 |
|
Beyond frustrating for those that are reading here.
Is this the right place to communicate?
I don’t have a dog in the fight.
The lack of official correspondence is a huge problem for those that want to compete and see this class continue to grow. Different topic for a different day.
RP
On the NASA website.
On edit: to be clear, I was responding to Ranger - the rules are on the website. I make no claims as to the location or presence of any leadership.
Will F. sent an email to competitors last night with the info.
Rules here: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/spec_e30/2015
I like it. Little lower than I had figured though and the example is confusing but it’s better than the current confusion. Did anything else change? Nothing is highlighted and I just skimmed it.
[quote=“BW_Jim” post=78725]Will F. sent an email to competitors last night with the info.
Rules here: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/spec_e30/2015[/quote]
That’s about as official as it gets.
RP
[quote=“BW_Jim” post=78725]Will F. sent an email to competitors last night with the info.
Rules here: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/spec_e30/2015[/quote]
Yes, that is what happened. Here is a copy of the email I received. As you can see, Will clearly states that this is the 2015 rule set that will be used at the 2014 WSC.
Oct. 8, 2014 @ 5:12PM
Hello,
You are receiving this because you are signed up to race in Spec E30 at the Western States Championships at Sonoma next month.
The final decision has been made for Appendix D. You can see the 2015 Rules that will be enforced at the 2014 Western States Championships at Sonoma here: http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/spec_e30/2015
Looking forward to seeing you all in wine country next month!
Regards,
Will Faules
National Event Manager
Asst Divisional Director
National Auto Sport Association
Regional Director - NASA Texas
737-932-7004
www.drivenasa.com
[quote=“Patton” post=78722]Beyond frustrating for those that are reading here.
Is this the right place to communicate?
I don’t have a dog in the fight.
The lack of official correspondence is a huge problem for those that want to compete and see this class continue to grow. Different topic for a different day.
RP[/quote]
Well, we have no other way to communicate this right now.
Will sent the email to the competitors and I am sure there will be a National Announcement to follow. I believe his highest priority was the competitors that are registered as it effects them in less than 30 days.
You are SOOO right…there is some confusion if you read the rules, then look at the charts.
Because the entire rule is new to the rest of us, I believe he just published what Scott Neville first gave him. However, since NorCal has been running this rule set for some time, I would think that the new rules would be highlighted and changes lined out. Again, I believe that getting the information out quickly took a priority. However, doing that may actually cause some confusion so read what was published carefully and advise Will if you are confused.
I’ve skimmed through the new rules and don’t see a peak torque number for compliance. Am I missing it? Has this been inadvertently or deliberately omitted? This used to be in the NorCal rules which in my opinion was an unfortunate omission in the 2014 rules.
M[quote=“sagoston” post=78738]I’ve skimmed through the new rules and don’t see a peak torque number for compliance. Am I missing it? Has this been inadvertently or deliberately omitted? This used to be in the NorCal rules which in my opinion was an unfortunate omission in the 2014 rules.[/quote]
It’s sort of in there, in a roundabout, contradictory, highly contestable way. From the first paragraph of Appendix D:
“Engine horsepower and torque curves must be equal to or less than the power curves as illustrated in Figure 1…”
Then, from the paragraph right before Figure 1:
“Figure 1 presents a dyno plot for the average HP & TQ results for three rebuilt reference engines. Dyno pulls (Max average HP = 156.9; Max average TQ = 154.4 ft/lbs).”
So, since we’re not allowed to exceed the curves in Figure 1, we can’t exceed 154.4 ft/lbs, or 156.9 HP. Of course, elsewhere it says 160.9 HP, and also says the curves must “reasonably match” the example. We can probably make educated guesses as to the intent of the new appendix, but as written it clearly wasn’t ready for prime time.
But, when you absolutely have to change a rule shortly before a championship race after saying the rules wouldn’t change, I guess you have to accept some imperfections…
To be clear, I’m not really against the new rule, and I’m not going to the Western Championships, so the timing doesn’t directly affect me. It just seems to me we will be saddled with a poorly-written rule because it was rushed through before this race, and we perpetuate the belief that SE30 can’t approach a championship without a rule change.
Cliff
The figure 1 showing the 156hp and the 154tq is just an illustration of what the lines should look like. That scale will not be used for max hp or tq numbers. it will be used if someone doesn’t have the 4500rpm dip or if they have crazy tq at one point on their printout. There is no defined tq number because the dyno uses the tq to calculate the HP… Hope that clears things up.
Thanks - I assume that’s probably the intent, just as with the previous rule set. Unfortunately, it’s not what the words say. Hopefully this will get revised so the rule matches the intent at some point.
Cliff
I believe Mike has it right. The basis is from the HP number. If you have some odd TQ numbers, your curve will look nothing like the graph and it will be called out. It would also appear to be worded that way to avoid the monster torque builder as that will be easy to spot regardless if the dyno numbers are right or not. The TQ curve will be so far out of whack that the rule can be used to DQ the cheater without actually knowing how he cheated.
That being said, I suspect that we will eventually see a TQ cap number at some point.
Yep - again, I’m not arguing the intent. I’m just pointing out that the rule says HP and torque can’t exceed what’s shown in the figure, and should be corrected. And, of course, sharing my opinion that last minute rule changes are usually a bad idea.
Cliff
I think leaving anything to a ‘judgement call’ regarding following a power trend is foolish. I feel there is a simple cut & dry solution that this rule already starts to bring to light.
Simply state what the max hp at increments from 2000 to redline. Since we really only use 4000-6300, from 2000 to 4000 go every 500 rpm, then every 250 from there on. Do linear interpolation if needed between points. This will state what the max is will as set what the profile is. You can match it or be under.
The only draw back I see is it puts more work load at impound.
I know this forum is not the way to get a rule change, thus I’ve already suggested it to my regional director.
Thoughts?