Our Rules (a reply to recent posts on a now deleted topic)

[chaswirken]

Jason and Tyler,

 

You guys missed the point. The clear innuendo of Jason's postscript was that anyone who didn’t join the discussion was either cheating or could be suspected of cheating. My point was that no one has a duty to monitor your discussions and participate, and no one should be judged for not doing so. In other words, no negative inference can be drawn from a person’s silence.

 

I used Joe Paluch as an example of someone smeared by the innuendo of the postscript, not because he needed me to stand up for him, but because it was directed at him, as well as every other Arizona driver that didn’t participate in your discussion. I could have used, as an example, anyone else who didn’t join the discussion.

 

Discussion about the rules and compliance with them is fine. But it isn’t right to jump to conclusions and suggest that those who don’t join the discussion are guilty of some rule infraction. That’s why I spoke up after I heard from others what had been written in this forum, certainly not because I thought that you were writing about me.

 

In any event, the hood of my car has always been open in the paddock for all to look underneath. If you see something that isn’t expressly allowed by the rules, and that provides a competitive advantage, talk to me.

 

However, an Accusump is not a cheater part. Understanding what it is and how it works logically leads only to that conclusion. Besides, the subject of Accusumps was thoroughly discussed almost a year ago in this forum. Let’s then move on from that subject with what was learned from the discussion. Namely, the mantra that “if the rules don’t say you can do it, you can’t do it” is not absolute. The Accusump is a prime example of one logical exception to the existing rules until they are changed, as they should be, to expressly permit such a device that might help save an engine and that doesn’t provide a competitive advantage. In the end, the rules and their enforcement have to make sense. If a modification does not provide a competitive advantage, and if the car still makes weight, and is safety is not compromised, so what?

 

I also have an intake manifold that was painted or coated on the outside only to match the exterior color, just as others have done. It does not run cooler. While the rules don’t expressly permit that, neither do they permit a lot of other modifications that are commonly made. It would be ridiculous to say that you can’t polish or paint your wheels, put decals on the car, have a financial sponsor, use synthetic oil, etc. just because the rules don’t expressly allow such things.

 

Yes, I have a lightened flywheel. I have made no secret of that. It was permitted by an early version of the NASA Spec 944 rules (I have a copy, as do others). When the issue arose with another driver, I volunteered that I also had a lightened flywheel. The issue was resolved by increasing the minimum weight of my car by 50 pounds.

 

I also have a throttle cam, and have had it since before my first race with NASA. I thought that it improved the feel of the accelerator, but I don’t perceive any increase in performance. I don’t think that’s possible. Should I put the stock cam back on and compare lap times?

 

If you want to inspect my cylinder head, cam, or valves, please do so now while the head is off the engine and the valves out of the head. My mechanic has my permission to show you that everything is stock. If you can’t do that now (the car should be reassembled by Saturday and I will pick it up Sunday after I return from a business trip), I am told that you can confirm that the cam is stock even while the engine is fully assembled. I won’t attempt a layman’s explanation of how to do that, just ask a Porsche mechanic familiar with the 944.

 

Have I overlooked anything? I don’t think so.

 

Like you, I am only racing for fun. We should all keep that in mind on the track, and in our communications with one another and on this forum.

[Tim Comeau]

Chas, Not to add to the arguement............I don't know if you've been informed but as per Dan Webb, Accusumps will be allowed for 2004 with mounting restrictions. Throttle cams were ruled illegal. We have a couple out here if you can't find one out there. It also sounded to me like he was going to keep all 944's at their stock track width-58.1" in the front and 57.1" in the rear. And, best of all for you and I, us 924S drivers would be allowed to run spacers to fill out the wheel wells, which would still leave us with a more narrow track than the 944's, but maybe we make up for it a little with our more slippery aerodynamics? Dan also ruled that "modifying" the air/fuel meter was legal.

I only ask that we get it in writing, along with other unwritten, but accepted mods like swapping out the big battery for a 13lb'er.

At your service,

[p928sfan]

Curious how 50 lbs was decided as weight addition for flywheel. It is of particular interest to me as my car (+driver) is still >200 lbs over limit. Still not sure where to strip that remaining weight from my own car, but somehow a penalized 2650lb car w/lightened flywheel seems like it still would have quite an advantage over a car similar to mine. I only use my car as an example, because I know its exact weight, but I have heard that Glenn's car was around 150lbs over as well.

 

I'm not stating this as a direct challenge to you Chas (or anyone else since people seem very sensitive on this forum).

 

Instead, I guess I am asking the powers that be, how that determination was made.

[AZ Coupe Jason]

Chas,

 

I deleted the topic due to an underline request of Tim – the SoCal Series Dir, and who frankly is doing a better job bringing new people to the group.

 

With that said! Chas I consider you a friend and like hanging out with you so please do not feel like I am personally attacking you or picking you out!

 

Chas you are a lawyer and you are trained and in the business to find the flaws in rules and turning those same rules back on to someone to change the course of that. Remember this, Running 944-Spec is a option, a choice or what ever the way you see fit to place it, it comes down to this; YOU made the decision to race in 944-spec no one else. You can make any argument you want Chas but you are cheating and have been since the beginning

 

1- Accusumps have been and are currently illegal – until the National 944-spec Dir comes out with the new rules it is illegal!

2- Throttle Cams – They have been and are illegal always have been!

3- Painted Intakes (Painted, Coated, Krlyoned) are not legal and has never been – Exotic Motorwerks made an interpretation of the rules and it was incorrect.

 

a. In response to those 3 items – your “Interpretations or Assumptions” are meaningless – if you don’t like the rules then don’t run 944-spec. Its not your position as a driver or any driver to arbitrarily decide that the rules do not make sense and then go and say that is stupid I am not going to conform - If you did this even in SCCA Solo2 or Road Racing they would through you out of the class and disqualify you or Re-class you if it was a local event. But we are not SCCA we are NASA and we will work with the drivers that have made set up errors and correctly class them.

 

4- Fly Wheel the 50lbs ruling on the Fly Wheels was for the remaining of 2003 not for 2004, as of Jan 1, 2004 you and those people have been a assessed a 300lb weight penalty for the fly wheel.

5- Fly wheel rule – That was a rule book from another similar group and was never in the rules of “944-SPEC” – Regardless of what you or any others think you might have, it is not allowed!

 

As I said before you are fighting the wrong fight Chas. Whether or not I made an innuendo about the discussion it was more of an observation than anything. As I have said before this is an issue of attitude and Drivers attitude that the rules do not apply to them. What is so hard about running in the right class? Follow the rules of that class or do not race – don’t just say that rule is stupid. This is not a democracy, courtroom, or a mediation setting these are the rules either you follow them or you don’t. Then go play in the category in which your personal interpretations have placed you in!

 

Have a safe trip Chas!

 

Thanks

Jason

[p928sfan]

Hmmm, Jason may have answered my 50 lb question. 300 seems a bit fair'er, on my very unscientific, gut feeling. Still I am curious, is this decision is based on real data (acceleration curves, etc..) or just someone's qualified observation. Again, not an argument question, just a learning question for me.

[AZ Coupe Jason]

Dan felt like it was a deterant to keep the fly wheel at a 300lb penalty

[Tim Comeau]

If it helps......................A new potential driver called me today. I know Ray Discius from PCA and POC racing. He drives a very expensive 911. I directed him to the rules website and we chatted for at least 30 minutes. I made it abundantly clear, as I do with every new driver, that he should read paragraph # 4 on the first page of the rules. (You know, the one that says, "If it ain't in here, don't do it!") In fact, I made him chant it to me 5 times in a row! Now, it's his religion.

NOW he has the right 944-spec attitude to build his own car.....................

 

The point is, and I do have one.........we need to give all assistance to new guys while they are building the cars to make sure they get off on the right foot and don't have to undo things. Joe's site is wonderful for info. AND we need to assist:

1. drivers bringing cars in from other series,

2. cars that are currently running "out of spec" (notice that I didn't say cheating).

My attitude is toward "helping" drivers stay within the specs. I'll try to remain patient and respectful on this subject.

And I do appreciate the mea culpas, but let's work to get ALL the existing cars within spec for 2004,huh?

[chaswirken]

Jason,

 

Yes, I am a lawyer, and as such I am trained to think logically and to be guided by the facts. I wish that you would engage in this discussion in the same fashion, logically and factually, instead of repeatedly suggesting that I just make a choice to race in 944-Spec or somewhere else.

 

Please consider the following facts and discussion:

 

Accusump:

 

Fact: On September 1, 2003 you wrote in this forum as "Asst. Regional Director, NASA Arizona": "I do not see a problem with the Accusump what ever .. it is a [reliability] issue. . . . The AZ Car that has the Accusump on it is Chas [Wirken] - I think (IMO) Chas installed for reliabilty issues only .. I too see no performance enhancing issues with it."

