HADA 'CNAC Tester' Solo 2 event, Sept 13th

[Dave]

http://www.hadamotorsport.com/2003HADASolo2Sept13Flyer.JPG

as the flyer above indicated, we're going to be using the CNAC ruleset at this event so that everyone gets a try of it before next season (when, in all likelihood, CNAC rules will be used for the regional series). We're also going to make every effort to make the course as open and fast as possible. Chris Paczynski is designing the course and he's been consulting with some course design experts down in the U.S. The course will probably involve multiple loops of the lot and should feature lots of 2nd gear action if everything goes as planned.

If you have any questions about the event, feel free to post them here or e-mail us at info@hadamotorsport.com

Cheers,
Dave

[andrew1984]

cool:cool:

[mike_moss]

sounds great!

[MitS]

Fast? Flowing? I hope to be there!

[roooo]

I think the stock classes might be pretty empty for this one ! hehe

[Marsh]

Oh Murray will have to go to this. Apperently he is in the slowest stock class there is. :rolleyes:

[Logan]

woohoo!
D Stock baby!

[ChrisM]

Yuck :( Looks like I'll be running in D/SP

I might change everything back to get into G stock, or if I win the lottery spend $10,000 on the car and still be in D/SP.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

Impreza 2.5 RS - G Stock
+1 rear sway bar
+3 suspension modification (springs)
The struts are "free".

That would land me in D/SS.

But I have camber plates and non-stock alignment so that bumps me to D/SP because there are no prep points for that...

[roooo]

The rule about shocks is tricky.
Notice it says that if you have a strut-type suspension, you can change the shock inserts but have to keep the original strut bodies.

[Marsh]

Where does it say that?

5.3.D i) ...Additionally, on vehicles with strut-type suspension the strut may be modified in order to facilitate the installation of a substitute shock absorber provided such modifications serve no other function and in no way alter any other suspension component or its location...

[roooo]

Well it doesn't specifically say you can change the whole strut ... ? ... *shrug*

[Chris P]

ChrisM, try preparing your car to STS rules, no question that your scooby is a overdog in that class, just watch out for well prepared to the STS rule set 91 Civic Dx's, actually we don't have any in ontario.......but whatever.


Hmmm, actually i don't know if CNAC has encorporated the SCCA's Street tire classes, if they haven't then they should really be considering it!

[ice/solo racer]

I'll second the request for street tire classing,I asked for that the instant I found out the street tire bonus was being removed,nobody listened to me-but maybe if Crispy speaks then who knows!;)

[gatherer]

my understanding with street tires is R compounds are now 1 prep point... which seems fairer then what we have now...

wheel size is also a prep point if width diameter and offset are changed but if you say use light wieght wheels with stock diameter offset and width ... then hey have fun with that prep point.....

I like these rules :D :D :D

[101rs]

Originally posted by ChrisM
But I have camber plates and non-stock alignment so that bumps me to D/SP because there are no prep points for that... [/B]
but Chris, wouldn't camber plates and non-stock alignment be included in 5.8.D.2- any other suspension modification(s)?

[ShaneG]

Hi All
We have located a check sheet to help classify your cars (thanks Acidgord:))
Check Sheet (http://www.armsinc.ca/solo/docs/2003_ARMS_Solo_II_Mod_Points.pdf)

If you print off a sheet and fill it out (and bring it with you) ;) on Saturday, It will really help speed things up at registration. TIA

[Martini Focus]

I have one question. In Running Gear #7 Threaded adjustable coil spring perches (e.g. Ground Control, etc) it states that it's only allowed in SP/M but lowering the car from a non stock height is allowed in SS? I have to run a GC rear setup because nobody makes a spring at the weight that I require but I keep my car at stock height negating the benefit of the adjustable perches?


Can anyone help clear this up for me?

Also I'll post that link on the other boards where I have seen people talking about coming to the event.:cool:

[Dave]

I believe the CNAC rulebook states that you're required to weld the adjustable perch in place in order to avoid having to declare a point for it, but in terms of our event on Saturday I'm sure we'll be willing to take your word that you haven't lowered the car and therefore don't need to declare the adjustable perches.

[AcidGord]

Originally posted by Martini Focus
I have one question. In Running Gear #7 Threaded adjustable coil spring perches (e.g. Ground Control, etc) it states that it's only allowed in SP/M but lowering the car from a non stock height is allowed in SS? I have to run a GC rear setup because nobody makes a spring at the weight that I require but I keep my car at stock height negating the benefit of the adjustable perches?


I asked exactly this question with our club here and the general consensus was if its on the car its a point whether you're using it or not. (e.g. camber plates adjusted to stock camber specs)

Its of course up to the club in question though.

