Dyno numbers to the Spec E30 Regional Directors

#61

Carter:
I would hope that you seriously consider a pre-adoption release of the proposed rule here on the forum for comments & critique. This may help you discover something you and the other leaders did not consider. It would make us feel more included rather subject to dictate & may avoid the flak & angst we saw on the spec exhaust rule, for example. You may pick up some good points & still just reject any (idiot, crybaby or unreasonable) remarks/ideas that are sure to occur anyway. Something may be gained & no down-side.
Tom

#62

Group:

The Regional Series Directors and I are finalizing the wording on the Rules issues, not including the HP/TQ rule, and we should have the final wording to NASA in the next couple of days.

We have researched the HP/TQ rule and there are several options on how this will be designed. We have looked at how other series do it, what new technologies have to offer, and have realized that we have a lot to consider.

Also, everyone should know that the Regional reps have done a great job so far and that they are extremely good (much better than I had imagined) at finding better ways to change wording, that helps eliminate confusion. Our discussions have been very constructive and very respectful.

This process also enhances my appreciation and respect for Mike Mills, the original author of the Spec E30 rules.

Regarding an open discussion of the rules proposal(s), a Spec E30 racer suggested we not do this because it will open a can of worms that will never close. While I tend to agree, and feel very good about what the Regional reps are doing and how NASA will respond, I will ask the Regional Series Directors for their opinion on this subject.

And again, there won’t be any major rules changes and the few changes we do adopt, will be light on the wallet, and will make the racing better for everyone.

Carter Hunt
Spec E30 National Series Director

#63

Thanks for the update.
I really hope the HP/TQ cap isnt being put on the backburner. Any idea what kind of time frame we’re looking at now for that announcement?

#64

Carter wrote:

When will these be announced?

#65

We (the Regional Series Directors and I) appreciate everyone’s patience on these issues.

We have been working on the Rules updates for a few weeks and while it was thought to be a fairly quick process, someone would thankfully offer a better way to word a rule, or someone would catch a numbering mistake, etc. It took a lot of work and everyone did a great job, from contributing thoughts and ideas to organizing the plan.

So, we have the final version (minus the HP/TQ rule) to NASA National and they will get back to us when they have reviewed our work.

And again, if you have a built car, there will probably be no changes required, although a few will need to make a minor change here or there.

Basically, we re-worded some rules, we removed some confusing language, we allowed a few items to be removed from the car, and we standardized some technical aspects of Spec E30; for example, we will now have a standard procedure for checking the differential lockup, that will be used in every region. Just that one, took several re-writings to consider every scenario.

Regarding the HP/TQ rule, that issue is now back on the front burner and the Regional Series Directors and I will start that discussion again.

As soon as I hear back from NASA National, I will post the revised Rules on this site. I’m thinking it shouldn’t be more than a few days.

Carter Hunt
Spec E30 National Series Director

#66

I haven’t read the entire thread but is there a chance we can cut 100lbs from the total weight of the car? It would not cost anything and would make the cars a little more nimble.

#67

The early bumper cars would love to go down 100# but from what I recall the later cars it’s more difficult. I agree it would be nice to lighten the cars up.

Related, it would be nice to make balast placement free and get rid of the 100# max.

Also need the class designation cleared up - is it spece30 or is it SO? How about E30?

#68

vmwerks wrote:

Don’t agree. The important thing is that the cars are the same, not that they become more nimble. Pulling 100 lb out would be a big pita. My passenger seat would have to come out, and I’d either have to remove the trunk insulation or fix the sputter issue and run with less gas.

All change requires compelling reason. I’d bet that for every guy that wants the weight reduced, there’s another that is happy with the status quo. And roughly 50/50 isn’t compelling.

#69

Ranger wrote:

[quote]vmwerks wrote:

Don’t agree. The important thing is that the cars are the same, not that they become more nimble. Pulling 100 lb out would be a big pita. My passenger seat would have to come out, and I’d either have to remove the trunk insulation or fix the sputter issue and run with less gas.

All change requires compelling reason. I’d bet that for every guy that wants the weight reduced, there’s another that is happy with the status quo. And roughly 50/50 isn’t compelling.[/quote]

I for one would like to see the weight reduction…based on existing data points in this thread (four), that puts it at 75/25. Compelling.
Is there someone smarter than I that can set up a poll to determine exactly what the support either is or is not?

