PDA

View Full Version : Just to clear the air



chicane23
07-16-2006, 06:55 PM
Just to clear the air!

First the Adam issue at Hallett.
I was talking about tech and policing of the AI series and how I missed the old ways of the random checks to make sure everyone was in compliance. I never mentioned anyone’s name or car being not incompliance.
I was then asked specifically if Adam was cheating. With the B.S. and the crap I have gotten the last year I’m not pulling any punches for Adam at all. I then said that the heads on his car were not in the intent of the CMC rules, and that is Adam’s words. They then asked what do you mean? I explained the following, since they were my old heads and I quote “The heads that I sold Adam at the end of 2004 were ported on both the exhaust and intake side, shaved 40 thousandths and have Edelbrock double valve springs.”

So people believe that even if Adam dynos under 230/300 that this should be allowed, maybe, but this poses a different issue. Now everyone needs to do this to stay competitive. Shaving a head 40 thousandths will change the dyno curve and give more power on the bottom end. That is the whole reason I built a 14.1 motor for my now retired AI car.

So you tell me what you would have done?

Second, I did a test at Houston with my new car, not the blue car, during practice. This is what Clifton was aware of. I pulled my restrictor and ran with a few cars to see who could pull me on the straights and yes there was a car or two that seemed suspicious. I never even said who, just that this series needs more attention and policing.

AI#97
07-16-2006, 07:18 PM
I don't think I pulled you in practice but I remember pulling you during the race once or twice! :wink: :D

chicane23
07-16-2006, 07:26 PM
I don't think I pulled you in practice but I remember pulling you during the race once or twice! :wink: :D

Most definitely not you, slow poke! ;-)

mitchntx
07-16-2006, 07:29 PM
Well, he pulled me, too. :evil:

GlennCMC70
07-16-2006, 08:14 PM
how long had you known these "illegal" heads have been on Adams car? seems like 2 years is too long to wait to say something about a person cheating. right?
if the heads are what you say they are (ported), then yes, they are illegal. if they boost tq a notable amount, then yea, they are illegal. milling them? no.
how about boring a motor .030" over? milling heads is the same thing.

chicane23
07-16-2006, 08:26 PM
Well, he pulled me, too. :evil:

And your issue is???? :evil:

chicane23
07-16-2006, 08:42 PM
how long had you known these "illegal" heads have been on Adams car? seems like 2 years is too long to wait to say something about a person cheating. right?

Again, If you ask a specific question you will get the appropriate answer. Also, as I said I'm not pulling any punches any more!
Since I sold them to him...It was not my issue, nor was I racing in CMC.


if the heads are what you say they are (ported), then yes, they are illegal. if they boost tq a notable amount, then yea, they are illegal. milling them? no.
how about boring a motor .030" over? milling heads is the same thing.

Wow, where do you read this?
I see the rules as black and white...no gray area here? The only rule I see that states anything is below. Also, if it's not listed as allowed then it’s not legal...right?

8.14. Ford Spec Engine Option
All of the following unmodified aftermarket components (and only these components) may be
installed on an OEM stock unmodified Ford 5.0 liter (302ci) V8 long block to create a carbed, spec
CMC Ford engine:

This may draw attention to your car if you think milling is legal.
And if milling is legal...I have a great new business and a product for CMC Mustang owner!

GlennCMC70
07-16-2006, 09:50 PM
how long had you known these "illegal" heads have been on Adams car? seems like 2 years is too long to wait to say something about a person cheating. right?

Again, If you ask a specific question you will get the appropriate answer. Also, as I said I'm not pulling any punches any more!
Since I sold them to him...It was not my issue, nor was I racing in CMC.


if the heads are what you say they are (ported), then yes, they are illegal. if they boost tq a notable amount, then yea, they are illegal. milling them? no.
how about boring a motor .030" over? milling heads is the same thing.

Wow, where do you read this?
I see the rules as black and white...no gray area here? The only rule I see that states anything is below. Also, if it's not listed as allowed then it’s not legal...right?

8.14. Ford Spec Engine Option
All of the following unmodified aftermarket components (and only these components) may be
installed on an OEM stock unmodified Ford 5.0 liter (302ci) V8 long block to create a carbed, spec
CMC Ford engine:

This may draw attention to your car if you think milling is legal.
And if milling is legal...I have a great new business and a product for CMC Mustang owner!


how long had you known these "illegal" heads have been on Adams car?

i do believe thats a specific question. why did you wait so long to say something?


...It was not my issue, nor was I racing in CMC.
so its not your issue since you were not racing in CMC, but then Adams legality is your issue when you reported it to NASA, correct? so its only Adams legality that is your issue?
it is ALL of our responsibilty to report ANY cheeting of anyone w/in NASA. the only reason i can think of to not report someone is due to fear of being reported on oneself.


This may draw attention to your car if you think milling is legal.
And if milling is legal...I have a great new business and a product for CMC Mustang owner!
so now if i believe doing something is legal, that means i've done it? wow, alot of speculation on your part.
ya know, adjusting bump steer is legal, but i havent done it. 2 piece front rear rotors w/ aluminum hats is legal, but i havent done it. front air dam is legal, but i havent done it. there are many more and i could go on.

i also believe it is w/in the intent of the rules to rebuild a motor. this, in many instances, requires things such as milling heads, boring blocks. thats why the manufacture lists specs such as max allowable overbore and other specs required for rebuilding an engine.

but hey, feel free to whisper in the ear of whoever it is that takes your word as absolute and tell them i've had my motor overbored or that i've milled my heads. crappy comment deleted. sorry John.

all i said above was why did you wait so long to report adam and i also stated i didnt think milling heads (or boring a block) was cheeting.

if the heads are ported and the motor didnt make anymore power over a legal motor, its still cheeting, its just not being a good cheeter.
and if i'm cheeting i'll be sure to keep it to myself just in case that person i tell @ some point in time desides they dont like me and reports me.
but understand 1 thing if nothing else, if i know of someone cheeting, i'll report them regardless of my personal relationship w/ them.

as for others, dont be so sure the person your defending is telling the trueth. i'm not defending Adan here, so understand that. but i havent MYSELF seen the parts in question. have some of you? same goes for accusations about Johns car, do you know for sure he's not? enough to defend him and risk your credibility? i told Adam on the phone friday - "i'm not saying your cheeting, but i would have to see the parts before i would defend you".
accusations against John is between John and NASA to determin.

chicane23
07-16-2006, 10:13 PM
i do believe thats a specific question. why did you wait so long to say something?

Again, you fail to read clearly…I was never questioned about the heads before Hallett so I was not going to give free info. on a matter that did not concern me. I don’t care who is cheating in CMC at all. I don’t care!!!!!!



so its not your issue since you were not racing in CMC, but then Adams legality is your issue when you reported it to NASA, correct? so its only Adams legality that is your issue?
it is ALL of our responsibilty to report ANY cheeting of anyone w/in NASA. the only reason i can think of to not report someone is due to fear of being reported on oneself.


If someone would have asked me earlier I would have told them! I didn’t report it out of the blue. I was simply asked "is Adam cheating"?

I don’t have any responsibility other than to my family.



so now if i believe doing something is legal, that means i've done it? wow, alot of speculation on your part.
Just giving you shit Glenn.



go ahead and lie your ass off (again?)

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt first, but are you directing this to me?

GlennCMC70
07-16-2006, 10:18 PM
shitty comment on my part. i'll delete it. sorry.

chicane23
07-16-2006, 10:26 PM
So was that directed to me???

If you have an issue with me, I believe you might want to call me or talk to me face to face or provide your number and I will call you tomorrow!

This is only fueling a big fire at this time.

972-743-7543 - cell


Any if anyone wants to ask me a question, call I don't care. Just call tomorrow as my family is asleep.

GlennCMC70
07-16-2006, 11:14 PM
i dont have an issue w/ you.

but feel free to call if you feel the need.
214-869-9603. anytime after 8am.
otherwise, i'll see ya @ TWS.

chicane23
07-17-2006, 06:53 AM
If I show up at TWS it will not be to race! I will have a different reason/motive.

Good luck and have a blast!

AI#97
07-17-2006, 10:17 AM
If I show up at TWS it will not be to race! I will have a different reason/motive.

Good luck and have a blast!

Well, I could use a pit "bitch" so feel free to stop by! :wink:

GlennCMC70
07-17-2006, 03:00 PM
thanks for the call this morning John. it was good talking w/ you.

chicane23
07-17-2006, 04:00 PM
Same here Glenn, it was a great conversation.

Good luck with CMC!

BTW, Mixon called me right after we talked! It was a very interesting conversation as well.

oz98cobra
07-17-2006, 07:39 PM
Everyone is no doubt now aware that I got caught in the middle of this crap at Hallett. I'd like to put it behind me and move on, but there are couple of things in this thread that deserve comment.

Some people have put a lot of focus on who it was that raised the issue of Adam's heads to NASA TX - I was not concerned so much about who was the rat, as I and am with how NASA TX reacted to the information - which was very wrong and not even close to the guidelines set down in the rules. We have now been assured that this is being addressed.

Having said that, John you say that you did not speak out about Adam's heads in the past because you were not asked - read the CCRs - specifically this rule:


17.6 Bad Faith Protests
Any competitor, entrant, or team member having knowledge or suspicion of illegal parts or modifications to another competitor’s vehicle has an obligation to immediately disclose that information to that team, or to the Race Director, before the start of the race.

To file a protest in violation of these rules will cause action to be taken against the protestor. This will not however, affect the acceptance, rejection, or out come of the protest.

Now you did not file a protest, but this rule is clear that you had an obligation to talk to either Adam and/or Clifton as soon as you knew these heads were on his car. You chose not to do this, so to bring it up at a later date when by your own admission you are not happy with Adam, even if you were specifically asked, is not exactly acting in good faith is it? And if you originally sold them to Adam with a wink and a nudge, then that's even worse! :evil:

And if you really were specifically asked about legality of Adam's car, the implications of that fact are interesting indeed, but I'm not going to go there right now.

Regarding the "intent" of the CMC rules, lets examine that!

The CMC Rule on intent says:


2. Intent
The intent of the Camaro Mustang Challenge (CMC) racing class is to provide National Auto Sport Association (NASA) members a racing series utilizing late model production V8 sedans. Modifications will be limited to those necessary to provide for safety, close competition, limited expenses, and positive exposure.

CMC also has a "no engine tear down" rule, but strict guidelines on power/torque to weight ratio.

So what is the intent of the CMC rules if you put these together? it is still "safety, close competition, limited expenses, and positive exposure", but it also means that the writers intent was that we should be little concerned with what is inside an engine as long as it is within the power to weight guidelines. As most CMC competitors have discovered, very few completely stock 5.0 engines as specified in the CMC rules can make the class numbers (although for some strange reason, CMC cars with "stock" engines built on the West Coast seem to have less trouble making good numbers than those from elsewhere? ;) ). To get there, one needs to rebuild, and clean things up a little? So does this mean the CMC rules or intent are conflicting? Perhaps it does because it is supposed to be about "limited expenses", but money needs to be spent on engines to ensure "close competiton"?

Adam tells me that he bought these heads from John because the heads on the car when he bought it were junk, and that the ones John had were affordable and available when he needed a set - he did not buy them to "cheat". They may have helped put him in the ballpark numbers wise - not the best numbers in the group, but in the ballpark at least - but with the way the car is tuned, they have not given him a performance advantage over the rest of the TX CMC field! John, I dispute your inference that just because the heads are shaved that these heads are giving Adam's car a torque curve that it shouldn't have. There are so many other variables. I have seen his dyno sheets, and the torque curve is healthy, but nothing to write home about. Note that Adam is the only one in our group running the CMC spec 5.0 carby/intake engine option - and he is NOT pushing the envelope with the numbers!

Having driven this car for most of the year (and without having a clue what was inside the engine), not counting Mike B and Lewis T's SN-95s - both of which were way down on power, there is no other CMC car in the field that I have raced against that I have been able to pull away from purely on motor - there is little discernable difference between the majority of the cars in the field (although there are 2 or 3 notables that we all get whooped by in a straight line!).

Adam wants to remove the heads so I don't have to deal with any gossip, sour grapes, or tech dramas if I race the car again, and to prove that they were no big deal - but I'm not sure it is really going to achieve anything at all - we could be damned if we do and damned if we don't?

Personally, I believe that CMC #5 is right now well within the spirit of the CMC rules - as much as most other CMC cars competing today - and I would not feel like I'm cheating if I was to race it again - not even close - but I would also want to know that my competitors and NASA TX officials feel the same way, so if any TX CMC racer or official has an issue with me driving the car - as is - in the remaining rounds this year, please let me know ASAP!

