Social Media

Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

2017 Rules Proposal Thread
(1 viewing) (1) Guest

TOPIC: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 6 years, 7 months ago #21207

  • KJZ78701
  • Comp School
  • Posts: 27
"Who is KJ Z78071?"

This topic is not about me, but since there don't seem to be Private Messages here, you can reach me at appliedracingtech at gmail. My name is Karl

"I think it's important to Dino on the set of wheels that you just raced on."

That assumes compliance testing at the race, and is a great idea. I would even add, "...that you just raced OR QUALIFIED on", but that is not in the rules now. What stops me from mounting a heavy set of wheels with brand new rubber just before the compliance test? Nothing. You laugh, but I'll give you a funny story in a minute. The testing procedure should throw out as many variables as possible and should not let a driver use the rules in his favor. It's in more people's best interest to proactively deal with it now, than to retroactively adjust. Vague with loopholes leads to arguments and animosity...not good...been there.

"We can't have some people using short shifters and others not using it."

Why not? You allow aftermarket bushings, even though you could run on the stock ones if you got a good donor. In my case, I had to invest not just the money for the bushings but considerable time to message them until the suspension worked right.

"Cookies and phone dials in both offsets are still readily available."

Perhaps, but the used set that I bought as a spare set included bent wheels. With the cost to repair those, would a new aftermarket set at around $150 a wheel have been a good option. Again, write for the future. EXAMPLE (since there are no inexpensive new options at the moment): "A 5-130, 15x7 ET23, five spoke, cast alloy, 15 pound minimum weight wheel may be added to the list of approved wheels if the wheel is advertised for sale six months before it can be delivered, can be prepurchased, and has an initial production run of at least 800 wheels, with subsequent production runs guaranteed by the manufacturer. Cost per wheel will not exceed $150 before shipping and sales taxes."

Dan, you might want to look around a bit more. You should be able to get a wheel like this for around $100 FOB China. And don't think the racers are the only ones who will buy it.

And the funny story...I was helping NASA with tech at an event at MSR Cresson. I knew one guy was running light, so I decided to ambush him as he came off the track from qualifying. I had already warned him about my suspicions, so we set up the scales AFTER they went out for qualifying. When he came in and saw the scales (they actually warned him on the radio, so he came in early) and I tried to stop him, he refused to stop (rules didn't say that he had to stop for tech while qualifying was still in session). He would have run me down if I didn't move out of the way, sped off to his pit, threw a 50 pound weight in his car and threw a towel over that and THEN came back to the scales for tech. We got him for not having ballast securely mounted but without the race director saying enough is enough, there was no rule that allowed us to throw out his Q times because the ballast rule could not be applied retroactively.
The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 6 years, 7 months ago #21208

  • tcomeau
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 287
KJZ, you're digging too deep. This class is simpler than that. If we go to Dino testing, it is directly after a racing session or qualifying session. You can't change tires and wheels before Dino testing.
Short shifter is not the same as suspension bushings.
It is foolish to buy a set of wheels without spinning them up first to make sure they are true and not bent.
The guy who you tried to catch running light and drove around you in tech inspection should have been pulled from his car and beaten to a pulp because he's a cheater. His crew should also be beaten to a pulp. They shouldn't be allowed to play in any more reindeer games.
Tim Comeau
SoCal 944 Spec #22 since Feb 2003.
Let's keep building it!
The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 6 years, 7 months ago #21210

  • dpRacing Dan
  • Moderator
  • 944 Spec National Director
  • Posts: 145
KJZ, Agree with Tim on the Dyno procedure. This is a procedural process, not a rulebook issue. When competitors are asked to report to dyno, it's always post-race/qual where they are impounded and sent directly to the dyno. If they deviate from this plan, or do some shady shit like what you reported its up to the regional director to take action against them. I promise you if that happened at one of my events I'd DQ the competitor from that session. Period.
As for the wheels, I can promise you I've looked plenty. I'm not interested in finding cheap sub-par wheels from China. I talked with SEVERAL quality brand wheel manafacturers at PRI, SEMA, and from my previous racing life. The main issue with with the bore spread. Most companies dont offer rims that will work with our a bolt-pattern spread, unlike the close sizes of 5 x 100 vs 5 x 114.3
I do agree the short-shifter is not a significant cost ($93), and somewhat comparable to bushings. The most attractive part of the short-shifter is the improvement to shifts.
The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 6 years, 7 months ago #21212

  • AgRacer
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 712
tcomeau wrote:
We can't have some people using short shifters and others not using it. Not a good idea.

Why is this not a good idea?
J. Stanley
NASA-SE Region 944 Spec Series Director
Yellow #60
The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 6 years, 7 months ago #21215

Great thread everyone:

Original intent: If it makes your car go faster, you can't do it, PERIOD

1) light weight batteries, I just had to buy another one which is $200. As I am spending this extra money I had to think why? It's only for a performance advantage and very much less reliable than a full size battery, I would like to see the stock size battery be our only option which will make us more equal, cheaper, with less push starts in the grid.

2) And here I go again...if we had these rules when the first person rammed air, it would have been shot down without question. So, I am asking everyone again, to consider the stock air box, the change to ram was solely for performance advantage, but snuck in before we had to get serious about keeping the cars equal. Advantages are, we know the HP/TQ on a dyno vs not knowing what it increases to at speed, plus we will be dead nuts equal with the same type of factory air box. There are plenty of them around too.

3) 3 piece cross member, no performance advantages. As discussed many other advantages: The only disadvantage is nuts coming lose, that is from the lack of not checking your car before racing it. So check your nuts and make this legal.

4) Short shift, that's either perceived or actually a performance advantage. Since new parts are available in stock form, I would vote for equality.

5) Wheels, if they can be can be accurately tested for equality, sure why not. I think our wheels are kind of ugly and we could use a nice looking wheel to replace them with (if we want to) The better we can make our cars look, the more attractive the class to potential newbies joining in.

6) I'm not a piston guy, so I don't know, however when we run out of replacements, then of course keep them the same.

Dan, thanks for keeping the class as we originally intended it to be.

GO VOTE tomorrow! My favorite quote so far is "all I know is that I hate our next president" Sad but funny!
Norman #99
The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 6 years, 7 months ago #21217

  • Manuel_M
  • Junior Racer
  • Posts: 65
dpRacing Dan wrote:
Chuck thanks for mentioning the short-shifter.
I have been a proponent against them from day 1. I still believe if everyone does the allowed components, the shifters are more than adequate.
Currently, Spec miata doesnt allow any type of short- shifter. Spec E30 does. I AM for components that make our cars easier to drive/more reliable/less junky. After analyzing the components offered by, I'm definitely more open to the idea of allowing it. The reality of it is if we DO allow it, EVERYONE will feel inclined to purchase it. Sure it's only $93, but multiply that across the 944 Spec field currently competing and that's about a $15,000 decision.


Please folks- weigh in here: Power in numbers.

I would agree with this, fixing the shift lever itself removes most of the slop. I used a bolt and thrust washers (the shift rod is what is wearing but the thrust washers/bolt keep the lever/rod square.) I'd assume using the 944 locating arm fixes the remaining slop by removing the worn rubber bushings. No on the short shifter this go around.
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.10 seconds