Jump to content

0 point spring exemption


enginerd
 Share

Recommended Posts

In a different thread it came out that there are varying “interpretations” for what qualifies a points-exempt spring. The rule probably needs some rewriting. I think it is in the best interest of the series to preserve the intent that was understood by the vast majority of the membership. To that end I came up with this rewrite of the rule. Feedback and discussion is appreciated. 

 

• Springs, non-OE coil springs (suspension)(including ‘coil-over’ kit):
10 pts per corner
 

Exemption: Vehicles may replace
OE coil springs for 0 points provided that the
replacement spring
a) Is the same shape as the OE spring (straight, taper, beehive/keg, etc.)
b) Maintains the exact same ID/OD
measurements as the OE spring (+/- 0.25”) when measured at the midpoint and at each end of the spring

- Springs may be cut for no additional points
- Shape and measurements must match when the springs are in their original unaltered condition
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, enginerd said:

In a different thread it came out that there are varying “interpretations” for what qualifies a points-exempt spring. The rule probably needs some rewriting. I think it is in the best interest of the series to preserve the intent that was understood by the vast majority of the membership. To that end I came up with this rewrite of the rule. Feedback and discussion is appreciated. 

 

• Springs, non-OE coil springs (suspension)(including ‘coil-over’ kit):
10 pts per corner
 

Exemption: Vehicles may replace
OE coil springs for 0 points provided that the
replacement spring
a) Is the same shape as the OE spring (straight, taper, beehive/keg, etc.)
b) Maintains the exact same ID/OD
measurements as the OE spring (+/- 0.25”) when measured at the midpoint and at each end of the spring

- Springs may be cut for no additional points
- Shape and measurements must match when the springs are in their original unaltered condition

I was gonna say something about cutting beehive springs and then not able to measure the ends....  but you got it.

 

I like it.

 

Do you know what the pushback is on this?  It seems that most everybody knew and understood the rule.  Why not just enforce it?  I feel like there is a piece of this puzzle that I don't understand.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big picture questions for this series.

 

Are you trying to control spring cost? Think 2x rule

 

Are you trying to control spring rate to match oem? Need lots of measurements and spring to compare to but possible. 

 

Are you just trying to control how the spring looks, with no control over the cost of the spring or the rate. Visually appease those who don't know spring design. 

 

The R3R car could get a custom wound spring to meet your rule, match the rate of the spring they used at barber, all for less than i think their hauler fuel bill is.

 

Think bigger, what abilities do you want people to have or not have with their springs for 0 points. Either interpretation of the existing rule does nearly nothing to limit anyone with reasonable access to a phone and a credit card.

 

Your rule does a very good job of describing "visual control" of spring appearance, if that is what everyone wants. 

Edited by Black Magic
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my proposed rewrite:

"steel coil springs are open"

Let's be done with this. Trying to match OE diameters costs me more time and money, and this is supposed to be about cheap racing. Generic off the shelf 2.5" coilover springs are way cheaper than any OEM or aftermarket (size matching) replacement.

Adjustable perches still should of course be points, as should helper springs in my opinion (although that is far less of a concern). Visual control does nothing for us, good point Drew.

Edited by Slugworks Paul
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, karman1970 said:

 

How about “springs are open”?  Otherwise you just excluded anyone with torsion bars and steel or composite leaf springs.

 

I'm open to the wording, but I just want to avoid exotic springs like CF belleville springs. 

Which cars have composite leaf springs? did the C4 have them?

Edited by Slugworks Paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Black Magic said:

Big picture questions for this series.

 

Are you trying to control spring cost? Think 2x rule

 

Are you trying to control spring rate to match oem? Need lots of measurements and spring to compare to but possible. 

 

Are you just trying to control how the spring looks, with no control over the cost of the spring or the rate. Visually appease those who don't know spring design. 

 

The R3R car could get a custom wound spring to meet your rule, match the rate of the spring they used at barber, all for less than i think their hauler fuel bill is.

 

Think bigger, what abilities do you want people to have or not have with their springs for 0 points. Either interpretation of the existing rule does nearly nothing to limit anyone with reasonable access to a phone and a credit card.

 

Your rule does a very good job of describing "visual control" of spring appearance, if that is what everyone wants. 

The goal all along (per the petition) was to allow inexpensive drop-in off the shelf replacements for the old springs that came on the 30 year old car. I think that should still be the goal.

 

And if a handful of teams will go spend a pile of money to get custom springs which drop in, to “get around the rule”, then so be it. It’s not the “sky is falling” problem that it’s made out to be. I wager the performance of a specially made conical drop in replacement spring for the boxster will still be worse than the spring that r3r has been using. 

Edited by enginerd
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Slugworks Paul said:

 

I'm open to the wording, but I just want to avoid exotic springs like CF belleville springs. 

Which cars have composite leaf springs? did the C4 have them?

 

Yeah and some late C3s.  Could just say springs must remain original type and/or construction.

