235 replies to this topic

[Danica Davison]

Man, this thread is way too technical for me and way too much reading.  However, positive points are being brought up by both sides (I think).  So, given my ignorance, I will support whatever proposed rule that tries to meet most/all of the following criteria as close as it can:

 

1.)  Decreasing (or just not increasing) wear on other parts.  More maintenance = more money.  More wear = more risk of failure on track. Failure on track = More more money.

2.)  Does it help the little guy as much as it helps the big wallet guy without costing a fortune? If yes, then I support it.

3.)  Is it rules creep because someone got caught doing it, or is really needed for the betterment of the class? I do not know, but that is what you are all debating about.  I didn't know it was even an issue.

4.)  Is there more or less of an area to cheat the new rule? Or, does this new rule increase/decrease the risk of cheating other rules?  If it stays the same or decreases gray areas that can be exploited, then I support it.

5.)  Is the proposed rule easily teched? 

 

 

Yeah, I think that is it.

[FTodaro]

Man, this thread is way too technical for me and way too much reading.  However, positive points are being brought up by both sides (I think).  So, given my ignorance, I will support whatever proposed rule that tries to meet most/all of the following criteria as close as it can:

 

1.)  Decreasing (or just not increasing) wear on other parts.  More maintenance = more money.  More wear = more risk of failure on track. Failure on track = More more money.

2.)  Does it help the little guy as much as it helps the big wallet guy without costing a fortune? If yes, then I support it.

3.)  Is it rules creep because someone got caught doing it, or is really needed for the betterment of the class? I do not know, but that is what you are all debating about.  I didn't know it was even an issue.

4.)  Is there more or less of an area to cheat the new rule? Or, does this new rule increase/decrease the risk of cheating other rules?  If it stays the same or decreases gray areas that can be exploited, then I support it.

5.)  Is the proposed rule easily teched? 

 

 

Yeah, I think that is it.

I think the point that Dave mentioned that is worth while is that this proposal which is in effect suggesting that we modify the car to run way more camber than was designed into the car should be tested to determine the unintended consequences. Will Running -4.5 degrees of camber have an impact on half shafts, rear uprights( hubs), other parts? if so, if the failure rate goes higher than it already is,  then there is the safety issue at play. Opinions abound to the contrary. I think this is worth testing. Of course, some might suggest that there has already been the illegal testing. lol.  

[38bfast]

I think the point that Dave mentioned that is worth while is that this proposal which is in effect suggesting that we modify the car to run way more camber than was designed into the car should be tested to determine the unintended consequences. Will Running -4.5 degrees of camber have an impact on half shafts, rear uprights( hubs), other parts? if so, if the failure rate goes higher than it already is,  then there is the safety issue at play. Opinions abound to the contrary. I think this is worth testing. Of course, some might suggest that there has already been the illegal testing. lol. 

I think you just answered your own question. 

[Mike Collins]

We have not needed this for 15 years!!!!!!!  Not one letter asking for it, not one mention of it UNTIL someone got caught CHEATING..... Now everyone thinks they have to have it.... F'n lemmings.

 

This "fix" is nothing new.... I've done it to countless cars as has any other prep shop as a TRACKSIDE repair... Quick and easy (BUT STILL ILLEGAL)... The car goes back to the shop and we FIX the problem..... Whoever thought bringing something like this to the runoffs was a good idea really needs to reconsider why they race this class....

[Steve Scheifler]

We have not needed this for 15 years!!!!!!! Not one letter asking for it, not one mention of it UNTIL someone got caught CHEATING..... Now everyone thinks they have to have it.... F'n lemmings.

Generally speaking, I think of lemmings as being those who blindly follow leaders or perceived leaders without questioning anything themselves or giving due consideration to other views and ideas. Quite the opposite of what I’ve seen here.

[Brandon]

Generally speaking, I think of lemmings as being those who blindly follow leaders or perceived leaders without questioning anything themselves or giving due consideration to other views and ideas. Quite the opposite of what I’ve seen here.

 

Leaders, perceived leaders, or someone who's justifying a rule change they like...take your pick.

 

To echo Mike - this is not needed.

To echo Dave - this is not needed.