GlennCMC70
07-17-2006, 08:10 PM
i have no issue w/ you finishing the year w/ whatever is currently on the car.
if the heads are what i have been told by john lets get them off before next year.
and here is why i say that.
if a guy who is running last in every race has a stroker motor, would we all be o.k. w/ him running a stroker? no
same deal here. even though the car makes the numbers, its not right to have an illegal part on the car. are the parts illegal, only Adam knows 100% and only John knows if he can identify the heads w/ some type of reference mark.
is Adams TQ (or HP) healthy due to the spec cam/intake or the heads? who knows as he is the only one who has the spec package and a questionable set of heads. maybe the motor has other issues causing it to only have a small increase in TQ over the field. maybee the timming has been backed down to help keep it to only a small difference. whats the initial timming @? total timming? pulling timming will keep it below the limits w/ a possible gain where its needed, under the curve.
this is why its not legal to run what you want inside a motor and stand on the grounds of "its ok cause i am still under the limit".
my motor makes peak TQ @ 2000rpm's. i'm @ a disadvantage in the RPM's were we all keep the motors durring a race. i need all the help i can get @ 3K, 4K, 5k. i dont need to have a "healthy" TQ # car in front of me.

like i said, i'm fine w/ you racing the next 2 events. but those who are behind you in the points may not feel the same.
i will offer to help replace the parts if you deside to swap them. i'm sure someone here has a set that they could offer you if thats the route you take. i have plans to be in Carrolton on Saturday anyways, so it would not be any trouble.

Mike Bell
07-17-2006, 08:23 PM
Daron,

I don't think it's fair to put this on your fellow CMC racers. I want NASA to make a determination regarding the legality of the motor. Believe me, I want them to find it legal. That way I can quit talking to motor experts and financing experiment after experiment to get my motor to 230/300.

After plunking down <insert some significant $$ figure here> and then dyno'ing at less than the legal limit levels I'm not a happy camper. Now when you beat me again how is that fair or right?? How will you feel about it? How will you and I know who out-drove who?

I, like many, see the irony in how the rules are written and how some 5.0 liter Mustangs make power right up to the legal power limits while others are quite low on power (including mine). But I'm down on power legally. So we're back to the basic question, according to NASA is the #5 motor legal? I don't make that determination.

You don't want to be labeled a cheater and I completely understand (and sympathize). Neither do I. But asking for someone to raise their hand and object isn't really fair. I don't feel that lack of response from your competitors should be considered consent or approval. I'd like to see NASA to sign off on it.

Now, with all of that said, I still want to race against you. If the #5 car makes the grid in its present configuration I won't be the one to file a protest over the engine components. I just hope I have the same power levels so we can have a good race.

GlennCMC70
07-17-2006, 08:55 PM
very good post mike.

chicane23
07-17-2006, 09:25 PM
Having said that, John you say that you did not speak out about Adam's heads in the past because you were not asked - read the CCRs - specifically this rule:

First off, Adam is not my competitor.



but this rule is clear that you had an obligation to talk to either Adam and/or Clifton as soon as you knew these heads were on his car. You chose not to do this, so to bring it up at a later date when by your own admission you are not happy with Adam, even if you were specifically asked, is not exactly acting in good faith is it? And if you originally sold them to Adam with a wink and a nudge, then that's even worse! :evil:

I had heads to sell, I don’t care what anyone does with them. I just know the heads are ported on both the exhaust and intake side, shaved 40 thousandths and have Edelbrock double valve springs. A normal rebuild only takes 10 thousandths to clean up. ;-)



As most CMC competitors have discovered, very few completely stock 5.0 engines as specified in the CMC rules can make the class numbers (although for some strange reason, CMC cars with "stock" engines built on the West Coast seem to have less trouble making good numbers than those from elsewhere? ;) ). To get there, one needs to rebuild, and clean things up a little? So does this mean the CMC rules or intent are conflicting? Perhaps it does because it is supposed to be about "limited expenses", but money needs to be spent on engines to ensure "close competiton"?

Why would the rules be in place for so long and this not be true.


Adam tells me that he bought these heads from John because the heads on the car when he bought it were junk, and that the ones John had were affordable and available when he needed a set - he did not buy them to "cheat".

I’m sure he did! How much do you think he paid for those heads? How would a normal person pay for a stock set of heads? How many sets of heads has Adam had of the past few years? Do give the sob story, its B.S.


John, I dispute your inference that just because the heads are shaved that these heads are giving Adam's car a torque curve that it shouldn't have.
That is your choice to dispute anything, but I just called a good engine builder and that will increase the compression about .5 and we know how the port work affects the heads.