 

But i’m all for ANY non-stick spring costing points.  If your car is so old and junky no one makes a reasonable replacement and salvage items are no longer an option, a petition to get the VPI reduced seems in order rather than a blanket spring rule change for everyone.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, enginerd said:

The goal all along (per the petition) was to allow inexpensive drop-in off the shelf replacements for the old springs that came on the 30 year old car. I think that should still be the goal.

 

And if a handful of teams will go spend a pile of money to get custom springs which drop in, to “get around the rule”, then so be it. It’s not the “sky is falling” problem that it’s made out to be. I wager the performance of a specially made conical drop in replacement spring for the boxster will still be worse than the spring that r3r has been using. 

 

If inexpensive replacement was the goal, should the cost of the spring not the visual appearance be the thing to control? 2x, require it to be an off the shelf part, or max cost per spring would all be ways to actually limit the cost, if money was the issue. 

 

FWIW the 2.5"\5" style of springs on that Porsche are cheap to get, cheaper than most cars off the shelf replacements. 

 

Is cost of the spring still what people want to keep low? Or is the goal performance parity? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee


I wish all non OE springs could be points but at this point I think rule stability is the most important thing. After looking at logbooks, tech sheets, build threads, etc. etc.  I believe 95%+ of teams were interpreting this rule the same way and claiming points accordingly. 

I think Nate's wording does not change the rule in any way for almost all teams, but simply stops any team from taking advantage of its vagueness. I passed this suggestion to the TAC earlier today. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Black Magic said:

 

If inexpensive replacement was the goal, should the cost of the spring not the visual appearance be the thing to control? 2x, require it to be an off the shelf part, or max cost per spring would all be ways to actually limit the cost, if money was the issue. 

 

FWIW the 2.5"\5" style of springs on that Porsche are cheap to get, cheaper than most cars off the shelf replacements. 

 

Is cost of the spring still what people want to keep low? Or is the goal performance parity? 

Drop-in fitment was a key part of the replacement spring idea. I don’t know how they did it, but something else had to be added to make a 2.5” spring work on that Porsche front strut.

Edited by enginerd
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The level of mental gymnastics being performed after one of the non-clique cars gains an interpretation advantage is stunning.  Everyone from the membership, tech, TAC, president, and board members has been involved - it looks like the entire series has turned itself inside out to change the rules to remove the interpretation advantage.  Compare that to a clique car like the SC300 that gets the rules changed to keep an interpretation advantage like flipping the trunk lid or the MR2 that briefly had its VPI increased or the E30 weight adjustment.

 

Simply stunning.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Black Magic said:

Or is the goal performance parity? 

Performance parity, if you want to work to make something viable that’s fine,  spend the time and modify something that looks like the original spring, this goes with the builder part of the series, if you want to buy a racing coil over spring it should be a value add to your points as you hit an easy button, this has nothing to do with builder ingenuity.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ron_e said:

The level of mental gymnastics being performed after one of the non-clique cars gains an interpretation advantage is stunning.  Everyone from the membership, tech, TAC, president, and board members has been involved - it looks like the entire series has turned itself inside out to change the rules to remove the interpretation advantage.  Compare that to a clique car like the SC300 that gets the rules changed to keep an interpretation advantage like flipping the trunk lid or the MR2 that briefly had its VPI increased or the E30 weight adjustment.

 

Simply stunning.

 To be fair, I didn't like any of those either.  I'm pretty sure most people didn't like those "allowances".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Team Infiniti said:

Performance parity, if you want to work to make something viable that’s fine,  spend the time and modify something that looks like the original spring, this goes with the builder part of the series, if you want to buy a racing coil over spring it should be a value add to your points as you hit an easy button, this has nothing to do with builder ingenuity.

I'll pile on to this.

 

 

I'll add that I prefer the costs to stay low.  In order to do that, sometimes you need to put barriers on performance.

 

I don't care if somebody beats me that paid more or less than I did to get their car on track.

 

I do care when year over year my costs go up at an alarming rate just to maintain my position within the field.  Free stuff allows room for performance stuff.  Performance stuff means going faster through spending money.  Define money how you want (time, new parts, new tools, more wear, etc...)

Edited by wvumtnbkr
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ron_e said:

The level of mental gymnastics being performed after one of the non-clique cars gains an interpretation advantage is stunning.  Everyone from the membership, tech, TAC, president, and board members has been involved - it looks like the entire series has turned itself inside out to change the rules to remove the interpretation advantage.  Compare that to a clique car like the SC300 that gets the rules changed to keep an interpretation advantage like flipping the trunk lid or the MR2 that briefly had its VPI increased or the E30 weight adjustment.

 

Simply stunning.

Yes; had this been a "clique car", the rule and interpretation would stand as is while the rest of the field "caught up to what was happening at the track."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ron_e said:

Compare that to a clique car like the SC300 that gets the rules changed to keep an interpretation advantage like flipping the trunk lid or the MR2 that briefly had its VPI increased or the E30 weight adjustment.

 

Simply stunning.

There’s one common factor to those three things. Add in the ruling at Barber (or lack thereof) and it might be obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

 To be fair, I didn't like any of those either.  I'm pretty sure most people didn't like those "allowances".

 

Those other ones didn't cause Mike to wear a suit, threaten to expel any member speaking ill of the series, board members to publicly state opposing opinions making the board look fractured, multiple threads and pages over one single component common to most every car.  A component that is very likely non-stock in every competitive car. 

 

Compare that to a single car proven to be competitive and on the podium by multiple teams retaining its advantage after the rules are changed to its benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ron_e said:

 

Those other ones didn't cause Mike to wear a suit, threaten to expel any member speaking ill of the series, board members to publicly state opposing opinions making the board look fractured, multiple threads and pages over one single component common to most every car.  A component that is very likely non-stock in every competitive car. 

 

Compare that to a single car proven to be competitive and on the podium by multiple teams retaining its advantage after the rules are changed to its benefit.

I'm not arguing that it is weird and unprecedented.  In fact, I'm saying I was just as wound up about the other issues you mentioned just as much.  I know others were and are as well.

 

I would also like to point out that I don't think there is any board member opposing any other board member through posts on here.  There should be some checks and balances and friction to a certain degree between the CEO and the board.

Edited by wvumtnbkr
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ron_e said:

 

Those other ones didn't cause Mike to wear a suit, threaten to expel any member speaking ill of the series, board members to publicly state opposing opinions making the board look fractured, multiple threads and pages over one single component common to most every car.  A component that is very likely non-stock in every competitive car. 

 

Compare that to a single car proven to be competitive and on the podium by multiple teams retaining its advantage after the rules are changed to its benefit.

 

To be fair it wasn't just about springs... more like 5 or 6 components than one but springs were certainly a part.
 

You summarized the pure lunacy of all of this very well, bravo!

I think those that argue that the current rule keeps costs low are incorrect. I have spent way, way, way more trying to get springs that do what I want them to as compared to just buying a couple $40 coilover springs on summit.  I haven't even broached the topic of custom wound springs, which high budget teams could do and would be yet another area they could gain an advantage with nothing but pure unfiltered money.  It does not control cost. Take my car for example, it isn't really at all served by the racing/aftermarket industry other than those that make products for 'stance boys'. The 'lowering springs' lower the car and are basically the same rate as stock springs.

Let's be real, nobody wants to run stock springs and nobody wants you to have to race a car on stock springs. That is one of the fundamental, basic, and cheap things you can do to a car to make it better and more fun to drive on track.

Rules stability is important, but rules that make sense are equally, if not more important. Let's not resist changing just for the sake of 'rules stability'. 

Edited by Slugworks Paul
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Team Infiniti said:

Performance parity, if you want to work to make something viable that’s fine,  spend the time and modify something that looks like the original spring, this goes with the builder part of the series, if you want to buy a racing coil over spring it should be a value add to your points as you hit an easy button, this has nothing to do with builder ingenuity.

 

Bought vs built shouldn’t matter if you are after performance parity, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Slugworks Paul said:

 

To be fair it wasn't just about springs... more like 5 or 6 components than one but springs were certainly a part.
 

You summarized the pure lunacy of all of this very well, bravo!

I think those that argue that the current rule keeps costs low are incorrect. I have spent way, way, way more trying to get springs that do what I want them to as compared to just buying a couple $40 coilover springs on summit.  I haven't even broached the topic of custom wound springs, which high budget teams could do and would be yet another area they could gain an advantage with nothing but pure unfiltered money.  It does not control cost. Take my car for example, it isn't really at all served by the racing/aftermarket industry other than those that make products for 'stance boys'. The 'lowering springs' lower the car and are basically the same rate as stock springs.

Let's be real, nobody wants to run stock springs and nobody wants you to have to race a car on stock springs. That is one of the fundamental, basic, and cheap things you can do to a car to make it better and more fun to drive on track.

Rules stability is important, but rules that make sense are equally, if not more important. Let's not resist changing just for the sake of 'rules stability'. 

Let me startoff by saying i am not arguing and not being pissy.

 

What do you propose?

 

I am of 2 minds in this right now.

 

1) the rule seemed to be clear to 95% of champcar racers.  It should have been enforced as was intended.  Not sure how the decision was made to allow what was allowed.  I'm pretty mad and confused by the decision.

 

2) what SHOULD the spring rule look like?

 

I don't hate having a 3 tiered approach myself.

 

Something like :

OEM (cut is allowed) is free.

Performance springs of any type are 5 pts per corner. 

Height adjustments are 5 pts per corner.

 

Pick and choose from that.  Want corner weights on your stock cut springs? 5 pts per corner.

 

Want sweet race type springs and no height adjustment ?  5 pts per corner.

 

Want coilovers?  5pts per corner plus 5 points per corner.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...