 

If you have bent shit, fix it between events.

https://www.youtube....h?v=xX6yp18EPoQ

[Steve Scheifler]

...

This "fix" is nothing new.... I've done it to countless cars as has any other prep shop as a TRACKSIDE repair... Quick and easy (BUT STILL ILLEGAL)... The car goes back to the shop and we FIX the problem..... Whoever thought bringing something like this to the runoffs was a good idea really needs to reconsider why they race this class....

I’ve heard that several times now, and it really isn’t a big deal IMO, but it certainly points out something worth stating clearly.

It is OK for someone to do this at the track because a part got tweaked or whatever, and we trust that really happened at the track rather than just realizing a little extra camber on one corner would be nice, and that it poses no additional safety risk, etc. etc. Whatever justifications we offer why that’s OK are apparently far stronger than saving joe average racer considerable time and expense, and possibly missing an event or more, because his subframe got pushed in 1/8 of an f’ing inch.

Got it.

Everytime one of you guys post I get closer to making up my mind.

[Steve Scheifler]

So Dave, if I’m not mistaken it was you more than anyone pushing for an option to update NAs with the entire NB suspension and sub frames package. I think that proved unpopular because too many would have felt compelled to do it at significant expense or fall behind. I assume the goal was “model parity” and I’m not saying it was a bad idea, just maybe too early. But why is this proposal to overcome an incredibly small damage issue at little or no cost so completely unacceptable? Is it really all about the new round of testing required to see what works? Nothing else seems to hold any water at all.

[Steve Scheifler]

Leaders, perceived leaders, or someone who's justifying a rule change they like...take your pick.

To echo Mike - this is not needed.
To echo Dave - this is not needed.

If you have bent shit, fix it between events.

Spoken like a true lemming.

[davew]

So Dave, if I’m not mistaken it was you more than anyone pushing for an option to update NAs with the entire NB suspension and sub frames package. I think that proved unpopular because too many would have felt compelled to do it at significant expense or fall behind. I assume the goal was “model parity” and I’m not saying it was a bad idea, just maybe too early. But why is this proposal to overcome an incredibly small damage issue at little or no cost so completely unacceptable? Is it really all about the new round of testing required to see what works? Nothing else seems to hold any water at all.

 

You are correct, I still feel allowing (not requiring)the NA cars to run an NB subframe is a good idea in terms of parity. It is bolt in, nothing needs to be modified, factory parts. Please do not add this to the current discussion. This was a parity issue, nothing else.

[Andy Mitchell]

 ..... because his subframe got pushed in 1/8 of an f’ing inch.

Ummmm... 1/8" = 0.125, I think. Not 0.2".

 

Sorry, not taking sides, but Steve is normally so precise that I just had to point that out. Carry on.

 

EDIT: only offered in the spirit of egging on a good food fight... lol.

[Steve Scheifler]

I KNEW someone would call that. It’s not as if we are trying to correct for a specific amount of damage to a particular part. Trying out lines for my letter so I used a more familar fraction that still amounts to nearly a full degree at the upper arm, which of course isn’t even a part which gets damaged in a way to decrease camber.

But rib me all you want, at least you are reading it.

[Mike Collins]

Steve,

A bent subframe is no more legal than bent spindles (hub carriers, whatever you choose to call them). People are not going to use this to fix a deficiency in a car. It's going to be used to gain a mechanical advantage that just isn't needed.

If, and a hypothetical if, this damage occurred at the runoffs we go out on track once a day. Easily fixed between sessions. I can't think of a team that doesn't carry those with them. It's not that hard to fix and in the scheme of things those parts just aren't that expensive.

[Steve Scheifler]

Mike, from my crash experience at least the rear hub carrier is damned hard to bend without breaking, though it sounds like some have managed. Much more likely are the lower arms and/or the subframe.

And of course I wasn’t thinking or caring about what goes on at the Runoffs, I was just contemplating the fact that a very slight elongation of a hole is perfectly OK to salvage a weekend but not OK to let joe average solve an otherwise very expensive problem for next to nothing.

But I totally get the real argument against, I raised it myself more than once. It isn’t, as some keep parroting and paraphrasing, that the change is not absolutely necessary (joe average might disagree) but that it will almost certainly start another round of testing to find the best setup. And though talk of 4.5 degrees is mostly hype, it’s possible that wherever it lands is a bit harder on tires than what most run now. Maybe. For most of us, those are the arguments to weigh and the rest is noise.

Then there are those who know full well that some are still bending the rules, among other things, on the front. As soon as we can legally get 4+ in back those guys have an edge again. There’s no point running that in back if you can’t get it in front. Now people like Jim are stuck, either they push hard to stop the cheats, return to the dark side, or be at a disadvantage if more really is better.

Guess what? That’s exactly the conundrum we faced every damn race going back to 2002 or whenever it was we started, and it was a whole shit load more than just a little camber.

If you lock down the front cheats, which you should regardless of this debate, then you render 4+ degrees in back superfluous. Or go the other way and just make 5 easily available to all. I think that will be the conclusion in my letter to the CRB.

[Bench Racer]

Thanks Ms. Richardson, you have instigated 11 pages of chatter with the Prelims. 

[Ron Alan]

Its chatter when one is against...or we are all lemmings or we are all internet savants

 

This quote IMO is very understandable but it does not apply to ALL SM drivers...and something the current SMAC seems to have put a decent amount of weight towards!

 

"I can't think of a team that doesn't carry those with them. It's not that hard to fix and in the scheme of things those parts just aren't that expensive."

[BNaumann]

If one thing comes out of this deceased equine assault I hope tech next year turns their focus to suspension pieces. Only because they are much easier to remove than cylinder heads and transmissions.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

If one thing comes out of this deceased equine assault I hope tech next year turns their focus to suspension pieces. Only because they are much easier to remove than cylinder heads and transmissions.

 

I can assure you taking off suspension pieces during the weekend by tech favors one type of Competitor!  The FRONT RUNNER!!!!!

 

He who has scales and a setup rack wins this exercise every time... 

 

I would have no problem if they take them off after the Sunday race.

[Jim Creighton]

Help me out here guys. Is the only way to see them complete removal? So, if we, tech, make you remove them, is there a way to mark where they are prior to removal? Could you spray paint an outline or scratch a line? Probably dumb questions since I've not actually looked at them on a car. What locks them position if they were slotted.

 

And if I measure the rear camber and it's more than 3.25, should I be thinking somethings up? I know in the past, I've see a couple of cars with what I thought was way too much rear camber, but I wasn't doing SM tech so it wasn't up to me to look any further. Remember, a some races I'm there only doing the V8RRS tech so I don't do any other unless asked. Usually when asked, it's for the whistler.

 

I did see Danny's at Indy but they were off the car. And I did see a stock set, again off the car.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Help me out here guys. Is the only way to see them complete removal? So, if we, tech, make you remove them, is there a way to mark where they are prior to removal? Could you spray paint an outline or scratch a line? Probably dumb questions since I've not actually looked at them on a car. What locks them position if they were slotted.

 

And if I measure the rear camber and it's more than 3.25, should I be thinking somethings up? I know in the past, I've see a couple of cars with what I thought was way too much rear camber, but I wasn't doing SM tech so it wasn't up to me to look any further. Remember, a some races I'm there only doing the V8RRS tech so I don't do any other unless asked. Usually when asked, it's for the whistler.

 

I did see Danny's at Indy but they were off the car. And I did see a stock set, again off the car.

 

 

Taking off rear upper control arms is simple to remove simple to reinstall No scales needed, Nauman said suspension pieces... I took that to mean lower control arms, rear knuckles, subframes...  All of those pieces purpposfully bent in the right direction just sligtly and basically within the tolerances, if all were bent at once they could easily get you the added camber you desire and likely would even pass the jigs, although I have not set hands and eyes on the jigs.  Just my opinion but a MM here another mm there and yet another over there, will also do what the simple slot will do.  It would certainly take much more work to do it that way but then cheaters IMO really know no bounds.

 

removal of lower control arms or subframes would absolutlly require scales and levelers and strings and lots and lots of hours of labor to get the car back to the intended setup.  Knuckles and upper control arms could be removed checked and replace without much fuss.