PDA

View Full Version : The Real STU (Super Turbo Über) Bitch thread



Z3_GoCar
02-08-2013, 01:23 AM
You can ninja edit my thread all you like but you can't deny the fact that STU is no place to run a naturally aspirated car. All your efforts to reel in the turbo cars have been shown to be hollow and ineffective. You don't even have an effective way to determine that all the air flows through the TIR. All the N/A motors make EP power with roughly an extra 200lbs, while the turbo motors have a license to make as much power and torque as they can pump.

Why don't you get the factory guys to fund a few turbo teams... oh, I forgot they don't have the budget for amature racing with little/no ROI.

benspeed
02-09-2013, 09:06 AM
Putting the smack down - what are you crazy?

Lol actually I agree- no turbo - no trophy - who will debate this? Bait in the water for tGA hahahaha

Greg Amy
02-09-2013, 10:50 AM
Bait in the water for tGA hahahaha
Nah, I'm immune to the bitching now...I say let 'em vent. - GA

lawtonglenn
02-09-2013, 11:52 AM
...I say let 'em vent. - GA


http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/blow_off_valves

:D

.

Z3_GoCar
02-09-2013, 12:30 PM
Nah, I'm immune to the bitching now...I say let 'em vent. - GA

Thank you...

I started the other thread just to see if there was a way to even get close to the output. To see what I possibly could do to at least get in the ball park, not to complain. Because of the delay in response, and other comments it just degenerated. The final straw was when someone else ninja edited my thread title.

So, what's next?

Knestis
02-09-2013, 03:08 PM
Turbo diesel... Torque FTW.

K

Z3_GoCar
02-09-2013, 04:57 PM
Sorry, you mean Kia Optima oil burner. Might as well be new enough that you get some Mfg kick-back.

Greg Amy
02-09-2013, 08:35 PM
So, what's next?
We keep chipping away. As I recall, we've reduced the TIRs since the Runoffs (did we also do weight?) and we even reduced further the Miata TIR. But if you guys think we're going to be doing some "Hail-Mary-adding-tons-of-weight" kinda deals you're going to be disappointed. We'll chip away at it until we get it.

While we'll continue moving forward (don't think we're not paying attention) I do have to confess that I'm getting the distinct impression that NA guys will never be happy until a turbo car never wins another race or sets another lap record...

In the meantime, I feel compelled to note that none of the dissenters have sent in any kind of alternate technical proposals. None. Closest I recall was a general "slow down the turbo cars" letter. If you've got some really cool solutions then feel free to propose them. Nothing proposed here on this forum can reasonably be expected to hit our committee's (or the CRB's) agenda. Formally-submitted letters are guaranteed to.

- GA

Z3_GoCar
02-09-2013, 10:03 PM
No, I'll be happy when the turbo cars have to really race a N/A cars for the checker, not to keep from going a lap down.

Knestis
02-09-2013, 10:37 PM
Hmmm. I seem to remember lapping a few cars in sprint races in the past couple years that were not only in the same class, but were also the same make and model as mine.

K

Rabbit07
02-10-2013, 01:17 PM
Hmmm. I seem to remember lapping a few cars in sprint races in the past couple years that were not only in the same class, but were also the same make and model as mine.

K

Well put sir

Z3_GoCar
02-10-2013, 01:50 PM
Hmmm. I seem to remember lapping a few cars in sprint races in the past couple years that were not only in the same class, but were also the same make and model as mine.

K

I'm sorry, did you think I was talking about my car??? I'm not talking about someone running months old tires on their 14-34 heat cycle. I'm talking about someone who can afford new tires for each day. Someone who built their motor for the class, not sourced another motor from the salvage yard and added an aluminum single mass flywheel.

Ultimatly, the real answer is to seperate the turbo and n/a cars into their own classes. As it seems to be impossible to either slow or police the turbo cars.

Greg Amy
02-10-2013, 02:39 PM
Ultimatly, the real answer is to seperate the turbo and n/a cars into their own classes.
It's an idea I've bantered about within the committee, especially now that we've lost STO. But I suggest that's a long-term idea, given 1) most people oppose new classes and 2) it's a rule change, so won't happen 'til 2014 at the soonest, and 3) how you you reconcile creating a new class and making it immediately National? Otherwise you'd be pulling the turbo cars out of the National (Majors) racing program. And 4) it would significantly degrade the STU participation numbers, potentially placing the current STU in a status of possible losing National (Majors) status.

Not a terrible idea, but not a short-term solution.

- GA

Knestis
02-10-2013, 04:42 PM
I'm sorry, did you think I was talking about my car??? I'm not talking about someone running months old tires on their 14-34 heat cycle. I'm talking about someone who can afford new tires for each day. Someone who built their motor for the class, not sourced another motor from the salvage yard and added an aluminum single mass flywheel.