Bob

#70

I am a spec e30 newbie, but I did spend 10+ years racing asphalt stock cars. The appeal to me for this class is the relatively clear cut rules structure. It needs to stay that way to insure a strong class for years to come. As soon as you start taking weight out of cars or anything else that might be considered an “upgrade” you start to dilute the number of cars that are competitive. Not everyone wants to throw money at their car every year. The weight rule should stay where it is. Forever. As I am building my cage I like knowing that if I add an extra bar or two, its not a speed deficit and adds to a bit of added safety.
I’ve seen it happen in stock car racing on a regular basis where too many rule changes even in a 4-5 year span turns a lot of the racers off and can kill a class. Then you are left with a basement full of perfectly good parts that although changed and costly, didn’t really make for better racing.
I like the K.I.S.S. method that SPEC E30 seems to offer.
Kudos on the HP/TQ rule. I used to be the guy that would outspend whoever I needed to to get an advantage, the appeal with SPEC E30 is that I likely don’t have to do that to be competitive. I just need to figure out how to turn right!

#71

cranknpiston wrote:

I agree 100%…I don’t want to have to jerk around with the car changing this or changing that to keep it legal. The car (excuse me, the driver) is already not competitive.

Don

#72

There is nothing wrong with the current weight, rule stability is more important. Taking 100lbs out won’t make the racing any better. The cars won’t be significantly more nimble. I bet the majority of drivers wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between 2 cars with a difference in 100lbs if driven back to back. This is a spec series designed to have great racing, making the cars faster is not a priority. The current lap records would be less meaningful if we start changing the current cars. Everybody who currently has a car would have to change their weight, this would easy for some, not so easy for others. Ignorance is bliss.

#73

Age wrote:

[quote]
Also need the class designation cleared up - is it spece30 or is it SO? How about E30?[/quote]

There is no longer a requirement for a class designation decal (like SO) on the car.

#74

Elephant4 wrote:

I don’t get it! :unsure:

#75

I used to be proponent of the weight reduction, until it was revealed in one of the other threads on the subject that there are a decent number of cars that have trouble getting down to the current minimum. If every single car was running ballast, then it would make sense to do it, but that isn’t the case.

Also (I might be wrong on this) but the minimum weight for our cars in SCCA IT is 2750 also.

#76

How about lowering the weight to 2600 without the driver?
:evil:
-skinny and proud

#77

Then we’d have to have another provision for the Senior (not so skinny and proud) drivers like me :dry:

Once you are over 50 you might sing a different tune…you little whipper snapper :woohoo:

#78

Ignore Robert. He’s been reading Danica’s biography and thought he’d try her secret to success.:laugh:

Steve D.

PS - I like 2500 lbs without driver with a 200 lb minimum driver weight.

PPS - I’m all for rules stability, but if we get to a point where (virtually?) all the non-M20 cars are gone and the 2750 pound weight was set primarily to equalize against those lighter, less powerful cars, I could see dropping the minimum weight. We’re never going to make these cars nimble, but even a 50 lb drop would be easier on tires, brakes, hubs. Every little bit helps (or hurts).

#79

Ranger wrote:

[quote]Age wrote:

[quote]
Also need the class designation cleared up - is it spece30 or is it SO? How about E30?[/quote]

There is no longer a requirement for a class designation decal (like SO) on the car.[/quote]

Yea, I’m aware of that - this was discussed last year but Carter had mentioned something about a sticker. I’m too lazy to go search right now, but I throw it out there as a reminder. I just wanted to be clear because I’m ordering vinyl.

#80

Age wrote:

[quote]Ranger wrote:

[quote]Age wrote:

[quote]
Also need the class designation cleared up - is it spece30 or is it SO? How about E30?[/quote]

There is no longer a requirement for a class designation decal (like SO) on the car.[/quote]

Yea, I’m aware of that - this was discussed last year but Carter had mentioned something about a sticker. I’m too lazy to go search right now, but I throw it out there as a reminder. I just wanted to be clear because I’m ordering vinyl.[/quote]

If that issue went beyond the simple “discussion” phase, it did not get mentioned on the forum.