2015 Rules discussion

#1

Now is the time to get control of the ever changing rules. It would be great to get a set of rules that we can use for a whole year (2015).

Based on some of the DQ’s this past season and observations of officials and participants here is my wish list.

Specified weight and measures for pistons, rods, rod caps, wrist pins and valves.

The current rules are too broad in the lightening and balancing section. Balancing does not allow all rods, caps, pistons etc. to be lightened. At least one of each of those pieces should not be altered since one of them is supposed to be the lightest stock part of the assembly.

By reducing rotating mass a competitor gains an unfair advantage through increased acceleration. This is the reason we have a specified minimum weight for flywheels and wheels.

Valves: as we all now know there are many OEM replacement valves available for our cars. They do not all look alike. Not sure if we need pictures of each one that is legal or define which brand is legal but we certainly need to define measurements at certain locations as well as weight.

Next is the heat soaking of cars before going on the dyno. This is currently not addressed in the current rules. We need a defined temperature range before starting a dyno pull.

Track width measurement should be from the outside edges of the toe plates, this would be a lot easier on the tech guys and it is the way most of us measure our toe and track width.

Feel free to add to this list, state your opinion or LOL.

But if you don’t say what you want they will never know.

#2

On track width, the rule should also explain what slot and height in the toe plate should be used to take the measurement. Most plates have two slot; I have two different brands myself and not certain the slots are similarly located. The current rule does not reference the slots at all.

On engine part weights, that’s a good idea. I have a large collection of weights of every individual engine part that I would gladly compile.

#3

Good point on the toe plates. The amount of camber would alter the measurement as well if the height was not consistent. Normally we dont run alot of toe in the rear but if ypu got hit on track and the toe was skewed it would matter weather the track width was measured at the forward edge vs the rear edge. Maybe it should be a total of the two and divided in half.

#4

Damaged suspension shouldn’t be measured and then held against someone. Otherwise where would does one draw the line between acceptable damage and we’re going to measure you, vs. too much damage and you get a pass?

A guy lost a wheel last year at Barber. The two halves of his front bearing separated. As a result he had a track width of several hundred yards.

#5

Another 50 lb weight reduction, please :slight_smile:

Also, If we have a hp/tq limit, some rules to ease up on limiting people on how they get there. I have a fully legal engine that makes near-limit power, so I’m not looking for an advantage. However, if someone is making 150 hp and there was some inexpensive change they could make to get to 155, I say let them.

I just read some of the inspections at the West Coast Nationals. No way I would have torn down my whole damn motor when the dyno already said I made legal power. What’s the point? How does it make the racing better? Make the power limit the power limit. If you want to run an S54 to get it, it doesn’t bother me.

#6

[quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=79396]Another 50 lb weight reduction, please :slight_smile:

Also, If we have a hp/tq limit, some rules to ease up on limiting people on how they get there. I have a fully legal engine that makes near-limit power, so I’m not looking for an advantage. However, if someone is making 150 hp and there was some inexpensive change they could make to get to 155, I say let them.

I just read some of the inspections at the West Coast Nationals. No way I would have torn down my whole damn motor when the dyno already said I made legal power. What’s the point? How does it make the racing better? Make the power limit the power limit. If you want to run an S54 to get it (or a different FPR, chipped ECU, etc), it doesn’t bother me.[/quote]

#7

Agree with Fishman that the height needs to be defined for track measurement.
Rules already account for toe and also set a defined temp range for dyno pulls.

#8

Cpp, thanks for catching the dyno temp range mistake. I failed to notice the upper limit was already specified.

#9

Engine tear-down inspector…the fox does not need to be minding the hen house:sick: :sick: :sick:

Get an independent (non competitor) to inspect any tear-downs!

#10

Are you the independent?
Past experience sez the outside dude ain’t got a clue whats to bees looking at/for.