Ultimatly, the real answer is to seperate the turbo and n/a cars into their own classes. As it seems to be impossible to either slow or police the turbo cars.

I'm talking about ANY cars in ANY class. On-track observations and comparisons of lap times simply can't accommodate all of the variables involved.

That said, handicapping NA and turbo cars has always been tough.

K

Flyinglizard
02-12-2013, 10:07 AM
Combustion pressure makes torque. Airflow and fuel make HP.
The Turbo cars may make over 2X the torque of the NA cars. A well designed turbo car is entirely different than the NA car. Max downforce over drive tires, BA drive tires, Taller gear for longer pulls in the torque range,etc.
My Turbo car makes around 230# torque, 177HP @ 11# boost.
The NA car makes 120#, 118Hp.

Regulating the TIR will not control the chamber pressure, only regulating the boost value will.
Regulate the Boost. There are some very good programs/equations to show power level vs boost.
I dont think that there are any estimation programs that involve the TIR. Due to the fact that the TIR is pressure sensitive and a constant variable .

Rabbit07
02-12-2013, 11:00 AM
Combustion pressure makes torque. Airflow and fuel make HP.
The Turbo cars may make over 2X the torque of the NA cars. A well designed turbo car is entirely different than the NA car. Max downforce over drive tires, BA drive tires, Taller gear for longer pulls in the torque range,etc.
My Turbo car makes around 230# torque, 177HP @ 11# boost.
The NA car makes 120#, 118Hp.

Regulating the TIR will not control the chamber pressure, only regulating the boost value will.
Regulate the Boost. There are some very good programs/equations to show power level vs boost.
I dont think that there are any estimation programs that involve the TIR. Due to the fact that the TIR is pressure sensitive and a constant variable .

What you have stated is mostly true.

At the Club Racing level we have no way to regulate boost. This requires a tech staff that can record and review data.

The TIR is a restriction in Airflow, so yes you can estimate the power output of a given engine with a TIR installed. I personally have dyno'd different combinations of Turbo Cars with TIR's and the FIA TIR chart is quite accurate in it's assumptions of Horse Power. This really is only the Peak Horse Power Number. Peak Torque still varies from Engine/Turbo combo to Engine/Turbo combo.

This is where the STAC and CRB have been working at sneaking up on the proper TIR/Weight. Torque is the variable that continues to change the curve on how well these packages perform on track. What hasn't been talked much about is that there are currently "SOME" Turbo Cars that perform well, and "SOME OTHERS" that do not. As we get closer to the ideal TIR/Weight this will become even more evident. Then the job will be to match the Best NA to the Best Boosted package. My personal opinion is that we are closer than most believe.

jmac36
02-12-2013, 01:28 PM
What you have stated is mostly true.

At the Club Racing level we have no way to regulate boost. This requires a tech staff that can record and review data.

The TIR is a restriction in Airflow, so yes you can estimate the power output of a given engine with a TIR installed. I personally have dyno'd different combinations of Turbo Cars with TIR's and the FIA TIR chart is quite accurate in it's assumptions of Horse Power. This really is only the Peak Horse Power Number. Peak Torque still varies from Engine/Turbo combo to Engine/Turbo combo.

This is where the STAC and CRB have been working at sneaking up on the proper TIR/Weight. Torque is the variable that continues to change the curve on how well these packages perform on track. What hasn't been talked much about is that there are currently "SOME" Turbo Cars that perform well, and "SOME OTHERS" that do not. As we get closer to the ideal TIR/Weight this will become even more evident. Then the job will be to match the Best NA to the Best Boosted package. My personal opinion is that we are closer than most believe.

Looks like bullshit, sounds like bullshit, smells like bullshit....... Most likely it's bullshit.

Every engineer in the business will tell you that you are pissing upwind with the TIR. Look around, even the fine folks at GrandAm have figured this out; there is no way to control torque output with an air restriction, it simply makes getting the same or better output more interesting. Chris, need I remind you that was exactly what you did last year?

For some f#+king reason you two are hung up on this "we can't police it at a club level" excuse. Respectfully, Chris, and Greg ( and yes I do have respect for you, even as I disagree, strongly ), if you can't see beyond this rather lame excuse, maybe it's time you resign from the STAC, and let some folks with a bit more vision step up and see what can be done.

As far, Greg, as writing letters to the board, really, whats the point? You two, both members of STAC, have, if you will, your fingers on the pulse right here. You both were told that there are more than a few ways to police the boost issue, and yet you choose to ignore those ideas in favor of the direction, which based on this years results, have done nothing to slow a well thought out and well prepped FI car down.

I also think your wait and see attitude is a bit apalling. I'm not going to waste money and time running in a class which,by the very fact I don't run FI, delegates me to an also ran. And I think you will see that attitude from my fellow front running NA drivers. Does this mean I want you to ban the FI cars, Hell no! I love FI, and applaud the fact there is a venue for them to run in. We tune way more FI cars than we do NA, so them being here is simply good for my business.