Note that Adam is the only one in our group running the CMC spec 5.0 carby/intake engine option - and he is NOT pushing the envelope with the numbers!
That was not a choice, that was what the car came with.


Personally, I believe that CMC #5 is right now well within the spirit of the CMC rules - as much as most other CMC cars competing today - and I would not feel like I'm cheating if I was to race it again - not even close - but I would also want to know that my competitors and NASA TX officials feel the same way, so if any TX CMC racer or official has an issue with me driving the car - as is - in the remaining rounds this year, please let me know ASAP!

Good luck!

Todd Covini
07-17-2006, 11:38 PM
Daron,
As I told Adam and others after JG's opportune disclosure:

1) Porting of the heads and/or removing substantial material is illegal. (however minor clean-up of cast flashing would be considered normal for a rebuild)

2) Polishing of the heads, runners or bowls is illegal.

3) Milling is a grey area as there is no tolerance for what is allowed. However, clearly some milling as part of a normal rebuild is allowed. (Just because JG says .10 is acceptable, doesn't make it so.) We have the right/ability to check/compare compression ratios in tech. If 4 out of 5 Mustangs surveyed came up with 9:1 compression (or ## psi) and 1 Mustang had 10.5:1 or a skewed psi...we have a problem, Houston.

4) Double valve springs are also a grey area. Clearly hi-zoot purpose built aftermarket 7500 rpm units are illegal. However, as most of the CMC guys now know, "stock replacement" valve springs can and will come in various sizes, shapes and configurations. O'Reileys could sell "factory replacement" valve springs which happen to be double dampers. If they are an "improved performance" part, they are illegal.

So, for me....Items #1 and #2 would be the smoking guns if the 2-year delayed allegations are true. (#3 & #4 are grey areas that JG might look to get clarified in the CMC rules just for sport.) No doubt, we'll be looking at all this stuff in the off-season rules rewrite, anyway.

We've seen this "what is allowed in the internals of a CMC engine" drama before on a National level with Matt King's series of articles in Hot Rod magazine where he used high dollar rods and other internals. Call it gray....call it an unwritten rule...but, as was the case with Matt's interpretation of the rule regarding CMC engine internals....if it ain't stock or stock replacement, it IS illegal. (He conceded that point in later CMC articles regarding his motor build...and has since grenaded that motor.)

So...Folks shouldn't rely on the "no tear-down rule" or the "as long as I'm under the #" mentality in CMC to pass off illegal parts.

Daron/Adam...I would take this information above and, per the CMC rules, get a clarification/ruling from Tony G. the National CMC Series Director and his Board. Neither I, nor NASA TX, nor John George nor anyone else has the authority to tell you what you can and can't do with your particular situation in relation to the CMC rules. Find out what you actually have for parts, lay those cards on the table and see what comes back. That is my advice. Full disclosure is the key.

-=- Todd

PS- Regarding "the West Coast cars" making the #'s. From my experiance, more of those guys seem to drop in Factory Ford Reman crate motors and be done with it. Seems like a lot of folks here like to do their own wrenching & rebuild work. Just an observation.

(Hopefully we aren't starting to get fixated on the 230/300 # again. Most of our historical CMC champions have done so with ~215/280. Let's not get "power envy" or it'll continue to drive people batty (kinda like now.) :D

Lewis Tanner
07-17-2006, 11:41 PM
I'll swap motors with you, Todd! :)

Todd Covini
07-17-2006, 11:47 PM
No way! $1900 bucks was the best spent, lowest maintenance motor money could buy, even going back a few years!

How does that saying go..."You can pay me now, or pay me later!" Factory is the way to go.

(I can already tell I'm going to need to bring my receipts for the spanish inquisition at TWS if my car makes it there! :roll: )

-=- Todd

oz98cobra
07-18-2006, 06:07 AM
The replys to my question from Todd, Mike and Glenn tell me what I needed to know - I will NOT be driving CMC #5 in it's current configuration! Even if we took it to Tony G. and he pronounced it legal, we are screwed because some will think it not fair. The motor has to come apart.

