163 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

I agree with you totally on the bending of the uprights!

Bench, I've always hated the arguement of: you can always go to another class. Seems like a lazy answer and a way of ignoring evolution and improvements to an already great class.

Don't mean to be offensive when saying stupid rules. How we achieve camber and the rules around aren't stupid. But I haven't heard any mechanical or driving arguement for keeping blower motors. The only arguement has been rule creep. Without an underlying technical or performance reason, keeping a rule just because of creep seems to be blind at the least. I also hear you Jim on the track width. But the solution to that problem is easy to fix. And that is what I mean about NASA having the ability to be more adroit and creative in imementing rules. Changing track width at scca has the impression of requiring an act of god.

[Jamz14]

Jim - Side note. I have been running the same extended ball joints on 2 different cars for two full seasons without issue. I have also not heard of a single failure on them.

[Jamz14]

Xavier, so are we going to consider yanking the ebjs and rack shims in order to have spec congruence?

[Jim Drago]

I also hear you Jim on the track width. But the solution to that problem is easy to fix. And that is what I mean about NASA having the ability to be more adroit and creative in imementing rules. Changing track width at scca has the impression of requiring an act of god.

 Each rule that we 'fix", we usually have a few unintended consequences and exploitations.. So if we allow ball joints.. We will then will have cars that were close to track limits, now over the track rule because of ball joints.. then the letters stating I have 5 sets of wheels and now they are illegal..  So we  adjust the track rule.. Ok.. Then we have someone besides 949 come out with a new wheel now 20-21 mm offset wheels which are now legal and exploits the new track limit... then we all need these wheels bc that is what the fast guys run.. You see how it starts? .. So if still on SMAC or CRB, I would vote ball joints down for that reason. 

 

And not being a smart ass.. this is truly the way it all starts with one small change or allowance that seems so sensible and innocent. 

[Bench Racer]

Bench, I've always hated the arguement of: you can always go to another class. Seems like a lazy answer and a way of ignoring evolution and improvements to an already great class.

Don't mean to be offensive when saying stupid rules. How we achieve camber and the rules around aren't stupid. But I haven't heard any mechanical or driving arguement for keeping blower motors. The only arguement has been rule creep. Without an underlying technical or performance reason, keeping a rule just because of creep seems to be blind at the least. 

Your point 1 above, back in the 60's production cars were like todays SM. By the early 90's because of the unlimited prep, aka rules slide the production car entries were sliding south so far limited prep car rules were introduced. Basically the production car class was by sliding rules eliminating it's self. Facts, not me being lazy.

 

Your point 2 above, many of us race in inclement weather and it's really nice to have the blower to eliminate inside windshield dampness/fog as a wonderful safety feature which is maintained. You should see some of the silly stuff people do to clear the inside of their windshields wile racing.

 

Sometimes we need to educate ourselves beyond the ends of our SM noses for success and failures within the SCCA.

[Jamz14]

Jim, I really do hear you on this and agree with the spirit of what you are saying. However I think you are playing both sides of this a bit. Your philosophy didn’t stop changes to the head rules when everyone was gaming that, it didn’t stop the adoption of the bushing rule, it didn’t stop the tunnel notch, the seat pan drop, the restrictor and plate adjustments for the na 1.8 , the 1.6 mods, etc etc. And for good reasons. But can’t we move past the fundamental argument on why as a group we are reluctant to change and move on to the arguments of why we should potentially change something?

All of that said, what is the reason and ancillary concerns that prevent the blowers from being removed?

[Bench Racer]

All of that said, what is the reason and ancillary concerns that prevent the blowers from being removed?

Hey Jim, please repeat what I said of the blower, apparently James has selective vision/reading capability.

 

The 1.6 mods did bring the car back into the game, correct.

[Jamz14]

Bench, to your response of point one; so? Why does it matter if a class changes over time? Sm will still be good if it evolves. It has evolved and it is still as good as it was 6 or 7 years ago when I got involved.

Point 2 response - then don’t pull your blower motor. Rules say I can run a pressure regulator but some don’t. Just because the rules say you can do something doesn’t mean you have to.

Sometimes we have to not be blinded and hamstrung from the past when looking at the success and failures of SCCA.

Tell me that it isn’t a known characteristic of the SCCA that it is bureaucratic and political and is slow to recognize the desires of its members and for change.

[Jamz14]

Bench,

I heard you. See above.

[Jamz14]

Now make your case why your fogged windshield has anything to do with why I may want to pull it.

[Jamz14]

Bench, the dropped seat pan is in the rules. Guess what, I don’t have that. It isn’t needed for me!!!! So if you need the blower, keep it. I don’t. There is a big difference between blower and seat pans vs ball joints wiring harnesses and Ecu

[Jamz14]

And the plate and weights took the na 1.8 out of the game. But you failed to see the point of the comment. It wasn’t about parity.

[Jim Drago]

Jim, I really do hear you on this and agree with the spirit of what you are saying. However I think you are playing both sides of this a bit. Your philosophy didn’t stop changes to the head rules when everyone was gaming that, it didn’t stop the adoption of the bushing rule, it didn’t stop the tunnel notch, the seat pan drop, the restrictor and plate adjustments for the na 1.8 , the 1.6 mods, etc etc. And for good reasons. But can’t we move past the fundamental argument on why as a group we are reluctant to change and move on to the arguments of why we should potentially change something?

All of that said, what is the reason and ancillary concerns that prevent the blowers from being removed?

YOU ARE KILLIN ME JAMES

head rules.. Smac voted no changes post 2014 runoffs, rules were adequate as written, redefined existing rule but left basically as it was. The special committee of Lisa Noblels people crafted the current rule. It was what they thought was in the best interest of the class, it was the best rule they could come up with that provided the LEAST unintended consequences for all. They were also presented a problem created by 75% or more of the engine builders in the class.

 

Tunnel notch has been legal since I started in SM, I voted the floor drop down EVERY time ralph brought it up. I still think it is a bad idea but put it in 3 out 4 cars we build and my car for sure. But this is NOT a mod that the average Joe should even attempt. The consequences could be severe. 

 

The restrictor plate and weights are parity adjustments, not rules changes. You just don't like them( which I still dont understand), many do including those with 1.8 cars.  So the unintended consequences here don't really apply IMO  

[OrangeCrush86]

Considering SM is a "spec" class. I'm amazed how many changes are allowed already. The blower and dash can't be remove precisely because it's a spec class. The cars are supposed to stay close to "showroom".

 

If need to remove a 5lb blower motor to make weight, I don't think that is a good argument. Being that I have weight 140 lbs my entire life I have to say that class weights designed for "fat" people suck for me. When I raced go karts I literally could not bolt anymore lead to the chassis.

[Jamz14]

Jim, makes sense.

Bushings? But even if you would vote against the bushing, I not trying to say you personally on this stuff. I’m saying that we can be dynamic in adopting stuff without freaking out about every potential ramification. I like the ebj option over the top bushing. I like bending even more.

Original point is, NASA doesn’t have to blindly follow and could take the lead in experimenting with changes if SCCA is slow to. I too would like congruent specs. But maybe it is a good thing that NASA can do things faster and we can see if a change is good. You said there was no data on the ebjs. There is. Mine haven’t failed.

There are all kinds of things that might be better if we are willing to be more dynamic. I think you know how I feel about the wiring harness. Talk about a failure point.

[Bench Racer]

 But we have enough talent to know that blower motors and ac/heating control panels being left in the car do nothing to advance any objective in the cars. 

WOW, I had to re-read to find your sound logic for removing the blower motor and heating control panels. Hmm, they do nothing to advance any objective in the cars. What's "any objective in the cars"?

[Jim Drago]

WOW, I had to re-read to find your sound logic for removing the blower motor and heating control panels. Hmm, they do nothing to advance any objective in the cars. What's "any objective in the cars"?

they do help see in the rain

[Bench Racer]

they do help see in the rain

But, But, But, it doesn't rain on the left coast.

[BNaumann]

Just take out your blower motor. No one cares except Runoffs tech and anyone who ever has to drive the car in the rain. Hope it helps.

[Jamz14]

It doesn’t rain much for sure. When it does rain tires go on. But to have a rule that forces me to keep it doesn’t seem to advance an objective or advantage. Not that having it couldn’t provide an advantage. Make sense, see the difference? Why do you need to have the rule forcing me to keep it?

But we are hopelessly lost in the weeds of the blower motor now. It was just an example to try and help prove a different point.

Xav, please don’t remove the ebjs or rack spacers from our rules.