CHEATER EXPOSED

[Shawn M.]

Hey Shawn, great to see that you still thinking about the VW folks. BTW, good to hear that the little birdie is talking and the 2008 rules may soon become official.

 

I don't want to speak to soon about the VWs, but I think I know how to breathe enough life into at least a couple of the models to make them into national champions unless someone picks some of the other fire breathing overdogs that I know lurk in the 2007 rules. TTE is especially troublesome, too many models can bump into that 8.7lbs/hp unless the rules have solved that issue. I might be able to get a VW close to 12 to 13lbs/hp in TTE/PTE

 

In regards to the lower stress bar, if the 2008 rules don't address it, I'll run with it during the season and take it off for the Nationals and cross my fingers that the body doesn't break

 

Take care

 

 

"Thinking" of the VW people? I is one!

 

Looking at the base class, looks like the Corrado is the best pick. (I did the math!) But since I have a yard full of Scirocco's.... ill build another Scirocco. TTE is a hard class to compete in with a VW. The car has to be worked over so much to get anything out of it and in the end, your left behind Hondas and other larger or turbo motors that are in the class. The points we take to mod the motor alone dont net as much as most of the other cars that fit into TTE. In thinking more chassis development can make the car competative in TTD? Dunno until I can get my hands on the rules.

 

Im still working the chassis/body before it gets painted and im not in any hurry to build it.

You might find this thread of mine.......... entertaining.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3469402

[JCraven]

Well, yes, I know, you are a diehard actually but the rules changed and didn't you go Chebby?

 

TTE is impossible for a VW, unless people only bring their knives to a gun fight. I own quite a few cars (12+), actually recently picked up a car with some history (bought new by a high school friend, owned by my late father, bought by my brother etc.) so I don't want to chop it up or wreck it. I looked it up in the 2007 rules and from the base class and from some magazine articles (father, brother collected and magazine dyno tests, I have concluded that it can be easily built up to TTE specifications at 8.7 lbs/hp in normally aspirated trim with the stock cam, compression with intake, and a few other "legal" and hot rod tricks. I wouldn't even have to change the stock exhaust manifold or air cleaner.

[Shawn M.]

Well, yes, I know, you are a diehard actually but the rules changed and didn't you go Chebby?

 

TTE is impossible for a VW, unless people only bring their knives to a gun fight. I own quite a few cars (12+), actually recently picked up a car with some history (bought new by a high school friend, owned by my late father, bought by my brother etc.) so I don't want to chop it up or wreck it. I looked it up in the 2007 rules and from the base class and from some magazine articles (father, brother collected and magazine dyno tests, I have concluded that it can be easily built up to TTE specifications at 8.7 lbs/hp in normally aspirated trim with the stock cam, compression with intake, and a few other "legal" and hot rod tricks. I wouldn't even have to change the stock exhaust manifold or air cleaner.

 

 

Naw, I changed my sig to keep people guessing. After I wrecked my car, I drove a 1st gen RX7 for a little bit while I collect some needed parts and get the replacement chassis prepped.

 

So what is this potential beast you speak of?

Surely its not a VW!

[JCraven]

Let me see the 2008 rules first, and see what other beasts lurk within. I still want to try my best with the cars I have, don't want to tip my hand and help others whip me with my own ideas. There are way too many loopholes in TT/PT, overdogs, underdogs, whipping dogs, whining dogs etc.

 

My beast is only the 400hp stock cammed overdog, there is another 600+hp dog, but the 8.7lb/hp limits that one.

[Shawn M.]

Let me see the 2008 rules first, and see what other beasts lurk within. I still want to try my best with the cars I have, don't want to tip my hand and help others whip me with my own ideas. There are way too many loopholes in TT/PT, overdogs, underdogs, whipping dogs, whining dogs etc.

 

My beast is only the 400hp stock cammed overdog, there is another 600+hp dog, but the 8.7lb/hp limits that one.

 

 

Awsome, I love the way you think!

[Tom A]

Let me see the 2008 rules first, .

 

You are a regional director, why don't you have a draft of the 2008 rules? Seems like having regional officials review things would be a good thing.