Mike, your experience highlights the problem with the CMC rules as they stand now. I see your point, however, there are plenty of other cars in the group making better numbers than #5 - but that's OK right because you don't know what's under their cam covers! ;)

Adam has more than one set of heads, so if I do drive the car again, it will be rebuilt and redynoed.

oz98cobra
07-18-2006, 06:08 AM
John, it says competitor or entrant - if I'm not mistaken, you have entered a race or two in the last couple of years? :roll:

You are missing the point about the spec carby engine - you would expect a spec motor to provide power/torque levels close to the allowable limits for the class - Adam is only making 288 torque with a very normal looking curve - with stock exhaust manifolds and spec intake/carby, those allegedly souped up heads aren't giving the performance improvement that you're trying to have us believe is the case!

But the numbers are irrelevant now, so is whether or not it is technically legal - the motor has to come apart :cry: thanks a bunch

oz98cobra
07-18-2006, 06:19 AM
The CMC rules are rediculous! As long as no one else knows what is inside your motor, everyone is happy to turn a blind eye to the numbers, even congratulate you on them when you dyno! - although there might be gossip, raised eyebrows or suspicions behind your back?

We have a set of rules that mean for most allowable engine configurations, racers are faced with either bending the rules, or living with substandard power levels! That doesn't exactly promote close competition now does it?

Racers had better be very careful who they buy parts from or who they get work done by, because as we have now seen, it can come back to haunt you bigtime!

Todd, where in the CMC rules does it say that we can "clean up" ports? You see the problem here? Define clean up? It doesn't say a head can be milled either? CMC is supposed to be about "if it doesn't say you can then you can't" - but here we have unwritten clarifications that have not been written in? And even if you do write them in, you can't police them? (unless John George once owned the part, then your screwed! ;) )

On the other hand, the "no tear down rule" is a very sensible one for the class, so here's a suggestion for your 07 CMC rules proposal - consider it official and serious:

Add some more detail to the engine modification section, but since we cannot police most internals that we cannot see, it's pointless to get too specific - so why not broaden what is allowed? Allow some aftermarket parts perhaps? Allow porting matching or milling? (remember, we are still limited by the intake and exhaust manifold which should remain stock). Cams should probably still be restricted to stock? (but these should be able to be policed to some degree if the scrutineer knows what he is doing?). Short blocks should also remain stock.

In other words, why not loosen up the rules in this area that cannot be policed?

A change like this should do a lot of things - it should still be affordable, as it broadens the allowable parts selection, but we are still limited by the class power/torque limits so someone who spends big money on an engine is not going to have a big advantage over someone on a budget engine. It should make for closer competition because racers should be able to get closer to the numbers without resorting to rule bending. And it should also clear up what is quite obviously a very grey area that is open to "interpretion" and abuse in a class where that is not supposed to be happening!

Mike Bell
07-18-2006, 07:20 AM
Daron,

ASedan all over again IMHO if they opened up the rules. Then the engine $$ figure goes up dramatically. This would create a market for E7 guru's who could make the TQ curve look like a dining room table while staying at or under 230/300 - all for huge $$. Soon the stock intake isn't so stock anymore, the camshaft is some specialty item etc etc. Just add money.

AI#97
07-18-2006, 08:16 AM
Daron, sensing your frustration, I would like to make a simple suggestion.....go to AI....we will welcome you with open arms. I have utmost respect for the CMC guys racing in a "spec" series given it can be very frustrating dealing with the rules...that is why I chose AI because CMC would just frustrate the hell out of me.

What would be really cool is to get an aluminum cobra 4V into that light little fox and see what you could do with it! You have mason's and the one in your white car just begging to get flogged!!! :wink:

Bye the way, if you need an engine hoist, let me know. Mine is just collecting dust now and just a few blocks away. If I can help, let me know. I just have a couple things to get finished on mine first!

King Matt
07-18-2006, 11:37 AM
Wow, I was content watching from the sidelines, but since I got outed, I'm jumping in. Without weighing in on the specifics of the debacle in Texas, I'd like to say a few things:

I fully support the spirit and intent of the CMC engine rules. Yes, I exploited a "gray area" last year and cheated in an ill-fated attempt to "improve reliability" that back-fired on me in a cosmic act of bad karma, but I sleep just fine knowing that my "cheater" engine made 217hp and 270 lb-ft. I would not like to see the rules opened up to allow "anything goes" up to the established power limits. I think there is a lot of room to improve the wording in the current rules to eliminate confusion and gray areas, but the essentials are right on track.

