This thread will have the rules changes proposed, and some pros & cons as they were stated (or as I see them). They are numbered below for reference. Give them a yes or no, and/or state your case if you have an opinion. There are some significant proposals below, and you are not allowed to complain if a rule change occurs (or fails) and you did not voice your opinion! If you do voice your opinion, and lose, you may complain once, in 50 words or less .

1. Balance shaft (belt) delete

I did some research into this as opinions on this option vary widely. A good thread on this is here: http://forum.44cup.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=958

Pro:
-Eliminates a potential catastrophic failure point - balance shaft belt failure taking out timing belt.
-Eliminates failures from mistiming the balance shafts.
-May free up some HP for lower performing cars.
-If plugging the oil galley is allowed, may increase pressure in the #2 bearing (where the balance shafts get their oil from).

Con:
-May cause harmonic vibration failures (anecdotal evidence, and opinions vary in strong ways). Porsche did not delete the balance shafts (or the belt) on their factory race cars.
-Unless balance shafts are required to be deleted, allowing the option reduces the tightness of the Spec ruleset (less "Spec").
-May result in a performance deficit for those who feel uncomfortable deleting the belt.

2. Oil Pan Gasket retainer

Pro:
-Increases reliability
-Reusable

Con:
-Cost

3. Expand legal balast mounting area

Pro:
-May allow for improved weight distribution and corner balancing.

Con:
- May result in ballast locations of questionable safety.
-May cause a lot of racers a small amount of work in relocating their current ballast.

With the above in mind, I am open to considering allowing ballast elsewhere on the floor pan, but not leaving this open entirely.

4. Allow 205/50/15 RR Toyo RR tires

Pro:
- Allows a less expensive tire, and take - offs from SM/SE30

Con:
- Decreases tight Spec of cars/rules in a potentially significant way.
-Adds complication in changing gearing & ride height - may create "horses for courses" scenario where one track favors one option vs. the other.
- Decreases the aesthetic of the car as the 205 tires get lost in the 944's generous fender flares
-Would need to be cleared with Toyo.

5. Remove rule 12.5 Heads and allowable shaving

Pro:
-Redundant with dyno and max compression rule
-Would more clearly allow heads under current limit with thick head gasket

Con:
-Removes easy enforcement without available dyno and Whistler

5b. Remove rule 13.5 computer management system

Pro:
-Redundant with dyno rule

Con:
-Opens the door for creative racers to employ clever engine management systems, and GTS style shenanigans to get around dyno testing
-Expense

6. Remove 18 - Special Transition allowance

Pro:
-None stated - ? decrease complexity of rules/reduce redundancy.

Con:
-Unless we allow lightweight flywheels, and the other mods specified in this rule, they would go back to being illegal for drivers wanting to try out the series with slightly non-compliant cars.

7. Allow offset Woodruf key

Pro:
-May help cars with highly shaved heads restore timing, and gain power.

Con:
-Questionable need/significance
-Hard to regulate
-May drive expense in creating multiple keys/dyno testing
-May create potential for weaker part/failure

8. Outlaw '88 computer

Pro:
-Increases tight Spec of cars/rules - '88 ECU allows an extra 160RPM before hitting the RPM limiter. This equates to an extra 2MPH in 3rd gear before a shift is required, where it most often is an issue. [The '88 ECU has not been shown to increase HP by itself in dyno testing]
-Increases parity of early and late cars.

Con:
-Large installed base on '88 computers would be affected by a rules change


The following 2 RCR's were communicated to me by Dave Dirks of 944 Motorwerks.

Dave is having increasing trouble finding pistons and blocks in OEM wear specs. He is increasingly having to get multiple engines to make one good one. He has a large pile of blocks that are OK save wear outside limits. Dave has made the following two requests:

9a. Allow blocks to be honed 20 thousandths oversize, and bores redone by factory process
9b. Allow exact reproduction '88 piston, 20 thousands oversize

Pro:
-Extend life of aging class and motors
-Allow use of blocks that are lightly damaged or out of wear
-Dyno rule makes power implications much less problematic
-Allows for better built, longer lasting motors

Con:
-Cost
-Potential power issues when dynos not employed.

10. Transmission Cooler

This comes from Neal agran this year, and was brought up last year. It was shelved d/t insufficent data. Transmission temps were recorded this year - often in 240-250 degree range, and have gone up to about 275 degrees. This is pretty hot, and likely affects transmission logetivity

Pro:
-Improved transmission temps, and likely longer life.
-Not complusory

Con:
-Cost
-Adds another point of failure & oil leak


11. Allow crankcase breather to vent to a catch can

I've added this one, because I see oil breathers/catch cans on cars around the country (vs. venting the crankcase into the intake boot OEM style). This may be worth some power, and is technically not legal up to this point. We need to decide on wether to allow this moving forward.

