YOUR THOUGHTS--TT Rules Revisions 2006

[GAC]

 

Thanks for all of your comments. Time for a change of subject.

 

Okie doke.

[FocusTed]

A big brake kit is nothing more than a replacement of calipers, discs, and pads. They come in different sizes, and provide different levels of performance gain. It would be difficult (and not worth the hassle--from you guys ) to try to make a point differential between an 11.5 inch rotor kit and a 12 inch rotor kit. While brakes are a perfomance item, they still have a bigger safety component compared to other mods of the engine, suspension, aero, wt. reduction, etc. So, we give them to you relatively cheaply to encourage you to get the good stuff, but not for free since they are still a performance mod (and many of you will complain if we just make brakes free--won't you ) .

 

Okay, That make sense.. It really does

 

 

Thanks for all of your comments. Time for a change of subject.

 

Okay, Is there such a thing as perfect rules???

[FocusTed]

Greg,

 

I'm not trying to get anything for free in my car. I'm sure my Spec Focus car will be classified anyways because of the mods a SF has, just like other NASA Race cars. I was trying to bring up points to see if I’m on the same page as you, or maybe trying to cause problems

 

Besides, even though I’ll be running TT for the full season next year, my main “focus” will be running in Spec Focus the whole year. Once the rules are posted I will run in the class I need to be in.

 

Keep up the good work.

[GAC]

Ditto here, Greg. I don't expect anything that enhances performance to be given for free. Call us trouble-makers, but we have the best of intentions.

[Shawn M.]

Shawn is correct that some cars may be able to take advantage of the update/backdate rule, but I'm not sure how many of them will meet the criteria. Ted, if the new Focus is in a higher base class than your car, you cannot update. If it is in the same class or lower, you can update, but there are other limitations regarding different models of the same car designated by various model letters, etc. (ie. a ZX3 is not a ZTX, a Mustang GT is not a Mustang Mach 1, etc). Updating is really for the exact same model over different years..

 

 

OK, I understand. I think the burden of proof can only be on the owner/driver as wether or not the update/backdate is a legal mod. (IE, Bentley manuals, or factory repair manuals.) Lucky for me the Scirocco was base 8v up til 88!

[firehawkclone]

I had asked Greg about this before, and didn't get the response that I HAD wanted but I understand now! Thanks Greg

 

I was thinking of a point for every extra piston, and every extra 1/2" to 1" of rotor! plus 1 for pad's!

 

 

I am running a 95 formula firebird that come with

Single cast iron caliper

11" rotor

I can upgrade to the 98/02 brakes (update/backdate)

2 piston alum caliper

12" rotor

It's a far cry from the 996 setup i want But I am running a complete C5 setup

A 98% identical caliper as the fbody

12.8" rotor

 

I guess I will have to keep my 3 point's from last year in the 4 sessions I ran in TT

[Neon2dmaX]

Greg: When we spoke briefly on Sunday [11/11/05], you mentioned that there is some consideration towards adding points for exceptionally wide tires. As I understand the current rules, no points are added if the wheel diameter is the same and the tire diameter is the same or very close (e.g. a 225-50-14 is the same diameter as a 205-55-14) and the increased width does not extend beyond the fender line.

 

Please elaborate on this point so that I may have a better understanding of the proposed limits before adding points.

 

Haven't seen anything on this topic. Is it still one of the issues being considered in the proposed rule changes?

[Neon2dmaX]

So, as of today, 11-20-05, I have over 50 separate issues and 45 specific vehicle base classifications that we need to consider for revision in the 2006 rules. And, that doesn't include a basic review of the 2006 car models. I have a lot of good stuff in my notes, from your e-mails, and from the review of all of these forum posts made over the past year that I've just completed. The rules will definitely be much more specific than in 2005, with improved definitions to help reduce confusion.

 

If you have any more ideas, let's get them in now (but I bet it will be tough to find any that I don't already have in my notes at this point ).

 

Greg: I thought someone else (Ted?) had mentioned this, but did not see it after a cursory review of the various proposals. In any event, it may be time to consider changing the number of points required to bump up to another class. I thought the mystery proponent had suggested a 20 point spread between classes (and if this were done, make it 20, 40, etc., not 19, 39, etc.)

 

As I see it, adding more points for mods that previously were not penalized, will result in more cars being pushed up one more class which will result in a bunching of more cars in the higher cars, and may further exacerbate the existing problem with TTU (assuming that TTU were otherwise unchanged). In contrast adding an additional 5 points to each class would mean that TTA cars would be allowed an additional 35 points before being pushed to TTU. TTB cars would be allowed an additional 30 points before being pushed into TTA; and so forth down the line.

 

Allowing additional points (whether 5 or some other number) would not require the base classes to be reviewed (other than what would be otherwise be required).

 

Ultimately, it doesn't make any real difference whether a competitor who would otherwise be running TTA ends up in TTB, except perhaps for some bragging rights. Moreover, if someone who is currently running in TTA gets pushed down to a lower class, he always has the option of adding additional mods to bump up, or simply opting into the higher class.

 

One other thought, and this might seem a little out in left field at first; consider running the lower TT classes (F, E and maybe D) with HPDE 3, especially if the program continues to expand at the rate it has. While the first objection to this proposal might point out that there is limited passing in HPDE 3, I think with proper placing on the grid, that issue could be resolved. It might also allow a competitor to break into the TT series a little quicker.

 

Shortly thereafter posting this, Shawn (Monster8V) responded with the following:

 

re: 20 point bump proposal:

“I completely agree with you here. Saved me the trouble of typing it up myself.”

 

re: splitting TT:

“Why are you going to punish the D-H class drivers?? Limited passing? Just because the cars dont go as fast doesnt make them less qualified drivers to be allowed unlimited passing in TT. I can assure you, if this slick move happens, D-H class drivers simply wont show. (Or is that your plan?) Seems very self serving and yes, could it be a more left field idea?”

 

Greg G. responded with the following:

“Don't worry Shawn, this one will not be happening. Only our most advanced drivers are allowed to run in TT, and all TT drivers will be running in an open passing group. If we ever had enough drivers to make up two TT groups (ie. about 70-80 per event), then we could split up the faster and slower groups.”

“You guys need to remember that these TT rules are a little like a Rubic's cube. If you make one move, you often are then obligated to make a dozen more to match it. It is not a coincidence that there are 5 points given for R-compound tires, and that there are cars with double asterix base classes (10 points) that bump up to the next class if they hit 15 points. Switching to a 20 point bump in classes would then require the "triple asterix" base class, which would then require a reassessment of just about every car on the grid. When we added more mod points last year, we also added the TTU class. This prevented compression in the TTA class, but gave us a better spread over the TTE, TTD, TTC and TTB classes. While some cars were upclassed last year (mostly by one or two asterix's), others were downclassed. Now, it looks like we will probably be splitting the TTU class between purpose built high hp cars (? TTR) and homologated street cars. So, if anything, there is a little bit of room to allow an "upclass drift" if we add more mod points again. I had two TTA cars this year that would probably be better off in TTU (street) anyway--right guys.”

 

On December 21, 2005, FocusTed wrote the following regarding the number of points required for bumping up:

“Now this being all said [regarding restructuring points for brake mods], if we're going to add a bunch of points for mods, I do believe we need to add more then just 15 points to move up. Otherwise we'll have a bunch of cars at the top.”

 

 

Regarding any change relating to the number of points that will cause a car to be bumped up (whether that be 20, 25, or more), I recognize that it not as simple as waving a magic wand, but I do believe it is an issue that should be addressed at some time in the future. (Of course, there could be an argument that there is no need for any classes... after all TT is only about lap times.... but being able to have some element of competition within several more closely defined groups adds to the appeal of TT.) Nevertheless, as more points are added for modifications, or as the rules relating to various modifications which may currently have no points assessed (e.g. lightweight replacement wheels) are further developed, more cars will be pushed into the higher classes. As I said in my original post, “Ultimately, it doesn't make any real difference whether a competitor who would otherwise be running TTA ends up in TTB [or TTD for that matter], except perhaps for some bragging rights. Moreover, if someone who is currently running in TTA gets pushed down to a lower class, he always has the option of adding additional mods to bump up, or simply opting into the higher class.”

 

While restructuring the classes may seem like a formidable task, it certainly is not an insurmountable one. The top and bottom classes are not likely to change, at least not significantly... only those in the middle. And once the base cars are classified, the class is not set in stone. I would expect that there would be some adjustments as the rules are further refined.

 

 

Now to the other point. To assuage any concerns expressed by Shawn, there is no intent to punish any class of drivers... and there is no self-serving plan. Nor do I believe that D-H drivers will not show (actually, G-H rarely show as it is... maybe because they are concerned about being run off the road by the faster cars).

 

Also, I did not mean to suggest that all cars in a given class (whether it be D, E, F, G, or H) would be required to run with the HPDE-3 group. Instead, it may be a viable option for some that will benefit everyone.

 

And, I didn’t say that in fact, there would be limited passing for the TT cars in this class. Instead, I said, “ While the first objection to this proposal might point out that there is limited passing in HPDE 3, I think with proper placing on the grid, that issue could be resolved.”

 

In other words, I think that by properly staggering the start so as to allow the TT cars to roll out first with approximately one-half to two-thirds lead on the HPDE-3 cars, the two groups could mix very well without restricting the ability of a TT car to pass another TT car without restriction.

 

The idea occurred to me while at one of the Willow Springs events. As I recall, there were more than 40-45 TT (and HPDE-4??) cars on the track at the same time, while HPDE-3 had approximately 15 participants, most of which were turning laps that were comparable to (and in some cases, better than) D-F cars running in TT. Thus, I concluded that if given a lead at the outset, it would be unlikely that the TT cars would catch the HPDE-3 cars during the session, and if one or more of the HPDE-3 cars were to catch up with a TT car, passing could only be accomplished within the designated passing zone.

 

The current system probably serves to hinder the lap times for the faster cars, more than it does for the slower cars. Although passing is not restricted to a particular area, even a precautionary slowing in order to execute a safe pass in a turn or on an approach to a turn, has the effect of hindering the faster car’s lap time. The problem is exacerbated at tracks like Willow Springs where the fastest TT lap times are in the low 1:30's and the slowest times are closer to 1:50. Even with the TT shootout format which starts the cars according to their anticipated lap times, the fastest cars will start lapping the slower cars after five laps or less than eight minutes into the session. Narrowing the gap to a 10 second differential would not eliminate the problem at Willow Springs since (under ideal circumstances) passing would be required about fourteen minutes into the session. However, there would certainly be fewer obstacles to faster lap times, based upon the relative speed of the cars on the track as well as the number of cars on the track. At a longer track like Buttonwillow, there might not be a need for any passing (again, under ideal circumstances).

 

Although my times in the few events in which I participated this year were among the slower group, I doubt that the proposal would impact my times as much as those of the faster cars. While I think that my lap times could be affected by giving way to faster cars, I believe that their times suffer more than mine do. TT is about lap times. Having fewer hindrances means faster lap times.

 

As I see it, TT will continue to grow. Whether such growth is as strong as it has been in the last couple years remains to be seen. What are the alternatives if and when the TT/HPDE-4 group approaches 60 cars? Pretend its rush hour on the freeway? Split the group? Eliminate HPDE-3? Combine HPDE-3 and 4? Sure, there are several alternatives. My proposal is simply one of them. Is it out in left field? I suggested that it might be. However, that doesn’t mean that it should be summarily dismissed, at least not without an alternative plan. Could TT (H, G, F, and maybe E and D) be run with HPDE-3? Can we mix cars that have limited passing with others that have unlimited passing? I can’t say for certain, but I believe it can be done. I am willing to give it a try.

[Greg G.]

HPDE3 is not an advanced level driver's group, and TT will not be mixed into HPDE3. If we have 60 TT drivers consistently coming out to our SoCal events, we will have two groups of TT (at least one will be TT only, and the other may be TT/HPDE4 like we have now).

 

As far as the rest of the stuff you wrote about goes, I guess we'll have to wait until the rules come out to see how things will be ----no more shaking the boxes under the tree

[FocusTed]

----no more shaking the boxes under the tree

 

Yeah, but it's a big box

[MOTORGOSPEL Ministries]

OK nobody spoke up so I'm going to guess that most of the TTrs have lots of disposable income and know how it's being spent or that they are running up 10's of thousands of dollars in unsecured credit card debt or some combination of the two.

 

An example of what I was fishing for earlier is the following scenario. Similarly prepared cars with similarly skilled drivers are both on R compound tires and run in the same division. One driver can afford $8K worth of Hoosiers per season (or is going into nightmarish long term credit card debt at 20% on BIGTIME depreciated assets) and the other driver can only afford $2K worth of unshaved Toyos per season.

 

The competition will not be as close as the cars and driving abilities would suggest. The driver with the Hoosier budget can basically buy the championship. There's nothing wrong with this if the rules are structured that way. It's good strategy if you can afford it.

 

There may be another way though. Other sanctioning organizations for example have limited the number of tires that competitors can buy per season to something that the majority of the field can afford. This makes it a little harder to buy the win.

 

Changing to street tires and dropping down a class may help those on the cusp although a car with more power than tire can be less fun on a road course than something that is hooked up.

[Shawn M.]

OK nobody spoke up so I'm going to guess that most of the TTrs have lots of disposable income and know how it's being spent or that they are running up 10's of thousands of dollars in unsecured credit card debt or some combination of the two.SNIP!!

 

 

 

I think its a run what you brung type deal. I did the entire season on 2 sets of tires. (plus 6 more track days at non NASA events.) I think I did well with what I had in my extremely tight budget. To each, his own.

 

The important thing here is, lets not make this so unatractive to the average Joe that they simply dont want to jump thru all the hoops just to do a little low level competing. Then we spend all of our downloads complaining about the competitors and the rules and BLAH!

 

Seems to me its getting out of hand. Not just in TT but in other areas of NASA as well. (The SCCA has infiltrated!!)

 

Anyways, MERRY XMAS to all!!!!

[FocusTed]

OK nobody spoke up so I'm going to guess that most of the TTrs have lots of disposable income and know how it's being spent or that they are running up 10's of thousands of dollars in unsecured credit card debt or some combination of the two.SNIP!!

 

 

 

I think its a run what you brung type deal. I did the entire season on 2 sets of tires. (plus 6 more track days at non NASA events.) I think I did well with what I had in my extremely tight budget. To each, his own.

 

The important thing here is, lets not make this so unatractive to the average Joe that they simply dont want to jump thru all the hoops just to do a little low level competing. Then we spend all of our downloads complaining about the competitors and the rules and BLAH!

 

Seems to me its getting out of hand. Not just in TT but in other areas of NASA as well. (The SCCA has infiltrated!!)

 

Anyways, MERRY XMAS to all!!!!

 

I don't think anyone had a tighter budget then I did. The first half of the season I used Falken street tires, until I was able to get a set of Toyo's.

 

I believe indirectly the TT point systems works out on big budgets. I think Greg had address that Hoosier type DOT tires will cost more points then the Toyo type DOT tires next year. So, TT points equals money. This way if you need Hoosiers to stay in a class, then you’ll pay for it.

 

I do see what you’re saying about buying Championships, but last year it worked pretty well. Maybe besides Greg (Of course he’s racing as well), I don’t think anyone really had a big tire budget. At least the TT Winners.

[FocusTed]

OK nobody spoke up so I'm going to guess that most of the TTrs have lots of disposable income and know how it's being spent or that they are running up 10's of thousands of dollars in unsecured credit card debt or some combination of the two.SNIP!!

 

The important thing here is, lets not make this so unatractive to the average Joe that they simply dont want to jump thru all the hoops just to do a little low level competing. Then we spend all of our downloads complaining about the competitors and the rules and BLAH!

 

Seems to me its getting out of hand. Not just in TT but in other areas of NASA as well. (The SCCA has infiltrated!!)

 

I agree 100%. Sometimes the best changes are the ones you don't make.

If you look at last year, I personally believe the system (TT) worked great. We had great sportsman like competition. Now, this doesn't mean I feel we shouldn't make changes, but just don't let it get out of hand.

 

But, this is a good place to throw out ideas.

[MOTORGOSPEL Ministries]

I couldn't agree with you guys more regarding NASA TT being the best thing to hit motorsports in a long time!

 

The improvements I'm suggesting are minor tweaks on something that is about 95% perfect compared to anything else on the motorsports landscape. To a large degree we have Greg to thank for that.

 

Having run everything from NASCAR professional races to bracket racing at the strip to other-than-NASA time trial events that take up to 3 hours for each competitor to get 2 laps, I can say that NASA TT is about as close as I've seen to a perfect run-what-you-brung group.

 

I had evidently overlooked that Greg is considering assigning different points to Hoosier - types than Toyo - types. That's great news. Thank you Ted.

 

Shawn, I agree bigtime that we don't want to steal the joy from TT by miring the competitors in quicksand-like rules. If the rules are selected wisely for a run-what-you-brung group, then the competitors won't have to deal with the red tape that characterizes some other sanctioning agencies. With the right rules, the average competitor can just show up and be placed in the right group without a lot of hassle.

 

I hope that all this dialogue now in the off season will only make that even easier during the year and not harder.

 

I am in significant agreement with you that we don't want the very cool NASA TT program to end up morphing into a trip to the dentist or the DMV by imposing a bunch of non-value-added beaurocracy.

 

Thank you both and Merry Christmas to you too,

[MOTORGOSPEL Ministries]

 

"I did the entire season on 2 sets of tires. (plus 6 more track days at non NASA events.) I think I did well with what I had in my extremely tight budget." [sorry Shawn I couldn't figure out how to work the quote thing -- it takes a rocket scientist - Aaron]

 

No kiddin' Shawn. You earned the championship and the respect and affection of many of us.

 

What I would ask you to consider and you're welcome to respond or not per your preference is how would it have turned out if somebody came into TTE with a car like yours and driving ability like yours and the $$ for fresh Hoosiers each weekend or even each day?

[GAC]

 

"I did the entire season on 2 sets of tires. (plus 6 more track days at non NASA events.) I think I did well with what I had in my extremely tight budget." [sorry Shawn I couldn't figure out how to work the quote thing -- it takes a rocket scientist - Aaron]

 

No kiddin' Shawn. You earned the championship and the respect and affection of many of us.

 

What I would ask you to consider and you're welcome to respond or not per your preference is how would it have turned out if somebody came into TTE with a car like yours and driving ability like yours and the $$ for fresh Hoosiers each weekend or even each day?

 

Aaron, I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question, because you already know that answer. That said, there was some discussion in SE-R Cup about having to race on the same tires you qualify on. In theory it makes a bit of sense, but there's absolutely no way to police this. I doubt Greg's going to make a rule that stipulates how worn your tires have to be or how many events you have to run on a set of tires. Every car is different in terms of how hard it is on tires. Every track is different. Every driver drives differently. Would you like the TT police to come out with tread depth gauges and take regular measurements? C'mon...

[FocusTed]

I see what you're saying Aaron. But, like what Dan said, it's going to be hard to police. The only way to stop that is to not allow Hoosier and Kumho DOT slicks or make the points very high for someone who uses them.

 

Plus. Like what Dan said, it will be different for each car. If I had a set of R-Compound Hankooks on my Spec Focus, I'll be able to get more heat cycles out of them then Greg would in his SRT. I believe Greg goes through those things like crazy in USTCC.

[Shawn M.]

No kiddin' Shawn. You earned the championship and the respect and affection of many of us.

 

What I would ask you to consider and you're welcome to respond or not per your preference is how would it have turned out if somebody came into TTE with a car like yours and driving ability like yours and the $$ for fresh Hoosiers each weekend or even each day?

 

 

I would have still spanked his/her butt!!! For I am Shawn, son of Bob!

[loudes13]

I like the budget discussions. In '04 & '05 I was running in the midwest with MC. They have a point based system, BUT the majority of the people running stay in the lowest prep class, which only allows 2 pts of modifications (their breaks are 3-7 pts 1st bump, 8-18 pts 2nd bump, after that it ulimited based on dsplacment). With my new car, it can run MC's stock class if I stay on street tires and take off the cold air intake & strut tower brace. I plan on doing that. But for nasa I have to through those parts back on AND buy race tires to get close to the 15 pts. So I'll be running 2 setups this summer, I wish I could run only 1.

 

I contend that a car with 1 or 2 pts is very different than one with 13-14 pts. I would love to see the classes closer in speed and dollars(mods) spent. Some guys want to go really fast, if that's what I was shooting for I would have bought a zo6. Heavy mods on a car is in my past, not the future.

[raysingh]

Three unrelated comments:

 

Re: BBK...I defy anyone to show me a quantifiable (lap-time) benefit from an OEM-sized rotor (please note that I am talking about slotted and/or drilled and/or cryo-treated rotors and those with multi-piece rotors - aluminum hats and such - need not reply). Pads, yes...caliper, yes...but unless you physically change the rotor size, i.e. the first B in BBK, you're not getting much in the way of a faster lap time, and as such, I would only assess a penalty if the rotor is larger than the stock diameter, so the rule appears consistent between BBK and rotor size changes. Let's not even talk about drum to disk conversions...they're lighter, easier to modulate, dissipate heat more effectively, and generate more braking torque…we should penalize them for buying a car with drum brakes in the first place!

 

Re: tires and budget...I ran TTE all year on a single set of Toyo RA-1s finally cording all four on the very last session at BW in November. Would I have been faster with a fresh set of Hoosiers every w/e? Absolutely. Did Shawn beat me fairly? Yes. As in every level of motor sports, it's how fast you want to spend, and running a single set of tires and having many points to spare in TTE, I guess I didn't spend fast enough. Having said that, I don't think it would be unreasonable to assess different point levels for certain R-compound tires (treadwear rating <40) vs. others (treadwear rating >80), but it isn’t going to change my behavior or budget for 2006.

 

Re: moving the slower groups to HPDE 3...both as a TTE competitor and instructor for HPDE 3 that qualifies drivers for TT and HPDE4...it isn’t going to happen as long as I am involved in either! HPDE 3 is very much an on-track classroom where drivers are still honing their skills...the most irresponsible thing we can do is add an element of competition. I hope I never hear this suggestion again.

 

It was another great season guys...looking fwd to seeing all of you again in 2006. Happy Holidays!

 

mark.

[Greg G.]

Welcome to the Forum, Mark.

 

The TT Directors have heard the comments of many participants regarding rotors and brakes (ranging from: they should be completely free and open to BBK's should be charged a lot more points). We feel that brakes are one of the performance mods that has such a high safety component that it's worth encouraging driver's to upgrade by making them relatively cheap. Having a fairly strict definition of what constitutes a non-OEM part (ie upgrade), makes it easier to check for compliance. As soon as you start making exceptions, grey areas develop. For example, if we had made a rule that said that brake rotors are only charged a point if the diameter is bigger (by how much by the way?), then the hugely thick, directionally vaned rotors that get taken off of the Chrysler 300 to put on Grand Am Cup SRT's would not be charged a point (same size diameter, but huge upgrade in heat resistance). Whether or not slotting rotors is helpful is very debatable. There are millions of dollars spent every year for such rotors, so it seems that many people believe that they are of value. As well, the company that sells a lot of these rotors also advertises that their vented rotors are better than the ones made outside of the USA because they use more vents. Then the question about whether cryo and dimples help improve performance. It's much easier to just say, "Non-OEM (or equivalent) +1"

 

As far as drums are concerned, we are willing to let drivers upgrade to discs without additional points penalty as a safety issue. I would prefer if the guy behind me is able to slow down when I suddenly brake in front of him because of an incident or debris on the track ahead of me.

[Neon2dmaX]

As far as drums are concerned, we are willing to let drivers upgrade to discs without additional points penalty as a safety issue. I would prefer if the guy behind me is able to slow down when I suddenly brake in front of him because of an incident or debris on the track ahead of me.

 

Is this going to apply to rear drums as well? For example, some early Neon models (e.g. Neon Sport) came with 4 wheel disc brakes while others (including the ACR) had rear drums So, upgrading to 4 wheel disc brakes is free?

 

BTW, speaking of performance enhancements, are those super lghtweight wheels going to be assessed points in 2006?

 

And, still haven't heard any comment regarding the tire issue that I have previously inquired about.

[Greg G.]

When I said "without additional points penalty", I meant without additional points penalty above the 3 points for changing out the pads, rotors, calipers, that some people thought we should assess.

 

Wheels will be open (size included). The TT Directors are not going to spend their time on "wheel witch hunts".

 

Tires are almost definitely............find out in a week and a few days

[raysingh]

Having a fairly strict definition of what constitutes a non-OEM part (ie upgrade), makes it easier to check for compliance. "Non-OEM (or equivalent) +1"

 

Greg,

 

Good luck policing the non-OEM cryo and/or slotted disks...diameter changes are usually easier to spot. BTW, I run OEM spec rotors from the cheapest source I can find (usually aftermarket ones from China) and they last longer than the slotted rotors and cost 60% less.

 

Also, I stand by my earlier perspective on drum to disk conversions...it is a performance enhancement period and once you start arguing about the intrinsic safety you get with a significant performance enhancement, you're on a slippery slope...a lighter car stops faster too

 

mark.