140 replies to this topic

[FTodaro]

How about a 100 pound weight reduction for drivers over the age of 50?  Quite often now we're getting our asses kicked. 

I was about to chime in and say "hold up boys" your getting carried away, but would have to support Sager's proposal. Jim we can do an Either or on that Like overbore or or 15lbs. 3mm or 100

[Richard Astacio]

can we go 3 mm bigger plate? no way I'm getting 100 lbs more out of my car

You can enroll your car in a zumba class.....

[BorisB]

can we go 3 mm bigger plate?

 

 

But only on the 99's

[Parity]

How about a 100 pound weight reduction for drivers over the age of 50?  Quite often now we're getting our asses kicked. 

 

Fake birth certificates

[Steve Scheifler]

So far it seems that some of the Yes votes include specific reasons why they are for a rule change while the No votes are simply No. I would be interested in their specific rationale for opposing a free or nearly free change that cumulatively will save a great deal of money and effort searching for, purchasing and installing parts with the risk of still being no better off.

What are the downsides other than a general aversion to any and all changes that you don’t feel are absolutely necessary, or a sense that we shouldn’t respond to every cheat with a rule making it legal? I guess I’ll go ahead and offer my response to those now. Those who have been around since the early days (and I don’t mean 2010), can you honestly say that you think this would be a better class today if none of the prior changes had been made?

[Chris Windsor]

Back to the camber issue, we know that many in the past have fudged the rules with the bent spindle. This set up the rule change for the upper offset bushing, but not the extended ball joint (like NASA) Now we have rear camber-gate a slotted upper rear arm, probably the most visible mod for tech to see. I'm guessing the many other are finding ways to either bend the rear knuckle, mod the sub frame, arms or what ever is needed when they fall short of their target number.

 

While the reason all this is needed is from the grip factor of the Hoosier SM7. This is allowing us to get enough grip we need on 2 tires with enough camber to control the car. Maybe we don't need another rule for more camber adjustment we need less tire. We have been seeing failures more often on bearing life, bushings, subframes, cracking wheels and ball joints. So I doubt anyone is going to write a letter for a 195 tire or lesser compound, we want faster and this is what we get.

 

I agree that SM is the best $$ spent racing but we need to keep costs in check.

I think we need to allow the extended lower ball joint (LIKE NASA) and add the rear upper arm "may be modified to gain Negative camber". This will keep costs down for those with slightly bent rear sub-frames or knuckles and keep the low budget guys in the sandbox playing.

[Jim Drago]

NO!

 

1) I don't see the need and feel for those are struggling but it has not been my experience.

2) The 3.2-3.5 that can be had regularly is more than enough. .. pushing the cars out to 4+ is just not a good idea and if allowed is where we will all end up. Then we will be designing a new rear hub flange ( already brought up) when they start failing more regularly or perhaps a rear subframe gusset. 

3) Why are we talking about this now? BC Danny was caught doing it, it must be needed? I don't think so.  It was not an issue before and we have been racing for years not allowing this modification with no concerns. 

 

I do feel for those struggling to get there, but really dont understand why?  Some times I think we need to save the class from our selves. This is one of those times IMO. The rule is adequate as written

[Dan Tiley]

I don't run SM anymore, but the SRF forum has a total of 8 forum posts after 150+ total SRF/SRF3 runoffs entries, which all say "Congrats Tray".

 

Here's my thoughts on the camber subject, which hasn't been a popular one.... ever.

 

-3° Max allowable camber for all 4 corners.

 

Tech DQ's at -3.25°, checked while on the scales (which are typically leveled).  If you choose to push that last 0.25° limit, you take your chances, but if you're over, you're over.  If you think you lost a race because Driver X had -3.24° and you had the legal -2.9999° you're kidding yourself.  

 

If you do fail at -3.25°, the car is spun 180° on the scales and measured again and the average of the 2 measurements is used.  This eliminates any effect from unleveled scales.

 

OK... back to patching fiberglass

[Michael Novak]

I don't run SM anymore, but the SRF forum has a total of 8 forum posts after 150+ total SRF/SRF3 runoffs entries, which all say "Congrats Tray".

 

Here's my thoughts on the camber subject, which hasn't been a popular one.... ever.

 

-3° Max allowable camber for all 4 corners.

 

Tech DQ's at -3.25°, checked while on the scales (which are typically leveled).  If you choose to push that last 0.25° limit, you take your chances, but if you're over, you're over.  If you think you lost a race because Driver X had -3.24° and you had the legal -2.9999° you're kidding yourself.  

 

If you do fail at -3.25°, the car is spun 180° on the scales and measured again and the average of the 2 measurements is used.  This eliminates any effect from unleveled scales.

