

Mitch-I agree 100% with you. People who have mixed/match parts think that ability means more than the compression rule so they shouldn't have to follow it. Maybe I will go through the rulebook and find something that I think doesn't apply to me because of what CMC was based upon.

I still don't know what is a normal increase in compression in a factory style rebuild?

Al-I understand we want to keep costs down with the ability to mix/match parts but that isn't the reality. The reality is people are going out and spending extra money to buy certain year model parts specifically to increase compression ratio.
Tony bought a complete engine out of a wrecked car and didn't just put it in and go. He took the heads off and swapped them with heads from another motor. That isn't mixing/matching to save money. That is spending money and time to try and get a performance advantage.

I still believe the rule is being rewritten so that people who ignored the compression rule in the past won't end up with an illegal motor if we say you can only go .25 point over the highest factory compression for the model engine you are running.

[GlennCMC70]

your last statement is incorrect Bryan. thsi rule update has been in the works for a long time. long before all this crap. if i recall, January was the last time before now when it was worked by the directors.

[Al Fernandez]

Not only that, but the compression rule didnt even exist prior to 2007 season. Thats right, we added into the rules a (in retrospect poorly thought out) definition for compression because we didnt have one! The concept of finding the right parts to finish your car without spending a fortune has been around for a lot longer than the desire to ensure nobody is building 13/1 motors. Before that the feeling was other limitations (oem or equivalent spec parts like pistons, pump gas, dynos, no tuning changes, etc.) would provide an effective enough limit on compression much like no front aero provides an effective enough limit on rear aero. Then we tried to "fix" that because people started to get freaky since it was "undefined".

The "fix" was wrong all along because we didnt take the time to research the implications, resulting in confusion and 100+ emails over the course of 2007 to try and fix the fix...at which point we sort of threw in the towel and said "well, it hasnt really been an issue ever, so lets just not change it and enforce with common sense". Boy, what a mistake that was.

The reality is we created the problem, so we're trying to fix the problem...but remember that up until 2007 there was no defined compression limit.

[BryanL]

Glenn I understand this rule has been in the works a long time, but why is there a need to clarify the rule? (because it is being abused?)
Thanks for clarifying that Al. I wasn't around here 4 years ago when it was legal to mix/match to get a big increase in compression because there wasn't any rule concerning compression.
So since people got 'freaky' there needed to be a limit on compression. So the rule was installed but it wasn't quite good enough so we need to further define compression which I agree with. Now what do we make the compression limit?
Since we try to keep as many things factory stock why should we bump up compression a point to a point and half?

Al-its my understanding that in a rebuild that needs an overbore that doesn't increase compression but only increases cubic inches. Though I understand a mill/deck needed to square things up. But all you have to do to compensate is order a set of Cometic head gaskets to take care of that issue?
Since it seems there are engines out there with increased compression I have to think there are also engines out there with stroker cranks.
Should this issue be presented to each region so that maybe each region would have a whistler to check not only our class but other classes where this could be an issue? Spec Miata? Clifton?

Al-would love for you to get Brady to use his Whistler at the next Cali event and get a testing on all the engines to see what compression people are running.

[mitchntx]

.....

[AI#97]

Since it seems there are engines out there with increased compression I have to think there are also engines out there with stroker cranks.


Yeah, but I could have a 347 with stock compression or less and you would never know it....

Hell, I could paint an aluminum mark 8 shortblock to look like an iron block, put a stroker/big bore setup going from 281 to 324 cubes, port the heads, deck them and even degree the cams....you would never know it in tech with a visual!


I know it's been said by others but I think that make 260/300 and show up for the race might not be so bad an idea if you are trying to keep it simple. Then adjust performance by weight of each platform. Simple, straight forward, easily enforceable by the ONLY two things that are accurately measureable...a dyno and your wallet! Wait...isn't that AI?! :lol: :lol:

[mitchntx]

....

[Al Fernandez]

Unfortunately that is not correct Bryan. Compression ratio is affected by bore, stroke, and combustion chamber volume. So, if you over bore, compression goes up. If you mill the heads, compression goes up. Everything else being equal of course. There are ways to reduce it such as thicker gaskets, gaskets with a bigger bore than the cylinder, dished pistons, valve reliefs cut into the pistons etc but all of that costs mucho dinero rapido. Ask Mitch!

Lets also put things into perspective another way; rule of thumb is (in our CR range) that a full point change is around 2% hp change. So we're talking about 5hp gain if you run out and bump a 5.0 car from 9/1 to 10/1. We're not talking 25hp here...

[AI#97]

Lets also put things into perspective another way; rule of thumb is (in our CR range) that a full point change is around 2% hp change. So we're talking about 5hp gain if you run out and bump a 5.0 car from 9/1 to 10/1. We're not talking 25hp here...

Not accurate... The correct data point has been well proven over the years that in the 250-400 hp at the crank, one full point of compression bump is good for 15hp as a rule of thumb. All things being equal on my race motor, compared to stock, the bump in compression from 9.4 to 11.8 went from 307/311, to 338/353...but I was able to tune fuel and timing for optimal settings for fuel and killing detonation.

Mitch, your point about airflow is valid, but you are still getting the same amount of air into the chamber regardless of compression ratio...but you get a better burn and a better power stroke with the bump. The volume of air remains constant based on bore/stroke.

One item CMC 2 01+ Cobras that needs to be checked is the use of navigator heads. The port difference is HUGE compared to a 99 cobra head. Outside they are identical in appears except for the casting number... Inside, the intake port volume is something like 30% greater! If tech couldn't identify a Navi head by lifting the hood, a cobra driver could bump compression (difficult on the 4V head) and get more volume in the motor for a sneaky combo of trickery all under the radar!

You guys have a tricky task ahead to get this all ironed out because of the myriad of possible combos of factory parts... :shock:

[Al Fernandez]

Thanks for the correction Matt. I tried googleing for effect of compression on power and got this http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofcrc.htm but your empirical data is much more meaningful.

[AI#97]

Thanks for the correction Matt. I tried googleing for effect of compression on power and got this http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofcrc.htm but your empirical data is much more meaningful.

as I have offered to Glenn, I have a folder 2" thick of dyno graphs from my car as it progressed from stock in 2002 to what it is today...probably 50 pulls on the dyno detailing MANY combos that a CMC build might use, except for tuning tweaks. If at the least, you can see what mods it takes to get to a number, and then see the general shape of the torque curve for reference. Bumping compression Drastically changes numbers in the mid/low rpms so a 281 could likely compete with an LT/LS1...however, it's going to out breathe them on the big end!

I also feel that to get a 4.6 2V up to 260/300, the compression bump is the only alternative if you don't allow timing changes and long tubes. Best I ever got with LOTS of agressive timing, stock compression, LT's P&P heads, stock cams and intake was 264/296. Obviously a few of those items are not allowed so drop 12-15 off each number with a legal combo, then add compression to put you right on the numbers.

Actually, now that I think about it, I may have cleaned out that folder last month... :oops: I will have to double check.

[AI#97]

Thanks for the correction Matt. I tried googleing for effect of compression on power and got this http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofcrc.htm but your empirical data is much more meaningful.

Haha! Went and read that link...you can't EVER compare Olds motors man...they are designed for boats...namely as Anchors!!! :lol:

[BryanL]

You are right Al-but I think the increase in compression from an overbore is pretty minimal???
Am I correct that the stroke shouldn't change as long as you continue to use a stock crank???

