PDA

View Full Version : Turbo's sweep STU....



Z3_GoCar
09-23-2012, 10:23 PM
Looks like the margin of victory was pretty wide... with the Solstice running away with it. By the HP/weight the turbo cars are at least 150-200lbs light, and that's not even counting for the fact they're really torque mosters over the high strung naturally aspirated motors. So, what's to be done to reign in the turbos? Limit boost? Move them to STO? One thing is certain, the turbo's aren't on the same level as the best N/A motors.

Ron Earp
09-24-2012, 06:17 AM
How many data points are in your set?

Greg Amy
09-24-2012, 08:45 AM
Turbos were a major point of discussion all week. The CRB/STAC is aware of this issue. We had data boxes on all the major players all week and this will be one of our top priority discussions. - GA

Z3_GoCar
09-24-2012, 10:54 AM
How many data points are in your set?

Every division where STU has a Turbo and non-tubo cars, plus the runoffs. At this point the naturally aspirated cars are running E-production lap times, the turbo cars are 2-2.5 seconds faster per lap.

Prof. Chaos
09-26-2012, 06:14 PM
The STU turbo cars can't be moved to STO -- Tucker qualified at a 2:15, compared to Huffmaster's qualifying setup of a 2:24 (in race trim Huffmaster only managed a 2:26 and Tucker a 2:17). However, the fastest n/a STU cars were in the 2:28s (although I believe Heinrich clicked off a 2:27 before his qualifying DQ and eventual retirement from the Runoffs due to a blown motor). So how do we even the playing field?

A possible answer is the STU turbo cars need a little weight to drop them to the 2:27s or 2:28s, where the super-fast n/a cars stand a chance. Then STU and STL could be reevaluated and many of the n/a STU cars could be moved to STL with additional weight.

The STL pace at the Runoffs was 2:35. My STU street ported 13B turned lap times less than 0.2sec faster than the front STL guys in the race (and the STL 13B ran 3 seconds slower). Wickersham went from winning the GT2 National Championship earlier in the weekend to qualifying 17th in STU in a Honda S2000 with a 2:36. Some n/a cars just can't be sped up to 2:27s or 2:28s, and STU certainly shouldn't be dumbed down to meet the lowest common denominator.

Adding 100-150# to STU cars like the street ported 13B and the Honda S2000 should leave them competitive in STL, and then remove weight from existing STL cars to speed them up.

Or maybe all of the n/a STU cars that are too slow for STU and too fast for STL should just move to EP. :lol:

Z3_GoCar
09-26-2012, 11:13 PM
Is there a way to meet in the middle? Say add 100lbs to the turbo cars, and take 100lbs off the N/A cars. Try to get the N/A cars a little faster than EP and slow the turbo's down a little. I seem to remember that Eric's smoking time was in the high 2:27's, maybe a 2:27.8, so at best it's a 3.5 second gap.

Say Philip, did you catch RP's quip about wondering if you might be his editor?

Andy Bettencourt
09-27-2012, 07:12 AM
Forced induction cars in every series pose a problem. Just look at Grand Am ST. It's not about weight, it's about finding out how to limit boost/HP.

Stock ECU's and stock-ish exhausts are a key step.

Rabbit07
09-27-2012, 08:25 AM
I can tell you with a good deal of confidence that the fastest NA cars are closer to the T cars than you would believe. We have a diverse group of drivers/set-ups and a not so diverse group of cars.

We have data on 10 STU cars and 4 STL cars

Mrsideways
09-27-2012, 09:27 AM
The STU turbo cars can't be moved to STO -- Tucker qualified at a 2:15, compared to Huffmaster's qualifying setup of a 2:24 (in race trim Huffmaster only managed a 2:26 and Tucker a 2:17). However, the fastest n/a STU cars were in the 2:28s (although I believe Heinrich clicked off a 2:27 before his qualifying DQ and eventual retirement from the Runoffs due to a blown motor). So how do we even the playing field?

A possible answer is the STU turbo cars need a little weight to drop them to the 2:27s or 2:28s, where the super-fast n/a cars stand a chance. Then STU and STL could be reevaluated and many of the n/a STU cars could be moved to STL with additional weight.

The STL pace at the Runoffs was 2:35. My STU street ported 13B turned lap times less than 0.2sec faster than the front STL guys in the race (and the STL 13B ran 3 seconds slower). Wickersham went from winning the GT2 National Championship earlier in the weekend to qualifying 17th in STU in a Honda S2000 with a 2:36. Some n/a cars just can't be sped up to 2:27s or 2:28s, and STU certainly shouldn't be dumbed down to meet the lowest common denominator.

Adding 100-150# to STU cars like the street ported 13B and the Honda S2000 should leave them competitive in STL, and then remove weight from existing STL cars to speed them up.

Or maybe all of the n/a STU cars that are too slow for STU and too fast for STL should just move to EP. :lol:

Pull the Restrictor, give the solistice a slightly larger turbo, reduce weight and give it 10 inch wide wheels..... it'll run STO times.
As for the Audi and the Miata. I'm not sure you could get either of those to run STO times without spending lotto winning type of money.

I think the big issue your seeing is that yes the N/A cars will see a similar terminal speed on the straights, but what's the average speed? The T cars are going to get there much faster and have a higher average speed.

jmac36
09-27-2012, 07:10 PM
I can tell you with a good deal of confidence that the fastest NA cars are closer to the T cars than you would believe. We have a diverse group of drivers/set-ups and a not so diverse group of cars.

We have data on 10 STU cars and 4 STL cars

Chris, not having access to the data you have, I can only speculate what your seeing. But I would respectfully call BS.

There is very little doubt that the turbo cars are much quicker at RA. Notice I did not say faster.

The only way this gets fixed is with limits on boost. Restrictors, tire size,and weight are all fools errands. In fact, it might be noted that Grand Am is going back to no restrictors, and boost limits( if rumors are correct) because they feel there is no way to control the turbos with restriction only.

Not sure what you guys are going to do to fix this, but I really doubt I'll be back unless I see something a bit more aggressive to even this out.

Z3_GoCar
09-28-2012, 02:18 AM
If the Dodge SRT-4 is an STO car, then why can't the Solstice be one also? Oe power specs actually favor the Solstice, and displacement wise, the Dodge is only 400cc's larger. Excellent point about limiting boost as the only way to get parity between FI and NA cars. I don't understand how a 2750lb car making ~ 300hp and 240ft-lbs of torque could be compatible to a 2250lb car making 280hp and 300ft-lbs or even 300hp and 300ft-lbs? [Sarcasm/]I just don't understand why the 2750lb car's at a disadvantage[Sarcasm/off] And those numbers are based off of conversations with a nationally known z3 e-production racer.

Greg Amy
09-28-2012, 07:15 AM
The SRT-4 is classified in STO because it was requested. The "standard" SRT-4 (without alternate turbo) is eligible for STU using the weight/restrictor regs.

Trying to limit boost is impractical. We do not have a traveling scrutineering crew with the equipment and skills to police it. We, the club, have never, ever been able to do it successfully.

Ditto limiting ECUs. Showroom Stock, Touring, and Improved Touring couldn't police it, what makes you think Super Touring can?

Don't take these as elitist poo-poo'ing of legitimate suggestions; I'm simply responding why I think they can't work in reality. But please do keep making suggestions, as we're truly looking for input on options. But what we decide to do has to be both effective and able to be easily scrutineered.

And as an aside, while I don't share Chris' implied take on turbo-v-n/a, I've seen some of the data for a couple STU cars and I was personally surprised at the limited size of the difference in performance in a straight line. I was expecting a lot more than what I saw. But - and this is a big "but" - I'll need to spend some more time reviewing this stuff before I draw any reasonable conclusions. - GA

jmac36
09-28-2012, 08:30 AM
The SRT-4 is classified in STO because it was requested. The "standard" SRT-4 (without alternate turbo) is eligible for STU using the weight/restrictor regs.

Trying to limit boost is impractical. We do not have a traveling scrutineering crew with the equipment and skills to police it. We, the club, have never, ever been able to do it successfully.

Ditto limiting ECUs. Showroom Stock, Touring, and Improved Touring couldn't police it, what makes you think Super Touring can?

Don't take these as elitist poo-poo'ing of legitimate suggestions; I'm simply responding why I think they can't work in reality. But please do keep making suggestions, as we're truly looking for input on options. But what we decide to do has to be both effective and able to be easily scrutineered.

And as an aside, while I don't share Chris' implied take on turbo-v-n/a, I've seen some of the data for a couple STU cars and I was personally surprised at the limited size of the difference in performance in a straight line. I was expecting a lot more than what I saw. But - and this is a big "but" - I'll need to spend some more time reviewing this stuff before I draw any reasonable conclusions. - GA

Greg, no offense here, but I do find it a bit interesting that we have the data in the hands of the STAC, many of which are builders and drivers in this class, however we the entrants can't see it because it is classified info??!! Is this not just a bit like letting the inmates run the asylum?

I for one think this is a bit twisted from the way it should be done. We need a non biased opinion from a profesional.

Also, your assertion that boost limits cant be done are pretty much just silly. The solution for that is simple; you wanna run a boosted car, you have to run a logger tied to the manifold. At nation events, if I think your non compliant a simple protest with the susequent reading of the log by tech(simple to do with most loggers)should solve the issue. Yes it cost a bit for the turbo car entrant, but its a drop in the bucket compared to the money that went into the car build

The harder part would be SETTING the limits on individual cars. But that can be done with a bit of thought, and a formula or two. I would suggest to err on the low side to start with, as Grand Am has.

Again, no offence, but you guys opened this can of worms,if you don't fix it NOW( and I mean in the next month or so) you will lose all faith of those running the non turbo cars, and the class will crash and burn.

Matt93SE
09-28-2012, 09:28 AM
Again, no offence, but you guys opened this can of worms,if you don't fix it NOW( and I mean in the next month or so) you will lose all faith of those running the non turbo cars

Too late for the most part there. Way too many NA engines can't breathe through stock intake manifolds, which becomes a moot point when air is forced through them with a turbo or they're running a WC engine with a $10,000 1-off custom manifold.

Greg Amy
09-28-2012, 09:32 AM
...I do find it a bit interesting that we have the data in the hands of the STAC, many of which are builders and drivers in this class, however we the entrants can't see it because it is classified info??!! Is this not just a bit like letting the inmates run the asylum?
It can be seen that way, and we certainly understand the obvious conflicts of interest. And I assure you that we do the best we can to police each other to eliminate conflicts of interest whenever possible (for example, I asked to not be shown any of my direct competitors' data during the Runoffs week).

And, of course, we have oversight from the CRB and BoD.

Problem is, we are a club, consisting of Club members that basically run the show; we are, in fact and by design, inmates running the asylum, so in that regard you're completely correct, though I would characterize it differently. We are not a professional organization with a paid staff of data acquisition engineers who have the time and priorities to review collected data and make recommendations to the sub-committees who would then make the recommendations to the Club Racing Board.

However, if you are aware of a data acquisition engineer that is willing to look at these data collections and offer objective opinions to the committee - voluntarily and without compensation, of course - then I bet we'd be willing to work with them.

As for publicizing the data, a premise behind being able to collect that data with minimal resistance from competitors is that we agree to keep that information as private as possible. The only people that have access to that data are the STAC, the CRB, SCCA Technical Staff, and the Board of Directors.


Also, your assertion that boost limits cant be done are pretty much just silly. The solution for that is simple; you wanna run a boosted car, you have to run a logger tied to the manifold. At nation events, if I think your non compliant a simple protest with the subsequent reading of the log by tech(simple to do with most loggers)should solve the issue. Yes it cost a bit for the turbo car entrant, but its a drop in the bucket compared to the money that went into the car build.We've been there, we've done that, and it failed. I remember having a SCCA-supplied boost measuring device in my Showroom Stock car in 1989, and I seem to recall different ones around 1991/92. I also seem to recall a lot of interesting means to defeat them, including modifications internal to the intake manifolds to reduce the amount of pressure sent to the fitting. I also remember specific fittings that were required to be installed to stop that, and that failed too.

I also remember that these recording devices all failed to produce the results we wanted, for various reasons, and were scrapped. I'm guessing there's several boxes of them sitting in an abandoned U-Store-It garage in Englewood Colorado...

And you want the competitors to supply these boxes instead? Like they won't try to defeat those in some way with them in their possession?

And ECUs? Same problem. That's why ECUs are free in most non-spec categories.

And, even *if* we were able to do that, we're now faced with having to comp adjust every individual car, and we're going to assume that the committee and CRB process first, has the knowledge to do that and second, has the speed to react to failures.

It's a nice thought but nope, sorry, setting boost limits is a Pandora's Box that, from my perspective, the CRB is unwilling to open.


...or they're running a WC engine with a $10,000 1-off custom manifold.
The WC-spec cars get intake restrictors and 5% additional weight. But your point about turbos is noted.

As an aside, Joe McClughan had one of those Mazda 6s with the trick intake manifold. I head he decided to go back to the stock manifold to lose the restrictor and ~300#. Also heard he made more power... - GA

jmac36
09-28-2012, 11:24 AM
It can be seen that way, and we certainly understand the obvious conflicts of interest. And I assure you that we do the best we can to police each other to eliminate conflicts of interest whenever possible (for example, I asked to not be shown any of my direct competitors' data during the Runoffs week).

And, of course, we have oversight from the CRB and BoD.

Problem is, we are a club, consisting of Club members that basically run the show; we are, in fact and by design, inmates running the asylum, so in that regard you're completely correct, though I would characterize it differently. We are not a professional organization with a paid staff of data acquisition engineers who have the time and priorities to review collected data and make recommendations to the sub-committees who would then make the recommendations to the Club Racing Board.

However, if you are aware of a data acquisition engineer that is willing to look at these data collections and offer objective opinions to the committee - voluntarily and without compensation, of course - then I bet we'd be willing to work with them.

As for publicizing the data, a premise behind being able to collect that data with minimal resistance from competitors is that we agree to keep that information as private as possible. The only people that have access to that data are the STAC, the CRB, SCCA Technical Staff, and the Board of Directors.

We've been there, we've done that, and it failed. I remember having a SCCA-supplied boost measuring device in my Showroom Stock car in 1989, and I seem to recall different ones around 1991/92. I also seem to recall a lot of interesting means to defeat them, including modifications internal to the intake manifolds to reduce the amount of pressure sent to the fitting. I also remember specific fittings that were required to be installed to stop that, and that failed too.

I also remember that these recording devices all failed to produce the results we wanted, for various reasons, and were scrapped. I'm guessing there's several boxes of them sitting in an abandoned U-Store-It garage in Englewood Colorado...

And you want the competitors to supply these boxes instead? Like they won't try to defeat those in some way with them in their possession?

And ECUs? Same problem. That's why ECUs are free in most non-spec categories.

And, even *if* we were able to do that, we're now faced with having to comp adjust every individual car, and we're going to assume that the committee and CRB process first, has the knowledge to do that and second, has the speed to react to failures.

It's a nice thought but nope, sorry, setting boost limits is a Pandora's Box that, from my perspective, the CRB is unwilling to open.


The WC-spec cars get intake restrictors and 5% additional weight. But your point about turbos is noted.

As an aside, Joe McClughan had one of those Mazda 6s with the trick intake manifold. I head he decided to go back to the stock manifold to lose the restrictor and ~300#. Also heard he made more power... - GA

Greg, you are quite correct, we did make more power. But no where near what the Pontiac was putting down. This further gos to show that the tables you are using are way way off.

Yes you may have been there and done that, but that technology was old then. Are there ways to get around boost limits, yes. Is it easy to see what a competitor is doing to do so, yes! Will folks cheat during the regular season? Yes! But come runoffs time the BS will stop.

I understand that we are a non professional organization, but that said, why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? Grand Am and World Challenge have both found( as well as almost every other sanctioning body in the world) that turbos( and superchargers to a less extent) are impossable to police with restrictors alone. Why are we not simply following their lead? Because the crb thinks there is no way to regulate?

A very very simple solution is a sealed spec BOV. That's solves your regulation issues, and yes tuning can be massaged to work to circumvent the effect to some extent, but its one solution, and would sorta help stop the wild wild west situation we have now

You, and the CRB, have created a huge issue of parity between the NA and FI cars, and your insistence that boost limits cannot be policed, nor regulated shows that you don't have a grasp of the problem.

And your assertion that the ecus are not regulate able is also simple hogwash. Please recall what it is that my company does.

