I’m not part of the "inner circle" since I have yet to get my license, but if a car is illegal, it’s illegal. Everyone has a copy of the rules. If you’re protested because your car isn’t by the book, then I don’t see why anyone should be upset with the guy protesting. Granted, protesting over painted brake calipers would be silly, but if you’ve modified the car in a way that it could conceivably give you an advantage then you deserved to be burned, regardless of if you’re at the front or the back of the pack. I hope this isn’t a good 'ol boyz network like the SCCA where if you protest one of the blatant cheating guys who have been cheating for two dozen years, you are ostracized. BTDT. I like to think this group, and NASA as a whole, is a better crew to run with. That’s why I’m working on this car and not an IT car.
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.[/quote]
The only problem with that is having a lower weight brings with it additional benefits, however small they may be. It almost hurts to admit that, being the owner of an old tired motor. :laugh:
Steve,
I just had knee surgery and will be off of my feet for all of the Fall, and some of Winter, so all projects are on hold. Unfortunately, as a result, I’ve been spending more time in front of the computer…stewing.
I did buy a cheap automatic for putzing around town with one good leg that would make a great donor racecar - we’ll see how it goes. I think a 2009 return is realistic - thanks for asking.
[quote]
Vic, deep breaths, ok you didn’t exactly post anything constructive. [/quote]
Simon, fair enough. I just don’t think that these types of rule change requests are motivated with the good of the series in mind - However, lemme try to play nicer:
Air-box: This is already addressed in the rules. This is also the rule to which I protested Jens and Skip. I think the rules are pretty strict, and with the AFM door-flapper in the way, I don’t see any special configuration that can add any significant power. If you start going crazy, then you might as well spec the filter. I’ve heard that clean OEM filters flow the best. By mandating a stock box, you will cost racers time and money with zero upside.
2)Maximum track: This WAS part of the rules a couple years ago, and I don’t know why it came out of the rules. I bought spacers when I saw that others had them. I don’t think they make much difference FWIW.
Max camber - the large diameter springs limit the camber plenty. More importantly, how are you going to measure it? You need a perfectly level surface, and the car needs to be at race weight. So are you going to DQ someone who appears to be 0.1 degrees over, because your measurement techniques are inadequate? This rule change scares me because it reminds of the dyno idea - no matter if you’re legal. If you don’t pass our test (which is near-impossible to make technically sound) then you will be DQ’d. How many of your have actually taken tire temps and figured out whether you even need more camber? I’m always surprised at how FEW racers I see doing all this prep work during practices.
Driveshaft: they can be substituted with OEM equivalents - I don’t see an issue.
Max HP/Torque: I’ve had my rant about this one - there is no good way to accurately measure this. Why is jonny’s 164 ft-lbs unacceptable? Carlton had the big motor a couple years ago, but nobody raised a stink about that. I think you’re comparing apples (jon’s fresh motor) to oranges (other tired motors) - Don’t blame jonny for putting the hard work in - and potentially having the hot exhaust setup! I raced very close to the boy for half the season - and I can tell you that his car didn’t win the Mid-Atlantic championship - The man behind the wheel did.
ECU swapping: I don’t like this because you could get stuck with a bum ECU - and what do you do about mixing ECU’s? I refuse to run a non-173 ECU. But once again, why the fear of a juiced ECU?
No matter what the penalties are, they should be done in accordance with NASA, and consistent. I think things were handled properly this year and don’t see any reasons for radical change.
cool suit coolers all over the place? This is not a constructive point. The rules are clear on ballast. Here’s some food for thought though - late model cars have got a big weight advantage because of the weight of the big Aluminum bumpers and all the mounting junk that goes with them. That should be a bigger issue.
Airdams: Ok, I feel very singled out here, because my buddies and I run the massive cow-catchers. Guess what - they don’t help. They cheap, and they look sweet. Please find bigger issues to nitpick instead of making people ditch their hany-work. THey are very inexpensive replacements for the very expensive OEM stock pieces. You can have yourself a big cowcatcher for cheap - I’ll even sell you mine. THe rules do limit aero advantages. Once again, later style cars have an advantage because they can run the spoilers from the front edge…the earlier style cars can’t.
engine purchasing - you’re right, there ARE problems with this idea. I like it in theory but don’t see how it would ever work. But make someone an offer at the track, and maybe they’ll sell it to you.
Patton does have good ideas. No argument there.
"Sorry Chris, but the rules are a bit different for the Regional Director." Yeah, they’re also very different for the Spec E30 administrator…I’ve seen the inequity firsthand.