So what do people think is an acceptable increase in compression in a stock rebuild that would require a little decking/milling.

I don't know much about quench but I think it comes into play with people decking the block which could increase power?

Al-what do the directors think we should do with this issue and what about other regions?
I still go back to what I have been preaching. People aren't mixing/matching parts to save money. They are spending money to mix/match to try and get an more power, an increase in compression ratio, etc.
Are there any other reasons to increase compression other than to allow for a stock rebuild? I keep thinking there are more reasons that you aren't sharing?
Does anyone think compression should be increased by a point or more, and why?

[marshall_mosty]

The only thing I'm going to say about this and then I'm going back to eat my 50K popcorn...


It seems to me that the compression rule is the "hot topic" based on the recent "situation" with one of the "guys" at the top of the CMC ranks... my opinion. Therefore, the rule is being reviewed to allow "some" motors which are currently in the grey area (both in rules and intent of the series) to be brought back into good "legal" graces so particular people can get out of the hot seat.


The above statments are those of an outsider... not affiliated with CMC except having close friends that compete. I'll go back to my happy AI/AIX family now...


:)

[BryanL]

Certainly looks like that doesn't it Marshall.
The compression issue has been in the works for awhile. With the first reason so that people can rebuild motors that maybe out of factory tolerances.
Then we find out about people building motors with much higher compression than factory which I would guess is the real reason.
I have asked several times what ALL the reasons are.

Marshall I completely agree with you that this is being done to make grey/illegal motors 'completely legal under CMC rules'. Why else would we need a mod motor that came with low 9/1 compression to be allowed 11/1?

[mitchntx]

....

[AI#97]

The wagons are circled and the inner circle has already made up their mind. We are just killing electrons here.

This is one of those things where we are just gonna have to like it, live with it or go some place else to race.

I keep falling into this trap. Maybe one day I will learn ...

Probably the most accurate post in the last 15 days! Sadly, this is 100% spot on and has been the perception from NASA all during my experience of just 3 short years. So that begs the question, why is NASA better than SCCA again? :wink:

[mitchntx]

.....

[jeffburch]

Yup, back table in a dark corner.
I hear Sinatra playing.
Maybe someone will get whacked.
jb

[GlennCMC70]

this is the last time i'll say this - so please listen up.
this rule has been up for review by the directors long before "Tony G Gate" happened. Tony also did not initiate the review of this rule, i did many months ago. so the comments that this rule is up for review just to make illegal motors legal is BS. i know this for a fact and i'm telling you here and now - all of you who believe this to be the case are wrong. i dont know how to make this more clear. some of you are just looking for a conspiracy theory to jump on board w/.
I started pushing for a hard number to be placed in the rules due to me being involved w/ a motor rebuild that ended up going thru 3 sets of heads before a set could be used that got the comp ratio back to stock. I felt this was an unnecessary waste of good parts. I also wanted a hard number because the term "OEM range" was pretty vague. what I consider close to stock isnt what some others may consider close to stock.

so far i feel I've been pretty open and honest w/ you guys about a lot of stuff that I see from the inside. I am doing the same here and you guys seem to not want to believe it. have fun w/ your unjust witch hunt.

[GlennCMC70]

here is the original email i sent that kicked off the review of the rule in question. its dated 1/08/08 in my sent box.

the rules in question are:

8.16. Engine Balancing / Rebuilding
Engine balancing is allowed. Lightening of parts beyond the minimum required to balance is prohibited. Boring/honing is allowed up to 0.060 over. Head/block milling is allowed but only as far as required to square/clean the surface area. Compression ratio must remain within stock tolerances for the make/model/year of the engine.

and

7.7.4 Tolerances
Unless otherwise specified, all published measurements infer a tolerance of + / - one-half of the last specified decimal place. All rounding will be done to the nearest decimal place that is specified in these rules. In a case where a measurement falls exactly on the halfway mark it shall be rounded up or down in favor of the competitor.



so, if my stock comp ratio is 10.5:1, what is my stock tolerance, or what is my "+/- one-half of the last specified decimal place"?
reason I ask is 2 people have pointed out two ways of reading this rule. one says that my limit is 10.75:1 and the other says its 10.55:1.

another thing to point out w/ the way I interpret the rules is a car w/ a stock comp ratio of say 9.1:1 will have a must smaller "+/- one half of the last decimal" vs. one that has a 9.9:1 comp ratio.
ex:
9.1:1 has a limit of 9.15:1 (half of .1 is .05 right?) rounded up would be 9.2:1
but 9.9:1 has a limit of 10.35:1 (half of .9 is .45 right?) rounded up would be 10.5:1
seems to me the rules need to be re-written to correct this oversight. I think a limit of .25:1 over the stock comp ratio should be enforced. I also think giving an example in the rules to help visualize this would help.

so...... who wants to start w/ telling me where I misread the rules here, or that I'm totally off my rocker?


see, no black choppers or anything.

[AI#97]

Glenn, please calm down and relax...

A point of CMC which attracted most of the people in it is the fact you could go pick up a junk yard 302 for $400, throw it in the car and race. I seem to recall you saying you had a junk yard LT1 that you did the same thing...THAT is the heart of CMC.

Now, the rules are CREEPING to a point where you are going to see $5k to $10k motors getting built to take advantage of the "rules". The worst part of it all is that management got caught with their pants down and the customers are being told to drop THEIR pants and bend over "for the good of the series" because WE (TG) were not wrong.


I was quietly taking the steps last year to build a CMC car for 09' but decided to do one more year of AI. Those plans are WAY on the back burner now and I would just rather stay in AI at this point, at least until the dust settles. From the outside, CMC 2010 looks MUCH like A-sedan....stock suspension with built engines, maybe bigger brakes, maybe bigger wheels, maybe headers... that's sort of scary and a HUGE departure from CMC WAS.

Marshall, make sure some of that popcorn has some butter on it and pleaes share! :lol:

[GlennCMC70]

my motor and JB's motor cost around $1700 for a complete rebuild.
and yes, my motor in its original config was an $800 junk yard pull w/ 60K on it. i ran it for 2 years. you spend anymore than that, you have money to burn. and i know of no rebuild that cost $5K. your exaggerating.

all the Directors feel as thought Tony violated the spirit of the rule. that is not in question. the point i'm trying to make is we are not clarifying the rule because Tony was "caught". that keeps getting repeated and its just not the case. Tony has also been known in the past to DQ himself after a race weekend was over. he once was looking thru the notes of the weekend and realized he was 50lbs under and announced like a week later he was DQ'ing himself. so he has some level of integrity.

seems to me your pulling a "Scranton" here. you've made up your mind that you know what happened regardless of what people who were there to see it unfold tell whats really going on. and as someone who is in the know considerably more so than yourself and just about everyone here - you are wrong.

if you feel so strongly about all this, send your emails to JWL. he is the only person who can force the hand of Tony G. like it on not, Tony has the final say in everything CMC, w/ input from Regional and National level directors. if you havent done so (email JWL), then your just a keyboard warrior who only wants to sit here and bitch. be part of the solution or shut up. the constant mud flinging here is just that, mud flinging and smear campaigns. Nothing productive will come from it here.

[mitchntx]

....

