olaaf Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 i knew there must have been a reason why Rehagen and Poe built 2010 cars.. what is the advantage of the shelby booster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallmosty Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Guys, just to level set... The RCR's go to your regional directors FIRST. If you want to send them to the National Director (Todd) or the Technical Director (Al Fernandez), don't expect the RCR to be processed in a timely fashion. Both these guys are VERY busy and that is why we setup the new RCR procedure at the beginning of the year. The regional directors do a very good job of communication on these things to try and assist racers with their issues. I sent the email from Aaron last night to my fellow directors and we had buy-in from 6-7 by lunch today on a resolution... 4 weeks bitching or 4 hours solving the issue. The forums are a great place to kick the can, but also a great place to watch and eat popcorn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevepoe Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 i knew there must have been a reason why Rehagen and Poe built 2010 cars.. what is the advantage of the shelby booster? when you find out the advantage let me know. my car has a 07 booster and master cylinder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Anyone find it interesting that the new class has parts that are specified in the rules that don't fit and/or don't work, and somehow its the responsibility or the racers to figure out how to make it work, and then propose solutions. Obviously, this is all new stuff, and no problems with racers offering up solutions, but I don't see why its assumed that racers should take the lead and present proposals. Ideally, you would have liked to have seen one of these cars built exactly as the rules specify, and run on a track before presenting the rules package to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Dave, We didn't see any pictures and no one followed the procedure to write up an RCR. We had no proof of a problem, no documentation, no pictures (until yesterday) and no official requests to look at it. Until the shock package got shipped, we had no proof of a problem. With the forums full of crap with people restating the same thing over and over year after year with a slightly different slant people get disinterested. And Dave, no, there has not been a legal build for this class yet. This class came into play extremely late. It is better to get the class out there for people to plan. It is great to see people excited about a new class with new builds. Nothing is ever perfect out of the box. I deal with manufacturing every day and a lot of things that look good on paper don't work in real life. Get used to it. You fix it; and move on with life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevepoe Posted July 31, 2013 Author Share Posted July 31, 2013 I only know of just a couple problems that need resolved.....pretty good for a brand new series........ I'm a fan that is for sure..we had 3 at mid ohio already.......paying 250 100 and 50 for each race....... That is $500 to win both races....... and it's cheap compared to a front running s197 build. I know of several being built and a few others asking lots of questions. can't wait to see 10 of these things bunched up together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hancheyb Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Guys, I've suggested the end link route as well to fix this issue. We chose the location of the stabilizer bracket for a reason. Manufacturers using struts more often than not are putting stabilizer brackets on the strut so you get a near 1:1 ratio. Great in theory and great for street cars, but on a race car it starts to become an issue. Inverted struts (good ones anyway) should be designed to minimize any bending of the strut. An OEM strut can bend and no one cares, but an inverted strut requires tolerances in the 0.0001" range. Any flex can cause stiction in lateral and longitudinal events. Mounting sway bars to the strut just adds to the normal forces already put on the strut. If you've ever seen a Porsche strut, the stabilizer mounts to the hub and not the strut tube. There's a reason for that. With an earlier Grand Am strut design, we had a team switch from a strut mounted bracket to a hub mounted bracket. Driver's noticed a difference hitting curbs, braking, and turn-in. Data logging proved it as well. So this design comes out of lessons learned from earlier versions and one improvement is what you see with the SI strut. So yes, it does require a shorter end link, but the benefit is a bulletproof casing just in case you plan to hit curbs or run into each other out there. We've had complete suspensions fold up in a crash and the strut is still straight and useable. Thanks, Brian (HVT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 So far the only options are to make your own end links or modify an aftermarket one to make it shorter. No one out there makes an off the shelf end link that is short enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBR Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Guys,We chose the location of the stabilizer bracket for a reason. Brian (HVT) Seems if HVT knowingly moved the mounting point (for the appropriate reasons above), they also should have made a new rod and sold the whole thing as the "official SI shock package" instead of leaving everyone scrambling to make something (against the rules) on their own. Would have avoided all the need to submit any forms for a rules change. j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hancheyb Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Guys,We chose the location of the stabilizer bracket for a reason. Brian (HVT) Seems if HVT knowingly moved the mounting point (for the appropriate reasons above), they also should have made a new rod and sold the whole thing as the "official SI shock package" instead of leaving everyone scrambling to make something (against the rules) on their own. Would have avoided all the need to submit any forms for a rules change. j I don't have a problem with that if NASA allowed us to increase the price to cover it. We were clear with NASA on what we were providing and we weren't asked to provide anything more than a shock and spring package. If we were asked to provide a bolt-in, complete suspension package we would give you everything including mounts, etc. I don't think this is anything more than teething issues with a new series. You have to credit NASA for creating the series in a very short amount of time. Other organizations couldn't do it much less react quickly making changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Yah even though I was frustrated at first I still have to applaud the directors and NASA for allowing open end links so quickly and admitting there was a flaw. This is the reason I started running NASA more over SCCA. Because they listen to the racers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Watson Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 FYI Your AI directors had a phone meeting last night to discuss things and to keep our commitment of the planned timeline stated in the new RCR procedure thread. One thing discussed was the SI endlink situation, look for a tech bulletin on the forum from Todd which will allow any front endlink. Of course this is not official until the tech bulletin is released.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Well I would assume it's allowed for nationals considering there is no other option to hook up the bar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic_Cobra Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 Yeah, the tech bulletin will go into effect immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBR Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 I don't think this is anything more than teething issues with a new series. You have to credit NASA for creating the series in a very short amount of time. Brian, No question a lot of great work has been done in a very short time. NASA leadership is in a position of not knowing what they don't know yet with the series. These guys are all volunteers with other 'real' jobs and have done amazing work on creating a new series. I know the shock 'package' came in even later to the game. I'm sure the guys building cars appreciate having the shock issue being resolved quickly. It sounds like the HVT strut/shock will be a great match for the cars. Where my issue with the sway bar strut is with HVT. (If you are HVT, this isn't a personal attack. Just a criticism of corporate decisions and/or communication) HVT moved a mounting point necessitating a modification to the OEM part. I'm sure a professional company in the business of making high performance parts had to know there would be fit issues by that move. It is possible HVT wasn't aware this part would be used in a very restricted 'spec' class, but at some point HVT should have had communication making NASA aware of the fitment problems requiring a non-stock (illegal) component for their strut to work so accommodations could be made up front. It shouldn't have been discovered by a racer trying to build a car when they started bolting on parts. This would have been a good opportunity to generate additional revenue. (Producer of the only class legal sway bar strut) (I'm actually surprised Steve Poe hasn't set up a jig and started cranking out his modified rod. I'm sure he could convince the directors to designate his part the first and official part) All considered, this is an easy fix. If this is the biggest problem this series experiences, I'm confident everyone will consider the series birth a huge success. j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Motorsportheaven.com has actually already developed a good adjustable end link set we will soon be selling to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 With the forums full of crap with people restating the same thing over and over year after year with a slightly different slant people get disinterested. Shots fired Everyone hit the deck, this could get ugly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Your baiting me Dave; and that quote is out of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Your baiting me Dave; and that quote is out of context. Nope...just poking fun ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevepoe Posted August 14, 2013 Author Share Posted August 14, 2013 Your baiting me Dave; and that quote is out of context. Nope...just poking fun ! Don't you cmc guys have your own website ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted August 14, 2013 Share Posted August 14, 2013 Your baiting me Dave; and that quote is out of context. Nope...just poking fun ! Don't you cmc guys have your own website ? Steve, wheres the love ? We are ALL part of the AI/CMC family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacovini Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Tech Bulletin issued. Problem Solved. Thread Locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts