While the wording is still in progress, I wanted to get a draft of the decision on the rules change proposals out there now. The intent is to have the final wording of the approved changes off to NASA by Dec 1st.


1) Ram Air

-No change to current rule.

There was a lot of discussion on this, as many good points were raised on both sides by the drivers on the threads. There was clearly divided opinion on this on the forums. Interestingly, the comments when this was clarified last year were uniformly positive. In the end, it was felt that there was not enough evidence that this would be problematic to warrant overturning what is now an established rule. We thought through the case of the 924S, and decided that any potential disadvantage (if any) of not having the foglight to duct through is offset by the 924S's known aero advantage. If there is significant data to the contrary, we will look at that next year.

2) Header coating

-Denied

There was little support for the need for this (outside of the requesting driver) on the forums, or elsewhere. Cost and performance concerns outweighed the claim of improved engine longevity, which was deemed doubtful


3) Castor block mount repair

We decided to allow repair of this, just as crash damage can be repaired. It is incumbent on the racer that the end result retain OEM geometry, and alter the original structure in the minimum way required to effect the repair. Phil's specific proposed fix to his car was thought to be reasonable, as a guide. No new rule required

4) Turbo valve springs

-Allowed

[i] After further research to establish no reasonable performance benefit from turbo valve springs, the cost savings was thought to warrant a rule change (Apologies to BJ, who requested this last year!)

5) Urethane in windows of the transmission mounts.

-Allowed

Some research indicated that does this may improve CV joint life. While this research was not conclusive, the minimal cost of this modification was not thought to be prohibitive. Also noted was that this modification may save the cost of a new trans mount, which is quite expensive


6) Enlarge oiling hole for crank.

-Allowed, but definition needed

Rod bearing failures, while much less common with cross drilling the crank, are still seen. A simple modification to improve oil flow to this problematic area was thought to have merit

7) Lexan Hatch

-Denied

The cost for implementing this class wide far outweighs the potential benefits, which were deemed to be minimal. There was little support for this outside of the requesting driver. This ruling is highly unlikely to change in the future

8) Turbo Oil FIlters

-Allowed, no rule change needed

Oil filters are not regulated

9) Allow replicating plastic ducting to radiator

-Allowed

Many times these plastic parts are missing, or broken on donor cars, and are critical to maintaining cooling. Replicating this ducting is encouraged if it is missing. No restrictions on materials for this

10) Allow Turbo Axles

-Approved

Late turbo axles are both stronger, and cheaper than the N/A ones. Some suppliers, such as Paragon, have superseded the N/A part with the Turbo one. Dimensions, and performance potential, are the same. The turbo axle has 25 splines, and the N/A, 33 splines. Many of you may have turbo axles in, and not realize it. This rule makes that clearly legal.

-------------------------

Further discussion points among the series directors for future rules consideration:

We have been collecting data from the best motors at Nationals, and elsewhere.
There is increasingly solid evidence that shaving the head on a 9.5:1 piston motors does not allow the same performance potential as the 10.2:1 compression motors. The increasing scarcity of of '88 pistons is also becoming an issue. Over the next year, we will be taking a close look at defining the difference in performance potential, and considering options to bridge that gap.

We will also be looking at ways to alleviate issues in parts availability, possibly through aftermarket suppliers, and possibly through rules adjustments. It is too early to go into details about this, but we want to be proactive on dealing with these issues.

None of this impacts next year directly, including the 2012 Nationals.
Expect these bigger issues to be tackled for the 2013 rules.
Keep in mind, that if you are spending extra money building an '88/10.2 compression piston motor this year, the advantage of doing so, may be short lived.
Let me be clear that we will *not* be outlawing '88 motors. They have been, and will remain legal.
However, a carefully executed performance adjustment on the '88 motors, or allowance for the low compression motors is very possible for 2013. We will be looking into, and testing options over the next year.

I want to follow up with some important comments Eric has made.

Back in 2002 when the class was created 88 motors with 10.2:1 compression pistons were seen as something that could provide a power edge. The rules back then were written with a note about possible weight penalty for 88 motors. At the time dyno testing was performed and nothing conclusive was determined. It seemed that back in 2002-2004 10.2:1 pistons were not a deciding factor in racing finishes. So as the rules evolved the wording about 88 weight penalty was dropped.