Guys, simple and straight, get your heads out of your asses, listen to some of the folks that understand the problem, and work on solving the issue. Boost control is simple, it's police able at any level, and it works. If you need to solve a car( make/model) having a run away advantage, the adjustment is simple and fast. No mucking with TIR sizes or weight issues, just reduce the manifold pressure a few millibars until you get the balance right.

Greg Amy
02-12-2013, 02:03 PM
As far, Greg, as writing letters to the board, really, whats the point?
Apparently the same point as you constantly bitching on this board about it.

- GA, hoping to see JMac's volunteering his "vision" to the CRB...but ain't gonna bet on it. Not with my money.

jmac36
02-12-2013, 02:36 PM
Apparently the same point as you constantly bitching on this board about it.

- GA, hoping to see JMac's volunteering his "vision" to the CRB...but ain't gonna bet on it. Not with my money.

Like I said before, and you seemed to ignore, is that not EXACTLY the point of you and Chris being accessible online? Are you not the guys that make reasonable( some would laugh at this) suggestions, based on what you see and understand to be issues in this class and its structure?

And BTW, you and I both know that letter writing to the CRB does dick in most cases, and that most rules get fixed thru the back door, and yes I have made myself and my opinions known to the CRB, or at least the folks on the CRB that have the power to make adjustments.

Greg, I grow more and more annoyed by your flip answers and attacks on myself and those that have valid points of view on this matter. Regardless of your disclaimer in your signature here on these forums, YOU represent US, the members of this club, and more specifically the folks who spend time, sweat and money to run this class. And frankly, at this point, I have seen nothing out of you, or Chris that would point to the fact you understand this. I think there is a pretty good assemblage of facts that would point an open minded board member to understand that the folks they represent are more than a bit upset with the direction we are heading, and the BS we are hearing from said representatives.

Face the facts;

there is a HUGE disparity between the front running NA cars, and the front running FI cars

The rules changes you suggested to the board do not seem to have made any difference based on early season results.

And you guys really have no idea how to stick your finger in this particular dike to stop the leakage of cars heading the other direction.

Greg Amy
02-12-2013, 03:09 PM
... is that not EXACTLY the point of you and Chris being accessible online?

Not at all. I'm online here because I've been racing Improved Touring since around, oh, 1984 or so and I also happen to be a STL competitor. I've personally been a member of this forum for well over a decade (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/member.php?u=7502), long before anyone ever thought about Super Touring (or even cared).

So, what's your point for being on this board?

But I do have to admit, such attitudes are a damn good supporting illustration for us to abandon these unofficial and completely "ex-parte communications", and force members to go through formal channels (CRB letter submission, emails, snail mails, faxes, your BoD rep, family vacations to Topeka Kansas). Or, if you prefer, we can take these conversations to the official SCCA.com forums.

In fact, that's starting to sound pretty damned attractive (the snail mail part. I haven't quite gotten the hang of this Internet thing...)

- GA, who understands that what happens here in Vegas - uhhhh, the IT/ST forums - truly stays here. You want action, you write a letter.

Flyinglizard
02-12-2013, 03:30 PM
I have seen a few HONDOG street beaters with radiator caps in the intake tubes. Just swap the cap to change the dump pressure. Strange audio tho.

Greg Amy
02-12-2013, 04:05 PM
And as a follow-up to my last post, if you guys keep up with the pitchforks here, and continue to ignore our (Chris' and my) recommendations to send in formal requests via the CRB submission system, then I can assure you - from experience - that the CRB will tighten up the reigns on committee members' abilities to be forthright and open on this forum. It has happened before, it can happen again.

Make this is a useful back-and-forth of informal ideas, we're fine. Try to turn it into a pseudo-formal method of submitting formal requests - and then get Internet-pissy when they don't get seriously considered and/or implemented - then this goes away.

Your call. There's an existing system to get items/suggestions/ideas/requests on the CRB's agenda. Please use it.

- GA

jmac36
02-12-2013, 04:43 PM
And as a follow-up to my last post, if you guys keep up with the pitchforks here, and continue to ignore our (Chris' and my) recommendations to send in formal requests via the CRB submission system, then I can assure you - from experience - that the CRB will tighten up the reigns on committee members' abilities to be forthright and open on this forum. It has happened before, it can happen again.

Make this is a useful back-and-forth of informal ideas, we're fine. Try to turn it into a pseudo-formal method of submitting formal requests - and then get Internet-pissy when they don't get seriously considered and/or implemented - then this goes away.

Your call. There's an existing system to get items/suggestions/ideas/requests on the CRB's agenda. Please use it.

- GA


Typical answer from you.

Again, letters don't do dick, never have, never will. Case in point is SS, were we the competitors wrote a ton of letters about stainless brake lines being allowed. No performance advantage, and a cheap part for everyone. However it took several years to get this passed.

