http://timingscoring.drivenasa.com/N...20Classic).pdf
All I can say is wow.
Printable View
http://timingscoring.drivenasa.com/N...20Classic).pdf
All I can say is wow.
Three of the top four finishers end in DQ. I haven't heard any reasons why...
Richard P.
Wow! Diff builders too
"It's all ball bearings these days"
Here is the summary:Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardP
https://nasaspeed.news/misc/summary-...hampionships/#
And here is Jim Drago's (a top builder) explanation:
https://mazdaracers.com/topic/6956-n...read/?p=110151
https://nasaspeed.news/misc/summary-...hampionships/#
But of course there is more to the story if you talk to a miata guy.
I was ask to evaluate some parts that were suspected to have been modified. They sent them to Mazda instead. I'm glad I was out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardP
JJ
We rebuilt the rear axles in my M3 - probably had right at 300,000 miles on it at the time. It was either $200 for the rebuild kits or $1200 for replacements.
You could tell there was some wear on the cages and bearings, which there should have been at that point, but nothing that looked or felt worn.
Based on that experience, I would say the only reason the cages may get modified at all is to make the reassembly, especially on the blind, or closed axle stub end, easier.
My early thought is the rule was exploited though I'm not convinced it created an advantage, but my experience is no wear would open up the cage enough for a bearing to pass through. To be fair, the Miata joint could be a different enough design.
And I can't imagine having to drag a tub onto the open trailer to get the race car home.
Anyone know if this was a true competitive advantage over stock parts or just simply not stock parts?
Wow...All the issues with the dyno sound pretty good right about now.
On the mazda racers forum someone referenced an SAE paper that measured efficiency of these types of ball joints at 99.5% at 5 degrees angle. Not sure how much angle an SM puts on these but in any case it aint much.
Yeah maybe .13 hp. Maybe they had larger ball bearings? I did read that guys long post last night and it was interesting. You can reman or get reman axles but there isn't a spec on what can be done. Would love to know if it was an actual witch hunt and what the SM communities opinion is of all of this. If I remember even the winner had a DQ for the axles. Good point was asking did the subsequent winner get his axles checked and the same teardown?
Does anyone know why they even send the Miata's to the dyno? I thought it was basically an unlimited class as far as power and why they spend so much on drivetrain.
Guess a little different tech than dealing with quarter glass windows.
Danny (official winner) put his tub in the trailer with a forklift. Sooo yah he got scrutinized too. But here is SCCA’s response since the runoffs are a couple weeks out.
https://dk1xgl0d43mu1.cloudfront.net...pdf?1538744727
Now the tinkering begins in earnest...
Good, I’ve got uhhh xfactor axles in my car, guess I can run scca next year if it sticks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suck fumes
I've never thought I'd ever give the SCCA praise over doing something better than NASA, but wow, in a few short sentences they just called NASA out on their BS:Quote:
Originally Posted by Suck fumes
Given recent events, the SCCA CRB makes the following change to the GCR effective
immediately for the remainder of the 2018 Spec Miata season. The CRB acknowledges that
Spec Miata OEM, re-manufactured or rebuilt axles do not have a published specification nor
are the axles a serviceable item. As a follow-up the CRB has asked the SMAC to provide a
recommendation for 2019 for Spec Miata axles.
Add to section 9.1.7.C.2
“i. The half-shaft CV Joints shall be an OEM or OEM equivalent part. The internal cage and
bearing dimensions are unrestricted. This rule is effective until 12/31/18.”
Who in their right mind would cross over to SM in hopes of landing a podium at Nats? Oh wait. . . :p
Winching a lifeless car onto the trailer twice was more than enough for me, I can't imagine forklifting the damn thing in. Then you have the devil's own chore of getting it out back home. I think I'll stay right here. The beer is cold and the ribs are delicious.
it’s worth it if you can win $75k in cash!
I'm impressed you've only winched a broken car on the trailer twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supercharged111
If I had a dollar....
That was this season alone. Was the first and second time the car didn't drive itself onto the trailer. DNFs aren't really my thing. Shooting for zero again next season.Quote:
Originally Posted by drecords
You're welcome ;)
Does this mod really help or did these guys get screwed?
JJ
I'd lean towards screwed, they were pushing the rules though... They didn't pick up nearly as much power as an aftermarket diff cover would, thats for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowBolt
If this modification did not give these guys any kind of advantage NASA will be the loser on this one. I'm like BL as far as I wonder what the other SM guys think. Are they glad the guys got caught doing something they knew about but did not do to their own cars because they wanted to make sure they followed the rules or do they think NASA dropped the ball and took a win away from a guy that deserved the win?Quote:
Originally Posted by mach1
JJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowBolt
I don’t agree with this sentiment. The rules allow stock or remanufactured axle assemblies that are unmodified.
In this specific instance, they don’t define the specific details of the cage dimensions other than they are supposed to be “stock.” So what is the stock dimension? What is the tolerance in that dimension? How do they wear? In the “typical” (whatever that means) rebuild, how is this part refurbished and how does that affect the dimensions? These questions can make this a tough determination on legality.
In my opinion, based on the pictures shown in Speed News, the cage shown was probably modified intentionally beyond any dimension that would be found in a stock or rebuilt axle assembly. There is a pretty significant difference between the stock picture and the modified picture. If this was a part ordered off of RockAuto.com like this and bolted on, then yes, this would be a big screw job. We know that wasn’t the case in this instance. Was this an intentional modification intended to improve performance? Don’t know. Seems like it probably was. Maybe the modification just makes it easier to assemble? It doesn’t really matter. It’s not a stock dimensioned part so it’s not legal.
