Turbo's sweep STU....

[Andy Bettencourt]

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]

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

[jmac36]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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