Greg Amy
02-12-2013, 05:01 PM
Typical answer from you.
Joe, you don't know me well enough to even begin to understand what's "typical" from me. But that is irrelevant as I'm done trying to appease - or even listen to - you on this board.

If you have something constructive to offer, here's your suggestion box; as far as I'm concerned, everything else from you here goes directly into my "round file". You may feel better bloviating online, but I am going to simply ignore your whining, foot-stomping, and insults.

http://www.crbscca.com

.
.
.
.

Rabbit07
02-12-2013, 05:04 PM
Typical answer from you.

Again, letters don't do dick, never have, never will. Case in point is SS, were we the competitors wrote a ton of letters about stainless brake lines being allowed. No performance advantage, and a cheap part for everyone. However it took several years to get this passed.

This is not your fathers Oldsmobile Joe.

Chip42
02-12-2013, 05:08 PM
JMAC, you need to chill out. as an ITAC member, with ZERO dog in this fight, I can tell you that EVERYTHING requires a letter. the system requires a letter # for each posting into the TB. that's how we do it for record keeping.

yeah, you could post a letter as a comittee member, but generally we don't unless it's to clean up a mistake or push big rule changes. you'll see tGA's name a lot for STx rule changes, and mine or other ITAC members on occasion fixing little things in IT classifications.

it's all well and good to debate ideas and observations here, but it's not a rules change request. and if you don't get agreement from STAC members you discuss this with here, why would you think they would then push the idea forward themselves? if you have an idea, you write the letter, and a response will be posted. if you don't liek that response, post you actual letter online for others to consider.

It's pretty decent analog for old school democracy and while there are certainly politics involved in some decisions, I assure you from the guys I know on the STAC that there is NO pressure to obsolete NA cars in STU. none. They are making changes to slow the FI cars, bit by bit, and seeing how it shakes out. that's the path they chose, they've been open about that, and I think it's honorable that they have been so open. disagree all you want, they ARE doing what tehy say they are doing.

jmac36
02-12-2013, 06:08 PM
This is not your fathers Oldsmobile Joe.

That's sort of funny right there!

jmac36
02-12-2013, 09:45 PM
You miss my point; the CRB will almost always take the action that the AC dictates, or suggests. After all, the AC board members are the ones who are supposed to have the fair and balanced view of the class and what it needs. That is the whole point of an "Advisory committee" is it not?

I have nothing against Chris or Greg, I just think they are wrong in this instance. And I think they have not done enough research into what can be done to control, and police manifold pressure. A simple question; did anybody do any research into boost logging, and if so, could you please tell us who you contacted, and the input you got from them?

I, like several others, waited to see what would come of the great TIR reduction that got passed late last year. That along with the new tire rule was supposed to make things more even. Well it would appear it is not working so far based on the results from both coasts, correct? So now what? Keep reducing TIRs on various platforms? So what do we do if that's the case, when a turbo that did not run all year,for fear of getting busted, shows up as a 5 second a lap over dog at RA in September?

Knestis
02-12-2013, 10:41 PM
You miss my point; the CRB will almost always take the action that the AC dictates, or suggests. ...

Oh my god! I think I just laughed my spleen right out of my butt...!!

If someone wants to effect some kind of change in Club Racing, they've got to start with convincing a CRB member to carry their water.

K

JeffYoung
02-12-2013, 11:01 PM
Typical answer from you.

Again, letters don't do dick, never have, never will. Case in point is SS, were we the competitors wrote a ton of letters about stainless brake lines being allowed. No performance advantage, and a cheap part for everyone. However it took several years to get this passed.

Whoa, settle down there friend....Greg and Chris and co. are volunteers trying to do a hard job, dealing with membership and the CRB.

Letters do "do dick" and start the ball rolling. Write one and I'm sure these guys will give it fair consideration. You guys in ST are lucky to have a good committee right now, that really cares about the class and is willing to come here to discuss it.

Greg Amy
02-12-2013, 11:08 PM
A simple question; did anybody do any research into boost logging, and if so, could you please tell us who you contacted, and the input you got from them?
Ok, I'm'a gonna violate my own promise, simply because I like Joe and he's trying to pull me back in with kindness. I tend to react positively to flattery.

Joe, I don't know how long you've been racing, honestly. But I don't think it has been very long. I infer that because of the above sentence. It's really the epitome of a Pollyanna naivete.

No, I have not "contacted anyone" about boost logging. But, I'll do you one better: I was racing a turbo car in Showroom Stock A in the 80's and early 90's. I raced a Dodge Omni turbo, a Shelby CSX, a Mistu Starion, and an Eagle Talon, all turbocharged. And this was in the good old days of when "Showroom Stock" was showroom stock. And I got to experience - first hand - what it was like when SCCA was doing its damndest to scrutineer turbo cars based on boost.

It was a freaking farce. Really, it was laughable. No, seriously, we lliterally laughed.

I personally experienced SCCA scrutineering of turbo cars -- local, divisional, and if you were around then you'll even remember the old "roving National Scru Crews" that would show up, unannounced, at some random National with gages and measurements and boost recorders and all kinda nifty toys that came in nice, well-sanded foam-lined wooden boxes and looked really cool and promised that they were going to ensure compliance. Unless the roving Scru Crew showed up it wasn't even worth trying to get around technical compliance, as we knew that there just wasn't enough manpower to bother with it. But if/when the Scru Crew showed up with their nifty toys we were able to get past all those nifty boost recorders with things as simple as fish aquarium restrictors. You want to see 12 psi boost from my Dodge Turbo? There you go, a nice flat line right at 11.99 psi. You wanted to see exactly 1" of wastegate diaphragm movement at 5 psi on my Dodge Conquest? There you go, .98 inches! Damned if I didn't have to replace rod bearings every session; funny thing, those Mitsu engines! Can't trust those thing in your farm truck!

They even had us make specific, proprietary fittings in our intake manifolds to connect these devices to. Problem is, no one bothered to remove the intake manifolds to see what the INSIDE of the these fittings looked like.

How about we have a couple beers in regards to those silly engine service limit numbers that are in the Factory Service Manual that are so easy to get around in the Tech Shed that's it's almost embarrassing to admit in mixed company...? Sh*t, Spec Miata has been in constant re-writing of their rules, actually codifying the cheats, to try and "fix" that.

Point is, Joe, I (as a National Scrutineer and a long-time competitor) know that we, as a collective group of racers, are far smarter and have a lot more resources than all of SCCA Technical combined. And I know it's nothing but child's play to get around it. I know it, I've done it, I've tried to defeat it both as a competitor and a scrutineer.

Can it be done? Sure, if we had a dedicated paid group of guys that could attend every Majors/National and individually ensure compliance. But we don't. Just doing it at the Runoffs ain't good enough. And given that you're already belly-aching about the first couple of non-Runoffs Majors weekend results, I have to infer that you, too, are concerned about compliance at the Majors/Nationals.

So you're completely wrong when you say that I say that it can't be done. It can; as you noted, Grand-Am is doing it. But last I checked the entry fees and paid staff of GA was a tad bit more than that of SCCA Club Racing...

Come up with a realistic, workable, every day solution, send it to your favorite back-door CRB member, and I'm all ears.

- GA

jmac36
02-12-2013, 11:36 PM
Greg, that was somewhat entertaining!

I can see there is really no interest on your part to look past all that long ago hard earned knowledge, and more into the new century. I too recall the good old days of the turbo cars I. SSA, and your right, it was a nightmare.

But we are soooo far beyond that now.

But I can see this is a losing battle. You guys are not going to get it fixed anytime soon, and a turbo car will most likely win at RA again this year. I hope your right, I really do, but I do t think so.

Btw, I'm pretty sure I have been racing a tad longer than you a this point, since I started in SSC in the late 70s,

Cheers

Greg Amy
02-12-2013, 11:44 PM
Ok, so instead of all the vague platitudes, what's your realistic, workable, every day solution?

- GA

jmac36
02-13-2013, 12:05 PM
Greg, if your seriously interested in finding out, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you via phone, or email.

But the long and short is this; there are several electronic methods that are pretty simple, and easy to use. With a bit of work on the software, you could have both a running type logger, and/or max attained.

I would guess that the max attained value would be something you would set your normal tech crew up to read with a simple hand held interface. If there was some question about a reading, you could then send the download to national to be reviewed.

Is it defeatable, sure, everything is to some extent. But with a bit of forethought about placement in the manifold of the sensor( and no, sticking it in the plenum at any old port ain't what I'm talking about), would negate any of the old "fish regulator" tricks we all know. And as the whole set up would be solidstate, and the software inter keyed with an encryption algorithm, tampering by a competitor would be a bit on the tough side. It could even be set up with a telltale lamp, or series of lamps that would be easily visible to tech inspectors. Sort of a go/no go if you like.

Now, before you tell me I'm dreaming, and it's not possible, or too expensive; first, it's already being used in quite a few instances. Second, it's a drop in the bucket price wise on an STU car, and as we require each competitor to provide a transponder, so would FI cars be required to carry the required, speced module.

Now, the other side of this coin is what limits do you place on the cars in question, and that's not quite as easy to define. However, there is a good deal of data on most of these cars, and the effects of cam and DI (direct injection) phasing, as well as waste gate, and throttle mapping. So you could make an educated guess at where the boost limit to output ratio would be for most platforms. And regulation is simple; once the competitor figures out the combination of the above mentioned parameters( or at least the engine builder/tuner does), and starts to dominate, the boost pressure thresholds on his platform are adjusted by a few millibars.