 

Fact: You wrote on September 4, 2003, again as "Asst. Regional Director, NASA Arizona", that "I will say once again I think the Accusump should be allowed - I also do not think that we should penalize anyone for having it!"

 

Fact: Dan Webb wrote on September 4, 2003 "And finally, doesn't it also make sense that here in AZ we didn't disqualify Chas for his Accusump. . . . Trust me if consistency meant busting people for every little rule infraction, then yes we WOULD NOT be serving the members."

 

Fact: On February 5, 2004 Tim Comeau reported in this forum that "Chas, . . . I don't know if you've been informed but as per Dan Webb, Accusumps will be allowed for 2004 with mounting restrictions."

 

So, why are you busting my chops now about an Accusump? And what is the status of the revised rules?

 

Lightened flywheels:

 

Fact: NASA 944-Spec Rules Version 1.2 dated June 2, 2002 provided in the second sentence of paragraph 12.1 that "Flywheels may be lightened but no other modifications made." Those rules were given to interested drivers by NASA (i.e., Dan Webb) at a meeting on August 24, 2002 in Mesa, right after I bought my car.

 

Fact: After the issue arose with another driver and I volunteered that I had lightened the flywheel, and Dan Webb and I exchanged pleasant e-mail messages about the origins of the rules, Dan wrote the following to me on May 20, 2003: "It could be there was a mistake made with the rules. . . . I have extended an offer to [another driver] that applies to you as well. You can run in the series with a minimum weight of 2650 for 10 months from today or until you change your flywheel. I think this is a very fair penalty. . . ."

 

Why is NASA going back on its word? The offer to me hasn't expired yet - I haven't changed my flywheel, and haven't had the engine out of the car since. Why is a 50 pound penalty no longer fair? Where is the fairness in announcing on February 5, 2003 that the penalty will be increased to 300 pounds retroactively to January 1, 2004?

 

Throttle cams:

 

Fact: As I have written before, I had one on my car before ever running with NASA. It has always been in plain view. Indeed, you have seen it.

 

Fact: You said nothing to me until I mentioned the throttle cam in my February 5, 2003 post. And neither has anyone else ever said anything.

 

Fact: There was much discussion in this forum about throttle cams, with a split of opinion among the drivers who participated in that discussion. Several were of the mind that it is no big deal, and others felt it was impermissible because it wasn't in the rules. No decision was made or announced. However, on February 5, 2004 Tim Comeau reported that "per Dan Webb" . . . Throttle cams were ruled illegal" for 2004.

 

If that's to be the rule, then please make it official in the published rules. Let's not rely on rumor and hearsay. If throttle cams are to be prohibited in the forthcoming 2004 rule revisions or clarifications, I will respect that decision. But I still maintain that the rule should reflect whether or not a throttle cam enhances performance. If it does, ban it; if it doesn't don't. In any event, this is not the hill I chose to die on.

 

Painted Intake Manifolds:

 

Facts: Again, these are in plain sight, and you have seen them, but neither you nor anyone else has objected to me or, to my knowledge, to any other driver.

 

So, why now? I can understand NASA wanting to get its house in order, but it's a little harsh to brand me a cheater only after I brought up the subject in my post. At least, why not just call it "out of spec" (borrowing Tim's language) unless you have some reason to believe that it provides some advantage and is therefore "cheating". If you have reason to believe there is an advantage, you haven't shared it with me. In my view, cosmetically modified intakes, like many other items (Accusumps, smaller batteries, throttle cams, etc.) fall into the category of modifications that various drivers, not just me, have suggested should be allowed if no competitive advantage is gained. What's your view, and why?

 

All I was trying to do in my posts was have a substantive conversation about these subjects. Why must you respond by avoiding discussion (in fact, declaring the discussion over and deleting topics), while standing only on the literal rules (which you must acknowledge are a work in progress), and repeatedly pointing out my obvious choices of racing with NASA or not? As a customer of your business, I don't need to be told that I have a choice of places to spend my money.

 

I would appreciate a reasoned response regarding the modifications at issue (excepting the Accusump if that is to be permitted) at your convenience (I will be racing with PCA in February and March). So take your time, put your thinking cap on, and respond calmly, courteously, fairly, and rationally.

 

Thanks for considering my thoughts and comments.

[mtbracr1]

Chas,

 

No one is calling you a cheater. No one is inferring that you are deliberately cheating to gain an advantage on other racers. However, your car is simply not in spec. Simply put, it does not matter what rule such and such from such and such rule version in 20xx says. Nor does it matter what e-mail you received when you built the car. The current spec rules were published on February 12, 2003. They are the rules by which all cars wishing to compete in 944 Spec racing must follow. Please see http://www.944-spec.com/944/rules2.htm for a complete list of those rules. My response to your questions:

 

FLYWHEEL:

 

13 Transmission / Differential

13.1 Clutch

Any clutch disc and clutch cover (pressure plate) may be used, providing they mount on an unmodified flywheel.

 

11.1 General

All engines, components, and parts must have been offered for sale in a Porsche 944 from model years 1983-1988 with 2.5-liter eight-valve engines only, sold by a dealer in the United States of America. All engines and their internal components must remain stock, except as provided by these rules, and within factory specified tolerances. Cars may be updated and backdated with parts from the Porsche 944 and 924S from model years 1983-1988 with 2.5-liter eight-valve engines only.

 

THROTTLE CAM:

 

12.1 Throttle Body

Must remain stock with no modifications.

 

PAINTED INTAKES:

 

This is clearly not allowed and has not been in any rules to my knowledge. I don't believe that this is in dispute. Please see FORMAT below.

 

And finally:

 

2 Intent

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

3 Purpose

The purpose of this series is to provide a stage to showcase driving talent.

 

4 Format

No modifications, addition or removal of parts is allowed, unless specified or approved in these rules. No additional modifications are permitted. These rules are not intended as guidelines; rather they shall serve as the national set of rules, and must be strictly followed. The Region is responsible for ensuring that all competitors running in the corresponding regional championship conform to these rules. All rules and regulations are subject to change and no disputes are allowed as long as they pertain to the competitiveness of the class.

 

 

I can't make any response to your question of an Accusump. I do not know enough about it, but I certainly can't blame you if your only intention was to enhance engine life. While it may not fall in the rules, I believe the new guidelines will reflect a change of this.

 

-Tyler

[AZ Coupe Jason]

Chas,

 

I think Tyler said it best.

 

Rules change from time to time in a series. What the rules are one year might not be the same for next. This commonly occurs in all orgs from SCCA Solo2 to F1. So I am sure us 944 drivers can adjust.

 

As to the Fly Wheel Ruling, this was stated from the time the National 944 dir. ruled on it, allowing it to stay. He also informed me as the asst. dir of the ruling. It has been and has always been 50lbs till 12-31-03 then 300lbs as of 01-01-04 (FACT) This was to allow you and others to compete and give you some time to fix it.

 

Accusump - Chas I don’t care, but was merely used as a point on contention of your attitude towards the rules (Not Guidelines).

 

As I said before running 944-Spec is a choice, if you run in it, then build or set-up your car to the exact wording of the rules. If you have questions on what is approved or not approved then call the series Dir. at 480-250-2406 and ask Dan Webb. If you can not, I suggest the shop that prepares your car should call before doing a modification (If you think there might be any infractions), but you need to remember, YOU are responsible for your car, no one else!

 

Chas, you opened yourself up for being singled out, you stated what you had that is not in the rules. As a Dir in NASA I cannot stand by and not do anything, regardless of your feelings on the rules. You will need to comply or this will have to be dealt with by the re-classing of peoples cars. (IE. 944-Cup or PS2)

 

Jason

Edited February 9, 2004 by Guest

[Paul Bloomberg]

Where are the rules for PS2 located?

 

Paul

[mtbracr1]

Here you go Paul:

 

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/2003_ps.pdf

 

You can get at these from http://www.nasaproracing.com. Don't you just miss 944 Spec after reading all of these posts?

 

-Tyler

[Paul Bloomberg]

Tyler,

No I don't miss it........

 

You might want to see if there have been some changes to the NASA PS2 rules.

 

The NASA link that you provided says that SCCA ITS cars are PS1

 

The 2003 SCCA GCRS states that a (83-88) 944 2v is a ITS car. Which according to the link would make it a PS1 car...

 

I think a couple of guys may have been placed in the wrong class.

 

The NASA PS2 class would be made up of ITA cars which would be for example a (68-69) Corvair, Honda CRX 1.5ltr, Porsche models (76) 912, (73-76) 914 2ltr and the (77-82) 924, ect.....

 

See you at PIR,

Paul