Over the years the possibility has remained that 10.2:1 pistons could provide an edge. As happens as a series develops to a greater level of perparation over tiem and driver skill gaps are decrease. As such small changes in power begin to have a greater impact on the on track results.

So based on some dyno testing done at Nationals this past year we are begining to rethink the impact of 10.2:1 pistons. We had some data and considered making a change for 2012, but realized that it would not be prudent to make change like this on limited data in short time. So we 944 directors chose instead to make no changes on this subject for 2012, but attempt to gather data over the course of the year to properly understand and evaluate the issue.

As Eric stated we no intention to outlaw 10.2:1 pistons or to create rules to make them uncompetitive. We only want to ensure those with 10.2:1 motors do not have an advantage over the rest of the class with 9.5:1 pistons. As you can imagine there could be many ways achieve nice competitive balance both percieved and real. That is what we will be exploring during 2012 for 2013 incorporation. Constructive comments and feedback are apperciated.

Looks like common sense prevailed this round

Thank you 944Spec Directors for taking the time to be involved and caring about this class.

Even though I am always shouting "NO NEW RULES" there will come a time when competitive adjustments will need to be addressed.

The proposed rules seem well thought out and I dont see any real issues comming from them.

I would like to proposed an option for a competitive adjustment for the future that will affect only the fastest cars and drivers. It is called REWARDS Weight and is used by the SPEEDVISION (Pirelli) racing series with great results.

Here is a cut and paste from their web site.

R.E.W.A.R.D.S. System: Rewarding of Equalizing Weight Assigned to Reduce Driver Sensitivity, referred to as “REWARDS Weight,” is a weight equalization system based on the addition and subtraction of ballast weight based on the finishing position of individual drivers in the previous race(s). The goal of the REWARDS System is to provide close ontrack competition between a diverse variety of cars in the top third of the field. REWARDS System weight adjustments are in effect for the next race in which a driver competes in the same class. The maximum additional weight is 7% in GT and GTS and 5% in Touring Car.

Weight adjustments (in pounds) are as follows:

TC (TOURING CAR)

1st +1.5%

2nd +1%

3rd +0.5%

4th–5th 0

6th -0.5%

7th -1%

A cap of 5% maximum weight penalty is 130 lbs. No car will be under minimum weight.

This will help handicap the fastest cars and drivers regardless of engine compression. It seems unfair to me to handicap a driver who may have a high compression engine but not yet be on the podium. This is especially true for anyone with a 924s. Those cars came with the 10.2 motor stock.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks again for all your efforst to make this the place to race.

Thanks for the input, Charlie.

A REWARDS style sytem has been thought about some, and has some merit. The sticky points are what to do with Nationals, and if it is far that one mid pack guy beats another based on equipment. However, your point is well taken, that penalizing drivers based on the potential of their car, rather than the actual performance can also be problematic. Dynos for each car has its own up side and downsides, as well.

We'll be working on this over the next year.

One point of clarification, the '87 924S's came with the 9.5:1 motor. Only the '88's had the 10.2's, like the 944's.

cbuzzetti wrote:


Just thinking out loud and adding to your idea.....
You would need a standard set of weights that could easily be installed or uninstalled in a few minutes. They have days between their races, we only have 1. What about multiple races on the same day, so the weights, mounting holes and location would have to be standard. Every region would have a set of standardized weights. Its that or every driver would have to carry a bunch of weights around.

Instead of a percentage, something like this.....
1st would add 100 lbs
2nd would add 75 lbs
3rd would add 50 lbs
4th would add 25 lbs
5th thru last would add 0

How much weight do you add? How do you know when to stop adding weight to a car? This might make the cars equal but what about driver talent? Adding weight to a top finisher doesn't make a mid packer a better driver, it only slows the top driver down. It's a vicious circle.

It's a neat idea but I don't know????

We used penalty weight in Cup racing up to 50LBS IIRC. The fast guys still won.