 |
|
https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/document/document/195/spec30_rules.pdf
This version of the rules isn’t annotated to clarify the 2015 changes. One way or another we’ll get you a version that makes the changes clear.
I’ll change the link at left when I get back from CMP.
160.9. The graph in figure 1 depicts a “reference engine.”
I read thru the new CCR and here’s some changes that caught my eye.
9.3.1.4.1 Valve spec allows different finishes.
9.3.8.13 HiKFabrication skid plate ok
9.3.8.15 Track width measurement # changed to incorporate the “leeway” in previous CCRs.
Appendix D Engine specs. Very similar to 2013 NorCal spec. Max HP 160.9. Coolant temp <200deg. NASA Compliance director can adjust #'s if perceives dyno reading predictably high or low. Introduces idea of a “reference car” for multiple dynos. Hp/Tq curves need to fit reference graph and table.
You’d think it’s the more restrictive of the two, so 156.9. At least that suits my car better.
Along the same lines: should water temp be 165-210, or no greater than 200?
Cliff
Oops - Ranger got in ahead of me on the reply. I agree 160.9 is probably the intent, but I really think the conflict should be fixed.
Another thing to note on track width: the measurement is now taken from outside the plates, so those who were right on the edge may be over now.
Cliff
Remember in school when you where about ready to turn in a paper, you read it, and you notice a dumb mistake. It’s all printed off & you don’t have a chance to fix it without marking up the pages?
Sentence #2 in Appendix D.
Engine horsepower and torque curves must be equal to or less than the power curves as illustrated in Figure 1 with emphasis on the 4000 to
6300 RPM range.
Then
Taking into allowable 0.020 overbore and balancing, a maximum allowable horsepower value for the class is set at 160.9 HP.
Then a graph that never gets to 160hp.
Then
The NASA Compliance Director will deem an engine illegal or suspect if the results of the dynamometer produce HP and TQ curves do not reasonably match of the curves shown in Figure 1 or exceed a HP of 160.9
NASA/Rules Makers. We’ve called out this mistake before. Why do you not put the effort into reviewing what you publish? You have regional directors that are enthusiastic about the class. I am sure they would be willing to proofread the rules.
Maybe I missed something in the rules, I have a few things on my mind. Where does it state the legal ways to detune an engine? I know of at least 5 guys why have 100% legal engines, overbore and have more than 161 hp including myself. Other than oil weight what are my legal options for detune? If i show up at an event and the dyno is reading 6-8 hp more than normal what are my options? I and everyone at Road Atlanta has seen that happen.
Who is building the reference engines? A stock bottom end with 200k miles and a fresh head will make 155 hp.
But, I am just really interested in my legal options for detune? Is there anything in writing?.
I second Dennys statement, NASA/Rules Makers. We’ve called out this mistake before. Why do you not put the effort into reviewing what you publish? You have regional directors that are enthusiastic about the class. I am sure they would be willing to proofread the rules.
What’s legal to make power is legal to drop power. A crappy old AFM is good for -5 HP. A K&N filter will probably drop another 2 HP.
If you’re really desperate to drop HP you can trade heads with me.
Here a much more reasonable application of the HP rule.
[color=#ff0044]May inspect any engine components for compliance[/color]
The NASA Compliance Director [strike]will deem an engine illegal or suspect[/strike] if the results of the dynamometer produce HP and TQ curves do not reasonably match of the curves shown in Figure 1 or exceed a HP of 160.9 [color=#ff0044]Engines which comply with the dyno rule will not be subject to inspection[/color]
Completely unrelated, but K&N filters aren’t legal they way the rules are written… Air filters may be replaced. Replaced is defined as meets OEM standards. K&N advertises their filters to “increase horsepower with up to 50% more airflow” which clearly exceeds OEM standards and therefore does not meet the definition of replaced.
Lots of stuff still falls into this category; I started on a list yesterday but life intervened. I’m not sure why the definition of replaced was changed, but consequences are significant and shouldn’t be overlooked.
There were furious debates re. a rule change that would fix “Replaced=OEM.” The word “Replaced” and “Replacement” appears about a zillion times in the CCR. Pretty much every place you see it in the CCR, our cars are illegal. Easy examples are non OEM spec batteries, oil and suspension bushings. Obviously we’ve lived a couple years with this problem so it’s not killing us, but it’s still a problem.
The issue Replace was heavily debated last Fall. I got so crazed on this sole issue that for two solid days I wrote non-stop to create a several page essay in support of a couple solution proposals. In the end the directors went with the easy solution. Bring back “Replaced = Meet or Exceeds.” We were running out of time so it was either the easy solution, warts and all, or no solution. In the end it was moot because the easy solution didn’t get approved.
The short term solution is common sense. I feel confident that no ones going to be DQ’d for having a water pump that looks just like OEM but didn’t come from a dealer. Nor are they going to get DQ’d because they have the same kinds of aftermarket suspension bushings that we’ve all been using for years.
Your regional director won’t do anything nutty at regional events. At National events Shawn isn’t going to play gotcha looking for ways to use the CCRs flaws against you.
That said, if you’re doing something a little non-standard, I’d suggest you talk to your regional director about it. No one likes surprises.
Long term solution. Because of the close relationship between Shawn and NASA HQ, we are getting a better understanding of what will and will not pass as rule change proposals. This will help us a lot because it will mean a better success rate at getting rule change requests approved. The long term solution is to methodically fix the problems.
Be part of the solution. Bitching is a lot more common than formal rule change proposals getting submitted. I challenge y’all to formally submit rule change proposals to your director. Your proposal will then get debated in the Fall. The general format is along the lines of:
It’s not enough to just generally state a rule change suggestion. What’s needed is the recommended CCR text. The devil is always in the details. The trick is to write a rule change that has not a single ambiguous word, and also doesn’t create unintended consequences
Ranger, I hear what you’re saying, but it would be much easier to submit a formal rule change proposal if there were a formal process for submitting rule change proposals. I’ve searched CCR, SE30 rules and the NASA website for such a beast, to no avail. Perhaps I’ve missed it. I’m not saying a formal process would eliminate the bitching, but at least it would improve the ratio (division by zero, and all…). The lack of visibility is also an issue, because when a rule change is being considered, we (the racers) have no way to know about it, and so no way to provide feedback.
All that being said, I’ll accept your challenge and submit more thorough proposals to my regional director rather than general suggestions as in the past. But I still reserve the right to bitch about things here.
Cliff
Pthibault–You will not get an answer or clarification from Nasa on what is considered an “Allowable means to Detune” I have been asking for clarification to this question for almost 2 years. Just do the simple shit, AFM, air filter, heavy oil, power steering…
I agree Steve about the detune. All pretty simple things but I think changing oil at track is a pain. I was thinking about making a set of t-body restrictors. My thought process is trying to find a simple solution to dyno number differences between dynos at different locations. Lets say my car makes 160hp at a local dyno. I could make a few t-body restrictors which would change hp 2or 3 increments. So if I were to dyno 162 with no restrictor at another dyno I can just throw in my -2 hp restrictor in about 5 mins time. So basically pretune at home for dyno error at location. Would limit dyno wait time and use at events, and save money.
Hell this could all be tested on the Spec E30 Test engines. Simple cnc plasma cutter could whip out a few in no time. My 4 plus hour dyno wait time at 2014 Nationals was unacceptable.
Comparison of rule changes. I used an on-line document comparison tool and uploaded the Jan15 ruleset and the Oct13 ruleset. The Nov14 ruleset wasn’t that well known and the Oct13 rules was pretty much the same as 2012. So except for the 2013 dyno standard, we raced under that same ruleset for 3yrs.
9.3.1.4.1 Valve spec allows different finishes.
9.3.1.7.3 Don’t mess with CPS.
9.3.8.13 HiKFabrication skid plate ok.
9.3.4.5 Ok to fab your own heat shield for the passenger side motor-mount.
9.3.8.17. Suspension width measured from outside of toe plates. Max width number incorporates toe plate width and “leeway.”
Appendix D Engine specs. Very similar to last year’s NorCal spec. Max HP 160.9. Coolant temp <200deg. NASA Compliance director can adjust #'s if perceives dyno reading predictably high or low. Introduces idea of a “reference car” for multiple dynos. Hp/Tq curves need to fit reference graph and table.
Playing devil’s advocate from my SM experience, a restrictor has the greatest impact on power at high revs (i.e. would impact peak HP more than the rest of the curve) but since it would flatten out the curve, you’re still illegal.
I’m still flabbergasted that the solution is to use a “yardstick” that nobody can afford to own, has no repeatable results unit to unit and day to day, and won’t be at 95%+ of the events. It is truly mind boggling.
Way more boggling. If the motor is illegal, it can be proven so by weighing, measuring, inspecting in such a way that does not require judgment and is infinitely repeatable. Any other method of enforcement is a joke and/or lazy way out.
Beware the second cool suit switch. :evil:
