Solosprint Workshop, Nov. 14, 1pm @ the Sheraton

[bsclywilly]

Our solosprint workshop will be held at the Sheraton prior to the banquet on November 14th. Time will be from 1pm to 3:30pm and room# TBD. Banquet details have been posted at the top of every forum incase you haven't noticed ;)

This is an open forum where everyone is welcome to attend and voice their thoughts and suggestions about how we can improve our series. Certainly there is the rules discussion and we want to know what you think worked and what needs change.

The CCC accepts proposals throughout the year from series competitors and we'll be presenting them during this workshop. If you have a proposal you'd like to make, please send it to the CCC with as much objective backup data as possible to support your idea. Email ccc at soloontario.com.

To give you guys a heads up, some of the major issues we wish to get your feedback on are the following:

1. Street tire classification - proposed to go with 140TW cutoff, PIPs remain unchanged.
2. Implement PAX for overall scoring.
3. Heavy seat PIPs - newer cars seats are getting heavier. Current rules allow free removal of seats weighing as much at 75lbs. Should there be a change to allowable seat mods or PIP heavy seats (motorized, heated, airbags, etc.) accordingly?
4. Front wing PIPs - is this a safety concern? if not, what is a suitable PIP.
5. Organizer points - should we give organizers the choice to take 'organizer points' or scored points prior to the event start?
6. Engine swaps - Is swapping engines between manufacturers still in line with our Solosprint principles?

A few minor clarifications and updates to the rules that won't necessarily require much discussion:

7. Clarify wording on non-OE springs rule
8. Clarify wording on non-stock alignment
9. Add a 90% index to the sPIP conversion table

And a few changes to car classification have been proposed:
10. minor HI or HP changes to Corvette C5z,Cobalt SS T/C, S2000, and Honda Fit.

That's pretty much everything the CCC has on our table so far.

Thanks to Steve and the rest of the CCC guys, the rules seem to have worked quite well this season. I've since taken over from Steve as Chair of the CCC and will be responsible for getting the rule book published on time this year with the help of the rest of the committee. Considering all the work that went in to it in previous years, I think we have relatively little to change this year so that's good news for me :)

Also, some of the issues above have probably been beaten to death already on these forums. I'll make a couple posts in the near future to show what data the CCC is working with for justifying PAX and street tire rules.

Hope to see you on Nov. 14th.

[nissannx]

William, congratulations on a position I know you'll do a wonderful job chairing.

Steve, thank you for your diligent, hard work in the role. I appreciated your help.

Frank

[Slowpoke]

Thanks Frank. Looking at the list above, it seems like everything that people are going to hate for 2010 was my idea, everything they're going to love came from the rest of team. Hopefully I still have air in my tires after the banquet. ;)

[wrxr176]

I would like to make a comment about pax that has been brought up a million times now.

The reason we do not use pax anymore is that pax scoring only scores the fastest time that a competitor sets throughout the day. This type of scoring does not score someone for consistancy. It would be so easy for a driver to win an event with a lucky run. We like to try to make our sport more like race where both the fast and consistant drivers are likely to win.

Another reason is that we would need different pax values for the different tracks we use. On tracks that are faster like MIR or CMP it will give an advantage to the faster classes and on tracks like DDT or SMP Nelson it will give the advantage to the slower classes. The only way to make it fair would be to give each track there own values. This alone would cause chaos with the scoring system.

My suggestion for pax was to average out the fastest run and use the averaged time to score with pax. This method would score a competitor that set a fast run but will also score them based on how fast they were during that session. It would be similar to how we are scoring now but we be equal to all competitors for the overall.

I believe that our scoring system this year did a great job at giving more drivers a chance to win the overall as we had many different winners throughout the season. I know it is not perfect but it works ok.

I believe we should stick with our system we have now for 2010 as 2009 was its first year. If the CCC is willing to do research all year and come up with different pax values for each of the tracks we run then we can evaluate it for 2011. The only way that I believe pax will work is if we have these values in place and to use the averaged time from the fastest session to have consistancy involved with the scoring.

Thanks

[bsclywilly]

I would like to make a comment about pax that has been brought up a million times now.

The reason we do not use pax anymore is that pax scoring only scores the fastest time that a competitor sets throughout the day. This type of scoring does not score someone for consistancy. It would be so easy for a driver to win an event with a lucky run. We like to try to make our sport more like race where both the fast and consistant drivers are likely to win.

Currently, class scores score on the basis of the single fastest lap. To score overall based on the same principle of fastest lap makes sense so that both class and overall scoring is consistent. Right now we're saying you hav eto be the fastest to win your class and you have to be the most consistent to be the top overall. The argument with the 'lucky run' doesn't apply because inorder to score well in PAX in the first place, you must have a well optimised car as well as being a very good driver. If you've got both those combinations, and you're able to set a time that beats PAX by the greatest margin, then shouldn't you deserve overall win? Y

Infact, I would argue that the current method of scoring favors the 'lucky lap'. Because if you win your class on a 'lucky lap' you've just got 100 points in the overall. In PAX scoring, you wouldn't get 100 overall unless you beat everyone elses PAXed time.

Another reason is that we would need different pax values for the different tracks we use. On tracks that are faster like MIR or CMP it will give an advantage to the faster classes and on tracks like DDT or SMP Nelson it will give the advantage to the slower classes. The only way to make it fair would be to give each track there own values. This alone would cause chaos with the scoring system.

JamesM has already crunched the numbers for a 'Big Track' PAX. See this post (http://www.casc.on.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=18231) and your doubts will be answered. We already have accurate PAX and BTPAX for each of the tracks in the 2009 season.

My suggestion for pax was to average out the fastest run and use the averaged time to score with pax. This method would score a competitor that set a fast run but will also score them based on how fast they were during that session. It would be similar to how we are scoring now but we be equal to all competitors for the overall.

Again this is an argument of scoring for consistency or speed. PAX allows us to fairly score competitors from different classes based on speed. The other problem with our current method of scoring with consistency is that each session requires 3 clean laps. If this is not needed anymore then it opens up the doors to other timed lap formats which could reduce the number of delays, make clerking alot easier, and overall provide everyone with more track time. And in the event that you don't get all 3 clean laps, you're not subject to an arbitrary handicap of 4 points with the current scoring method.

I believe that our scoring system this year did a great job at giving more drivers a chance to win the overall as we had many different winners throughout the season. I know it is not perfect but it works ok.

I believe we should stick with our system we have now for 2010 as 2009 was its first year.

It did appear to work well. And the top 5 or 6 wouldn't have changed too much even if we scored with PAX. But there are guys that are currently penalised not because they are slow, but because there is one fast guy in their class that drags down their class score so that they can never do well overall. Case in point, Dave Barker pointed out that there are so many lightweight cars in the top 10 overall and few of the bigger higher classed cars. This happened to be the case because Chris destroyed his class and the rest of the guys would never show up in overall points because of it. If scored by PAX, Chris would still do extremely well but Pete and Brad would have scored quite high as well since their performance relative to the average was still up there.

If the CCC is willing to do research all year and come up with different pax values for each of the tracks we run then we can evaluate it for 2011. The only way that I believe pax will work is if we have these values in place and to use the averaged time from the fastest session to have consistancy involved with the scoring.

Done (http://www.casc.on.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=18231).

[ADAM]

re: front wing...

its as safe as a splitter or rear wing..they are used on heaps of different cars in vastly differnt racing venues..


re: engines swaps ..

what should it matter if you swap a honda 1.6 litre to a honda 2.4litre..or a nissan 2.4litre to a GM 5.7 litre? or swap many of the various nissan engines into s13 chassis..we cant all have the money to buy supercars to get supercar performance.. its a run what you brung series..the power is declared so who cares who makes the engine..are we some brand series?

ohh sorry you cant drive your AC cobra cause it has a american 427 in it, vs the original british straight 6 ?

oh sorry did you add japanese turbo to your german car?

not sure what relevance this makes at all?

[ADAM]

re: front wing...

IF I was on the ccc still ...I would revamp the aero section totally, as I said years ago...we will see a slow creep into cars that end up looking like pikes peak....WHY cause it works...we are now seeing a myriad of wings....and now even under trays and diffusers being built..

all this does is adds speed to an already vastly faster set of cars than we have historically seen..and adds added cost to the competitors..and kills the viability of OEM cars competing against prepared cars...

as for safety...you are allowing OEM cars to run around at 200k++ with OEM safety defeated (air bags removed and bumpers) with no cages..yet adding a front wing to a fully caged and prepped car is dangerous? you may want to triage what in fact is dangerous in the series..

IMO
rear spolier=3pips
rear wing =5 pips
undertray ventura/diffuser=8pips
front wing=4pips
front splitter=3pips
any or all other aero not mentioned=5pips aka winglets, canards..vorticies generators..ect ect..

[Maddog]

I vote to ban aero stuff altogether. The series is suppose to focus on street cars & budgets, and honestly, how many street cars have functional aero installed already?

Time to get back to basics...this coming from someone driving a track only car also.

[racecartech]

I have to say my opinion on aero. unless it is maufacturer specific bolt on I don't think it should be played with.

if a company sells a product vehicle specific and that fails there is recourse.

if I or anyone else builds something, with no proper testing, it should not.

This is my opinion, it is not directed at anyone. Aero can be dangerous, especially if something fails. I don't make any decisions so my opinion does not matter, just wanted to voice it.

I will go back to alignment and chasis set up now

[IanO]

I vote to ban trailer queens :D Or at least pip them a few classes.

I see we're also instituting rewards pips without calling them as such (ala Z06, S2K, Cobalt, Fit) ;)

[craig]

IMO
rear spolier=3pips
rear wing =5 pips
undertray ventura/diffuser=8pips
front wing=4pips
front splitter=3pips
any or all other aero not mentioned=5pips aka winglets, canards..vorticies generators..ect ect..

That's +19 pips of aero on my car as it last ran in Solo1 :p.

However, I agree with Adam on the general breakdown for aero - but at perhaps half the PIP's. Nothing should be free.

As for the rest, I only see one serious issue with the current rules - aero - and there is the fundamental principle that rules that don't change are the fairest.

YMMV.

[nissannx]

[QUOTE=IanO;156044]I vote to ban trailer queens :D Or at least pip them a few classes.
[QUOTE]

Hmmm. I've started towing my car (4 wheels on ground so technically it's not a trailer queen) not because I don't want to drive it, but because I find it easier to sleep in the RV and I can bring my family along. I don't want to get banned/pipped because I choose comfort in my old age.:D

[oldguy]

Scott:

I agree 100% on your aero viewpoint. Aero is far
more complicated and should be treated far more
carefully than it now is.

Frank:

Keep racing. You might end up sleeping in the car
a lot more than you'd like, once Pam gets her paws
on your Visa statements :eek:

[Ytzman]

Ian, you are more than welcome to drive my "trailer queen" to see if you still think towing a 25 year old car to the track is worth extra pips. :rolleyes:

As far as areo being more dangerous, well yes, it is, but so is any modification to any vehicle that brings the "performance" of the vehicle up beyond the designers / engineers specs. I'm with Adam on this one. if I had to choose a car to crash in, I'd pick the fully caged / prepped car doing 120 over a "stock" vehicle with old OEM 3 point seat belts doing 60.
Maybe a safety requirement of at least rollover protection is needed for cars with more than "mild" areo mods?

[racecartech]

cars can be trailered for many reasons, mine even when it was plated I trailered to any track day. The main reason, if it broke it is much easier to get home. Those that know me know I drive all out, the chance of breaking increases. Ultimately e-testing put my car permanantly on the trailer. I still have the expired plates so if I e-test it I can drive it on the road again.

[G-ForceJunkie]

The CCC is looking for input on potentially disallowing the free removal or modification of seats. If any competitors have any input, please let us hear it.

[IanO]

The CCC is looking for input on potentially disallowing the free removal or modification of seats. If any competitors have any input, please let us hear it.

IMO, they should at least be free with the addition of a rollbar. You need after market seats to properly install a 6pt harness, and we want to continue to encourage safety. Mind you, most cars with a rollbar are probably using the weight option so anything they remove is already factored in.

In a stock car, I see no reason why removing a front seat shouldn't be pipped though. Removing the rear seats is usually okay since you need the space for tires/tools.

[Ujjwal]

The CCC is looking for input on potentially disallowing the free removal or modification of seats. If any competitors have any input, please let us hear it.

Removal of seats (i.e. weight reduction) should not be allowed without being PiP'ed for it.

Modifying the seats (swapping out the drivers seat for a bucket type seat) has such minimal improvement gains that it is almost negligible. More than anything, it improves the comfort of the driver which in terms of performance gains is ambiguous.

[Tashko]

The CCC is looking for input on potentially disallowing the free removal or modification of seats. If any competitors have any input, please let us hear it.

Oh, sure, just when I'm about to put a proper seat in my car! Wait until 2011 and I can let you know how much faster the weight savings and proper support is worth. ;)

[Cap'n Pete]

I vote to ban aero stuff altogether. The series is suppose to focus on street cars & budgets, and honestly, how many street cars have functional aero installed already?

Time to get back to basics...this coming from someone driving a track only car also.
Why ban aero? Seriously?! If we PIP it accordingly, I see no problem. My car out-performs a couple heavier, non-aero versions of itself, and is classed higher as a result, so what's the issue? My car also does NOT walk away with its class (it lost to a PAIR of street driven cars), so I don't think there's a problem with it performing "too good" either ;).

I vote to ban trailer queens, Or at least pip them a few classes.
Again, WHY? Most of the class champs were NOT trailer queens. "Trailer queens" have not been running away with the series, and are moreso on the trailer for convenience (in some cases) than necessity.

Besides, if you had shown up for the minimum 6 events, you may have won your class this year ;).

I see we're also instituting rewards pips without calling them as such (ala Z06, S2K, Cobalt, Fit) ;)
Where is the REWARD in assigning HIGHER base PIP schedules to these cars??? :confused: Sounds like penatly, not reward!

Removal of seats (i.e. weight reduction) should not be allowed without being PiP'ed for it.
Agree.

