Ride height ?

[nape]

As a director and competitor, I haven't seen anyone even close. Usually the driveshaft hits in the tunnel in fox body Mustangs when approaching critical mass, along with the axle as Reds mentioned. Is this really a problem at all? Has anyone ever been called out on this? Do you feel that we have someone too low giving them an advantage? Is anyone even close on height; or are we all just bored waiting for race season (excludes you guys in texas & cali)

 

I don't think it's an issue. The only easy way to get lower then 5" in the rear of an F-body and still have sufficient suspension travel would be to notch the frame rails. Since that's illegal in AI, the point is moot to me. As far as the front, tire/fender clearance becomes a big deal and I don't see why someone would put in a ton of extra work to be illegal anyway.

 

I think we should focus on solid rules enforcement of the rules already in place and then stress communication. That way, even if you weren't one of the cars scrutinized, everyone knows that they're being given an honest shot on a level playing field.

 

is the issue with the tub/unibody getting too low to the ground, or the rest of the components getting too low to the ground?

 

Write the rule around that...

 

The original post in the thread was from having a wavy spot in the rocker panel that was causing an erroneous measurement. Right now, I think we're making issues to see if we can come up with new rules.

[firehawkclone]

TJ is right, I was just wondering how it would be done. Would it be the same Ca as nationals. I think the rule is just fine the way it is.

[T&A Racing]

I think the rule is great the way it’s currently written. It’s easy to understand and easy to check at the track.

 

For what it’s worth, the Fox ride height is usually set by the rear frame rails over the axle

 

subliminal hint/ I agree, that rule rocks. Those guys kick ass. They are smart people. We should never question them. The rules are perfect. They are the best series rules I've ever seen. There is nothing to see hear - move along, move along. /subliminal hint off

 

As a competitor, not as a series director, I have the same problem with some crappy headers that hang down too low on the old car. I am not paying to fix them, it aint worth it.

 

As a director and competitor, I haven't seen anyone even close. Usually the driveshaft hits in the tunnel in fox body Mustangs when approaching critical mass, along with the axle as Reds mentioned. Is this really a problem at all? Has anyone ever been called out on this? Do you feel that we have someone too low giving them an advantage? Is anyone even close on height; or are we all just bored waiting for race season (excludes you guys in texas & cali)

 

 

 

Griz for President, Griz for President !!!!!!!!

[gbrown8439]

Do you feel that we have someone too low giving them an advantage? Is anyone even close on height; or are we all just bored waiting for race season (excludes you guys in texas & cali)

 

I don't think it is a problem yet but the S197 Mustangs are very easy to get below the legal height.

I agree that we should set points where the measurements are taken and leave the rule alone otherwise.

[swhiteh3]

As I've brought up before, a simple minimum height that all components must meet is a very simple and easy-to-enforce way to express this rule. I'm all for it Todd.

 

There are situations that will arise and require special consideration, but they need to be kept to a minumum to keep the rules as consistent as possible.

[Grizlbits]

As I've brought up before, a simple minimum height that all components must meet is a very simple and easy-to-enforce way to express this rule. I'm all for it Todd.

 

This is like forcing everyone to buy health insurance. I am going to start calling you Nancy Pelosi pretty soon. Ride height is ride height. Let's keep focused on RIDE HEIGHT, not minimum ground clearance. Don't make this series more expensive by making everyone buy new headers, DS loops, torque arms etc. There is no performance gain with headers that are too low. Knock it off Scott. I want you to show me with scientific data either: how lower headers gives you a competative advantage, or how making everything clear a minimum height will save the average bear money. There is enough crap we need to buy to keep are cars running; lets not require people to spend money for no good reason.

 

If you want to define 4 places to measure on each body style to check for compliance, that is another story. We can do that, but I don't want to see people trying to change things for a silly rule with no competative advantage. Changing headers is a major pain in the ass for custom setups and very expensive.

[T&A Racing]

I agree with Chris, well said. I would add that unlike pro-series we also don't build new cars with each year, where some changes can be added easy from a ground up build. This is a group that depends on attracting racers, with amature budgets, to make NASA our choice for spending our racing dollars.

 

Thanks again Chris for your input.

[nape]

I agree with Chris, well said. I would add that unlike pro-series we also don't build new cars with each year, where some changes can be added easy from a ground up build. This is a group that depends on attracting racers, with amature budgets, to make NASA our choice for spending our racing dollars.

 

Thanks again Chris for your input.

 

Ditto. I'm trying to come up with the money to run a full season. Changes that'll cost money, even a minute amount, are not what I want to hear about.

 

No more bailouts!

[firehawkclone]

Todd, have all of you talked about how you will measure the current rule?

Edited March 2, 2010 by Guest

[swhiteh3]

As I've brought up before, a simple minimum height that all components must meet is a very simple and easy-to-enforce way to express this rule. I'm all for it Todd.

 

This is like forcing everyone to buy health insurance. I am going to start calling you Nancy Pelosi pretty soon. Ride height is ride height. Let's keep focused on RIDE HEIGHT, not minimum ground clearance. Don't make this series more expensive by making everyone buy new headers, DS loops, torque arms etc. There is no performance gain with headers that are too low. Knock it off Scott. I want you to show me with scientific data either: how lower headers gives you a competative advantage, or how making everything clear a minimum height will save the average bear money. There is enough crap we need to buy to keep are cars running; lets not require people to spend money for no good reason.

 

If you want to define 4 places to measure on each body style to check for compliance, that is another story. We can do that, but I don't want to see people trying to change things for a silly rule with no competative advantage. Changing headers is a major pain in the ass for custom setups and very expensive.

How the hell you can justify comparing this to politics I'll never understand.

 

If you read my proposals (which I believe you have a copy of, yes?) you'll notice that I leave open the idea of specific exceptions that I believe are either (a) things that should be grand-fathered in or (b) things that provide no advantage. Among these are headers (possibly all exhaust) and torque arms. I'd certainly be open to other exceptions.

 

Defining a point to measure on a car is going to get really sticky because everyone is going to measure it differently, and it is going to require a page-long definition on where to measure it on each model of car raced. Also, I believe that pushing for elimination of ground-dragging side skirts is something we should be working towards.

 

Why you say we need to stay focused on RIDE HEIGHT (see, my caps lock key works too!) is beyond me. I think we should have a ground clearance rule, but there will likely need to be exceptions - it's unavoidable. If you make them general and not chassis-specific, they'll be easy enough to enforce.

[nape]

Why you say we need to stay focused on RIDE HEIGHT (see, my caps lock key works too!) is beyond me. I think we should have a ground clearance rule, but there will likely need to be exceptions - it's unavoidable. If you make them general and not chassis-specific, they'll be easy enough to enforce.

 

Because that's been the rule for about 10 years and now is not the time to start changing stuff in a crap economy. We need to preserve the car counts we have, not make rules that may make cars illegal or cost money to re-work.

 

I'll have my car back in the garage in a week or two, but I seem to remember that I have less then 3" clearance to my oil pan. So, if you continue these talks, I hope you put oil pans, headers, all exhaust, radiator air deflectors, torque arms, driveshaft loops, jacking points, and I'm sure I'll come up with a few others.

[Grizlbits]

How the hell you can justify comparing this to politics I'll never understand.

 

This is real simple. Over the last few years, the government is telling people what is best for everybody little by little, especially in the last 13 months. I feel that imposing rules that just a few people want (percentage wise) to the dismay of people who disagree or feel that the rule is not needed is very simliar. Frankly, I am sick of a few people telling anyone what is best for them on something that is completely unnecessary. This is not professional racing. Our rules are very simple. Or rules are working (closer competition than spec miata with all their very specific rules). Sometimes the parallels of racing and the government are uncanny. I think sometimes there are things that just need to be left alone while we focus on bigger things. I think a lot of people are getting sick of rules that do not show a competative advantage (ie- the stupid dash rule- which I believe you had a part in(( said as a competitor, not a director- sorry Todd)))

 

When it comes down to it, no one wants to have a car with crap dragging. I don't want to have the headers too low. It is just that DQ'ing, making exceptions or grandfathering someone for something that does not add value or competative advantage to our series is not what we are about. All we really want is fair competition, and the numbers show that we have some of the best racing in NASA. I do not feel that the average racer cares about someone elses low oil pan or how their dash looks.

 

 

I think we should have a ground clearance rule, but there will likely need to be exceptions - it's unavoidable.

 

I can avoid it; don't make a rule we don't need.

[tacovini]

Guys....guys...guys. Let's not argue about it...and let's knock off the personal attacks. Calling anyone "Nancy Pelosi" is a great offense IMO. Them's fightin' words!

 

This discussion (nor the dash one) wasn't brought on by Scott W. or any one person. Let me also reiterate, that it is just a discussion...not a rules change request (RCR). We aren't changing a thing for 2010.

 

Now...

 

Believe it or not...we are all after the same thing.

 

++Consistent enforcement of the rule.

++No changes which substantially affect racers/cars

++No unnecessary expenses required.

++Simplicity.

 

The debate helps to consider different perspectives and unearth new ideas. I want to be sure to hear everyone out.

 

Good points that what we're discussing is a change from measuring "chassis height" to "ground clearance"....and by doing so, could have huge unintended consequences.

 

With some calm, cool, collected feedback...some things become apparent. Going to a lower "ground clearance" rule of , let's say, 3" could wrongfully give our racers an incentive to bring their chassis down even further to the 3" and try to tuck everything else up under that #....big bucks in the AI world...and not what we wanted. (not every platform can do that either) It's also silly since rear frame rails and other suspension travel components likely limit the car before hitting a 3" "ground clearance" measurement.

 

So...the rule "is what it is" for now, and I'm asking all the AI series directors to make "chassis height" a standing tech item at each of the events this year. It's our job to enforce it and we'll provide more specifics as to how, what & where that measurement will be taken. We still have some work to do.

 

To be continued....

 

-=- Todd

[UBR]

I think we should have a ground clearance rule, but there will likely need to be exceptions - it's unavoidable.

I had to go back and watch the video explaining Grand Am tech. I get the simplicity of sliding a bar under the car for a go/no go ground clearance rule. As soon as you start with "unavoidable exceptions", the simplicity of the original idea disappears and we're back to a non-simple solution.

 

Chris said it well. No rule change to fix a non-existant problem is the better solution.

[UBR]

Going to a lower "ground clearance" rule of , let's say, 3" could wrongfully give our racers an incentive to bring their chassis down even further to the 3" and try to tuck everything else up under that #

Todd,

 

Your killing me. I have most of this mapped out for 2011.

 

• -Sledge hammer floor pan mods to get our exhaust WAY up.
  -2 qt oil pan- Nice and flat, not too thick. We'll just run 8 or 9 remote oil filters to make up the volume.
  -Just finished the CAD drawings of the custom headers... Should be able to have them built for under $10,000
  -IRS rear end. I'll mount it to the down tubes that tie into our shock towers. Should be just low enough to see over it in the rear view mirror.
  - 3 plate mini clutch- Do I have to run a bellhousing?
  

 

Mark is made of money, so we should be fine beyond 2010.

[nape]

So...the rule "is what it is" for now, and I'm asking all the AI series directors to make "chassis height" a standing tech item at each of the events this year. It's our job to enforce it and we'll provide more specifics as to how, what & where that measurement will be taken. We still have some work to do.

 

To be continued....

 

-=- Todd

 

Sounds like a plan. I built my car to those rules so no problem there.

 

Any chance for an updated 3rd gen track width spec line soon?

[T&A Racing]

Mark is made of money, so we should be fine beyond 2010.

 

 

Jim is correct on this, but you do have to cut me open to get to the money.

 

 

Todd,

 

It seems you have collect considerable feedback that the current rule is fine, and "from the lowest point" is in fact a defined place that can be esily found. We can only hope this will be reflective in next years rules with no change. It would be ashame to adversly affect the overall business of NASA and the various regional staffs that depend on racers support to feed thier families.

 

Thanks

Mark

 

Let's go racing is it spring yet.

[firehawkclone]

So...the rule "is what it is" for now, and I'm asking all the AI series directors to make "chassis height" a standing tech item at each of the events this year. It's our job to enforce it and we'll provide more specifics as to how, what & where that measurement will be taken. We still have some work to do.

 

To be continued....

 

-=- Todd

 

Thanks Todd