 |
|
Scott… I agree completely. Also remember we are not in year one but year three or four. I do think it’s time to one tighten a few things up, and secondly adopt Stephen’s approach… i.e. point 7, better enforcement. Don…by the way no chance you get a 15 or 20 hp gain from exhaust, in E30 you are trying to achieve a 8 or 9 hp difference between the top car to the bottom. I think best case exhaust is 5 lbs of torque…But there is another thread for the exhaust debate.
Lets go RACING!!!
I agree that any rule changes are useless without easy inspection and enforcement. I think that changes like trying to limit the max torque/hp with a dyno run are aimed at creating rules that can be enforced relatively easily. Other series use borescope checks, head removal, teardowns, etc. to try to catch non-compliant engines. Treating it like a black box and measuring the output has more merit, IMHO. The Dutch Supercar Challenge (http://www.supercarchallenge.nl/) series uses an on-board electronic measurement device to continuously check the car’s max performance.
cheers,
bruce
Stephen Foushee wrote:
Stephen Foushee wrote:
Bam!
our problem seems to be non-enforcement of current rules
That sums it up right there.
Lets just try that and see how that works.
Carlton - thanks for presenting some great ideas. For me, the biggest concerns are regarding the performance enhancing issues. We clearly have cars that outperform others statistically, at least on the dyno. Objective data is hard to refute. This doesn’t mean a skilled driver can’t drive an underpowered car to the checkered flag, but a less skilled driver might drive a more powerful car to the podium.
The spoiler issue is in a different category. I doubt the gangster air dam is going to provide much of a performance advantage. It does however detract from the the appearance of the cars. We are racing e30s and that is what they need to look like, at least for the spectators. I disagree with having to use a stock front spoiler, however, as they are getting hard to find for early cars, but tasteful modifications, like on the car we bought from Ric B, don’t alter the general appearance of the car. The current rule on this is not being complied with and should provide a satisfactory outcome.
Bruce has broached an intersting possiblilty regarding performance monitoring. My GTech pro road race device is capable of monitoring RWHP and g forces for about $300 and can download data to a computer via serial port. Perhaps there is something else out there for less that could do the same.
I am in this for the fun and wheel-to-wheel competition at low cost. The recent discussions on rules have been both discourging and tedious to deal with. That said, I can’t wait unitil the next race.
Ed
Bruce Leggett wrote:
[quote]I agree that any rule changes are useless without easy inspection and enforcement. I think that changes like trying to limit the max torque/hp with a dyno run are aimed at creating rules that can be enforced relatively easily.
[/quote]
So you would agree making any rule change is fruitless without an inspection process?
Ed Davidson wrote:
[quote]
I am in this for the fun and wheel-to-wheel competition at low cost. The recent discussions on rules have been both discourging and tedious to deal with. That said, I can’t wait unitil the next race.
Ed[/quote]
Ed,
I’m with you on this statement. This happens in the off-season when we can’t go racing racing and have to get our fix at the keyboard. I think I might stay away for the next couple of months until the majority of posts on the board are race reports and videos.
Ed,
I agree with your post as well, although I would say that these discussion are healthy and overdue. It is year 3 or 4 and updates to attempt to keep the playing field equal makes sense. Other than the exhaust issue which is completely out of hand in terms of anger, attacts, etc over the cost of one toyo tire is unfortunate, even if both sides have a point of view. Digging ones heels in is counter productive as well as making threats.
At the same time almost everything else suggested and discussed on rules changes has been professional and is moving the ball forward. Regardless of the changes adopted, it is impossible to argue that somehow the cost bar is being raised. If the exhaust change happens it lowers the cost bar for all new racers, max track width will lower the cost by not tempting to buy spacers, the air box would lower the cost by not tempting racers to change to another system. So let’s keep all this in mind and hopefully there are a lot more future racers than current. Yes, MA and SE are doing well, the rest of NASA is still all potential!
I don’t know much about devices that measure g’s and rear wheel hp, but I think this is a great direction and cheap solution. How is $300 cheap? first of all, the cost to bring dyno’s to the track, the cost to racers to dyno cars is considerably more than $300. Dyno’s have been challenging for Chris to get to the track due to costs. We generally only get three free cars so with a field of 30 cars or so, other racers may need to pony up for the dyno cost. Overtime that starts to make the $300 look cheap. If you had 3 of these devices per region which I believe you could get at wholesale or $250 or so (assuming you paid $300) you could easily enforce a horsepower/ torque rule between two qualifying sessions and two races (assuming it is easy to switch between cars). You may require E30’s to put the wiring in place to make for quick swap. Certainly, we all have different race budgets, but I will go on record as volunteering to buy one for the MA region, if the idea is adopted and enforced. I bet we can get a few others to pony up and help pick up the tab for the remainder in the interest of competitive racing. Has anyone else had experience with this type of device?
Basketweaves FTW!!! 
The Gtech idea is good but not tamper resistant. Since HP/Tq is calculated by weight the #s will differ as you run out of fuel. And, the parameters can be changed.
The idea is simple. As stated, enforce current rules. In the RM region there are…or is 1 car on track currently, but other regions with many cars should be doing legality checks regularly.
no, that’s too broad a statement.
Ensuring that things are inspectable and enforceable is one part of the goal.
cheers,
bruce
Stephen Foushee wrote:
[quote]Bruce Leggett wrote:
[quote]I agree that any rule changes are useless without easy inspection and enforcement. I think that changes like trying to limit the max torque/hp with a dyno run are aimed at creating rules that can be enforced relatively easily.
[/quote]
So you would agree making any rule change is fruitless without an inspection process?[/quote]
Bruce, I’m a little confused with that statement. I guess you need to define the goal for me. I thought the "goal" was to make sure our cars were equal. Any rule, new or existing is useless IMO without a police force.
A perfect set of rules is meaningless if they aren’t enforced. But simplifying and clarifying rules makes the inspection process easier and thus makes enforcement easier. Changes along the lines of Carleton’s proposal make a lot of sense to me.
I will say that if, as it looks likely, dyno testing is adopted as a means of ensuring power train compliance that DME swaps aren’t necessary. And that fits perfectly with the Spec E30 philosophy. I rather suspect that a clever tuner could wrest a significant power increase. That would certainly require pretzel logic in interpreting the rules or outright cheating and would cost an obscene amount of money. But only a tear down inspection would reveal what’s been done. Using dyno data, either for disqualification or weight adjustment, makes that approach fruitless.
I like the idea of OE front air dams. But given the scarcity of original air dams for the cars with diving boards allowing those to be updated to the integrated bumpers would have to be a part of that rule.
I think that weight placement should be free. There are too many ways to cheat and it would too hard to enforce. The minimum weight is already specified and it shouldn’t matter where one chooses to place the weight.
yeah, I’m probably responding without enough thought (rushing to get ready for a trip to Israel and Germany tomorrow). One of the main goals is fun racing.
I would agree that rules that aren’t inspectable/enforceable are pretty pointless. We do rely to some extent on the honor system and I wouldn’t want to see us get to a point where every car is extensively gone through at every race (because I don’t want to have to do that as the RM guy).
thanks,
bruce
Stephen Foushee wrote:
WTF ever happened to rules STABILITY?
There is waaay too much time spent trying to figure out why other drivers’ cars are so much faster than yours. Ever wonder that hmmm…maybe the DRIVER is faster?
And for the record, I did protest two drivers this year - I protested Jens and Skip at VIR, based on info I got from Carter about their cars. It was a terrible idea. At the time I hoped to drive the point home to fellow competitors about fair-play, but all it really did was piss a bunch of people off. And in the end, their "illegal" ram-air parts didn’t do shit. They simply drove their asses off that weekend.
Camber, Caster Diffs, D/shafts…all this stuff should have been spec’d from the start. It wasn’t - but it doesn’t matter. The formula in Spec e30 for fun still works (as long as you can avoid the boards.
Worried that your car isn’t up to snuff? Toss me the keys, and I’ll be happy to show you what it can turn.
-Vic
Victor Hall wrote:
[quote]WTF ever happened to rules STABILITY?
Worried that your car isn’t up to snuff? Toss me the keys, and I’ll be happy to show you what it can turn.
-Vic[/quote]
Vic, deep breaths, ok you didn’t exactly post anything constructive. Just because you can drive the wheels off the car and take a possibly average car to the front doesn’t make it right. Give some reasons as to why these changes wouldn’t be for the good? Rules Stability is great but if there are loop holes I don’t think you should leave them open just for the sake of stability. We know you don’t like the spec exhaust idea but putting that aside I think all the suggestions here are pretty good. What happens when I build a car to the limit of the current rules and I am a second faster than you per lap (hypothetical), do you change your tune then? I’ll get a sunbelt motor, dyno 10 different exhaust configurations, bend the shock towers, have custom functional splitter made etc etc. Eventually there will be driver who is very fast and very funded. I want to look out for the guy who doesn’t have the money to do that kind of stuff and keep it as much as possible down to the driver. Since you are such a fast driver you should be in favor of, no?
Vic, protesting someone for a rule violation is the best way I know of losing a friend in the padock. Nobody relishes the idea of protesting one of their fellow drivers and you raise a good point that nothing good will come from it.
Are you building a new car for next year?
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Those who choose to build 318is are up a creek on weight. With me, a overflowing tank of fuel, a spare in the trunk, and 100 pounds of ballast I hit 2640. I’ve ‘kept’ some removable parts too in the car. If I have any fuel spillage, forget to add a quart of oil, lose coolant during a race, etc I am really close to the limit on weight. Sucks. I could if I wanted have about 200-250 pounds of ballast in this car with only legal parts removed.
On the Other hand my corner weight percentage is 50.1% and I haven’t done anything ‘creative’ placement wise.
There is no driveshaft loophole. OEM means steel, stock length, and diameter. If you have an aluminum/carbon driveshaft you are not legal. I think my driveshaft with standard replaceable ujoints is allready pushing it.
Turn over??? Or laptime?? :woohoo:
Rob Keehner wrote:
[quote][quote]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.
[/quote]
Those who choose to build 318is are up a creek on weight. With me, a overflowing tank of fuel, a spare in the trunk, and 100 pounds of ballast I hit 2640. I’ve ‘kept’ some removable parts too in the car. If I have any fuel spillage, forget to add a quart of oil, lose coolant during a race, etc I am really close to the limit on weight. Sucks. I could if I wanted have about 200-250 pounds of ballast in this car with only legal parts removed.
[/quote]
From some quick questioning, I think almost everyone is running ballast of some sort. If that’s true, it would seem to make sense to lower the min. weight, not much, just a bit to make life a little easier. To make weight I go out on track with ballast, a full tank of gas and a spare tire.
For most of the other stuff, I honestly don’t care what is decided. Some of it will be an inconvience to me, some won’t. The one thing I do think should be adopted is the weight penalty idea for an engine that exceeds the decided limits (unless it is over by 30HP or something outlandish). It would suck to have a new engine that is legal and then have it deemed illegal because it produced a few more HP/TQ. Maybe one set of limits that results in a weight penalty and another set of higher limits that results in the engine being disallowed?
I’m not running ballast, and yes, I’m at the proper weight.
As much as people are bitching at Vic for being honest, I agree with him to a certain extent. These topics have started to spiral out of control. Look at the number of posts this board had during the year vs the number of posts about just these rules topics over the last fourteen days.
I would also like to note the comments about rules enforcement. I have always found it very difficult to understand how over the last two years since the series has really taken off that no car, with the exception of those with weight issues post race, have ever been DQ’ed. Because of this, protesting someone now causes a huge uproar, bruised egos/feelings, and distain for those that opposed the legality.
Just some things to mull over.
In the spirit of the Spec E30 philosophy, you could carry that a bit further and allow a weight reduction for those cars with old, tired, junkyard motors that make less than the "dyno proved" average.