[marshall_mosty]

this is the last time i'll say this - so please listen up.
this rule has been up for review by the directors long before "Tony G Gate" happened. Tony also did not initiate the review of this rule, i did many months ago. so the comments that this rule is up for review just to make illegal motors legal is BS. i know this for a fact and i'm telling you here and now - all of you who believe this to be the case are wrong. i dont know how to make this more clear. some of you are just looking for a conspiracy theory to jump on board w/.
I started pushing for a hard number to be placed in the rules due to me being involved w/ a motor rebuild that ended up going thru 3 sets of heads before a set could be used that got the comp ratio back to stock. I felt this was an unnecessary waste of good parts. I also wanted a hard number because the term "OEM range" was pretty vague. what I consider close to stock isnt what some others may consider close to stock.

so far i feel I've been pretty open and honest w/ you guys about a lot of stuff that I see from the inside. I am doing the same here and you guys seem to not want to believe it. have fun w/ your unjust witch hunt.

Thanks for the clarification on that Glenn. I guess Tony's situation just "fits in", which is why is looks so supicious to those on the outside of the inner circle.

[BryanL]

Quote From Al Fernandez
"Not only that, but the compression rule didnt even exist prior to 2007 season. Thats right, we added into the rules a (in retrospect poorly thought out) definition for compression because we didnt have one! The concept of finding the right parts to finish your car without spending a fortune has been around for a lot longer than the desire to ensure nobody is building 13/1 motors. Before that the feeling was other limitations (oem or equivalent spec parts like pistons, pump gas, dynos, no tuning changes, etc.) would provide an effective enough limit on compression much like no front aero provides an effective enough limit on rear aero. Then we tried to "fix" that because people started to get FREAKY since it was "undefined"


Sorry Glenn-please see the FREAKY. Now i know that isn't exactly clear so that is the reason I have been asking for more clarification as to ALL the reasons why the compression rule is such an issue and why it should be increased by what I believe as so much. The fact remains that people have built motors with up to a point higher compression than factory. Now the question is are those motors going to be legal going forward?
Yes, I know it has been an issue for a while and under revision. But one must look at ALL the reasons why it is an issue. Its just a coincidence when this issue could have impacted the national director and his car. Which, there is another coincidence in that he sold the car.

I understand this isn't all about Tony G-though it is sad that all the directors think he violated the spirit of the rule. I guess there is a big difference in the national director violating the spirit of the rule and a participant being caught cheating.

So-what do the directors and the rest of the country think we should do with the compression rule and how high we should allow compression to be raised from the way it left the factory.

[Al Fernandez]

MFW...Other than the recent attempt to bump power in 302 and 305 motors, exactly where are the rules "creeping" as it is related to this discussion about compression? How does anything going on change the options available for building a mod motor car now Vs 2006?

Remember, up until Feb of 2007 there was no compression limit defined and you were explicitly allowed to mix and match parts. So therefore a 9.7/1 302 and a 10.4/1 4.6 were both perfectly acceptable outcomes of reading the rules as written at the time.

Glenn is somewhat wrong in that discussions around compression had been ongoing through all of '07 because we had changed the rule and not done it well and were trying to figure out what to do. Glenn brought it to a boil because he was the first person to publicly point this out.

So, right now you guys with torches and pitchforks in had want to define compression as "stock stock stock". Next you'll complain that parts are hard to find and that you had to throw away three sets of heads to get down to stock. Or that you had to spend $160 on gaskets instead of $40 in order to drop compression two tenths. You cant have it both ways.

[AI#97]

Glenn, not arguing, but a point of reference is that the going rate for a rebuilt all forged mod bottom end is $3200 with a new crank. Stock parts are more expensive than aftermarket forged! Used high mileage shortblocks go for anywhere between $600 and 1200. I think we had $600 in Jeremy's motor not including the gaskets and other parts. Just inserting a point of fact for reference! toss in heads if they are warped, head gaskets, head bolts, ARP fasteners and I can get you to $5k for a mod motor pretty quick... There are smarter ways to do it and you can chance the junk yard route for $1500 too... again, all just data points.


edit: rest of post deleted as I have no investment in CMC.

[GlennCMC70]

as for the timing of the sale of Tony's car, well that shows you dont know Tony at all. he has owned and sold more race cars in the 4 years i've know of him, than....... well race weekends in a single season. the reason for its sale is to build a 4th gen now. its not uncommon at all for Tony to do this. AL's car was Tony's car before it was Al's.

and yes MM, it just "fits in".

[AI#97]

al the creep I am referring to is that fact that concessions are going to have to be made to "upgrade" older combos to remain competitive with newer platforms and powerplants...not real friendly to the older cars. However, where would it stop? so the 5.0's get shorties now, cams and costs maybe a grand to "step it up". now it's 2013 and someone gets caught with "illegal mismatched heads/blocks"...and the rules "creep" a little more to keep car counts up...yet again angering the "older combos"...

it's a cycle and a natural fact of SOME racing classes...just hasn't been the norm of CMC...? Would I be wrong by saying that?

I suppose the overall perception here is pretty basic... someone got caught cheating or has been PERCIEVED to be cheating by the masses...instead of getting tossed, the rules are being re-written/updated/clarified which in doesn't set a good precedent for the future. It allows for under table hand shake deals. This reasoning makes us, the racers believe that it's easier to ask for forgivness than for permission.

Let's say Daron/Mason, Donovan, CL, FR and I say we are all going to build motors to 8:1 on power because it would be more fun. We all agree 100%. then we lobby later that we did it "for the good of the series"...then lobbied for the AI rules to be changed "for the good of the series." and forced ALL AI racers across the country to comply. Terrible example I know....but fundamentally the same as this situation in many of the eyes here....

Ah, I am just an outsider worried that CMC rules writing rationale makes it into AI in the near future...just my wallet crying foul ahead of time! :D :lol:

[jeffburch]

If, these things were going on in the past/present, how am I as a competitor/participant/customer supposed to have faith that they won't continue in the future?
Especially now in light of future proposed "allowances" (creep).

In simple terms, the rule book was too big to police in the past, there's no way the Made One's can do it down the road.

(and I won't even jump in the ass of the M.A. region)

jb

ps

MFW, watch your punctuation pls.

[GlennCMC70]

Matt - call me now please.

[Nick]

...exactly where are the rules "creeping" as it is related to this discussion about compression?

A new thread about rules creep not related to compression would be more pages than this thread.

[BryanL]

JB is spot on-if these things happened in the past then that is the best predictor for what will happen in the future.

Al-we don't have pitchforks in hand but we still aren't getting any feedback as to what the directors think we should do or what the rest of the country's participants think. What is a reasonble amount of increased compression as the result of a normal factory rebuild? Maybe I should talk to an engine builder. Better yet why don't we touch base with an engine remanufacturer who does hundreds of thousand of factory rebuilds and find out what kind of increased compression they allow? We could contact say a reman facility that supplies GM with rebuilt GM goodwrench engines to find out?
I haven't seen anyone in favor your your proposal that started this thread unless I am mistaken?
I am fine with allowing some increase in a factory rebuild. What I am not fine with is purposefully going to build a motor that results in a substantial increase in compression.

Mitch-when you were building your motor that you went through 3 sets of heads. Where any of the heads useable if they were milled some? How much did they need to be milled and what would have been the resulting compression?
I think looking at Mitch's situation is a much better example of what we need to do. Instead of looking at what is the absolute max compression someone can come up with by mixing/matching and then boring/decking/milling.