12a. Limit ram air ducting to bumper turn signal hole - or-
12b. No ducting to air filter element outside of OEM configuration. May use open element air filter within the engine compartment

Pro:
Fixes disparity between 924S and 944 cars in regards to air duct routing
Eliminates a method to increase HP that is unregulated
May decrease debris and water ingestion

Con:
Requires change to large installed base of cars

13. Allow use of Lexan for rear side windows.

Pro:
-Allows easy adoption of NACA ducts for driver cooling
-Inexpensive

Con:
-Other ways & places to put ducts
-Encourages a large amount of cars to spend some money
-One step further away from OEM

14. Removal of spare tire well for all cars

Pro:
-Allows early cars the same easier transmission access as late cars.
-Helps get cars to minimum weight.

Con:
- Possible aero benefit from earlier smaller tank have this removed (previous speculation, no data on this)
-Encourages more cutting on cars (and around fuel tank)



Dyno Rules

Please contact your series director with concerns/proposals.


Addendum - I realized I have two #5 rules proposals - I've made them 5a & 5b. Sorry for the confusion!

1. I am fine with a balance shaft delete, unless there is significant evidence saying I will have a higher risk of cracking a fuel rail.

2. Ambivalent. I haven't had an issue with my oil pan gasket.

3. Would prefer that the ballast location remains in the floor pan if opened up and not to the entire car.

4. I'm a big fan of this as I don't feel the added width of the 225 does anything except drive cost up.

5. I'm fine with the head rule going away, but am completely against allowing an aftermarket engine management. That would drive up costs significantly and would provide a larger advantage to those who have the resources to spend money on dyno tuning a car to eke out midrange gains and flatten the horsepower curve. It would also be an advantage to those who can go out to the Nationals tracks early to tune for max area under the curve. This definitely steps out against the stated clauses in the rule book to keep this a drivers class and not an engineering class. If you want to tune a car via a Motec or Megasquirt, go to GTS.

6. I think this is redundant. For Nationals a car should be compliant, no questions asked. For regional races, this can be dealt on a case by case basis with the region director and regional Spec 944 director.

7. I would not allow this unless there is a single supplier for this part. It comes back to the engineering statements in the rule book and low compression cars are competitive as is, IMO.

8. I do not see this as a major enough differentiator to require a rule change. If we were to ban the 88 computer, why wouldn't we ban 88 pistons and LSD's for the same reason?

9. I don't see why this rule shouldn't go through. Getting a group buy on reproduction pistons may make them cheaper and I can't imagine getting the bores replated is getting more expensive than finding, purchasing and shipping multiple motors in the hopes of finding one in specification.

1 That would be great to leave the balance shafts out but I'm afraid that it will cause disastrous results. Maybe not right away but down the road and it might only happen to a few. Knowing my luck, I'd be one of those few. Those that take them out would have a performance advantage over those that do not by having less rotating mass. Personally I would not want to take the chance. Right now everyone in the class has them installed and I say leave it that way. That way no one would have the performance advantage over someone who left them in.
NO to # 1

2 You won't gain any performance by running a oil pan gasket retaining bracket. If it saves just 1 engine, it's worth it. Most people won't want to run one but to have the choice to do so would be good.
YES to # 2

3 I'd be ok with this rule BUT if you go drilling holes above the gas tank, better be careful. If changed, wording should be so that it will be somewhere on the floor of the car and not in a roll bar or on the side of the inner rear fender. LOL
YES to # 3

4 We should feel special in having our own tire size for our class. I'd just leave this one alone.
NO to # 4

5A These are good as they are. Leave them in place.
NO to # 5

5B I'm a little confused about this. Are you talking about a new management system or just adding a chip to the stock system?? I think we should leave the stock DME and chip alone.
NO to # 5B

6 I understand why these rules are in place but has anybody used them?? Just delete this section completely.
YES for # 6

7 I believe it would help more to equalize the non 88 piston cars by restoring the timing on a shaved head.
YES to # 7

8 A lot of guys already have them, would they be willing to give them up?? I doubt it. Is the 160 RPM's worth a big advantage? Eric seems to think so.
A wishful thinking Yes to # 8

9 I understand the blocks with good bores are getting harder to find but why 88 pistons, why not the regular pistons. If 88 pistons give a HP advantage now, how much more HP gains will it be when it's bored .020 over with a perfect bore and 88 pistons?
YES & NO......NO to 88 pistons, Yes to regular ones.

10 Longer transaxle life, less fluid changes and you could even put a filter in. If someone is running enduro's, this would be the ticket. This is an example of something that is not really needed but would be nice to have to increase transaxle life. This looks like a nice setup. I know that the rear side window is illegal but what about the rest? One nice thing with the way it's setup, you don't need a fan.