Here’s some more food for thought. WHen Carter punted Mike D earlier this season, the whole face of Spec E30 changed. We moved away from a dictator-run penalty system and started adopting the NASA rules.
qualifying benefit … like gridding up 4 sessions early? Carlton, you are one of the worst abusers of the NASA grid-up early move before Qualifying. I’d like to see a little more sportsmanship before qualifying. I have no argument with hot chicks.
I will drive a 944 before I paint my car green.
…and for the exhaust. $200 won’t buy you squat in the DC area…and you can forget mandrel bends. I’ll be interested to see what the new rules say - and I’ll bet that I’ll be disappointed to hear about all the current racers that have to change their exhausts…
Carlton, sorry for coming across so abrasive, but I just don’t agree with your philosphy for massive rules changes - they will hurt the series.
[quote]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:
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.
Maximum Track width, between expensive spacers, rolling fenders with baseball bats, etc. its time to have a max tack width.
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.
Drive shaft - fix the loophole that allows for lightweight aluminum drive shafts.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Patton I know you have some ideas, lets hear them.
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.
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[/quote]
yes!
absolutely
yes - this should be checked on a level surface that will be taped off near tech.
ok
I’m willing to give it a try. If it works awesome, but it will need to be critiqued.
Swapping ECU’s is a good idea. However, there is a problem with swapping ecu’s. If you swap your ecu with another one the engine will not run optimally until it has gone through 4-5 cold-hot cycles. Look into this I could be wrong but with my experience this might be an issue. I also don’t want to run anything that is not a 173 so…
yep
Not a big issue IMO. You allowed to add ballast where the passengers seat was and that is where you want it.
If mtech is considered stock (which it should be) I vote yes.
?
+1
I don’t think they did a poor job and I think it’s on the right track now IMO.
Yes, but who is giving the rating of "hotness"? and if it’s gonna be on a 1-10 scale she must be at least a 7.25.
Vic,
I hate to see what mean is? Vic I think you are miss-representing a few issues and missing the point. I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but let’s review some facts vs attacks.
First I can’t take credit for any of the rule considerations, as these represent a summery of what I have heard discussed through out the year. I have not said other than exhaust which one I agree with. The goal is to have a discussion, so if rules are to be changed there is an opportunity for the E30 community to discuss before they are changed. Also it hopefully reduces the high emotions and idle "threats" that resulted from the exhaust discussion.
Let’s try to look at some of your points
Sorry, if you personally don’t feel any perceived or actual performance advantage from the air box, why than would you protest two racers for the very thing you are now saying no advantage? Secondly, if there is no advantage as you now claim than a rule change would keep the low cost spirit of E30 alive and well. Over time for all racers it will be cheaper to use a stock airbox and filter, both for new cars and for existing cars. So from both point one and two I would think you would be supportive of a stock air box? It’s not worth answering I just want to point out the contradiction.
I guess again, we are in agreement. I too have spacers and do believe you can adjust handling a bit, but not much. So we agree it’s a good rule and of course yet again helps keep costs down.
First, I don’t agree just because you can’t measure it perfectly than why have a rule. If we applied that logic to all rules it would be a pretty unequal playing field. Most tools have a zeroing function that allows you to deal with incline, also since no rule is written it would be more constructive to discuss tolerances. To claim a DQ by being .1 degree off would be over reaching and I doubt that such little tolerance would be in the spirit of E30. I think the issue is not about the racer that does the prep work and works on the balance and handling of his car meticulously. It is about competitive issues either cheating, such as cutting shock towers and other ways to get more camber. There seems to be some cars who can legally get 4 degrees of camber and other with the same plates who can get 2.9 degrees. To me that is too large of a discrepancy for a spec series. Others with more experience may correctly argue that it really is not. Why not have the discussion? You could argue not to have a camber limit, but it is even more difficult to catch individuals who bend shock towers and other such trick to get more camber. So, I do believe it is worth having a conversation and "maybe" a rule.
