I am opposed to any DA. I do not trust series directors with my data. We are all competitors, after all. If I want to share my data, that should be my choice.

This rule is NOT needed. If a car is suspected of having a cheater motor, the present rules give NASA plenty of ways to investigate it.

This rule ventures out from rules that govern our specific physical build requirements (for 944's) and gets into areas of the rules that I believe should be left to NASA's rule set. After all, they have other classes that actually have HP to weight limits and they do not believe that they need this kind of rule to keep things correct so why do we think we need this rule. I think we are getting nuts, as a class.

Once again, NO NEW RULES unless there is a clear reason to make a change because it reduces our cost (like lexan windshields) or addresses a performance issue.

Jim

I'm against DA as a rule enforcement tool - simply too much open to interpretation, error, etc here.

Charlie brings up a good point - is there a history of protests by competitors in 944 Spec? If not, then where is the issue that is spurring all of this discussion?

Oh yeah, I forgot to add "NO NEW RULES" we don't need either of these as rules for 944Spec.

So it should not be one or the other it should be neither.

I see no value to either idea. The data collected while somewhat accurate is not exact. It also suggests that every competator should have data aquisition. If this is low cost racing some may not want to take on expense. It also smells of Formula 1 in the oversite of racers and cars. I say no to both ideas

Too many variables in measuring HP...ambient temp, altitude, etc to use a DA for any meaningful data. Opposed to 2011-7a and 2001-7b.

Version 1 - NO! This will address only the data sharing portion of this version. I will address general concerns with data sharing below.

I am absolutely opposed to forced data sharing with other competitors. I emphasize FORCED and COMPETITORS here. I have no problem sharing data if I choose to but, to the extent that I am competing with others and so not want to share information that cost me time, effort and money to get, that should be my choice and not the "rule". Please remember, we race because we like to compete against other racers.

Version 2 - NO! This version still gives my data to my competitors, the series directors, that will have FULL access to all data. The series directors are our competitors. Why should they have an unfair advantage.

The justifications for these proposed rules are to find "outliers" (read "cheaters"). This presumes that we have cheaters. Excuse me!

There seems to be general knowledge that data is NOT reliable to determine hp. There are sufficient rules in place to deal with suspected cheaters. Use them until they are shown to be inadequate for the job. As I understand it, there has never been anyone that has been found to have a cheater engine in the history of 944-Spec. Eric had one that he suspected but never got the chance to determine if, in fact, the competitor was cheating but the existing rules would have allowed him to determine if it was a cheater engine. The rules provide for protesting competitors if someone has a concern. NASA can do it's own compliance checks without a protest if it decides to.

Most regions do not believe that there are cheaters in their regions. If that changes, they can use the existing rules to verify and deal with any cheating that is found.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. NO NEW RULES.

Big Dog