After I blew up my illegal motor last year, I rebuilt it using a new FRPP replacement short-block with the exact same cam, intake, carb, heads, and exhaust, all of which are 100-percent legal under any interpretation of the CMC rules. It makes 231hp and 265 lb-ft. Why the gain in HP? I don't know other than it's likely because the old bottom-end was junk from the beginning despite having "good" rods in it. The new bores are probably rounder and the rings seal better, because it definitely has less blow-by than the other one. Why the lower torque? Possibly from lower compression due to the fact that the new bock is not zero-decked. For the record, the cam is the stock hydraulic roller from a 91 5.0L HO and the E7 heads are from the same donor engine and were milled about 0.010 with a 3-angle valve job, new guides, and replacement Comp Cams valvesprings.

I took a lot of abuse last year for my actions, and I accept responsibility for that. No doubt the reaction was so strong because of the public nature of the incident and the "embarrassment" it caused the series. But what truly disgusts me is knowing for a FACT that there are people who publicly criticized me despite being bald-faced, lying cheaters themselves. How do I know this? Because in one case, an individual had previously told me personally that there were illegal parts in his own engine and that it was OK for me to use aftermarket rods since there was a no-teardown rule. In another case, I was told by a third party about well-known tricks that were being used to "make the numbers" on the West Coast. The topper came a few months ago, when someone on the West Coast accidentally let it slip publicly that he was running an E303 cam. This was later covered up and denied.

With that, I return you to your regularly scheduled Soap Opera. :D

oz98cobra
07-18-2006, 11:43 AM
Daron,

ASedan all over again IMHO if they opened up the rules. Then the engine $$ figure goes up dramatically. This would create a market for E7 guru's who could make the TQ curve look like a dining room table while staying at or under 230/300 - all for huge $$. Soon the stock intake isn't so stock anymore, the camshaft is some specialty item etc etc. Just add money.

Sorry Mike, don't agree - it is ALREADY a situation like this because of the ambiguity of the rules - those who don't mind bending the rules are playing with heads and cams, as you have discovered with your frustrating and time consuming efforts to make the numbers with a stock engine! I'm certainly not suggesting "anything goes" with engine mods, just allowing some basic stuff that folks are already doing on the quiet. Opening up the rules in an area that we cannot police will help level the playing field. Like Matt King says, there needs to be some changes to improve the current situation! And there has already been talk of attempting to keep torque curves within guidelines?

Policing cams can be made real easy - perhaps we could consider changing the engine tear down rule to allow limited engine tear down restricted ONLY to the removal of one valve cover? :shock: I can hear the cussing already! ;)

If you truly want stock engines with a no tear down rule, then perhaps the power levels need to be dropped to say 210/275 - and we all run restrictor plates to breath through? :cry:

And Matt, with those HP and TQ numbers, you must be running a 3" exhaust system? :?

Todd Covini
07-18-2006, 11:50 AM
Welcome, Matt.
Sorry if I outed you...I thought your deal from last year was pretty much common knowledge these days. No harm meant on my part.

Good post and I'm with you. The CMC formula works just fine...the wording just needs to (again) be cleaned up.

-=- T

oz98cobra
07-18-2006, 11:51 AM
... But what truly disgusts me is knowing for a FACT that there are people who publicly criticized me despite being bald-faced, lying cheaters themselves. ...

Know just how you feel! :cry:

Regardless of any belated claims by JG about the heads that are on the car, I still believe that Adam's car is technically legal as the rules stand right now, and that it is within the spirit of the CMC class. I have decided not to drive it the way it is - and Adam agrees - entirely because I do not want the uncertainly that has now been created in my racing buddies minds (regardless of the way it was created) to effect the camaraderie of the group at the track, or any results that I might achieve? We have to change the heads to help put the whole stinking mess to bed!

Mike Bell
07-18-2006, 12:39 PM
Sorry Mike, don't agree - it is ALREADY a situation like this because of the ambiguity of the rules - those who don't mind bending the rules are playing with heads and cams, as you have discovered with your frustrating and time consuming efforts to make the numbers with a stock engine!


Daron,

Isn't that the problem? Bending the rules? Where does it stop?

micah
07-18-2006, 02:03 PM
my car will have a new dyno b4 tws ,we are changing the exhaust to drop some weight and dail the car in b4 nationals, anyone and everyone is welcome to come by and look at it, i have nothing to hide, and could use some extra eyes to look over it b4 nationals

gt40
07-18-2006, 03:52 PM
Isn't that the problem? Bending the rules? Where does it stop?I think this highlights a problem with all "budget" racing classes.

To keep things cheap, you have to have very restrictive rules. The current mess with CMC illustrates what happens when the rules aren't strict enough.
If you have strict rules, you have to have strict, effective enforcement (i.e. tear-down or claimer rules)
If you have strict enforcement, costs for competitors go up.

Its a viscious circle. The new spec Miata class (dunno its name,) deals with the engine the same way many spec classes do -- you have to buy a SEALED engine and it has to remain sealed. Any work done on it has to be done by the manufacturer.

I don't think that this would work for CMC, though.

Honestly, I don't know what would. Teardowns are a pain in the ass and impractical. So is a claimer rule.

The only thing that makes seems to sense is both having a hard upper limit on HP and torque (the curves underneath these limits are free,) and specing E7 heads, and spec induction.

That still leaves the door open for expensive engines with billiard-table flat torque curves, but with low maximums, would this necessarily be that big of an advantage in the whole scheme of things?

marshall_mosty
07-18-2006, 09:44 PM
Speaking as an outsider, I would like to give my unbiased suggestion. Since CMC motors are "supposed" to make "stock looking" HP and TQ curves, why not do one of two things.

1. Implement standard templates for HP and TQ. If you have any area of your curve exceed the template, there will be a weight penalty. How to determine this penalty could be done with simple math regarding how much area is "over the curve".

2. Consider the idea of a total "area under the curve" approach. Todays dyno's are more than capable of spitting out spreadsheet type information that could be put into Excel and integrated from 2000 RPM to 5500RPM to calculate the area under the curve. If your over by XX units, you receive XX weight penalty.

I think option #1 is the easiest for policing as well as keeping costs down, as the "area under the curve" seems to be a little AS'ish, IMHO.

NASCAR uses templates on the car bodies, why not implement the same for engine power curves???

Mike Bell
07-19-2006, 08:57 AM
I've got an idea:

Don't cheat! Period.

If you aren't sure about a part, ask and get a rules determination in writing. Simple as that.

A handshake after a race is worth more than 1 million words on the Internet.

I say that NOBODY IN OUR REGION IS CHEATING. Period. Now let's move on, mmkay? :)

TEXAST1
07-19-2006, 11:37 AM
Just to add to the tear down ideology:

I have witnessed a few tear downs where the tech inspectors were incapable of telling a stock part from a modified part. You would need qualified inspectors or "Specialist" to do the job correctly.

How Does That Twist your Nipples! :twisted: :wink:

I am with Bell, quit cheatin" ya dirty bastards. :lol:

AllZWay
07-19-2006, 11:43 AM
Just to add to the tear down ideology:

I have witnessed a few tear downs where the tech inspectors were incapable of telling a stock part from a modified part. You would need qualified inspectors or "Specialist" to do the job correctly.


A recent example of unqualified techs.... At the local dirt track the tech man didn't know the difference between flat top pistons and dome pistons. :lol: He thought the 4 valve reliefs were illegal and only domes were illegal. :roll:

mitchntx
07-19-2006, 12:14 PM
I've got an idea:

Don't cheat! Period.


Mike, I'm with you on this one.

Unfortunately, there appears to be those in our midst who will do whatever it takes in order to get that 2" by 5" "winner" sticker.

Egos rule ...

AI#97
07-19-2006, 01:41 PM
Unfortunately, there appears to be those in our midst who will do whatever it takes in order to get that 2" by 5" "winner" sticker.

Egos rule ...

Are they even THAT big? I heard you buy them on Ebay for $1.75....it's just the $400 shipping that eats your ass!!! :lol: Getting them there would still be cheaper than building a competitive car, but only half the fun. :oops:

mitchntx
07-19-2006, 02:19 PM
Link?

I need a sunvisor ....

chicane23
07-19-2006, 02:53 PM
Unfortunately, there appears to be those in our midst who will do whatever it takes in order to get that 2" by 5" "winner" sticker.

Egos rule ...

Are they even THAT big? I heard you buy them on Ebay for $1.75....it's just the $400 shipping that eats your ass!!! :lol: Getting them there would still be cheaper than building a competitive car, but only half the fun. :oops:

I have about 20 + if anyone is interested!!

mitchntx
07-19-2006, 03:11 PM
Silent bids again, like the Toyo bucks?

chicane23
07-19-2006, 03:19 PM
Hell yea, for the whole lot!