[JCraven]

I am a competitor too, probably wouldn't be fair if I got a head start on all of you..

 

If I saw the rules, I'd probably feel obligated to report the loopholes that I was thinking about taking advantage of......

[Greg G.]

I am a competitor too, probably wouldn't be fair if I got a head start on all of you..

 

If I saw the rules, I'd probably feel obligated to report the loopholes that I was thinking about taking advantage of......

 

And, why don't you feel obligated now to report them? As you stated, it just means that we have to subsequently come out with rules to close the loophole (which creates more instability in the rules, and creates more dissatisfaction from the masses). Also, our drivers that have been with us since the start know that being clever is often rewarded with wins, but coming out with something that is outrageously "unfair" will only lead to mid-season rules changes. I don't recall reading any rule anywhere that says that we can't make rule changes whenever necessary. In fact, the rules say the opposite.

 

Some of my favorite passages from the previous/current rules:

 

All decisions made by the NASA TT Administration are final, except under certain conditions, as specified under Section 12 Protests.

 

The intent of these rules is to provide mandates to ensure that all vehicles are modified within clearly established limits, to strive for an even platform, in which a contest of driving skill may provide the most talented drivers with great rewards. These rules provide the NASA TT

Administration a guideline to use when making decisions regarding NASA TT. The intent of the rules and safety considerations will be the overriding factors in making such decisions, as opposed to a constrained interpretation of the rules based on phraseology or verbiage. The rules

shall be applied in a logical manner that seeks to provide competitors a safe and fair venue for competition.

 

If a modification is not specifically allowed by the rules, it is prohibited. A permitted item cannot be modified to perform either a prohibited function, or the function of an item that would otherwise be assessed points under the modification rules.

 

Also, Kyle, since you apparently know the guys who prompted this thread, please send me his/their names, and home regions (or perhaps at this point they would just prefer to e-mail me themselves). I have a special gift to give them--a free inspection by their regional TT Director, as well as a top to bottom inspection by me and the NASA National Tech inspectors, that may include a motor tear down if they are going to the Championships this year and I have to track them down.

 

Lastly, the lower a-arm support bar is likely going to fall under the +3 "other chassis stiffening devices" category. So, this means that the car can have this lower support bar, as well as any other lower/subframe bracing or connectors necessary to improve the performance of the car. This brace does provide a significant performance improvement compared to front strut tower bars that are in many cases almost worthless since they are so close to the firewall support anyway. As mentioned, most cars have some aspect to them that end up costing them a point or two that another model doesn't necessarily need to take. However, it seems to even out in the end--one or two points is rarely a huge factor when all is said and done. And, as we have stated for years, the biggest factor in NASA TT and racing is STILL driver skill. Everyone of you that improves your own lap times from event to event (without upgrading the car) is a testament to that.

[Tom A]

Lighten up Greg, Joe was joking. Any ETA on the rules?

 

My deal from last year still stands. When you are ready to release them, send them to me and I will host them for you like I did last year. I can have them online for the competitors in a matter of minutes after I get them, much faster than the NASA webmaster I would think.

 

Lastly, the lower a-arm support bar is likely going to fall under the +3 "other chassis stiffening devices" category. So, this means that the car can have this lower support bar, as well as any other lower/subframe bracing or connectors necessary to improve the performance of the car. This brace does provide a significant performance improvement compared to front strut tower bars that are in many cases almost worthless since they are so close to the firewall support anyway.

I disagree, I certainly would't catagorize it in the same class as other 3 point mods, as I mentioned.

 

As mentioned, most cars have some aspect to them that end up costing them a point or two that another model doesn't necessarily need to take. However, it seems to even out in the end--one or two points is rarely a huge factor when all is said and done. And, as we have stated for years, the biggest factor in NASA TT and racing is STILL driver skill. Everyone of you that improves your own lap times from event to event (without upgrading the car) is a testament to that.