YES to # 10

11 It would keep oil out of the J boot and the rest of the intake system. I think here again, it's a matter of preference if someone wants one or not. Sure it adds cost and you really don't need one, but would be nice to have.
YES to # 11

12 A & B I have "ram air" now, ducted thru the fog light but will convert back so I don't care either way but lets make up our minds and then leave it alone.

13 The only performance gain is less weight. If one were to remove the glass and add the NACA ducts and hoses, I bet the weight difference would be negligible. I will say that the replacement lexan should be mounted with the stock rubber gasket so that it looks stock. This way no one could gain a perceived "aero" advantage and the cars would look good too.
YES to 13 only if mounted factory style with the factory rubber gasket.

14 There is no need to cut more off the car. Leave the tire well in place.
NO to 14



Thanks for reading/listening
Ken Frey
# 3 MW Region

1. I would be in favor of allowing the balance shaft belt to be taken off but not deleting balance shafts from the motor. I think the concerns about the reliability without running the balance shafts are unfounded as I ran several years without one in SCCA with no problem and others have done the same. The only thing that I have seen relating to balance shafts that cause fuel rail cracks, etc. is mistiming them.

2. I have no objection to oil pan retaining gasket.

3. I would be okay with allowing ballast to be mounted on the passenger side floor all the way back to the bulkhead, but I think keeping it on floor level is important as a safety issue.

4. I've had enough of the tire changing from RA1 to R888 to RRR. Let's leave it alone.

5. Yes to doing away with the head thickness rule. Emphatic no to allow anything other than stock ECU.

6. No to eliminating the transition rule. The rule has a limitation on number of races before compliance is required but still allows non-compliant cars to be brought in to the class. We need all the cars we can get.

7. No to the offset Woodruff key. If you car is so out of spec that you need it, you need to get a different motor.

8. No to outlawing 88 ECU. Way too many of them out there and 160 rpm isn't going make enough difference to matter.

9a, 9b. No to allowing block honing and coating and oversize pistons. This is a high, high dollar solution that would escalate the cost of racing way about the level of "low cost racing". There were over 51,000 944 and 9,100 924S cars sold in the US between 1983 and 1988. Dave Dirks may have bought up all of the motors in Norcal but there are plenty of them out there in the rest of the country.

10. No to tranny coolers. While there is no question that they could improve longevity and do not give a competitive advantage, we have been racing these cars for years with a relatively low rate of transmission failures and I don't see the point of changing the rules for an expensive solution to a relatively small problem.

11. I don't have a problem with dyno rules except that I think the dyno number of a car when it comes off the track is what should determine compliance.

1. YES allow the belt delete only. Shafts must remain in place.

2. YES allow oil pan gasket retaining device.

3. NO keep ballast where it is. We have options of moving fire bottle and cool suit box to desired locations already.

4. NO on a tire change. The 205 will wear out faster, it is the law of physics. The specE30 guys are unhappy with the longevity of the 205 on their cars and they weigh slightly more than us.

5A. YES remove the head thickness and compression limit rule.
5B. NO the stock DME works great and provides parity for the class.

6. NO to eliminating the transition rule. It is already in place and is not an issue. It allows someone to come into Spec and give it a try.

7. YES to the offset woodruff key but only for low compression motors. Anything but factory timing is worse on these engines. Allow the LC motors to make equal HP to the HC motors.

8. YES outlaw the 88 DME. There are tracks where it has an advantage, it is easy to enforce and any late car can run on any late DME.

9A. NO to .020 oversize honing
9B. NO to new pistons at this time. If it does come to the point where we need them then only low compression pistons allowed with offset woodruff key.

10. NO tranny coolers, we race where it is hot (140+ track temps) and we are not having tranny problems.

11. YES to catch can.

DYNO RULES. YES to additional dyno rules clarifications. There are too many judgement calls being made that can lead to a DQ. There needs to be wording that spells out what exactly HP stabilization means in the rules. Currently it is a judgement call. I am proposing that the 3 compliance runs in a row have to have less than 3 HP/TQ variation. This may require up to 8 consecutive pulls to get that result. The driver/car owner should have every benefit of doubt removed before a DQ can happen. I believe that engine and trans temps should have minimum tempratures to guarentee equality. All cars being dynoed should have at least 6 consecutive pulls for compliance. We all know that the first few pulls are lower than the next few. Lets remove some of the burden from the unlucky guy who has to make that judgement call.

Charles Buzzetti

I didn't run this year - but I hope to be back next year.
1 No
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 No
5a Yes
5b No
6 No
7 Yes
8 No
9a Yes
9b Yes
10 Yes
11 Yes