Hello... Hello... Hello... anyone... Beuler... Beuler?

[944-Spec#94]

Wow this forum has slowed down!

 

Tim.. .did you get a job or something...

 

Ok... that was cheap shot... sorry . I just could not resist.

 

 

Anyway where is everyone?

 

 

Looks like the next NASA Az date is Jan 8 & 9th at PIR.

 

Also the new 944-spec website will be coming soon. While I don't yet have server access I have been working on it a little.

 

Anybody have any great ideas for stuff on there.

 

Right I am looking at a front page with an article covering recient events/news.

 

Other pages will have

Results & Points standings

Schedules

Rules

Driver listing

Techincal info area

Picture Gallery

Link to old front page articles

Link this forum

Link to NASA Az & Nasa National

Links series sponsors like Toyo.

 

Thinks like track records and driver's best laps will be maintain under the results link.

 

[PeanutinCA]

Hey Joe man,

myself, I had my third round of diagnostic injections in attempt to relieve some chronic neck pain issues. First time through the back of the neck, 4 spots. Second time through the FRONT of the neck only 2 that time. Today was 3 locations, on one side from the back again. That's the problem, we fixed the neck "injury" when we put in the artificial disk. But, the injury was so oold when we fixed it, chronic pain became an issue. The chronic neck pain robs me of sleep and has down graded my skill level. Kidding, but there is some thruth to that. I haven't felt 100% and it's not about being old. If todays injections work, we go in next Friday and "burn" the nerve so to speak. That way the pain signal doesn't get to the brain. If that happens, I may be able to come back to racing next year? Hope to be up and running in the near future?

 

Cheers,

P.Dilly.

[uberklasse]

I sent out a response on an e-mail that Tim sent out earlier this week. I can't access the forum at my office and my wife has been hogging our computer at home (know what I need for x-mas)

 

Myself, Sorenson, Rea, Puddester and Yousko were all out at Buttonwillow last weekend for POC Cup race adn Racer's clinic.

[Spec-944#70]

I'm here I just have nothing to add. Plus I'm busy getting ready for the holidaze!! 3 boys!!! 4 if you count me!! Santa please bring me some 944 stuff!!

[mfoley]

The website plans look good Joe.

 

I've been around but work's been busy. I'm trying to get my car ready for January. Got the trailer coming in a week too.

 

Have a Merry Christmas.

[Tim Comeau]

Bill Addy was up there at BW also. He's looking at attending the Driving Concepts racing school on Feb 12-13 at Willow. That'll be one more NASA 944-spec racer. Woo hoo!

 

I haven't been posting as much because I'm working on the corporation alot lately. My cars too. I'm learning more all the time about our cars.

I've been working on the rules for 2005 with the PHX Series Director, Steve Sapareto. We've got some great rules for you guys. We should be able to have POC cars cross over easily. There's one exception there. Glen Uslan at Autosport is building POC cars and installing his own type exterior mirrors. (More aerodynamic). I tried to dissuade him from moving away from stock mirrors, which cost nothing extra, but he wouldn't listen. Disappointing, but not a total show stopper. I want to welcome the POC cars/drivers to race with us when they choose to and I hope there are no protests when they do. It's a bummer because I thought we had the same philosophy of keeping the cars stock. Oh well,......it's out of my hands.

[Spec-944#70]

Why is this an issue? You fixed the Throttle cam, thermostadt, AFM, and A-arm differnces and now the side mirrors could be a reason for protesting a winner? I'm not sure the new aero package will be a huge advantage. If it is maybe I need to order a set? Keeping it real!!

[Tim Comeau]

Their only purpose, besides Glen making money, is to provide an aerodynamic advantage. The cars need to be as equal as possible. No extra money need be spent on exterior mirrors.

Glen's arguement is that once you gut the doors, the outer door skin can't take the weight of the stock mirrors. B.S.! The outer skin isn't even connected to the inner skin. Gutting the doors doesn't change a thing.

 

I agreed with the above items mostly to be inclusive of existing cars, to make cross over between the clubs easier, or because it's what the drivers voiced they wanted. I'm listening on this one too (thanks, Dwain), and I don't think the drivers see it as harmless, nor inexpensive. If they do, change to adapt can occur. I'll even take a poll of Nasa drivers.

We don't need stupid rules changes that drive wedges between the 944 groups.......

I'm for keeping with the philosophy of the class......keep the cars equal, stock, simple, cheap. That's what I signed up for.

[pixrken]

Hi Guys,

 

Been on vacation/offline.

I owe a report on the Driving Concepts racing school I took Nov. 13/14 from a newbie's perspective.

 

Tim,

 

I'm confuse on 944-spec rule 16.1.3 which says "Any mirrors may be used".

I don't think I'll spend the money on custom aerodynamic mirrors but it shouldn't be a show stopper to run with the POC cars. Especially if they are in Norcal

 

While you and the PHX series Director are working on 2005 rules how about rule 7.2 Roll Cages.

"Roll Cages must mount to the chassis with no more the six points and cannot mount past the firewall. The front four mounts must be either on the floor or the doorsill of the car."

 

I'm hoping for a 6-point + optional 2 point for leg protection.

A recommendation from my roll cage installer, basically two bars that go forward from the A-pillar bars that are designed to protect the occupants feet/leg, they do not go past the firewall.

My car is scheduled to have the roll cage installed 12/27, so a yes/no before that date would be great!

[944-Spec#94]

I would not have a problem with roll cage allowance simialr to SCCA IT.

 

I believe they allow those extra two points.

 

What I believe the intent of the rules is to prevent folks from building a cage that anchors to the chassis in so many points as to greatly stiffen it. For example the thick gussets between the forward bar and the a-piller seen on many Speed GT and touring cars. These are there primarily for chassis stiffening. I don't thing these belong in 944-spec.

 

The basic purpose of the cage is for saftey not to stiffen the chassis. I believe that this is the intent behind the current rules.

 

PS... 944-spec cages must still meet all NASA CCR requirements.

 

 

On side note you may be able to install those bars later on. Get the basic cage done and install those bars later if rules are changed.

[pixrken]

Hi Joe,

 

Thanks for the explanation, it's what I thought the intent of the roll cage rules was also because I seen roll cages on 911's that goes past the firewall to almost the front of the car for chassis stiffening.

My installer was looking at it in terms of safety and the reason why I ask the question. It does add more weight back into the car which I been trying hard to take off.

It cost almost nothing during the initial install but will cost some money for a retrofit. If I can't get a official ruling by 12/27 I'll leave out the leg protection points.

[Tim Comeau]

Ken,

Yes you're right. The "Any mirror may be used " rule was very vague. That's why Steve and I and others went to work re-wording our rules.

We wrote the new rules to state clearly that any interior mirrors may be used, but the stock exterior mirrors must remain in place. Very clear now.

Regarding the cages, I'm in support of allowing welding the cages to the A and B pillars for safety reasons. They allow this in the POC currently. I haven't been able to drum up enough support for a rule change in NASA. Yes, it will stiffen the chassis some, but I believe that's a side effect and secondary to the cause of safety. The other issue with regard to this is cost. It can't cost that much to get the welding done. It looks like for 2005, NASA rules won't allow changes to the cage rules. Please see the NASA CCR's for specifics before your cage guy goes to work. Thanks.

[pixrken]

Hi Tim,

 

Thanks!

The addition of the few simple words was all that was needed to clarify 16.1.3 regarding mirrors.

 

I'll skip the leg protection points on my roll cage install but think any safety feature for added roll cage integrity is worthwhile for future NASA consideration.

[pixrken]

Hey Joe,

 

Regarding the upcoming new 944spec website, what OS is it running on?

 

While I was on vacation I wrote a web interface for a SQL database backend for the driver listing and plan to add a race results feature.

The purpose of the programs is to make it easy to enter drivers and race results, save it to a database and the end result is to automatically generate webpages "on the fly" with this data.

Example- On the driver listing page a user can click on any of the column headings (Driver(s), Car, Sponsors, Location, Home Region, Racing Org(s) and it will display the listing in real-time sorted by the user selected heading.

A race result and point standing can automatically be computed and displayed.

I written the cgi scripts in the ruby language and using the postgres SQL database running on a linux server (because it's free).

 

Let me know if this is of interest.

[PeanutinCA]

The problem is Ken, the welding the cage to the body was offered as "Safety related", when we also know that it adds chassis stiffness. It has also be 'out', so now if it's allowed 'in', then all us guys who have built cars, have to spend money to keep up with the Jones'. Or so the argument would go anyway.

 

This relates to the discussion on mirrors. The rule was vague, it allowed some to spend money, with or without good or bad intentions. Every rule change, even if it's to close a loophole, can and will cost someone money and other heartache. It's a fine line to tread and one that needs to be considered and dealt with kid gloves. Or arguments and dissertion will begin.

 

And if anyone needs any help with marriage counseling, just call me!

 

P.Dilly.

[944-Spec#94]

Hey Joe,

 

Regarding the upcoming new 944spec website, what OS is it running on?

 

Let me know if this is of interest.

 

Ken in all honesty... I don't know what the OS is and don't have the skills to figure it out either.

 

Web pages are NOT my core competancy. The relatity is that it will be quite simple in construction and clearly you have litterly forgotten more than I know. So... it would be tough to help out!

 

Maybe we can talk about this more in the future. Right now I basicly will be creating a few static pages to sit on the NASA-az server system somewhere. Those pages will be for 944-spec. Nothing fancy.

[944-Spec#94]

Regarding the cages, I'm in support of allowing welding the cages to the A and B pillars for safety reasons. They allow this in the POC currently. I haven't been able to drum up enough support for a rule change in NASA. Yes, it will stiffen the chassis some, but I believe that's a side effect and secondary to the cause of safety. The other issue with regard to this is cost. It can't cost that much to get the welding done. It looks like for 2005, NASA rules won't allow changes to the cage rules. Please see the NASA CCR's for specifics before your cage guy goes to work. Thanks.

 

 

Tim... I completely disagree on this. I believe in increased safety from A and B piller welding is minimal. I believe the chassis stiffening is significant and much greater that the safety increases. Perfectly legal is to have the cage touch the A & B pillars along with forward roof line. Contact is fine, but any attachment will stiffen the chassis greatly. I personally don't think we should allow anything other that the 6 points (possible 8 given Ken's points) SCCA Improved touring has 944's in ITS for years and years. Those cages are only allowed 8 points and I don't see them as any less safe than multipoint cages. The biggest difference is the chassis stiffening the welding to the A & B pillars provide.

 

The cage rules are clear in 944-spec. Yes and option is to adopt some SCCA IT cage rules. I see no need to allow further chassis stiffening.

 

In Sept 2003 I sat the cage what was then the #66 "deathmobile". I told you then that cage was not legal as had multiple A & B pillar attachments and even forward cross bar to roof attachements. It was not legal then and should not ever be legal in 944-spec. I don't care if the bars touch the body, but they cannot be "attached" in any more than placed specified.

[Tim Comeau]

What the hell did Ken just say?

What language was that?