California Rally Series: P-stock and GT Rules question thread - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: California Rally Series: P-stock and GT Rules question thread

  1. #21
    pressing on tirelessly
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A1337STI View Post
    and for a 3rd thing.. I'de like for it to be legal to stuff impact foam into the front doors. not removing anything, but just being allowed to stuff impact foam in there. (not 100% sure its possible to do on a stock door) but i bet i can figure out a way.
    I don't see a problem with that. It's not currently allowed now, but that seems like a reasonable thing to add to the "Body - Interior" section. I think we'd want to make it so that you couldn't gut the doors to do it (i.e. the OEM doorbar should still be there and you'd have to have functional OEM windows etc), but if you can figure out a way to add it to an otherwise stock door, I think it'd be ok.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    SpecialStage.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #22
    pressing on tirelessly
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Pondering the thought more, I'm not sure how much good impact foam would do if the OEM window mechanism is in place. Maybe requiring OEM glass but allowing it to be fixed in place would be reasonable?

    Should removing the electric motors be allowed in that case?

    Hmmmm.

  4. #23
    100 oversquare right
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,063

    Default

    TAZracing that stuff sounds cool. guess i should take a door card off and see how much room i have in there to add protection.. i would imagine there's a bit of clearance between the window and sheet metal of the door exterior .. (but maybe not)

    If we try to keep crs:GT/P:stock as "the cheaper classes/ what can we enforce classes " removing stuff doesn't add cost, or really cause an enforcement issue. so it passes that, (doesn't mean its a great idea) but doesn't seem too far fetched either.
    Welcome to Rally Addicts anonymous! Hi I'm Alex Rademacher, and i have a Rally problem..... 23 rallies and counting....

  5. Remove Advertisements
    SpecialStage.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #24
    150 Yump - 70mph-0mph in 5ft spiwrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    San Clemente, CA
    Posts
    26

    Default

    On topic, it seems that RA & NASA both specifically allow ECU reprogramming, (at least for my class PGT / Stock Medium). Wondering why you think CRS has a problem with it?

    Sure you could make more power & questionable reliability, but along the same lines as preserving the stock class for and 'less expensive' class ECU reprogramming can be cheap or free(open source). Secondly what about accommodating ECU changes for reliability of allowed MOD's?? If you are going to require a stock 'MAP' you will have to allow a little tolerance and what might that be? (& what a great way to make TECH. take even longer).

    I think it promotes a competitive nature within reasonable stock mod's of the car. Limiting injector, intake and restrictor size makes more sense to level the playing field. Seeing what you can do with a stock car is what PGT is to me. I think re-programming fits right in there. If anything, I think NASA allows replacement of the ECU as long as it uses the stock harness & sensors, that is a little outside the stock class in my opinion.

  7. #25
    100 oversquare right
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,063

    Default

    Yes both RA and Nasa allow it in their stock classes. well the "CRS problem with it" in my view , is that we don't allow it in our "stock" classes!

    And i agree that with stock intake & exhaust manifolds, and injectors (32mm on FI cars) we are still limiting HP. I don't know that we could easily test all Cars for ECU modifications. Subaru ODB2 no problem. what about a ODB1 neon? ODB1 eclipse ?

    I prefer a shorter tech process, and things that are easier to enforce. I can visually look at your intake & exhaust manifolds, but i can't readily check your ecu tune. (many do, but i don't own anything that can read ODB 1 or 2)

    I think you make some excellent points. Hopefully you'll vote Yes when i propose the rule change officially (after seed 9 i think we can vote) I'll propose this as a CRS:GT rule only, since the only feed back i've heard in the P-stock area is they don't want it .. but someone can propose the same for P-stock if they want to.
    Welcome to Rally Addicts anonymous! Hi I'm Alex Rademacher, and i have a Rally problem..... 23 rallies and counting....

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •