Cheeting at the 2014 run off

I just re read the GRM article about it here

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/i-know-hes-cheating/

What was done about it. Could there be a follow up to this story some time?

AFAIK they disqualified the top six finishers. The story is all over the web: http://blackflag.jalopnik.com/so-many-spec-miatas-allegedly-cheated-that-seventh-plac-1645710255

That sounds less like intentional cheating and more like an unclear rulebook.

read the stuff that's available … it was all intentional … basically a case of pushing the limits a little more all the time … there's no way the builders DIDN'T know that they were pushing the limits … keep in mind, that the additional 1/2 to 1 or 2 hp is well worth taking the chance

and if the entire field had been torn down there would have been WAY more than just the top six that would have been DQ'ed

I find it a bit strange (I admittedly don't know much about Spec Miata) that they want a spec car, and yet allow minor mods. Those minor mods can't possibly somehow make the cars "better race cars", only a bit faster. Is the purpose of allowing the mods to try and equalize the various versions of the car?

Seems like it might be easier to just spec a particular crate motor then create classes for the various versions (e.g. NA, NB, NC, ND) rather then attempt to equalize all the types (if that is what they are doing).

In reply to aircooled:

Well, I actually think there are lots of mods that might make something a better race car but not necessarily faster. One example is changing the caliper slide bushings to something that is not rubber. Basically you get more even pad/rotor wear and longer lasting brake consumables, but the actual increase in stopping force is debatable if there even is one.

I thought (but am no expert) that lots of stock/spec classes allowed some of the "better race car" because they do make a better race car that isn't necessarily faster.

Another example of something like this might be enlarging a coolant port on the head or something like that. Unfortunately organizers are left trying to balance and decide what is a "better race car" mod and what makes cars faster.

aircooled wrote: I find it a bit strange (I admittedly don't know much about Spec Miata) that they want a spec car, and yet allow minor mods. Those minor mods can't possibly somehow make the cars "better race cars", only a bit faster. Is the purpose of allowing the mods to try and equalize the various versions of the car? Seems like it might be easier to just spec a particular crate motor then create classes for the various versions (e.g. NA, NB, NC, ND) rather then attempt to equalize all the types (if that is what they are doing).

Because lots of series decide that if they give a monopoly to a company to do something like this, that they don't work with said company to make sure that the crate motor doesn't cost a gazillion dollars.

There are plenty of ways around these issues, and I would argue that spec miata seems to do a really good job at making people spend HUGE sums for tiny advantages. Only way to be better would be to have the series themselves supply the cars (Stadium Super Trucks is ran by Robby Gordon and is like this, so it is doable).

I personally feel all spec classes should have claimer rules.

I was more interested in what the SCCA had done about it in terms of the rules. How did they "fix it". There was going to be all kind of reviews and clarifications of the rules and what not but then I heard nothing more than the top 6 were disqualified. Nothing more.

aircooled wrote: I find it a bit strange (I admittedly don't know much about Spec Miata) that they want a spec car, and yet allow minor mods. Those minor mods can't possibly somehow make the cars "better race cars", only a bit faster. Is the purpose of allowing the mods to try and equalize the various versions of the car?

AIUI, the reason for the "plunge cut" rule was to compensate for core shift in the head castings. The factory tolerances are fairly generous there, and a non-core-shifted head could produce enough more power than a core-shifted one that people would go out and buy a dozen heads, pick the best one, and bolt that one on to the race car. It sounds strange to allow head machining as a cost savings measure, but there you go.

dean1484 wrote: I was more interested in what the SCCA had done about it in terms of the rules. How did they "fix it". There was going to be all kind of reviews and clarifications of the rules and what not but then I heard nothing more than the top 6 were disqualified. Nothing more.

http://www.windingroad.com/articles/blogs/scca-announces-changes-to-sm-class-modification-rules/

dean1484 wrote: I was more interested in what the SCCA had done about it in terms of the rules. How did they "fix it". There was going to be all kind of reviews and clarifications of the rules and what not but then I heard nothing more than the top 6 were disqualified. Nothing more.

the top 6 were all that had been protested … actually there were 7 protested … the protest came after qualifying … but of those 7 one didn't make it to impound (don't remember the particulars) .. so the #7 finisher on the track was declared the winner … like I said above, if the entire field had been torn down, there would have been WAY more than just 6 DQ's

codrus wrote:

dean1484 wrote: I was more interested in what the SCCA had done about it in terms of the rules. How did they "fix it". There was going to be all kind of reviews and clarifications of the rules and what not but then I heard nothing more than the top 6 were disqualified. Nothing more.

http://www.windingroad.com/articles/blogs/scca-announces-changes-to-sm-class-modification-rules/

This is what I was looking for. Thanks!!!!!