Greg, look, STU is a very neat class, and I love it. In fact the ST class structure may be the one thing that saves this club and our racing program( thank you PK ). But with the short sighted view you are taking that we can't do this and we can't do that to bring about parity, you guys are frankly going to kill this golden goose like has been done with SS.

Most folks that know me, know that I very very seldom bitch about the CRB and the rules they set. I just look at them and figure the best way to arrange them to my benefit. But I really feel that this situation is A. rather simple to understand, and B. easy to fix.

My two cents.....

Greg Amy
09-28-2012, 11:53 AM
Hey sweet, didn't know this was you, Joe...glad you're aboard here.

Yes, it was old tech back then, without a doubt. But you gotta keep in mind this isn't Grand-Am and/or SCCA Pro with a team of supporting technical personnel. Had we the resources that those orgs have I'd be all over ideas such as mandated boost data collectors, or blow off valves, or stuff like that. But we're not, we're a club, and we have a very limited staff of volunteer scrutineers of wildly-varying skillsets (and motivation). Any solutions we come up with MUST be virtually self-supporting and easy, easy, easy to police. We can't simply say "screw the races during the year and we'll deal with it at the Runoffs".

Weight is one answer, restrictors another. I have another oddball idea (not speaking for the STAC or CRB here) of trying to limit power inferentially by limiting intercooler size. By limiting intercooler size you can indirectly limit power based on intake manifold temperatures; competitors will have to de-tune to keep the engine together. And, intercooler size is relatively easy to measure with a Stanley tape. It's ideas like that we need, things we can use.

I assure you, as I did at Road America when you caught me on the way out, that this will be our top priority for discussion. We really, really want this class to succeed, and without class parity - or even a perception of parity - then we realize this goal will fail.

So I'll pass along your thoughts on boost control, BoVs, and ECUs. They have merit but I suggest we need something more passive and easier to police to regulate/control turbo output.

But any ideas and all ideas appreciated.

GA

Z3_GoCar
09-28-2012, 11:54 AM
Have you considered going to a power-to-weight spec and using impound dyno's to police it? I know there's always the multiple tune/switch option to defeat this, but make that illegal. Find a switch to chage tunes and you're out. They post race dyno option seems to have worked for GTS, the top 2 in GTS2 got bounced at NASA nationals due to too much hp. Maybe instead of peak hoursepower, integrate the area under the torque curve, and divide that by weight. You're a smart guy, you all are, and that's why I'm sure we'll have a solution.

Matt93SE
09-28-2012, 12:35 PM
...... and the engine build goes on hold for another year.....



Joe, I'll wave when you lap me (again) with my 130,000 mile tractor engine. Sorry to see how the race turned out for you. Get 'em next year!

Rabbit07
09-28-2012, 01:29 PM
Allow me to make sure that everyone is clear on this. I did not say the Turbo and NA cars were matched. What I said was that they are closer in performance to each other than what seems to be the impression.

We are not permitted to allow the masses to see the data. What I can tell you from what I have taken to time to look at is this; The cars that were up front be it NA or Turbo at the runoffs were set up to handle well and they were driven well. Which really only leaves the power output in question. Two of the Turbo cars that where out front were "very well" driven maximizing speed in places like the Kink and Carrousel.

The STAC has every intention of adjusting the class for Parity. Parity does not come from slowing cars down too much. We must tread lightly and swiftly.

my $.02.......

JIgou
09-28-2012, 01:49 PM
...... and the engine build goes on hold for another year.....

Last night I was chatting with a Runoffs STU competitor who blew his NA engine up very early in the week. Even though he built the car with the NA powerplant in mind, he is planning on putting a turbo engine in the car over the winter.

He also said it appeared that the Solstice maybe had a load of sand in the trunk, particularly during the race. :shrug:

jmac36
09-28-2012, 03:13 PM
Allow me to make sure that everyone is clear on this. I did not say the Turbo and NA cars were matched. What I said was that they are closer in performance to each other than what seems to be the impression.

We are not permitted to allow the masses to see the data. What I can tell you from what I have taken to time to look at is this; The cars that were up front be it NA or Turbo at the runoffs were set up to handle well and they were driven well. Which really only leaves the power output in question. Two of the Turbo cars that where out front were "very well" driven maximizing speed in places like the Kink and Carrousel.

The STAC has every intention of adjusting the class for Parity. Parity does not come from slowing cars down too much. We must tread lightly and swiftly.

my $.02.......

So let me get this straight ; it's your opinion that 1 2:24 flat is a good target time for this class??!

Last time I checked, the standard for what this class should run was E prod. Have we changed that ?

Chris, while I applaud your work and Robs driving, I think even you can admit that this years race was a walk for your cars. Is it because of the level of prep, or driving? Partly. But the car as it is is simply an over dog. And I think it is safe to say that unless you prep and bring a boosted car to RA next year, chances are damn slim, based on the current rules, that you have much of a chance. And frankly I'm not hearing any viable idea here for fixing is. Infact if I read right you think the solstice's times should be the benchmark???

jmac36
09-28-2012, 03:16 PM
Last night I was chatting with a Runoffs STU competitor who blew his NA engine up very early in the week. Even though he built the car with the NA powerplant in mind, he is planning on putting a turbo engine in the car over the winter.

He also said it appeared that the Solstice maybe had a load of sand in the trunk, particularly during the race. :shrug:

Oh I would agree. We came right back and started working with Bosch to develop the stand alone so we could install the DISI turbo engine in the world challenge Mazda 6 chassis for next year

Rabbit07
09-28-2012, 03:24 PM
So let me get this straight ; it's your opinion that 1 2:24 flat is a good target time for this class??!

