235 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

Guy's, I get that it's in the 11/12/17- Preliminary Minutes and not final. Point being, the dimensions of the .600 long slot need to be clarified, nothing more, nothing less. Hey, Mr. CRB has read this thread, therefore I'll not send a letter requesting clarification. The thread got 3 pages and to me 3 pages being more interesting than the PC rants.

[Jim Drago]

Heard of Jim Jones? 

 

Then again...if you drop a second a lap at each track with no other changes and you are now keeping up with your competitor(and winning) who also has same said equipment...money well spent until you get bounced!

Find me a shock that does that and passes the current spec.. I will double whatever you paid Shaikh is selling snake plain and simple.  

 

The proposed change will be for tech to dyno the shock and if the shape of the curve doesn't look right,  you will be DQ'ed.  We have had a spec that has worked for 10-12 years. I know for certain of four national championships that were won with out of the box shocks. So how bad can stock be? If people were gaining a second a lap.. They would be winning. Prestons car and Chris car for a fact had out of the box shocks and they were the two fastest at Indy all week.

 

The quality control at billstein has gone to #$%, If I want to rebuild mine with factory Bilstein parts and make sure all four shocks are the same and within the spec, I should be able to do that. The cost is about $550.00.. To do this with new shocks, I can all but guarantee I would need to buy a minimum of three sets and pay to have all of them dynoed and then pick and choose. On my personal car, I have run these shocks in 16 and 17. First time I have ever run anything but out of the box shocks since starting nationals in 2006. They were sent in to SCCA to be tested  and were tested at the track as well post race in tech. Obviously passed both times.  Mine will pass the graph looks the same test as well..  I just don't think the rule should EVER be it needs to "look" the same. It is WAY to subjective. Also although it says you can't open.. If all parts are stock inside... you cant tell that they have been opened so that rule is similar to "intent"  It is not something you can prove.   

[BNaumann]

I love slots.

[steveracer]

^LOL, Me Too!

[Ron Alan]

Heard of Jim Jones? 

 

Then again...if you drop a second a lap at each track with no other changes and you are now keeping up with your competitor(and winning) who also has same said equipment...money well spent until you get bounced

To clarify my post to what Chris asked with regards to performance and cost...

EITHER triple the cost of new shocks is worth the money performance wise(and likely would not be legal as was refereed to in another thread by Mr Lamb) OR as Jim has stated "selling snake oil". And if this is the case history has shown people can be very gullible!

 

So Bauers word/rule clarification is in response to something...what would that be?  

 

My 1 second a lap comment was just a point...not factual that I'm aware of. But there is no doubt there are believers on the West coast who's equipment has never been checked. Sounds like 2018 may be a new year!

[chris haldeman]

Shocks are on the list for 2018 for sure. Too many people advertising large gains and citing the testing range and speed as the reason. Testing procedure will be updated or atleast that's what I have been told

[Steve Scheifler]

.
In any event I really hope this doesn't go through. Not a fan of rule changes to prevent "inevitable" cheating.

You entirely misrepresent the rationale for the recommendation.

[Johnny D]

The rule change is not in the final Fastrack.  

 

"Recommended Items for 2018"

 

J~

[RWP80000]

Guy's, I get that it's in the 11/12/17- Preliminary Minutes and not final. Point being, the dimensions of the .600 long slot need to be clarified, nothing more, nothing less. Hey, Mr. CRB has read this thread, therefore I'll not send a letter requesting clarification. The thread got 3 pages and to me 3 pages being more interesting than the PC rants.

 

4. #22900 (Jim Drago) Rear Camber/Upper Control Arms Thank you for your letter. Add 9.1.7.C.3.t: t: On the rear upper control arms, the original outer mounting holes may be slotted to obtain additional camber. The max slot size shall not exceed 0.433" x 0.600". No material shall be added.

 

Given that the diameter of the outboard hole in a new control arm measures just over 0.400 in, the 0.433 dimension provides for some variation in the slot width over the OEM hole diameter.  There is no rule reference to end radius and/or their centerline distance dimensions/requirements.  The 0.600 inch dimension (which "shall not be exceeded") would be measured starting from the original outboard hole's rear edge at and along the centerline of the newly created slot.  This is required so as to not "disadvantage" the competitor of the rules full slot allotment. The newly created slot has no rule "radius" requirement, it just must not exceed the 0.600 inch dimension when measured along the slot centerline axis regardless of using a radius or not. 

 

Rich Powers

[Bench Racer]

 it just must not exceed the 0.600 inch dimension when measured along the slot centerline axis regardless of using a radius or not. 

 

Rich Powers

 

So, the slot length dimension of .600 inch will be measured from end of slot to end of slot. What's a couple words to totally clarify the proposed new rule.

[Parity]

You entirely misrepresent the rationale for the recommendation.

Meh... my opinion so I don't think so. We can dispute the rationale all day but someone can always put a positive spin on it. I doubt anyone was slotting controls arms for improved tire wear. Seems to me I see these changes proposed after someone is caught doing this stuff.