 

Looking at the existing rules and trying to figure out where I could fit it, the 2 likely choices are:

 

14 ) Tubular K(cross)-members that do not change the location of the lower control arms +2

 

28 ) Add or modify other chassis stiffening devices or fabricated parts (such as subframe connectors) +3

 

Now it really isn't a traditional K-Member like this Griggs Mustang unit http://www.griggsracing.com/images/emkm1000.jpg , as it doesn't include engine mounts, but it isn't really a subframe connector either, as those usually stiffen the chassis longitudinally, like this Camaro/Firebird unit: http://www.fbodyevolution.com/forum/attachments/141d1174102945t-2004c.jpg

 

Of the 2 choices, I think it is closer to a K-Member than a Subframe connector, and by a strict definition, it is a "cross-member". The relevant definitions "Member" are "A structural unit, such as a beam or wall." (American Heritage) or "a part of a whole and especially of a structure

 

Based on this, I considered it reasonable to take 2 points for it, and notified my regional director as such.

 

However, if you say it is going to be the same points as "whatever I can dream up" I guess I need to either take it off, or come up with something that really stiffens up the chassis.

 

After all, it is just more time and money. If I had wanted to race on a budget, I would have bought a car that fit in an inexpensive spec racing class.

 

Oh yeah............

[JCraven]

I am a competitor too, probably wouldn't be fair if I got a head start on all of you..

 

If I saw the rules, I'd probably feel obligated to report the loopholes that I was thinking about taking advantage of......

 

And, why don't you feel obligated now to report them? As you stated, it just means that we have to subsequently come out with rules to close the loophole (which creates more instability in the rules, and creates more dissatisfaction from the masses). Also, our drivers that have been with us since the start know that being clever is often rewarded with wins, but coming out with something that is outrageously "unfair" will only lead to mid-season rules changes. I don't recall reading any rule anywhere that says that we can't make rule changes whenever necessary. In fact, the rules say the opposite.

 

Welcome back Greg, I was teasing Tom based on his prod why I hadn't seen the rules yet.

 

I haven't seen the 2008 rules so I am unaware of any loopholes yet so I have none to report. You know that I have reported past rules loopholes that could have directly benefited cars that I owned and explained exactly how I and others could take advantage of them. I refused to take advantage of them and reported them so the rules could get updated for the good of the series.

 

Getting serious, there are some basic fundamental issues to the rules where cars are based on stock values rather than competition potential. Where I say "loopholes" , one can interpret to mean more of how one uses one's creative thought processes to build a machine and go as fast as the wind..

 

I'm not kidding about the 8.7 lbs/hp in TTE, shouldn't be too hard to achieve and not too expensive either. No loopholes required.

[bryce]

Sorry for the confusion Greg-- I already identified myself (back on page 2), shortly after I learned of Wayne's post. I'll email you offline.

 

As an aside, I see a lot of "they" and "you" in many of the responses on this long thread. Please note that Wayne has never driven with NASA, and I have never posted that I thought any mods to my car are illegal. Kyle seems to be the only person picking up on the distinction. In fact, I emailed Greg back in early '07 to clarify the classification of my car.

 

--Bryce

[Greg G.]

I'd be interested in seeing the build sheet for this 8.7:1 TTE car by e-mail. I already have some solutions for this (even if it isn't as low as 8.7:1), but we may be waiting until May '08 to announce them (for '09), instead of implementing them now.

[JCraven]

There isn't just one car, I went through the 2007 list and I see various manufacturers, carbed, FI, turbo etc. that appear to have the potential for tremendous horsepower within the TTE class with room for suspension and tire points.

 

 

Some of the spec lines in the rules cover quite a few years but I circled 9 different models, there may be more due to my lack of familiarity to the various other cars on the list.

 

I own one of them and I estimate it weighs 3200 lbs and my Beltronics FX2 windshield computer calculated my power with some engine mods at 375 whp with a measured quarter mile 13sec on street tires so I can't get traction in 1st and 2nd gears. Because of an non-oem part, TT/PT rules would require that I get a dyno and new base class for TT/PT but I could remove the part(s) and replace it with a modified OEM part(s) and probably get even more power but I've already covered why I don't want to bring this car to TT.

 

I'll investigate the other models to determine what they'll take to modify these cars to compete competively with NASA.

 

BTW, the Beltronics FX2 is pretty interesting. It takes into account wind and rolling resistance, weight of course, HP was calculated in 3rd gear to eliminate the traction issue - highly recommended.