It was another E30 driver, I believe Chris who thought that technically an aluminum drive shaft would be allowed as he read the rules. But it seems that most agree it would not be as they read the rules, I was just pointing out that it had been discussed at the track
In many ways I agree with you on the enforcement issue and practical application, although I see merit in the idea. What I don’t agree with in your argument is a reference to my engine in 2006. You are missing some clear differences. First never on multiple dyno’s including nationals did my engine dyno at the top of any chart in any catagory, it was basically identical to Cobetto’s during to the 2006 season and at 2006 Nationals. Most would say a good engine in the upper middle of the pack. sorry, but those are the facts. next you claim an apples or orange argument. Fact is we know of three built motors to the rules, Cobetto, Hunt, and Allen. It is clear that Allen has 8 to 12 ft lbs of torque more than the other just built apples to apples engines. Clearly based on your thoughts on the exhaust argument and many others that the exhaust makes very little if any difference. This torque number is not coming for the tweaked exhaust! So I can’t see you saying now it is his well researched exhaust. I am not speculating or asserting that Allen’s engine is illegal. The discussion should be about do we want the E30 series to have potentially legal engines all built to the rules to have 10 lbs of torque or horsepower difference, particularly when we have the advantage of looking at three built motors all built within a few weeks of each other? I don’t really know the answer. But the discussion should not be around is it legal, but around what tolerances are acceptable on as you say apples to apples. We all know Johnny is a hell of a driver
This was tried on the final race with NASA MA and SE. I thought it worked well. I have tested 10 ECU’s all with different numbers and my dyno’s were identical every time. Show me who is racing with a bum ecu? To Mike’s point, I do think we need to see if one needs to cycle an ecu or is there a memory learning curve. But bmw should be able to clarify that concern. If you refuse to run a "non-173" maybe you can share your test thoughts that lead you this stance?
I think it is interesting to see the incident difference in E30 between SE and MA. Jim could probably give us the SE statistics, but it was considerably less than MA. You argued for years that Carter did not apply E30 penalties evenly. It than was moved to NASA’s CCR which was the right decision. That said. I personally was not involved in any track incidents this year and don’t have an sword in this issue. I would say that I do feel NASA MA does not apply CCR similarly to certain racers, which I will include Chris. My main example is the new 1 point regardless of fault and 3 pts if it was your fault. The race at Summit Pt in August, which you did not attend, the rule was applied on satuday, but on sunday when chris was involved in metal to metal he did not get a point. There were other examples in past years, although I think this is not really an E30 issue but a NASA issue. I probably should not have included it in this discussion. It is clear you have less of an issue with bringing the car back in once piece than I do. I would like to see less metal to metal in Nasa MA. The facts from NASA SE tell me there is room to improve, unless you claim the SE racers just don’t race hard. You are fast and race very hard, I would like to see that same spirit with a few less track incidences. But this may come down to a philosophical difference in my version of a weekend hobby vs yours.
Like most I don’t car where people put weight, whether it is ballast, cool suit of fire system. So we agree.
I don’t really have a strong opinion one way or the other, I adopted the Cobetto $15 Home Depot air dam that I believe works fine. My guess is a well done air dam does give you a couple of tenths. Personally, I still make too many driver errors to worry about this. Again, since it was talked about this year I included it.
I think we agree
Patton does have good ideas. No argument there.
"Sorry Chris, but the rules are a bit different for the Regional Director." Yeah, they’re also very different for the Spec E30 administrator…I’ve seen the inequity firsthand.
Here’s some more food for thought. WHen Carter punted Mike D earlier this season, the whole face of Spec E30 changed. We moved away from a dictator-run penalty system and started adopting the NASA rules.
Yes I again agree. I do like to be near the front on the qualifying session grid, other drivers don’t care. With a short 15 minute session I think i have a better chance of managing less traffic. I am not sure how this relates to sportsmanship and as I learn to manage traffic better it should become less of an issue. If others believe there is something wrong with lining up for qualifying right after the previous seesion leaves, than lets here it.
It was a joke to try and keep this thread constructive, I guess it didn’t work
I am happy to go racing, most of the above would cost me money not the other way around. I can also throw money at any car disadvantage problem. I think all these issue should be discussed in terms of the LONG TERM BENEFIT to Spec E30. There have been no adjustments in 4 years, I think it’s OK to open up areas for discussion. Make your points and let E30 administrators and NASA who have 100X more experience than I do make their judgments. I don’t see why people get in a tizzy about looking at the previous year at the end of the season to see what can be learned from the collective experiences of the drivers.[size=4][/size]
Vic… if there are any additional issues or you would like to discuss any of this in private give me a shout. Let’s stay friends.
Stock air box. No way to test on a dyno. so the ram air or creative boxes cannot be proven or dispelled. With data an arguement could be made–either way.
Keep it simple, require the use of the stock box. Should not cost a dime to backward engineer this change.
Track width. Is this not already in the rules?. No change. Some have already purchased wheels with big offsets to meet the letter of the rules.
Camber. Give a number and a bit of leeway for error. DQ is much too harsh for anyone’s first offense. On the 3 cars that I own: 3.0/3.1;3.1/3.5;2.8/2.9.I would suggest 3.5.
