Arca_ex

iTrader: (2)

PSA.

Other vents may be affected as well. If you feel inclined, maybe with enough backlash the rule will be revised.

Link:

https://community.drivenasa.com/topi...on-highlights/

Roda

Quoted from your link (emphasis added by me) :

I just went out to the garage and measured my Singular vents, and the vents themselves are well under 3/8". Simply removing the 'gurney flap' should bring them within compliance...??

AA-Ron

Version 1 maybe but version 2 has the gurney flap integrated into the vents.

HarryB

Nothing an angle grinder cannot fix I assume.

Roda

Didn't know that... learn somthing every day, I guess!

Quigs

iTrader: (2)

Posted these into the NASA thread at the request of them wanting measurements:





​​​​​​​

flier129

iTrader: (7)

Here's my measurement of my gen 1s







Such a random size to pick..... it's like they wanted to exclude the vast majority of louvers. Did they even look at ANY CFD data or any data at all to make a decision? My guess is no.....


It's not that hard of a fix for me, but it's really frustrating for a random rule like this to be put down mid-season. Building up more of a negative reputation ultimately losing current and potential customers.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

With the second-generation ones you could just lean it down a little bit

Arca_ex

iTrader: (2)

While true, missing the point a bit. Some cars don't get that lucky with other off the shelf vents. Check out the thread on the national forum.

Blackbird

For all I can tell, it's only the front gurney that is taller than 3/8", the rest of the louvers are well within spec.
Trim the gurney down and you're legal again, done.

Arca_ex

iTrader: (2)

Yes. We know. Like I said before there's another point to be made by this.



Also measured my endplates on my Singular wing kit and those are illegal now as well and need to be reduced in size. Mid season baseless rule changes are an excellent way to drive customers away.

Midtenn

iTrader: (15)

That's why I am leery of building my car for ST5. I'll be a on a tight budget, so rule changes that cost money may cost me a race weekend.

k24madness

iTrader: (6)

NASA as a whole is tough for rule changes. Seems like the rules are in constant flux. Power to weight ETC. Just be happy you're not one of the GTS guys that builds a car to compete in a series then NASA pretty much destroys it. Spec Miata is the safest bet but even that has some expensive changes like the recent Penske suspension upgrade.

flier129

iTrader: (7)

They want more data, so share the thread with all your friends!

https://community.drivenasa.com/topi...on-highlights/

plz?

Supe

Does anyone have a photo of the “winglet” type vents that caused the rule revision?

LukeG

I assume it is to prevent something like this used in time attack.

Arca_ex

iTrader: (2)

That is what they say the intent of the rule was but it's definitely not the way it was implemented, since there are so many cars with illegal vents even though Greg stated that he "thought would be legal" to me in an email. Which proves that the measurement they chose was pretty much pulled out of their *** and now they're trying to defend the number they chose.

Two different polls on FB with dozens of people answering them show about 60% of cars in class are affected, about 25% have no vents, and the last 15% have vents that are already legal.

Supe

Geeze, all that harumphing over an extractor type hood vent? Yeesh, and I thought SCCA's old classing was bad...

Arca_ex

iTrader: (2)

Here's a good opportunity to show NASA how people feel.

https://form.jotform.com/drivenasa/2019-NASA-Q1-Survey

Ben AZ

iTrader: (12)

My (beer fueled) word vomit response:

I originally had my car prepped to the limits of TT-E standards, and that class was done away with before I could set rubber on a race track. No skin off my rear end. I then decided to target TT5 or maybe TT4. Now my hood vents (Singular Motorsports) that I installed on my 1991 Miata, with good faith to the rules are "illegal" unless I go to TT3. I am now second guessing staying with NASA Arizona for the simple fact that if mid season rule changes will be common place, I may not afford to be able to keep up with them as I view this as a slippery slope type of an issue. I have a decent amount of money tied up in my car, and I have tried to build it per the rules. However, if NASA deems fit to loose it's s*it over (in my mind) piddly stuff, I WILL seek another racing organization to run with. I have had an absolutely AMAZING time with NASA, but this is very disheartening, and in my humble opinion, almost unacceptable. I understand the spirit of the rule change, but it must be made more reasonable to accommodate off the shelf options for a Miata as well as other cars that have the same options. 3/4" would accommodate almost every off the shelf vehicle specific solution available. I feel that I am one of many frustrated individuals affected by this new rule. I wish to continue my relationship with NASA in my region, but I am personally unable to afford to change my vehicle mid season. I hope that this does not fall on deaf ears, however, I will defer to the judgement that is above my pay grade. At the end of day, competition must be fair, and rules must be adhered to for the sake of everybody involved. However I feel this is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is being blown out of proportion.