Modifying the seats (swapping out the drivers seat for a bucket type seat) has such minimal improvement gains that it is almost negligible.
Disagree. After spending an entire season in a proper racing bucket w/5-point harness, then jumping back into, scratch that, ON TO a leather "bucket" (bench?!) with a 3-point seat-belt, I found myself spending a crap load of energy and focus just keeping myself in/on the seat!! :eek: The benefit of being held FIRMLY in your seat, leaving your arms and legs free to do the DRIVING, and the secure FEEL of being in that seat is certainly an advantage. Exactly how many "PIPs" is it worth? Maybe not much in reality, but it's gotta be worth something. And that's not even taking into account the potential WEIGHT SAVINGS of ditching a potentially HEAVY factory seat for a light-weight aluminum shell w/padding.

[IanO]

Again, WHY? Most of the class champs were NOT trailer queens. "Trailer queens" have not been running away with the series, and are moreso on the trailer for convenience (in some cases) than necessity.

Besides, if you had shown up for the minimum 6 events, you may have won your class this year ;).


I'm not really against trailer queens ... my car will likely become one once I reconcile myself with having a boring truck in the garage. It was more a tongue in cheeck comment in response to the "street cars" comments by people who trailer their cars ;) I had to laugh out loud at the irony.

With regards to 6 events, it just didn't work well with my schedule. Hopefully next year unless aero and S2ks get pipped to mod.


Where is the REWARD in assigning HIGHER base PIP schedules to these cars??? :confused: Sounds like penatly, not reward!


Reward weights is a common term used in racing to penalize drivers that do well. The name might be wrong, but it's not my choosing :) See http://www.world-challenge.com/series.php?page=seriesfacts for an example of this.

I just think that if the goal is to pip top drivers, then come up with a system to do that. ChrisP is fast in anything he drives. Maybe the new tactic should be to get him to drive your competitors cars so they get pipped to a higher class :)

[Cap'n Pete]

Reward weights is a common term used in racing to penalize drivers that do well. The name might be wrong, but it's not my choosing :) See http://www.world-challenge.com/series.php?page=seriesfacts for an example of this.
Ha ha, I'm slow. Didn't realize you meant "rewards" not "rewards". Always looks good on a person when a joke requires an instruction manual :rolleyes:. I'll go sit in the corner and shut-up now :o.

[bsclywilly]

The reason why we're adjusting the S2k was not just because of Chris, because we would have done that last year. But after two other drivers have also driven it, it has proven to be very competitive also. I think the history behind it is that the Handling Index was previously dropped from 75% to 70%. We're just moving it back up and it will have no effect on the base class. Just preventing them from getting any faster in their class.

But, because we can compare Chris' performance in a stock S2 to his performance this year in his C5, it would be appropriate to adjust the C5Z at least as much as the S2. Otherwise it would be unfair to any S2 drivers.

The Cobalt SS T/C we have alot of evidence from dyno plots that their factory HP is underrated. It's performance at MIR over the other tracks really showed that so we're looking at a slight HP adjustment, again nothing that will change it's base class.

...
If we're PIPing more comfortable, supportive racing seats, can we also PIP Aircon? I'm sweating buckets in my car and that's gotta be worth 2s, I sweat!:D;)

[STIgma]

Modifying the seats (swapping out the drivers seat for a bucket type seat) has such minimal improvement gains that it is almost negligible. More than anything, it improves the comfort of the driver which in terms of performance gains is ambiguous.

When I swapped my STI's factory driver seat for an OMP CF race seat I probably shed 30 lbs of dead weight. In addition, the added lateral support is probably worth a few tenths a lap at least, in terms of "distraction management" by eliminating the need to compensate for being thrown around in the seat during cornering.

Just sayin'.

[dubya_rx]

Rear seats tend to be a lot lighter than front seats. Plus the added convenience of allowing transportation of tires inside the vehicle potentially allow more competitors to compete in the series.

I already cannot take advantage of using a light bucket in my car since I take out the rear seats without incurring PIPs. I have to use a reclineable front seat which weighs roughly the same as my stock seat.

I cannot take out the passenger seat without taking PIPs. I know some cars require both rear and passenger seats (RX8) to be taken out to transport tires, but they are already PIP'ed for that.

I think the current rules are fine as they allow those who want to trade off convenience for those who might shred the equivalence of 1 PIP of weight.

[Ujjwal]

It is of my personal opinion that a bucket seat definitely should improve lap times, it's just that it is subjective in the end. One can argue that some people can drive the car to the same ability with or without being held in place and for that simple reason, it's not necessarily a performance improvement. The weight savings is a concrete point and maybe a ballast system could be put into place (The seat that I bought, mainly for comfort, is roughly the same weight as my stock seat which is why I don't want to be pip'ed as that would change my class for next year. Or I could just try resell the seat).

It then brings to light about the other little things that could be scrutinized like dedicated driving shoes, gloves, steering wheels, pedal covers (for sure improving heel and toe would save on the lap times), and the list goes on.

[CDNMadeHondaGuy]

Y aknow, reading all of this stuff makes me think. The CCC make the rules and for the most part are fair. We have many different classes to run in to try and keep it more or less fair. Some rules are less than popular, (I think my view on the seat belt rule is well known:D) but others are great. As for AERO and banning different things and making it a run what you bring series and the trailer queen thing, well, get over it!:rolleyes: I think the MODS are neat, makes it interesting to watch. We have other classes for the MOD cars and classes for stock cars. If it was all judged the same I can understand but it isn't. I have a trailer, it's actually my storage shed for the winter and in the summer I use it because I have it. I do have plates on my car and can go and get a sticker and drive it anytime, but I choose to trailer it. Came in handy at the Kids Day when the first time in a very long time one of my cars had to be pushed into the trailer instead of going in under it's own power. I made it home and the car is there, hibernating and I will worry about it next year. Yes that is a luxury I can't afford and shouldn't have but it's paid for and I might as well use it.

What the real bottom line is this: we are out on the track to have fun, to enjoy the cars and for the most part, enjoy the people we meet. Some are amazing and others, well, you can't like everybody! LAst time I checked NONE of us are making a living doing this. Chuck, what is the SOLOSPRINT Champs cheque for 2009?! Yep, thought so, same as mine for not running this year. Same as the cheque I am getting from Autoslalom for my win.

for those that are ultra competitive, have means and want to win no matter what, fine, go for it. But they would probably be the same if they were playing baseball or shooting darts. Competitive people are just that, competitive.

Remember what brought most of us out to the track. the love of cars, the love of speed, the love of FRIENDLY competition, and the desire to be a better driver. I have been told to change this or that on my cars but I won't because it doesn't really matter to me anymore, I just want to drive them and enjoy them. Sandra intends to drive next year unless conditions change, (she won't drive pregnant) and she pretty much wants to be a better driver and hang with the people she has met. Which BTW, she says is a great group and she has missed coming out to the events this year because of the great people.

And that after all is the bottom line, the people can make it or break it. For us, we like them and we love the cars. Whatever the rules are, we will be back out and we will just enjoy ourselves. I wonder if we can put in a rule for smiling and having fun........... If you are not having fun, (unless it is understandable, wrecked/broken) then you are docked ten seconds! :p

Have fun! Tomorrow will be interesting........................;)

[Salmaan]

The CCC is looking for input on potentially disallowing the free removal or modification of seats. If any competitors have any input, please let us hear it.


Disagree on PIPing for modifying seats...

From what I remember, the rules state that a reclining seat replacing the original takes no PIPs, but a fixed back (assuming thin shell light weight) will take PIPs. Why not leave it alone?

If I get an aftermarket seat to replace my mustang "seat", but can still be used with a 3pt belt, within weight +/-25lbs, why PIP that?

The whole support/comfort thing is very subjective. If that were the case, we would be PIPing CG-Locks and those "Powered by XXXX" seatbelt pads too because they "could" improve one's performance...that's a slippery slope.

[craig]

The 'cheque' is pretty reasonable for the various winners. I can't remember whether all of the event entry fees are covered, but it is enough to cover a season IIRC.

All I do remember from the meeting where the awards were decided is that I get one free entry as I'm an OSO member :cool:.

Oh yeah, winners and committee members get fed at the banquet too :).

[SmokeScreen]

After spending an entire season in a proper racing bucket w/5-point harness, then jumping back into, scratch that, ON TO a leather "bucket" (bench?!) with a 3-point seat-belt, I found myself spending a crap load of energy and focus just keeping myself in/on the seat!! :eek: The benefit of being held FIRMLY in your seat, leaving your arms and legs free to do the DRIVING, and the secure FEEL of being in that seat is certainly an advantage. Exactly how many "PIPs" is it worth? Maybe not much in reality, but it's gotta be worth something. And that's not even taking into account the potential WEIGHT SAVINGS of ditching a potentially HEAVY factory seat for a light-weight aluminum shell w/padding.

So its not just me........sometimes after a day at the track I am beat, sore legs and arms. It is one of the changes I am considering for next season, the addition of a proper seat and harness IF I can come up with a good solution for mounting a harness that does not detract from using the car as an occasional daily driver.
As for this talk of adjusting the HI or PI of the C5Z, does this include all C5's?
Or just the Z06?

[edobbie]

Folks,

I won't be at the awards/annual banquet and workshop on Sat but will contribute to the rules/PIP discussion. Firstly, my thought is that everyone is taking Solosprint too seriously. The recurring comments in the discussion are fun, enjoyable people/racers, make the cars go faster, improve skills..... Let's not forget these.

My impression is that the rules are pretty good right now, and as we all know the phrase "if aint broke, don't fix it". I don't think that anyone really ran away with any class by driving a specific model of car that didn't have some pretty good competition. If anything, driver skill was the differentiator.

So be careful when revising the rules for 2010. We should seek to get more competitors rather than alienating the current gang, perhaps losing some of them/us to some other motorsport discipline.

Have fun on Sat.

[Doug P]

So its not just me........sometimes after a day at the track I am beat, sore legs and arms. It is one of the changes I am considering for next season, the addition of a proper seat and harness IF I can come up with a good solution for mounting a harness that does not detract from using the car as an occasional daily driver.
As for this talk of adjusting the HI or PI of the C5Z, does this include all C5's?
Or just the Z06?

A harness will require a roll bar or cage.

[SmokeScreen]

A harness will require a roll bar or cage.

Exactly, but my original solution that is SCCA legal but not to Solo is the harness bar that bolts onto to shoulder harness anchor points. Even though that is a very sturdy structure of the car and in many ways the equivalent to a roll bar it is not good enough.:rolleyes:
Not wild about having the car caged, I get enough hassle from cops as it is without them looking in and seeing a cage in there. So I may make something that is removable but legal without carving up the car.

[Doug P]

Exactly, but my original solution that is SCCA legal but not to Solo is the harness bar that bolts onto to shoulder harness anchor points. Even though that is a very sturdy structure of the car and in many ways the equivalent to a roll bar it is not good enough.:rolleyes:
Not wild about having the car caged, I get enough hassle from cops as it is without them looking in and seeing a cage in there. So I may make something that is removable but legal without carving up the car.

I may be misunderstanding you but I will try again. On my 97 Camaro I had CSC make me a harness bar that was permanently mounted to the rear shoulder belt mount points.

It was felt by some that running on the track with a harness that fixed you upright would not be safe in a rollover without rollover protection. The rules were changed tro require a roll bar or cage.

If you use a harness you must have a rollbar to protect you in an rollover as the harness will keep you upright.

[sti_schumacher]

Removing the rear seats is usually okay since you need the space for tires/tools.

+1 - i, for one, can't fit a set of tires in the car if i dont take the rear seat out... i dont think i should be pipped for that, provided also that the seat weigs 20 lbs at most...

[dubya_rx]

A harness will require a roll bar or cage.

What about a DOT legal 4 point belt? I'd rather rely on the DOT rather than some heresay about what happens in a rollover.

[Slowpoke]

+1 - i, for one, can't fit a set of tires in the car if i dont take the rear seat out... i dont think i should be pipped for that, provided also that the seat weigs 20 lbs at most...

USDM STi Driver Seat with brackets and rails ----- 46.6 lbs
USDM STi Passenger Seat with brackets and rails - 41.2 lbs

These are mechanical seats with no motors. The driver's has height adjustment that the passenger side doesn't have. Both seats have airbags and heaters in the '05, driverside only in the '04.

Sparco Prodrive $$$ (Corsa) seat with Sparco bracket - 23.8

Back seat bottom - 8.8
Back seat top - 11.6
Back seat total - 20.4 lbs

[Ytzman]

What about a DOT legal 4 point belt? I'd rather rely on the DOT rather than some heresay about what happens in a rollover.

Not that I am the one who would make the final call on this, but I believe that a DOT 4 point would still require roll over protection. You don't need a full cage, just the main hoop and down bars. I'm sure you guys with the more popular cars, like the corvette and STi can find a nice removable bolt in kit?
Trust me, you'll feel safer and you will be faster.:D

[craig]

A harness will require a roll bar or cage.

Please re-read the harness bulletin.

While it is true that most harnesses are intended to be used with rollcages, there are harnesses that don't require rollover protection - and some of those are even compliant with HANS! That doesn't mean that such a harness exists for every vehicle, but if it does, it is allowed under the rules.

[IanO]

What about a DOT legal 4 point belt? I'd rather rely on the DOT rather than some heresay about what happens in a rollover.

I think those are allowed. Pope had them in his wagon.

[Navigator]

+1 - i, for one, can't fit a set of tires in the car if i dont take the rear seat out... i dont think i should be pipped for that, provided also that the seat weigs 20 lbs at most...

Alex, with the same car as you I could fit the tires without removing my back seat. How were you trying to put them in there?

[Doug P]

Please re-read the harness bulletin.

While it is true that most harnesses are intended to be used with rollcages, there are harnesses that don't require rollover protection - and some of those are even compliant with HANS! That doesn't mean that such a harness exists for every vehicle, but if it does, it is allowed under the rules.

So I suppose what would be nice to have posted here is some detail on what belts these are and where someone would go about getting a set.

