174 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

John, on this I must agree with Michael & Todd. There is nothing inherently evil or immoral about massaging parts if the rules allow. The problem is that when a role against it is unenforcible the honest people always get screwed. So if it is beneficial to everyobe and hurst no one (not expensive or unsafe) then add it to the rules. There is nothing sacred about the list of allowed changes, so let's amend where logical.

And as said above, bending the spindle is just one way it is being done today. Some already use ways that are much harder to detect for fear of being caught some day.

BTW, I own one "magic" spindle purchased directly from Mazda with a manufacturing defect (not damage) which provides substantially more camber. Can you guess what the defect is?

 

What is worse?

 

A )guys buying thousands of dollars of new suspension pieces looking for the holy grail combination?

    guys spending thousands more on tires as they grind them off while stuck at 1.75 degrees?

    guys not having fun driving our cars b/c they push so badly?

B ) Allowing all to to do something inexpensively that will remove all the things above.

[john mueller]

Answer to all of the below:  "If it doesn't say you can then you can't"...  We all know stuff thats been done and being done and some have an idea but don't know exactly... The fact that so many are barking about it must mean you'd better be looking for straight suspension parts soon too.

 

The BS in this class is gonna stop (or at least change).  Everyone should take the winter and go over their entire car and clean them up. 

 

Allow for unlimited camber.  There's an optimal amount to have, people can tune for it.  If some goof wants 5* of camber, he can have it.

 

Better parity, low cost, AND less tech.

 

John, on this I must agree with Michael & Todd. There is nothing inherently evil or immoral about massaging parts if the rules allow. The problem is that when a role against it is unenforcible the honest people always get screwed. So if it is beneficial to everyobe and hurst no one (not expensive or unsafe) then add it to the rules. There is nothing sacred about the list of allowed changes, so let's amend where logical.

And as said above, bending the spindle is just one way it is being done today. Some already use ways that are much harder to detect for fear of being caught some day.

BTW, I own one "magic" spindle purchased directly from Mazda with a manufacturing defect (not damage) which provides substantially more camber. Can you guess what the defect is?

 

 

John, do you know if you are considering an overrun process as part of the procedure?

 

With dynojets, after a pull if you shift to neutral and let it coast down you can get a negative power that can be used to remove rolling resistance variations caused by differences in tie down tensions, tire pressure etc.

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

What is worse?

 

A )guys buying thousands of dollars of new suspension pieces looking for the holy grail combination?

    guys spending thousands more on tires as they grind them off while stuck at 1.75 degrees?

    guys not having fun driving our cars b/c they push so badly?

B ) Allowing all to to do something inexpensively that will remove all the things above.

[Duncan]

John, on this I must agree with Michael & Todd. There is nothing inherently evil or immoral about massaging parts if the rules allow. The problem is that when a role against it is unenforcible the honest people always get screwed. So if it is beneficial to everyobe and hurst no one (not expensive or unsafe) then add it to the rules. There is nothing sacred about the list of allowed changes, so let's amend where logical.

And as said above, bending the spindle is just one way it is being done today. Some already use ways that are much harder to detect for fear of being caught some day.

BTW, I own one "magic" spindle purchased directly from Mazda with a manufacturing defect (not damage) which provides substantially more camber. Can you guess what the defect is?

 

Maybe not inherently evil, or immoral, but in years of reading this forum and its predecessor I've never seen anyone post a procedure for how someone might bend either the control arm or spindle in an advantageous way.  I've never done it, but will admit I'm curious how people would go about it.  

Instead, I spend more money than I'd like testing control arms in a jig and chasing parts when I can only get -2.8 camber, instead of my preferred -3.x

If we decided we should allow this in a rule, I wonder if people would come out of the closet and show the rest of the class what their procedure is.

 

Duncan

[Jim Drago]

 

Answer to all of the below:  "If it doesn't say you can then you can't"...  We all know stuff thats been done and being done and some have an idea but don't know exactly... The fact that so many are barking about it must mean you'd better be looking for straight suspension parts soon too.

 

 

 

There are instances, and this may be one. Where the rule is beneficial to no one while costing everyone. In these cases it is only responsible to address the rule. 

[Steve Scheifler]

John, that's exactly where I was and still am with shocks, cams and many lesser things. But they are TOTALLY different because they are difficult and expensive. It should not be necessary to have custom cams and pay for the endless claims that the latest is better. And it certainly shouldn't be necessary to carry several sets of shocks so you can mix & match at the track.

But allowing an inexpesive modification that enhances the handling and the setup learning experience, with no downside other than the fact that some are already doing it against the rules, IS different.

But for a minute, FORGET that anyone is cheating to get more camber. Now list the pros & cons for changing the rules to permit it, and post your lists. That is how the decision should be made.

[Steve Scheifler]

Duncan, for the spindle, spread the upper & lower joint "tangs" apart a bit, essentially opening up the "C". This can cause issues with caliper mounting and maybe other things if done crudely.

Or, weld up the hole for the top joint and drill a new one offset to tilt the spindle in at the top, or maybe the bottom mount the other direction. Or maybe a little of each if you want to be subtle.

[dfuser]

If the plan to go to stock suspension, then you need to learn fromSpec Iron.  Camber plates are allowed to make the cars safer, soare unlimited spring rates with defined adjustable shocks.  Either way you leave it alone, or come up with a safe solution.

[Steve Scheifler]

We do NOT need more knobs to turn! Open springs & shocks are contrary to the intent and philosophy IMNSHO.

[dfuser]

We do NOT need more knobs to turn! Open springs & shocks are contrary to the intent and philosophy IMNSHO.

The point I am trying to make is other spec classes allow it.

[Sacslider]

Does no one remember that we ALREADY HAD a Max Camber spec that was removed long ago?!?!?! 

 

John WHY do you think this went away?

 

Those that keep trying to "take the class back to what it used to be" have no clue what it used to be!!!  The current ruleset have made this the tightest and most competitive field in a decade but now the powers that be seem to want to go back to the "good old days" and think they can tech and regulate it from become the wild west again.

 

both organizations lack the tech and the people to run it in order to regulate this class into your version of SPEC.  In your attempts your plans to attempt this you will destroy the NASA SM class that others have worked so hard to build.  As the Norcal Series director I have managed than double the car counts in the region in less than two years by providing a fun and fair NASA experience.  Please do not undo all of my hard work.

 

As a side note, If SM becomes a dyno class then what is the point of ANY other engine rules?  Build an engine that lives within the dyno rule and who cares whats in it?   You can not have it both ways.  Numerous e30's disqualified themselves this weekend by withdrawing from tech.  They saw no reason to pull pistons out since their cars passed the dyno test.  And why should they?

 

 

This class is not broken.  Be careful how you want to "fix it"

[john mueller]

But for a minute, FORGET that anyone is cheating to get more camber. Now list the pros & cons for changing the rules to permit it, and post your lists. 

 

20,000 FOOT HYPOTHETICAL CAMBER RULE JUST FOR STEVE

Negative Camber can not exceed -2.2 at any wheel

 

Pros:

• Helps take the class back toward it's origin
• Eliminate parts bin blue printing (lowers cost)
• Eliminate part testing (lowers cost)
• Eliminates the "magic part" search from MazdaSpeed (lowers cost)
• May contribute to lowering amour of track testing (lowers cost)
• Allows those with modified parts to continue to use them (lowers cost)
• Easily attainable camber setting (parity)
• Rewards good drivers (intent of the class)
• Makes a lot of folks more happier (larger fields)
• I'm sure there are more, I'm doing this quickly...

 

Cons:

• Makes the car harder to drive fast (impact less talented drivers disproportionally)
• Pisses off a bunch of folks (this one may be a pro, I can't decide) 
• I'm sure there are more....

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~

 

Again guys, this is the sort of changes are fixin' to happen.  It's best to be proactive and embrace it rather than fight all of them, cuz I suspect they're will be many.

