June fastrack is up

[gran racing]

forced induction and AWD.

But there's a difference between these two. I'd sure want it to get approved if I lived in Seattle.

[Andy Bettencourt]

With the open ECU and exhuast rules, turbo cars become monsters. Welcome to the world of SIR's.

[Ron Earp]

With the open ECU and exhuast rules, turbo cars become monsters. Welcome to the world of SIR's.

Welcome. If the turbo AWD need SIRs then so be it. Since these cars are fitting into an existing framework of cars they can be used to try out SIRs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But I don't think turbo cars would fit into existing framework. Remember, it ain't stock hp that is the number that is multiplied by the target pw/weight of each class, it's the estimated power in IT trim. With the legal IT mods, these numbers skyrocket - leading to weights that are redonkulously heavy.

[jjjanos]

But I don't think turbo cars would fit into existing framework. Remember, it ain't stock hp that is the number that is multiplied by the target pw/weight of each class, it's the estimated power in IT trim. With the legal IT mods, these numbers skyrocket - leading to weights that are redonkulously heavy.

Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.

[Chip42]

Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.

awesome line, that.

I have no issue with AWD - assuming all NA - loose the toyota wagons, a few civic wagons, and other cars exluded from IT by virtue of a 5th door (how about fixing THAT??) and all you have left are base subies and what, AMC eagles? run the process, let them race.

forced induction requires a much larger discussion and review and has nothing to do with AWD other than the combo being common offerings today.

[BruceG]

How about a "SHOWROOMSTUCK" class for AWD Hummers?...ar...ar

[shwah]

awesome line, that.

I have no issue with AWD - assuming all NA - loose the toyota wagons, a few civic wagons, and other cars exluded from IT by virtue of a 5th door (how about fixing THAT??) and all you have left are base subies and what, AMC eagles? run the process, let them race.

forced induction requires a much larger discussion and review and has nothing to do with AWD other than the combo being common offerings today.

Wagons are allowed today.

The question about boost is a much bigger one (and it should be noted has not been asked by the CR. I would want a completely separate level of allowed prep: stock ecu, and some sort of required boost limiting device, maybe even required std data logging system to verify stock boost parameters...

[lateapex911]

Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.

And that is essentially the same thing as not classing them. Why bother when nobody in his right mind would race one?

I think we need to separate the issues, and deal with each accordingly.

As it stands, when it rains, most IT owners/cars are at a loss as to what to do to optimize for the wet. Sure, we put on rain tires, but very very few of us actually change ride height, springs, damper settings and sway bar rates. Yet, to be quick in the wet, we should. And the result of that is often a complete shake up in the results. Normally dominant FWD cars are ornery beasts in the wet, and usually upper mid pack cars suddenly shine.

And nobody cries that the rules need to be changed to accommodate that. Actually, I think that's neat....that changing conditions need to be dealt with.

So, for me, class AWD just like we do cars now. If it rains, oh well, maybe they'll win. And a normally up front car comes in second or third. Boo Hoo.


Now, on turbos, I would need to see a reliable and predictable method of restriction of power to the appropriate level. That part...(the concept) is easy. The application however, is trickier. It's certainly possible, but we would have some work ahead of us if we chose to go that route.

Down the road, when the current big picture projects the ITAC is working on are done, I can see this being a good move.

[jjjanos]

And that is essentially the same thing as not classing them. Why bother when nobody in his right mind would race one?

Because there is an ass for every seat? Someone might want to? The specifications are full of cars that nobody in their right mind would race. Two off the top of my head... New Beetle at 2760 and the GV at any weight.

Restrictor plates for the turbos might work instead of weight, but unless you get it correct at first blush, there's no way to correct the problem and you devolve to the same solution as specifing them as fat blobs.

[RacerBill]

I have to go along with Ron. I believe that at some time, we will have to consider AWD and forced induction. Both have pros and cons. I believe that forced induction is allowed in other SCCA classes, so how is that managed today?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have to go along with Ron. I believe that at some time, we will have to consider AWD and forced induction. Both have pros and cons. I believe that forced induction is allowed in other SCCA classes, so how is that managed today?

No open ECU's and stock exhausts.

Take a look at ANY series that allows them. They win right away and have to be brought back via comp adjustment. We don't do that. The STi's won T2 in there first year at the Runoffs...in the dry. Add the wet and it (as someone who drove one once said) 'was so easy, it was like I was cheating'.

[jhooten]

Finally I have another option besides GT2. The Supra goes to EP!

I doubt I will have it ready for this weekend though.

[dj10]

donn't allow awd when track is wet or raining. :~)

[lawtonglenn]

.



I think the main problem will be that the GCR 9.1.3.D.9.L will have to be changed from:


"...All ballast shall be located in the front passenger footwell..."

to

"...All ballast shall be located wherever the hell you can fit all of it...."

[shwah]

The comment that they are researching the belt life issue made on page 9 caught my eye.