Infact if I read right you think the solstice's times should be the benchmark???

What? Where did you get that from what I said?

Sorry Joe, I don't know where we are getting our wires crossed here?

I don't like to put laptimes at RA on table for specing out a class.

Since you asked, I would say in my own opinion (Not the STACs or CRBs) that a time in the 27s-28s makes sense. That would put this class right in line with older W/C laptimes when they were on RA1s. We have NA cars right now that are capable of these times for sure.

jmac36
09-28-2012, 04:29 PM
The STAC has every intention of adjusting the class for Parity. Parity does not come from slowing cars down too much. We must tread lightly and swiftly.

Ahh right there.

Matt93SE
10-05-2012, 10:39 PM
Even though he built the car with the NA powerplant in mind, he is planning on putting a turbo engine in the car over the winter.

He also said it appeared that the Solstice maybe had a load of sand in the trunk, particularly during the race. :shrug:

I've gone out with a socket set in the trunk... OMFG that sucked. Sand? that would just be evil... :018:

I was going to request approval of the SR20DET over the winter. Instead of ricking having the car choked down to nothing in March, I'm thinking about selling the car and going to GTL instead. Ruleset is more stable. :(

Z3_GoCar
10-08-2012, 10:59 PM
I've gone out with a socket set in the trunk... OMFG that sucked. Sand? that would just be evil... :018:

I was going to request approval of the SR20DET over the winter. Instead of ricking having the car choked down to nothing in March, I'm thinking about selling the car and going to GTL instead. Ruleset is more stable. :(

Forget it....

Eagle7
10-09-2012, 12:37 PM
Here's an idea to make a boost limit, how about a manditory pop-off section in the intake with seals to detect anyone messing with it's settings.
A removable one with a standardized mount that you could remove and fasten into a pressure tester.

JIgou
10-09-2012, 02:40 PM
A removable one with a standardized mount that you could remove and fasten into a pressure tester.

...or be swappable by a tech official on grid right before the race....

(That only leaves about 150 other ways to "improve" the boost system....)

prodogdriver
10-10-2012, 03:20 PM
For starters the Solstice needs to get moved over to STO, too much potential for STU.

I like the ‘restrict the size of front mount intercooler’ idea

Rabbit07
10-10-2012, 10:54 PM
For starters the Solstice needs to get moved over to STO, too much potential for STU.

Care to quantify that statement?

Matt93SE
10-11-2012, 09:41 AM
For starters the Solstice needs to get moved over to STO, too much potential for STU.

I like the ‘restrict the size of front mount intercooler’ idea

Please explain how a 4cyl 2.3L turbo engine (with the same restrictor sizes as every other turbo car in the class) is an overdog?

prodogdriver
10-11-2012, 12:24 PM
The Solstice has some nice advantages,

275mm tires fit the wheel well front & rear

They are light, 2877 right out of the box

Parts right from the GM get you to 29psi
http://www.gmpartshouse.com/19212670-lnf-turbo-upgrade-kit (http://www.gmpartshouse.com/19212670-lnf-turbo-upgrade-kit)


I was told the 37mm restrictor only chokes it’s turbo 6mm ( I can’t confirm)

I was thinking that if the Honda S2000 is too much for STL then maybe the GXP has shown itself as too much for STU

I know it’s not all the motor, I saw the runoffs time card pdf

Greg Amy
10-11-2012, 12:51 PM
Watch for Fastrack November prelim (due any minute now) to address several of these concerns. - GA

Matt93SE
10-11-2012, 01:24 PM
The Solstice has some nice advantages,

275mm tires fit the wheel well front & rear

They are light, 2877 right out of the box

Parts right from the GM get you to 29psi
http://www.gmpartshouse.com/19212670-lnf-turbo-upgrade-kit (http://www.gmpartshouse.com/19212670-lnf-turbo-upgrade-kit)


I was told the 37mm restrictor only chokes it’s turbo 6mm ( I can’t confirm)

I was thinking that if the Honda S2000 is too much for STL then maybe the GXP has shown itself as too much for STU

I know it’s not all the motor, I saw the runoffs time card pdf
I can easily fit 275s in my wheel wells, but it doesn't do any good when you're fitting it onto an 8" wheel. (I know AutoXers that fit 315s under stock fenders..) the benefits you gain from more rubber are offset by the 8" wheel width and the rounding of the tires. wider rubber with more unsprung rotating weight and higher rolling resistance don't necessarily equate to faster lap times.

ALL of the turbo cars are limited by the same physics. i.e. inlet restrictor size. so what if the stock turbo is "only" restricted by 6mm. it's still restricted, and that "only 6mm" is still a 25% reduction in total area.

As for the GM turbo upgrade kit? It's a sensor replacement and ECU reprogram.. That's perfectly legal for any car within the rules since ECU is open and sensors may be replaced.

Light? not really. my car weighs about 2700 stock. In current trim, it's 2450 w/o driver, and I can easily get the car down to 2200 if I switched to CF hood, trunk, and replaced windows with Lexan. It's just money (and I don't have it.)

Even if the car is that light, you're still going to have to bolt an entire gym's worth of weights into the floor to get the car to min weight.

I simply don't get what you're barking about???

CRallo
10-11-2012, 02:01 PM
I simply don't get what you're barking about???


I think he is making argument that the Solstice is a car like the Miata in that the car/chassis is just better. Following that argument, it certainly had its day in SS.

However, given the additional allowed modifications in STU, this argument is mostly, if not completely invalid.