[SmokeScreen]

After doing a little bit of research on the DOT 4 point option there seems to be only one maker of such belts, Schroth http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/store/schroth-tuning/rallye/rallye-4
Problem for me seems these are only for cars with a rear seat.
The style of harness bar I was hoping to use is made by a few companies http://www.bkauto.com/corvette/r1115.php
http://www.sparcousa.com/harness_bars.asp
The biggest problem the SCCA has with these bars in street classes is that if they are installed but not used for a harness then the sole purpose is to add stiffness to the car which is not allowed. So I would like to know, who, why and when made such a decision and can they provide proof that this style of bar on this type of car is not safe?
I believe I have sufficient evidence to back up my claim that for this application a bar of this type is safe.

[Slowpoke]

http://www.sparcousa.com/harness_bars.asp
The biggest problem the SCCA has with these bars in street classes is that if they are installed but not used for a harness then the sole purpose is to add stiffness to the car which is not allowed. So I would like to know, who, why and when made such a decision and can they provide proof that this style of bar on this type of car is not safe?
I believe I have sufficient evidence to back up my claim that for this application a bar of this type is safe.

This is a CASC-OR forum, not an SCCA forum. You would have to ask SCCA that.

http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/store/schroth-tuning

The Rallye-4 is not the only Schroth belt that works, but it is the "generic fit" one. The Quick Fit and Quick Fit Pro fit certain cars without a harness bar. Harness bars are not necessarily required. Read the manufacturer's directions carefully for installation. If it is not designed for your type of vehicle, and you do not install it per their instructions, it will STILL not be legal for SoloSprint use.

The Quick Fit models are targeted more to models popular in Europe. So, not an abundant Chevy specific list.

[SmokeScreen]

This is a CASC-OR forum, not an SCCA forum. You would have to ask SCCA that.

http://www.hmsmotorsport.com/store/schroth-tuning

The Rallye-4 is not the only Schroth belt that works, but it is the "generic fit" one. The Quick Fit and Quick Fit Pro fit certain cars without a harness bar. Harness bars are not necessarily required. Read the manufacturer's directions carefully for installation. If it is not designed for your type of vehicle, and you do not install it per their instructions, it will STILL not be legal for SoloSprint use.

The Quick Fit models are targeted more to models popular in Europe. So, not an abundant Chevy specific list.
My point is that SCCA is not opposed to the harness only bar WITHOUT rollover protection but Solo Ontario is. As Doug mentioned earlier he tried that option and someone in Solo said no dice. So I want to know, why? Particularly on the c5 and c6 vettes which have a seriously robust structure (not on conv) . There were some in SCCA that were opposed to the harness bar believing that it could add significant stiffness to some cars, but they are allowed as long as a person uses a harness with them.
And I never said Schroth Rallye 4 is the only, just that Schroth is the only after market belt maker that has their belts DOT rated.

[Slowpoke]

Did you already rule out the Rallye Cross?

http://www.schrothracing.com/store/Tuning/rallye/rallye-cross

[SmokeScreen]

Schroth does make a harness that is used with a harness bar like the ones available for the C5 and C6 Corvette that wraps around the harness bar, are DOT legal and work with the stock seats if they are the sport type seat that has the opening between the backrest and fixed head rest. This would be the set up I would use if it was acceptable in Solo.
So, allowed or no?
Page 8 of the instructions cover mounting to a harness bar http://www.schrothracing.com/docs/Rallye_3_&_4_Instructions.pdf
Sport seat http://www.mamotorworks.com/corvette-c5-seat-covers+1997+2004-sport-1-411-9350.html

[SmokeScreen]

Did you already rule out the Rallye Cross?

http://www.schrothracing.com/store/Tuning/rallye/rallye-cross

As a matter of fact I did, at first:o. But after re-reading and looking through the instructions that would be the way I would like to go. But before I spend the $$ I want to be certain that it is allowed now and in the future.

[Slowpoke]

This would be the set up I would use if it was acceptable in Solo.
So, allowed or no?

The rulebook is here:

http://www.casc.on.ca/uploadedFiles/2009_SoloSprint_RegulationsR1090416214552.pdf

The 2009 bulletin on belts that replaces that section is here:

http://www.casc.on.ca/uploadedFiles/Bulletin_2009-02-_Restraint_Systems090815115334.pdf

The correct classification and legality of a car is always the competitor's responsibility. Asking on the forums for anybody to rule on the validity of safety devices will get you a range of opinions that will in the end, be useless to you. I can't tell you that the belt is legal because I can't answer questions 1 though 5 in the Schroth installation manual. HMS Motorsport would be happy to answer that with your help, I am sure. In the end, you could install it wrong, not have the correct seat design, etc. and my opinion of the legality of the belts would be useless to you. In the end, it is the competitor's responsibility and no one can give you a useful "yes" over a forum. I will personally not give you a "No". :)

The most useful thing for you to do is answer questions 1-5 in the Schroth manual for yourself, do your homework on installation and validity for your car, and present the information you have to Joe Smiley, the series scrutineer. His contact information is available on page 2 of the rulebook that I linked above. However, if you don't do your homework first and present him useful information, he can't help you. Joe doesn't hang out on the forums, he's not an avid shopper for belt systems familiar with all of the installation details of each manufacturer. He is a series volunteer who has the final decision on your belts, and Joe does usually answer Email within 48 hours.

But before I spend the $$ I want to be certain that it is allowed now and in the future.

Unfortunately, nobody can give you an honest answer about future legality. We can talk out our alternate orifices and tell you "Yes, this will be allowed forever, go spend your money", but again, it would be useless to you. Forces outside the control of the people here (sanctioning boards, insurance companies, safety review committees etc.) could always have an influence on our ruleset and provoke a reversal of something that the OSO established.

SoloSprint is a grass roots form of motorsports designed for street cars, so the BEST bet on stable restraint legality is your OE three point. However, even that is not guaranteed to be stable. Other Time Attack / SoloSprint / Time Trial series require rollover protection and SFI / FIA legal harnesses. I can tell you that it will NEVER happen here, but again, that would be my alternate orifice talking.

I am not personally aware of any plans for Ontario SoloSprint to change the restraint rules for 2010, BUT, we were warned in spring 2009 to expect ASN Canada (the sanctioning body that grants our insurance http://www.asncanada.com/ ) to issue a bulletin on restraint systems that may come as early as August 2009. It is still pending. It may never come. But if you don't need to take action immediately, I would in the very least wait for the rulebook to be published on January 1st, 2010. Chuck Atkins, the series director, has promised to hang the CCC and OSO from the nearest tree if the ruleset is not ready on January 1st. So my opinion would be... dot your I's, cross your T's, make sure that the Rallye Cross and harness bar IS legal. But don't buy ANYTHING until you see the new rulebook.

Chuck is also the SoloSport representative of ASN Canada and will have the most up to date information on the ASN restraint system bulletin that may or may not be pending. His contact information is also on page 2 of the Ontario SoloSprint rulebook. Chuck checks the forum occasionally, but a formal inquiry by Email is your best bet.

I notice that you're with OMSC and I'm sure that Dave Barker, the solosprint rep for OMSC, would also be happy to help you with optimizing your car. His contact information is on page 2 of the rulebook. Unfortunately, he, too will not be able to make the decision you want on the belts.

OE three point is awful simple, eh? :D

[SmokeScreen]

Another option could be stick with the three point and have flame proof velcro sewn to my suit and seat :D.
All joking aside sticking with the three point is the simple route, but damn it would be nice to be anchored in place. Doubt it would make me any faster but it cannot hurt . Adding a full cage, race seats, and race harness is the safest route, but for something I want to drive on the street, no. I will do more in depth research into my proposed set up, wait for the new rule book and go from there. Thanks for the input Slowpoke, I appreciate it.

[craig]

So I suppose what would be nice to have posted here is some detail on what belts these are and where someone would go about getting a set.

AFAIK, Schroth, OMP, Sabelt, MoMo, Bride (IIRC), Toyota (TRD) Ferrari, Porsche, and whatever Lear is called these days make them. There are probably others (I've omitted ones that I know exist for cars that aren't sold here, e.g., Citroen, Peugeot, and Renault, all of whom offer such belts as a factory option on selected models.)

Schroth is the only manufacturer to have made a significant marketing effort in North America, so I would try there first. They have (or had) an application cross-reference on their Germany site.

What is homologated (whether by your car's manufacturer or the harness manufacturer) for your particular vehicle is the key issue, and, as Steve mentioned, coverage is strongest for European vehicles. As a general rule, if your car has an FIA Group N, etc., version, then something is likely to exist (although typically only with a specific seat and, if applicable, airbag.) Vehicle (not belt to vehicle) homologation lists are at www.fia.com)

Hope this helps.

[Doug P]

So are these belts shoulder harnesses on some sort of retractable system like a stock shoulder belt or do they hold you tight and secure in an upright position?

[IanO]

So, with regards to the original topic :) Any summary of discussion from yesterday?

[craig]

So are these belts shoulder harnesses on some sort of retractable system like a stock shoulder belt or do they hold you tight and secure in an upright position?

Typically, you are held tight, but there is some mechanism to release tension to prevent submarining in the stock seat. I have used one model, and it worked when needed. Some others do have retractors. Also typical is the use of stock mounting points, and 2" wide belts.

Note: to clarify, the majority of applications are not HANS-compatible (although there are other head and neck restraints that will work, e.g., Leatt brace.)

[bsclywilly]

So, with regards to the original topic :) Any summary of discussion from yesterday?

A brief summary of the proposals discussed:

Remove allowable seat removal/sub/mod rule. Seat removal and modification getting pips something like this:
Driver seat substitution or modification 1 pip
Rear seat removal .5 pips
Passenger seat removal 1 pip
Passenger seat substitution or modification (where the driver seat has been substituted or modified) 0 pips
Passenger seat substitution or modification (where the driver seat is stock) 1 pips
Removal of seat air bag and or internal seat hardware. .5 pips per seat Competitor comments were with regards to keeping this rule as simple as possible given how common it is. Also some wording to clarify PIPs when a roll cage is installed.

Street tires to include 140TW without PIP changes. Consistency with other rulesets and data. 'Ubers' should still be the optimal setup.

PAX based scoring needs to look at other years results and rain results before implementing. Some competitors want consistency factored in so that overall results reflect an average of best 2 or 3 times but Solosprint definition is that of a 'speed event'. Rain events may cap max score at 100. Tie break won't be an issue with PAXed overall results. Introduced the idea of using PAX overall points to also score class would give one point structure and woudn't affect class placement (difference being your class score is relative to the PAX average rather than the class winner).

S2000 and Corvette C5Z06 Handling indicies go up by 5%

Cobalt SS T/C HP goes to 272HP based on GPS data.

Aero:
Front wings are not going to be allowed for reasons being they don't fit under our series principles of classifying stock and moderately modified cars. You can still run them but you'll be in MOD.
Limiting aero and bodywork to not exceed an increase in overall length, width or height of 12" from the stock body.
PIPs remain unchanged.
Discussion of adding a min. ground clearance rule or rule to prevent dragging of bodywork, splitters, etc. was not very popular given that even stock cars experience this going in to 5A MIR. Let current discretion of corner workers call in potentially unsafe body work/aero.

Engine swaps between makes, no problem leaving things as they are since rules are based on HP-weight-handling, independent of engine/chassis make.

Penalties for putting wheels off:
2 wheels off will now be counted as a 4WO penalty to try to reduce the number of incidents.

Chuck may add some info about schedule for next season.

[IanO]

Limiting aero and bodywork to not exceed an increase in overall length, width or height of 12" from the stock body.

...

Chuck may add some info about schedule for next season.

So a wing on the trunk is okay as long as it doesn't go more than 12" above the roof? Or the trunk? I realized this stuff isn't finalized yet, but I need to figure out if I'll need to "alter" my current wing mounts. At least I can make it 12" wider :D

Would love to see the schedule soon! Otherwise I'll be stuck running less than a full season again :(

[Pete@Marcor]

My point is that SCCA is not opposed to the harness only bar WITHOUT rollover protection but Solo Ontario is. As Doug mentioned earlier he tried that option and someone in Solo said no dice. So I want to know, why? Particularly on the c5 and c6 vettes which have a seriously robust structure (not on conv) . There were some in SCCA that were opposed to the harness bar believing that it could add significant stiffness to some cars, but they are allowed as long as a person uses a harness with them.
And I never said Schroth Rallye 4 is the only, just that Schroth is the only after market belt maker that has their belts DOT rated.

Are you referring to SCCA Solo 1 or Solo 2 rules?

I think you will find SCCA's Solo 1 rules a little more strict than ours.

Regardless, the general idea in Ontario is this. If you have a 4,5, or 6 point harness on, you cannot move out of the way of a roof that is crushing and coming down on you. With a 3 point OE, or the DOT legal belts, they have the provision to let you move.

So, if you have a non-DOT harness on, you need to increase the rigidity of your vehicle. I would also imagine that if you could convince a scrutineer that YOUR roof would be stronger than a roll bar, you may have a chance.

That being said, I believe that a seat is a bigger issue. It holds you in better, and restricts the movement as well. But, it is legal.

Why not put in an aftermarket seat with the OE 3 point?

[Salmaan]

Why not put in an aftermarket seat with the OE 3 point?

To clarify, is this going to cost 1 PIP regardless of the type of seat i.e Fix back vs reclining bucket?

[Maddog]

So a wing on the trunk is okay as long as it doesn't go more than 12" above the roof? Or the trunk? I realized this stuff isn't finalized yet, but I need to figure out if I'll need to "alter" my current wing mounts. At least I can make it 12" wider :D

Would love to see the schedule soon! Otherwise I'll be stuck running less than a full season again :(It's above the roof line.

The 12" is total for all sides. Example: If you're wing sticks up past the roof line 6", you could only make it 6" wider, or if it's past the roof line 6", and you decide to install a front splitter, the splitter can only stick out 6" past the original front bumper line, etc..

[Dave Barker]

To clarify, is this going to cost 1 PIP regardless of the type of seat i.e Fix back vs reclining bucket?

Actually a reclining bucket is still an authorised mod. Fixed back racing seats are 1 PIP.

Note that airbag pips are separate from seat pips so that if you remove a seat with airbags, you take pips for the seat AND the airbag.

[IanO]

It's above the roof line.

The 12" is total for all sides. Example: If you're wing sticks up past the roof line 6", you could only make it 6" wider, or if it's past the roof line 6", and you decide to install a front splitter, the splitter can only stick out 6" past the original front bumper line, etc..

Makes sense, thanks. I'm below the roof line and body width now. So I guess I'll have to design a 12" splitter :D

[nrg3k_civic]

how on earth is a marshal going to see 2 wheels off when its hard enough to tell if a car went 4 off ? why make this a rule when we already have cones placed in problem areas? seems like we've got nanny's making rules to prevent us from having fun... sorry, not impressed at all with this rule change.

DJM:>

[bsclywilly]

Aero:
Front wings are not going to be allowed for reasons being they don't fit under our series principles of classifying stock and moderately modified cars. You can still run them but you'll be in MOD.


Correction tomy previous post. Chuck's stance on this issue is to ban any front wings. But possibly making an allowance for cars that come stock with them i.e. formula cars, ariel atom, etc.

[Cap'n Pete]

how on earth is a marshal going to see 2 wheels off when its hard enough to tell if a car went 4 off ? why make this a rule when we already have cones placed in problem areas? seems like we've got nanny's making rules to prevent us from having fun... sorry, not impressed at all with this rule change.

DJM:>
Ok, for one, I really don't think it'll be that hard to tell if a car has its wheels on the track or not ;).

Most importantly, this rule change idea came about after having more offs at Mosport than we'd like to see. You would tend to think that the presense of cement WALLS would be enough incentive to keep people ON TRACK, but apparently not! ;) The 2WO vs. 4WO is intended to be extra "incentive" to STAY ON TRACK (in particular, at Mosport). If your run (time) is going to be blown by putting wheels off the track (even if it is "safe" in your opinion) then people might be encouraged NOT to push quite so far.

And as for putting pylons on the curbing, well, pylons have proved to be a detriment to a car's handling capabilities between 5A & 5B, so I don't think we want to solely rely on them to keep people "on track" either :rolleyes:.

I don't know if there is any consideration towards making this a MIR-only rule, or apply to all tracks? The basis for the rule stems from MIR, but I can see the justification in keeping people on-track at ALL tracks (and to eliminate "Subie" lines vs. lowered/can't handle off-roading lines ;)).

[Cap'n Pete]

seems like we've got nanny's making rules to prevent us from having fun...
I know that the OSO is struggling to determine A) the cause for more people venturing off-course than expected, and B) how to correct/prevent this in future, SO, if you have any suggestions ... I'm sure the 4WO rule could be left alone if we could come up with better/alternative solutions ;).

[Slowpoke]

seems like we've got nanny's making rules to prevent us from having fun... sorry, not impressed at all with this rule change.


Everybody's having fun until they hit a wall. Seven serious offs in a season provoked this. Leaving it to competitor common sense has proved unsuccessful. Competitors are increasingly valuing lap times more this year than the street hardware they're bringing to the track.

Dropping MIR was considered but we're trying to avoid that due to the popularity of the events with competitors and sponsors.

Restricting Uber or R-Compound use on all but caged cars was considered but unpopular.

Mandating rollover protection was considered to allow the use of better restraint systems but that isn't in line with the raison d'etre of the series.

Two wheels = DNF forces competitors to leave a larger safety margin than they are currently doing. Doesn't sound that bad compared to the alternatives, does it? Competitors, new and experienced, are misjudging how close they are to the limit. They're being forced to add cushion.

Two wheels off = DNF or cage it and go to Race. Maybe you're ready, David?

Or, if you like driving with that many wheels in the grass, consider Rallycross.

http://www.mlrc.ca/rallycross/

[ADAM]

"Correction tomy previous post. Chuck's stance on this issue is to ban any front wings. But possibly making an allowance for cars that come stock with them i.e. formula cars, ariel atom, etc."


so my "570sx ultimate doom" comes stock with a front wing..so do I get an allowance. Since the car is no longer street registered, and no longer has stock drive train or engine..it is now a "570sx ultimate doom" as built by Ontario race fabrication, its Chassis number is 0002

please clarify how you determine that an Arieal atom is allowed a "allowance"...and what the "allowence" factors are, so that I can prepare my paperwork.


as a side note...IMO this is a targeted attack on my car

..are you guys going to allow Martins super 7 to run its front wing?..or say that older British Mallock to run its front wing? if so WHY? what are the rules to determine who gets to run a front wing? other than an old boys club saying yeah or nay.

please advise so we all know

[ADAM]

"I know that the OSO is struggling to determine A) the cause for more people venturing off-course than expected, and B) how to correct/prevent this in future,"

1=the cause for more people going off.... Allowing people on one of the fastest tracks with little or no experiance on that track, and asking them to compete in cars that have huge speed potential.

2=more training to get up to speed before allowing compitition speeds

Having been out with many of the new people that come to solo 1, I see many of them dont have the ability yet to feel the car just before there is going to be a problem...carrying to much speed in some sections, or not feeling the car starting to initiate a spin..ect..ect..


you guys place such worry on "front wings" and such... and on the other hand allow nubies in 230kph+ OEM unprotected cars to whip around a track with little lapping experiance or track experiance is a recipe for disaster... IMO


MIR is not like any of the other tracks we race on, there is little forgiveness for error, and the speeds are much higher.

[Slowpoke]

"I know that the OSO is struggling to determine A) the cause for more people venturing off-course than expected, and B) how to correct/prevent this in future,"

1=the cause for more people going off.... Allowing people on one of the fastest tracks with little or no experiance on that track, and asking them to compete in cars that have huge speed potential.

2=more training to get up to speed before allowing compitition speeds


If it were only inexperienced competitors who were having all of the impacts, it would be simple to write it off as you have. With some of the historical wall kissers holding race license and years of competition experience, including racing at that specific track, the data does not reflect your assumption.

The 2WO proposal is one front of improvement. Our own instructor curriculum is another.

[ADAM]

Maybe everyone is just pushing it to hard for that track...

I think all the other tracks you can almost drive with reckless abandon...however MIR still gives me great pause due to the speeds on it.

[craig]

"Correction tomy previous post. Chuck's stance on this issue is to ban any front wings. But possibly making an allowance for cars that come stock with them i.e. formula cars, ariel atom, etc."


so my "570sx ultimate doom" comes stock with a front wing..so do I get an allowance. Since the car is no longer street registered, and no longer has stock drive train or engine..it is now a "570sx ultimate doom" as built by Ontario race fabrication, its Chassis number is 0002


please clarify how you determine that an Arieal atom is allowed a "allowance"...and what the "allowence" factors are, so that I can prepare my paperwork.


as a side note...IMO this is a targeted attack on my car

..are you guys going to allow Martins super 7 to run its front wing?..or say that older British Mallock to run its front wing? if so WHY? what are the rules to determine who gets to run a front wing? other than an old boys club saying yeah or nay.

please advise so we all know

Based on the bolded statement above, you automatically move to mod (or open mod), where such devices have always been (and, I assume, will be,) allowed). All formula cars and kit cars (and similar) are in mod/open mod. The thing with the Atom is lack of bodywork, but Ariel has pieces available - but it will still run in (open) mod.

[SmokeScreen]

From a newbie, let me say first, please don't drop MIR, I love that track! First time on it I was intimidated by it, went cautiously most of the day (my times attest to that) by the end of the day when we had time for open lapping I know I was faster, but cannot say how much, event 6 I dropped 2.279 seconds of event 5's times. Still not record setting but I wanted to play it safe. I never spun, or had a four wheel off there. Most times this season when I spun have been on corner exit and laying down too much power too soon, MIR to me had a much better flow to it then some of the other tracks, DDT or SMP full for example.
For me it was the knowing the walls are made of concrete that kept me from going fwo and it was because I didn't really care how much faster everyone else was compared to me. But I think the level of competition we have pushes some people to a place they are not ready for or to a point that leaves little room for error. Perhaps the 2WO rule will help, time will tell.

[nrg3k_civic]

k, it looks like i forgot to hit 'submit reply' before i left my house this morn :)

my response to what options we have to limit driver aggression on more dangerous tracks, is to simply use the tools already available.

I respect and FEAR MIR. I haven't run it competitively, and i've only actually drive on it for 3 laps (at which point, but eco-unfriendly engine decided to ventilate the block in a big puff of smoke). Every time i've been to MIR, someone crashes and DESTROYS their car. Its just a dangerous track!

My suggestion is simple: place cones ON THE PAVEMENT around areas where you don't want people going into the dirt. Don't make this an issue for volunteer marshals at other tracks to have to make a call that someone went 2 wheels into the grass, not even kicking up dirt... What a great way to remove fun from the sport by introducing opportunity for protesting a potentially bad call, or giving someone the incentive to call FWO on someone who isn't actually off the track... For the offs at MIR, how many were by experienced Solo1 competitors? exactly... and how many of those 7 incidents were on tracks OTHER than MIR? anyone have a baby they'd like to throw out with the bath water?

looks like MOD will be a busy class in 2010 (Miles, Martin, Joe, Me, Adam, etc) ;)

DJM:>

[ScotcH]

My suggestion is simple: place cones ON THE PAVEMENT around areas where you don't want people going into the dirt.


100% DO NOT DO THIS!!!! IT will do nothing but piss people off, and make for a shitty time for everyone. We had this at one of our CMP events (not Solo) ... basically, everyone was driving the CONES and not the track. People's eyes are naturally attracted to the cones, and guess what? Your car goes where the cones are.

The track has been designed to be driven a certain way. At MIR there really arent any places where being 2wo helps, except possibly in turn 10. Everywhere else, it's because you've made a mistake.

I think this 2wo=dnf is a good rule ... it just might make you drive with a BIT more restraint. If you do it right it should not affect your lap times AT ALL.

[Slowpoke]

For the offs at MIR, how many were by experienced Solo1 competitors?

Historically, I'd ballpark 75% experienced.

The trouble with cones on the track is when someone hits one and drags it in the path of another competitor/onto the racing line. Or if the cone gets knocked off the track, the line is then opened for the other competitors in that session. It is dangerous to have marshals reset cones mid-session, and time consuming between sessions. It won't work.

Maybe everyone is just pushing it to hard for that track...

Definitely. They, and we as a series, have been lucky. You can't rely on luck. And we can't mandate CAUTION. We CAN mandate a cushion of safety with penalty of losing your times. Times are what you're out there for, and not attending lapping. 2WO is the appropriate and dilligent "next step" to improving safety.

[ADAM]

"Aero:
Front wings are not going to be allowed for reasons being they don't fit under our series principles of classifying stock and moderately modified cars. You can still run them but you'll be in MOD."

yeah cause all kinds of stock cars are running around with front splitters , rear wings, turbulators, and under body venturi kits..how does that make any more or less sense in the ability to classify cars?



so...just to clarify..... I will be able to run my car in MOD then...(which is fine with me)

or is the series going to specifically target my cars front wing and not allow it..while allowing other cars in MOD to run front wings.

Please clarify

[nrg3k_civic]

i can see the point of cones being a distraction. Perhaps someone can address my concern that this issue is an MIR issue, and not a Solo1 issue... Thanks,

DJM:>

[ADAM]

I think we have just as many offs on all tracks..its just that at MIR you have the speed to reach a concrete wall

[racecartech]

Arek, is right. I hate cones. 2 wo is a great incentive. in Solosprint you race the clock not wheel to wheel. 2 wheels off will be slower anyway.

MIR needs to stay on the schedule. racers will move up from Solo and need the experiance on the track.

[Dave Barker]

Cones on the track don't tend to STAY on the track. Not really a good solution.

Personally, given that most of the "offs" this year (meaning contact with solid objects), have occurred with experienced drivers, I am not sure that anything other than making the 2 wheels off = DNF issue will work.

I would like to see this rule just be effective at MIR if possible, but my car doesn't work well off road anyway so maybe there is some advantage to having it for all tracks.

[wrxr176]

I think this 2wo=dnf is a good rule ... it just might make you drive with a BIT more restraint. If you do it right it should not affect your lap times AT ALL.

Thank you

[sti_schumacher]

IMO try the 2wo rule next season. if the timing equipment allowed it would be great if the LAP didnt count, not the entire session... but IMO try it see what happens (i dont think there will be much problems)

[Cap'n Pete]

I respect and FEAR MIR. ..... Every time i've been to MIR, someone crashes and DESTROYS their car. Its just a dangerous track!
Apparently, that's not enough to keep people off the walls there. The competitive conscience trumps the conservative conscience every time ;). Ask me how I know! :rolleyes:

For the offs at MIR, how many were by experienced Solo1 competitors? exactly... and how many of those 7 incidents were on tracks OTHER than MIR?
What point are you trying to make? That the offs were due to inexperience, or that they WEREN'T due to inexperience?

Perhaps someone can address my concern that this issue is an MIR issue, and not a Solo1 issue... Thanks,
It is 100% in response to MIR incidents/concerns. While there have been a couple "close calls" and a couple contacts made at other tracks (DDT & SMP) the frequency and severity are far less. It's rare to see a car go home on a flat-bed from any track other than MIR.

I whole-heartedly agree with the notion of making 2WO an MIR supp. reg., and not applying it at all tracks (even though I don't think it's fair that a Subaru can "cut corners" effectively, and I can't ;)). IMO, for smaller tracks, we can continue to (safely) use pylons to prevent (penalize) such occurances.

[nrg3k_civic]

What point are you trying to make? That the offs were due to inexperience, or that they WEREN'T due to inexperience?
...snip...
I whole-heartedly agree with the notion of making 2WO an MIR supp. reg., and not applying it at all tracks (even though I don't think it's fair that a Subaru can "cut corners" effectively, and I can't ;)). IMO, for smaller tracks, we can continue to (safely) use pylons to prevent (penalize) such occurances.

my point about it being experienced drivers is only to say that the issue isn't really about coaching or newbs not knowing or respecting the track. the point is these major incidents are simply an aspect of MIR as a track, and how much more dangerous it is!

