Joe, if the masses were to say they want things one way and one persons good argument sways that another way then why even have this conversation.

Make the rules and see what happens. It won't be good.

I plan to canvas the So-Cal drivers this weekend to see where we are at as a region.

I am asking that the other regions do the same thing. At least we will know where we stand as a group and will find out if our leaders are going to do what we as a group want.

Ok,
Here is my personal opinion. (Just me and does not represent anyone but me).

2011-1) - 3 piece crossmember - NO - While the intent is fine it opens the door to some adjustments and non uniformities that we do not know about. The only way to be close is to spec a certain part number. Then we need to validate that part number and manage and track it.

Seems better to stay stock. Pulling the crossmember is not that hard IMHO.


2011-2) Larger jack pad - YES - fine with me. I see now drawbacks.

2011-3) 924 Carrara GT flares. I see it from one standpoint that it may allow more cars to partcipate. I know of at least one car locally with these rear flares and it is shame to not let it run. I also see the that potential gains are slight. - So mixed, but lean torward no.

2011-4) Lexan rear qtr windows. - NO. Lexan should not be used on these cars at all. We allow the windshield for "safety" and lower replacement costs, but guys are thinking about it for weight. No.. better to keep it stock. The plasic you get home depot maybe clear, but what will happen in crash. The stock glass was designed for automotive use so lets just leave it at that. If you need a fresh air duct use the passenger's door window.


So No, Yes, Maybe, No. Is my personal view. We series directors have not agreed on these yet and the comment period is still open.

(remember no all propoals are my idea, it is just my job to present them).

I have read all the comments in this discussion stream and do not see where these changes add anything to the class from the standpoint of helping us add drivers to the class. I can see where it could add a small advantage to those who implement them all. However none of these ideas are oringinal equipment to the cars and in the end this is spec class is racing. I would vote no on all four if given a chance to do so in the dictatorship which is 944-Spec racing. I will say so far the dictaorship is working fairly well

I have the 3 piece Lindsey crossmember which I put in to help make rod bearing changes quick and easy. It uses the same geometry as the oem unit (it was just measured / cut and fabbed to allow easier maintenance. It has no performance potential. The rules do not state it is allowed or disallowed. No need to change it. The only drawback I've seen is some of them are cracking (some knockoffs I've seen done) and a couple Lindsey units. Though I think it is from some off course excursions that caused it.

The current rules definetly do not allow it. You are required to have the OEM piece unless the rules specifically say so.

Again there is no reason to support an aftermarket part that now looks to be inferior by your admission. The factory cross member does not have a cracking issue that I have heard of.

cbuzzetti wrote:
I've see a factory crossmember crack so they are not immune to it. I put it on my car before I was to race it - for the reason so I can maintain it much easier to do rod bearings. To me I read it as not in the rules but does not add a performance measure to the car then it doesn't violate the spirit of the rules. It was like those who cut holes to index their torsion bars long before it was allowed. It eased maintenance of the car but did not add to performance (or can we make the point that cutting out that hole helped with aero or lighted the car!).