Shannon, we do not plan to require a dyno to start the season. Recommended, but not required.

Sterling Doc wrote:


And what exactly does that mean?

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

Sounds like alot of assumptions.

cbuzzetti wrote:


I dont mean to put words in Eric's moulth, but look at it this way. 944 is one of many NASA classes that aim to keep a cap on expenses. NASA has seen good value in implementing dyno rules as a tactic to achieve that goal. Eric has done a great job of leveraging lessons learned in applying the concept to 944. In other words, we're not breaking new ground or exploring new frontiers, rather just fine tuning what those before us have done. Its not about one or even five drivers, or cars, or engines. Its about managing the product; low cost race series.

I like the notion that there is no dyno required, just recommended. That is definitely user friendly for those that are not worried about it.

I imagine I will do one, I have not done one since Miller, just to be sure. Again, I will do one at Miller on the "official" dyno to, again, be sure as well as to check the high altitude fuel ratio.

Jim

Addressing the dyno cost, I for one like the fact that now I have an additional reason to go pay for an hour on the dyno. I had always planned on doing it before, since the car is new to me and I have no idea how much power its making. Again, a dyno sheet isn't required. If your quibbling over $150 once a year, then I don't think your being honest with yourself on how the money is being spent. Once people get past the reasoning that it may or may not be required in the rules, I think they will start to understand that its a valuable asset in planning their future spending. You may find out that the motor may need a rebuild after this season when you were actually planning for it another two down the road. The cost of the dyno is the small potato. I think that once the masses start dyno'ing on a regular basis, we as a class will also start to learn more about our cars. The benefits to this outweigh the negatives.

Guys, as much as I hate to resurrect this, I had a particularly interesting, yet simple idea brought up as we were tweaking the final wording of this rule (soon to be posted).

There has been interest in a less draconian penalty than a DQ, but the options that had come up so far, seemed impractical to implement.

The suggestion was to make the penalty for dyno non-compliance be a move to last place instead of a DQ. The competitor would then be forced to prove compliance before competing again. An option would be to make a second offense a DQ. The "move to last place" clause has a few advantages:

1) It does not end a season points run for one break out, but is still a fairly serious penalty.
2) It lessens the consequences of dyno variation.
2) It does not carry over into other events, which gets messy.
3) It still tightly controls the National Championships, where most of the podium contenders will likely be on that dyno (which lessens the dyno variation issue). A move to last place at Nationals might as well be a DQ. It makes one rule somewhat flexible - effectively a bit tougher at Nationals, than regionally.
4) It still forces competitors to tune down any over-achieving motors (especially if the second offense is a DQ), which is the ultimate goal.

With this consideration, we might also consider bringing the hard cap down to 138, instead of 140, as that number was picked in part because of the gravity of the penalty.

I am going to hunker down here - thoughts?