If you wanted to get simplistic, an easy baseline would be a good load cel dyno, but of course the logistics are a bit harder to handle to get the same dyno for all the cars in question.

Greg, you asked for an answer, and I have given you at least one, there are others. This just happens to be the one I am most familiar with. My point in spending the time typing this was to show you that there are options that will work. Is it the ultimate solution, no! There will be sandbaggers, and folks with enough snap to think of the long game and bide their time til the runoffs. But with this system, if you wanted, you could set the rules to allow for on site adjustments.

Greg, we can agree to disagree on this, but the old argument of " we can't police it on a divisional level" just will not float. Give the competitors and the tech folks a bit more credit. The tech guys are almost always some of the sharper ( ok, I admit, not all the time) members of our band of misfits. And I flat guarantee if Chris showed up down here in Texas with the solstice and cleaned our clocks like at the runoffs with this system, there would be a bit of paper flying to find out WTF the deal was. In other words, the system of checks and balances works pretty well.

Greg Amy
02-13-2013, 12:23 PM
Joe, a well-thought-out response, and I completely agree with you in concept.

But the devil is in the details. The hangup is converting such a general idea and making it a " realistic, workable, every day solution". You know that we do not have the resources - and certainly not the motivation - within the Club to design, develop, install, support, and maintain such a solution. The STAC is 5 guys that meet for 2-3 hours once a month, and the CRB spends about as much time - probably less - discussing Super Touring concerns. SCCA's Technical Support group is one or two guys taking on all technical details of the Club for all classes (and they're currently one short). No one within this structure - all volunteers, except for Technical - on either committee/board is going to spend an inordinate amount of time and money to do all that work just for this one category. We're just simply not going to do that.

However, if your company, or any other one you know, is willing to take on that responsibility, I would be very interested in having them send to us a RFQ with very-general overview of what you propose, how you would implement and support it (both on a competitor and scrutineering side) and a general idea of how much it would cost all parties involved. If it appears to be an idea that the SCCA/CRB would like to pursue, then we could get into the specifics. And you'd have a lock on the market.

But to expect a volunteer club organization to take on that kind of time and money investment and to build an infrastructure to support is very, very unrealistic; that is truly not a "realistic, workable, every day solution".

I am certainly not going to invest any of my time and money into it, as I have nothing to gain, financially or personally.

So, find someone who does. Is that you?

- GA

jmac36
02-13-2013, 01:00 PM
Joe, a well-thought-out response, and I completely agree with you in concept.

But the devil is in the details. The hangup is converting such a general idea and making it a " realistic, workable, every day solution". You know that we do not have the resources - and certainly not the motivation - within the Club to design, develop, install, support, and maintain such a solution. The STAC is 5 guys that meet for 2-3 hours once a month, and the CRB spends about as much time - probably less - discussing Super Touring concerns. SCCA's Technical Support group is one or two guys taking on all technical details of the Club for all classes (and they're currently one short). No one within this structure - all volunteers, except for Technical - on either committee/board is going to spend an inordinate amount of time and money to do all that work just for this one category. We're just simply not going to do that.

However, if your company, or any other one you know, is willing to take on that responsibility, I would be very interested in having them send to us a RFQ with very-general overview of what you propose, how you would implement and support it (both on a competitor and scrutineering side) and a general idea of how much it would cost all parties involved. If it appears to be an idea that the SCCA/CRB would like to pursue, then we could get into the specifics. And you'd have a lock on the market.

But to expect a volunteer club organization to take on that kind of time and money investment and to build an infrastructure to support is very, very unrealistic; that is truly not a "realistic, workable, every day solution".

I am certainly not going to invest any of my time and money into it, as I have nothing to gain, financially or personally.

So, find someone who does. Is that you?

- GA

Greg, I guess you and I were not communicating on this very well before when we spoke at the runoffs about boost regulation. Perhaps that's my fault for not making myself clear, and part of my outrage on this forum when I hear the " it can't be done " argument. If so, on both counts, my bad.

To your challenge; this is almost a no brainier, hardware and software wise. IF, and really only if, you and Chris, along with the other STAC members would at least listen to a proposal, and I can get a general consensious form most of my competitors about implementing this, and maintaining it, we would be happy to.

I would need your assurance that if we were to present to you the hardware/ software to do this, that you guys would be willing to work with us to get the board to put it to use, so we can all go about leveling what we all understand is a rather uneven playing field.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, Greg, never have. But as an engineer, I get a bit POed when somebody around me tells me something can't be done, or we do it this way cause that's the way we always have. Guess it's a character flaw on my part, but it has served me well over the years.

Greg Amy
02-13-2013, 03:53 PM
Joe, can't promise nothin', but if you take some time to put together a general proposal on what you have in mind, Chris and I will pass it through the STAC and the CRB to see if there's interest. At that point you could do some deeper investigations on costs and how to implement and we go from there.

