process and dates for rule changes for 2010?

#1

Now that nationals are over, and the end of the local seasons is upon us, what’s the official process and deadline to try to get a rule changed for the 2010 ruleset? When should we expect the 2010 rules updates?

#2

If I understand the process correctly, Carter and the regional SE30 directors confer in October. Last year’s rules were published at the end of the year.

I don’t think discussions on the forums necessarily get included in the items they consider. Last year I submitted some requests - and they may have even read a few of them. :laugh:

One rule I pondered this year when coming up with my aero package for Miller is:

9.3.13.3. Front spoilers, air dams, and splitters are permitted, provided they do not protrude more than two (2) inches beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above, perpendicular to the ground, or aft of the forward most part of the fender opening. This body outline does not include bumpers or bumper mounts, but does include the integrated bumper assemblies of 1989 to 1991 models.

I interpret this to mean that the splitter can extend 2" aft of the fender opening. If the rule said “…not more than two (2) inches (a) aft of the forwardmost part of the fender opening or (b) beyond the overall…” it would be clear that my interpretation is wrong.

Anybody got an opinion?

#3

I think your interpretation is correct, but why does it matter, its going to be torn off at CMP anyway.

#4

Personally, I’ve always read that as “it doesn’t go aft of the forward most part of the fender opening” since it is the tail end of the sentence and the main descriptor is “2 inches beyond the overall outline of the body” (where the fender opening is not involved). We have a number of rules with ambiguous sentence structure.

Per 1.4, rules can be changed at any point in the year but we do tend to group them at year end, if there are to be any changes. [quote]1.4. These regulations are ‘living’ and subject to changes at any time. The stability of these rules
allows for this provision as opposed to the typical annual rules update with wholesale changes
that occurs on a calendar year basis.
1.4.1. Changes will have sufficient lead time for competitors to become compliant.[/quote]

It is not that Carter and regional dirs don’t consider what is written in the forums, it is just that it is sometimes hard to discern from long threads what exactly is being proposed, and whether the proposer is being self-serving or really thinks it will help the whole series grow in all regions. An email to Carter directly that lays out the change and intended benefits is more likely to be considered fully.

thanks,
bruce

#5

Any one vote for the use of in car adjustable brake proportioning valve? And or unrestricted brake master cylinder setup with balance bar.

And how about a max hp dyno number?

Peter Thibault

#6

PThibault wrote:

[quote]Any one vote for the use of in car adjustable brake proportioning valve? And or unrestricted brake master cylinder setup with balance bar.

And how about a max hp dyno number?

Peter Thibault[/quote]

I vote “NO” to both.

I’d like to propose a rule that states that rule changes can only be made every 4 years…
But we’ll have to wait till 2013 for that to take effect :side:

#7

There is likely to be no formal “make your rule change suggestions here” thread until the Regionals detect that I’m away from the Internet for a week.

Re. 2" from the rearmost fender opening. Nope, that’s not what it says. That sentance has 3 separate clauses which have to be interpreted in isolation…2" forward, perpendicular, and fender opening.

#8

I sent my pet rule mod to my regional director (Scott Neville), since for some reason I thought that he’s my representative and possibly advocate in the process? If I should advocate directly to Carter, that would be nice to know.

Since everybody is sharing, I’d like to get the rules to allow set screws for bushings. It seems to already be a common mod for the control arm bushings, but when I realign my PITA eccentric rear trailing arms that keep coming undone, I’m going to put a set screw in em, rules or not.

#9

Ranger wrote:

I have to disagree. There are two clauses that clarify the measurement “two (2) inches.” Those two clauses begin with “beyond” and “aft.” In diagramming the sentence, confusion is eliminated if you ignore the phrase “perpendicular to the ground” since its function is solely to describe the precise manner in which the outline should be “viewed from above.”

You are then left with the sentence that has two phrases that modify the noun “inches.”

Let’s have a grammar throw-down at CMP. Whooo doggies I am a party animal!

#10

PThibault wrote:

[quote]Any one vote for the use of in car adjustable brake proportioning valve? And or unrestricted brake master cylinder setup with balance bar.

And how about a max hp dyno number?

Peter Thibault[/quote]

#1 - Easily handled with brake pad compounds, IMHO.

#2 - If we can pick one brand and model of dyno, I would support a series of max HP and TQ provided there are values each 100 rpm from 3500 to redline.

