Droop and MasterSbilt_Racer Q and A

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pennsboro32
    replied
    Originally posted by cjsracing View Post
    So back to the ugly cars of yesteryear. no thanks
    Who cares how ugly they are as long as they race better.

    Leave a comment:


  • cjsracing
    replied
    Originally posted by MasterSbilt_Racer View Post
    Droop rule gone. Decking flat in all directions. Driver side body not above decking. 3" convex bow returned to the roof. No splitter on the nose. 36" static deck height. 4" spoiler. Right side body squared off rr wheel with a fixture that runs forward and backwards from center of rr hub. No part of body can be more than 1" further away from fixture than the closest point.

    That's a good start.
    So back to the ugly cars of yesteryear. no thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • Josh Bayko
    replied
    The bodies just need to be straight, flat and symmetrical with a 36” deck height. Checked with a level and a tape measure. It it fails any of the measurements, tough sh*t go fix it.

    It wouldn’t even significantly change the look of the cars to the people in the stands. Would also make life way easier for the graphics guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • 84wedge
    replied
    Originally posted by Jking24 View Post
    The issues have always been their per say but what's going on is the more "aero efficient " a car becomes the more it suffers from changes in the air. So when a Car has the aero efficiency of a brick it doesn't matter if the air gets disturbed because it's doing very little for the cars handling in the first place. Take a aero efficient car and disturb the air and it might lose half of its grip (handling). Hopefully that makes sense lol
    Hence JD going right into the wall when RTJ passed him in the corner at the Pittsburgher

    Leave a comment:


  • MasterSbilt_Racer
    replied
    Originally posted by kidrock View Post
    I'm guessing this would help address the aero problem?
    That's the idea and the biggest problem we have, IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • MasterSbilt_Racer
    replied
    Originally posted by SLlDlNG SIDEWAYS View Post
    Was there any aero issues that we're seeing today happening 10 years ago?
    10 years ago, maybe a little longer, is when I first started seeing it affect the racing.

    Leave a comment:


  • hardracer32
    replied
    I love your ideas on the bodies MasterSbilt_Racer. I think that would be a great start.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jking24
    replied
    Originally posted by SLlDlNG SIDEWAYS View Post
    Was there any aero issues that we're seeing today happening 10 years ago?
    The issues have always been their per say but what's going on is the more "aero efficient " a car becomes the more it suffers from changes in the air. So when a Car has the aero efficiency of a brick it doesn't matter if the air gets disturbed because it's doing very little for the cars handling in the first place. Take a aero efficient car and disturb the air and it might lose half of its grip (handling). Hopefully that makes sense lol

    Leave a comment:


  • SLlDlNG SIDEWAYS
    replied
    Originally posted by kidrock View Post
    I'm guessing this would help address the aero problem?
    Was there any aero issues that we're seeing today happening 10 years ago?

    Leave a comment:


  • kidrock
    replied
    Originally posted by MasterSbilt_Racer View Post
    Droop rule gone. Decking flat in all directions. Driver side body not above decking. 3" convex bow returned to the roof. No splitter on the nose. 36" static deck height. 4" spoiler. Right side body squared off rr wheel with a fixture that runs forward and backwards from center of rr hub. No part of body can be more than 1" further away from fixture than the closest point.

    That's a good start.
    I'm guessing this would help address the aero problem?

    Leave a comment:


  • lurker
    replied
    Originally posted by MasterSbilt_Racer View Post
    If they think that location is moved, I guess they can do whatever they choose, as is often the case.
    One of the stupidest things ever in the sport of DLM racing.

    Leave a comment:


  • MasterSbilt_Racer
    replied
    Originally posted by kidrock View Post
    I'm curious since you have good knowledge of the sport and chassis. What rules would you like to see changed or removed from the current set of rules?
    Droop rule gone. Decking flat in all directions. Driver side body not above decking. 3" convex bow returned to the roof. No splitter on the nose. 36" static deck height. 4" spoiler. Right side body squared off rr wheel with a fixture that runs forward and backwards from center of rr hub. No part of body can be more than 1" further away from fixture than the closest point.

    That's a good start.

    Leave a comment:


  • kidrock
    replied
    Originally posted by MasterSbilt_Racer View Post
    They aren't cheating. The rule is short sighted, as is the norm in our sport.

    I'm curious since you have good knowledge of the sport and chassis. What rules would you like to see changed or removed from the current set of rules?

    Leave a comment:


  • MasterSbilt_Racer
    replied
    The rule in no way simulates one-track suspension movement and has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Since they made a horrible rule against droop, teams worked to get more droop. As you say, they are higher than ever.

    My car would fail by 5 or 6 inches a year ago. Once I needed to pass, I had to buy a new shock and cut and weld on the frame. Didn't change a thing that affected on track droop.

    Leave a comment:


  • MasterSbilt_Racer
    replied
    Originally posted by 84wedge View Post
    How are they cheating this measurement thing, cause the cars look more jacked up than ever when they're on the gas.
    They aren't cheating. The rule is short sighted, as is the norm in our sport.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X