Calling all SpecBoxers...
12-02-2011, 06:02 PM
#91
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott,
The reply when asked about several improvements made was 'if it increases reliability, and has no performance gain, I have no problem with it'.
Again, interpretation, vague, intent of the statement?
And Scott, I have been around racing for a very, very long time in many forms and in varying capacities. Professional and club. I understand about interpretation of the rules. In my younger years I was head of a logistical engineering department. I get it.
Boxster spec rules are not 'notoriously tight' in any way, shape or form. Read them, you'll understand. When you have rules that you want followed explicitly, you need to write the rule explicitly. They need to be distinct and defined.
Vague or gray, to be challenged? Ok, but when you supply the facts and all supporting evidence you would expect the ruling party to look into that. They did not. The committe was supplied with very ambiguous information and they made their decision. Many did not know how the immobilzer even worked. They didn't know how the mechanics of the steering housing worked.
The appeal ruling was based on the committee's decision and the committee members never talked to Eric or saw any of his supporting information.
Is that fair and in the spirit?
The reply when asked about several improvements made was 'if it increases reliability, and has no performance gain, I have no problem with it'.
Again, interpretation, vague, intent of the statement?
And Scott, I have been around racing for a very, very long time in many forms and in varying capacities. Professional and club. I understand about interpretation of the rules. In my younger years I was head of a logistical engineering department. I get it.
Boxster spec rules are not 'notoriously tight' in any way, shape or form. Read them, you'll understand. When you have rules that you want followed explicitly, you need to write the rule explicitly. They need to be distinct and defined.
Vague or gray, to be challenged? Ok, but when you supply the facts and all supporting evidence you would expect the ruling party to look into that. They did not. The committe was supplied with very ambiguous information and they made their decision. Many did not know how the immobilzer even worked. They didn't know how the mechanics of the steering housing worked.
The appeal ruling was based on the committee's decision and the committee members never talked to Eric or saw any of his supporting information.
Is that fair and in the spirit?
Last edited by Laura; 12-02-2011 at 07:31 PM.
12-02-2011, 09:15 PM
#92
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SA Texas
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All they had to say was " all functions of the ECU, along with the associated immobilizer and any other **** that resides within the silver box Bosch part #986 XXXXXXX, must remain unmodified ".
12-02-2011, 09:45 PM
#93
How about the rules writers making their intention clear in the first place and not put the onus upon us poor bastards who just trying to have fun to figure out what they might have meant. It's not like spec racing was invented yesterday.
All they had to say was " all functions of the ECU, along with the associated immobilizer and any other **** that resides within the silver box Bosch part #986 XXXXXXX, must remain unmodified ".
All they had to say was " all functions of the ECU, along with the associated immobilizer and any other **** that resides within the silver box Bosch part #986 XXXXXXX, must remain unmodified ".
Scott
12-03-2011, 06:35 PM
#94
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
It looks like getting a forum is a cart and horse deal, so the traffic has to justify the need... So we got a sticky, if we continue to use this as the forum for discussions, either in this post or in the forum I think we can build the case...
12-05-2011, 11:53 PM
#97
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Keeping up the traffic...
Could the transcooler be the ticket for the reliability issue? Any rules issues with it? And speaking of rules, who's in the know of the 2012 rules from each org? I put together a matrix in excel but don't have all the new rule sets...
Could the transcooler be the ticket for the reliability issue? Any rules issues with it? And speaking of rules, who's in the know of the 2012 rules from each org? I put together a matrix in excel but don't have all the new rule sets...
12-06-2011, 12:26 AM
#98
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
Great idea. I run a Tilton pump to a small cooler located behind one of the side radiators. Also on the advise of Paul Guard and Viking I run (ran?) Synoloc 9920 gear oil in both my current 996 and my Spec Box...
12-06-2011, 03:05 AM
#99
Rennlist Member
http://www.le-inc.com/productPages.jsp?productID=202
12-06-2011, 03:30 AM
#100
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
PCA 2012 Spec Boxster Rules Changes (from Volume 4 2011 Club Racing News - http://pca.org/portals/crn/CRN-2011-4.pdf )
SPEC BOXSTER:
1. The Spec tire in SPB is the Toyo RA1.
This tire, unshaven, serves as the rain tire as well.
2. Lexan windshields are allowed.
3. The engine air injection system may be removed.
4. Transmission oil coolers are allowed
2011 PCA Rules
http://pca.org/portals/cr/2011_club_..._rule_book.pdf
2012 POC BoxsterSpec Rules:
http://poc.westhostsite.com/forum/sh...!&referrerid=0
12-06-2011, 10:16 AM
#102
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
No toyo bucks for spec box?!
Just got an update on the NASA/TOYO contingency payouts for the 944SPEC, I've gotten a few sets of tires over the past few seasons, but no Specbox is listed?! If it's the spec mfrg why no toyobucks? Is this an oversight? Did anyone get a payout last year? It's not huge but a few tires is a pretty cool trophie for a season...
I have the PCA, POC rules but anyone have any insight as to NASA 2012? Would think they would be out in front of everyone.
Just got an update on the NASA/TOYO contingency payouts for the 944SPEC, I've gotten a few sets of tires over the past few seasons, but no Specbox is listed?! If it's the spec mfrg why no toyobucks? Is this an oversight? Did anyone get a payout last year? It's not huge but a few tires is a pretty cool trophie for a season...
I have the PCA, POC rules but anyone have any insight as to NASA 2012? Would think they would be out in front of everyone.
12-06-2011, 10:22 AM
#103
Can anyone report transmission lubricant temperatures with and/or without an auxiliary cooler?
12-06-2011, 10:41 AM
#104
Perfect Angel
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
No toyo bucks for spec box?!
Just got an update on the NASA/TOYO contingency payouts for the 944SPEC, I've gotten a few sets of tires over the past few seasons, but no Specbox is listed?! If it's the spec mfrg why no toyobucks? Is this an oversight? Did anyone get a payout last year? It's not huge but a few tires is a pretty cool trophie for a season...
I have the PCA, POC rules but anyone have any insight as to NASA 2012? Would think they would be out in front of everyone.
Just got an update on the NASA/TOYO contingency payouts for the 944SPEC, I've gotten a few sets of tires over the past few seasons, but no Specbox is listed?! If it's the spec mfrg why no toyobucks? Is this an oversight? Did anyone get a payout last year? It's not huge but a few tires is a pretty cool trophie for a season...
I have the PCA, POC rules but anyone have any insight as to NASA 2012? Would think they would be out in front of everyone.
If it's been dropped this year that probably doesn't bode well for SPB in Nasa
12-06-2011, 10:45 AM
#105
The Penguin King
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Ok, how about another topic to discuss:
The SP996 guys in Texas have been talking amongst ourselves about allowing a specific floating rotor assembly. Our philosophy is generally to not allow changes to the spec that are aimed at performance enhancement, but we are thinking that over a couple of years (or maybe just one year) the floating rotors will give lower running costs due to decreases in rotor cracking, and also lower replacement costs (once you get over the one-time upgrade cost).
Probably not as applicable to SPB, but I suppose it could be.
Comments?
The SP996 guys in Texas have been talking amongst ourselves about allowing a specific floating rotor assembly. Our philosophy is generally to not allow changes to the spec that are aimed at performance enhancement, but we are thinking that over a couple of years (or maybe just one year) the floating rotors will give lower running costs due to decreases in rotor cracking, and also lower replacement costs (once you get over the one-time upgrade cost).
Probably not as applicable to SPB, but I suppose it could be.
Comments?