cbuzzetti wrote:


Charlie,
This class has aways been a dictatorship. We have never had any straight up/down votes to determine class rules. That said the regional directors have aways seeked input from the drivers and discussed things together. The reason we operate this way is I rather not have politics be a large part of rules process. Sure there is ways an aspect of that, but quite simply not every visitis the forums. So voting is flawed.

I will say we all take driver feedback seriously. It is major factor in any decision and I have aways said all it takes is one good strong argument to overide the gut feel of 10 other drivers.

So far I have only commented on 2 rule proposals of the 7 presented. The rest are presented based on feedback from various drivers. Give me a day or two and I will present my evaluation of these 4 items.

I'm not sure how you "enjoy" plastic windows but I'm sure it's illegal in most states!

I'm not trying to be a party pooper I just feel that new rules are bad for a budget series. Will lexan windows make a difference? Of course not! But they are truly not needed and are an added expense. I would be willing to bet that when everyone bought their car it came with perfectly good side windows. NACA ducts also fit perfect in the doors and blow directly on the driver without any hoses so why do we need them elsewhere. This is not a make or break issue for me but is absolutely a needless rule change.

Getting away from factory parts is, or should be, frowned upon or treated with alot of skepticism. If there is an absolute need, great! If not I say no.

Spec racer ford is the model for all spec series and we should look at them carefully to see what the secret to their longevity is. I would venture to guess is that it's the stable rules. A car built 20 years ago still sells for 20 grand and can start the next race and win, and they take an act of God to change ANY rule!

If we want to attract more drivers, we need the cars to be competetive as well as be easy for the average guy to build. If a person thinks they can buy a donor, put in a cage and come be competetive they are more likely to race with us. But if they think they have to put in plastic windows, windshield, weld on some flares and scour junkyards for the right fenders then they are more likely to go to spec e30 which looks stock and has big fields.

Just my two cents. I don't want to see us fragment any more over small issues and look forward to racing with every one soon!

please also keep in mind that we advise NASA National . They make all of the rules.

Number one - I would prefer rules only when there is a clear problem or when it helps with lower cost or ease of maintenance. Joe, if you are absolutely sure that this does not change any suspension geometry and it can ease maintenance, I am OK with it for those that want to spend the money to save some labor.

Number two - A good improvement on the earlier rule.

Number three - Joe, you told me that the reason 924's are OK, even with the smaller aero drag, is that the narrow wheel base is a "reasonable" offset to the aero advantage. If that is the reason for including them in the class then this proposed rule does not make sense as it allows 924's to have the wider track AND the aero advantage. Based on the above, I do not like this rule as it may be a performance advantage and does not lower cost or ease maintenance.

Number four - I am opposed to this proposed rule based on "No new rules" unless they help lower cost or ease maintenance. We do not need brake ducting to the rear wheels and driver ducting can be achieved from the front window openings, including a duct for a helmet blower. I do not believe it is a performance issue, one way or the other. I simply don't want to have new rules for the sake of rules.

Jim Foxx

I like the lexan window idea for the quarter window because it will allow me to install a fresh air duct in a spot that does not impair my vision. also like it because right now my IR receiver is behind the glass and it would make it easier for removing it in the future.

But in reality, it will not make my car faster or really cost me anything so its mute to me. I think the materials cost $20 bucks at Lowes. I do like the idea of one less piece of glass that can break when crap falls off the shelf in my trailer


Tom

Big Dog wrote:


The proposal is to allow someone to "remove" the aero advantage of a 924s by essentially putting the front end of a 944 onto a 924s (Front valence and fenders) along with rear flares simply to match the width of a 944.

It will make the cars more equal. Same track width and same drag coef.