So, does this modification affect performance? Maybe, maybe not. I’m going with probably not. I certainly don’t have a belief that the winner was able to win because of these cheater axles and wouldn’t have won without them.
From the NASA side, the performance advantage doesn’t really matter. The car is legal or it isn’t. The effectiveness of illegal parts isn’t NASA’s responsibility to determine. It's like saying I have 10” wide wheels on my CMC car but it’s OK because they are 27 pounds so they aren’t an advantage. That’s not how it works. Or a more direct parallel would be saying I have something that many people might consider ram air on my CMC car but I have data that shows that it’s ineffective. Huh? If it doesn’t help, why are you doing something that could get you disqualified by someone’s opinion? A poorly implemented illegal modification that isn’t an advantage doesn’t make it legal. It just doesn’t.
So why would they do something like this? Competition at the front of the Miata field is brutal. I doubt they thought that this modification was a secret big advantage. It’s probably more that every part on the car has had this level of attention placed on it. For most parts that actually do affect performance, there is a specific number to shoot for. For stuff like this, the limits are much more ambiguous. At this level, driver is still 95% of it, but all of the extremely little details do add up.
Richard P.
All I have is hearsay. But I think the winner Haldeman has said his axles are straight from Mazda in 2013/14 and untouched. The car was specifically built to win championships and only run in a few of the championships knowing it would be torn down.
The other guy with that long post brought up that NASA was on a witch hunt for him and Haldamen was collateral damage.
There was some that echoed the sentiment that people in certain regions have been defecting from NASA SM and choosing to go with SCCA based on some of the same things like this. Using something they knew was going on as a way to bust certain people.
Sounded like screwed to me and agree the axles didn't allow him to move up 20 places or how many ever he did to get to first place.
I do think this is going to hurt NASA at least with SM
Agreed. It would be interesting if NASA went and bought 10 remanned axles from brands these guys claim to have bought and tear then down. If they find that some have these huge cages then maybe the guys with them have a leg to stand on... Idk, seems like it would be an interesting study to make everyone happier with the decisions ...Quote:
Originally Posted by mach1
Okay so if it was an advantage or not does not matter but can you imagine how you would feel if it was a rebuilt unit from RockAuto and you drove your guts out and passed twenty cars to win 70 grand and it was taken away for this...….?
I don't have a dog in the fight but it sucks. I'm guessing this mod was done to get some kind of advantage. ten small mods like this may add up to a tenth a lap.
JJ
Agree Jerry...with remans I just don't know how you police it unless they expect every competitor to tear down his/her new axle and check the cage size before installing. Then again...Im also in the camp that thinks there was a perceived performance advantage to having bigger balls in the cars in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowBolt
I’ve known Haldeman for 10yrs and I can tell you for a FACT that he would never do anything intentionally to break the rules and I know that car he won with IS 100% legal and I’m sure he will win the SCCA sonoma runoffs coming up with the same car.
You can't put bigger balls in the CV joint without having to remachine the inner and outer races. The question is does a bigger opening in the cage i) provide an advantage, ii) even if there is no advantage, can the cage itself be machined?Quote:
Originally Posted by drecords
To me the real issue is that by not having a spec and allowing remanned axles it doesn't matter - it's trying to prove a negative. Can a competitor prove that no remanufacturer modifies the cages?
I wish someone would admit why they did the machining on the cages. It was done for some reason and it is either to make assembly easier or to make the car go faster......or maybe both.
I do understand how bigger balls would help you pass 20 cars and get to the front, but I digress.
JJ
I do agree with this statement. On the other hand, why would a remanufacturer modify the cage like this? What would be the point of adding this expense to the process? Certainly the part is hot tanked to clean it up. Maybe after that it is bead blasted but I doubt it. If you were a higher end setup, you might dump them in an abrasive tumbler to deburr the part. For other remanufactured parts, there might be a push to change common failure points to reduce returns but I don't see that applying in this case. There is no logic case that I can see to set up a fixture on a mill or a grinder to machine this opening bigger or to have someone hand grind them. I don't see it improving the part for any normal use case. The axle would come pre-assembled and greased so the end user would never see if they made it look better or different. I certainly could be wrong but it fails the smells right test to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fbody383
Richard P.
I would agree.. there is some reason the parts were made different. It could be a totally legit reason...but just explain why they differ.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowBolt
OK, I'm a horrible person. I was trying to keep my composure but the elephant in the corner kicked me in the shin and I lost it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suck fumes
I don't know the players involved and try to keep all of my responses completely on the technical side. I'm not part of that world, I don't know him, and I certainly don't have any information that would bring into question the integrity of Haldeman. That said, I do have the slight feeling that, well... um... this statement might have a bit more veracity if it didn't come from someone who is currently banned from competing in CMC for falsifying a dyno sheet. Am I off base here??? :-)
"Dude, quit trying to help. You're making it worse..."
Richard P.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllZWay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard P
Since it looks like they were opened up marginally, only thing I can think of from a reman perspective is it makes it easier to put the stub end back together because it allow for more "angle" to get the final bearings in.
It literally took me 30-35 attempts to get the stub end back together when i rebuilt mine.
Last joint i rebuilt I found an order to put the balls back in and it was fast once you figure that out.
My bet (assumption here, obviously) is that a mass rebuilder had one of their workers realize that it would take less time to machine a cage then to fight an assembly sequence. If they are building 100 of these per employee each day, I guarantee you they are looking at ways to speed up their process to push more product out the back door. Now, it that also has a perceived performance advantage to this manufacturing aide, then the water gets murky quick.