 

OK... back to patching fiberglass

Dan that might work for a little class like SRF/SRF3 but checking cars in a huge class like Spec Miata would be too difficult.. 

[Tom Sager]

I don't run SM anymore, but the SRF forum has a total of 8 forum posts after 150+ total SRF/SRF3 runoffs entries, which all say "Congrats Tray".

 

Here's my thoughts on the camber subject, which hasn't been a popular one.... ever.

 

-3° Max allowable camber for all 4 corners.

 

Tech DQ's at -3.25°, checked while on the scales (which are typically leveled).  If you choose to push that last 0.25° limit, you take your chances, but if you're over, you're over.  If you think you lost a race because Driver X had -3.24° and you had the legal -2.9999° you're kidding yourself.  

 

If you do fail at -3.25°, the car is spun 180° on the scales and measured again and the average of the 2 measurements is used.  This eliminates any effect from unleveled scales.

 

OK... back to patching fiberglass

Hi Dan!

 

I have lived through this exact experiment when running the Neon Challenge years ago.  We were limited to -2.4 at all corners and the tech people gave everyone just a bit of wiggle room beyond that.  It turned into a nightmare as the measuring platform at each event was different and almost always resulted in competitors making adjustments in the paddock due to variances and it also led to some painful DQ's that probably weren't just.  It was really a circus with people bringing their own "measuring devices" to dispute the official tech measurements.  Near the end of the series the organizers stopped enforcing it as there were too many discrepancies.  As you mentioned the 180 degree average method was used but that resulted in LF now being verified on the pad where the RR was previously as many tracks don't have a flat scale but use 4 scales on 4 separate spots of varying degrees of levelness. 

 

I can envision a majors race with 60 competitors all going to the scales for alignment check only to find out that the scale camber measurement is "off" and now 60 cars are all getting paddock alignments in order to pass tech or to take advantage of the chance to get a bit more camber.  Definitely not how I want to spend my weekends especially after living through this 20 years ago.  Sounds good but in application it was a real PITA. 

 

Now if the max allowable camber is 5 degrees, I'm OK with it. 

[Jim Drago]

I don't run SM anymore, but the SRF forum has a total of 8 forum posts after 150+ total SRF/SRF3 runoffs entries, which all say "Congrats Tray".

 

Here's my thoughts on the camber subject, which hasn't been a popular one.... ever.

 

-3° Max allowable camber for all 4 corners.

 

Tech DQ's at -3.25°, checked while on the scales (which are typically leveled).  If you choose to push that last 0.25° limit, you take your chances, but if you're over, you're over.  If you think you lost a race because Driver X had -3.24° and you had the legal -2.9999° you're kidding yourself.  

 

If you do fail at -3.25°, the car is spun 180° on the scales and measured again and the average of the 2 measurements is used.  This eliminates any effect from unleveled scales.

 

OK... back to patching fiberglass

I like it, but I agree.. we will be the minority  

[Steve Scheifler]

Time now for only a short answer.
Easy for someone without a problem, and with nearly unlimited spare parts, to say a solution is not necessary!

It is a bit dramatic to suggest that allowing a little more camber will make a significant difference in failures of related parts. We are talking tiny differences, relevant when it comes to car balance and getting that last tenth or two in lap time but not with respect to stress on parts.

The fact that you are convinced everyone will end up running more than they do today tells me that unless I can get as much as the best “legal” car I am at a disadvantage. Read that a few more times and then explain why I should accept that when the remedy is so simple.

Why should a racer go to the considerable time and expense to replace a subframe that has them limited to 2.9 degrees?? Seriously, imagine that your race car is taking up half of your 2-car garage at home and your tools, tires and spares the other half so the wife has to park outside. You have a real job and a life other than racing. Some knucklehead clipped you at the last race, costing you a wheel, control arm, whatever, and maybe slightly tweaked the subframe. You won’t know for sure until you replace the other parts and try to set toe & camber, even assuming you have the tools to do that at home. Sure enough, you can’t get as much negative as before. So now you need to find a replacement and hope it’s OK as you give up how many evenings to pull the diff, brake lines, all rear suspension, etc. so you can drop the subframe. Oh, and that hasn’t been off since the car was new so have fun with those nuts. Then you notice that there is enough slop in the mounts to allow some degree of alignment relative to the chassis centerline and front frame, or more likely misalignment since you have no way to measure it.

Not everyone has OPM, East Street, Advanced or one of the others taking care of their cars. Most of the front runners do, but this isn’t a club only for them or the well-heeled who can just drop the car off somewhere to have it fixed.

Seriously spend at least 10 minutes visualizing that guy going through each and every step himself to identify and replace a rear subframe, by himself, at home. The time, the expense, the missed race weekend, the pissed wife. Put yourself in his shoes and imagine doing that while thinking how a simple rule change could have saved him from all of it, but the people in power said “NO!” without so much as a substantive rationale.

You really don’t want the long version.

[BNaumann]

NO!

1) I don't see the need and feel for those are struggling but it has not been my experience.
2) The 3.2-3.5 that can be had regularly is more than enough. .. pushing the cars out to 4+ is just not a good idea and if allowed is where we will all end up. Then we will be designing a new rear hub flange ( already brought up) when they start failing more regularly or perhaps a rear subframe gusset.
3) Why are we talking about this now? BC Danny was caught doing it, it must be needed? I don't think so. It was not an issue before and we have been racing for years not allowing this modification with no concerns.

I do feel for those struggling to get there, but really dont understand why? Some times I think we need to save the class from our selves. This is one of those times IMO. The rule is adequate as written

What was Preston's LR camber on Friday? What was yours at Midohio last year?

I do agree that screwing the suspension geometry up even more than we already have may cause even more unforeseen failures.

[steveracer]

Hi Dan!

 

I have lived through this exact experiment when running the Neon Challenge years ago.  We were limited to -2.4 at all corners and the tech people gave everyone just a bit of wiggle room beyond that.  It turned into a nightmare as the measuring platform at each event was different and almost always resulted in competitors making adjustments in the paddock due to variances and it also led to some painful DQ's that probably weren't just.  It was really a circus with people bringing their own "measuring devices" to dispute the official tech measurements.  Near the end of the series the organizers stopped enforcing it as there were too many discrepancies.  As you mentioned the 180 degree average method was used but that resulted in LF now being verified on the pad where the RR was previously as many tracks don't have a flat scale but use 4 scales on 4 separate spots of varying degrees of levelness. 

 

I can envision a majors race with 60 competitors all going to the scales for alignment check only to find out that the scale camber measurement is "off" and now 60 cars are all getting paddock alignments in order to pass tech or to take advantage of the chance to get a bit more camber.  Definitely not how I want to spend my weekends especially after living through this 20 years ago.  Sounds good but in application it was a real PITA. 

 

Now if the max allowable camber is 5 degrees, I'm OK with it. 

 

This is also assuming that tech has leveled the scale pads, which my guess is NO! since they are only concerned with total weight. 

Then there's the adjusters moving as they adjust the pads for wheelbase and track differences by kicking them.

 

Next time you're on the scales when there's not a rush, ask for the cross reading, see what they get vs what you set it at. I have, it was very entertaining...46.3 vs 50.2.

[Ron Alan]

NO!

 

1) I don't see the need and feel for those are struggling but it has not been my experience.

2) The 3.2-3.5 that can be had regularly is more than enough. .. pushing the cars out to 4+ is just not a good idea and if allowed is where we will all be there. Then we will be designing a new rear hub flange ( already brought up) when they start failing more regularly or perhaps a rear subframe gusset. 

3) Why are we talking about this now? BC Danny was caught doing it, it must be needed? I don't think so.  It was not an issue before and we have been racing for years not allowing this modification with no concerns. 

 

I do feel for those struggling to get there, but really dont understand why?  Some times I think we need to save the class from our selves. This is one of those times IMO. The rule is adequate as written

Are you implying with #2 first sentence that 4 degrees is better/faster than 3.2-3.5 since we would all start doing it?

 

Sure...Danny is the trigger to the discussion...but I for one am not trying to justify what he did by changing a rule. The front camber issue was discussed for years before a change was made...but I dont feel it was a change to cover a cheat...I feel it was a change to allow ALL the ability to find that sweet spot in handling. This is no different...just affects far fewer.

 

Some use the words "Rules creep" which on its face implies a bad thing. But I believe over the years changes that have been made have only made our class stronger! 

[Dan Tiley]

Hi Dan!

 

I have lived through this exact experiment when running the Neon Challenge years ago.  We were limited to -2.4 at all corners and the tech people gave everyone just a bit of wiggle room beyond that.  It turned into a nightmare as the measuring platform at each event was different and almost always resulted in competitors making adjustments in the paddock due to variances and it also led to some painful DQ's that probably weren't just.  It was really a circus with people bringing their own "measuring devices" to dispute the official tech measurements.  Near the end of the series the organizers stopped enforcing it as there were too many discrepancies.  As you mentioned the 180 degree average method was used but that resulted in LF now being verified on the pad where the RR was previously as many tracks don't have a flat scale but use 4 scales on 4 separate spots of varying degrees of levelness. 

 

I can envision a majors race with 60 competitors all going to the scales for alignment check only to find out that the scale camber measurement is "off" and now 60 cars are all getting paddock alignments in order to pass tech or to take advantage of the chance to get a bit more camber.  Definitely not how I want to spend my weekends especially after living through this 20 years ago.  Sounds good but in application it was a real PITA. 

 

Now if the max allowable camber is 5 degrees, I'm OK with it. 

 

Hi Tom

 

Who says 60 cars will be checked at each event?  I've barely followed SM this year, but my understanding is the extent of the camber checks in 2017 was limited to rear control arms being removed at 2 events (COTA & Indy) on 3 cars.  I'm suggesting the top 3 and possibly a random are checked at each event.  It's quick, non-destructive and eliminates the need for custom parts updates from today's package.

 

As for unlevel ground playing a part...  just based on the math (assuming scales 66 in apart) one scale would have to be a full inch higher or lower than the other to create a 1/4° error.  I suppose that's possible, but rolling a failed car back over the scales from the other direction would eliminate that error.  Yes, that same 1" of unlevel would totally screw up the cross reading, but they're only concerned with total anyway.

 

And finally, regarding people chasing gauge variability at each event to get that last tenth degree of camber....  the returns on that investment of time are negligible.  A big part of my job is studying NASCAR tire test fits, and based on that, and scaling for SM loading conditions, it'd be safe to say that 0.25° of camber is worth about 0.2% or less normalized lateral grip (Fy/Fz).  I'd rather spend my time perusing the lunch offerings at the OPM tent.  

[Danica Davison]

NO!
 
1) I don't see the need and feel for those are struggling but it has not been my experience.
2) The 3.2-3.5 that can be had regularly is more than enough. .. pushing the cars out to 4+ is just not a good idea and if allowed is where we will all be there. Then we will be designing a new rear hub flange ( already brought up) when they start failing more regularly or perhaps a rear subframe gusset. 
3) Why are we talking about this now? BC Danny was caught doing it, it must be needed? I don't think so.  It was not an issue before and we have been racing for years not allowing this modification with no concerns. 
 
I do feel for those struggling to get there, but really dont understand why?  Some times I think we need to save the class from our selves. This is one of those times IMO. The rule is adequate as written

 

+1.  

 

Also adding on to #3, you would think since he was on the SMAC ... he would have suggested the change and not exploited it ... but hey, what do I know 

[Jim Drago]

Are you implying with #2 first sentence that 4 degrees is better/faster than 3.2-3.5 since we would all start doing it?
 
Sure...Danny is the trigger to the discussion...but I for one am not trying to justify what he did by changing a rule. The front camber issue was discussed for years before a change was made...but I dont feel it was a change to cover a cheat...I feel it was a change to allow ALL the ability to find that sweet spot in handling. This is no different...just affects far fewer.
 
Some use the words "Rules creep" which on its face implies a bad thing. But I believe over the years changes that have been made have only made our class stronger!

there are those who have run 4+ on all four corners and believe it is +.5 a second faster at some tracks. i have not tested it.
But I am running more camber now than I ever ran before with bent spindles. We always tried to get to 3.5 max. I am now up to 3.7-3.8
 

What was Preston's LR camber on Friday? What was yours at Midohio last year?

I do agree that screwing the suspension geometry up even more than we already have may cause even more unforeseen failures.

Not that it matters.. But why in the world would I run a lot of LR camber at Mid Ohio when the car pushes in every right?  I cant rememeber that far back.. but best guess 3.2 and I can get 3.5--3.6 
 
Preston was 3.3-3.4 LR and not maxed

[Parity]

If checking camber after a race, what do you do about contant or curb hopping which can affect your results? Do you check before the race?

[Steve Scheifler]

Dan, I think the point is that we already make at least one pass through the scales to “calibrate” for local variances. Add a max camber rule and we will then feel compelled to have that checked at the same time for the same reason. Oh, and they need to ensure the fronts are pointing straight ahead to messure them so add time for that. And these are not real race cars with hard bushings and proper adjusters. I can lower measured camber significantly by binding the suspension. But the consequences are far worse than Tom implies. Changing camber screws up toe at a minimum and if done wrong also cross. Doing that correctly on a slope out in the grass where many paddock is impossible. Not difficult, impossible.

This is not circle track racing close to home with tiny entry fees and abundant races with minimal pain for missing one or taking a DQ. This isn’t NASCAR with nice garages or portable floors and a team to do the work. This is very expensive with relatively few opportunities to race and the last thing we need are more ways to needlessly screw someone out of their weekend. If anyone really thinks a max camber rule is a good idea then please just go all the way to a fixed setup so we have a real driver’s class.