And in regards to classifying the car in STO, it already is... No reason that it can't run in both, if STU is managed appropriately.

Matt93SE
10-11-2012, 02:18 PM
Exactly. It's well designed- doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. There will always be cars better suited for the class because of specific engine output, chassis design, factory aero advantages, etc..

I *could* race a Camry in STU if I wanted.. but it just wouldn't be smart. Choosing a car that handles well and has a great engine package would be smart. Heeeeyy... lookie at this Solstice thingy over here? It's got a good chassis and a good engine, and it only overheats a couple times a race!

jmac36
10-12-2012, 12:18 PM
Exactly. It's well designed- doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. There will always be cars better suited for the class because of specific engine output, chassis design, factory aero advantages, etc..

I *could* race a Camry in STU if I wanted.. but it just wouldn't be smart. Choosing a car that handles well and has a great engine package would be smart. Heeeeyy... lookie at this Solstice thingy over here? It's got a good chassis and a good engine, and it only overheats a couple times a race!

Ahh Matt, I think the big issue is the fact the gm showed what it could do, abet without a huge amount of development, right out of the box. And frankly your wrong on this score. In the form it was in at the runoffs, the car was a HUGE overdog. And Rob drove the car very well, so you can't take anything away from him!


Yes, Chris found a grey area on the restrictor rule, and exploited it,(bravo)but the fact remains we have a MAJOR issue of non parity between the turbo and non turbo cars. And the folks that recommend the rules to solve this problem, are the same ones reading the data from all our cars, and making rules that are going to solve the issue, right! With a few exceptions, I have some major issues with how the rules process, and the people make said rules work.

For instance; all of us with a bit of snap tuning FI cars understood the loophole in the restrictor area, but the guy on the STAC that could have closed said rule loophole actualy used it to his advantage. Now, please don't get me wrong, I would have done the same EXACT thingLike I said before, inmates running the asylum

So far, from what I hear, we will now have a tire size rule, and some work on the restrictors as to the wording of the placement. There is still nothing that I have seen that will stop a turbo car from being the car to have at RA in September. There are some voices of reason on the CRB, so it might get fixed, but I'm just not seeing the response from STAC aimed at giving the CRB the direction and view.

I'm sure this all sound like sour grapes, and to a certain extent it is. But as one who has invested his life in SCCA racing, and a huge chunk of cash in STU betting that it will be the class to resurrect our failing club racing program, I am more than a bit sour when I see the lack of stewardship thats being exibited.

Matt93SE
10-12-2012, 01:57 PM
Care to fill the rest of us in that weren't at runoffs what these 'exploits' of the rules were?
the rulebook gives a restrictor diameter, and says that it must be placed in the inlet of the turbo. unless one strains the rules to call the inlet something several feet away from the rule, then it's pretty clear what the intent is.
....If you're looking for ways to get around the rules as intended, you can always find one....


so the guy built a car within the rules, drove the piss out of it and beat everybody's pants off. Now others are complaining its an overdog? Where were all these people the rest of the season during the qualifying races? Why was this loophole not checked/discovered until Runoffs? You hear this in every other class.

Guess everyone should just suck it up. :P

jmac36
10-12-2012, 02:54 PM
No, I'm not going to explain the restrictor on an open forum. If you wanna know about it as me at the next race, I'll be happy to explain

I'm not bitching that the car WAS an overdog, but that it needs to get adjusted going forward. If your not able to understand that a 4 second gap back to second is a huge gap that shows the performance potential of this car, then I'm not quite sure how to explain it to you. Remember that the next 4-5 cars in that grid were not junk, but some of the best prepped , best developed cars in the class. And there is some healthy talent driving those cars, at least 3 former national champions, and several pro drivers. So 4 seconds? That's in the over dog category.

Btw, you asked about why nobody spotted it earlier I the season? Good job of sandbagging?

Knestis
10-13-2012, 08:42 AM
Efforts to equalize blown and NA engines in the same class have been pretty much a losing proposition ever since the Duesenbergs first ran at Indy in the '20s. In the case of an SCCA National class, where people pretty much make decisions about "competitiveness" from just one race each year, this will never be adequately resolved.

But at the end of the day, the dumbest thing that i can imagine doing in this situation would be going 4 seconds faster than the competition...

K

Rabbit07
10-13-2012, 02:21 PM
Angry Sheep Motorsports TIR

Rabbit07
10-13-2012, 02:25 PM
ASM TIR for Dodge SRT-4

Z3_GoCar
10-13-2012, 10:14 PM
The Solstice has some nice advantages,

275mm tires fit the wheel well front & rear

They are light, 2877 right out of the box

Parts right from the GM get you to 29psi
http://www.gmpartshouse.com/19212670-lnf-turbo-upgrade-kit (http://www.gmpartshouse.com/19212670-lnf-turbo-upgrade-kit)


I was told the 37mm restrictor only chokes it’s turbo 6mm ( I can’t confirm)

I was thinking that if the Honda S2000 is too much for STL then maybe the GXP has shown itself as too much for STU

I know it’s not all the motor, I saw the runoffs time card pdf

Don't forget it's direct injected, that means only air goes through the intake valve, and everything in the intake manifold acts as if it's about 8% larger.

Also, the turbo motor's a 2.0 liter that makes 290hp/340ft-lbs with the factory warrenty. If he's running a 2.4 liter Ecotech with a turbo, that means the turbo was transplanted from the 2.0l motor onto a 2.4l N/A motor. :018:

We ban a 330hp/260ft-lb NA motor because it's 46cc too large and would have to weigh 3500lbs, but we allow this to run at any weight it wants to, as long as they stick an ineffective plate somewhere around the turbo. Maybe I was wrong, maybe there's no way this class isn't screwed.

Greg Amy
10-16-2012, 12:29 PM
Prelims are out: http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31096

Items of note for this thread:

- STU cars to be limited to 245 tires; STL to 225.
- Clarification of how/where a TIR can be designed/located.

Changing weights of the turbos in the near future is not "off the table".

jmac36
10-16-2012, 04:43 PM
Again, not enough changes to make for parity. Even if you toss out the over dog Pontiac this year, it is quite evident that the turbos have the edge. Look at Marc's car, and Joel's. both of them were on 245s both this year and last, and they ran away from the atmo cars.

Greg, what does it take for you guys to see the same picture that everyone else is seeing? As I told you when I left Road America, unless you guys do something to achieve some reasonable semblance of parity, your going to kill the class. As it stands now, you can count us as one of those folks gone to race with NASA.

Greg Amy
10-16-2012, 05:33 PM
Greg, what does it take for you guys to see the same picture that everyone else is seeing?
Joe, I sincerely doubt you possess some kind of Divine insight; we "see" exactly what you "see", for the most part (except we have access to everyone's data). The fact that we're actually making changes should indicate to you that we're working toward the same direction you wish, we just apparently don't agree with the extent that is needed.

- We addressed the restrictor "loophole" you implied;
- We addressed the ability for higher-torque cars to put down big power on big rubber;
- We're open to the idea of reducing restrictor sizes/increasing weight.
- We've already discussed how boost restrictions, RPM restrictions, blow-off valves, and/or dynos on-site are wholly impractical within SCCA Club Racing, given they are impossible to enforce during the year with current staffing and technology.
- What we DIDN'T do was knee-jerk throw 1000 pounds on any car with forced induction, "just cause".

I'm not quite clear what your Vision suggests we do within our current limitations. But we're listening...

GA

jmac36
10-16-2012, 07:25 PM
Greg, I'm sorry, but you are correct, I do not have a divine insight, just simple 20/20. Funny thing is, there were more than a few folks that saw exactly the same thing I saw. And frankly I'm just not sure how you can see this any other way; there is a parity issue between the turbo and non turbo cars.

Btw, your data is not that secret. Interesting that at least two competitors in STU get to see the info from the other cars in the class.

To your points;

I did not imply shit, the loophole was there in plain sight. We saw it last year when we ran the mazdaspeed 3, but we chose not to play that game. Again, bravo to Chris for spending the time to understand turbo dynamics, and find the proper ratio. No sour grapes there.

If your wonderful new tire rule is the answer, then please explain the results from the year before to me. Marc's car does not run huge tires, nor did Joel's , and they flat ran away from the fastest atmo cars there. Mike is not a hack, and Eric certainly has the goods to get it done, so tell me how that result displayed anything approaching parity.

As been explained over and over, restrictors ain't gonna hack it. All your doing is lowering the torque peak in the rev limit, and widening its powerband.Easy to fix, just gear the car like a diesel and short shift.

And please, don't tell me that there is not a way to police boost. With the state of logging now, simple monitors could be used to check and adjust during the season. And please don't tell me it's too expensive, remember what it is I do day in day out, and don't insult me with that argument. With the front running STU cars at RA this year averaging 40-50k in value that argument ain't gonna fly.

Greg Amy
10-16-2012, 09:00 PM
.don't tell me that there is not a way to police boost. With the state of logging now, simple monitors could be used to check and adjust during the season. And please don't tell me it's too expensive, remember what it is I do day in day out, and don't insult me with that argument.
Joe, since you do this for a living, and since it's so "simple" (and by inference, cheap), then if you're willing to spearhead and manage the boost monitoring and policing project of all turbocharged Super Touring Under cars at all National events - free of charge, of course, given we have no budget - I am 100% behind your idea...I'd even consider 115%.

Don't forget you'll need to create a boost requirement for each engine that is eligible for STU (and/or based on flat displacement), and we'll certainly consider your compliance team's recommendations after each race based on your detailed reports of the resultant data you collect.

It's really a kinda an interesting project, actually...kinda stuff I'd like to do, assuming I didn't have "a job"...

"grega at pobox dot com". Call me, maybe...?

Rabbit07
10-16-2012, 09:18 PM
Again, not enough changes to make for parity. Even if you toss out the over dog Pontiac this year, it is quite evident that the turbos have the edge. Look at Marc's car, and Joel's. both of them were on 245s both this year and last, and they ran away from the atmo cars.

Wrong and Wrong.

Audi 255s
Miata 275s rear.

No one and I mean no one has stepped up and quantified the Solstice being an overdog. Do it or shut the F up.

Joe, I to do this stuff for a living. The cars that did well at the runoffs happen to be turbos yes. That is exclusive of the the fact that they were well set up and well driven. The Solstice that everyone is saying is such an overdog also tested for 5 days prior to the runoffs. How many test days did you do Joe? Or are you so super human that you didn't need the test time?

Given the proper amount of money and the right driver we could have just as easily won with an NA car. The decisions to reduce tire size was based off of the delta "we" the STAC saw under braking and mid corner. Joe be careful if you choose the start throwing stones.

jmac36
10-16-2012, 10:49 PM
Wrong and Wrong.

Audi 255s
Miata 275s rear.

No one and I mean no one has stepped up and quantified the Solstice being an overdog. Do it or shut the F up.