[Al Fernandez]

MFW you're still mixing two different topics. Yes, the rules are creeping for 2010 to merge the two groups but that has nothing to do with compression ratios in past/current engines. Compression-gate would be happening irrespectively of the announced merging, wouldnt it?

Nobody is going to "get tossed" because they've been perceived to be cheating by the masses. Thats just silly. Someone is cheating if they intentionally break the rules and intentionally try to keep that a secret. Tony did neither. Glenn and I have tried over and over again to point out that
a) the compression rule was new for 07 and we had no intent of fundamentally changing what was already happening, rather to define it and we mucked that up
b) Tony came to the rest of US (not the other way around) to point out the issue with the 4.6. Matt King and others pointed out issues with the 302s getting as high as 9.8 using stock parts and Ford allowable rebuild tolerances. We started having lots of discussions around what to do
c) Glenn brought it to a boil because now it wasnt "theoretical", he had an engine on the stand that needed to be rebuilt now
d) Every single person on the last page of the rulebook agreed to leave the rules as they were written. No change for now.

The crux of it is we as a management body messed up by not recognizing the problem and being proactive to fix it. Nobody cheated. Nobody did anything under the table, underhanded, or otherwise intended to gain a secret and unfair advantage. What we did was put a bunch of drivers in a situation of not having a good understanding of what was allowed by having a rule that was not adequate. Be mad about that, but lets get off this "this guy cheated and he isnt being drawn and quartered" mentality.

[GlennCMC70]

Mitch-when you were building your motor that you went through 3 sets of heads. Where any of the heads useable if they were milled some? How much did they need to be milled and what would have been the resulting compression?
I think looking at Mitch's situation is a much better example of what we need to do. Instead of looking at what is the absolute max compression someone can come up with by mixing/matching and then boring/decking/milling.
the original set of heads was gonna put it at 11.4 to 1 due to the heads being milled before (this was a motor he bought used). two more sets were taken up there from our "stock" and was gonna end up at close to the same. the worst set needed like .023" taken off.

[GlennCMC70]

so the 5.0's get shorties now, cams and costs maybe a grand to "step it up". it more like $500. but hey, keep blowing it out of proportion.
its been shown that truethfull and honest answer do not belong in this thread.

[mitchntx]

Next you'll complain that parts are hard to find and that you had to throw away three sets of heads to get down to stock. Or that you had to spend $160 on gaskets instead of $40 in order to drop compression two tenths. You cant have it both ways.

[sigh]
All that is being asked is pick a way, publicize it, stick to it and enforce it.
I can't understand why you guys can't comprehend that simple request.

Edit:

Let me try and explain one more time ...

The reason Tony (and others for all I know) is not be applauded for using the rules to the fullest is because his couterparts in other areas of the country were enforcing something totally different.

Had Todd told me "there needs to be a limit, but we aren't sure what it is. Just remember what the intent of CMC is" then I don't think we would be having this conversation.

Instead, he said something like "a tenth or 2 over what was delivered from Detroit probably won't matter. Go beyond that, and there could be a problem".

That is an example ... a symptom of a much more serious disease ... inconsistent rules enforcement and interpretation.

[jeffburch]

[wink-wink]
:wink: :wink:
jb

[BryanL]

So Al/Glenn/Todd,

What do the directors and the rest of the particpants in CMC think we should do with compression gate? Things might move forward if you would provide some new insight rather than repeating the same things.

I think the compression of the engine should be within a certain percentage/point of what came from the factory for the year model of the car.
I don't think it should be as broad as an aluminum head gets 11/1 especially now that I know the mod motor was closer to 9.

[GlennCMC70]

it cant be tied to a car by year model. reason #:
1) modle groups are full of cars w/ different comp ratios from year to year. the 3rd gens have 8.5 to 9.5 listed.
2) you volunteering to run all the vin's to see what year car is what?

so we need to find the max available comp ratio for each model group. then pick a tolarance for it.

possibley doing it by engine type would be best.
302 gets X
205 gets X
LT1 gets X
bla bla bla.

so many pages back i asked each of you to do a little research on your platform and bring some info to the table. but instead, you all have chosen to bitch about Tony and his cheating ways. we have come full circle here and back to what i asked in the first place and what this thread was initially about. give us data to take back to the Director group and present. help me help you.

[jeffburch]

So, this is for current engines as oppossed to what is down the yellow brick road in the Emerald City?
8)
I blew a 9.3 at MO so the 9.5 sounds right.

My aluminum block and heads short stroked (4.8L crank) LS6 for '10 will like 11.5 please.
:lol:

jb

[Al Fernandez]

Right, so to avoid having to have this long list of engines and respective comp ratios I threw out a more generic 10/1 for iron heads and 11/1 for aluminum heads.

Bryan, that and having a list of each base engine platform and its respective max are the only two options on the table until someone comes out with another. The second option is so far getting a lot more support than my suggestion. The tolerance allowance being thrown around is not consistent, rather assembled based on combination of parts and factory allowed tolerances (for example, LT1s are not allowed to be bored over 60 but others are, so they need more room to grow...)

[GlennCMC70]

So, this is for current engines as oppossed to what is down the yellow brick road in the Emerald City?
8)
I blew a 9.3 at MO so the 9.5 sounds right.

My aluminum block and heads short stroked (4.8L crank) LS6 for '10 will like 11.5 please.
:lol:

jb

this will likely be for both Jeff. if its found that the 305's or 302's are still coming up short, then allowing more is not out of the question. its an easy fix w/ thinner head gaskets.

[michaelmosty]

The tolerance allowance being thrown around is not consistent, rather assembled based on combination of parts and factory allowed tolerances (for example, LT1s are not allowed to be bored over 60 but others are, so they need more room to grow...)
Per the rules, nobody is allowed to bore more than 60 over.

[BlueFirePony]

it cant be tied to a car by year model. reason #:
1) modle groups are full of cars w/ different comp ratios from year to year. the 3rd gens have 8.5 to 9.5 listed.
2) you volunteering to run all the vin's to see what year car is what?

so we need to find the max available comp ratio for each model group. then pick a tolarance for it.

possibley doing it by engine type would be best.
302 gets X
205 gets X
LT1 gets X
bla bla bla.

so many pages back i asked each of you to do a little research on your platform and bring some info to the table. but instead, you all have chosen to bitch about Tony and his cheating ways. we have come full circle here and back to what i asked in the first place and what this thread was initially about. give us data to take back to the Director group and present. help me help you.

Well, not that I'll be running CMC but if you are interested, the S197 4.6L is 9.8:1 all years 2005-2009

[GlennCMC70]

that helps. thanks.

[Al Fernandez]

Righ Michael, meant 030.

[Todd Covini]

From where I sit, this whole compression issue was seeded, planted, watered, fertilized and now grown into a big honkin' poison ivy tree right here in Texas, and no where else. (...and it's not the first one of it's kind.)

Right or wrong, compression ratio was never on the radar screen in the rule book over the years. I'm a simpleton. Others in CMC, have generally tried to keep things simple. Keep it stock. Keep it under the #'s. Have fun.

If rules creep has occurred, it's occurred largely because we (in Texas) have demanded more clarity. "Where's the line? How close can I get to it? No ambiguity...that'll breed cheating."

