422 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

One is marked "4" 

 

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

I think they all have a 4 on them, holes marked to match balls. You wouldn’t want your balls installed wrong!

[Johnny D]

ya, I see 1,2,3, on them now.

 

J~

[steveracer]

4 cages per car, 2 inner 2 outer, 1 ea per side.

[Johnny D]

4 cages per car, 2 inner 2 outer, 1 ea per side.

 

Thanks

 

J~

[Johnny D]

What's the difference between this and "blue printed"  ??

 

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

What's the difference between this and "blue printed" ??

J~

Nothing, if you adhere to the often misrepresented definition of the term.

[Steve Scheifler]

4 cages per car, 2 inner 2 outer, 1 ea per side.

You are assuming that the inboard joints are the same? I believe not. I haven’t confirmed it but I’ve been lead to understand that on the inboard end the ball does pass through the unmolested cage. Interesting, but perhaps not particularly relevant.

[Jamz14]

If it wasn't an advantage, it wouldn't have been done. If it isn't an advantage, then it was thought to be one.

It is the aggregation of infinitesimal advantages that make a car stand out. Also known as top prep.

[Johnny D]

If it wasn't an advantage, it wouldn't have been done. If it isn't an advantage, then it was thought to be one.

It is the aggregation of infinitesimal advantages that make a car stand out. Also known as top prep.

 

This is you?

[Steve Scheifler]

...
Back to the dyno, there were posts elsewhere stating that big vaiances were observed but that they have identified a likely but non-techable issue with the engine. Not sure how it can be identified but not tech’d, but long term THAT will likely be the important story out of all this.

Never mind on that part, I misunderstood/misinterpreted. I do not know if there were notable differences on the dyno, but the references to untechable engine work was from an individual and not the result of anything checked at the nats.

[Bi11]

Who got the 80,000. Who got caught cheating?Just curious

[Johnny D]

Who got the 80,000. Who got caught cheating?Just curious

 

Don't know either of your questions.

NASA posted this or a letter was sent out. Go back a few pages.

https://nasaspeed.ne...championships/#

And I guess those involved are appealing.

 

J~

[Johnny D]

Anybody else receive this today?

Thank you for joining us at the 2018 NASA Championships and Toyo Tires Classic race.

As you know, the results have been held as provisional because of the post-race inspection process. The NASA technical team worked very hard to ensure compliance with the rules and found certain parts on competitors’ cars to be non-compliant. The technical team spent additional time after the event to consult with independent experts and submit the parts for evaluation.

NASA has confirmed their findings in the linked white paper below and has notified competitors who are subject to penalties. Competitors have the right to an Executive Appeal and some of the drivers, in this case, have requested that hearing. With that in mind, we ask that you remain patient so work can be done to give everyone the rights and fairness afforded to them. We will release the official results as soon as this final hearing is concluded.

We appreciate your support and hope you had a good experience at Circuit of The Americas. As you have seen in the past, controversy in racing often creates a political backlash or efforts to damage the reputation of one side or another. It is our hope that everyone can look at this as NASA's desire to do the best possible job to enforce the rules and nothing else. As a competitor, you expect a sanctioning body to ensure fairness and remain objective. We want each and every one of you to know that principle is paramount in this entire process.

Sincerely-

National Auto Sport Association

 

Bump

[Jamz14]

It is.

[FTodaro]

My comment from Face Book. If the rules do not have a specific go, No go, spec or limitation, and the rules permit after market, re manufactured parts, that do not require a purchase from a specific vendor or likewise do not have a spec outlined, then any DQ by nasa would not be based on the rules IMO.

 

If your going to issue a penalty such as this you would have to do so under the circumstances that competitors were on notice they were non compliant. Unless they can confirm that all reman axle's out there that the balls would NOT pass through the cage  then they cannot DQ for a part that potentially is compliant under the rule. 

[Jamz14]

So Frank, I can machine any part I like as long as the rules don't specify a go/no go dimension or tolerance?

If you are saying that these weren't machined and came as unmodified reman parts, then it should be up to the competitor to provide the common source so NASA can buy off the shelf and compare against. Maybe this is what is happening. I don't know.

But if machining is now allowed, there are plenty of things that are now wide open to play with.

[Bench Racer]

Steve, I'm so sorry my words a couple pages ago were not specific words of the rule.

 

NASA rule, "Replacement parts not specified by these rules must be OEM or the exact equivalent."

[FTodaro]

So Frank, I can machine any part I like as long as the rules don't specify a go/no go dimension or tolerance?

If you are saying that these weren't machined and came as unmodified reman parts, then it should be up to the competitor to provide the common source so NASA can buy off the shelf and compare against. Maybe this is what is happening. I don't know.

But if machining is now allowed, there are plenty of things that are now wide open to play with.

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying if the rules do not have a spec tolerance of the questioned part AND they allow that part to be purchased after market with no detailed spec, they cannot rely on part matching with OEM parts to issue a DQ.

 

If the rules are that you are NOT allowed to use after market parts then this is a totally different story. But if you open it up to after market parts and reman parts. If i were to legally buy a china part that is out of spec i should not be DQ'd

 

That is my point

[Steve Scheifler]

Steve, I'm so sorry my words a couple pages ago were not specific words of the rule.

NASA rule, "Replacement parts not specified by these rules must be OEM or the exact equivalent."

“Exact equivalent”. Think about that.