I have to say that Nationals this year was a bit of an eye opener. Car prep varied widely from street legal to stretching the rules to the limit. For me personally it was disheartening as I don't have the budget or time to spend what it takes to keep up with the Jones'. I rely on the rules to keep me close but it seems to me that we slowly are getting away from mildly prepped former street cars to full blown racers with build budgets to match. If I were building new and looked at this class I'd pass for a more street based class that at least looked like something I could build in my garage. Of course perception is not always reality as we all know that a spec miata may still have a full dash but costs double ours easily, even though our cars have custom dashes with digital gauges.

Having said all this, my thoughts on the new rules are, probably predictably, as follows;

1. Balance shaft delete. Porsche does not do this so we shouldn't. It will cost to do this and may have a performance advantage, however slight that will end up being standard. I also believe the engineers at Porsche know more than us and it could be detrimental to mess with success. If it ain't broke don't fix it!

2. Oil pan gasket. No performance advantage and low cost so no problem.

3. Ballast. How much time will be spent on scales to get it perfect? At what cost? And if you have a street legal car you won't be able to practically do this and still drive it relatively comfortably. It will also lead to stripping a car ridiculously and building it back up which is beyond most shade tree mechanics.

4. Tire size. I proposed this one but didn't really have strong feelings either way. I feel that if we were all on the same size the only con would be wear. I haven't heard that 205's wear faster considerably and takeoff scare sometimes VERY cheap so I'm for this one. Aesthetic concerns will fade away with time.

5. Head shaving. Costs money, enough said. The current rule is still working good for us so leave it alone. You can say this about a few of these proposals; it is always better, and more expensive to build over the hp limit and tune downwards. Most seasoned engine builders would agree with this.
5b. Maybe I misunderstood this one. Opening up the ECU would open up all kinds of crazy! Cheating would be so easy even I could do it!

6. Transitional cars. Bigger car counts are always better so let anybody run but without points or contingency.

7. Offset key. No Way! Good(expensive) engine builders could work magic with this.

8. Outlaw 88 computer. I don't have strong feelings either way except there are quite a few already out there.

9. Over bore 20 thousandths. Again too expensive and at least here in cal there is always a 944 in the junkyards here and motors are still cheap. Maybe in the near future but not yet needed.

10. Trans cooler. I don't know of many trans failures directly related to heat. I only know of one tranny failure in our region in my time here and that I don't think was heat related. Also when I rebuilt my LSD Guard said they can't get the factory bolts and have to use some that preclude a cooler. They are expensive and could have a performance advantage because you could use thinner oils and that would add hp early in a run.

11. Crankcase venting. Not needed. Keep it factory.

Thanks for listening to my rants and ill see y'all in Utah next year!

Ron

1. Balance shaft delete - No. I used to run in Cup without the belt and never had an issue but I also don't see an incentive to do it. They just don't really cause any problems and it would be work for everyone to remove it.

2. Oil pan gasket - Yes. No disadvantage I can see.

3. Ballast - No. What is wrong with the current rule?

4. Tire size - No. I have plenty of 225's Seriously, I just don't see enough advantage to outweigh the disadvantages others pointed out.

5. Head shaving - Neutral. I'd be unhappy if I had to toss a head due to thickness that was otherwise good if the engine dynos under the cap.

5b. ECU - Strong No.

6. Transitional cars - Keep the current rule.

7. Offset key - Neutral. I've read that offsetting the cam in these engines does not make more power so allowing others to bring to stock seems OK. Any way to establish that timing off stock does not improve power?

8. Outlaw 88 computer - No. Not necessary and too many out there. Perhaps a "spec" chip could be made that duplicates the '88 if that could be controlled.

9. Over bore 20 thousandths. No, not necessary yet.

10. Trans cooler - Yes. I don't see a performance advantage and it will likely improve longevity.

11. Crankcase venting - Yes. No appreciative advantage and cleans up the mess in the intake.

Everett (SoCal Series director, for those of you out East) and I had a great phone conversation this evening - things always come across better on the phone (or in person) than online, and we have a good understanding.

Being a bit battle weary on the dyno subject, my tone was more abrasive than it needed to be online here.

We decided the best course of action is to address this issue among the series directors. If you have input on the dyno issue, please convey it to your series director, and they can represent you as you as we go through these rules. We think this is the best balance between representation, and forum peace.

Thank you for your honesty and the update.

Eric, thanks for taking the time to talk with me today. I do think it helped clear up some things. And your plan for how to proceed from here is a good one.

And by the way, my apologies to anyone who might have thought I was trying to remain anonymous. That was not my intent; I mistakenly thought it automatically posted a signature. Oops.

Everett DeLano

1. Yes disconnect belt leave shaft in place. A very low cost way for someone to optimize horsepower. It does no damage to engine. It takes way drag on power and if bearings go bad in module will result in lower HP. Simple fix.

2. Yes fine

3. yes put ballast anywhere on floor pan properly installed to current rules for safety reasons. With HP and weight set this is the manner in which we can get the best handling out of the car.

4. No use the same sized spec tire for all. Ware is poor on 205's given our weight. The current tire is great for our series.

5.Yes remove rule the weight and HP rules cover situations such as this. It allows the low compression engines to get to the max HP.

5B. no we stay with stock ECU

6. I can go either way on this one.

7. Yes this allows the low compression motors to be on equal footing with high compression motors. Not a big expense. Compliance is no problem given our Max HP rule.

8. Yes eliminate 1988 ECU. In 1988 Porsche sold 3,731 944's in the US from 1983-1987 they sold 47.522 944's so logic tells me there are far more race cars with non 1988 ECU's with higher Rev limiter. The higher limit is an advantage at certain tracks not from an HP aspect but from eliminating the need to shift versus the non 1988 that either holds his revs just below limit sacrificing some speed or shifts and loses that momentum not just in the up shift but potentially in added downshift. Given this is a spec class with weight and HP regulated the difference in car performance becomes one where this advantage can produce a larger impact on the outcome of a race. Either everyone gets the same advantage or none do. I doubt we can all find 1988 ECU's given the production of cars is less than 10% of those made with the lower rev limiter ECU's of 1983-87.

9A&B No do not see reason to allow this and it goes against spirit of the Class to be affordable racing.

10. No added cost with no benefit. I race in high heat 140 degree plus track temps and transmission is not an overheating problem.

11. No opinion

Dyno rules Rules are not advisory, they need to be clear, concise, consistently enforced We agreed to go this route so if something is unclear then clean it up. Every car needs to be on a dyno and pass the rule prior to racing for the season not just some regions. We do not want to have the situation that occurred at nationals happen again because the rules were poorly written.