I'm glad i'm not the only one that feels this issue is unique to MIR. There are lines on DDT and around shannonville that I really enjoy, and they almost always require 2wo. perhaps this is because i've had Miles train me lol

DJM:>

[RRRex]

Personally, given that most of the "offs" this year (meaning contact with solid objects), have occurred with experienced drivers, I am not sure that anything other than making the 2 wheels off = DNF issue will work.

Offs are what makes experienced drivers into seasoned drivers. They're an unfortunate part of the sport, but drivers do learn enormously from them. Expensive lesson for sure, but I'd much rather see mandatory counseling instituted after a major off and a mandatory instructor in the car for the next session. The most dangerous point of anyone's driving career is the point they move from thinking they know what their car can do and knowing what their car can do then respecting the limits. We can try our best to prevent offs, but they're part of the sport even then, Krispy had a bad off this year.

How many offs were attributed to cones this season?

[oldguy]

1) 2WO = instant DNF:

This will be effective if the problem is simply that experienced folks are
trying too hard to get that last 1%.

2) Graduated licensing system/evaluations for MIR:

Nobody likes to apply restrictions. But, this will be effective if the problem
is that folks (newbies and experienced folks who haven't any big-track
experience) aren't ready for the consequences of disrespecting MIR.
And is a person with (possibly) lots and lots of DDT-only experience
really ready for MIR ?

3) Cones on the track:

Guaranteed to produce lots and lots of NASCAR-type delays. That will
cost run time.

Some sort of combination of '(1)' and '(2)' might be a place to start.

[wrxr176]

my point about it being experienced drivers is only to say that the issue isn't really about coaching or newbs not knowing or respecting the track. the point is these major incidents are simply an aspect of MIR as a track, and how much more dangerous it is!

I'm glad i'm not the only one that feels this issue is unique to MIR. There are lines on DDT and around shannonville that I really enjoy, and they almost always require 2wo. perhaps this is because i've had Miles train me lol

DJM:>

Dave this is the point that most of the OSO see it. Right now we allow 1cm of one tire on the car to be on the track while the others are in the grass/dirt and still be going 100%. Now there are some that know how to control this but some that dont. If these people still decided to try and get the fastest time chances are they will lose it. Now with the new rule in place if a competitor pushes too hard that 2 wheels go off he will know that his run is DNF and do what he should do when 2 wheels go off and that is ride it out in a controlled manner and come back on the track safely instead of still pushing 100%.

Now MIR is not the only issue hear. Many people go off on the other tracks as well but the incidents are minor compared to major ones at MIR. But you never know and we could have a major incident at the other tracks as well. Its just a matter of time before it happens again. One incident that i can think from last year was the guy in the Mazda 3 sport. He went of at the end of the fabi straight because he was pushing to hard and was very very lucky that he did not roll his car. All it will take is to hit that the wrong way and you will roll.

This sport is trying to promote safety so allowing someone to be almost fully off the track and still not get penalized doesnt seem to safe to me.

Just think you will have to learn different lines this year with a different car anyway. Just keep it on the track.

L8R

[Tashko]

The competition might even get tighter in the classes since the gap between the current 2WO'ers and the tarmac huggers will come down.

Sounds good to me!! :)

[RRRex]

One incident that i can think from last year was the guy in the Mazda 3 sport. He went of at the end of the fabi straight because he was pushing to hard and was very very lucky that he did not roll his car. All it will take is to hit that the wrong way and you will roll.

L8R

I was in the car when that happened. I agree that he pushed the car beyond his limits and was very lucky, but I still feel he was driving well within the limits of the car. I believe his car totally could have stayed on the track with that entry speed. There were two mistakes made. One was fearing the entry and lifting mid-corner, the second was over-correcting after the car was heading off the track on the inside. There were two points the run could have been saved - staying on the gas through the corner, then again with a smaller correction. I always find the second snap worse than the first. The car didn't go off at the end of Fabi, it went off on the straight before turn 3.

Personally, had I been driving I would have braked even later and carried more speed into the corner. That off left me scratching my head since he was an experienced driver too with an extensive carting history and showed strong car control on the previous laps. I had a long talk with him afterwards and got back into the car for his next session. It was a crappy thing to happen but it happens to the best drivers. Jenson Button crashed on the first lap of the Belgian Grand Prix and he's world champion. The best thing was to get back into the car and try to learn from the whole experience.

[racecartech]

that is the exact problem. car limits vs driver limits.

who, when and how the driver limits are established is where the focus of the training needs to go.

instruction is not to show what a car is capable of but rather what the driver cometance is to be and allow them to build from there.

I would love to have Ron Fellows take me around the track, but after would I be able to do what he did?

instructing/coaching is the starting point. 2 wo off = dnf is also a good thing

[sti_schumacher]

im far less experienced than the people on this board, but IMO its very difficult to put a cap on how much someone will push their car, especially at a track like mosport where (from what i've seen this year) a 2WO is that close to a 4WO - if two wheels are off the track, chances are pretty high that the other two are going off as well... even for a 4WD:rolleyes:

the same is not true for the rest of the tracks in the series - a 2wo is very different from a 4wo at, say, DDT (and even moreso at Cayuga, where its almost a necessity in some places;)) - so in theory the 2wo could potentially increase the safety margin at these tracks. the issue, however, is MIR, not these other tracks where there are not nearly as many serious incidents.

as it's been said many times over, MIR has a very small safety margin - thats just the nature of the track. MY POINT - even if the 2WO=DNF is implemented, it will not do much to increase the safety margin at MIR. the only way to see if this is true (and i REALLY hope it isnt) is to try the 2WO and see what happens.

[oldguy]

Everyone participating in Solo Sprint is (or ought to be) serious about
competing. Anyone who isn't 'that serious' oughtn't be dropping wheels
in the first place. They ought to be lapping instead -> building skills
and saving money on mods, tires, crash damage repairs, etc.

The 2WO = DNF rule is (should be) intended to help focus the serious
competitor on the fact that overdriving personal limits or vehicle limits
will cost them their best run of the day.

It'd probably take a few events of seeing the rule enforced consistently
before everyone understands that it has teeth. But it should be helpful
before too long.

In the end, though, Scott is 100% correct. The 2WO rule is a band-aid
to help get Solo Sprint from where things are now, and where things
need to go.

[MazdaMatt]

I've kept quiet through this whole thing so far because I didn't compete this year. IMO 2wo is racing.

How would the 2wo=dnf rule have helped that guy that spun his mazda3S off the track? He still screwed up (twice, as Miles pointed out).

If you don't want to trash your car, don't drive in a "racing" manner, just go fast and have fun. Personally, i'm okay with the fact that I spun out at shannonville doing 120. I'm okay that i locked em up going into turn 5 at bogie doing 170 (i did manage to stay 4 wheels ON). I'm even okay that i smashed my front bumper at DDT a few years ago by the portable. I signed the waiver.

BTW, NONE of these incidents would have been prevented by a 2wo=dnf rule.

I also drove MIR a couple times. I signed the waiver, but i'm also not stupid, so i kept it within my abilities. No rule will prevent stupid. No rule will prevent spins into the dirt due to screw ups.

DDT I go 2wo on at least 3 turns that i can think of off hand just because that's the fast and comfortable way to go. I don't mean drastically, i just mean that i may put my wheels off the pavement just before the curbing starts, or come off the curbing to grass then to pavement. It is smooth, it is safe and I signed the waiver!

If you don't want to smash your car, go drive autocross or sit on the sidelines.

[MazdaMatt]

Oh, right... even MIR... i dropped 2wo exiting 10 nearly every lap because that's the faster than trying to dart back in before the curbing ends.

[Maddog]

I'm for this 2WO rule...not for the fact that people are smashing their cars, but the fact that more cars stay on track, less delays for clean, etc and more track time for everyone.

Call me selfish, but when I pay for a entry fee, I like to get the most seat time I can out of it.

[Cap'n Pete]

Oh, right... even MIR... i dropped 2wo exiting 10 nearly every lap because that's the faster than trying to dart back in before the curbing ends.
Phew! Good thing you're not still running with us, maniac!!! :eek: :p

You're right. I think we all realize (as was just mentioned above) this is, to a degree, a "band-aid solution". The only permanent "fix"???

??? I don't know if one truly exists ???

But, while you may think that running wheels off the track (deliberately, by your admission) is "safe" ... we also know that it may LEAD to worse things. "Encouraging" people to "keep it on the track" is simply a STEP towards promoting/encouraging safety.

Also, even though you can't fix "stupid", I don't necessarily blame "stupid" as the cause of the offs. Plain and simple, you can't always find THE LIMIT without TESTING the limits. It's not being stupid, it's taking a calculated "chance". Also, some people have more skill/luck/finesse, and can save a car going/gone over the edge, while others are less successful.

Is 2WO really "racing"?? Is penalizing 2WO going to hinder the "racing" feel?? I don't think so. I don't have a car with sufficient ground clearance that I feel like subjecting it to off-roading, so I tend to keep it on the smooth pavement, and it hasn't slowed down my lap times. I've been in other very fast cars on Mosport who keep (all four of) their tires on the pavement (or curbing at most) and never felt they were "sacrificing" time by NOT going 2WO.

Again, it's a small "penalty" to take that MAY hopefully encourage the conscience to hold the line a little tighter. Of course people are still going to push and try to squeeze out every ounce of time/speed as they can, but you can't deny that you ARE taking a chance by doing so. And yes, we sign waivers for that stuff :rolleyes:. After all, it is racing.

[Cap'n Pete]

I'm for this 2WO rule...not for the fact that people are smashing their cars, but the fact that more cars stay on track, less delays for clean, etc and more track time for everyone.
Exactly! Good point. Track sweeping is a bummer.

[MazdaMatt]

What I'm really missing here is what 2wo has to do with people spinning out and hitting a wall.

When I go 2wo it is because i'm trying to widen my line or keep driving straight a little longer than the curbing or widen my entry before the curbing starts. It isn't because I'm out of control and spinning towards a wall.

Crashing and intentional 2wo are totally different things. In my opinion there is a greater connection between crashing and trail braking! (Please don't think i just suggested that you also ban trail braking, just saying it makes more sense than dnf'ing a 2wo)

[Maddog]

What I'm really missing here is what 2wo has to do with people spinning out and hitting a wall.

When I go 2wo it is because i'm trying to widen my line or keep driving straight a little longer than the curbing or widen my entry before the curbing starts. It isn't because I'm out of control and spinning towards a wall.

Crashing and intentional 2wo are totally different things. In my opinion there is a greater connection between crashing and trail braking! (Please don't think i just suggested that you also ban trail braking, just saying it makes more sense than dnf'ing a 2wo)So what you're saying is you go 2WO to get better times. Well, since everyone has to follow the same no-2WO rule, it'll affect everyone evenly. No?

[jonweir]

What I'm really missing here is what 2wo has to do with people spinning out and hitting a wall.

When I go 2wo it is because i'm trying to widen my line or keep driving straight a little longer than the curbing or widen my entry before the curbing starts. It isn't because I'm out of control and spinning towards a wall.

Crashing and intentional 2wo are totally different things. In my opinion there is a greater connection between crashing and trail braking! (Please don't think i just suggested that you also ban trail braking, just saying it makes more sense than dnf'ing a 2wo)

You've missed too many MIR days if you can't see the connection. Off the top of my head I can think of two crashes at MIR that were caused by overcorrection of 2WO (Bryan Sperandei, Kelvin Tai).

[ADAM]

so any word on what the ruling is on front wings, and if this ruling will be apllied fairly and consistantly?


Adam

[sti_schumacher]

Just a thought about 2wo=dnf rule from a little different angle. Now, when 2wo is allowed, and, lets say, I have too much speed on the exit and I see that I will go 2wo, I am pretty relaxed about that, i won't try to correct and stay on the pavement, I will just go staright 2wo, which is a safer way... If 2wo=dnf is implemented, psychologically, in the same case I probably would try to save my lap and stay on the pavement (i think I can do it, which may not necessarily be true:)), which in this case may lead to overcorrection, and potentially may be more dangerous?

[G-ForceJunkie]

You could use the same logic to fight to allow 4WO.

[MazdaMatt]

Andy: No, i think that being 6 inches off track with 2 wheels still gripping is quite different than being 6 feet off track with 4 wheels in the dirt.

Maddog: I'm not arguing the point because it will slow my lap times, I'm arguing the point because I don't think that being 2wo in a controlled manner (ie, not then resulting in 4wo) is dangerous - it is just an aggressive line.

Jon: I'll avoid being a hard-liner here by saying that I would not complain if the rule were implimented on MIR only in the supposed name of safety, but I still question the safety benefits by the point that sti_schumacher brings up. We're not talking about DNFing 2wo that results in a spin or 4wo, we're talking about DNFing a 2wo that is then controlled and returned to track. What i'm really questioning is if there is any benefit to trying to "discourage" 2wo. Discouraging will only reduce the incidents of people doing it on purpose, not of people screwing up.

[RRRex]

Just a thought about 2wo=dnf rule from a little different angle. Now, when 2wo is allowed, and, lets say, I have too much speed on the exit and I see that I will go 2wo, I am pretty relaxed about that, i won't try to correct and stay on the pavement, I will just go staright 2wo, which is a safer way... If 2wo=dnf is implemented, psychologically, in the same case I probably would try to save my lap and stay on the pavement (i think I can do it, which may not necessarily be true:)), which in this case may lead to overcorrection, and potentially may be more dangerous?

That's the strongest argument I've read yet. Nicely put.

Drivers are going to over-correct regardless of what the rules are. The judgment call is as to whether the rule makes the experienced drivers nervous to drop a wheel and over correct. With higher speeds, that's where things have the potential to get hairy. But we have a pretty mature crowd so I'd hope we'd be mature enough to drop a wheel on exit and blow a run group than try to save a car. That's a call for people much smarter than me. Wonder if it's a 2wo ban for apex not exit. If you're dropping wheels on exit you're not saving time since in theory you should be accelerating and let's face it, dirt is an awful place to find grip. Dropping wheels on exit is purely a choice to maintain car control.

