Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Thread: Turbo's sweep STU....

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default Turbo's sweep STU....

    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.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    How many data points are in your set?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    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.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

  5. #5

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Prof. Chaos; 09-26-2012 at 06:18 PM.
    EP 1990 Mazda RX-7 (used to be STU until the turbo cars scared me away, and STL rotary cars require too much ballast)
    ITS/T4 2004 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    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?
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    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.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Purcellville, VA USA
    Posts
    902

    Default

    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 "The Cat Killer" Childs
    Angry Sheep Motorsports
    810 417 7777
    angrysheepmotorsports.com

    IT,SM,SS,Touring, and Super Touring

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Chaos View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Mrsideways; 09-27-2012 at 09:32 AM.
    Ian
    #16 STU S2000 with a K24(and still over weight)

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rabbit07 View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    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.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    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

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmac36 View Post
    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.
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmac36 View Post
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt93SE View Post
    ...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
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 09-28-2012 at 09:34 AM.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    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.....

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    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

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    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.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    ...... 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!
    Houston Region
    STU Nissan 240SX
    EProd RX7

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Purcellville, VA USA
    Posts
    902

    Default

    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.......
    Chris "The Cat Killer" Childs
    Angry Sheep Motorsports
    810 417 7777
    angrysheepmotorsports.com

    IT,SM,SS,Touring, and Super Touring

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •