Gary,
Teardowns are a part of racing. They tend to be rare and occur mostly when something seems clear wrong, or there is a big race at stake. The chances of being torndown at Nationals is much greater than it happening in a regional racing since there is more at stake at a National event.


Now are required to a teardown there are policies and proceedures in the NASA CCR's that cover how it is supposed to happen. In fact they also govern what the rules are for when a teardown can be ordered.

I would expect that all 944 drivers would comply with teardown if needed. Frankly there can be many reasons for it. One issue the can overcome a class is where rumors start about car XXX and something "odd" inside. In the end the best way to resolve it maybe to do a teardown an confirm every part is A-ok. If time goes on too long with rumors it can just put a bad cloud over the group. in fact refusing a teardown can make the cloud worse at the reation can be "what is he hiding" .

Now Gary I completely understand the desire to not get torndown as it is a pain the rear for many reasons. The fact is that it needs to be an option for the sanctioning body to ensure rules enforcement.

joepaluch wrote:


Ok, that makes perfect sense, kind of the Big Stick policy to deter people from bending the rules. Thanks for not slamming me for wanting to cheat and telling me to go race somewhere else.
I guess I gave the impression I was calling out directors on enforcement, but I was wondering how common a teardown request is not because I want to cheat but to know what to expect financially.
Maybe I misread the CCR, but when I saw that the competitor must do the disassembly and bear the cost, it made me think twice. I'm just saying, I'm working overtime and eating bologney sandwiches to be able to afford this hobby, so the time and cost of just verifying my valve springs might result in missing a race weekend, so one less car on the starting grid. In fact, I don't know what's inside my engine.

Didn't mean to stray off the spring topic.

Gary_44 wrote:


Gary, I am sorry for coming off a little harsh, but it wasn't directed to you specifically, more towards anyone who wishes to cheat in this class. I too have a LOT of time and $$ invested in this and I am just tired of every time I find a class that is affordable, equal and fun, someone always has to come along and F' it up for the rest of us just because they did their "homework" and found something that works or they have more $$ to spend. So please don't take it personally, I am just concerned that this class is going to go down the road of every other one I have run with and will do everything in my power to keep that from happening.

Now about 944 spec rules in general.


I have been aroun the class for 7 years now. It was about this time back in 2002 the 944 spec class began to get going. It was April 2002 that I first put 944-spec.com number boards on my car.

Anyway over the year I can tell you the class has not changed one bit in its intent.

The intent in 2002 was a competitive series at low cost. The idea was to make it class where driver was the key factor not how much money you could put into prep.

Today that ideal is the same. One thing to understand is that from the start we developed the rules around cost, speed, fun, equality reliablity and maitainability. These are all factors that can conflict so the goal has always been to provide the right balance among them.

The goal will be to contintue to find a balance as the series grows. What this can mean however is that sometimes in the interest of ensure balance performance that some parts on the car will require more maintenance. Some parts on the car may be more expensive that if we allow more freedom.

Unforunatly we cannot make perfect low cost serires while also making a perfectly equal series. The focus in equality of the class will not change nor will the commitment to containing costs. We need to maintain the good balance between these to keep exisiting drivers and to attract new ones. This does not mean no changes ever, but does require us to be smart.

Micheal's points are valid. All it takes are a few bad apples to ruin the basket and we don't want that happening. So we can't allow a situation where a suspect car is allowed contine to drive in the class. The local dirctors and NASA officials need to have the tools and the authority to deal with situations like this to prevent it from dragging the class down.

Believe me from a series director stand point I don't want to be DQing people left and right or spend all my race weekend doing teardowns. Even so I am always on the look out for those looking to push the boundries of what is acceptable and try to nip it in the bud long before a problem comes up.

Micheals advice is also valid that if you do want to constantly tinker and look for the "unfair advantage" please do it in another class. I know all the directors feel the same way and if we get guys who are like this try to push them gently where they will be happier. 944 spec is not a perfect class for all racers. It has benfits, but many limitations. I guy does not want to follow them they should go to a class that welcomes such envelope pushing innovation. Heck that is why NASA has many classes.

Gary I think we are on the same page with this.

As of the turbo valve springs the 2009 rules do not allow them. Their inclusion as allowances for 2010 can be suggested as there are some valid points. 2010 will allow for a rules update process and it can be submitted. Data will be needed as to why it is good for the class. Now this does not mean they would be approved in 2010. Please don't misunderstand that. What I am saying is that issues like this can be discussed and evaluated. Then the seires directors will make a decision. Please remember that one director does not make the rules. All the drivers have input through their directors and all the directors have input. Having been in the class for 7 years now I will say no rule set is locked in stone, however any changes need to be well thought out to ensure no unintended consequences.

Bravo and thank you.