[Dave]

I think during a championship series it's fair to say that if it's on the car it should be declared, but for our tester event this Saturday we should really be as flexible as possible in our application of the rules given the this is a 'for fun' event designed to let people try out the CNAC ruleset before next year.

[ChrisM]

Originally posted by 101rs
but Chris, wouldn't camber plates and non-stock alignment be included in 5.8.D.2- any other suspension modification(s)?

5.8.D.2 covers the springs and the stuts, but 5.6.E.4 specifically mentions camber/caster alteration devices in the SP class.

Early on is the rules is says that if it's not specifically allowed, then assume it's not.

ShaneG: That check sheet doesn't have a section for camber/caster plates. If I fill out that sheet and add everything, I'll be is D/SS

One more thing... 5.6.F.5 allows for any shift linkage to be used is SP, so does that mean that any change to the shift linkage would put the car in SP?

Man... my car is going to need some serious work to be remotely competitive next year... I'm going to stop reading the rules now... I'm getting a headache :(

[ShaneG]

Chris,
We are still looking at his rule set and are finding questions also...It is our first look at it too!:confused:

As Dave mentioned that we are going to have to be a little flexible for our tester event this Saturday we should really be as flexible as possible in our application of the rules given the this is a 'for fun' event designed to let people try out the CNAC ruleset before next year.


I think we will follow the stock rules as closely as possible. but please bring your questions and we will try to figure them out on Saturday.

My personal feeling is we go 1 of two ways...1/ the letter of the law...tough!! or (Where I am leaning[personally]) use prep points and look the other was for things like coilovers = direct to SP. so if you have coilovers you need to declare 3 pts for "all other suspension mods" (+ 1 or 2 for any mods to sway bars etc. ) and break out to SP that way rather than ...I my potential case I am in D SS also, 2 pts for header + 1 for rear sway bar. 3 avail. I am planing on getting coilovers (not in time for Sat) which would leave me in D SS ( 3point for suspension other) rather than DSP with 16 points avail!

Either way this event is so we can find the bugs, both personally and for the whole solo 2 family...it is all for fun this time:)

[rpr]

My car is C-SS, my mods put me WAY into C-Mod territory, and the rulebook states that C-Mod cars are required to have roll-over protection, which mine does not (currently, it will by next year). So, if you go route 1 (tough) on the rules, I won't be able to run my Civic. Not that I am trying to influence the decision, just making a point. Not sure what that point is, but it's out there nonetheless... :)

[ChrisM]

I realize everyone is still learning the rules. I'm not trying to be picky and force everyone with a short shifter into SP. I just don't want any surprises next year that would be easy to solve over the winter.

I wouldn't want to go through the trouble of removing the camber plates just to end up SP anyway because of something I missed.

[Dave]

personally I think coilovers and camber adjustment devices should be included in the 3 point 'other suspension mods' bundle at the SS level. To handle these mods any other way is totally counter-intuitive IMO because of the realities of lowering a car and what that does to alignment settings. As such, this interpretation of the rulebook would be my preference for Saturday (and for next year if the regional series adopts the CNAC rulebook).

Tom, obviously we're not going to require anyone to show up with rollover protection if their car hasn't been required to have this under the current regional (CASC) rulebook. We're insured via CASC so all current CASC Solo 2 safety regulations will be in effect and any CNAC rollover rules or other safety regulations that don't coincide with CASC's are irrelevant for the purposes of our event on Saturday.

ChrisM, we're not going to bump anyone to SP on Saturday because of something as minor as a short-shifter. How strictly this sort of thing is enforced next year is a totally separate issue and one I have no say in, so that's something the Solo 2 director and community will have to work out together over the winter.

I'll have to consult with the rest of the HADA BoD and Shane (who's the Organizer) on this, but to me it would make a lot more sense for people to classify the car in such a way that it ends up in the class that is most logical for it, rather than bumping it into a class because of some minor mod like a short shifter. Common sense needs to prevail in the process so that competitors get to try out their car in the class that makes the most sense for their particular car and major performance enhancing mods its equipped with.

Cheers,
Dave

[Logan]

I read something earlier today (can't remember where, can't find it again) talking about an "oops" with threaded spring perches in the rules, saying it should have been changed to allow them, but wasn't.

EDIT:
duh! (http://racing.kos.net/soloforums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1722)

[Dave]

Logan, thanks for posting that link. That makes me feel better about the CNAC rules and seems to confirm that for 2004 coilover collars will be allowed at the SS level. Now the use of camber adjustable devices rule bumping a car to SP is another story...

[Marsh]

??? Non stock alignement is free in super stock, you just have to be using the stock MECHANISM. I.E. no camber kits...
5.5.E.ii)

I'm looking good. If the thread adjuster rule gets changed I've got 2 more points to spare!

[Dave]

Sorry Marsh, my comment should have read camber adjustable devices bumping a car to SP, not non-stock alignment. I've changed the above post to reflect that.

My point is, making camber adjustable devices illegal until SP favours cars that have a lot of stock adjustment available to them (ie. Miatas) and disadvantages cars like Hondas that have no camber adjustment mechanism outside of using shims, fasteners, and other Pete Mills trickery. In order to even the playing field, given the huge variability in alignment adjustability across manufacturers, the only fair ruling is to allow camber plates and other such adjustability hardware as soon as you're allowing cars to be lowered. I've been down this road more than a few times as part of the Solo 1 rulebook committee.

[Leanne]

Sometimes I think we could give scientists at NASA a run for the money when it comes to the Solo 2 rules.

Can comeone explain to me why the rule book takes into consideration things such as non-stock alignment, height and shift linkages (when if changed alone would probably not make that HUGE a difference) but totally overlooks AWD and R compound tires which are BLANTLY OBVIOUS advantages.

I just don't get it. Isn't this supposed to be a fun and CHEAP form of motorports designed for people that are interested in having a hobby without a big risk or dollar factor?

Maybe it's time to limit the number of mods all together and simplify the rule book. If you want to make a ton of mechanical changes maybe it's time to move into another form of motorsports and leave the grassroots type to people who just want to drive their cars "off the dealer's lots" and race around a bit.

Seriously, I think everyone seems to forget that we're doing PARKING LOT SLALOMS. This is not Nascar and there is no $1,00,000 prize on the line.

Ok, I feel better now. Hope I didn't offend anyone. It just seems to me that we're on our way to taking all the fun out of Solo 2 and making it unreachable and uncompetitive for your average Joe.

[AcidGord]

Well R-compounds are covered, and AWD isn't exactly something you bolt on. Your car is classed appropriately from the start.

I think some people lose sight of the fact that if you want to keep the sport cheap you most definitely can. Within the stock CNAC rules you're pretty limited to what you can do so you're pretty much assured that the other guy in your class doesn't have a lot of money tired up in their mods. I think under Stock rules the biggest affecting mods you could have would be R's (1pt) and maybe a rear sway bar (1pt).

[Logan]

I have to agree and disagree with you Leanne.
Agree:
Yes, if you can afford all these expensive mods, why not move onto faster racing?
Disagree:
This is fun, we've got friends here, why not stay and play?
In order to make it "fair" we need to split up the classes so those that can afford the mods can race with the guys that can't (pax).

[Marsh]

Originally posted by Dave


My point is, making camber adjustable devices illegal until SP favours cars that have a lot of stock adjustment available to them (ie. Miatas) and disadvantages cars like Hondas that have no camber adjustment mechanism outside of using shims, fasteners, and other Pete Mills trickery...

Which is still illegal if I'm not mistaken.

I actually think a lot of people put a little too much in camber. Yes it's important, but not as important as lot of people think. Suspension designers make a LOT of sacrifices to get control of camber. Tire manufacturers realize this and racing tires over the last decade have made huge strides to the point where they are significantly less sensitive to camber. I was fortunate enough to have a good conversation about the subject with Carol Smith a year before he died. He applauded UWO's SAE car for it's soft suspension, but pointed out that we still did need much more roll stiffness and had taken it a little too far. Don't forget that in Solo-2 you use a ton of steering angle and putting in more caster is probably more of an advantage since you keep the wheel flat for the launch. BTW I think that the fact the Prelude SH has 4.5 deg. of caster from the factory is one of things that makes it such a good slalom car.

[tanney]

Shall we sit down and reorganize everything from scratch?

To make it really fair, we could have 50 classes, say 25 stock, 10 SS, 10 SP and 5 Mod classes, and every class winner scores 100. We can do away with pax, do away with propositioning, do away with backup scores, all the things that everyone has been complaining about in the current system.

At the end of the season we can have 50 overall champions.

No matter what we use, there will always be cars that have an advantage and cars that are at a disadvantage. Some mods will work really good on some cars and the same mods will do nothing to other cars.

The word is compromise.

PITTL classes are looking better and better all the time. fwd stock, fwd mod, rwd stock, rwd mod, awd stock, awd mod, open mod. A Yugo against a Type R. A Chevette against a Z06.

Yep!

[Logan]

And that's exactly why I don't take PITTL events seriously, they are just for fun.
Which, in itself, is actually a very good perspective to take.

[Dave]

Hehe...Wes is losing his patience already. You're in for a fun couple of years, my friend! :)

Marsh, do you mean that Pete Mills trickery is still illegal? If so, and if you were Pete Mills, you'd look at 5.3.F. and have an absolute field day changing nuts and fasteners so that you can adjust alignment settings and such. This rule is a can of worms just waiting to be abused IMO. All you've got to do is talk to Pete or Tony about their creative use of nuts and fasteners over the years and you'll be amazed at what a sick mind can dream up :p

From the CNAC rulebook:
F. Fasteners
Nuts, cap screws, studs, washers, etc., may be replaced by similar items of unrestricted origin.

It's that "unrestricted origin" part that scares me and would have Pete grinning from ear to ear.

All kidding aside, I think Leanne actually has the right idea. Keep it simple, stupid(s). IMO even though I could sit here and poke holes in the CNAC rulebook all day long, the smartest thing to do is either stick with what you've got and fine-tune it or make a clean break and implement the CNAC rulebook as it is written, flaws and all. No rulebook is perfect, so just accept it's shortcomings and work around them.

I would image there will still be some revisions that'll have to take place such that CASC safety regulations are being met, but other than that it might be wisest to keep the thing as intact as possible.

Soooooo, I retract all earlier criticism! Yeah, I need to get a life in a big hurry...

Cheers,
Dave

[tanney]

Hehe...Wes is losing his patience already.

Nope, not yet. I am working on about 12 hours sleep in the last 4 days though, so I definitely am a little cranky (just ask the student ho thought he could sneak a coffee into the labs).

[ChrisM]

Complaining about the rules will get us nowhere. What I'm interested in is examining and interpreting the rules so that we understand them better.

A wise man once said:

Assume CNAC rules for next season!!!!!!!

I repeat, unless someone will step up as the solo 2 director with a better, more strandard and acceptable plan, assume CNAC rules for 2004.

There is a tenative date and time for a solo 1 and solo 2 workshops that will be announced shortly.

In case your not paying attention...... ASSUME THAT THE 2004 RULE SET WILL BE CNAC!

Does anyone need this any clearer! Rocket science......I don't think so! CNAC


I'm not quite sure what it means, but I'm guessing that we are going to have to live with the CNAC rules.

So instead of complaining that camber plates and short shifters put cars in SP, I just want to confirm and discuss these rules. That way I can decide if I'm going to remove them or just deal with it.

[Marsh]

I don't think that there are very many people, if any, that think we should try and come up with something on our own. The vast majority agree that the most logical thing to do is adopt CNAC. The question now becomes what could we possibly change about the CNAC rules if we could, since they now have a direct effect on us.

I personally say that we should push for the threaded adjuster change, but whether that goes or not we should still take the CNAC rules for 2004, whatever they should turn out to be.

[tanney]

A wise man once said:
Now what did you call me?!?! Wise?!?! I can't say I've ever been called that before. Dickhead, A$$hole, sure, but wise?

Anyway, here is the threaded Coilover response to my inquiry to a gentleman on the National committee.

[quote]
Ah yes, the ol' adjustable coilover rule. My personal opinion is that given the current availability of threaded coilover shock kits, it should be a no-brainer that such devices should be allowed for
SuperStock category. I lobbied hard for this to change for years in the CACC (BC region) world and finally got it last year, we had intended to make it legal for CNAC but never got the changes done in time for 2003. Rest assured, coilovers will be legal in 2004.

The old logic behind not allowing threaded adjusters was that given limited availability, not all cars could benefit from these devices. They also used to cost a lot too. But times have changed.

[end quote]

So there you have it on that topic, threaded coilovers will be allowable in SS class on Saturday.

[Logan]

I wonder if I could order some, get them here, and have them installed by saturday....

[ShaneG]

I've ordered mine ...but alas they will not even be off the car they are currently on by Saturday:( ...maybe for the shootout!;)

[Martini Focus]

[i]Originally posted by tanney
So there you have it on that topic, threaded coilovers will be allowable in SS class on Saturday.

:D Thanks guys I like the way this is shaping up. Ahh the calming feeling of not being in the top FWD class.

[Chris P]

Originally posted by Martini Focus
:D Thanks guys I like the way this is shaping up. Ahh the calming feeling of not being in the top FWD class.


Didn't anyone tell you full car decals mean instant MOD :o

[Martini Focus]

Originally posted by Chris P
Didn't anyone tell you full car decals mean instant MOD :o

Doesn't apply with my car as I don't have a Type R decal.:D

[AlienDNA]

Originally posted by Dave
I think during a championship series it's fair to say that if it's on the car it should be declared, but for our tester event this Saturday we should really be as flexible as possible in our application of the rules given the this is a 'for fun' event designed to let people try out the CNAC ruleset before next year.

Sadly, I won't be able to make it this weekend (the wife actually wants me to do stuff with her), but if this is going to be a fun event, with no championship or standings implications, why not be a real hard-ass WRT the rules? That would give people a much better assesment of where they'll be under the CNAC rules in 2004 and give them a chance to prepare properly for the coming year.

[rpr]

While I agree with that sentiment on one hand, on the other hand I wouldn't be able to run my car if that were the case. So I vote for 'leeway'.... :)