#11

Any device that must be purchased which adds further adjustment I’m opposed to. It increases cost, and increases the variables between cars during a race. If you can’t drive it the way the rules currently have it, that’s not the car’s fault.
:stuck_out_tongue:

#12

Steve D wrote:

[quote]Ranger wrote:

I have to disagree. There are two clauses that clarify the measurement “two (2) inches.” Those two clauses begin with “beyond” and “aft.” In diagramming the sentence, confusion is eliminated if you ignore the phrase “perpendicular to the ground” since its function is solely to describe the precise manner in which the outline should be “viewed from above.”

You are then left with the sentence that has two phrases that modify the noun “inches.”

Let’s have a grammar throw-down at CMP. Whooo doggies I am a party animal![/quote]

Funny stuff Steve…maybe I’m taking comedy lessons from the wrong guy.

#13

laz wrote:

[quote]I sent my pet rule mod to my regional director (Scott Neville), since for some reason I thought that he’s my representative and possibly advocate in the process? If I should advocate directly to Carter, that would be nice to know.
[/quote]

emailing your reg series director works fine too
bruce

#14

Steve D wrote:

[quote]
Let’s have a grammar throw-down at CMP![/quote]

Steve I believe the more accepted terminology is grammar rodeo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_Rodeo

Maybe Geegar can make a trophy if he can break away from the noon feeding.

#15

Steve, I love ya man, but that doesn’t make you right.

Here’s the sentance again:

9.3.13.3. Front spoilers, air dams, and splitters are permitted, provided they do not protrude more than two (2) inches beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above,…or aft of the forward most part of the fender opening.

But in the below version I put in a comma after “inches” in order to make it say what you want. That is to say, each clause is modified by the “2 inches”:

9.3.13.3. Front spoilers, air dams, and splitters are permitted, provided they do not protrude more than two (2) inches, beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above,…or aft of the forward most part of the fender opening.

#16

IndyJim wrote:

[quote]Steve D wrote:

[quote]
Let’s have a grammar throw-down at CMP![/quote]

Steve I believe the more accepted terminology is grammar rodeo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_Rodeo

Maybe Geegar can make a trophy if he can break away from the noon feeding.[/quote]

Or maybe just a good old fashioned spelling bee. I suggest we save the word “sentence” for the final round.

#17

Good work Steve. That was funny.:laugh:

#18

Ranger wrote:

[quote]Steve, I love ya man, but that doesn’t make you right.
[/quote]

I feel the same, Scott. The phrase “two inches” doesn’t modify those that come after it. Those that come after it modify “two inches”. The two modifying phrases begin with “beyond” and “aft” whether there is a comma there or not.

Don’t worry, I am submitting a couple alternatives for the rules dudes to consider. If they will pick one, the rule will be crystal clear for 2010. And I might have to get my jigsaw back out if I run the splitter in “tucked” mode.

PS - Gasman is making progress. :cheer:

#19

Steve D wrote:

[quote]PThibault wrote:

[quote]Any one vote for the use of in car adjustable brake proportioning valve? And or unrestricted brake master cylinder setup with balance bar.

Peter Thibault[/quote]

#1 - Easily handled with brake pad compounds, IMHO.
[/quote]

I’d be against it too. Allowing more brake flexibility will create a brake arms race that will increase cost. I disagree that playing with brake compounds is the same tho. Putting dissimilar pads on creates brake balance issues because the front and rear pads have different brake torque curves.

Allowing flexibility in reliability mods good. Flexibility in performance mods bad.

#20

Steve D wrote:

[quote]Ranger wrote:

[quote]Steve, I love ya man, but that doesn’t make you right.
[/quote]

I feel the same, Scott. The phrase “two inches” doesn’t modify those that come after it. Those that come after it modify “two inches”. The two modifying phrases begin with “beyond” and “aft” whether there is a comma there or not.

Don’t worry, I am submitting a couple alternatives for the rules dudes to consider. If they will pick one, the rule will be crystal clear for 2010. And I might have to get my jigsaw back out if I run the splitter in “tucked” mode.

PS - Gasman is making progress. :cheer:[/quote]

Punctuation aside, I agree that it’s worth rephrasing the sentance such that it’s more clear.

I’m playing with an air dam and undertray idea right now. But I’m having no luck finding out any information on the downforce balance of our car. I currently have “curtain” sort of thing that provides 0 downforce. If you look at the OEM design, it looks like it would provide “some” downforce, but how much?

It’s hard to know how much a person can screw around with front aero ideas before they end up with a tailhappy car.

I’m not going to do a splitter. It would just get torn off the first time I ended up in the dirt.

Anyone know anything about E30 downforce?