Jump to content

Huggy

Members
  • Content Count

    2,050
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Huggy last won the day on June 14

Huggy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,034

About Huggy

  • Birthday 11/03/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Raleigh, NC

Recent Profile Visitors

3,841 profile views
  1. VIR will be holding an "open test day" on friday the 9th this year. It will not be like previous years (which were club only) - instead, it will be open to everyone. The registration and details will show up on this page soon http://virnow.com/track/open-test-days/
  2. I made my own and it took about a week of labor plus about $600. The 9LR solution is pretty cheap if you don’t want to DIY
  3. I disagree with the implementation. I think the "interpretation" should be in the rules document. 1. I don't think things should be spelled out so specifically. Its taking away (slowly, one component/rule at a time) from the creativity that this series uniquely offered to the market. I didn't see a problem with the previous 2 years' interpretation of splitters, for example. I also don't think there is any difference in radiator ducting before or after the radiator, and therefore don't agree with charging points for one and not the other. This is all personal opinion on the content of the rules. A. If they must be spelled out specifically, it should be in the rules document (and therefore subject to the current annual update cycle) - aka consistent. In my interpretation (for lack of a better word), this is more about the implementation of the rules regardless of the content. My objection to A stems from the situation where a team does not read the "interpretation" document and shows up at the track with an extrude honed manifold or plastic hood vent inserts instead of cut and bent factory metal, and is therefore subject to a points penalty they weren't expecting. Perhaps I am missing something in the nuances of specifics in a rule document versus specifics in an interpretation document? If so, can someone enlighten me? Sorry if I came off snarky or ungrateful. We plan on continuing to support champcar as we like the people and racing. *as a side thought Perhaps there was something to the "chumpcar" name keeping high $ teams/engineering away, which gave us a particular charm. Now that we are Champcar, we may be falling a bit victim to our own success in having to develop/evolve the rules faster than before to keep up with fancier engineering efforts pushing the boundaries.
  4. Its fine if you want to brand me as a complainer - I will wear the badge with pride if it makes you happy. In case its not clear, I don't take this personally, and I don't mean any personal insult towards you. As I have been told, the forum is like the corner dive bar. I'm not sure why you say I want things spelled out - I am a proponent of this being a "builders" series, where we have certain flexibilities to be creative. Thats the opposite of spelled out. My whole line of reason is that I want a clear and consistent rule set that doesn't change often. When it does change, I want those changes to be documented and announced clearly ahead of time - no surprises in the tech line. For example, the new "dash bar" requirement change. Some things you are doing are a great step in the right direction, and I applaud you for that. For example, looking at build photos and contacting teams ahead of time. The "interpretation" document, IMO, is not the correct way to proceed - its another layer of confusion. In fact, I see this as doing what you said will never happen (spelling things out). Specifically, some of the interpretations are new rules, or could be seen as new rules, to teams. They should be given at least some advance notice of these changes. It saddens me to learn that You and Tyler don't see these things as changes to existing rules (or rule interpretations) that deserve to be announced in advance. Sorry if you see me as a problem for having this opinion. I want the series to succeed just as much as anyone else, and I have been voicing my opinion on how to do that. Obviously I am just a member, so all I can do is talk - it means nothing of substance. Regards Chris
  5. What they should have done is put a cost limit on ECUs, such to allow homebrew solutions like the megasquirt but to disallow pro-level hardware like haltechs and such, if that is your opinion. Having an un-supported or un-tunable ECU can make or break a chassis' feasibility as a champcar. If we want to support more makes/models being competitive, the "we didn't pick your car" answer is a terrible line of reasoning. Minimal issue for honda OBD1, plenty of mods available. OBD2 can mostly convert back to OBD1 with an OTS adapter harness and reap the same benefits. No issue for BMW, E30, E36, E46 all infinitely adjustable (costs vary) No issue for GM stuff. A bit expensive, but awesome software and awesome support. BIG issue for "rare" or not-supported stuff. Mercedes? Audi? Toyota/Lexus? I run the factory ECU in my "swap" car. It actually has MORE capability than a MS3Pro, with better community support related to tuning at this point. Unless champ has the capability of reading chip "dumps" on every car racing, or issuing "sealed" ECU's, flashed or modified computers WERE and ARE a fact of life. its SO easy to flash a chip and put it into a stock ECU board. A flashed chip looks physically identical to a OE chip.
  6. Lets get this actually correct: These are changes to existing rules, which are equally as jarring as "new" rules. Frankly, its insulting that the BOD keeps insinuating that "interpretations" are not rule changes. Changing interpretations is changing the rules. Therefore, these ARE new rules. I don't understand why we keep going in circles on this. Its pretty simple. Question 1. Is there a precedent currently set on how this rule has been interpreted? Another way to say this is, Did Phil allow a car to do "x" in the past? Yes> Changing this IS a rule change NO> Changing this IS NOT a rule change, but instead is a clarification if there are multiple precedents set (aka, different regions are interpreting differently), the LEAST RESTRICTIVE precedent is the "rule", and any restrictions are effectively rule changes - therefore they should be announced with fanfare and lead time to allow teams to adjust accordingly.
  7. Good, this is a good step in the right direction. Having the rules written in a separate document keeps the primary rule book short. A short rule book is definitely the primary consideration in a successful rule book. If the rule book is too long, people won't read it. As a side benefit, the rules interpretations can now be changed on a whim.
  8. I mean, a Megasquirt isnt exactly breaking champcar IMO. It really didn't gain us anything that we could not have done with the factory DME - I can and did tune the chip in that prior to buying a $400 megasquirt. What it did gain me was a boat load of time, which saved me lots more than $400 in dyno time because I can make changes in real time with the engine running, use autotune, log AFR and Timing in the tuning table directly instead of a separate logger, etc. This let me tune the car on the track/road versus on a dyno, and do so quicker. Tuning the Stock DME required shutting the car off, flashing the chip, and starting it back up. I'm not exactly sure what a AEM or Haltech would gain me over what the megasquirt does for me? I don't race with my wallet in my pocket, so lightening the wallet doesn't really make me faster.
  9. I Wish you would share who told you that, so I could NOT vote for that person if they try to be re-elected
  10. I dont understand the no-go zone thought process. Can someone explain to me why that would even be a consideration? Its part of the track, it doesnt look dangerous, why put up artificial barriers? Sort of like 5 years ago some genius at VIR decided to put up tire bundles at track out of 3 and 17, which ended up destroying multiple cars that alternatively would have made a safe(ish) spin off into the grassy field.
  11. Just tell him your car started as a manual convertible, and you should be good to go
  12. According to Real OEM, which is one of the most credible sources we have, the 63 liter tank only interchanges with the "BA73" model, which is a USA 318i Manual Convertible. All other non-m20 powered interchanges are EUR only. All US M3 and 318is came with the small tank, PN 16111177983 This is getting into some crazy minutiae... Surprised jay wanted to get this deep into it.
  13. Do the rules technically say you have to use a gas tank?
×
×
  • Create New...