174 replies to this topic

[Sean - MiataCage]

Since we are looking at a fairly extensive rules change for 2015, should we all collectively define the other areas of the rules that need to be cleaned up?  As I see it the SM rule set will always be a work in progress that will simply get better and better over time.

 

That being said, what other elements of the rule book should be looked at moving forward?

 

My one example would be camber/control arms.  It is not uncommon to see 99-05 cars with 4+ degrees of camber due to the accidental dropping of the control arm during installation the just so happened to bend it in the right direction for more camber.  Do we really care how much camber these car should get?  The "bend" is pretty easy and cheap, so if it's not enforceable then why not open it up?  I don't care either way, I just want to take some more of the gray out of the rules so we don't go through another 2014 end of year situation again.

 

I'm sure there are other areas that we could clean up.  Thoughts?

 

Sean

[Bruce Wilson]

I'm guessing that by now that folks have figured out how to change more than just camber with bent uprights.  More to be gained in geometry than just camber?? 

[Danny Steyn]

How about speccing a

 

• Minimum ride height, and a
• Maximum Camber angle

 

Yes I know the argument that goes ......... I jumped the curb at T3 and now my car sits lower and my camber bolt moved.......

[FTodaro]

Since we are looking at a fairly extensive rules change for 2015, should we all collectively define the other areas of the rules that need to be cleaned up?  As I see it the SM rule set will always be a work in progress that will simply get better and better over time.

 

That being said, what other elements of the rule book should be looked at moving forward?

 

My one example would be camber/control arms.  It is not uncommon to see 99-05 cars with 4+ degrees of camber due to the accidental dropping of the control arm during installation the just so happened to bend it in the right direction for more camber.  Do we really care how much camber these car should get?  The "bend" is pretty easy and cheap, so if it's not enforceable then why not open it up?  I don't care either way, I just want to take some more of the gray out of the rules so we don't go through another 2014 end of year situation again.

 

I'm sure there are other areas that we could clean up.  Thoughts?

 

Sean

I think Camber is less important with the SM7 as it was with the RA-1, from what i can tell.

 

Bluntly,i am afraid to do much more rule proposing but you guys and have at it.

[ChrisA]

Allow removal of emissions eval & EGR, provided all intake manifold paths are plugged/blocked.  There is no performance gain from the removal, but would eliminate fuel tank pressure issues, flooded charcoal canisters and engine bay clutter.

 

Wish list, a slightly shorter shock body, with shocks that are better valved for the spring rates.

[Steve Scheifler]

Camber in particular is a concern to me because it is impossible to compete with someone who can get "enough" if you cannot. There are several ways to fudge it, some easier to do and detect than others but all are out there. But I don't like limiting it either (directly or via ride height) because one of the largest costs is tires and they suffer with too little camber.

For those adhering strictly to the rules, I would rate this as a much bigger deal than the STR smoothing/blending.

What I would like is to explicitly allow a safe and cheap method of obtaining more camber. Secondarily, start teching it very hard and consistently.

[Brian129]

Camber in particular is a concern to me because it is impossible to compete with someone who can get "enough" if you cannot. There are several ways to fudge it, some easier to do and detect than others but all are out there. But I don't like limiting it either (directly or via ride height) because one of the largest costs is tires and they suffer with too little camber.

For those adhering strictly to the rules, I would rate this as a much bigger deal than the STR smoothing/blending.

What I would like is to explicitly allow a safe and cheap method of obtaining more camber. Secondarily, start teching it very hard and consistently.

 

I agree with not wanting to limit it.  It could hurt more budget racers in tire cost than catch people fudging it to get camber. 

 

I like the idea of a cost effective method to allow gaining some more camber, enough that trying to get extra would not be necessary.  It could be added like the Fat Cat mounts 

[Steve Scheifler]

The Fat Cat kit was the first step towards more camber by increasing available travel and softening the bump stops, which allowed us to go lower and gain camber (with a geometry compromise particularly in the NA). Unfortunately it alone was not enough.

If I could pick one rule to "creep", this might be it as I think it is all win, no lose.

[Kyle Freiheit]

We should spec high offset lower control arm bushings. Better than bending hub uprights or control arms.

[john mueller]

 

My one example would be camber/control arms.  It is not uncommon to see 99-05 cars with 4+ degrees of camber due to the accidental dropping of the control arm during installation the just so happened to bend it in the right direction for more camber.  Do we really care how much camber these car should get?  The "bend" is pretty easy and cheap, so if it's not enforceable then why not open it up? 

 

How about speccing a

 

• Minimum ride height, and a
• Maximum Camber angle

 

Yes I know the argument that goes ......... I jumped the curb at T3 and now my car sits lower and my camber bolt moved.......

 

I am planing to propose a camber limit.

[Ron Alan]

Camber is over-rated with the current Hoosier and Toyo. As well as ride height. Maybe some like a slammed car because it fits there driving style...but i dont think it improves car handling...nor does lots of camber with our current tires. Point being if someone is out there with -3.5+ and the car is riding like a go cart...they are only hurting themselves IMO. 

 

As for what Danny said about excuses if you actually want to implement...on their way to grid everyone roles over a designated area(level pad) that is maned by a couple tech guys. 10 seconds to check height and camber of one random wheel. Results posted after session?

 

And I like Kyles idea to help those who maybe have a slightly bent car/parts that cant get over -1.5. In which case then

spec a limit(-3.5?)and the bushing material would have to be comparable to stock??

 

Allow removal of emissions eval & EGR, provided all intake manifold paths are plugged/blocked.  There is no performance gain from the removal, but would eliminate fuel tank pressure issues, flooded charcoal canisters and engine bay clutter.

 

Wish list, a slightly shorter shock body, with shocks that are better valved for the spring rates.

Though this gets away maybe from the "intent" of the class...it sure would be nice to eliminate this stuff assuming no one car would gain any kind of advantage.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I must say I think this is silly, we will all need to go to the track to set up our cars on the exact same spot to be sure that we measure our camber where the tech guy will measure it.

I never measure camber at the track unless I am on mine or dragos scale pad setup that has been leveled.

If someone does this in their garage and gets -3.5 he could easily come to the track it read 2.5 or 4.5 depending on if he even knows how to accurately level his scales at home etc.

The more camber you put into the car the more you sacrifice being able to brake hard and late. There are tradeoffs...

Nasa in my area is weighing cars on a scale paltforme where the left side of the car is easily an inch higher then the right side of your car. Maybe they can just measure you there.

Nasa dyno operators cannot even tie each car down the same way at a championship but they are gonna measure camber for you at the track on some pavement.

Wow is all I have to say. I think we should be on the lookout for those who use cool suits as that can make them more consistent lap after lap and let's fatter guys drive like they are actually in shape for a 30 minute race.

I set my car up currently before going to each and every track and yet never have we weighed as close as 5lb to what I weigh on my home scales but camber measurements will somehow be magically the same between home and the track...

[Caveman-kwebb99]

One thing that should be teched is fuel yet it is not unless you go to gateway or maybe the runoffs.

E85 is a HP gain and it is illegal, I believe there are people doing it.

That's a great place to start and it doesn't take a new rule it just takes in forcing rules we have.

Why do we need new rules when we can't even get it together to enforce half the freaking rules we have now.

[FTodaro]

I will just point out that there are many members of our class who do not have their own scales and set up and they may get one alignment a year. so if things get out of whack they may or may not catch it. I am not sure how much ride height is important in a class like ours.

 

It is true I question the set up to weigh cars at many tracks, doing ride height would be as problematic. Atlanta, and Gingerman come to mind two scale pads. Mid Ohio Nasa sets up scales in the parking lot on an incline.

[Steve Scheifler]

I agree that measuring camber in tech is a bad idea as stated.
I agree that lowering ride height alone is of little or even negative benefit past a certain point, it's just the only way to get more camber for some.
There are definitely limits to the benefit of more camber, particularly with braking, but to get what we often do need requires lowering the NA too much, exacerbating already compromised geometry and getting into the stops.

I don't know about the new Hoosiers but in the past, even with all new parts, we were at a disadvantage.

[HoneyBadger - BrianW]

I am planing to propose a camber limit.

That idea is even worse than going back to stock heads. What benefit will be gained by trying to do this?

If we keep up this stupidity no one is going to be racing this class anymore.

[ChrisA]

One thing that should be teched is fuel yet it is not unless you go to gateway or maybe the runoffs.

E85 is a HP gain and it is illegal, I believe there are people doing it.

That's a great place to start and it doesn't take a new rule it just takes in forcing rules we have.

Why do we need new rules when we can't even get it together to enforce half the freaking rules we have now.

E85 is easy to test for, just take the gas cap off and take a whiff. 

[Todd Lamb]

Minimum ride height and maximum camber rules are a TERRIBLE idea. The pro teams can't even get it right a lot of the time and they are on the scales every session. And to make matters worse, the pro sanctioning bodies can't measure it accurately most of the time.

SM min ride height is already dictated by bump stops.

SM camber - the rules need to be addressed to allow the changes most are already making.

[ChrisA]

and the bushing material would have to be comparable to stock??

 

Though this gets away maybe from the "intent" of the class...it sure would be nice to eliminate this stuff assuming no one car would gain any kind of advantage.

Yeah, don't think off-set bonded rubber would last very long and I never want to really mess with poly again.

 

Don't understand the "intent" line any more, as we have 700-lbs front springs, run restrictor plates and are essential forced to run a FPR or be pig rich. Removal is easy and best of all cheap! 

[DrDomm]

I'm late to this game, but I think the main problem is that the INTENT section in the GCR needs to be amended.  The smart people need to envision what the perfect spec sports car would be if they designed and engineered it from scratch.  Then apply all the Mazda Miata constraints to that, and keep cost in mind when re-writing the rules.  Is there a cheap and easy way to obtain more camber than naturally in a Mazda Miata?  Apparently so.  So just legalize that and move on.  If you have to rebuild and re-install a junkyard head to be competitive, what's the added cost of doing the plunge cuts and STR blend?  Spec it out and move on.

 

We need to focus on Parity, not Purity.