Over the recent years, we've modified many CMC rules because astute Texas racers have pointed out ways to cheat, ways to game, ways to circumvent. OK...so in response, we've tried to accomodate and provide clarity, so those things don't happen.

Some of the very same people in this thread were throwing stones at each other and accusing others of "illegal compression". Pitchforks in hand, inspections were demanded. "We want Barabas! Show us his compression!"

We raised the compression concerns during the CMC rules rewrite season, to hopefully address and establish a norm. Again, we have always been hesitant to "draw a line" on compression ratio because as stated, a) people will feel the need to build to it and b) it's too hard to get an exact scientific reading on it.

As I'm so often ridiculed/quoted, I do try to protect racers from themselves. I thoroughly enjoy publicly inspecting cars and announcing how legal they are and throw that back in the face of the skeptics, who chew on director ears.

At Nationals, as CMC Race Director, I elected to check compression of the National Champion in impound to see what I would get. As in all my years with CMC, there was generally no spec for compression. There was no limit. What we were looking for was "near stock"....and that is exactly what we got. 9.3:1....and everyone who swore that the National Champion had juiced his compression no longer had a bitch. Some may complain about such an inspection, others might thank me. Everybody's different.

To this day, I'd prefer to not have a hardline compression limit and keep it within the normal tolerance of a rebuild...but we've made our bed and now we have to sleep in it. So as we water our Texas Poison Ivy, let's try not to point fingers at other regions and insult their integrity. We've proven to the CMC nation that we're likely more technical (anal?) than the other regions, but let's not turn that into a negative and ruin it by being complete asses about it.

-=- Todd

[GlennCMC70]

so Texas is the bad guy here?
tell me where the idea of putting together a motor w/ a comp ratio that never came factory came from?
sound like our region is asking/pushing for limits to be placed due to the actions of those in other regions - not in this one.

[mitchntx]

Todd, I can see where you stand and understand your disgust for what's happened. You are right ... CMC is supposd to be a bunch of guys just going out and having fun.

For me, that kind of ended at NPR when my restrictor plate was sealed to my motor because I was accused of changing it. And then my OBD port was sealed after winning my first and only CMC race at Cresson. I'm reasonably certain I know how I won and the reasons behind it became clear later on. So, game on ...

As far as I'm concerned, the seeds were planted long before I arrived. When the fertilizer began getting spread around, that's when the rain started. As for it being poison ivy, read the directions and understand the consequences before planting.

[jeffburch]

Who sold the family cow and bought the seeds from California?

If this was just a fun-run deal we wouldn't tally points, award medals and trophies and hand out prize money.

I think the Ivy in Texas smells pretty sweat, especially these upper branches. Come on up here guys, you can see the other regions clamoring below.

jb

[michaelmosty]

Todd, I don't understand how TX is the bad guys for pointing out a poorly written rule.
You make it sound like that if nobody had mentioned anything about the c/r rule everything would be a-ok and none of this drama would have ever happened.

We are the "anal" ones that look over the rules w/ a microscope and point out all the possible areas to cheat. I guess instead of pointing out the areas we should just act on them, is that correct? TX is getting bad-mouthed for trying to keep the rules fair when other regions are taking advantage of the rule for their benefit.

It doesn't make sense to me. :?

[mitchntx]

Todd, I don't understand how TX is the bad guys for pointing out a poorly written rule.
You make it sound like that if nobody had mentioned anything about the c/r rule everything would be a-ok and none of this drama would have ever happened.

We are the "anal" ones that look over the rules w/ a microscope and point out all the possible areas to cheat. I guess instead of pointing out the areas we should just act on them, is that correct? TX is getting bad-mouthed for trying to keep the rules fair when other regions are taking advantage of the rule for their benefit.

It doesn't make sense to me. :?


Good point, Michael

[GlennCMC70]

MM - i used to be told that this was "you just dont get it".
i'm very disapointed w/ Todd's public stance on this.

[AllZWay]

Todd, I don't understand how TX is the bad guys for pointing out a poorly written rule.
You make it sound like that if nobody had mentioned anything about the c/r rule everything would be a-ok and none of this drama would have ever happened.

We are the "anal" ones that look over the rules w/ a microscope and point out all the possible areas to cheat. I guess instead of pointing out the areas we should just act on them, is that correct? TX is getting bad-mouthed for trying to keep the rules fair when other regions are taking advantage of the rule for their benefit.

It doesn't make sense to me. :?

I have pretty much tried to stay quiet....but I totally agree here.

I guess we should just cheat and just not talk about it.

"Don't ask...don't tell" :roll:

[Rob Liebbe]

I agree with Michael's well written comments. How is Texas in the wrong for wanting to understand the rules, have clear direction regarding the rules, and going out of the way to comply with the rules?

Nationals should be very interesting this year.

[Todd Covini]

You guys are misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Clarity is a good thing...we do it for a reason.
My bitch is that we chase our tail so much in Texas that the shit we stir gets on everyone else.

The East Coast guys apparetnly allowed 17" wheels this year. They are open about it. Everyone knows they are there. They all agree to it....so that makes them a bunch of cheaters who can't be trusted? Since the director there places car count as a priority, that means he is giving "under the table deals"? C'mon.

If that's the case then our entire CMC2 field should be penalized for cheating this year. They were doing things specifically not allowed in the rulebook, and the directors were giving "under the table deals" to allow that to happen. Sheesh. I'm ashamed. :roll:

My other bitch is that on one hand we are proposing very detailed, onerous rules for C/R...and then on the other hand are bitching and moaning about SCCA tactics, rules creep and not wanting change....when we are doing it to ourselves!

Don't get me wrong, I want everyone on the same rule page and I definately don't want to tell one guy no and another guy yes on something. That's just wrong. But if we all agree that bolting ballast to the rollcage is the same thing as bolting it thru the floor...even though the words in the rules clearly say "thru the floor", is it really cheating? ...and that is a Director call, not a racer's call. We'll get the rules language cleaned up to reflect reality as we do every year.

Anyway, our intentions are in the right place but our tactics have a lot to be desired. No one has defined the purpose of clarifying a spec C/R#. Is it to assist rebuilders? Is it to maximize compression? And we always have to be aware of the unintended consequences. Personally, I still say keep it general. List the OEM C/R's in the back of the rules as a reference and let the +/- tolerance rule catchall.

Take the high road guys, you're correct to point out a descrepancy...but not at the expense of all others outside of Texas.

-=- Todd

[Todd Covini]

Todd, I don't understand how TX is the bad guys for pointing out a poorly written rule.
You make it sound like that if nobody had mentioned anything about the c/r rule everything would be a-ok and none of this drama would have ever happened.

We are the "anal" ones that look over the rules w/ a microscope and point out all the possible areas to cheat. I guess instead of pointing out the areas we should just act on them, is that correct? TX is getting bad-mouthed for trying to keep the rules fair when other regions are taking advantage of the rule for their benefit.

It doesn't make sense to me. :?

Understood. I guess it doesn't make sense to me to create a rule because of local concerns and then complain that those 3000 miles away aren't following it....but you guys are right, at Nationals, it's all one big picture! Should be fun!

[michaelmosty]

Anyway, our intentions are in the right place but our tactics have a lot to be desired. No one has defined the purpose of clarifying a spec C/R#. Is it to assist rebuilders? Is it to maximize compression? And we always have to be aware of the unintended consequences. Personally, I still say keep it general. List the OEM C/R's in the back of the rules as a reference and let the +/- tolerance rule catchall.

Take the high road guys, you're correct to point out a descrepancy...but not at the expense of all others outside of Texas.

-=- Todd
Keeping it general is a-ok with me. I'm down with a +/- tolerance also.
What is the tolerance though? My opinion is that 1 - 1.5 points difference is not within tolerance. Where do we set the numbers?

[mitchntx]

If that's the case then our entire CMC2 field should be penalized for cheating this year. They were doing things specifically not allowed in the rulebook, and the directors were giving "under the table deals" to allow that to happen. Sheesh. I'm ashamed. :roll:

-=- Todd

Well then cleanse thyself and elnlighten 1/3 of the CMC 2 field on what "under the table deal" was made?

You have already shed some negative light on 3 specific racers. I would like to know what deal was made for the #9 CMC2 car. The owner driver wasn't aware of anything ...




Take the high road guys, you're correct to point out a descrepancy...but not at the expense of all others outside of Texas.

-=- Todd

Jeez ... when was fairness, honesty and integrity stricken from the High Road CCR?

You are talking out both sides of your mouth, here dude.

You say that local discretion needs to be allowed and you encourage discrepancies to be voiced, but don't say anything where any one can hear it.

Makes no sense.

The compression rule debacle is only symptom. The disease is the shotgun approach directors take. There should be NO under the table deals. As a competitor, I feel as though I have a right to know what my peer is running. The rule book is supposed to do that.

But if a driver shows up with illegal tires and the directors poll the other drivers and ask if it's OK, then by all means, let the masses rule. But don't say it'll be OK, but don't tell any one.

That just breeds these kinds of head butts.

[AllZWay]

The East Coast guys apparetnly allowed 17" wheels this year. They are open about it. Everyone knows they are there. They all agree to it....so that makes them a bunch of cheaters who can't be trusted? Since the director there places car count as a priority, that means he is giving "under the table deals"? C'mon.

-=- Todd

Absolutely that is cheating.... if someone from outside of their region has to race them with that advantage.

Either it is in the nationally accepted rules are it isn't. I always assumed this is supposed to be a national series and not just a regional one.

If so...then no rules outside of the rulebook...regardless of region.

And Todd... I am not angry at all....but it seems collectively CMC has to determine wether it is a national or just regional series.

I am not likely to ever race out of this region....but much to the reason that IMCA has been so successful for decades is the ability to have one set of rules that are good for all parts of the country and the ability to load up and race other tracks with good faith that the rules are governed the same. Just my two cents...

[Adam Ginsberg]

For me, that kind of ended at NPR when my restrictor plate was sealed to my motor because I was accused of changing it. And then my OBD port was sealed after winning my first and only CMC race at Cresson.

Someone accused you of changing the restrictor - class competitor, out of class competitor, director? Verbally, or via a written protest? I honestly don't know, as I wasn't at NPR.

Out of curiosity, Mitch - are you stating you didn't like that level of inspection? You've mentioned many times before that you didn't like getting your plate sealed or the ODB port sealed, and you're stating it again.....or do I have it wrong?


Well then cleanse thyself and elnlighten 1/3 of the CMC 2 field on what "under the table deal" was made?

You have already shed some negative light on 3 specific racers. I would like to know what deal was made for the #9 CMC2 car. The owner driver wasn't aware of anything ...

At MSR-H earlier this year, you mentioned that all 3 of the CMC2 competitors weren't dynoing their cars, as you had an "agreement" amongst each other. This was something you said after we were discussing ABS. If I have that wrong, please....correct me.

[BryanL]

Todd-I'll take the high road as soon as we find out about all these under the table deals across the country that are in the announcements section of this message board-be careful who you are ashamed for :oops:

Adam-I have a dyno cert on my car.

[Todd Covini]

This is not going to go anywhere and we shouldn't keep going round and round. We are all right, and arguing past each other.

This is a National series and we should seek (as we have) to have consistency among regions. (I'm not advocating that regions do what they want. BTDT...it don't work.)

My point is don't hang all this on "those evil directors" when we as racers have some shared responsibility in all this. I feel as though the directors have tried to bend over backwards time and time again to help the series and the racers, and it just comes back in their face twisted & turned around like it was their fault.

That was my CMC-2 point, Mitch....we looked the other way so you guys could run whatever tire you want and shake hands on no dynos or whatever, but I'll be damned if I'll have some yahoo in another region questioning my integrity for having such an "under the table" deal, when it's got nothing to do with him.

In principle, we're all right...not fair for another region guy to have to compete with that, but a reasonable person would see it for what it is and that is all about the fun factor. Gotta keep it fun, guys.

-=- Todd

[mitchntx]

For me, that kind of ended at NPR when my restrictor plate was sealed to my motor because I was accused of changing it. And then my OBD port was sealed after winning my first and only CMC race at Cresson.

Someone accused you of changing the restrictor - class competitor, out of class competitor, director? Verbally, or via a written protest? I honestly don't know, as I wasn't at NPR.

Out of curiosity, Mitch - are you stating you didn't like that level of inspection? You've mentioned many times before that you didn't like getting your plate sealed or the ODB port sealed, and you're stating it again.....or do I have it wrong?


Well then cleanse thyself and elnlighten 1/3 of the CMC 2 field on what "under the table deal" was made?

You have already shed some negative light on 3 specific racers. I would like to know what deal was made for the #9 CMC2 car. The owner driver wasn't aware of anything ...

At MSR-H earlier this year, you mentioned that all 3 of the CMC2 competitors weren't dynoing their cars, as you had an "agreement" amongst each other. This was something you said after we were discussing ABS. If I have that wrong, please....correct me.


Inspect the plate ... that was just fine. No issue there. Seal it to motor? Why? No one had there distributor's sealed? Or their float bowls sealed. Or anything else sealed ... why just the 4th gens?

Was it because the directors at the time kept telling every one "the 4th gens are coming, watch out". I thought it was tongue in cheek ... obviously others thought it different.

My OBD port was sealed post race win at the last race of the same season. The 17 car had already shown he could catch and pass with ease. Yet, some how I managed to "win". But by me winning the race, it automatically sent both 4thg ens to the dyno for post race inspection.

hmmm ...

From my high road, there is a difference between all competitors getting together and agreeing to overlook a dyno sheet or a tire or something that is ON the table and when things are done behind closed doors and UNDER the table.

[mitchntx]

That was my CMC-2 point, Mitch....we looked the other way so you guys could run whatever tire you want and shake hands on no dynos or whatever, but I'll be damned if I'll have some yahoo in another region questioning my integrity for having such an "under the table" deal, when it's got nothing to do with him.

In principle, we're all right...not fair for another region guy to have to compete with that, but a reasonable person would see it for what it is and that is all about the fun factor. Gotta keep it fun, guys.

-=- Todd

If I had made a deal with Glenn to run w/o a dyno sheet and Steve made one with Al and Bryan with you and never made any attempt to get a dyno sheet nor let the other know, you have a very valid point.

But let's stay focused ...

AS A GROUP, we agreed, in the open, without trying to hide anything, to race Houston sans dyno certs. And part of that agreement was that no points would be awarded till we did get a cert.

The reasons for no dyno certs was my motor was brand spanking new and would almost certainly make more power after a break in, Steve had no access to a dyno and Bryan had no access to a restrictor plate.

