174 replies to this topic

[john mueller]

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.  

 

 

I hear ya... Thanks for the reasonable dialogue. 

[davearm]

Levity? I'm not laughing. I want to race. I race both NASA and SCCA, and with a limited budget. How about working on something that will really help everyone, like getting SM on the same tire for both organizations. Tires are my biggest expense (unless I need to get a new(stock) head), and allow a camber setting for each car that is optimal for that car, thereby increasing the probability better tire wear, and a better, easier handling car.

[Steve Scheifler]

I hear ya... Thanks for the reasonable dialogue.

Am I being unreasonable? 😟

[john mueller]

Am I being unreasonable?

 

Not you...  Others.  Folks amongst the trees who don't realize they're in the forest.

[Johnny D]

Oh were so close !!!  Were almost on the same page.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=lz0IT4Uk2xQ

 

J~

[HoneyBadger - BrianW]

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.

I really don't understand why you are fighting for this. You are asking us to take a significant increase in our most expensive recurring expense, tires. With less camber we are going to wear out our tires even faster.

The Hoosier recommended camber in the front is -3 deg. That is not possible with 100% stock suspension components. We are also running on rims that are a bit too narrow for our tires. That leads to sidewalk flex necessitating more than 3 deg camber.

[davew]

Whenever a newbie gets on this website, and asks what is the best header, or cam or whatever; we refer him to rule #1. If it does not say you can, you can not.

 

Whether the rule makes sense to you or not, we live in a land of rules and we are supposed to race in a land of rules. Unless I missed it, there is no rule allowing you to modify the spindle, control arm, pickup points, etc to increase camber. Therefore you can not, and anyone who does is illegal. IMHO, if they are doing it intentionally, they are cheating.

 

By the way, I have several sets of "blueprinted" front spindles on the shelf, I do not use them. I will not sell them as that would encourage cheating. I can get 2.75 to 3.25 front camber and easily 3.5-4.0 rear with stock unmodified components. I have jigs for all control arms and have never found a "magic" arm that from the factory gives additional negative camber. It is probably sitting next to Webbs Unicorn!!!!

 

It is the additude that, "If I can get away with it, it is ok" that got us into this situation in the first place. Not kicking anyone in particular as this problem goes all the way back to Cams and pistons back in 2005.

 

Build it legal, race it legal, have more fun

 

Dave

[davew]

Oh by the way, I am against a camber rule. I am also against purposely bending parts.

 

Dave

[Steve Scheifler]

Nobody disagrees with most of that Dave, but that simply is not the point. The only question should be: Would the class on the whole benefit from a rule change?

Even the constitution has been improved a few times, and still needs a little work.

And my magic part is a spindle/upright, not a control arm.

[Bench Racer]

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

 

Never heard of it!

Young buck, there is knowledge in maturity.

 

Pro7 was, maybe still is the lefty version of Spec7/IT7? on steroids. Spec7 regional only class was/is the 1st gen RX7 with limited modifications not as open as Spec Miata. CenDiv, left coast, Texas, DC, southeast had it and there were 4 Spec7/IT7 cars at the ARRC a couple weeks ago. Folks in different divisions cheated/bastardised the rules similar to what has happened with all the different Spec Miata classes. Want to know who holds the track record at Blackhawk Farm???

[davew]

In all the years and all the cars, I have never seen a spindle that gave extra negative camber that was not bent. Some on purpose, some by accident. But anything is possible.

 

Let's look at it a different way. many of us would like to allow the "ring" to be removed from the back side of the flywheel. Not saying I am for or against. But it was Mazda who vetoed that modification as they did not want liability issues on a modified factory part. What do you think their view will be on taking a machined cast iron part, heating it and putting it in a press to intenionally bend it. Especially a steering/suspension component.

No insider info, but my intuition says this is a no starter.

 

Dave

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Young buck, there is knowledge in maturity.

 

Pro7 was, maybe still is the lefty version of Spec7/IT7? on steroids. Spec7 regional only class was/is the 1st gen RX7 with limited modifications not as open as Spec Miata. CenDiv, left coast, Texas, DC, southeast had it and there were 4 Spec7/IT7 cars at the ARRC a couple weeks ago. Folks in different divisions cheated/bastardised the rules similar to what has happened with all the different Spec Miata classes. Want to know who holds the track record at Blackhawk Farm???

 

Damn congrats on the track record...  I barely remeber what the old rx7 looks like i think its one of those cars that sounds like a popcorn maker no?

[powerss]

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John 

 

What does my question about an overrun process have anything to do with straight suspension parts and BS in the class?

 

Based upon the eastern championship dyno result anomolies that were reported I think it  will help get more consistent numbers off the dyno.

 

I will seach for a chart that shows what I am talking about

 

Steve

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Can we please start teching the headlight covers on the 1.6 and 94-97 models that have all been turned into hoodnscoops for fresh air...

And how about the big brake kits i have witnessesed on some cars this year. And how about those that place their balast up by the front of the passenger side rather then where the seat goes. And what about those 50lb battery boxes.

All rules nobody enforces currently isn't that creepy rules or whatever tag line you guys came up with?

[john mueller]

John 

 

What does my question about an overrun process have anything to do with straight suspension parts and BS in the class?

 

Based upon the eastern championship dyno result anomolies that were reported I think it  will help get more consistent numbers off the dyno.

 

I will seach for a chart that shows what I am talking about

 

Steve

 

Doesn't.  NASA will be including a process for the dyno operators to follow.  We use similar ones in all NASA power-to-weight classes.

 

I use dyno as a one-point-in-time data point for this cars pulled in a relatively small span of time.  Results are used to locate outliers.  When outliers are found other possesses occur to attempt figure out why it's an outlier.

 

Does that help?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Oh and what about those guys who remove their windshield washer reservour, or their heater core and the guy who has heat tape rapped around his exhaust right over his axle...

 

That probably is worth 2+hp right there.

[Sacslider]

John-

It's ironic that se30 doesn't want to become us, because I have no interest in becoming them.

[Charlie Hayes]

Ugh. John ask Hans and Bill Arnold how the camber checking went at the Ohio nats back in 2012 for me in the SE30. 2 techs, 2 gauges, 1 tech shed concrete garage floor, we checked and we got 4 numbers. Backed out of the garage and pulled straight in to get 4 more numbers.

There is a reason they got rid of that rule in SE30 and SM.

[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.

 

A consequence of your decisions so far costing me a not insignificant amount of money to "fix" a car that was legal in 2014.  

[Bench Racer]

Can we please start teching the headlight covers on the 1.6 and 94-97 models that have all been turned into hoodnscoops for fresh air...

And how about the big brake kits i have witnessesed on some cars this year.

 

And how about those that place their balast up by the front of the passenger side rather then where the seat goes.

 

And what about those 50lb battery boxes.

All rules nobody enforces currently isn't that creepy rules or whatever tag line you guys came up with?

Your point 1, folks at the ARRC were told close up the gaps, to what I don't remember. We closed the gap on a specific ITA miata. 

 

Your point 2, don't know about the big brake kits. Why big brake kits in a momentum class?

 

Your point 3, legal to mount ballast on passengers floor.

 

Your point 4, protest fee wouldn't be much and you'll get it back.

 

Your point 5, maybe we need to forget the  and throw some paper, only way towards progress. I think maybe Will started something positive for the class.