Just keep in mind when I state something like "it can't be done" I'm speaking not from an engineering perspective (I'm a MechE by education, IT guy by profession) I'm speaking about what can be reasonably done within the resources and culture of the organization (I'm also a MBA by education).

"Hit us with your best shot" and it'll get a fair audience.

- GA

jmac36
02-13-2013, 05:37 PM
Joe, can't promise nothin', but if you take some time to put together a general proposal on what you have in mind, Chris and I will pass it through the STAC and the CRB to see if there's interest. At that point you could do some deeper investigations on costs and how to implement and we go from there.

Just keep in mind when I state something like "it can't be done" I'm speaking not from an engineering perspective (I'm a MechE by education, IT guy by profession) I'm speaking about what can be reasonably done within the resources and culture of the organization (I'm also a MBA by education).

"Hit us with your best shot" and it'll get a fair audience.

- GA

Greg, I'll be more than happy to do it. If it gets some support, and the CRB thinks its interesting, we will go from there.

BTW, I appreciate and understand why you and Chris were taking this stand. And I also understand we are a volunteer organization, having been a club member most of my life, and having been around it since I was born.

But we, as a club, need to look around and understand that we are no longer the only game in town. And, in my opinion, on issues like this, where there is some pretty deep discontent, we need to try to look for better answers. Least we run ALL of our competitors off to places where they don't say "can't be done".

thanks

Flyinglizard
02-14-2013, 10:55 AM
I wasnt kidding with the radiator cap thing. It looks as tho it can work, MOL. Look around the net..

Also my "Harry's lap timer" has the OBD port interrface and records the data.

Z3_GoCar
02-17-2013, 09:38 PM
While I respect our Tech folks, I don't think they're on the level of professional FIA tech crews, and if this can get around FIA tech, then how will local tech crews catch a TIR bypass:

http://jalopnik.com/5977371/racing-is-full-of-lance-armstrongs

That's why the turbo cars need to be in their own seperate class. Atmo cars are the majority at this point, not the turbo's so the problems still young enough to nip in the bud. If the solution is a year off, then so be it, at least the issue is being addressed.

Greg Amy
02-17-2013, 10:15 PM
That's fine James: if you really believe there needs to be a separate class, then please send your request to the CRB. I will not do it, as I do not believe it's the right answer.

But please do keep in mind that if the normally-aspirated cars are requesting a separate class from the turbo cars, it is the N/A cars that will be the spin-off class, not the turbo cars. The turbos (and those that wish to continue competing against the turbos) will stay within the existing STU class. The spin-off class - STNA? - will have to convince the membership and the CRB that first, a new class is warranted, and second, that this new class will bring the numbers for it be considered for National/Majors participation.

Or we can continue to move forward to do our best to level the playing field among the existing STU cars. Which is what we'll continue to do, barring any conflicting directives from the CRB.

- GA

Rabbit07
02-25-2013, 05:32 PM
Still no letters in the system?

Mrsideways
02-28-2013, 01:36 PM
What you have stated is mostly true.

At the Club Racing level we have no way to regulate boost. This requires a tech staff that can record and review data.

The TIR is a restriction in Airflow, so yes you can estimate the power output of a given engine with a TIR installed. I personally have dyno'd different combinations of Turbo Cars with TIR's and the FIA TIR chart is quite accurate in it's assumptions of Horse Power. This really is only the Peak Horse Power Number. Peak Torque still varies from Engine/Turbo combo to Engine/Turbo combo.

This is where the STAC and CRB have been working at sneaking up on the proper TIR/Weight. Torque is the variable that continues to change the curve on how well these packages perform on track. What hasn't been talked much about is that there are currently "SOME" Turbo Cars that perform well, and "SOME OTHERS" that do not. As we get closer to the ideal TIR/Weight this will become even more evident. Then the job will be to match the Best NA to the Best Boosted package. My personal opinion is that we are closer than most believe.

Let em have the Torque, Just give them no way to use it....... Smaller tires, Non-LSD diffs, factory gearing only, mandate tiny intercoolers so they battle Intake temps, etc etc. It's kinda cruel but you can have your cake you just get your hands tied behind your back when it comes to eating it.

Matt93SE
02-28-2013, 05:59 PM
Let em have the Torque, Just give them no way to use it....... Smaller tires, Non-LSD diffs, factory gearing only, mandate tiny intercoolers so they battle Intake temps, etc etc. It's kinda cruel but you can have your cake you just get your hands tied behind your back when it comes to eating it.

Hell, I'm spinning the crap out of my 225s right now with 160hp.. I can't imagine trying to put 400lb of tq to the ground with your idea!

hmmmmmmm..... :026:

Mrsideways
03-01-2013, 10:46 AM
Hell, I'm spinning the crap out of my 225s right now with 160hp.. I can't imagine trying to put 400lb of tq to the ground with your idea!

hmmmmmmm..... :026:

I was 99% joking. However the big complaint is that the Torque of the turbo's get them out of the corner much better then their N/A counter parts. Because a Turbo car can make a lot more average power. So my point was to make it equal take away their ability to put the power down on corner exit. Make all the power you want... it's just more wheel spin, limit the cars acceleration in ways other then engine. If you can't police Boost, then police tire/wheel size and maybe even compound. That's easy. An interesting way of equalizing this is varying Wheel width by weight, FWD, AWD and RWD and Turbo cars gotta run 1 inch narrower across the board. Would be funny to see a 300whp Evo at 4000+ lbs running around on 6 inch wide wheels.

So you say your spinning the crap out of your tires, just imagine an AWD car has the same size restrictor and NO issue with wheel spin. Yep that's fair, now put yourself in a FWD car with your power level... Even more impossible.

Greg Amy
03-01-2013, 12:18 PM
You guys know we limited STU tire size this year to 245, right...? 225 for STL.

Mrsideways
03-01-2013, 04:24 PM
You guys know we limited STU tire size this year to 245, right...? 225 for STL.

That's still a healthy amount of tire. But I was thinking being a little more bias and separating out tire size or wheel size by vehicle layout weight, and type of aspiration. Because a a 245 on a N/A FWD civic is a lot of tire where a 245 on a #3400 car isn't very much tire. And It would be easier to do the Bias Including wheel width.

Greg Amy
03-01-2013, 04:28 PM
But a 245 tire on a FWD civic might be getting pulled by a 2.4L engine (more likely a 1.8-2L), whereas a 245 tire on a 3400# BMW is probably getting propelled by a 3.2L S54 (or whatever that thing is).

Kinda sounds like a nice balance me...

- GA

JS154
03-07-2013, 07:17 PM
That's still a healthy amount of tire. But I was thinking being a little more bias and separating out tire size or wheel size by vehicle layout weight, and type of aspiration. Because a a 245 on a N/A FWD civic is a lot of tire where a 245 on a #3400 car isn't very much tire. And It would be easier to do the Bias Including wheel width.

A letter was submitted a year ago proposing restricing tire size for FI and AWD FI cars. It was not approved at the time.

fast forward one year, tire sizes have been reduced for all cars to max 245 width.

TIR sizes have been reduced. At the rate we are going, it appears to me it will be another few years before we see the turbo cars balanced with the NA cars.

I don't ever see ST split into NA and FI classes, and even if it were to happen, it would take so long that ST would just be Super Turbo anyways, not that it isn't now.

The FI cars got rewarded with some weight and TIR adjustments at the end of last year and have already gone faster than the year before at the first races of the season.

The fastest NA cars - Irish Mike's TecMark E46, Joe's Tripoint mazdaSpeed 6, The RealTime TSX and my M3 - are built to the limit of the rules. How many of the turbo cars, with the exception of Joel's STaSIS A4 have been built to the limit? You think there might be enough room left to outbuild any annual restrictor adjustment?

JS154
03-10-2013, 01:26 PM
Whoa, settle down there friend....Greg and Chris and co. are volunteers trying to do a hard job, dealing with membership and the CRB.

Letters do "do dick" and start the ball rolling. Write one and I'm sure these guys will give it fair consideration. You guys in ST are lucky to have a good committee right now, that really cares about the class and is willing to come here to discuss it.

THIS group of jokers? haha NFW. That's funny. ;-) Lookin' pretty sketchy to me I say...

Left to right that's Chris tilting his head saying, aw c'mon you can;t really be serious that you think the turbos are that much faster, Greg hiding behind us with a smug look on his face saying "HAHA, I out-worded you again!" and me with a mysteriously pleasant smile after having gotten good hard fvxkng from the turbos.

Or something like that.

Rabbit07
03-10-2013, 08:16 PM
THIS group of jokers? haha NFW. That's funny. ;-) Lookin' pretty sketchy to me I say...

Left to right that's Chris tilting his head saying, aw c'mon you can;t really be serious that you think the turbos are that much faster, Greg hiding behind us with a smug look on his face saying "HAHA, I out-worded you again!" and me with a mysteriously pleasant smile after having gotten good hard fvxkng from the turbos.

Or something like that.

F'n bloody hell!

Z3_GoCar
03-10-2013, 10:59 PM
Still no letters in the system?

I've got bigger fish to fry this year. In two more weeks I'll know if I get furloghed or not. As it sits now, I'm even dialing back on working F&C. 22 furlogh days means I won't have a budget for anything other than paying my mortgage and property taxes.


F'n bloody hell!

That's exactly my sentiments too...

CRallo
03-11-2013, 08:46 AM
Sounds a little bit like the discussions going on about GT2 this year...