I used to be stupid aggressive on the curbing keeping the outside wheels on the inside curbing wherever I could. Track data showed the more aggressive I was the more time I saved doing it. Problem was we were breaking the car faster than ever. Bushings were going mid-run, smoked 3 LSDs from the sudden and rapid transition and disparity of wheel grip, trannies weren't lasting a full season, more bolts were coming lose from the bumps, shocks were getting blown, etc, etc. Our switch to avoiding the curbing was a financial and reliability one. Bang for buck, the time saved was really expensive and hard to field a reliable car. Cones work fine IMO.

[G-ForceJunkie]

Just a thought about 2wo=dnf rule from a little different angle. Now, when 2wo is allowed, and, lets say, I have too much speed on the exit and I see that I will go 2wo, I am pretty relaxed about that, i won't try to correct and stay on the pavement, I will just go staright 2wo, which is a safer way... If 2wo=dnf is implemented, psychologically, in the same case I probably would try to save my lap and stay on the pavement (i think I can do it, which may not necessarily be true:)), which in this case may lead to overcorrection, and potentially may be more dangerous?


Andy: No, i think that being 6 inches off track with 2 wheels still gripping is quite different than being 6 feet off track with 4 wheels in the dirt.

Is the below argument that much different than the top one? As far as I can see, it's the exact same concept.

Just a thought about 4wo=dnf rule from a little different angle. Now, when 4wo is allowed, and, lets say, I have too much speed on the exit and I see that I will go 4wo, I am pretty relaxed about that, i won't try to correct and stay on the pavement, I will just go staright 4wo, which is a safer way... If 4wo=dnf is implemented, psychologically, in the same case I probably would try to save my lap and stay 2 wheels on the pavement (i think I can do it, which may not necessarily be true:)), which in this case may lead to overcorrection, and potentially may be more dangerous?

[Slowpoke]

I hope that the 2WO rule works for our group next year. The other options what we would have are far less appealing.

Adam: No, I don't have an update for you. We had to postone the OSO meeting to next week. Jon Weir is your new OSO rep, so you should ask Jon to champion your cause with the OSO.

[Cap'n Pete]

What I'm really missing here is what 2wo has to do with people spinning out and hitting a wall.
You've missed too many MIR days if you can't see the connection. Off the top of my head I can think of two crashes at MIR that were caused by overcorrection of 2WO.
I can think of more than just two.

...i think that being 6 inches off track with 2 wheels still gripping is quite different than being 6 feet off track with 4 wheels in the dirt. ..... I don't think that being 2wo in a controlled manner (ie, not then resulting in 4wo) is dangerous - it is just an aggressive line.
Matt, that says it all. Jon is right ... you haven't seen enough of the incidents and seen/heard the cause(s).

From my own experience(s) and others, I can tell you, two wheels OFF at Mosport IS DANGEROUS. ANYWHERE.

I realize you've done it repeatedly coming out of #10, but after all, your car isn't overly powerful. Do you know how many guys drop a wheel or two there, and DON'T make it back on track successfully? :rolleyes: It happens more often than you think (or would like to admit). What I'm saying is, MIR is NOT the track to be trying "an aggressive line". If you can't find a fast line ON the pavement .......... :rolleyes: .......... ALMS guys seem to do fine by staying on the pavement ;).

The point we need to drive home with people at MIR is this: two-wheels-off is NOT safe. You should NOT be riding THAT close to the edge, all the while convinced "I'll be fine if I have to drop a couple wheels here". MIR is not the DDT or SMP. So, we need to adamantly insist, KEEP YOUR WHEELS ON THE TRACK!!! I'm sorry if you can't be as "aggressive" :rolleyes:.

And of course, people are always going to carry too much speed into a corner at some point, or turn-in too soon, and find themself running wheels off the track. I don't believe there really is a "cure" for that, other than experience. A LOT of experience. But until then, the GOAL should never be to PURPOSELY put tires off-track. You might think it's not dangerous ... I'm telling you, historically, from experience, it IS. So, the GOAL should be to run as fast as possible ON track, and if you're LUCKY enough to keep your car off the wall after going 2WO, you're still going to receive a penalty as a friendly reminder not to do it again ;).

[dubya_rx]

Are these 7 serious offs posted anywhere? There should be a incident report for each, right?

Why not post the reports (with names deleted) so that others can learn from others mistakes? Make it more like the airline industry so we can track trends better and provide solutions?

Otherwise, there is a lot of heresay about what really happened.

[oldguy]

Pete:

You've captured the reason for the 2WO rule perfectly.

Nicely done.

'Nuf said.

[John P]

What is considered two wheels off on MIR corner 10 and corner 1? Two wheels on the cement curbing? Two wheels on the new asphalt outside the curbing? Two wheels on the stones outside the new asphalt?

The ALMS guys use the new asphalt in corner 10, but hardly ever go on the painted curbing of corner 1.

JohnP

[sti_schumacher]

Actualy, I agree with Pete's reasons behind the 2wo rule, and I do support it, I just wanted to look at it from all angles.:) What I really don't understand - the logic behind treating 2wo as 4wo, meaning discarding the whole session - seems an overkill to me. 2wo is far less serios "offence", than 4wo, and with 2wo there is no mecanical safety concern, so that you have to exit the track and check your car, which is the case with 4wo. Why would we want to impose so serios penalty for a relatively minor offence? Can't we just discard one lap, not the whole session? I believe this will be enough punishment to stop people from doing it DELIBERATELY, but we should not penalize people so hard if they did it ACCIDENTALLY, just by trying a little too hard, and we should allow them to continue the session. After all, we do not have too many laps per day, and lose 25% of it just from a little mistake you made and force people to lose other 2 good laps of the session does not seem fair to me.

[STIgma]

LOL, if this 2WO rule goes into effect you can carve all DDT lap records in stone, that circuit just grew about 20 meters in length. :)

[sti_schumacher]

LOL, if this 2WO rule goes into effect you can carve all DDT lap records in stone, that circuit just grew about 20 meters in length. :)

its waaay more than that judging by your signature pic :p

[Slowpoke]

its waaay more than that judging by your signature pic :p

No, no, that wasn't a 4WO. Avi just doesn't marshal without air conditioning.

[nissannx]

so any word on what the ruling is on front wings...?


Adam
I've got the framework in place for my front wing. I'm just waiting for the ruling before I fabricate the wing for some mad FWD downforce!:D
Frank
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_jWp4ASZfJ5s/SwgKsgUZR7I/AAAAAAAAAwA/jCa-4eCAMaU/s640/IMG_5901.JPG

Actually, that's just part of the package for my four wheel's down tow bar. I've changed it since that pic so it's even better now. But for towing only, not a wing.

[racecartech]

Splitters are aloowed........I can make a good one to attach to the tow frame

ha ha ha

plus you already have the springs for it!

[Cap'n Pete]

What I really don't understand - the logic behind treating 2wo as 4wo, meaning discarding the whole session - seems an overkill to me.
The basis for it is specifically to be a MAJOR DETERRENT!! ;)

2wo is far less serios "offence", than 4wo, and with 2wo there is no mecanical safety concern, so that you have to exit the track and check your car, which is the case with 4wo. Why would we want to impose so serios penalty for a relatively minor offence?
In this case, it has NOTHING to do with checking out the CAR for mechanical issues ... it's about checking up on the DRIVER for any "issues" ;) (maybe the person is inexperienced and in over their head, or maybe their head just isn't "into it" at the moment).

Can't we just discard one lap, not the whole session? I believe this will be enough punishment to stop people from doing it DELIBERATELY, but we should not penalize people so hard if they did it ACCIDENTALLY, just by trying a little too hard, and we should allow them to continue the session.
Ok, so you put 2 wheels off the track. You're ok with being penalized for "only" that lap? Well guess what ... chances are, that will BE your slowest lap anyway, so tell me, where's the "penalty" then?? :rolleyes:

Are you telling me that you think that will have ANY impact on how people behave? The "fear" of losing 1 measely lap?? :rolleyes: Doubt it. But judging by your reaction, you would NOT like to have your whole session blown by going "only 2WO". Simple solution: keep your wheels on the track!!

If you really do go 2WO, there is a reasonably good/bad probability that you MAY go more than 2WO anyway ... which of course, would result in a blown session (or worse, ie: contact with a wall), so this is just incentive to AVOID that altogether.

BTW: I'm not usually one who LIKES "rules" in life ... but albeit, I admit they have a time & place. Since there does seem to be a potential problem with people going off the track at MIR, and the other option is to not run at MIR at all, I will accept this new 2WO rule in lieu of that! Besides, I've managed to run ~1:35's with all four tires never once leaving the pavement, so this really isn't going to ruin my experience out there :cool:.

[Cap'n Pete]

For the record (in case this point has been lost in the thread somewhere):

In MY OPINION (I do not know what the official decision may or may not be), I would suggest that the 2WO rule be applied ONLY at MIR (big track) and NOT at any of the other tracks we run, ie: DDT, SMP, TMP. On one hand, there may be justification to implement it at all tracks, but I think the more serious concern is MIR. This is something that could either be hard written into the rule book for 2010, or simply added into the Supp Reg's at the MIR event(s).

Again, that's my opinion, but perhaps something the OSO will consider.

[SmokeScreen]

Just so I am crystal clear on this rule, the intent is that if you put two wheels off, you will loose the session so there is no incentive to "fight the car" back on the track and possibly have a huge oweeee with a solid object, right? Then you can precede back to the pits cursing and swearing pounding the wheel and calling yourself names but not on the back of the flatbed. But if there is another run afterwards you can still run, right?

[racecartech]

That is the best sum up yet.

I believe that is exactly the intent

[sti_schumacher]

Well, Pete, when you put it like that, either accept 2wo rule or not to run MIR at all, I give up:) Lets better run it, with all wheels on the track:) And if this rule will be for MIR only, I agree100%, but I do support your opinion to not apply this rule to other tracks like DDT, SMP and TMP. I thought the rule was going to be applied for all tracks.(BTW, I never really put 2wo at MIR... feel much better without it:) But it is not the case for other tracks...)

[wrxr176]

Ok just to be clear here. The OSO has already voted on the 2WO issue and it was accepted. This will be a rule for next season so be prepared to KEEP IT ON THE TRACK. If you need to learn new lines then thats what you have to do. I do not forsee it being just a rule for MIR only since we do have offs at other tracks as well. These offs just dont have the same consequences but still need to be addressed.

[MazdaMatt]

Booooooo

:p

As I said before, if it were MIR only, i'd be totally cool with that. The point about the DDT records set in stone is very true. Time to add an "asterisk" to the record books!

Pete, your reasoning of "well you car doens't have much power" sounds like a guy with a power car whining about civics... if YOUR CAR can't handle the 2wo, then don't do it. No need to ruin my fun just because i'm comfortable carrying aggressive speed through 10 (which is a pretty slow turn compared to some of the faster turns on other courses).

This kinda stinks because my odds of coming back next year were slim and if I did it would be MIR for sure and then maybe DDT. MIR school is still good value, so i may see you there.

[ADAM]

Ummm that has too many sharp edges that could cut peoples legs off when you smash into them...you had better get some rubber on those edges!!!

[ADAM]

I think we will still see cars get smashed up at MIR, cause that extra 2ft of 2 wheels being on..or off..is not the issue..if you are acrrying enough speed to reach a wall..you are already carrying enough speed to override that 2ft difference...

I think now people will be even more overly distracted trying to induce false lines to make sure they keep within the 2WO guidlines..

not allowing the car to run its course in a apex under control will induce driver inputs that IMO will cause more issues...than dropping 2 wheels in a controlled manner and just let the car come safely onto the track again..

dropping 2 wheels off is no biggi...its what you do when those 2 wheels are off...if you keep the car stable and let it run safely back on the track..no problem....if you are trying to fight it before you even drop 2 wheels cause its just carrying to much speed..you will see more cars at worse wheel angles, so that when they do hit the dirt..they wont be able to recover..


IMO if the goal is to mitigate potential loss of life, better safety should be enforced in the cars..and better driver training..so that when cars do hit the walls..they will be safer to the passengers

the concept that we allow OEM cars to compete with OEM safety systems alone IMO is a far greater danger than dropping 2 wheels rules...

[Cap'n Pete]

Pete, your reasoning of "well you car doens't have much power" sounds like a guy with a power car whining about civics... if YOUR CAR can't handle the 2wo, then don't do it. No need to ruin my fun just because i'm comfortable carrying aggressive speed through 10.
Um, if your car doesn't have much power, then sure, you'll be less likely to wipe out by running onto the grass, and also because your car is FWD vs. RWD. But then, if your car is under-powered, how much speed could you REALLY be carrying through 10 anyway??? :p And do you SERIOUSLY think that keeping your wheels OFF the grass is going to "ruin your fun"???? :rolleyes:

[Todd #65]

I think it's going to be much tougher to gauge whether the inside of the outside wheels/tires (under the car) has gone off the track. (as compared to viewing a 4WO)

I'm not looking forward to the arguments about whether someone was two wheels off or not.

For clarification, how much of the inside of the tires will have to be on the pavement/curbing to stay legit?

[IanO]

I think that the intention of the rule is good, but agree that it will be hard to judge at some tracks. I can think of a few spots where I drop the front wheel off (ie. running off the end of the curbing) and then it comes back on track before the back wheel drops off. Definitely not 2WO by my understanding but really hard for a marshall to judge since it all happens so quickly.

Then again, there were a few incidents on Fabi this year where I was 3.75 wheels off and I was given the benefit of the doubt :D

[Dave Barker]

Then again, there were a few incidents on Fabi this year where I was 3.75 wheels off and I was given the benefit of the doubt :D

As a clerk, I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. After all we are in this for fun right ?

