I don't get why this is introduced with the warning "We will not be rehashing the dyno rules this year," yet the next paragraph says "the only clarification will be ...." Any "clarification" of a rule is, at least for someone, a change to the rule (otherwise there would be no need for a "clarification" in the first place). The topic is listed with a "Vote here" label, yet the item is introduced as if the decision is already made.

Whenever someone says something is "advisory" that means it is subject to the determination of some official/arbiter. We should be striving for fairness throughout, not even the hint that someone with an agenda ignored an "advisory" part of a rule because they wanted to.

If we are going to "rehash" the dyno rules, then let's rehash them. Otherwise, leave them alone.

Welcome Dancing - where are you from?

Rules will always involve interpretation. They also need to be enforceable. Our series directors are carefully selected to make these calls, and have earned the trust of their regions.

If you are bored, you can read the last few years discussions on the dyno cap!

I am not advocating rehashing the rule. We in Southern California have a great series leader, who is certainly very capable of interpreting the rule fairly. Oh wait, that's me.

Rules should be written to lessen the likelihood of disputes about interpretations. Changing the rule to say that the operation parameters of the dyno are only "advisory" only increases the likelihood of disputes and perceptions of bias in the interpretation.

Everett, let's talk this through among the SD's so as not to clog up this thread more than it is.

I put the specific revision of the dyno rule in the initial post (towards the bottom) to make things more clear.

1. Balance shaft (belt) delete

I think I agree to this as one less thing to go wrong, fail or otherwise jinx the situation. Not 100% in agreement as it (again ) getting away from the intent of the rules. (Can the oil gallery be plugged by some one at home using common tools for example).


2. Oil Pan Gasket retainer

Agree with this - reducing potential oil leaks is always good

3. Expand legal balast mounting area

I'm OK with anywhere on the floor pan. Not OK with an open location.

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

I like the idea of a common size to allow the use of take offs but think it's opening us to problems. Possibly allowing the current size OR the 205's would work.

5. Remove rule 12.5 Heads and allowable shaving

Keep the restriction - easy to use for compliance without Dyno

5b. Remove rule 13.5 computer management system

Absolutly NOT. Gets away from the Spec concept. Big wallets will take over the series (more than now at least !)

6. Remove 18 - Special Transition allowance

Keep - Get crossovers coming to the series. They are limited as to how many races they can do before meeting the full rules so no major impact.

7. Allow offset Woodruf key

No - Not convinced easy to enforce, and again getting away from the Spec concept

8. Outlaw '88 computer

I'd like to but too many out there and the benefit is limited.


9a. Allow blocks to be honed 20 thousandths oversize, and bores redone by factory process

Ambivelent - more custom work on the engines and it will become the "necessary" mod

9b. Allow exact reproduction '88 piston, 20 thousands oversize

As above for 9a


10. Transmission Cooler

I don't believe they are needed but don't see a problem with allowing them


11. Allow crankcase breather to vent to a catch can

This should be a choice - little performance gain and easy to monitor.

Dyno Rules

I believe these still need work - we failed to have a repeatable process at Nationals, and measurements would change daily (and not within a margin of error).