Jump to content

cowboys647

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

46

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This was a really fun race for Love Racing. Finally we’re able to qualify in the top tier (thanks to lots of draft since I’m slow) and had a clean and fun race up in the front group until a poorly rev matched downshift at the end of the oval put me into the pit wall. First time with VR and it was awesome racing with everyone in traffic. Very good respectful racing. Bump drafting on the oval still scared the heck out of me so that’s something I need to practice on. Props to Hugh Ass and all the other people doing this. Tons of fun and good experience.
  2. Both. The cool charge has a higher density so you can get as much air in the cylinder as possible, more air more power. The hot fuel warms that charge inside the cylinder causing an increase in pressure which causing an increase of power and efficiency. I “think” that the hot fuel will also combust quicker and the flame speed will be higher due to less heat needed to combust. I have no quantifiable data to prove this though.
  3. Hot fuel, cold charge, hot engine is ideal for combustion.
  4. Engines are designed to run at a certain temperature. They design piston-cylinder clearances around thermal expansion at that temperature. The ECU also have fueling and ignition tables that reference coolant temperature. If you have a stand-alone, you are probably alright but it’s usually recommend to design for the target oem temperature.
  5. I should probably go through the rules again but this last year I've seen quite a few cars with massive fuel filler necks that curve from one side of the car to the other. I understand that teams want the driver to be on the wall side of the car for safety reasons but am curious if there is any control on added capacity that way. We have trouble getting to 2hr stint times and that would be a pretty simple way to get more capacity but I wouldn't want to do it and then there be a rules change next year. Thoughts? FYI, I have nothing against the team in the picture. Just an example of what I'm talking about since I'm bad with the words.
  6. I don’t think I’m understanding your question. What happened for us at tech was a flashlight was shined in the trunk and they looked for light in the driver’s compartment. If they see light, then you need to fill some holes. Obviously it’s never going to be 100% but you’ll need to make the effort to get everything covered up. Also see the above post about anything above 1/4” needs to have metal over it and anything under can have the fire foam stuffs.
  7. Nope that’d be incorrect. The Miata has a rubber fuel tube in the trunk area. The concern is that this tube breaks (possibly if somebody fiddled with their stock tank vents) and the trunk fills with fuel. Then the driver hits the brakes and all the fuel splashes in the cabin. I was told this rule was created specifically for the Miata to prevent this from happening. I think it’s a pretty reasonable as I don’t want to see anyone get soaked with fuel. I hope the next revision in the bccr adds that foam is legal as well.
  8. It’s my understanding that the rules specifically state that any fuel components must be separated by a “metal” bulkhead. We did a lot of riveting aluminum to pass tech with our Miata at RA.
  9. I think this will probably work but I can just see a team podium and everyone googles what the “spec” is and eventually someone is going to be DQ’ed for something that is technically OE. Probably not camshafts because they control pretty good tolerances though. As an engineer I just like the ability to know 100% sure that I’m going to pass if checked is the only point I’m trying to make.
  10. We just have to have a range called out for what is acceptable with each “stock” part. If not, how will you determine if it’s acceptable? 5% over oem specs? 20%? Without a defined rule, it’s useless to say that they will not pass if they aren’t oem specs.
  11. I am 90% certain that you are going to be told to fix it for the next race. In that case, you’ll either have to put on the flares or go smaller wheels. I would just throw on the flares now and not worry about the hassle since there is a small chance they will tell you to fix it and using a jack handle at the track is not going to look very good (ask me how I know...)
  12. That’d be 205 for our na miata. I do like the idea behind limiting tire size beyond stock but I think it’s too late. It would make the whole series pissed off if everyone has to buy new wheels and tires.
  13. I cut your quote a bit to the relevant info. I understand your logic and argument. The lower points means that there will be less speed creep if it becomes free, but that means this would still be a move in the speed creep direction. If a team is at 490 points, they have a decision between a skid plate and a wing (until wing values are raised). Free skid plates could mean more aero. Higher cost of entry for other teams because now everyone has more aero. I think it’s a slippery slope doing anything that promotes speed creep. Just my $0.02. Also, I appreciate all the hard work you did submitting all those petitions and it was fun to race with y’all at RAtl.
  14. That's an interesting approach and pretty easy to set up. Nice!
  15. Airdam and splitter could be 5 seconds a lap faster at some tracks and are only 20 points. Just saying...
×
×
  • Create New...