Although it may be tough to tell 2 wheels off vs 1.5 wheels off, it will be easy to distinguish 2 wheels from more than 2 wheels off

[wrxr176]

Ok Just to be clear about what the rule will state is that 2 wheels must be off the track at the same time. If you drop the front off the curbing and then it goes back on and then the back goes off then that is ok. The other point is that it will have to be clear from the marshalls point of view that both tires were off the track at the same time. If the tire is 3/4 off and 1/4 on then that is still good. The entire tire has to be off the track.

Hope this helps

[G-ForceJunkie]

I really don't understand the opposition to this rule. Maybe I'm an unagressive driver, but I can't think of any tracks where I intentionally put any wheels off the track in order to achieve a faster lap time. If people have been doing this, then I applaud this rule for preventing that.

[Cap'n Pete]

I really don't understand the opposition to this rule. Maybe I'm an unagressive driver, but I can't think of any tracks where I intentionally put any wheels off the track in order to achieve a faster lap time. If people have been doing this, then I applaud this rule for preventing that.
Apparently you're just not as "aggressive" as Subaru drivers and Matt :p.

Maybe we won't have as much clean-up to do at some of the notoriously messy corners anymore! That would be nice :) (ie: coming up the hill @ DDT ... at that hook to the right, there is ALWAYS crap on the track :rolleyes: ). Also, look at what happens BEYOND the curbing when people always drive there ... the tires dig TRENCHES into the ground, so that if/when you DO drop a couple wheels, your car gets pulled violently and you damn near bottom out! I don't really know when/why driving OFF the track became "acceptible" in the first place?? :confused: I fully support using the curbing to its fullest, but going BEYOND that is where I do see a problem.

[G-ForceJunkie]

Apparently you're just not as "aggressive" as Subaru drivers and Matt :p.

Maybe we won't have as much clean-up to do at some of the notoriously messy corners anymore! That would be nice :) (ie: coming up the hill @ DDT ... at that hook to the right, there is ALWAYS crap on the track :rolleyes: ). Also, look at what happens BEYOND the curbing when people always drive there ... the tires dig TRENCHES into the ground, so that if/when you DO drop a couple wheels, your car gets pulled violently and you damn near bottom out! I don't really know when/why driving OFF the track became "acceptible" in the first place?? :confused: I fully support using the curbing to its fullest, but going BEYOND that is where I do see a problem.
That corner typically has a cone at it anyways, and if you hit it, you're considered 4WO. (or 2WO now)

[STIgma]

Apparently you're just not as "aggressive" as Subaru drivers and Matt :p.

Maybe we won't have as much clean-up to do at some of the notoriously messy corners anymore! That would be nice (ie: coming up the hill @ DDT ... at that hook to the right, there is ALWAYS crap on the track :rolleyes: ). Also, look at what happens BEYOND the curbing when people always drive there ... the tires dig TRENCHES into the ground, so that if/when you DO drop a couple wheels, your car gets pulled violently and you damn near bottom out! I don't really know when/why driving OFF the track became "acceptible" in the first place?? :confused: I fully support using the curbing to its fullest, but going BEYOND that is where I do see a problem.

Name the last champion who wasn't aggressive, I forget. :p

In defence of [and homage to] the newly demised Lawn-Boy line, let me say that despite being 2wo by design on a regular basis, many a corner marshall will attest that in doing so, I rarely littered the track or caused ruts. You see, in the right car, in certain corners, it can be rather... let's say - beneficial - to aim the outside tires at the edge of the kerbing and let the unloaded inside tires skim gracefully over the turtles, grass and other foliage, thereby shortening the circuit and increasing the radius of the arc, all the while barely disturbing the complex ecosystem that is the infield. Obviously, rock-hard suspension cars need not apply for this.

A few years ago ('05 I think), after running the DDT anti-clockwise layout, I blabbed to Dr. Dave about how much time I was saving by straightlining the lefthander at the end of the long straight, after the big crest. It was awesome, I almost didn't have to brake, the car just drifted serenely over to the exit curbs, and I'd gain a gear down the back straight. Later that year we came back to DDT and a cone suddenly appeared at that particular apex, which, if hit, equated to a 4wo. My laps that day were a full second slower than the previous event.

Fortunately, I didn't tell Dave about the three other corners on DDT, and MIR 5B, and Fabi 3, and - anyway, you get the picture. My point is, I was cutting corners lap after lap for years in that Subaru without spinning, crashing, littering the circuit or annoying marshalls, the only gripes I occasionally heard were from people following me in practise having to drive through my little dust clouds.

Btw, Pete, the corner you're talking about is not one anyone would ever cut, there's nothing to be gained, it would pitch you out past the exit. That corner's just messy because everybody spins there! Also, I have never puposely dropped wheels at the exit of any corner, nor can I imagine why one might want to. Doing that will just kill your exit speed and muck up your tires for the next lap or so. Anyway, this is where your ruts are made, as the loaded tires are the ones in the dirt.

But it's all moot now anyway, as the winds of change sweep once again through the forest of regulations, and, alas, this once proud art form will be lost forever to the annuls of solosprints past. So here's to the John Deere years. Good times I shall remember with fondness. :)


.

[Maddog]

I can't believe all the resistance for this rule! It applies to EVERYONE so if you are slower on any track because you can't cut anymore, then find a different line...everybody else will have too also. :cool:

[SmokeScreen]

Now we have taken away the advantage of those rally cars, as Monty Burns would say, "excellent" :D. The alternative to this was much costlier having to add pavement extensions to all the corners for road going types of cars that work best on asphalt. I recall the DDT events this year and how much crap was being kicked onto the track going up the hill toward the portable just after the timing line. It seemed some folks straightened out those corners a bit too much, like Pete said, less sweeping is a good thing.

[MazdaMatt]

There was nothing wrong with using a cone on that particular corner. It kept everyone in check in the events where it was used. Yes, when it was not used, it was a brutal mess because the line was aggressive and safe despite having 2wo.

Okay, I'll just say it... this is a pansy rule. If you don't want to push your car and risk it, then don't. Pansies.

[STIgma]

@Maddog, if that's in response to my post, you've misread me. I offer zero objection to the 2wo rule. I'm just waxing nostalgic about the good old days, when men were men, ubers were free, and marshalls were nervous.

I never whined about Dr. Dave's cone (to anybody but him), I just drove around it and took my lumps. New rules represent progress by intelligent debate with the wisdom of experience. It all works out well in the end. :cool:

[STIgma]

I recall the DDT events this year and how much crap was being kicked onto the track going up the hill toward the portable just after the timing line. It seemed some folks straightened out those corners a bit too much, like Pete said, less sweeping is a good thing.

Nobody is straightlining there, it's just a popular place to spin or go wide. All the rules in the world will not stop the dirt piling up on that bit of track.

[Maddog]

@Maddog, if that's in response to my post, you've misread me. It wasn't...it was a general observation of all the whining in the thread. :p

Matt; It has nothing to do with being pansies. Like someone else pointed out earlier, I didn't get any money for getting the SGT3 Championship this year....it's a hobby, and I'd like my hobby to be around for awhile longer, but the more we get incidences, the more we risk loosing the hobby. When they mentioned at Mosport this year that we might not be there in 2010 because of all the incidences, I was not happy...heck I might even stop doing Solo1 if Mosport is dropped from the schedule. That's the way I look at it anyhow.

BTW, if you can't push your car to it's limits and stay on the black stuff, then you might have car control issues. ;)

[sti_schumacher]

Ray, it is not car control issues, it is our AWD spirit!:p

[Maddog]

Then go rally racing instead. ;)
Here's the rally forum: http://www.casc.on.ca/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=29

[Salmaan]

I can't believe all the resistance for this rule! It applies to EVERYONE so if you are slower on any track because you can't cut anymore, then find a different line...everybody else will have too also. :cool:

+1 on everyone will be facing the same disadvantage...

I don't get it, the definition of the track paraphrased:

"A course of certain width, bounded on both sides through which an automobile travels"

The goal of time trial would be to cover this course in the shortest time possible while remaining within it's boundaries.

Where the boundaries are set defines the track, so for 2010, our definition of each track has changed a bit...life goes on...

Maybe we should just go to F1 in the city type tracks, concrete all around, you can feel free to go "2 fenders off" if your car can deal with the consequences, no disputes when it happens.


PS. I don't like that option, I've managed to go two fenders off on a track without walls near it... :-(

[wrxr176]

There was nothing wrong with using a cone on that particular corner. It kept everyone in check in the events where it was used. Yes, when it was not used, it was a brutal mess because the line was aggressive and safe despite having 2wo.

Okay, I'll just say it... this is a pansy rule. If you don't want to push your car and risk it, then don't. Pansies.

I dont think you should be talking about the OSO like that so if you would like to apologize it will be accepted. If not this name calling will be brought up at the meeting this thursday night. There is no need to call people names on these forums.

[wrxr176]

By the way everyone, I was the one who came up with this rule and I drive a Subaru. All my fastest times were when i kept all 4 wheels on the track so you dont have to have 2WO to go fast.

[Cap'n Pete]

Thank you, Paul! So even a Subaru can go fast on the pavement!! ;)

[sti_schumacher]

im pretty sure that by now the issue has been over-discussed, especially considering the rule is IN. at this point the true say on the validity of this rule can be given by how it works out next season, so lets all chill and wait for the fireworks (or lack thereof) of 2010:D

[Dave Barker]

I think some folks are getting mixed up here.

For years we have not allowed 2 wheels off at the apices of certain corners due to

a) the obvious advantages to some cars over others but more importantly

b) the fact that the cars that do cut the apices tend to drag all sorts of stuff, (dirt, gravel, sand etc.) back on the track just past the apices which not only slow down subsequent competitors but make the corner more potentially dangerous.

I suspect when we return to TMP there may be a few more corners that need cones at the apices.

OTOH this new 2 wheels off rule is really designed to prevent people running 2 wheels off at the exits to corners where the outside wheels are already carrying a heavy load. Sometimes you can get away with it (Fabi hairpin for example) but at MIR it can prove to be a very dangerous thing to do. All the new rule is doing, is actively discouraging people from doing this. Fear of serious car damage alone doesn't seem to do it.



Pansies or not.

---

[Cap'n Pete]

Sooooooooooooooooo ..................

..... now that we've beaten that dead horse beyond recognition ;) ...

... what about the other "topics of discussion", ie: banning front wings and crazy motor swaps? (Adam!) and maybe "uber-cheater streets" (Riaan!!) ?? :p

... or how about trailer queens??? ...

... (me! :eek: ) ...










j/k ;)

Run-whatcha-brung FTW!!

[MazdaMatt]

Matt; It has nothing to do with being pansies. Like someone else pointed out earlier, I didn't get any money for getting the SGT3 Championship this year....it's a hobby, and I'd like my hobby to be around for awhile longer, but the more we get incidences, the more we risk loosing the hobby. When they mentioned at Mosport this year that we might not be there in 2010 because of all the incidences, I was not happy...heck I might even stop doing Solo1 if Mosport is dropped from the schedule. That's the way I look at it anyhow.

BTW, if you can't push your car to it's limits and stay on the black stuff, then you might have car control issues. ;)

Okay, in the spirit of maintaining access to these tracks and insurance I'd like to move to ban:
Trail Braking
Cars over 150hp
Speeds over 100km/h
Any sliding of tires
Locking up of brakes
Cars with oversteer tendancies
Driving in the rain
All new people
All fast people
All aggressive people
All drivers that have ever done anything wrong and spun

That should keep the sport safe and the insurance cheap.

Right... you tell every professional racer in the world that has ever left the black stuff while pushing the limits that they have car control issues. Which professional driver that has never looped the car and won a championship is your favorite?

wrxr176: Don't be so touchy. I still fully respect all of the people who support this rule (Even Pete! :p). It is my personal opinion that it is taking the thrill out of this thrill sport - I couldn't think of a lighter way to express that. If you'd like to ban me from Solosprints for having an opinion of your rule that does not fit your opinion... well it's been fun.

[jonweir]

.... If you'd like to ban me from Solosprints for having an opinion of your rule that does not fit your opinion... well it's been fun.....

Why would we need to ban you? When's the last time you came out? :p;)

[ADAM]

it wont be hard to adapt to this rule....its no biggi..just stay on the track should be simple enough regardless of how fast your car is or how hard you drive it...

everyone will have to follow it..so its fair...

as long as the rules are applied evenly and fairly to all cars there is no issue..



anything that actually mitigates cars getting destroyed and potential human damage is a good thing...



ok...lets bicker about the next subject....back to front wings :)

[MazdaMatt]

Why would we need to ban you? When's the last time you came out? :p;)

Thanks for completely dismissing me because I've missed one season because I bought a house. Not everyone gets to have corporate sponsorship.

[MazdaMatt]

Adam, my point is, where would you be if you were given disincentive to try too hard? Where would any of the experienced solosprinters be if they always pussed out on a turn because of a technical rule instead of pushing the limits?

So now i'm looking at a series that costs a lot to get a little track time in which I can't explore my limits for fear of losing the ability to compete. Competition is the only "up" that Solosprint has on lapping. If I can't go and enjoy the full thrill of driving a race car (risk), then what's the point? How can I learn my limits when i'm encouraged not to explore them?

[ADAM]

Well I would say I am usually very aggressive on the track...however...MIR is not one of those tracks that you should be driving crazy on...

on all the other tracks..I am all for sliding around the track..having crazy slip angles..laying some rubber down..reefing the car and making it go where it needs to go....and generally having fun sliding the car around..and if you go off big deal ride it out and try again...


However...MIR is not one of those tracks..I have a healthy fear of this track..and dont drive anywhere near as aggresive as the other tracks..its just to dangerous...maybe its mid age setting in..dont know...but the potential for serious pain is at that track....you have to really watch that track..the high speeds make it very dangerous..the potential for serious damage is always there....


you can still drive very fast..just dont go 2 wheels off...everyone will have to follow the same rules..so the times will be comparible..

IMO you should puss out on turns at MIR..cause if you overshoot the corner you are 100% into a wall..alot of us are leaving TONS of time at MIR..basically cause to really push it risks the car and your body...

no one is saying you have to change the way you drive..its just your run will be negated if you go 2 wheels off..

if you are not scared driving at MIR then your not going fast enough :) cause sure as hell I have in the back of my mind...hmmm this would be a bad time for a tire to blow at 250kph :)

[MazdaMatt]

As stated earlier I would have no complaints if this was a supp rule at MIR in the name of safety. I crap my pants at least twice per lap at MIR *AND* i'm not going fast enough!

I wouldn't even complain about it being added to Bogie if solosprint went back there... Even though lots of people went safely 2wo on the exit of the final turn because they were trying hard to learn the track and push the limits at the same time.

[Cap'n Pete]

I wouldn't even complain about it being added to Bogie if solosprint went back there... Even though lots of people went safely 2wo on the exit of the final turn because they were trying hard to learn the track and push the limits at the same time.
And people have hit the pit wall as a result of dropping wheels on the outside of that turn ;). Thanks for bringing up another good example!! :p

Like Dave mentioned, we have used pylons to keep people from cutting the apex ... but that isn't the concern here. It's about keeping the LOADED wheels on solid ground. Again, had you seen a couple of the wrecks this year (and understood WHY they were so bad) you wouldn't be arguing this as much. Just saying .....

[ScotcH]

I wouldn't even complain about it being added to Bogie if solosprint went back there... Even though lots of people went safely 2wo on the exit of the final turn because they were trying hard to learn the track and push the limits at the same time.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for ... what limit are you trying to find? The limit of your car control skill before you hit the wall? If you've gone off the track surface, you've FOUND the limit ... time to dial it back a bit, or attack the corner differently so you don't run off the edge at the exit.

Cutting an apex is FAR different from running out of track on exit. That's what leads to issues that the OSO is trying to fix.

[MazdaMatt]

It is the regulated discouragement from the limits that i'm dissapointed about, Arek.

Oi, nevermind. I'm done here.

[Ujjwal]

I sort of understand you MazdaMatt. Next year will be my first year competing so I hope it's ok a newb like me can comment on the rules.

For MIR, the two wheel off rule is a good rule. For all other tracks, it would be nice if only that particular lap were discounted and not the whole session.

[wrxr176]

Oi, nevermind. I'm done here.

Thank you

You have made your point that you don't like it. But the rule will still be in place so either come out and push to the limits of the track or push past those limits and hopefully go home with only losing your times and not your car.

[racecartech]

nobody is saying not to push limits, there is just absolutly no reason to drop 2 wo on exit of any corner at MIR on purpose. There is still so much fun and limits to find on track.

I do not understand what anyone would find fun about dropping wheels on exit.

I have had my fun pushing past limits and keeping all 4 wheels on!

examples: drifting turn 3
drifting turn 4
drifting turn 5
drifting turn 8
all in the dry, staying on the track!
drifting turn 2
drifting turn 3
360 turn 3
360 turn 4
drifting turn 4
drifting turn 8
drifting turn 10
all in the wet, staying on the track!

these have been in several different cars, different track days. I have been fortunate enough to have never come close to any wall at MIR. I have only dropped wheels once on purpose, it was to demonstrate what to do to save the car to a competitor moving up to race.

Matt, you should attend the MIR School this year, you will have a much better understanding of this rule. I don't even have a problem with this rule being at all tracks. The ATTS this year at the DDT, the one and only timed lap required all 4 wheels to remain on the pavement. it worked!

Even in race not one racer I witnessed this year purpose dropped wheels on exit of any corner.

Great job members of the Solosprint Commitee and the OSO!

I hope this to be the beggining of a fantastic 2010 season.

[Todd #65]

I appologize in advance if I've missed this somewhere....

I understand the rationale for the 2WO rule and can appreciate its benefit. What I am not clear about is what happens if a driver is deemed as being 2WO.

Does said driver loose their entire session (as they do now with a 4WO) or do they only loose the lap they were running?

We don't get an abundance of laps in Solosprint... I know that I wouldn't be very happy if I blew a corner and got black flagged for it. If it is a major 2WO (ie. bottomed out on curbing etc) then I'd be coming in anyway but if all is fine then I want to enjoy my time on the track.

[racecartech]

The idea, is to keep all 4 wheels on.

example of what to do. you are too hot entering turn 1, or you goofed and turned in too soon. before you reach the apex you should already know you are not going to make the exit if you stay hard on the gas, sooo, ease off the thottle, steer the car, keep 4 wheels on and loose time on that lap, continue your session, don't get black flagged, don't wreck your car, everyone is happy.

the whole premise is you will know if you are not running a line which can be done safely, do not push an unsafe situation.

I am positive Chuck will be adressing this in detail at the MIR school.

This is to keep the partisipants and thier cars safe, I can't believe how many people are upset with this.
possibly the ones upset would have been next years victims.

We should all be thankful we are in an organiztion that cares

[racecartech]

Oh and on the front wings, everyone but me has to run one

the square footage direct proportion to horse power.

Adam can build them all, make them really really big, lots of downforce.

[Slowpoke]

Does said driver loose their entire session (as they do now with a 4WO) or do they only loose the lap they were running?


It was my hope that the competitor would lose the times from that session (e.g.: 200 seconds added onto each lap) but be allowed to continue it to practice and improve for the next session. However, clerks can be impatient. If you are at risk of causing a yellow because you're slower than the person behind you, would they black flag you at the last corner instead of yellowing the oncoming car who still is being timed? I could see that.

[sti_schumacher]

ANYWAYS, now that the dead horse has been clubbed and dragged accross the room several times... about those front wings:D

i have nothing against it (pipped properly, like all aero). only potential concern is 'safety' - from what i saw the front wing mounts on a steel frame rigidly connected to the front end. so hypothetically if a car with this frame were to T-bone another car on the driver side this frame would pierce the door and impale the driver IMO... please dont consider this an attack (i would love a front wing myself;))- i only know so much from basic observation, so if im missing something please correct me.
i know its a stretch and someone will probably say "how often do we have car-car collisions in the series?" but if we're concerned about safety lets be thorough.

[Cap'n Pete]

I appologize in advance if I've missed this somewhere....

I understand the rationale for the 2WO rule and can appreciate its benefit. What I am not clear about is what happens if a driver is deemed as being 2WO.

Does said driver loose their entire session (as they do now with a 4WO) or do they only loose the lap they were running?

We don't get an abundance of laps in Solosprint... I know that I wouldn't be very happy if I blew a corner and got black flagged for it. If it is a major 2WO (ie. bottomed out on curbing etc) then I'd be coming in anyway but if all is fine then I want to enjoy my time on the track.
Todd, it's going to cancel the whole session, same as 4WO currently does. It seems a harsh penalty, but as mentioned a few pages back, "only" applying a penalty to the lap in question would sort of be a joke of a penalty anyway, since the lap in which you drop 2 wheels would most likely be your slowest lap anyway (so any extra "penalty" would sort of be lost, and the incentive NOT to go 2WO would not be there).

Based on the amount of discussion this 2WO rule has already stirred up, hopefully it actually proves to be effective on the track, since clearly, it has made people really THINK about being 2WO or not :cool:. Although I'm sure we'll get out there and some people will forget all about "the rules" and just go for the gusto, and maybe nothing will have changed :rolleyes:. Hopefully that isn't the case though.

[Todd #65]

Thank you for the clarification.

I have full confidence that the people intimately involved in making these decisions have both the safety of the participants as well as the fun of the sport in mind. :)

I love the concept of less gravel and debris on the track. Less stone chips = happy Todd

[ADAM]

"i know its a stretch and someone will probably say "how often do we have car-car collisions in the series?" but if we're concerned about safety lets be thorough"

if this is really an issue, then all solo sprint cars should have roll cages with side impact as well...

[RRRex]

We'll be running a front wing on our Rocost Super 7 this season. It's a factory option for both Rocost kit car and The Caterham Super 7. Front wings are also a factory option on the Aerial Atom.

[ADAM]

ahhh but did you cover the wings end plates with rubber!!!!

and do a full test day at mosport to prove it wont fly off!!

and have to sit on it!!!

:)

[ADAM]

my wing is also an option for Ontario Race Fabrication Ltd. "570sx Ultimate DOOM" kit car as well...

actually 3 front aero options.....

1=front splitter =$600 option
2=large front wing and mounts =$700
3=small front wing and mounts=$700

BTW ORF is taking orders for "570sx Ultimate DOOM's"

if you provide the chassis a fully complete race car is $36,700 base

If ORF has to find a chassis its chassis cost plus base cost.

contact Ontario Race Fabrication Ltd. for more details..

basically you will get a 12 second race NA race car for this amount..

[jonweir]

my wing is also an option for Ontario Race Fabrication Ltd. "570sx Ultimate DOOM" kit car as well...

actually 3 front aero options.....

1=front splitter =$600 option
2=large front wing and mounts =$700
3=small front wing and mounts=$700

BTW ORF is taking orders for "570sx Ultimate DOOM's"

if you provide the chassis a fully complete race car is $36,700 base

If ORF has to find a chassis its chassis cost plus base cost.

contact Ontario Race Fabrication Ltd. for more details..

basically you will get a 12 second race NA race car for this amount..

Ugh, I hope this is all 'silly season' joking around...

[RRRex]

my wing is also an option for Ontario Race Fabrication Ltd. "570sx Ultimate DOOM" kit car as well...

actually 3 front aero options.....

1=front splitter =$600 option
2=large front wing and mounts =$700
3=small front wing and mounts=$700

BTW ORF is taking orders for "570sx Ultimate DOOM's"

if you provide the chassis a fully complete race car is $36,700 base

If ORF has to find a chassis its chassis cost plus base cost.

contact Ontario Race Fabrication Ltd. for more details..

basically you will get a 12 second race NA race car for this amount..

LOL. Can you send me a brochure?

[Cap'n Pete]

BTW ORF is taking orders for "570sx Ultimate DOOM's"

if you provide the chassis a fully complete race car is $36,700 base

If ORF has to find a chassis its chassis cost plus base cost.

contact Ontario Race Fabrication Ltd. for more details..

basically you will get a 12 second race NA race car for this amount..
Adam, is ORF considering building a 620sx s/c uber-ultimate DOOMonster?? ;) (I'm thinking the ~640 HP 6.2L supercharged 'Vette motor would be a nice addition to the package :D).

Have you considered wings on the doors? The car might actually fly then :).

[Cap'n Pete]

Ugh, I hope this is all 'silly season' joking around...
Jon, I'm sure if you gave ORF the money, you could actually get a 570sx Ultimate DOOM of your own ;). I just don't know if you'd be used to that much power though :p.

[jonweir]

Jon, I'm sure if you gave ORF the money, you could actually get a 570sx Ultimate DOOM of your own ;). I just don't know if you'd be used to that much power though :p.

Yeah, but I also want to win..... :p

[Cap'n Pete]

Yeah, but I also want to win..... :p
What's your point? The "DOOM"obile has posted FTD ... the only reason Adam hasn't actually won the class/championship is he didn't show up enough ;). So if you had your own DOOMobile and actually ran enough events, you'd probably win :). Might even give a certain Z06 a run for its money ;).

[Slowpoke]

If I were to order an "Ultimate Doom", it would be with a front splitter, not the wing. I own a couple of Subarus, and even I just couldn't be seen with something that buffugly at the track. :D

[RRRex]

I'm ordering my doom570 with door wings. :D

[wrxr176]

Well mine will be the most unique of them all. I am getting the plow option along with the lift kit. Oh ya and I ordered the 10 pack of rear diffs since i will need them. LOL

[Cap'n Pete]

Well mine will be the most unique of them all. I am getting the plow option along with the lift kit. Oh ya and I ordered the 10 pack of rear diffs since i will need them. LOL
When I read the "10 pack of rear diffs" line, my brain someone translated that into "12 pack of beer" :D ..... I thought it would be fitting, since your plow fitted and lifted version seems pretty red-neck to me, and a 12-pack of beer fit right in ;).

[ADAM]

I could special install the plow option :).... and make it articulate so that it angles and creates a front spoiler type thing :)..and you could plow snow too !!!


he he...lets also remember 570sx doom is the slowest its ever gonna be...it has the wimpiest LS1 they ever made at only 305hp...

if I get pushed to MOD...the gloves come off... race heads and race cam....gives you 515hp..I think the extra 210 hp could make a difference :)

[wrxr176]

if I get pushed to MOD...the gloves come off... race heads and race cam....gives you 515hp..I think the extra 210 hp could make a difference :)

Ya it would but you would still have to find a fast driver. LOL

[ADAM]

ha ha....

:)

[Cap'n Pete]

he he...lets also remember 570sx doom is the slowest its ever gonna be...it has the wimpiest LS1 they ever made at only 305hp...

if I get pushed to MOD...the gloves come off... race heads and race cam....gives you 515hp..I think the extra 210 hp could make a difference :)
What year of car was your motor from? '98 right? They rated '98 - '00 the same, then bumped them 5 HP to 310 in '01/'02. However, '98 was kind of an "odd" year ... they actually had bigger injectors than the other years, which is good if/when you start increasing the airflow through the motor via intake/heads/cam ;).

Yes, a ~500 HP LS1 would be fun :cool:. You would really need to upgrade your diff then!!

[ADAM]

yeah its a 98...yeah I need to find some heads and cams for it :)

waiting like a vulture for Krispy's parts....

ohh Krispy..

[Cap'n Pete]

yeah its a 98...yeah I need to find some heads and cams for it :)

waiting like a vulture for Krispy's parts....

ohh Krispy..
?? :confused: ?? Why, does he have engine parts for sale?? :confused:

[ADAM]

first mishap I get first dibs on his parts

:)

[Cap'n Pete]

first mishap I get first dibs on his parts

:)
Oh, nice!! :D

[Chris P]

yeah its a 98...yeah I need to find some heads and cams for it :)

waiting like a vulture for Krispy's parts....

ohh Krispy..

You're evil. Stay away.

[RRRex]

I think Adam stole your stook so you'd buy a Z06 just so he can steal it too.:D

[nrg3k_civic]

reminds me of a saying my Dad taught me:

when you die, we split your gear.

DJM:>