Social Media


Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

2017 Rules Proposal Thread
(1 viewing) (1) Guest

TOPIC: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 5 years, 8 months ago #21377

  • KJZ78701
  • OFFLINE
  • Comp School
  • Posts: 27
Can someone please tell me where these rails are leaking?
The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 5 years, 8 months ago #21378

  • cbuzzetti
  • OFFLINE
  • Endurance Racer
  • 944 Spec = The best racing on the planet
  • Posts: 1192
My personal experience with 2 failures has been both were on cars with properly timed balance shafts.

On both of my failures the crack was next to one of the mounting ears. Because these cars are so old there is no way of knowing complete history of fuel rails.
2018 NASA 944Spec National Champ
2018 NASA ST5 P2 944 Nationals COTA
2017 NASA 944Spec WSC P3
2016 NASA PTD-944 WSC P2
2015 NASA GTS1 Western Champion
2014 NASA 944Spec Western Champion
2013 NASA 944Spec So-Cal Regional Champion
2013 NASA 944Spec National P3
2010 NASA GTS-1 National Champion
2010 NASA 944Spec National P3
2010 NASA So-Cal 944Spec Regional Champion
2009 NASA 944Spec National Champion
The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 5 years, 8 months ago #21379

  • KJZ78701
  • OFFLINE
  • Comp School
  • Posts: 27
The great thing about having a speced torque curve, is that it makes all of this back and forth about power advantages no more than an interesting cogitative exercise completely independent of the rules about safety.

The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 5 years, 8 months ago #21380

  • KJZ78701
  • OFFLINE
  • Comp School
  • Posts: 27
On both of my failures the crack was next to one of the mounting ears.

Thank you. Simple solution for me. Isolate the rail from vibration and stress. Make the mounting holes in the rail a bit larger, use some thin rubber between the four mounting points and the motor and use a thicker medium density foam "washer" between the rail and the tops of the mounting bolts. Throw a little high temp RTV on the threads of the mounting bolts and don't tighten much beyond "snug". Index the bolt heads with a Sharpie and check them after a few laps to make sure they are not backing out.
The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 5 years, 8 months ago #21381

  • cbuzzetti
  • OFFLINE
  • Endurance Racer
  • 944 Spec = The best racing on the planet
  • Posts: 1192
KJ that sounds like a good remedy. The only flaw I can see with that is the 25+ years of use previous to the upgrade. There may already be damage that is unknow to you.

Not saying you have trouble looming ahead, just saying that it won't fix it if it has already started. Unfortunately there is no way to know.

This has always been a problem and it does not seem to be ramping up in any big way but certainly we should be looking at a fix for those who want it.

As far as performance goes. We have a HP/TQ limit. You will still have to be legal so I feel that point is moot.

Both of my failures were a very slow drip. Lucky I guess.
2018 NASA 944Spec National Champ
2018 NASA ST5 P2 944 Nationals COTA
2017 NASA 944Spec WSC P3
2016 NASA PTD-944 WSC P2
2015 NASA GTS1 Western Champion
2014 NASA 944Spec Western Champion
2013 NASA 944Spec So-Cal Regional Champion
2013 NASA 944Spec National P3
2010 NASA GTS-1 National Champion
2010 NASA 944Spec National P3
2010 NASA So-Cal 944Spec Regional Champion
2009 NASA 944Spec National Champion
The topic has been locked.

Re: 2017 Rules Proposal Thread 5 years, 8 months ago #21382

  • Atteberry
  • OFFLINE
  • Seasoned Racer
  • Posts: 222
It would appear that suggesting a part replacement for safety reasons should be our first concern and focus. The cost of such a replacement part should not be a factor in the decision of approval if this replacement part cures the safety issue that is a known problem. That said maintaining consistent performance versus the OEM part is a valid debate issue. By implementing a strict HP/TQ power cap and having car dyno'd we can very easily measure the need for consistent performance between the two parts. I would propose we have 7's Only under take the testing of the proposed replacement part with the OEM part and report back if in fact the replacement part maintains the same performance profile as the OEM part. After we receive those findings we can then make the needed inform decision as to approving this rules change or not.
The topic has been locked.
Banner
Time to create page: 0.10 seconds