Social Media


Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

Official Rules Change Proposal Thread
(1 viewing) (1) Guest

TOPIC: Official Rules Change Proposal Thread

Re: Official Rules Change Proposal Thread 6 years ago #18753

  • AgRacer
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 712
rd7839 wrote:
Heim joints, are you serious? This is what I hate about this time of year, the crazy ideas that are so far off the class intent. The only shifter issues anybody ever had are VERY easy and VERY cheap to fix and are well documented online but you want to swing for the fences and reinvent the wheel. We have been racing for years with the stock setup with very few issues. Shoot, twice this year when I had clutch hydraulic issues I ran races without the clutch pedal and made every upshift and down without issue. If you maintain the stock stuff and fix what's worn and still miss a lot of shifts, it's you!

Every car that I know personally has a rebuilt or replaced motor but only one that replaced a trans because of a failure so what's the ratio, 10 to 1, 20/1? Trannies( not you Steve) are not scarce, picknpull sells them for $150. There's always a couple cars there. If you're pulling fenders or other things, crawl underneath and pull the trans and stash it in the truck for a spare.

No offense Joe but you're telling us how bad our cars shift but you have yet to race yours. When you make it out I think you'll find just how fun these old cars are! As is! I appreciate that you want to make things better but your ideas are not free, not within everybody's means, and not needed.

I go through a couple cv joints a year, how about allowing custom u joints with chromoly axles? Or for engine reliability how about dry sumps?


Different racing environments cause different failures. Do you race in predominantly sandy environments? Is that a leading cause to your CV joint failures after the sand wears its way into the boot? Ive been racing for 3 season now and not had a single CV joint failure. Within the second race, my ring and pinion blew. Since racing in those 3 seasons, I personally know of 5 ring and pinion failures. On the flip side, I also personally know of zero blown motors and faintly remember 1 CV failure. Just because your group hasn't had a problem doesn't mean a separate part of the country isn't experiencing the issue. Different climates and different tracks take their tolls on our cars differently.

I for one cant stockpile transmissions from junkyards and donor cars like Chicken Shack Racing. I PCS to new duty stations every 2-4 years and cant afford the weight for the government to ship all these spare racing parts from one post to another. Id rather focus on simple improvements that dramatically increase the reliability and usability of our equipment. When these improvements are the right about of common sense, value, and ease to install, they deserve a consideration.


Another defense for the new mirror rule, sometimes it should be the underlying message that is the driving factor. The underlying message is that you prepare yourself properly for racing and to do that, you need to know who else is on track around you. That requires something so simple as blind spot elimination mirrors for the sake of both your car and others having fun with you on track. You don't want to do something simple like properly setup your mirrors? Then go race in another class or go back to point-bys in DE.
J. Stanley
NASA-SE Region 944 Spec Series Director
Yellow #60

Re: Official Rules Change Proposal Thread 6 years ago #18755

  • rd7839
  • OFFLINE
  • Endurance Racer
  • Posts: 625
My cv issues are because I run pretty low in the rear, lower than most( I did raise it a bit earlier this year).

If you have swapped out your diff or had it out for any reason you probably set the lash wrong and that's why you are losing ring & pinions. Set it looser than the factory calls for and you won't lose another unless you're doing burnouts!

Re: Official Rules Change Proposal Thread 6 years ago #18760

What's the officials ruling on the part below? Is that an acceptable interpretation of the replacement rules? Nice looking part and it is CHEAP.

Ron, publicly mocking my cross-dressing tendencies may result in pictures from my birthday last year being publicly posted. You've been warned

The shifter in the 944, in new condition, pretty much sucks compared to my modern cars. However, I can't say I miss many shifts (occasionally the 2-3 shift coming out of 11 at Sonoma when I rush it). If the part below is considered legal, I'd probably try one and see if it tightens things up a bit.

AgRacer wrote:
joeblow wrote:
Ummm I do NOT intend to install a short shifter (you can if you want...unadvised). They make the shifting tighter and notchy making it easier to miss-shifts. I would like to change the linkage at the tranny to heim joints to remove all slop and go with the same at the shifter too.

One of the issues with the 944 shifting is the extreme temperature change at the shifter causing things to expand and get out of alignment. Heim jonts are better at taking heat changes and staying in tolerance than a solid shaft riding in a solid bore (ie stock).

Also as I said in my original post the shifter position is required to remain as STOCK. This eliminated the back seat driving position and any other such tomfoolery.

This is NOT a performance mod or a big money 'must have' thing. This is basic upgrades to make things MORE reliable and less likely to FAIL. Seems like a no brainer to me.


Exactly this:

only944.com/partscatalog/only/shiftlinkagearm/

Which is made to eliminate slop and replace worn stock components which are very simply made. It does not change shift throw in the slightest and as such, I believe is not in violation of the current rule as it is written.

14.3.1 Transmission shift linkage may be modified to remove slop or to repair worn components. The length of the shift lever and the distance of throw of the shifter may not be modified. “Short Shifters” are not allowed.

Re: Official Rules Change Proposal Thread 6 years ago #18765

  • rd7839
  • OFFLINE
  • Endurance Racer
  • Posts: 625
Hey, I understood that party to be a "birthday" celebration of your new open, out there lifestyle choice and I wore that pink lacy top and those terrycloth Daisy Dukes in support of YOU and now you want to sell me out. Well mister I say to heck with you!

Besides, what are you commenting for, you aint got no car!(too soon?). You should probably propose a parachute rule for cars getting more than 20 feet in the air!

Re: Official Rules Change Proposal Thread 6 years ago #18766

Hey we're NorCal, these lifestyle choices are perfectly acceptable

...and I still have a car, it is just slightly more compact.

Re: Official Rules Change Proposal Thread 6 years ago #18767

^ Cheater

The rules use the term "modify" not replace. If you took the system as a whole, you could argue that replacing this one part is modifying the system. This is definitely one of the areas to ask first! That said, it a nice, reasonable piece, and I've seen the OEM unit bend on more than one occasion.

I have the whole kit - front and rear in the LS1 944 "PorsChev" hybrid I'm building (more on that later). It's really nice - high quality, thrust bearings, stainless, and very reasonable. It does make the shift action most excellent (at least sitting in the garage!). The front shifter (here:only944.com/partscatalog/only/shifter/) is cheaper, dimensionally the same, and a big improvement over the factory one most buy to replace the worn, football- shaped original.The last Spec shift linkage I rebuilt, I took apart several rear linkages, used all the least worn parts, and made a bushing for the front, with a new factory shift lever. It was pretty good, but a lot of time, and fussing, and only possible with access to several transmissions. New OEM plastic pieces are expensive.

I do see this as an issue. The one caveat with the using the whole unit referenced is that it is a short shift mechanism. We could consider allowing dimensionally equivalent aftermarket replacement specifically, which would allow the rod in question above, and the front shifter, as at least a partial solution.
Eric Kuhns

National Director Emeritus

2007, & 2008 National Champion
2011, 2012 2nd
Banner
Time to create page: 0.11 seconds