I need details please.

I need: A list of differences between the original rules developed by Scott and Karl in 2002 and the proposed rules changes by the west coast in 03.

http://www.hondachallenge.com

http://www.honda-challenge.com

There are major behind the scenes happenings going on as-we-speak.

There are also guys with far greater understanding of the TECH issues presented so please help (Chad, Yack, Scott, Kirk etc.) I (and other parties) would like to get detailed reasons why or why not to adopt or change the rules. I will in-turn present this information into the parties that need to know.

WHAT I NEED:
1. List of all changes.
a. .40 over
b. Carbon fiber/ Lexan
c. toyos
etc.................

2. Arguments pro and con for the changes. TECH reasons.

3. Possible solutions or middle ground.


If you would prefer to e-mail please do so:
roadracegear@earthlink.net

John- who understands what Karl says about this H-C stuff eating up all of his time.

edit.
H-C links found. Rules first review...we're not that too far off.


Modified by JohnW at 8:51 PM 6/5/2003

 

CHAD HERE JOHN....

going along what dave said earlier....i have been told they are not allowing more than 2 coats of wax on a race car....

you know i'm just having fun right!! i seriously wish my car were as clean as yours!!!

 

O.K. Now I'm really puzzled. The latest version of the National(NAT) rules I can find (Jan 2003 ver 2.2w) differs from the latest EC rules (revision: 11-27-02) in very few particulars. Things are in a different order, so it's hard to compare line for line.

Main things I see in a quick scan of the National rules, in order of discovery:

-NAT allows retention of steering wheel lock
-NAT allows roll cage mounting points and attachments above NASA CCR (or IT) rules.
-NAT requires door bars on both sides
-NAT allows SCCA Production class cars to run, with HC weights
-NAT allows .040 overbore (aligns with IT rules)
-NAT allows .5 compression increase (aligns with IT rules)
-NAT expands a few suspension rules to include McPherson strut changes and staybars between shocktowers or lower susp. points.
-Body changes: NAT allows tail lights and side markers to be replaced with aftermarket. Fender lips may be rolled. Two 3" holes can be cut for ducting. Thats about it.
-NAT requires Toyo RA-1 tires.

The National rules also have a chapter titled <u>Intent</u>

The Honda Challenge will encourage competitors to create an aftermarket-sourced configuration that will make their car perform at an optimum level. The intent of the rules is to allow competitors to use a combination of parts that will increase the performance, competitiveness and look of the vehicle. It is the intent of the series to serve as a “showcase” for aftermarket tuners and manufacturers and create tremendous exposure for their products and services while providing a friendly, accommodating, and challenging environment for the series drivers. The series is designed to keep costs in control by allowing limited suspension, brake, engine, and body modifications.


Nothing about carbon-fiber, lexan, ubermotors, etc.

Unless there's a new set of draft rules out there that the general population can't see, I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Unless there's a new set of draft rules out there that the general population can't see, I'm not sure what the fuss is about.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

i think you are right.. there is no fuss 'yet' because the NAT rules are still in progress? WCHC openly admits that just about their whole H1 class is illegal.. which i suppose means that rule changes are in the works to make them legal again.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Unless there's a new set of draft rules out there that the general population can't see, I'm not sure what the fuss is about.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

My assumption has always been that the 2003 national rules would be modified prior to the 2004 season. Every statement Ryan has made backs this up. As such, the comparison of one lame duck rulebook with another lame duck rulebook leaves me scratching my head...

The statement has always been that "the VA region will use the national rules after this year". This statement in no way says that the 2003 national rulebook will still be in place then. Aside from tires (which is a restricted topic) the only item I've heard objection to was the cage rule. Justification for that has been given and seems reasonable though (at least to me).

John, if this post is considered off-topic let me know and I'll remove it.

 

Its not so much that its not in the rulebook now... its the consideration to modify the rulebook to accomodate these orphaned USTCC cars, which is entirely what HC was never about about in the first place. If they want to run, give them their own class. I dont buy this bull of keeping them all in one class for exposure - rules is rules and if we dont stick to it for one group, what happens when the next group wants to come play in the sandbox?

And to cite chad's example of the CF hood, if you were out there in the sandpits of CMP watching the R&D crew work their butts off to get chad's daily-driver ready for the next day, you would let him have his stupid CF hood also. There was alot of determination in their paddock space. They werent going home without a shot at a win sunday.

HC is supposed to be grassroots and fun - it wasnt cheap to start with, lets not let some big budgets run away with that.

- I would keep the current bodywork rules (i.e. OE)
- I would throw away 'free' engine management and limit it to piggyback or chipped systems
- I would not allow head porting
- Keep valvetrain 'free' (cams/gears/retainers/etc)
- Same bottom-end = OE honda parts rules
- Entertain another (Hx, Hu, H0) class for cars that do not fit in the H1 ruleset as exhibition only, no points/trophies but if a sponsor wants to donate a prize for this class then they are free to do so. This would give the USTCC cars a place to play.

 

Over on nasaforuns.com I've asked Ryan to provide his proposed H1 rules. Maybe if we all have the facts we can back off a couple of steps and work for a resonable solution to this mess.

John. If I'm stepping on any back-channel reconciliation here, please let me know. I just have the best interests of HC at heart.

 

Thanks guys.... All these posts are helpful.

Man.. this has been one Nasa filled day.

Today I learned a lot of stuff that 24 hrs ago I was unaware of. I sure hope that stuff told to me, by people that know, wasn't too confidential to discuss. But here goes.

1. Nasa currently has no plan on letting the USTCC die. In fact they have plans on expanding it to the east coast. There is also a discussion of a extreem USTCC. Much like AI and AIX. Don't ask me how.... I don't know.

2. The current debate rages about 'stepping stone' classes in NASA.
H-C ranks would/ could/ should be club-level racing and prep-levels
USTCC would be the pro-series and prep levels would/ should be higher.

IMHO- this sounds good to me.

3. The West Coast and VA region really do want a unified rule book. "Closing some of the holes is an important part of this while keeping the spirt of the original rules".

4. The NASA regions have asked me to get togther with current H-C racers and compare the 2002 book with the 2003 rules. Find the issues that are important to us and let them know. Hopefully, if there are problems, we can all have input and get things all ironed out before the end of the year.

5. I HONESTLY do believe the WC guys want this series to be successful on their coast. I have also been told that the USTCC will have their own home, no need to stick them in with H1.

Gentlemen..... this is our time to do the homework needed to find a middle ground with these rules and put this mess behind us. Lets work with Ryan and Chris C. and finish this stuff up. I need to get back to the A-D business.

Suggestion to NASA. Keep the racers updated on the future plans and this stuff will not blow-up like it has.

I do not speak for NASA, the above info was gathered thru mutiple phone calls and shouldn't be taken as the Gospel. They are simply my interpretations/ summary of the phone conversations.

Thanks
JohnW.

 

That 'intent' section is critical. Rather than comparing rulebooks, I would start by determining (individually) how well the intent or mission of the category aligns with each of our personal goals and values - what is important in racing. Once we each have that issue reconciled, any modification allowed by the rules needs to be checked against the explicit philosophy of the category. Does it align? Is it at odds? Does it matter?

All too often the arguments here are couched in terms of one micro-issue (e.g., carbon hoods) rather than in terms of broader philosophies. For example, in my view competition is WAY more important than outright speed - I would rather compete with (or watch for that matter) a lot of slower-but-equal cars, than go like hell all by my lonesome. Given this, to me each and every allowed modification increases the variance over the distribution of car performance in a class - and correspondingly decreases equity and competition. I am going to argue against chips/modules for example, because of my broader philosophy but that could easily be lost if I pitch a fit about the smaller issue without understanding and being able to explain my own outlook and biases.

 

I'm not going into a whole diatribe here. All that I am going to say is that the rules for the ECHC were written with a great deal of thought. There was a purpose and a method behind all of them, and we knew that it was very different from how other race groups ran their series. That was the point, we didn't want to be like them. Now this National concept has come into play, and their rules are just like everybody elses. I know that in order to have a national championship, the rules must match, but it is very disappointing to see our series being changed over to their rules. In some respects, we just lost some of the purpose of the Honda Challenge in the first place.

We didn't want overbore, or open porting, or some of those engine management mods because we wanted to save money. We wanted a series where talent prevailed, not money. If we keep going in this direction, are we going to lose what made us so special in the first place? Are we going to lose our flexibility? Will we be able to invert by class if that is what we want to do, or will we be told that it's against the national rules? See where I'm going here?


Matt (who felt that last year with Honda Challenge was the best racing experience he's ever had)

 

I thought RyanF was a little too abrupt but I will agree that the rules from last year had a lot of holes in them. That was a valid point and with which Karl and Scott would agree. The reason it worked well last year was because so many competitors knew one another and it was true gentlemen racing. That is way too much to ask as a series grows. I will say I never understood allowing unlimited cage connection points and cage through the firewall in H5-H2 (new rules). That just orphans IT cars essentially. My .02.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by .RJ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And to cite chad's example of the CF hood, if you were out there in the sandpits of CMP watching the R&D crew work their butts off to get chad's daily-driver ready for the next day, you would let him have his stupid CF hood also. There was alot of determination in their paddock space. They werent going home without a shot at a win sunday.</TD></TR></TABLE>

So if I really work my butt off installing a set of cams and JDM pistons in my H4 Civic, can I have my stupid engine bits?

You've gotta draw the line somewhere, and the letter of the rules is that line. By not protesting, you open yourselves up to further cheating. Some newb will see the obviously illegal car and decide it's ok to break the rules. I've seen it happen in SRX-7 and IT. In this respect, HC would be no different.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
- I would throw away 'free' engine management and limit it to piggyback or chipped systems</TD></TR></TABLE>

Ok, but what wording do you use? Where do Hondata and Zdyne systems fit into this? Can I only mess with inputs to the ECU, or outputs as well? Does the ECU have to control all factory functions? Etc.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">- I would not allow head porting</TD></TR></TABLE>

Probably too late - this was in the original rules.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">- Entertain another (Hx, Hu, H0) class for cars that do not fit in the H1 ruleset as exhibition only, no points/trophies but if a sponsor wants to donate a prize for this class then they are free to do so. This would give the USTCC cars a place to play.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I wouldn't. It seriously detracts from the rest of the series. How would you convince a sponsor that H1 is the premier class in HC if there are uber-dollar pro cars running circles around them (even if not for points)?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JohnW &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Gentlemen..... this is our time to do the homework needed to find a middle ground with these rules and put this mess behind us. Lets work with Ryan and Chris C. and finish this stuff up. I need to get back to the A-D business.

Suggestion to NASA. Keep the racers updated on the future plans and this stuff will not blow-up like it has.</TD></TR></TABLE>

One thing the message board flamers neglect to realize is it takes work to do put this kind of thing together. Those of us who have been involved in HC since the beginning have put many hours of our spare time into it .. and we don't even get any discount on our entry fees!

As the series control moves to NASA national, if we don't present our views in a logical and civilized fashion, there will be more threads like we just had which lead to nothing more then people getting pissed off.

Thanks John for putting in the work on this. It will take even more to keep ECHC the fun and friendly racing series it has been the past 2 years.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Geezer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Over on nasaforuns.com I've asked Ryan to provide his proposed H1 rules...</TD></TR></TABLE>

And here they are:

a) Stick with the National rules for H2-H5 with a few slight weight changes within certain classes. Example H4 Civic is too heavy at 2400#

b) Establish a Min weight in H1 and allow bodywork so everyone can play. Makes it even, makes it easy. CRX is known to be the cheapest so if someone decides to race the more expensive Integra (or other) why should we care if they choose to spend money on lightweight stuff. Does not make sense (to me anyway) have a list of cars that are eligible but are not competitive. That would be a real waste of money and people will stop racing if they don't have a even chance at winning.

c) Ditch or leave the open head and engine management depending on
group input.

d) Stick with the Toyo Spec tire. However, if East majority does not want that and reap the benefits of a spec tire then let them run whatever. At least with all the cars compliant we can have a national event down the road and specify a tire and everyone will be dead even.