 

I'm out for the rest of the day.  Flame away...  My skin is getting thick, I can take it.

[Duncan]

20,000 FOOT HYPOTHETICAL CAMBER RULE JUST FOR STEVE

Negative Camber can not exceed -2.2 at any wheel

 

Pros:

• Helps take the class back toward it's origin
• Eliminate parts bin blue printing (lowers cost)
• Eliminate part testing (lowers cost)
• Eliminates the "magic part" search from MazdaSpeed (lowers cost)
• May contribute to lowering amour of track testing (lowers cost)
• Allows those with modified parts to continue to use them (lowers cost)
• Easily attainable camber setting (parity)
• Rewards good drivers (intent of the class)
• Makes a lot of folks more happier (larger fields)
• I'm sure there are more, I'm doing this quickly...

 

Cons:

• Makes the car harder to drive fast (impact less talented drivers disproportionally)
• Pisses off a bunch of folks (this one may be a pro, I can't decide)
• I'm sure there are more....

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~

 

Again guys, this is the sort of changes are fixin' to happen.  It's best to be proactive and embrace it rather than fight all of them, cuz I suspect they're will be many.

 

I'm out for the rest of the day.  Flame away...  My skin is getting thick, I can take it.

 

-2.2 degrees of camber is going to shorten the tire life considerably, making the class more expensive.  More expensive than just fixing the bent things on the front of the car that would limit your camber.

 

Your comment about a con being that it pisses some people off is a little troubling coming from someone in a leadership position.  Being combative for the sake of it hardly seems helpful.  It's hard to blame people from getting spun up if this is the rhetoric.

 

Duncan

[Rob Burgoon]

Ew. No.  I don't want to try to be precise with camber or depend on tech to do it.

 

Bending parts is just one way to do it.  If you don't like bending parts there are other ways to skin the cat. File out the eccentric bolt holes, add a little material to the eccentric ledge.  We just need to pick a good one that has minimal side effects and legalize it.

 

Why does unlimited camber scare you John?

[john mueller]

Does no one remember that we ALREADY HAD a Max Camber spec that was removed long ago?!?!?! 

 

1.  John WHY do you think this went away?

 

2.  Those that keep trying to "take the class back to what it used to be" have no clue what it used to be!!!  The current ruleset have made this the tightest and most competitive field in a decade but now the powers that be seem to want to go back to the "good old days" and think they can tech and regulate it from become the wild west again.

 

3. both organizations lack the tech and the people to run it in order to regulate this class into your version of SPEC.  In your attempts your plans to attempt this you will destroy the NASA SM class that others have worked so hard to build.  As the Norcal Series director I have managed than double the car counts in the region in less than two years by providing a fun and fair NASA experience.  Please do not undo all of my hard work.

 

4.  As a side note, If SM becomes a dyno class then what is the point of ANY other engine rules?  Build an engine that lives within the dyno rule and who cares whats in it?   You can not have it both ways.  Numerous e30's disqualified themselves this weekend by withdrawing from tech.  They saw no reason to pull pistons out since their cars passed the dyno test.  And why should they?

 

1.  I suspect SMAC removed it but I believe it was before my time.

 

2.  Not "back to what it used to be" but what it was supposed to be.

 

3.  True, but tech is coming and it will be different, very different.

 

4.  At this time I doubt SM will become a full-on dyno class like Honda Challenge (HC) or German Touring Car (GTS).  SE30 is in a transition and with all due respect to you Craig you don't know what is going on there.  I'd be happy to fill you in offline because I'm tangent'ly involved over there too (they don't want to become us).  SE30 has engine rules and a HP & TQ cap of which all can exist in the same rules set and IMO should.  I like where SE30 is headed with their rules, they're just experiencing some transitional pain.  

[Steve Scheifler]

And, there is still an advantage to the bent parts if you can get the Max camber at any ride height while the rest of us suffer geometry changes and hit the stops sooner.

But the BIG thing is tires. All of your perceived savings are wiped out the FIRST weekend.

[Johnny D]

1.  I suspect SMAC removed it but I believe it was before my time.

 

2.  Not "back to what it used to be" but what it was supposed to be.

 

3.  True, but tech is coming and it will be different, very different.

 

4.  At this time I doubt SM will become a full-on dyno class like Honda Challenge (HC) or German Touring Car (GTS).  SE30 is in a transition and with all due respect to you Craig you don't know what is going on there.  I'd be happy to fill you in offline because I'm tangent'ly involved over there too (they don't want to become us).  SE30 has engine rules and a HP & TQ cap of which all can exist in the same rules set and IMO should.  I like where SE30 is headed with their rules, they're just experiencing some transitional pain.  

 

Were you instrumental in getting Pro 7 where it is today.

J~

[Tom Sager]

20,000 FOOT HYPOTHETICAL CAMBER RULE JUST FOR STEVE

Negative Camber can not exceed -2.2 at any wheel

 

Pros:

• Helps take the class back toward it's origin
• Eliminate parts bin blue printing (lowers cost)
• Eliminate part testing (lowers cost)
• Eliminates the "magic part" search from MazdaSpeed (lowers cost)
• May contribute to lowering amour of track testing (lowers cost)
• Allows those with modified parts to continue to use them (lowers cost)
• Easily attainable camber setting (parity)
• Rewards good drivers (intent of the class)
• Makes a lot of folks more happier (larger fields)
• I'm sure there are more, I'm doing this quickly...

 

Cons:

• Makes the car harder to drive fast (impact less talented drivers disproportionally)
• Pisses off a bunch of folks (this one may be a pro, I can't decide)
• I'm sure there are more....

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~

 

Again guys, this is the sort of changes are fixin' to happen.  It's best to be proactive and embrace it rather than fight all of them, cuz I suspect they're will be many.

 

I'm out for the rest of the day.  Flame away...  My skin is getting thick, I can take it.

John, 15 years ago there was the Neon Challenge series.  We had a -2.4 degree max rule.  Sounded like a good idea.  Turned out to be horrible.  The cars really needed -3+ degrees so everyone was trying to run at max allowed.  Tech set up an alignment rack which was to be the official measurement area using their gauges.  They checked cars after qualifying and races.  There were frequent DQ's.  You had to make an appointment to get on the tech alignment pad during the race weekend to check your car.  Fields were often 25-50 cars not unlike SM.  Can't tell you how much time and energy was wasted waiting for your turn on the pad, rechecking the car more than once per weekend and adjusting.  For if you had your car aligned at the best shop around before the weekend and then got to the track only to find that you were over or under on the "offical pad" (either way you were adjusting the car), you spent half the damn weekend putzing with camber.  It was not fun.  Heaven forbid you had contact with another car or ran over a curb and had to check/adjust again and if the official tech pad wasn't available, well, that was your problem.  Guage and platform variances were a nightmare.  

 

Eventually there were events where the officials told us they weren't going to bother measuring it.  It was too much of a pain in the butt for tech, drivers and crew.  

 

I think we've got enough to worry about at any give race weekend.  I think camber should be open and I question the benefit that anyone running -4 degrees thinks they are getting.  

[john mueller]

-2.2 degrees of camber is going to shorten the tire life considerably, making the class more expensive.  More expensive than just fixing the bent things on the front of the car that would limit your camber.

 

Your comment about a con being that it pisses some people off is a little troubling coming from someone in a leadership position.  Being combative for the sake of it hardly seems helpful.  It's hard to blame people from getting spun up if this is the rhetoric.

 

Duncan

 

I just picked a camber number...  -2.5, -2.6, -2.875489...  Whatever, it's the intent of why IMO a cap may be a good idea.  Also, it's how I answered Steve's question - that's all.

 

Levity Duncan.  You're taking this shit too seriously.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

can somebvody please tell me what pro7 is?????

 

Never heard of it!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

go pro coming out with a new version?