Jump to content

Huggy

Members
  • Content Count

    1,970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Huggy last won the day on March 23

Huggy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,914

About Huggy

  • Birthday 11/03/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Raleigh, NC

Recent Profile Visitors

3,779 profile views
  1. Since the above devices are not defined, how are reasonable members supposed to interpret what constitutes said devices. For a "wing", apparently the uprights and end plates are included, with no specific limitations on plane, thickness, size, etc except for the boundary box of the car For a "splitter" however, there are specific limitations on how it can be implemented. Strange. I wonder if there are limitations on diffusers, aero pans, side skirts, etc? Can I make multi-dimensional side skirts for 10 points? What about integrating venturi tunnels into my aero-pan?
  2. Auto tune works for fuel, but does nothing for ignition
  3. Why can the TAC not ever recommend leaving things well enough alone? Since the inception of the TAC committee, nothing but changes have occurred to rules that were not really broken or needed in the first place, which have caused confusion, costs, and plenty of discussions. Obvious Examples: Fender rule Fuel lines in cockpits Splitter interpretation Which aero cars were dominating? Why did the TAC feel the need to "nerf" front end aero? What do you expect teams to do? How do you expect people to react when they go to Tech and get a different answer than they received the year before, without any advanced notice? There is enough stuff that IS broken that should be keeping yall busy... See the 25 or so petitions I submitted for clarifying existing rules without attempting to change the intent/interpretation at all. Its apparent i'm going to lose I have lost this battle, but i'm still passionate about it, it still is costing me time and money, and I still hope to get at least some sort of point across that making changes like this without going through the standard and expected change process is not OK. The change has still not been officially announced, if anyone is keeping score. Regards Chris
  4. How do we know the original poster is legit and not doing something suspicious? This is how brigading starts on the internet. Lets not perpetuate that. If the OP wants help, offer up proof of wrongdoing and lets figure it out. Otherwise, we have no proof the OP isn't attempting wrongdoing personally.
  5. Im still not sure what to do. I am rebuilding a 3.73 diff this weekend in prep to swap it in Friday evening if necessary. I'm bringing my street e30 with a 3.73 to see how it feels at TNIA. I dont mind running mine up to 6500, but I am worried about topping it out. Based on Youtube vids from Charlotte, I am expecting to see ~125mph into T3, and I dunno how much I will need to lift or how much speed will be scrubbed turning.
  6. Seems oK to me too. Uprights for a wing are also 10 points So are end plates, 10 points oh, and E30's get a 30 point reduction. Heck, every car gets a 30 point reduction while we are tossing rules stability out the window. Seems reasonable to me.
  7. That picture is from 2017 It has been that way for 2 years, before suddenly changing in 2019 - notice the "chumpcar" logo banner? I tried arguing this with tech also... but if the vertical portion of the splitter is treated as a separate device, there is no reason that the vertical portions of the wing should not be separate devices also. "spoiler" = 10 points Airfoil = 10 points Airfoil End Plates = 10 points Airfoil uprights = 10 points
  8. I want it to be 10 points for a functional splitter. Which requires a device to stop the air from getting between the car and the bottom of the bumper, on SOME cars. On other cars, the bumper design allows them to get a functional splitter without needing to add vertical materials. Dont forget, 10 points per upright holding your wing in the airstream.
  9. Well, technically your correct... However, IMO, we are really off the rails if this is what the series is coming to. I guess I better go make sure I have late-model doors, fenders, etc also
  10. Read Petition 14, and write the BOD with your opinion on the matter.
  11. Well here is one on Ebay.. https://www.ebay.com/itm/BMW-OEM-E30-325is-325es-Front-Air-Dam-Spoiler-Valance-New-W-Brackets-Rare-NLA-/253038260667 They generally go for $3-400 in used condition, with either missing or broken brackets/mounting hardware, which is also expensive ($150 ish). That front end only came on "ES" or '87 "is" models. Its generally irrelevant anyways, as the design of my splitter lets it "float" so it can be closer to the track. If I have to mount it direct to the underside of any fixed front bumper parts, it will not work. The later model IS front end (which I use), has some optional lips that are 1-2 inches lower. I guess I could fill the gap with 200mph tape or something silly, tape is free right? What about vinyl wrap? Maybe I can re-purpose the seat leather or something. I still disagree with you regarding the chart. The effectiveness of the splitter is exponentially less effective with every increase in distance from the pavement. Also, a flat piece of splitter with no "wall" behind it to stop the air is basically just nose ballast, I don't buy the "smoother start" at all. Sometime earlier this year champcar officials got together and decided that any "vertical" component of the front splitter counted as an air dam. Regardless of the size, where it was mounted, etc. Multiple teams were caught off guard at 2019 tech by having to take an extra 10 points even though the cars did not change. Ray apparently argued for an "allowance" to let cars with varying front bumper designs still install a functional splitter for 10 points, but this was shot down by the rest of the group. The thing is, some cars are minimally affected by the change, whereas others are heavily affected. I am upset for 2 reasons 1. This is a rule change that I disagree with, both on a personal (I am affected by it) level and on a technical level (it doesnt make financial or performance sense) 2. It was done in secret, and since the rule book did not change, the "public" did not become aware of it. Additionally, the last day for petitions was at the end of February, yet I found out about it on 01Mar at VIR-S tech. Therefore, I was not able to write or submit any petition related to the incident. Some teams became aware at Road Atlanta, so this has been a thing since at least 08Feb, and its now 11Apr and no announcement has been made. When I wrote an email to champcar expressing my displeasure (it was respectful), I was shut down pretty effectively, to the point I am really hesitant to be involved in this discussion now. Edit: Whether or not this change directly affects you/yourteam/yourcar, it should be at least a bit concerning to you that the rules stability that seemed to be on everyones "priority" list is still not anywhere close to here. This car/splitter/aero package has been unchanged since August 2017, and now my choice is to go spend money to make it legal again, or "take the 10 points" which seems to be a common saying among cars which start with points to play with, but really doesn't help when you are already at or near 500 points - it still means spending money to take other parts off.
  12. Not sure how you gather a savings of money here. I have to go buy one of those fascias now in order to continue using the splitter package I developed in 2017, based on a (still) un-announced secret rule change that happened in early 2019
  13. Fixed this, in case there was any doubt.
  14. 10 points but $300 worth of rare OEM parts... Meanwhile, my $10 sheet of plastic is to do the EXACT same thing is now worth 10 points all by itself. (Whereas it wasnt in 2017 or 2018). And, champcar officially still has not announced this rule interpretation change. #imabitupset
×
×
  • Create New...