March 2013 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

Are posted: http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[JeffYoung]

Thank you sir.

[dickita15]

Uh, its mam.

[Greg Amy]

Uh, its mam.
Actually, it's "Pam".

;)

[Chip42]

ST guys - letter 10200 calls the 4AGZE a 1500, it's 1600 like all toyota 4A motors. nice addition though. and holly sh!tballs, 600# off of the Cooper S???? wow.

anyone else having trouble with the Minutes link?

[Greg Amy]

ST guys - letter 10200 calls the 4AGZE a 1500, it's 1600 like all toyota 4A motors. nice addition though. and holly sh!tballs, 600# off of the Cooper S???? wow.

anyone else having trouble with the Minutes link?

Should read 1587cc. That was a request for someone to be able to stuff the SC engine into a first-gen MR2. We've sent him a note, asking if he wants an alternate crank or supercharger pulley...need to know what's available.

Minutes do not work for me. I sent an email to Pam and John Bauer.

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't get the CamaroBird listings. In 83-84, they had 190hp. In 85 the TPI option bumped to 215hp...then back down to 190hp in 86.

So I get the weight based on 190hp as long as the info is there to support that there was no 215hp car ever.

190*1.3*11.25=2778.78 rounded to 2780. How do we get to 2890? 110lbs for torque? Weird number.

And are we allowing the TPI setup? Because the TPI setup was never offered on manual transmission cars in these years. 1987 was the first year for the 5-speed mated to the 305HO stuff. Truly a car that was never made by the factory.

Or am I getting stuff mixed up?

[ShelbyRacer]

I don't get the CamaroBird listings. In 83-84, they had 190hp. In 85 the TPI option bumped to 215hp...then back down to 190hp in 86.

So I get the weight based on 190hp as long as the info is there to support that there was no 215hp car ever.

190*1.3*11.25=2778.78 rounded to 2780. How do we get to 2890? 110lbs for torque? Weird number.

And are we allowing the TPI setup? Because the TPI setup was never offered on manual transmission cars in these years. 1987 was the first year for the 5-speed mated to the 305HO stuff. Truly a car that was never made by the factory.

Or am I getting stuff mixed up?

The H.O. Carbed 305 was available from 83-86. The Notes should say "fuel injection not allowed". If not, that was an oversight on our part.

As for the number- dammit my math was wrong.

190hp x 1.30 x 11.25 = 2778.75 + 150 (TQ) – 50 (Live axle) = 2890 lb

Should be 2880.

I'll get this out to the ITAC and CRB and see what we can do about correcting it.

Sorry.

[Rabbit07]

ST guys - letter 10200 calls the 4AGZE a 1500, it's 1600 like all toyota 4A motors. nice addition though. and holly sh!tballs, 600# off of the Cooper S???? wow.

anyone else having trouble with the Minutes link?

Look for the cooper stuff next month. Didn't get it in in time.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The H.O. Carbed 305 was available from 83-86. The Notes should say "fuel injection not allowed". If not, that was an oversight on our part.

As for the number- dammit my math was wrong.

190hp x 1.30 x 11.25 = 2778.75 + 150 (TQ) – 50 (Live axle) = 2890 lb

Should be 2880.

I'll get this out to the ITAC and CRB and see what we can do about correcting it.

Sorry.

Perfect explanation. Thanks! Nothing in the notes section regarding the FI.

[Greg Amy]

Perfect explanation. Thanks! Nothing in the notes section regarding the FI.
Dat's why we get da prelims! :smilie_pokal:

[Chip42]

camaro notes is my mistake.

tGA, the SC 4AGZE CAME in the 1st gen MR2 in 88-89. not common but they exist, no "stuffing" needed ;). tthe stock crank should be adequate but forged examples exist. SC pulley he should want.

Chris - what's going to change on the regular cooper? I was remarking onthe weight loss to the S that's shown in the prelims for March. no interest other than academic.

[Rabbit07]

camaro notes is my mistake.

tGA, the SC 4AGZE CAME in the 1st gen MR2 in 88-89. not common but they exist, no "stuffing" needed ;). tthe stock crank should be adequate but forged examples exist. SC pulley he should want.

Chris - what's going to change on the regular cooper? I was remarking onthe weight loss to the S that's shown in the prelims for March. no interest other than academic.

Whoops, sorry it did make it. Yes the currently classed car drops lots of weight. Likely never get there. The open injector JCW car is newly classified and in at a low weight to help it out. The argument was why the Lotus so light and not the Mini. Well it was just an oversight.

[Greg Amy]

tGA, the SC 4AGZE CAME in the 1st gen MR2 in 88-89. not common but they exist, no "stuffing" needed ;).
Au contraire, mon frere: surpercharged cars have to be specifically classified. Are you aware of any "commonly" available pulleys for this engine?

- GA

[ShelbyRacer]

I believe the stock pulley provides 8 psi boost, and there is a common aftermarket unit for 10 psi. Chip could probably confirm that.

Obviously, those boost numbers are refenced to stock flow, so any increase in flow may decrease the net boost seen.

Edit: corrected stock boost.

[Chip42]

Au contraire, mon frere: surpercharged cars have to be specifically classified. Are you aware of any "commonly" available pulleys for this engine?

- GA

Oh I get that, I was just pointing out that it was already a stock combo, your "stuffing" made me thing you didn't know that. irrelevant.

many of the known quantity old pulley sets are NLA or very hard to find used, I wouldn't spec them. HKS made a 157mm SC crank pulley for a while, a picture of it is still on HKS-power.co.jp/USA/ so it might be avaialble. this was spec'ed for 10psi.

Techno Toy sells a 175mm SC crank pulley ("14psi"), probobly the highest currently known to be avaialble. I don't tknow if anyone is still making smaller SC pulleys but there are always new parts avaialble from the chinese knockoff type of shops selling on eBay and the sites that cary such things. they might exist but I wouldn't race on them.

[JeffYoung]

Matt and Chip covered it. No TPI for the Firematers. Just the carb'ed car. Actually my error I think, not Chip's.

[Chip42]

minutes link is working. some observations and comments:

NAR - #10102. Poor response. I applaud Rob for trying. As many here can attest, the FIA seat rules are a serious pet peeve of mine. the rules as written make mounting a seat on sliders nigh on impossible, and that needs to change.

NAR - #10119 (STU, 3SGE intake request) someone tell Eric to request the 2nd (pre 1993 SW20 MR2 outside of North america) and 3rd Gen JDM 3SGE (1996 up JDM MR2 non turbo) as those are the droids he's looking for. there is no 3SGE MR2 in the USDM so no intake is allowed, and the only 3SGE sold here was the first gen with the T-VIS intake, sold in an older celica, and not as good an option as the 2nd and 3rd generation versions with the ACIS intake and other improvements. 3rd gen is the best, and carries with it only small changes to the engine overall, most if not all of which I think are irrelevant in ST.

[dickita15]

NAR - #10102. Poor response. I applaud Rob for trying. As many here can attest, the FIA seat rules are a serious pet peeve of mine. the rules as written make mounting a seat on sliders nigh on impossible, and that needs to change.


This is a prickly problem. What was happening that caused this rule was people were taking high end FIA seats and bolting them to stock sliders in T1 cars. You could grab the seat and move it around so much with your hand that it would hit the cage so the back brace rule was added.
Unfortunately history proved we needed to change that, if anyone has a better suggestion on how to make sure only slider installations that are actually secure the seat are used the rule could probably be improved. In the meantime a back brace for seats on sliders is the way we had to go.
A back brace that adjusts when you move the seat is not that hard to engineer but if anyone has a better solution I am sure it would be considered.

[Greg Amy]

NAR - #10119 (STU, 3SGE intake request)
Chip, I'm PM'ing you the guy's contact info. Since you seem to know these cars better, would you please send him an email, copying me, explaining this and seeing if he has any questions? - GA

[Chip42]

Chip, I'm PM'ing you the guy's contact info. Since you seem to know these cars better, would you please send him an email, copying me, explaining this and seeing if he has any questions? - GA

sure thing. thanks tGA

[seckerich]

This is a prickly problem. What was happening that caused this rule was people were taking high end FIA seats and bolting them to stock sliders in T1 cars. You could grab the seat and move it around so much with your hand that it would hit the cage so the back brace rule was added.
Unfortunately history proved we needed to change that, if anyone has a better suggestion on how to make sure only slider installations that are actually secure the seat are used the rule could probably be improved. In the meantime a back brace for seats on sliders is the way we had to go.
A back brace that adjusts when you move the seat is not that hard to engineer but if anyone has a better solution I am sure it would be considered.

