Other Rule Change Ideas

#1

I am not willing to kill the exhaust issue anymore. Let’s have a discussion on other ideas that have been thrown about, maybe we can find some agreement, although I am sure there will be some loud voices against. So here is to stirring the pot!!!

Ideas:

  1. spec air box - no way to test on dyno as you must be running at speed, hopefully everyone saved their old box. But I saw some pretty creative systems this year including systems that come close to ram-air.

  2. Maximum Track width, between expensive spacers, rolling fenders with baseball bats, etc. its time to have a max tack width.

  3. Max Camber - again between bent shock towers, cut shock towers and other games, I can’t see how many racers can only get negative 2.8 to 3.1 and others with the same camber plates get 3.5 to 3.8. By the way it’s not all in changing the bolt heads. I vote for max negative 3, as many racers/most racers can’t seem to get to -3.5 with out a bit of questionable engineering.

  4. Drive shaft - fix the loophole that allows for lightweight aluminum drive shafts.

  5. I am sure this will stir some feathers, but max hsp/torque at RPM levels starting at 3000 in 500rpm increments. Big penalties for being found in violation. This will be a fun discussion and very heated. I think we try it and evaluate it at the end of the season. I have dyno my car enough times to know if the track dyno is reading a bit high or low. I think it will be easy to identify dyno problems based on the past data. For example the DYNO at VIR in July was absolutely running 3 hsp high, I said as much at the event, did a dyno on my car the next morning (Monday) sure enough 3 hsp high. Sorry John 164 ft lbs of torque is not acceptable!

  6. Random assignment of ECU’s. When you get your wrist bands on Saturday morning you get a ECU use it for the weekend, stick on your drivers seat after the last race and let the owner retrieve it. This is for all racers not just front runners swapping with back runners

  7. Stricter penalties and better enforcement for rules violations, too much "fix in in the future" instead of current weekend penalty, i.e. start in the back to dq based on the infraction.

  8. clarification on where you can add weight. I saw weight added behind the passenger seat, cool suit cooler all over the place, etc. Just a clarification, I don’t want to start re routing cool suits, but for people building cars they should know what and where.

  9. stock air dam’s/spoilers, one the cars look crappy with some of the wild fender air dam’s, two there is too much room for monkey business, max height of ground, how much flare over bumper etc. I vote for OEM/Stock.

  10. crazy as it sounds I want your engine… $4500 please. There are problems with this idea, but the threat probably keeps folks from going crazy on fuzzy engines. Just to give credit its due… this was Rob Patton’s idea.

  11. Patton I know you have some ideas, lets hear them.

  12. metal to metal - Nasa Mid-Atlantic had FAR too many metal to metal "racing incidences" imo they did a poor job of applying the CCR equally and fairly. Sorry Chris, but the rules are a bit different for the Regional Director. Also look at the NASA SE stats for the year vs. Mid-Atlantic, it is night and day different. Mostly because Jim does not put up with it.

  13. if you bring a hot girl to the track you should get some race / qualifying benefit.

14)All cars should be painted with some bright green! for obvious reasons!

ps:
For the record I believe a spec exhaust is the right long term decision, both from an actual benefit (just speaking to engine builders (3) and other people who have been around a racing a long time. I also did some tests earlier in the year with back pressure and think we are talking about 3-4 ft ibs of torque (ok…I am going to see if I can find the dyno sheets). Also I think there is the perception of something being performance enhancing that also adds a little bit of weight to the argument for spec exhaust, max track, air box. Finally don’t claim this was a surprise issue, Carter posted the idea 10 months ago if I recall correctly. By the way if you spend more than $200 for a single pipe exhaust you are being ripped off.

Carlton

#2

interesting list.
(not necessarily commenting on all)
2) rolling the fender lip isn’t that difficult and as long as people don’t start reshaping the fender, there is a natural limit on track width (especially in combo with your max camber proposal). You can buy ET15 wheels and eliminate any need for spacers. Allowing any >13lb, 14 or 15" wheel between 6 and 7" wide is more important in my mind. Whole lot of nice 15x6.5 wheels out there and not allowing the stock 14x6.5 basketweaves is just …
3) like it, easy enough to measure to enforce
4) aluminium driveshafts comment
9.3.6.1. Drive shaft may (3.1) be substituted (3.4).
3.4. "Substituted" means that original (3.3) OEM equivalent items may (3.1) be used.
bit of a stretch to call an aluminium driveshaft "equivalent to oem" isn’t it? How could anyone think that is legal? I guess the gray area is which specs need to be equivalent?

8), doesn’t cost anything to put weight and cool suit cooler in various places - why care?

13), anyone want to get in on a betting pool as to how long it will take "femme" to comment?

  1. not easy being green.
    cheers,
    bruce
#3

Bruce

I believe there is some reshaping going on,rolling is legal, but to avoid the issue just have a max. I agree wheels are different and I think the max width probably should allow for 25mm offsets with 15 mm spacers, none the less this is an area we saw a lot of jacking around with. Easier and less costly to spec. I am not sure why the basket are not allowed maybe that can be revisited as a few people seem to be pushing for it.

  1. OEM Equivalent, I agree just heard some talk about it this year

  2. I recall Carter saying that you could not put weight behind the passenger seat had to be in front passenger well or in the trunk, again clarification

#4

it looks pretty clear that ballast must be in the passenger footwell or anywhere such that it is bolted down using the seat mount points (so it could be behind the seat and stretch forward to the mount points), or a spare tire added in the trunk. So, ballast in any other locations is just wrong. Nothing specifies where the coolsuit cooler is and I still don’t think there is much need to regulate that.
cheers,
bruce

#5

Carlton we talked about some of this at barber.

I am all for stock airbox, camber limits, max track width and horsepower limits. I honestly think the spoiler rule is fine like it. Maybe tweaked a little bit. The exhaust thing I do not agree with.

My only other problem: Where is Carter?Hurry up and make a damn decesion on all of this! The longer we drag this out the worse it’s gonna get.

#6

Ok I’ll give a whirl, good list by the way

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

No brainer should be changed.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

Agreed, I don’t think this is a real big problem, but I agree there should be max track.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

Definitely, I asked for this after hearing of some of the camber people were getting. If you set it to a max of 3 there definitely should be fudge factor of at least a couple of 1/10ths. Maybe you only get dq’d at -3.3. For the record I get around -2.9. Once I hit herrington at nationals I got -6.5 :laugh: . With the camber plate all the way out we managed to get it back to -3.3 and I could feel a difference in the way the car handled from left to right handers on turn in just based on that difference.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

Not sure there is a loop hole here but what the heck go for it.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

I agree, I was very disappointed to see John’s car put out that much torque, I don’t think the car was illegal in any way as John is a stand up guy. I think it was just built to the limit. I personally don’t want to see these kinds of numbers from motors even though we know its probably possible within the rules. Its pretty simple to detune the car if you go over by blocking the exhaust or running a very thick oil.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

I agree to this one but no need to go crazy with it. I think an occassional swap is fine as long it is the same ecu number as the one being swapped. And then more liberal swapping at Nationals.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

Not sure about this I think we should not go to crazy with penalties, except at the bigger events. I think it depends on the infraction too.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

I don’t think this is a gray area, it has to go where the passenger seat is or you run a spare tire in the back. I think other ancillary systems should be free, cool suit, fire system, accusystem should be allowed to be placed wherever.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

I agree again, stupid rule. Should have been stock oem from the start. I don’t mind there just being a rule that specs the height of the lower spoiler since that allowes for cheap replacements, and it written in such away that you can’t run any kind of dive planes or similar curvatures in the spoiler. Not sure how you would write that one. Would be easiest to just go to stock and allow updating backdating but that is going to upset some people and not leave any low cost options available/

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

Hmm I like this in principle, but it just moves the engine to someone else what does that achieve? I need to think about this one but I like the idea.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

You have basically covered all the issues I have bought up before.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

Can’t comment on this one I race in IN/OH :slight_smile:

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

Definitely :slight_smile:

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

I do like the bright colors. I was cracking up when I was gridded by Pantas for the National championship race and I heard the Pink Panther theme.

Carlton Goldthwaite wrote:

I’m also in the spec exhaust camp. One of the few it seems. I think it would be easiest if we could find a cheap supplier that makes them though. The muffler should be spec’d also, I would think we could get a deal since everyone would have to buy one. I think if you can keep the whole system to around $400 that is reasonable. It needs to be a decent quality too we can’t have welds breaking and stuff like that. I know some can’t afford this kind of expense but it just means missing one race weekend and then you are good to go. Unless of course you never planned to race your spec E30?

#7

I bring a hot girl to the track for every event. I should be rewarded.

#8

  1. Stock air box is a great idea. Add a K&N drop in filter and NO ADDITIONAL DUCTING and you’re set. Cheap, easy, Spec E30!

  2. Easy enough as AI has been doing track width for years.

  3. For the record, I got -3.5 on the pink panther 100% within the rules. It took a lot of playing with it though. What would be a smarter rule would be to allow us to just cut the dang shock towers. This is racing for goodness sakes. Alignment values should be 100% unrestricted IMO. I have a big problem with someone telling me how to setup my car.

  4. I read the rule as aluminum is illegal, but easy to add an extra line to the rules. Aluminum doesn’t fit the Spec E30 plan.

  5. An easier way to worry about engine builders is to add penalty weight for anyone making over 150whp, and subtract weight for anyone under 150whp. Every car gets a sticker on the windshield like AI/CMC that has their hp and target weight for rules verification. Car’s have to make weight and power at all times.

  6. I really like this ECU rule. How much would it cost to get 30 ECU’s though?

  7. What rules violations? If you clearly don’t have an advantage from it, you shouldn’t start from the back. Now, if you have some crazy aluminum drive shaft, or similar, yeah, all for that. Start at the back or get DQ’s that weekend.

  8. What’s the deal with weight? Why can’t I put my cool suit in the truck? Why can’t I change battery size? I agree that all ballast needs to be added in the correct place, but I can add weight in many creative ways without using "ballast". If the goal is to keep people from adding weight anywhere but the passenger floor, it’s impossible to write. If the rule is to keep people from bolting ballast anywhere, than that’s another thing. I feel this one should be left in the grey for now.

  9. I think stock spoilers/bumpers are a great idea. I don’t understand how we can all the sudden get crazy with aero and then complain about a muffler. The air dam is going to make a big difference in appearance, cost, and performance. It needs to disappear and only stock bumpers need to be allowed.

  10. Engine purchase rule is a great idea. $4500 is way to high though. I can build a car for that practically. If the goal is to keep cost down, no one should be building a "stock" motor for that much money. $3,000 maybe more like it.

  11. I ran VIR once this year. I came on a Sunday, in a car with a few issues, and it had been a while since i had been to the track. I got hit off the track in practice, forced off line about a dozen times in very stupid places, and nearly got t-boned by an E36 that felt he could go 20mph faster than me into turn 3. I saw him in my peripheral at the last minute, realized his speed, and got WAY off line. He missed me by less than a foot as he went across track WAY faster than anyone could conceivably take that turn. I consider it a blessing that I brought the car home in one piece that weekend. I thought I had wandered into an SCCA race for a minute. The level of driver courtesy at that event was nearly non-existent. I’m not trying to single out everyone though. Many were very nice and respectful on the track, but the amount of things that went on was 10 times higher than I’ve seen at any other track/organization/event. I won’t be back any time soon.

#9

I’m on board for all of these ideas, except the engine for $4500 thing. I’m also onboard for a one-time rule update/clarification during this off season to get everything reset and we stabilize the rules as intended going forward. It seems silly to deal with all of this stuff one at a time.

If you’re going to change the airdam rule, it should just allow any stock configuration from any non-M E30. Personally, I think it’s fine as is though.

I’d also suggest for that list to remove a front headlight for airflow, and if we’re going to cap camber why not allow (not require yet) fixed camber plates - then there actually would be a level playing field and it would be less expensive to build.

It hasn’t come up yet, but isn’t it ridiculously easy to make 2750 lbs? Why not lower that by 50 (or more)? That should reduce the creative weight balancing.

The biggest issue in my mind is the lack of enforcement of the build rules. In my mind, it doesn’t have to have a severe penalty when inspected, but a note is made in the logbook and if not in compliance at next race, no qualification. You have a month or so to fix it. Why isn’t this happening?

#10

I’d like to note that I got -4.1 and -3.8 camber on the front of my car without any funny business. I did have to remove 2 of the bolts from the IE camber plate and adjusted to the point where the upper spring perch was approx 1/32" from touching the shock tower. With that said, I’d be fine with a max camber spec to level the playing field. I just want it to be known that those camber numbers are posssible by the rules (at least on some of the cars).

Steven

#11

I agree with Bruce…let’s make legal any >13lb, 14 to 15-inch wheel that’s 6-7" wide which would include OEM basketweaves.

#12

Excluding OEM basketweaves IMHO is ridiculous. The principle alone has discouraged this entry-level newbie from committing to SpecE30.

#13

Steven Canterbury wrote:

Yes I know its possible, the shock towers sag over time, which is why the shock tower brace can be a pain to install sometimes. Which also means I could go to a body shop and have them create some camber for me and claim it was just like that, thats why we need a max set. I’m not suggesting there has been any funny business just that some cars naturally have more camber in the front from wear and tear.

#14

Shaun Pamplin wrote:

It does seem silly, but not joining us based solely on this rule seems even more ridiculous :stuck_out_tongue:

#15

Carlton, I just spoke to Jon and he still has the spare engine in the back of his truck. He’ll be leaving tomorrow for the 13Hr at VIR and would love to deliver your new engine. $4500 sounds great to him, although you still might be able to make an offer he’ll accept. This is the same engine that pulled 164.15hp/160.00lb on the VIR dyno in July.:laugh: Not bad for an old engine that only had a basic freshen up with oem rings and bearings (from Bimmerparts)and is still a std. bore. On the home page of this website, Jon’s car with this engine is sitting on pole in it’s first race. Someone should buy this thing and tear it down to see why it ran so well.:ohmy: I’m trying to make two points. First, using a track dyno to determine car eligibility should be done cautiously and with an open mind. More data will need to be gathered after the change to the spec exhaust(which I’m in favor of even though we’ll need a new one)but it’s disconcerting to think this old engine could be on the edge of legal power limits with some of the numbers being talked about. Secondly, the days are probably over when a 100k mile engine can win. Some people apparently had success with 250k mile engines. It’s a testament to how good the cars are, and why it makes sense to have a class like this. The cars and parts are really inexpensive compared to other classes, and you should still be able to have fun racing a high mileage car. I like most of the rule suggestions, stock air box, maximum track(not sure about camber yet) ,although I’m not quite sure about all the fuss on air dams. Chris had a superior car at the Nationals with his Home Depot unit, so we countered with the Lowes version which gave too much front downforce. This caused Jon to get loose and Skeen nearly ate him up. Whatever air dam is decided on, it just needs to be available and affordable. I also like Chris’ idea about removing left side headlights. It would make the cars and class distinct, and would stop people from wondering about others fresh/cold air advantage.

#16

Paul,

A couple of things, please don’t take my dig at Johns torque as me questioning his integrity, I used it as an example of where we should consider how to keep the engines closer. Also I do agree the max torque and hp idea is one that should be a 1 year trial run to see what comes from real world application. So we agree cautious and open mind would be a good idea, as well as more data collection and real world experience in applying a max rule.

I too did the home depot air dam thanks to chris, I think $15 plus you need a rivet gun!

I already have three engines (building a new car this winter) plus an engine from a wrecked E30 who opted out of racing. Jon Allen said he would talk to you about rebuilding one of these engines? By the way I am not sure I like the steal your engine idea, but was suggested by someone so I put it out there for comment. I would say it’s an interesting idea, but practical application would be impossible imo.

Carlton

#17

I think Carlton has some very good ideas that should definitely be considered. I am all for the effort to make our cars more evenly matched and put the emphasis on building a better driver, not a better car.

The challange will be enforcing the rules with limited resources and time at the track. Maybe we can have an honor code and just trust that everyone will play by the rules. :huh:

#18

hot girls at the track are like money, you can never have enough!!:woohoo: as far as basket weaves are concerned, my car came with them, why can you run bottlecaps if i can’t run my stock wheels? if your car came with bottlecaps your expense is actually less than mine since i have to purchase some sort of wheel (even bottlecaps) to race, how about we level the playing field by banning, or approving ANY stock wheel? spec exhaust is ok if it’s proven that large (ie. 15-20hp) gains are possible with exhaust alone. stock air box sounds fair to me. headlight removal sounds good too, less possiblity of broken glass on track. but on the lighter side let’s not get too carried away with spec everything or else we may end up with spec undies!! or even spec haircuts!! (mullets anyone?!):silly: :woohoo:
don, #22.

#19

I think there are a lot of worthy suggestions being put on the table. I also Like the idea of having an open discussion about any changes. But the thing I like the most, is having some real-world testing, before it becomes law.

It was the non-tinkering, stable-rules, bare-bones basics of Spec E30 that initially attracted me. But it’s the close racing that has and will keep me coming back for more. Not that I’ve been involved in any of those close finishes… But when you look at the times, there doesn’t seem to be a great discrepancy in our cars. Sure there is some? But unless your running sealed crate motors or IROC, there will always be slight differences within the field.

It is for the betterment of the series that these and any other loop holes and/or gray areas in the rules be cleared up. But does everything needs to be addressed over one off season. If we are attempting to protect the series, then we need to think in terms of the longevity of the series of how the series can change over time… not over night. Try to react to things too quickly and you may find we end up having to change things again or worse… you polarize the community over a trivial change.

These different items that have been identified as areas that can be exploited to gain an “unfair” advantage needed to be called out. The rules need to be stated more clearly with less gray area that is open to interpretation.

I only ask that we keep a few thing in mind as we discuss the rules and how the series should evolve…

Keep Things Simple
Keep Things Cheap
Keep Things Safe
Keep Things Fun
Keep The Racing Close
Keep Things Simple
Keep Things Cheap

#20

From my perspective, our problem seems to be non-enforcement of current rules. Why create any new rule if we have no process for inspecting or DQ’ing every single car entering the event that breaks the rules? I read and agree with everything Carlton has suggested, but I think most of those subjects are addressed in the current rules. Some people just find away to ignore or bend the rules. Simple question, How are new rules going to keep that from happening if we have no inspection process? We shouldn’t need to point fingers at each other to keep this process on the up and up.