[Steve Scheifler]

Meh... my opinion so I don't think so. We can dispute the rationale all day but someone can always put a positive spin on it. I doubt anyone was slotting controls arms for improved tire wear. Seems to me I see these changes proposed after someone is caught doing this stuff.

Were I able to consider only two data points at a time, I might reach the same conclusion.

The recent incident is the trigger, not the reason. What contradicts your opinion is the fact that the rationale presented with the recommendation cites multiple logical reasons why it makes sense for the class, whether you happen to agree with them or not.

[Ron Alan]

Meh... my opinion so I don't think so. We can dispute the rationale all day but someone can always put a positive spin on it. I doubt anyone was slotting controls arms for improved tire wear. Seems to me I see these changes proposed after someone is caught doing this stuff.

 

 

Your comment with regard to someone "getting caught" is accurate! Especially when the cheat(non-compliant)is a known issue that makes it difficult for all to be on a level playing field because of simple stock differences. Ironically more changes have been made over the years because of known cheats that couldn't be tech ed...not because who/someone got caught. And I believe there have been several big DQ's that didnt result in a rule change in favor of the cheat. 

 

If you think Danny is going to get some sort of satisfaction or justification out of a new rule you would be wrong. His bed, his choice...that's history. 

 

Only seems logical to me if the CRB is willing to allow offset bushings...they do the same for the other half of the car. It's easy, cheap and only necessary if you happen to have a chassis that just doesn't allow you to get near the camber that most people run easily.

[FTodaro]

The recent incident is the trigger, not the reason. What contradicts your opinion is the fact that the rationale presented with the recommendation cites multiple logical reasons why it makes sense for the class, whether you happen to agree with them or not.

Spin it any way you want, continued rule creep based on cheats, cost, and work. I can find a clean sub frame for 100 to 150 per, I can swap it out in a few hrs at worst, Some guys spend 4 x that running stickers each weekend. I do not see this as an urgent need for the benefit of the class. If you like rule creep and making short cuts you like the rule.

No one commented or likely care, but we keep diverging the rules between SCCA and NASA i do not think that is good for the class.

[Parity]

If you think Danny is going to get some sort of satisfaction or justification out of a new rule you would be wrong. His bed, his choice...that's history.

No ill will toward Danny or anyone else here but I have to suspect if the guy who finished 27th had the issue, no rule change would be discussed. i simply don't like rules creep period. Having to constantly worry about keeping the car compliant and competitive for both NASA and SCCA isn't good for the class.

[Danica Davison]

if we are being serious.. I will say it   IMO, you need to have a very good understanding of the car to be on the SMAC. That doesn't explain why some others were on, but I didn't appoint any of those guys    All currently on the SMAC have a good knowledge of the cars.

 

Well you see Jim, a real leader understands that he does not know everything, and that others on his team, may know more than he does.  It is about organizing, challenging, and motivating the team members to do the right thing.  I am too lazy to submit my resume for the SMAC anyway

[Jim Drago]

Well you see Jim, a real leader understands that he does not know everything, and that others on his team, may know more than he does.  It is about organizing, challenging, and motivating the team members to do the right thing.  I am too lazy to submit my resume for the SMAC anyway

spoken like a true Millennial!

[Tom Sager]

I'm starting to like the idea of this rule more and more.  It'll solve the question of camber equality and it also will give us a quick rear camber adjustment easier to do at the track than messing with the rear cams. 

[Ron Alan]

 If you like rule creep and making short cuts you like the rule.

No one commented or likely care, but we keep diverging the rules between SCCA and NASA i do not think that is good for the class.

Should we use the words "rules adjustments" to be more accurate? 

 

Rules have been adjusted since day 1! As competitors we can thank ourselves for this! A never ending desire to get a small leg up...finding that gray area before someone else. Or using that gray area someone else has found before it becomes very public. OR finding minor production flaws that create differences that are hard to overcome without cheating(bent spindles and control arms).

 

Every change proposal has to be looked at as a single entity...discussed and decided on its own merits. What has come before or after should play no role in the decision process(creep is not a reason to eliminate a discussion). I saw the offset bushings as a parity issue...as I do this. Camber, caster, toe are open. If i understand correctly this change does not affect the geometry of the car(which I would not be in favor of on its face).

[Steve Scheifler]

Spin it any way you want, continued rule creep based on cheats, cost, and work. I can find a clean sub frame for 100 to 150 per, I can swap it out in a few hrs at worst, Some guys spend 4 x that running stickers each weekend. I do not see this as an urgent need for the benefit of the class. If you like rule creep and making short cuts you like the rule.
No one commented or likely care, but we keep diverging the rules between SCCA and NASA i do not think that is good for the class.

Frank, I refer back to the original discussion and examples of how the average racer is definitely not in a position to get it done in a few hours for $150, not even close, let alone quickly before missing the next race.

And that’s just the reasons addressing your points, plenty of other arguments fot it have already been noted.

I get it Frank, you are against change without a very strong case; me too, but I think that burden is met.