RP

#11

Yes, I’m independent and know the inside of these motors very well. AND, I’m not looking for a job. My point is, hire whomever you must to inspect motor parts. If you have one of your competitors looking at parts you have an automatic conflict of interest at best, and at worst, someone who does not know what he is inspecting. Example…a competitor was DQed for a non spec valve that had a large pocket in the head. IMHO, what should have been done is the valve removed and weighed for compliance…different looks do not make an item illegal when it performs the same function as another item. There must be some common sense used in inspecting parts and someone that has built a lot of motors will bring this to the table. As I said, IMHO!!!

#12

Yep.

Lots of good intentions at both East and West Coast events. Lots of things that will be done better in the future. Realizing that you (nor anyone else that wants to maintain their sanity) aren’t looking for a job, my post was just to recognize your experience with all things e30.

RP

#13

Thanks, Robert. You understand the problem.

#14

IMHO we’re sucking the fun out of this class at a time when limited donor cars and competing classes are conspiring to kill it. Engine tear downs and tight horsepower limits that penalize people who built legal engines are only going to discourage participation and help hasten the demise.
Setting a reasonable minimum weight (i.e. less than what it is now) and a maximum horsepower (i.e. more than it is now) with enough cushion that realistically takes into account several legal builds and dyno/weather fluctuations should be all that is needed. We do this for fun, not to make a living.

#15

I still think the dyno rule should be eliminated. I agree that we should not have both dyno testing and engine teardowns. Pick one or the other.

I still don’t believe that a pro engine builder given 10,000 can build a motor capable of 10-15hp more than a competent builder can build for 2-3 thousand, so let’s just go back to engine teardowns only.

+1 for 50lb reduction

225 width tires

allow strut bending to increase -camber.

#16

Yep.

#17

turbo329…for your info, the cost of parts and machine work for a complete motor rebuild is 3500$$$$.Now, that does not include labor!!! It does, however, give you a “0” time motor bringing all clearances back to factory specs. Now, for that 10k motor, you get the lower end of factory specs, a lot of time spent achieving those numbers, and a ridiculous amount of time making sure the valves are absolutely spec. Of the motors I have done, all were between 159-161hp, corrected numbers on the same dyno. They were shop manual legal motors. My ITA 325e motor just finished its 4th season with only the valves re-lapped Aug of '12 for the ARRC. Recent comp check, leakdown, and dyno indicate the motor is still extremely good. So with the extra money spent on a well built motor you get longevity. That said, a 10k motor is way out of line, however, you can get a pro built motor for about 6k.

#18

I spent about 2000 to get 155…, because other than seals no new parts went into the head. The last 10hp came from buying a rebuilt afm for 80$ and tossing my k&n in the trash.

By being 2700lbs and less than a few hp away from the limit I feel that I’m at risk of a dq if I get dyno’d. The variation is too big. It’s not like calculating weight, since the scales are not likely to be off by more than a few pounds.

If we all need 162hp to be competitive that’s fine with me. I’m not worried about someone with 171hp showing up and racing against me because I think there is something wrong with their dyno or their motor just isn’t legal.

#19

[quote=“Ranger” post=79395]Damaged suspension shouldn’t be measured and then held against someone. Otherwise where would does one draw the line between acceptable damage and we’re going to measure you, vs. too much damage and you get a pass?

A guy lost a wheel last year at Barber. The two halves of his front bearing separated. As a result he had a track width of several hundred yards.[/quote]

For chrissakes this didn’t get a single laugh? When I wrote that joke I chuckled about it all day. You guys are an awful tough audience.

#20

For chrissakes this didn’t get a single laugh? When I wrote that joke I chuckled about it all day. You guys are an awful tough audience.[/quote]
I started to laugh but remembered I am still bitter about my track width DQ at CMP in 2011.

PS - For everyone recommending “run what ya brung” with a dyno cap, be sure you look for various switches (hidden or obvious) that might loop a resistor into a key sensor’s wiring. The dyno ain’t no magic bullet.