Joe, I to do this stuff for a living. The cars that did well at the runoffs happen to be turbos yes. That is exclusive of the the fact that they were well set up and well driven. The Solstice that everyone is saying is such an overdog also tested for 5 days prior to the runoffs. How many test days did you do Joe? Or are you so super human that you didn't need the test time?

Given the proper amount of money and the right driver we could have just as easily won with an NA car. The decisions to reduce tire size was based off of the delta "we" the STAC saw under braking and mid corner. Joe be careful if you choose the start throwing stones.

Chris, are you F ing serious??? 4 second in the first session and you think nobody was saying overdog??? Were you at the same meeting I was??? As I recall I was the guy in the back saying wait and see. Well Chris we saw didn't we?

And as far as casting stones, I think you will not that I have said time and again that you did an excellent job finding the grey areas in the rules and exploiting them. That's the nature of the game, so again, BRAVO! GOOD JOB!

But we need to fix this going forward, and the fact is your restrictor rules just ain't hacking it.

Btw Chris, yes I know what you do for a living, but then do understand what it is I do?And yes,Chris,I do think I'm as qualified or more on some parts of this topic.

Regardless, I believe you are wrong in the direction you are headed, and it sounds like nothing will change.

prodogdriver
10-19-2012, 11:59 AM
Wrong and Wrong.

Audi 255s
Miata 275s rear.

No one and I mean no one has stepped up and quantified the Solstice being an overdog. Do it or shut the F up.

Joe, I to do this stuff for a living. The cars that did well at the runoffs happen to be turbos yes. That is exclusive of the the fact that they were well set up and well driven. The Solstice that everyone is saying is such an overdog also tested for 5 days prior to the runoffs. How many test days did you do Joe? Or are you so super human that you didn't need the test time?

Given the proper amount of money and the right driver we could have just as easily won with an NA car. The decisions to reduce tire size was based off of the delta "we" the STAC saw under braking and mid corner. Joe be careful if you choose the start throwing stones.

Chris, you can’t tell us we are crazy to think the Solstice is too much for STU.

The empirical evidence is that the car runs 5 races this season, 5 days Runoffs testing and then proceeds to slaughter everyone.
The Fall Line effort that has developed the Audi over the last 3 or 4 years and the other pro level prep guys that where at the big dance in force. Granted they are not pro drivers but not slouches either.

You and your shop have proven you can beat anyone but 4 seconds a lap… wow

I came from the SS/touring ranks so I have seen the Z4/CooperS/F430 situations so maybe I have a jaded eye.

I’m still not convinced that STU allowances totally negate big engineering advantages enjoyed by the Solstice. In this case a dedicated FI sports car which has a LOT going for it.

Now that STO is gone & we are all on 245mm tires I don’t think its unreasonable to give this car a little something extra on a spec line if it repeats dominance at next years RO

Carry on
:024:

mgrand34
10-21-2012, 11:19 PM
I have a solstice GXP for sale :)

[email protected] for pics and info

Z3_GoCar
10-30-2012, 01:09 AM
Looks like all the N/A guys are bailing for EP. Since I'm not cutting my windshield frame, EP's not the place for me. STL's out because there's no good under 2.0 liter motors, the four valve lift limits are so low that oe cams are the only option availible, and at 140hp how's that going to be competitve?

Maybe I'll sit next season out, and save my pennies, and think about my options...

Matt93SE
10-30-2012, 06:10 PM
Looks like all the N/A guys are bailing for EP.
you've been stalking me, haven't you? B)

Z3_GoCar
10-30-2012, 07:28 PM
you've been stalking me, haven't you? B)

Yeah, I'm primarily a lurker on the P-board (BTW congratulations and good luck on the new race car.) But I was also approched by both John Norris and Phil Royle about going EP, so let's say there's some local pull too.

Matt93SE
10-30-2012, 10:08 PM
Thanks. Given the uphill battle I see with making my car fast enough to even finish second around here, it was easier to go EP than to dump $15k into my 240 and still not have a chance to win.

For the history and price of this car, I just couldn't pass it up. Right car at the right time, and EP is quite strong in SOWDIV.

.... Back to STU..

Knestis
10-30-2012, 11:25 PM
So a top-shelf EP build is somehow less expensive than an equal STU build...?

Not convinced.

K

Matt93SE
10-30-2012, 11:33 PM
It's not a top-shelf build, but it's supposedly *one of* the fastest RX7s in the country. good deal from a racer that lost interest. buying the car and spares for about what it would cost to put a moderately-built engine in my car.

Rabbit07
11-01-2012, 01:52 PM
So a top-shelf EP build is somehow less expensive than an equal STU build...?

Not convinced.

K

Times 2

Z3_GoCar
11-01-2012, 03:09 PM
So a top-shelf EP build is somehow less expensive than an equal STU build...?

Not convinced.

K

It's the same cost, as most of the parts and assembly techniques are the same. What's different is that for a naturally asperated motor of the same HP potential and less torque will weights 200lbs more than a forced induction motor. Two years in a row the gap between the turbo race and the N/A race was 2 seconds per lap. I don't see that changing with any of the implemented changes.

jmac36
11-03-2012, 10:46 AM
It's the same cost, as most of the parts and assembly techniques are the same. What's different is that for a naturally asperated motor of the same HP potential and less torque will weights 200lbs more than a forced induction motor. Two years in a row the gap between the turbo race and the N/A race was 2 seconds per lap. I don't see that changing with any of the implemented changes.

AMEN!

I for one have been chatting with the fine folks at NASA, and they seem to at least have a clue as to how to make the parity work. Hate to go run with brand X, but damn, if you can't get stuff fixed, and with all the trouble the club is having with lack of leadership, and lack of direction, it may be time to look that way