 |
|
Jeremy Lucas wrote:
[quote]Thanks Carter. Seems like a good list!
For the camber, is there going to be some type of slotting allowance in case someone has a car that can’t quite get there?
Looking forward to 2008. Is it spring yet?[/quote]
Slotting is not allowed but you can get there using available camber plates. I can’t quite get there with the KMacs but I know that others can.
Carter
Victor Hall wrote:
[quote]Carter Hunt wrote:
Carter, your latest post is 180 out. Is NASA going to provide a level garage area to measure camber, and tear out transmissions so we can weigh flywheels?
I would love to see a clarification on what rules can be enforced (with strict adherence to [ul]NASA[/ul] rules) by the series admin, and what would have to be protested? In other words, will my car be subjected to random flywheels weigh-ins (or camber checks) or does it have to come from a protest?[/quote]
Each Spec E30 Series Director will be issued a camber tool and will know how to use it. A specific area will be designated as the Tech area and will be marked. The Series Administrator will then measure the camber of that area and will take this into account when checking cars.
I’ll set mine at -3.3 to give myself some wiggle room.
Regarding the flywheel, we’ll just check yours Vic…and at every race weekend.
Seriously, we need some kind of a benchmark for people building engines. Plus, tech inspections will be more indepth at the National Championship next year.
But yes, camber may be checked by a Spec E30 or NASA official at any time during a race weekend.
Carter
Han Ah-Sue wrote:
During the trial period and after, this shouldn’t happen…if we analyzed the data correctly.
If someone builds a legal engine, I suggest you volunteer to get dyno’d so you can compare it to the other cars.
I had my engine built at the end of the season last year and it’s legal. Therefore, I’m not worried one bit about it breaking out. And no, we’re not basing the numbers on my car alone, we’re looking at a big stack of dyno sheets and have separated the built engines from the stock engines while preparing for the program.
If anyone has a legal engine, you should sleep just fine.
Carter
Carter, As you and I have discussed, you know that I am totally on board with an inspection process. IMO, it just keeps everything honest. In my year and one half of racing in this series, you are the only one to ever inspect my car. Ironically it was at my first and last race. Going forward, I’m hoping the inspection process is part of every race weekend. That simple process would eliminate most of the need for rule discussions.
Thanks for the answers.
Despite the way I may come across, I do agree with the theory of spec’ing as much as possible. I have my doubts on the accuracy for measuring some of the new rules and I cringe at the thought of a racer getting DQ’d when he or she doesn’t deserve it.
Please note that I said "he or SHE" in my above statement…I wanted to make sure to include Beertech in my thoughts.
-Vic
All I needed to fall asleep tonight was a little rules discussion and a peg leg talking about he she’s.
JP
PS - Vic where do you find your nomex panties? I wanted to get you a set for your return in 2012…
JP Coates wrote:
[quote]All I needed to fall asleep tonight was a little rules discussion and a peg leg talking about he she’s.
JP
PS - Vic where do you find your nomex panties? I wanted to get you a set for your return in 2012…[/quote]
touche…don’t make me limp after you while waving my cane!
Carter Hunt wrote:
[quote]
-Max front and rear track is 195 mm with a leeway of 5 mm. This (maximum track width) may be adjusted up to June 1 and after many cars have been examined.
Carter[/quote]
Carter, can you clarify that maximum track? 195mm is less than 8 inches.
If you meant 195cm, that is 76.8 inches. I just measured my car using the 2x4 method and came up with approx 65 or so inches front and rear, if I did it correctly.
Chuck Taylor wrote:
[quote]
Carter, can you clarify that maximum track? 195mm is less than 8 inches.
If you meant 195cm, that is 76.8 inches. I just measured my car using the 2x4 method and came up with approx 65 or so inches front and rear, if I did it correctly.[/quote]
There is a joke in here somewhere about Chuck measuring himself, but I just can’t pull it together in my sleepless state…
Wheel offset + Any spacers = legal total effective offset you decide on. Test done no measuring needed. Make it part of a tech sheet.
Stock Rotors and Hubs are allready required so I don’t understand why you need a measuring procedure that introduces largish percentage of error.
from trading emails with Carter he measured his car as 165cm (with 25mm offset wheels) and then wanted to add 30mm for the possible max 15mm per side spacers, so the number will likely be 165+3=168cm, not 195cm.
cheers,
bruce
IMO, if we will use 2x4 method measured at the base of tire, then it should be something like (are you ready for this 
):
wheel -> rim with tire mounted on it, i.e wheel tire combo
rim -> if oyu don’t know what rim is stop reading
rim offset + spacer + ( sin[max allowable camber angle] x wheel radius with tire at it’s max air pressure )
using the 2x4 measurement methodology, tilting of the wheel at max camber angle could bring up track width roughly 1" (that is per side; or 2" total)…
Rob Keehner wrote:
Wheel offset + Any spacers = legal total effective offset you decide on. Test done no measuring needed. Make it part of a tech sheet.
Stock Rotors and Hubs are allready required so I don’t understand why you need a measuring procedure that introduces largish percentage of error.[/quote]
Excellent post Rob. This would be the cheapest and most logical way to Spec this. With a 2x4 method you introduce all kinds of variables, and then open the door to even more tinkering.
actually, it seems to me that measuring the track with the 2x4 method should stop more tinkering. If we just look at the wheel offset and spacers (which would likely require taking the wheel off and ensuring the ET number is visible), then other (likely illegal) games could have been played to increase track. With the 2x4’s we’re measuring the end result.
bruce
Victor Hall wrote:
[quote]Rob Keehner wrote:
Wheel offset + Any spacers = legal total effective offset you decide on. Test done no measuring needed. Make it part of a tech sheet.
Stock Rotors and Hubs are allready required so I don’t understand why you need a measuring procedure that introduces largish percentage of error.[/quote]
Excellent post Rob. This would be the cheapest and most logical way to Spec this. With a 2x4 method you introduce all kinds of variables, and then open the door to even more tinkering.[/quote]
Are there too many wheel manufacterers and models to keep track of? I would think that you should be able to do a quick check -(i.e. kosei k1 wheels, 15mm spacers, and voila!)
Also, I would think that any tinkering with a known wheel (i.e. modifying the wheel to gain more offset) would be really obvious.
Maybe I’m wrong on this one? Perhaps someone has seen this rule creatively bent in other series’?
-Vic
If you run toe out (like I assume most of us do) how do you roll backwards and not move the boards? Am I missing how this is measured? I run ET24 wheels with 15 mm spacers. Am I OK?
I’d just use blocks or better yet strings in the event of a protest.
If you have quick checks to verify legality then leave it to the competitors to police people that forge or fudge the tech sheets it’s much easier. We have permissive rules that allow certain spec mods, like the swaybars or camber plates for instance. No true spec part number exists, which isn’t really a bad thing in some areas. It’s the open endedness of some of these rules that people take advantage of, and they must exist to make the cars servicable and raceable. Probably only 5 or 10 of these actually make any notable difference performance wise. If you have a sheet with specs declared and checked during tech/registration is saves a bunch of time. With the added dyno procedures that may be introduced this may potentially be alot of time where the car is away from the owner being measured. Doesn’t seem ideal when you can have a 10 point check every weekend. Shocks are hard but you already have the random check going. No reason you can’t add a few rotating surprize checks on the tech form either. There are only a few areas allowed by the rules to modify the car anyway so just focus on that on the required portion. Anything outside these areas should be easy to find, like illegal intakes, driveline parts, or whatever.
Quick Example…
Primary Checks: (easy to verify quickly by a competitor or techie as the car rolls through)
Camber/Camber plate type
ECU Number
Swaybar Sizes/type
Spring Part Numbers
Wheel/Spacers/Tire
HP/Tq
Engine size
Trans type
Diff: Open, LSD, Locker
Ride Height front and rear
weight/ballast weight/Est. Fuel Level
Exhaust
Splitter or Air Dam present
Air Cleaner Type
Rotating: (things that would make good surprizes)
Throttle Body/plenum/intake
MAF
Diffs
Chip
Bushing Type
Compression
Displacement
Exhaust Manifolds
Control Arms, End Links.
Brake Setup: pads,cooling,rotors
…etc…
Hrmm a full stock exhaust isnt exactly the street legal solution i was hoping for.
:unsure: