I agree with allowing Turbo valve springs. I don't believe that the engine horsepower would increase with higher rpm as the stock systems limiting factor is air and fuel. I have yet to see a dyno sheet show increased horsepower at high rpm on a legal Spec motor.

No rules creep, just smart equal reliability at a low cost.

Bill

comatb wrote:


Okay, but what about the guy, with limited funds, who just spent his race budget to do a rebuild on his motor. Then we allow the Turbo springs. Now he has to go into the motor, and change his springs because everyone else has them. This is an added expense that he may not need. Lets say that we don't mandate the springs, just allow them. This same racers goes out and finishes second in a close race with a guy who has these Turbo springs. Do you not think for a minute that it is going to be in his mind that he may have lost that race because of the springs that he couldn't afford to change? It is a variable that does NOT need to be added to the 944-SPEC platform. If you want to mix and match engine parts, there is another series for that, and it aint 944-SPEC. Finally, we can go through the rules and add literally hundreds of parts that offer NO performance advantage but would add cost to the series. This is not the 944-SPEC design. 944-SPEC HAS GOT TO STAY STOCK TO SURVIVE. Keep it simple, keep it affordable or go race somewhere else. There are others that have raced for years without the turbo springs and I am sure they will continue to race for years without them.

Rant off

What would you guys say to a rule that, as a consequence, allows any part in the motor?

Don’t like the idea yet? What if that rule got all of us even on power?

SvoChuck wrote:


Chuck my point is that nothing tells me a stock valve spring won't last or work for racing. I can say that old parts fail. It happens and when it does usally the motor goes soft. So you pull the head replace the valve spring pair (remember there is an inner and outer) and be on your merry way. You can replace all to be proactive, but it is not needed. I don't believe I have ever seen a new one fail. So I would expect the new stock valve sprigns to last for many years of racing. If they failed every year there would be a reason to change, but if you get 2-3 20 year old ones failing out of 15-30 cars it is not big deal.

Also lets remember that for 2009 there is no chnage.

We can discuss things for 2010, but if we are making a change there better be a darn good reason. Over the years watching this series grow from nothing the biggest issues we have had have been around changes.

So any change needs to be evaluated proper.

Any new allowance needs data to support. Why? What cost beneft? What risks? Most importantly how can it be distorted such that while simple in intent it unwitting opens the flood gate to soemthing we don't want.


Any new restriction needs to be understood as to how it will impact current racers as well as future racers.

Karl, I know where your're going with this .