The entire thread can be found here http://nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=301

 

Well guy's it looks as though this whole thread is an East Coast deal? Sorry for jumping in!
We on the west coast are also getting together to try and come up with a formula that works... Hopefully we can all reach a compromise without starting anothe Civil War! Which is the way most of these damn treads have been heading!
Rest assured, in the preliminary discussions I have had, There is NO Question of Us trying to Change the ECHC or the Interim WCHC Rules!!!
However we are all pretty much in agreement that on the West Coast at least, There is room for One more Class! (With restrictions) No doubt the demographics will once again prove, that what we would like here, will be different to what you want over there! I am prepared to keep you- (JohnW) Informed of our progress - What you do with the Information is then up to you. I don't want to get into an open debate on the subject on this site as there are way too many people with too much to say about it when they arn't really involved! And as the last couple of threads have proven, nothing is gained, and things get blown out of proportion!
If its true that NASA is taking another look at USTCC? Thats Great! I have been a supporter and Competitor from day 1! and will continue to compete (With 2wd and No Turbo!) I have always said... There is Nothing Wrong with USTCC Rules! It's the Vehicle eligibility issue that's killing the series! ( Fast Tom & I both want to come to Hyperfest in August With USTCC But how many cars do you have for us to race against? This is the stupid thing about USTCC... We travel all that way to race the same 5 or 6 cars we can race against right here in California!)
However I will still want to run in Honda Challenge! And if that means removing some C/f and F/g , a Wing and a Splitter ok! On checking out the rules I'll be in H2?
Any way,
Good Luck

Kiwi

Kiwi

 

Quote, originally posted by .RJ »
And to cite chad's example of the CF hood, if you were out there in the sandpits of CMP watching the R&D crew work their butts off to get chad's daily-driver ready for the next day, you would let him have his stupid CF hood also. There was alot of determination in their paddock space. They werent going home without a shot at a win sunday.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

So if I really work my butt off installing a set of cams and JDM pistons in my H4 Civic, can I have my stupid engine bits?

You've gotta draw the line somewhere, and the letter of the rules is that line. By not protesting, you open yourselves up to further cheating. Some newb will see the obviously illegal car and decide it's ok to break the rules. I've seen it happen in SRX-7 and IT. In this respect, HC would be no different.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

the reason with the CF hood was that i did NOT HAVE A STOCK hood to put in its place....so rather than run without a hood, i asked the head guys in charge....they said ask your competitors.....after explaining that the engine went (blew it up) in the race car and we would be prepping my DAILY DRIVER THAT HAD JUST BEEN DRIVEN FROM ARIZONA and that the only hood that i had for that car was a carbon fiber hood. All competitors said that they would not protest for this. I also stated that the CF hood would not be run again on the race car for the rest of the season.

it was not cheating.....it was allowing competition at its finest.....

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Crack Monkey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

So if I really work my butt off installing a set of cams and JDM pistons in my H4 Civic, can I have my stupid engine bits? </TD></TR></TABLE>

what chad said - there was no choice at the time

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ok, but what wording do you use? Where do Hondata and Zdyne systems fit into this? Can I only mess with inputs to the ECU, or outputs as well? Does the ECU have to control all factory functions? Etc.</TD></TR></TABLE>

No AEM, Greddy, Motec, Electromotive systems - allow zdyne, hondata, etc as they are using the factory ecu. More than sufficient for a mild H1 motor.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Probably too late - this was in the original rules.</TD></TR></TABLE>

So? Maybe todd will get the hint that VTEC is better

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I wouldn't. It seriously detracts from the rest of the series. How would you convince a sponsor that H1 is the premier class in HC if there are uber-dollar pro cars running circles around them (even if not for points)?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I wouldnt either but i'd rather have Hu/H0 than modify H1 rules to make them fit in. I dont believe that type of car has any place in the series - ideally, run USTCC and WCHC in two races on the same day.