4)Agree, stock components on the driveline
More discussion will follow.I do have a junkyard engine that has posted 161.5hp/158.0tq. Yes, I know, different dynos, different days, different numbers…
ECU swaps…like you did at Barber and Summit, ease the audience into this idea and it will be embraced by all. But you need to ease 'em into the idea, not just "Where is your box, I’m gonna swap it out with Joe Blow."
7)Penalties need to fit the crime. First time is different than… Consistancy is paramount.
As long as the car meets the minimum weight, it becomes another boondoggle for the administrative guy to have to enforce.There is more than one component to racing, and this could be a concession point to those that feel that preparation is important to their racing. Let 'em put the weight wherever they want. Mine is in the fat boy driver’s seat. If I go on a diet, should I not be able to put the weight where I want to?
Keep it simple.
9)Keep the rules the same. The cars are going to get crunched in the front , so the "return to stock" could be expensive.It has been proven in the results pages that the home-brew front end doesn’t mean diddly, so let 'em tinker and save a few $$$.
Why not, other than once you bought the hot engine you can’t use it 'cause it is too hot.
My ideas…allow basketweaves, What would it hurt? By the way, as Toyo phases out the RA1, it is my understanding that the new tire will not be offered in a 14".
Get rid of the rocker arm alternate part that is currently in the rule book.
Provide a torque specification for differentials. Carter has the data and it is not difficult to transfer the data into a Bubba-in-the-field test.Recorded data by the series admin would make a out of spec diff show up like a sore thumb.
This discussion was last year’s topic. Understand the pecking order of the CCRs and you’ll see how it can be cleaned up.
Like Carlton,for the record, I believe a spec exhaust is the way to go from this point forward. With data it can be shown if there is a need to address the 70-80% of the racers with current pipes that would become not-to-spec. Need I say more?
Shaun is correct, the weight-to-hp ratio for the 318 shoud be reviewed. As it is now, the 318 has to carry too much weight and will not be competitive. Keener’s car at Road Atlanta BMWCCA race was way off of the pace.
318’s are a single pipe system from the factory. I think the rule will work for both cars. My car allready runs a 2.25" pipe and it’s very close to the factory size off the header.
[quote]Shaun is correct, the weight-to-hp ratio for the 318 shoud be reviewed. As it is now, the 318 has to carry too much weight and will not be competitive. Keener’s car at Road Atlanta BMWCCA race was way off of the pace.
So, Rob how did the drivers like yo-yo racing?
[/quote]
Keep in mind that I was on OLD Z211 hankooks which aren’t super fast. Also the car failed a leakdown upon return and I diagnosed bent valves. I couldn’t turn the motor over smoothly anymore by hand even so I’m surprized it ran. It turned multiple 1.49’s even so. I don’t think it’d be ideal to even consider changes until I’ve run the car with a decent motor and decent tires. Atlanta would probably be the worst track for me to run too, you need torque no doubt. Summit Point, Mid O, Roebling the car should be pretty sweet. I still haven’t put the car on a dyno either. I intend to do this at some point this winter and retime the cams and do a few other tweaks to pick up some power.
[quote]318’s are a single pipe system from the factory. I think the rule will work for both cars. My car allready runs a 2.25" pipe and it’s very close to the factory size off the header.
[quote]Shaun is correct, the weight-to-hp ratio for the 318 shoud be reviewed. As it is now, the 318 has to carry too much weight and will not be competitive. Keener’s car at Road Atlanta BMWCCA race was way off of the pace.
So, Rob how did the drivers like yo-yo racing?
[/quote]
Keep in mind that I was on OLD Z211 hankooks which aren’t super fast. Also the car failed a leakdown upon return and I diagnosed bent valves. I couldn’t turn the motor over smoothly anymore by hand even so I’m surprized it ran. It turned multiple 1.49’s even so. I don’t think it’d be ideal to even consider changes until I’ve run the car with a decent motor and decent tires. Atlanta would probably be the worst track for me to run too, you need torque no doubt. Summit Point, Mid O, Roebling the car should be pretty sweet. I still haven’t put the car on a dyno either. I intend to do this at some point this winter and retime the cams and do a few other tweaks to pick up some power.[/quote]
Wow Rob, if your driving is as good as your excuses you are gonna be tough to beat:woohoo: Just messin with you. I gave Randy hell about the times he ran in your car at Road Atl and he told me it wasn’t quite up to par yet.
:cheer: here’s a thought, you want to have some fun? throw all the competitors keys in a hat and draw for a car to race, do this right before grid and let the games begin!!:lol: :silly:
don, #22 (coming soon).
