174 replies to this topic

[Glenn]

This post is too damned funny.  A few years ago most of you would have burned the driver of a cheated up car at the stake if he was caught with a cheated computer, "special" fuel pump, purposly bent parts, ported heads....the list goes on.  Now that you all have the same cheated up parts you want to legalize them.  TOO FUNNY!  I could care less but those that claim to be clean as the driven snow are now EXPOSED to be on the the other side of the rules.

[Steve Scheifler]

Not all of us. Some of us are just able to step back, listen, think, and consider with a reasonably open and unbiased mind.

And if you "could care less", then at least you care some. Not that I care. 😉

[Chris Windsor]

I really dislike the attitude of so many have been doing it lets make it a rule.

 

BUT

 

I think the cars need more camber in the front,

 

-cheap cost for about $100

-how quickly that saving in tires would be recouped

-less push in the car = safer

-brings back parity

-all others suspension parts OEM

-allowing a non alloy bushing (rubber, Delrin, urethane, etc)

-most likely something Mazdaspeed could provide

 

When Installed in the upper control arm

-will not widen the track

-less likely to be damaged (compared to the lower arm)

-install "clocking" to gain caster is ok

 

Write a letter

.

[Michael Novak]

Not all of us. Some of us are just able to step back, listen, think, and consider with a reasonably open and unbiased mind.

And if you "could care less", then at least you care some. Not that I care.

I care because with John's rule I would be taking my spindles off my car often.  How much fun is it going to be at a NASA race at the end of a long hot weekend? Can't load in the trailer without reinstalling---I will then be in a rush to put it back together and get on with the long drive home     Do not over torque or you will F up the spindle or more then likely break the ball joint at the worst time and suffer car damage..........  

 

This plus any of there will be other parts that might be what I consider important coming off or being teched.   My thought was adding things to tech when we could just add it to the legal items seems like a better use of peoples time. I feel allowing a full basic setup should be allowed. Most cars can get there or are very close---so adding 2 hours to my time at the track sounds crappy. 

[john mueller]

Excuses. If you have a shit ton of camber, which these cars can't get without help, then something is wrong.  So, either camber needs to be controlled or it helped so there is no need to develop secret parts to get there.

 

 

My example was designed to spark conversation and enlightened me on stuff I don't know or didn't think of.  Several folks delivered lots of info.  I'll change my tactics next time to a less dickish.

[Michael Novak]

Excuses. If you have a shit ton of camber, which these cars can't get without help, then something is wrong.  So, either camber needs to be controlled or it helped so there is no need to develop secret parts to get there.

 

 

My example was designed to spark conversation and enlightened me on stuff I don't know or didn't think of.  Several folks delivered lots of info.  I'll change my tactics next time to a less dickish.

It did---I will follow the less dickish way too--kind of like the phrase....  ..      I just want to race ......... 

[john mueller]

 I just want to race ......... 

 

Ain't that the damn truth. 

[Johnny D]

Wow, John, take your glasses off and don't shave, you look pretty mean.

J~

[Alberto]

Keep up the good work John and team.  Looking forward to seeing the results of the experienced team researching issues and thinking long term about the class.

[FTodaro]

This post is too damned funny.  A few years ago most of you would have burned the driver of a cheated up car at the stake if he was caught with a cheated computer, "special" fuel pump, purposly bent parts, ported heads....the list goes on.  Now that you all have the same cheated up parts you want to legalize them.  TOO FUNNY!  I could care less but those that claim to be clean as the driven snow are now EXPOSED to be on the the other side of the rules.

I care because I think it will be hard to Tech, and if you set an absolute camber limit, it will be a lot of work insuring you do not bust the limit.it will be hard on drivers who do not set up their own car.

[Todd Green]

-less push in the car = safer

 

At the risk of going off on a needless tangent, how does less push make a car safer?