We asked for the proper sliders to be allowed that are used in all our Grand Am cars, as well as most every FIA homoligated Porsche. Problem is that the CRB was unwilling to listen and chose to toss them all out. I am sure there is a compromise that can be found and would start with no stock sliders. The competition sliders we use are double locking and allow very little seat movement. We had them in both the GT Mazda's and our Daytona Prototype and I would say they have been tested quite well after some of the hits and roll overs.

My guess is the CRB is unwilling to specify any allowed slider any more than they will specify cage construction because of liability. Sliders are not such a big deal in most national classes because of the sprint format, but are needed in the endurance races. Much more dangerous to have a second driver sitting on a thick pad both under and behind that has them literally sitting on top of the seat with no side protection. We need to find a solution.

[Chip42]

What steve said. And of course there is no homologation spec for seat sliders - or mounts, so there' sno follow the leader option here. we' seem to be perfectly willing to allow an 8855-1999 seat on any old mount, as safe or unsafe as you wish. but the simillalry non-homologated sliders are verboten. I've written in on the subject, again, and hopefully my current relationship with the CRB and BoD will develope a conversation where previously it was resplied with soemthing like 'thank you but no.'

I'm thinking minimum mounting requirements (hardware, hard points, reinforcment, tie in with cage rules more cleanly, etc..) and wording expressing an understanding that FIA SEATS FLEX (this seems to be interpreted as a problem by many tech officials I have discussed it with OR is understood and poor mounting is excused as a result) and a restriction on position of the seat vs. cage to eliminate flexure into cage members or rerquire back braces etc..

[Knestis]

What they said. It's been an ongoing annoyance for me, particularly given the half-assed compromises we see at enduros with foam pads and other silliness that leave a shorter driver nowhere NEAR as connected to the seat as he should be.

K

[mossaidis]

^!!! I am 5'4". 'nough said.

[Andy Bettencourt]

^!!! I am 5'4". 'nough said.

In heels maybe.

:)

[lateapex911]

Yea, and I, and his girlfriend, wish he'd quit wearing her 3" pumps to the track!

[Ed Funk]

...and since it's "Pick on Mickey Day", when have you ever been "connected"?

[dickita15]

I feel your pain and do not know the solution but I am sure smart enough people can find one. The T1 problem in my example is real, people got hurt. I do not see the CRB testing individual brands but I have to believe there is a solution.
Dick

[gran racing]

Yea, and I, and his girlfriend, wish he'd quit wearing her 3" pumps to the track!

That height too uncomfortable for you Jake?

[lateapex911]

I worry about his ankles. He's bound to twist one sooner or later. ;)

[Greg Amy]

Ain't nuthin' wrong with a well-turned ankle...oh, wait a sec...

[Ed Funk]

Tmi

[mossaidis]

Geesh...it's been too long since I re-visited this thread. You boys have way too much time and brain power to spare during these winter months. Me in heals? Really?!?! "you're one sick puppy"

[tom91ita]

This thread belongs in the sandbox......

[CRallo]

This thread belongs in the sandbox......

yea... can we have a do over?

[Greg Amy]

Final:

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/13-fastrack-march1.pdf

[Chip42]

so much for correcting errors in the prelims... Some Camarobird 305 errors remain. Note to anyone who plans to build this car, the wieght is 10 lbs high and there is an incorrect brake disk specified, should read 267mm rear. these will be corrected ASAP.

Nice to see that the above car's fuel injection note was added and the 4AGZE displacement was fixed, though.

[RSTPerformance]

I am thinking of installing sliders to my Sablet Seat. I am wondering if someone on here may have more experience in recomending a specific slider.

I have a Sabelt Taures XL with halo similar to this one here...
http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/product/SabeltTaurusFiberglassSeat/SabeltRacingSeats

I have the following steal side mounts designed for this seat...
http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/product/SabeltSeatSteelBrackets/SabeltRacingSeats

And I am thining of purchasing this slider for the seat which I assume mounts UNDER the side mounts between them and whatever I have them ounted to in the car...
http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/product/13086/SabeltRacingSeats

[Knestis]

Those sliders LOOK exactly like the ones we used on Pablo (originally from Recaro). Your assumption is correct re: mounting. They worked GREAT, neglecting the seatback brace rule since implemented.

K