So we kibitzed amongst ourselves and said we're here for fun, let's race. That is reasonable and absolutely acceptable from my high road.

That is a lot different than allowing certain individuals allowances that went unpublicized. How is it fair to the next guy who pays good money to race under a set of rules and does his damndest to abide by them?

Understand ... PLEASE ... by all means, make the rules whatever you want. Just publicize them, adhere to them and fairly implement them. No one is asking for anything other than that.

And I could care less that the west coast snickers at Texas or if the East coast points fingers. I think by being "anal" we ARE on the high road.

[GlennCMC70]

those hand shake deals in other regions affect ours when our racers drive across country to race in the other regions CMC class. if its wheels, thats one thing as its fairly obvious to notice. i cant look at a motor and tell what the comp ratio is, or if it has a non-legal CMC cam.

what happens if that car w/ a hand shake deal goes to Nats? does it get tossed?

just as other regions look down upon us for following the letter of the law, ours looks down on them for not following the letter of the law. what racer in his right mind would show up EXPECTING to not have to follow the rules? i showed up fully expecting to be expected to follow the printed rules to the last word. if that expectation is placed on one, its placed on all. i would have no desire to be here if folks didnt follow the rules. i'm sure i'm not alone here.

and Mitch is correct - they all agree'ed to not protest each other. it was a very public deal. had another CMC-2 car showed up, and didnt agree w/ it, then the other 3 would be in a no points status.
Bryan had a dyno but no restrictor plates available yet. he also had a fresh motor, and did mitch.

and stop w/ the ballast BS. you approved my ballast placement PRIOR to me putting my tools up after bolting it in and prior to the start of the race. had you said i couldnt do it, i would have drilled holes in the floor (as i now have it placed). if you feel you made the judgement call in error, suck it up and own up to it, stop telling folks you saved my ass.

[Adam Ginsberg]

You still didn't answer my question - who accused you of changing it, and was it verbal or written?


Inspect the plate ... that was just fine. No issue there. Seal it to motor? Why? No one had there distributor's sealed? Or their float bowls sealed. Or anything else sealed ... why just the 4th gens?

Seriously - what's wrong with sealing it? Why do you insist that shouldn't have been done? Are you exempt?

Cars have had various things sealed in TX, but you seem to be the only one who feels it shouldn't have been done to you.


Was it because the directors at the time kept telling every one "the 4th gens are coming, watch out". I thought it was tongue in cheek ... obviously others thought it different.

For the life of me, I don't know where you get this from, as it's simply not true. Good lord, Mitch, the whole world isn't against you.


My OBD port was sealed post race win at the last race of the same season. The 17 car had already shown he could catch and pass with ease. Yet, some how I managed to "win". But by me winning the race, it automatically sent both 4thg ens to the dyno for post race inspection.

So what? It's part of validating CMC cars, regardless of finishing order. Should Eric have been sealed/dynoed? Maybe so, but you have this prevailing attitude that there's no reason to dyno your car, no reason to seal the restrictor plate, or seal the ECU.

As much as I hate to bring this up....Hallett 2006. A non-CMC competitor made unsubstantiated claims against several folks - AI and CMC. The decision was made to seal not just the hood of #5, but the float bowls and the distributor. Eh...so be it. F-it, shrink wrap the whole damn car for all I care.

Daron's highest finish that weekend was 5th, and was consistently 2-4 seconds off the leaders pace. Burch won 3 of the 4 races and put down FL of the weekend (1:29.635 vs the next fastest of 1:29.998...everyone else was in the 1:30's or slower...Daron's FL was 1:31.825). Yet, the #5 car was sealed, and sent to the dyno. Never have we (Daron or I) thought sealing and sending it to the dyno was wrong, regardless of the reasoning.

Did any other CMC car get sealed and sent to the dyno that weekend? Corey won R3 - was he sealed and sent to the dyno?

What's the difference, Mitch? NONE, except that you clearly think it should not have been done to you.

[BryanL]

I thought an under the table handshake deal was something done only between a competitor and a director that explicitly allowed something against the rules and would be considered cheating. If not why was the whole deal about the handshake deals put in the announcement where people can't post?

The CMC2 deal is much different in my opinion. All the competitors as well as the directors agreed upon everything. It was as you say 'all about keeping it fun' I knew I had some issues with my car and was up front about all of it with everyone. I wanted to start on my rookie races and said I would run as a 'fun run' as it was allowed in the rulebook. I didn't come to a director and ask for any special deal.

This is about the nation as a whole following the same ruleset as the directors want this to be a big national class. Its about making the playing field level for everyone. Its not only about the guys running at the top 5 either. If there is a guy cheating that has an 'under the table' deal who is running mid pack that isn't fair to the other guys in the middle with him or the guys behind him who are legal.

This deal isn't about a group of guys in Cali who race for fun anymore.

[Todd Covini]

<<A) The CMC2 deal is much different in my opinion. All the competitors as well as the directors agreed upon everything.>>

<<B) This is about the nation as a whole following the same ruleset as the directors want this to be a big national class. Its about making the playing field level for everyone.>>

Can't have it both ways.
Which one do you want?

Those "cheating bastards" in other regions were doing exactly what CMC2 was doing here. Everything was above board and out in the open in their region.

We're trying to have one big national class. So, we're gonna have to run Toyos (they are the spec tire) and you'll have to have dynosheets (those are required per the rules). Anyone out of region can clearly see that. :wink:

CMC2 racers didn't come to a director and ask for a special deal, but they didn't follow the rules. Hence, using Texas logic...they are automatic cheaters, right?!? :roll:

So, I'll ask the question again.
You can't have it both ways.
Which way do you want it?

I hope you see my point and my frustration. Both sides of the argument are correct, but we can't have it both ways otherwise we're a pretty fickle bunch, no?

[Todd Covini]

and stop w/ the ballast BS. you approved my ballast placement PRIOR to me putting my tools up after bolting it in and prior to the start of the race. had you said i couldnt do it, i would have drilled holes in the floor (as i now have it placed). if you feel you made the judgement call in error, suck it up and own up to it, stop telling folks you saved my ass.

hehehehe...I don't feel as though I made an error in judgement. I think I made the right decision and the most reasonable decision, and that my friend, is exactly my point in all this.

Many here would argue/infer that my decision regarding your ballast placement was "under the table" and dishonest because it was allowed.

Many here would argue/infer that you were cheating because you didn't follow the clear as day, black & white letter of the law.

I don't see it that way at all. Yet, there are directors and regions all over the country that are making those types of decisions, individual and group, (in and out of Texas) and the Texas Lawyers are taking them to task on the black/white verbiage & word for word rulebook interpretation. ...and I don't think that's right.

So I'm still confused, which way do you guys want it?

[mitchntx]

You still didn't answer my question - who accused you of changing it, and was it verbal or written?


Inspect the plate ... that was just fine. No issue there. Seal it to motor? Why? No one had there distributor's sealed? Or their float bowls sealed. Or anything else sealed ... why just the 4th gens?

Seriously - what's wrong with sealing it? Why do you insist that shouldn't have been done? Are you exempt?

Cars have had various things sealed in TX, but you seem to be the only one who feels it shouldn't have been done to you.


Was it because the directors at the time kept telling every one "the 4th gens are coming, watch out". I thought it was tongue in cheek ... obviously others thought it different.

For the life of me, I don't know where you get this from, as it's simply not true. Good lord, Mitch, the whole world isn't against you.


My OBD port was sealed post race win at the last race of the same season. The 17 car had already shown he could catch and pass with ease. Yet, some how I managed to "win". But by me winning the race, it automatically sent both 4thg ens to the dyno for post race inspection.

So what? It's part of validating CMC cars, regardless of finishing order. Should Eric have been sealed/dynoed? Maybe so, but you have this prevailing attitude that there's no reason to dyno your car, no reason to seal the restrictor plate, or seal the ECU.

As much as I hate to bring this up....Hallett 2006. A non-CMC competitor made unsubstantiated claims against several folks - AI and CMC. The decision was made to seal not just the hood of #5, but the float bowls and the distributor. Eh...so be it. F-it, shrink wrap the whole damn car for all I care.

Daron's highest finish that weekend was 5th, and was consistently 2-4 seconds off the leaders pace. Burch won 3 of the 4 races and put down FL of the weekend (1:29.635 vs the next fastest of 1:29.998...everyone else was in the 1:30's or slower...Daron's FL was 1:31.825). Yet, the #5 car was sealed, and sent to the dyno. Never have we (Daron or I) thought sealing and sending it to the dyno was wrong, regardless of the reasoning.

Did any other CMC car get sealed and sent to the dyno that weekend? Corey won R3 - was he sealed and sent to the dyno?

What's the difference, Mitch? NONE, except that you clearly think it should not have been done to you.

C'mon Adam ... quit taking this to the Corner Carvers Nth degree.

Nothing was ever shown to me in writing. All that was said was that some "other racers" have a concern and I want to check the size. And don't go down the road that if it ain't in writing, it didn't happen.

But, no problem ... the plate was pulled, it was measured, was deemed legal. That should have been the end. It was shown that I was in compliance and as racers and gentlemen, that should have been it.

But it went one step further and then 2 steps ... like I said earlier, it took the "fun" out of it when one feels as though the peer group doesn't trust or believe in integrity.

By "others", it was rhetorical, unless it struck a nerve with you specifically.

I have no issue with getting a part sealed. Just stop making up stuff. You are editorializing as if it were fact. It is what it is, Adam. ;)

I don't think there is any conspiracy. But I do think there was and now is considerable bias predicated on previous relationships.

You, of all people, ought to be able to empathize with being singled out even though there was no violation.


Todd ... you just don't get it, do you or refuse to acknowledge it ...

One more time ...

The rules are in place for many reasons, one being that each competitor has a reasonable assurance that they know when they show up to race that it is a level playing field.

Under the table, secretive, good ole boy deals completly throw that out the window.

Above the table, reasonable, publicicized agreements still fall within the spirit of the rules. It's not "having it both ways".

But, if forced to make a choice, then obviously, 100% compliance is my vote. I guess lucky for you, this isn't a democracy.

As far as who knew about dyno certs ... Al, the NASA-Texas CMC director knew about our agreement at Houston on Friday night as well as all the competitors.

If he failed to tell you, that's between you and Al, not CMC2 participants and you. I recall being chastised for going around the chain of command ...

It really disturbs me that you, Todd, are ashamed of the Texas group because so many of us want to follow the rules ... one set of rules ... that everyone has access to. That part I don't get ...

And I think it's sad that you felt it necessary to point fingers at a specific group. That is unlike you, Todd. We did nothing wrong, none of us attempted to get away with anything illegal, no one went behind any one's back. We simply asked the question of what we thought was a CMC offiicial and it was OKed

Trust me ... I'll never again ask a rules related question. There are just too many variables when I do that.

[Todd Covini]

I'm not ashamed of the Texas group because so many of us want to follow the rules ... one set of rules ... that everyone has access to.

I"m ashamed of the manner in which folks are conducting themselves toward others...and the part I"m confused about, is for so many people to be so upset about following the rules, why aren't they following the rules like they say they should? :shock:

I smirk when I hear our Texas responses:

"well that's different"
"well we told director x about that"
"well we all agreed"
"well no one went behind any one's back"
"well we simply asked the question of what we thought and it was OK'd"
"well we did nothing wrong"
"well there is no performance advantage with my situation"
"well that rule is just dumb"

BS! The rule is the rule and if we are going to demand one set of rules that everyone follows, then we better start cleaning up our own house before throwing mud at others!

By no means did I mean to pick on CMC2, it was convenient because it made for an easy example for the 2 people I was responding to. The part that frustrates me is that many of us, may not be 100% compliant or are operating in the gray area. Nothing major, but clearly not fitting the exact language of the rules. (taillights and cowls for example) Part imperfect rules...part imperfect racers. I'm comfortable with that. But If we go black & white, we go black & white...and only until that happens do we have the right to critique other regions so harshly IMO.

Trust & integrity is a two way street, and in order to get it you have to give it. I hope that I've always treated Mitch and any others with the utmost respect, even though we were sealing parts or doublechecking setups. I would have thought that same trust & respect would come back to the directors, especially when the inspections revealed 100% legal configs...but I guess not. In the end your directors are just racers like you who are trying to keep things on an even keel....well, they're supposed to at least.

Like I said, our regional intentions are good but our approach is all wrong.

-=- Todd

PS- I can't get caught up in this anymore guys. Too much goin' on with work, home and family. I dipped my head in for a bit and it really took over my thoughts for a few days. Sorry if I snapped, but I did expect a bit more trust and respect and benefit of the doubt of the directors, even though (at least I think) I don't have a dog in this hunt. Sure seems like guilt by association, though. Either way, no one wants to be accused of something they didn't do, and I think that's one common goal we're all after here. Fun is inversely proportional to false accusations. Take care and talk to you all soon!

[ShadowBolt]

So... Everyone had an under the table deal but the Jordan's? No wonder we were not winning! The new e-cam just installed in CMC17 should help fix that.


I don't mean to make light of all this but I do want to go to TWS next week and enjoy racing and fellowship with you all. Lets please don't let all this shit screw up the great thing we have at the track. I love you man!


JJ

[mitchntx]

PS- I can't get caught up in this anymore guys.

Smirk away ...

[Alien]

http://lolnice.com/static/public/w600/182_81344.gif

[AllZWay]

http://lolnice.com/static/public/w600/182_81344.gif

:lol: That's great....and Jerry... don't worry the drama always ends at the track.

This cycle always seems to happen before a race and everything is rosey just after a race. I think it is hormonal or something. :P

[AI#97]

Was trying to post a webster's link to the true definition of "rule"....

sort of gathering over the last 60 days they are more like "guidelines and loop holes"...

You guys don't even want to know what I have going with the AI directors at the moment!!! :shock: I will say this, you better show up at NATS with a 110% legal car if you plan on being on the podium! JWL has implied he will be on a warpath in post race tech!

Seems the West Coast, and a few others, don't feel they need to follow the rules and feel they CAN and WILL interpret the rules as they see fit! However, if there is no enforcement, why have rules at all...? :roll:

[GlennCMC70]

we have gotten all we are gonna get out of this. i'm as guilty as anyone for not keeping on topic. we all seem to disagree on what level of rules "tolarance" is acceptable.
sorry Al, i hope you got what you needed.
seems we need to plan a Saturday night round table at TWS if we want to talk this out.