 

• Less push, with all else being equa,l means higher cornering speeds so when something does happen (driver runs out of talent, part breaks, etc.) it just means the impact will be that much worse.
• Understeer is easier to control than oversteer.  That's why (almost) all production cars ship with understeer.

Back on topic, AFAIK you can get decent camber (low 3's) with stock parts, you just have to have run a really low ride height.  (That or my car has massaged parts, but it has the original arms that came from a well known builder from when the car was built back in 2006.)  IMO what needs to be addressed is the shocks that we have spec'd.  They don't have the travel we need at the "proper" ride height, nor do they have the correct valving for the spring rates.  Fix that and you fix the camber issue and the handling of the cars while you are at it.

[Glenn]

I care because I think it will be hard to Tech, and if you set an absolute camber limit, it will be a lot of work insuring you do not bust the limit.it will be hard on drivers who do not set up their own car.

You apparently missed the point of my post......Thats fine...change all the things you want to to make the cars better/safer/faster/cheeper to operate/easier to tech.  But I will be LMAO when the whining continues that the rules have "crept" into full blown prod car status.

[Johnny D]

 IMO what needs to be addressed is the shocks that we have spec'd.  They don't have the travel we need at the "proper" ride height, nor do they have the correct valving for the spring rates.  Fix that and you fix the camber issue and the handling of the cars while you are at it.

 

^^ he's got a point, as long as were at it...

 

J~

[john mueller]

Wow, John, take your glasses off and don't shave, you look pretty mean.

J~

 

HA.  I love the DeRPY face at 0:06

 

http://youtu.be/eZeYVIWz99I

[FTodaro]

You apparently missed the point of my post......Thats fine...change all the things you want to to make the cars better/safer/faster/cheeper to operate/easier to tech.  But I will be LMAO when the whining continues that the rules have "crept" into full blown prod car status.

I was reacting to the inference that people were resisting because they were exposed cheaters. I think there are other legitimate reasons to reject absolute camber limits.

I help run events, it's like unfunded governmental mandates if you get my drift.

[Glenn]

I was reacting to the inference that people were resisting because they were exposed cheaters. I think there are other legitimate reasons to reject absolute camber limits.

I help run events, it's like unfunded governmental mandates if you get my drift.

nevermind.....

[Glenn]

Not all of us. Some of us are just able to step back, listen, think, and consider with a reasonably open and unbiased mind.

And if you "could care less", then at least you care some. Not that I care.

Steve I have no Bias one way or the other as my business has nothing to do with where the specs go.  I simply find it humorous that many of the things that you raild against years ago have now become the defacto standard by MANY. 

[Steve Scheifler]

... They don't have the travel we need at the "proper" ride height, nor do they have the correct valving for the spring rates. Fix that and you fix the camber issue and the handling of the cars while you are at it.

Less than optimal for sure, but we've been through that a couple times now and there is roughly zero chance of new spings or shocks. But travel at the "right height" isn't much of a problem since adding the Fat Cat kit. Any lower than they allow, especially in the NA, is a bad way to get camber.

[Steve Scheifler]

Steve I have no Bias one way or the other as my business has nothing to do with where the specs go. I simply find it humorous that many of the things that you raild against years ago have now become the defacto standard by MANY.

I know, I was just letting you know that our stuff is still by-the-book yet I can see some wisdom in rule changes, so don't lump everyone into the same pot. My interest, and I'm not alone, is that I'm sick & tired of running at a disadvantage. If they can't reasonably be stopped then I'm willing to give them this little victory in hopes of moving a bit closer without having to "join them". Foolish perhaps, but my options are severely limited!

[Johnny D]

I know, I was just letting you know that our stuff is still by-the-book yet I can see some wisdom in rule changes, so don't lump everyone into the same pot. My interest, and I'm not alone, is that I'm sick & tired of running at a disadvantage. If they can't reasonably be stopped then I'm willing to give them this little victory in hopes of moving a bit closer without having to "join them". Foolish perhaps, but my options are severely limited!

 

Just think of it as them running next years rule today, that's all.

J~