Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've come up with this after the 2011 supercab thread with teams somehow getting an extra few laps from the car without running out of fuel.

So what have you seen/heard on the grapvine/read etc, and is it good or bad.

Things like the Ferrari F1 4L "fuel cooler"

Nascar teams filling the cage/chassis with wet sand so they meet minimum weight at Scrutineering, then over the course of the race it dries out and falls out the bottom of the car.

Or in Snowy's case, running the R33 gearbox in the 34 at Targa.

I feel that things like filling the car with wet sand is just blatent cheating, but running larger/multiple fuel lines is clever, or running a 5 speed instead of a 6 speed offers no real advantage.

What do you guys think

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/354280-bending-the-rules/
Share on other sites

i love these advances in technology that take a while for other teams to copy. ie:

renaults mass damper in 06

ferraris 'through the nose' hole back 08

ferraris wheel covers and the amazing wheel nuts to allow them

mclarens individual left/right rear brake pedals

mclarens f-duct

also check out smokey yunicks stories here :]

http://www.circletrack.com/ultimateracing/ctrp_0801_smokey_yunick/index.html

I remeber a guy from work who is an F1 nut told me that there was case where a team was found out using a flexible rear wing that had a high angle of attack at low speeds but when it hit higher speeds it flexed down and flattened out to cause less drag.

He also reckons that Micheal Schumacer would never have won so many championships if it wasn't for his team "pushing the envelope" of what was allowed in the rules regarding fuel loading, engine power, traction control etc.

I remember reading about the Gibson motorsport team using a fire extinguisher to cool engine temps as the rules stated you had to carry an onboard extinguisher system.

The rules said nothing about it having to be full at the end of the race.

Another one was Fred Gibson running a larger than standard/homologated intercooler and when the CAMS scrutineer found the item on the race car did not comply, asked him to replace it. As Gibson Motorsport were backed by Nissan then, he had an exact same intercooler (that was still oversize) on stand by wrapped in Nissan packaging. So replaced with this, the scrutineer was satisfied it was a genuine part.

I personally don't agree with "bending" the rules, as there is a fine line between that and cheating. It seems some people try there darndest to justify their cheating by saying it's "bending" the rules and not "breaking" the rules.

I remember reading about the Gibson motorsport team using a fire extinguisher to cool engine temps as the rules stated you had to carry an onboard extinguisher system.

The rules said nothing about it having to be full at the end of the race.

Another one was Fred Gibson running a larger than standard/homologated intercooler and when the CAMS scrutineer found the item on the race car did not comply, asked him to replace it. As Gibson Motorsport were backed by Nissan then, he had an exact same intercooler (that was still oversize) on stand by wrapped in Nissan packaging. So replaced with this, the scrutineer was satisfied it was a genuine part.

I personally don't agree with "bending" the rules, as there is a fine line between that and cheating. It seems some people try there darndest to justify their cheating by saying it's "bending" the rules and not "breaking" the rules.

That reminds me, the 05 Mobil Sierra of Peter Brock was said to have had an extinguisher nozzle pointing at the turbo, was allegedly found by one of DJRs crew chiefs, but by the time the tech inspectors arrived the 05 car was behind a locked garage.

I have no issue with bending of the rules; if you're team is more dedicated to finding loopholes and clever enough to execute it then more power to you!

Porsche were kings of this in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Breaking the rules (such as the sand trick) is a different story.

That reminds me, the 05 Mobil Sierra of Peter Brock was said to have had an extinguisher nozzle pointing at the turbo, was allegedly found by one of DJRs crew chiefs, but by the time the tech inspectors arrived the 05 car was behind a locked garage.

I can also confirm that a lot of the group A Sierras ran turbos that weren't exactly rule abiding inside....and thats from the guy who worked on them :)

Lets face it, winning motorsport is all about building a car that meets the rules but is magically quicker than everyone elses - if there is no bending the rules, or another way to put it "interpretation of the rules" then most of the team engineers would be out of a job!

Subaru ran a class in the ARC a few years back for 2.5 RS Imprezas, which I was lucky enough to compete in, but as 1 make series which was primarily being run by their marketing dept it was unreal the cheating that was going on! Spec C shells, Cars that were allowed nothing more than a control exhaust blowing flames, and making 100awkw, when ours made 80 at the hubs... (with an illegal STI fuel pump) Cars with 3 open diffs, that would spin the inside rear driving around a car park... Funny thing is that as one of the people who was not doing that and was left looking slow because of it, my frustration was with the Scruitineers etc for not finding it, the guys doing it, well good on them for being that creative.

Brocky's Sierra had the extinguisher pointing at the intercooler during qualifying for Bathurst, and was found, and he was pushed down the grid for it.

Edited by iplen

I remeber a guy from work who is an F1 nut told me that there was case where a team was found out using a flexible rear wing that had a high angle of attack at low speeds but when it hit higher speeds it flexed down and flattened out to cause less drag.

He also reckons that Micheal Schumacer would never have won so many championships if it wasn't for his team "pushing the envelope" of what was allowed in the rules regarding fuel loading, engine power, traction control etc.

Ferrari have a history of "bending" the rules or manipulating people to let them break the rules.

whist yes its cheating and cheating is bad. its only cheating if you get court out.

it would be good to know half the stuff thats done that doesnt get picked up on.

somthings are also good engerneering and can help outher people out. if the engerneers didnt have to think outside the box there would never be any new developments.

One of the local rally guys bought a ex factory ARC Subaru and blew a head gasket. He went to Subaru and got a EJ20 gasket and it didn't fit, so he got another one thinking they'd given him the wrong one... then he got a EJ25 one and it fitted. Turns out the factory subies were running EJ25's stapmed as EJ20's.

Best rumour I've heard is that the group b Lancia Delta S4's were hiding nitrous in the roll cage

I understand they got out of the sport (and assume this was purchased around then?) and know where you're coming from, but I still think that a bit of nouse would be used in case they ever wanted to re-join.

I'm not saying it's completely discountable, but even I went to a lot of effort to sneak out the Hemi V8 in the Targa car prior

to the finish scrutineering. And I'm small fry compared to a factory team!

n836354571_2108060_5322-1.jpg

What's the point of having class rules then? May as well just compete in a "no rules" form of racing.

I have a competitive sailing background and we have one design classes where nothing can be changed from the manufacturer. Think Olympic classes with boats such as Laser, 470 and 49er's.

The idea is to give everyone a level playing field. You should be able to hop from one boat (or car) to another in the same class and the only difference is the driver.

Then there are development classes which virtually have no rules except "must be 12 feet long" for example. This way you get to choose what suits you. If you want to be creative and smart, go the development class. If you want fair/level racing go one design class.

To hear about the cheating in the RS Impreza challenge is absolutely woeful. It breaks all the rules and ideas behind a one make series.

It's a moral and ethical issue for me.

Getting away with it cause you didn't get caught doesn't cut it with me.

Edited by nismoman

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Latest Posts

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
×
×
  • Create New...