Thoughts are that the rules season isn't yet upon us and you should be bringing this up to your regional director (who will then bring it up to all the directors). Not all of the racers are on this board or active on here.

I'm not sure why you are so keen on allowing the coated headers - I haven't yet seen a problem described that would make me lean to changing the existing rules. Those who wish to reduce underhood heat have an option, and those who don't like the trade offs are able to run stock. Both have pluses and minuses and are a compromise.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE etc etc etc

JerryW wrote:


Are you not the least bit curious as to why wraps are ok but coatings are not? Do you not see a weirdness about it at all?

Also the Quote about if its not broke....

I think we have an argument for and against almost every proposed rule change even if it isn't a problem.

Lexan - Glass works just fine
Allowing Ram Air? - works just fine stock
Allowing for the removal of the stock sunroof and anything can go in its place? - really? absolutely no reason there

How have any of those changes improved our class as a whole? Some may be able to score lexan cheap but not all.

Anyways, my point is that we should either allow both or neither. The fact that one is allowed but not both comes across as completely arbitrary.

I will keep people updated as I discover more information on it.

I also encourage anyone (maybe some big wig upstairs lol) who can provide some input as to:

A. the reason behind the rule as it stands now
or
B. Some more info on the coating
or
C. Some general thoughts or guidance for the test

TIA

For the record: I wasn't trying to make waves or make anyone mad I just saw something that didn't make sense in our rules so I brought it up. Open communication will keep this class great!

Here are a few different discussions on the matter of wrap vs coating if anyone is interested.

www.sccaforums.com/forums/forumid/23/postid/25349/scope/posts

www.thirdgen.org/techboard/aftermarket-p...wrap-vs-ceramic.html

www.fordmuscleforums.com/all-ford-techbo...-vs-header-wrap.html

www.350z-tech.com/wiki/index.php/Header_wrap_vs_Header_coating

The more I think about it, if we don't allow a coating it's fine. However, I'd prefer to be able to wrap the header if I feel that it will reduce engine bay temps.

So my position has changed and I say we leave the rule alone. Good discussion though.

Certainly I was curious, just didn't see why we needed to change the rules. When I decided to join the class I looked at the rules and accepted their conditions, as written. If they were OK for all the existing cars I could accept them too (and I joined the class just as the big Header/Chip change came in for reference).

I just don't know why people keep wanting to change a rule set that IS WORKING


944sracer wrote:

My previous reply might come off as knocking what you guys were asking - and that isn't my position. It's more lets NOT change things that exist unless there is a really GOOD reason.

Having had a little experience with coatings I can offer my opinion as to why coatings shouldn't be allowed while wraps should. To get any benefit from a coating, you need a quality job done by someone who knows what they are doing. It will help a little but will cost a not so insignificant amount and despite what is said it is not permanent so it will have to be redone occasionally. Wraps on the other hand can be bought at Kragens or even Walmart I beleive, are cheap and easy to do and might not really do much.

I'm still running the original header with no problems and don't often hear about too many failed headers and only have heat issues when something else is wrong, otherwise water and oil temps are pretty good for most of us and beleive it or not, it does get hot here in Norcal.