Turbo's sweep STU....

[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

[jmac36]

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.....

[Greg Amy]

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

[Z3_GoCar]

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.

[Matt93SE]

...... 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!

[Rabbit07]

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.......

[jmac36]

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.......

So let me get this straight ; it's your opinion that 1 2:24 flat is a good target time for this class??!

Last time I checked, the standard for what this class should run was E prod. Have we changed that ?

Chris, while I applaud your work and Robs driving, I think even you can admit that this years race was a walk for your cars. Is it because of the level of prep, or driving? Partly. But the car as it is is simply an over dog. And I think it is safe to say that unless you prep and bring a boosted car to RA next year, chances are damn slim, based on the current rules, that you have much of a chance. And frankly I'm not hearing any viable idea here for fixing is. Infact if I read right you think the solstice's times should be the benchmark???

[Rabbit07]

So let me get this straight ; it's your opinion that 1 2:24 flat is a good target time for this class??!

Infact if I read right you think the solstice's times should be the benchmark???

What? Where did you get that from what I said?

Sorry Joe, I don't know where we are getting our wires crossed here?

I don't like to put laptimes at RA on table for specing out a class.

Since you asked, I would say in my own opinion (Not the STACs or CRBs) that a time in the 27s-28s makes sense. That would put this class right in line with older W/C laptimes when they were on RA1s. We have NA cars right now that are capable of these times for sure.

[jmac36]

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.

Ahh right there.

[JIgou]

...... and the engine build goes on hold for another year.....

Last night I was chatting with a Runoffs STU competitor who blew his NA engine up very early in the week. Even though he built the car with the NA powerplant in mind, he is planning on putting a turbo engine in the car over the winter.

He also said it appeared that the Solstice maybe had a load of sand in the trunk, particularly during the race.

[jmac36]

Last night I was chatting with a Runoffs STU competitor who blew his NA engine up very early in the week. Even though he built the car with the NA powerplant in mind, he is planning on putting a turbo engine in the car over the winter.

He also said it appeared that the Solstice maybe had a load of sand in the trunk, particularly during the race.

Oh I would agree. We came right back and started working with Bosch to develop the stand alone so we could install the DISI turbo engine in the world challenge Mazda 6 chassis for next year

[Matt93SE]

Even though he built the car with the NA powerplant in mind, he is planning on putting a turbo engine in the car over the winter.

He also said it appeared that the Solstice maybe had a load of sand in the trunk, particularly during the race.

I've gone out with a socket set in the trunk... OMFG that sucked. Sand? that would just be evil...

I was going to request approval of the SR20DET over the winter. Instead of ricking having the car choked down to nothing in March, I'm thinking about selling the car and going to GTL instead. Ruleset is more stable.

[Z3_GoCar]

I've gone out with a socket set in the trunk... OMFG that sucked. Sand? that would just be evil...

I was going to request approval of the SR20DET over the winter. Instead of ricking having the car choked down to nothing in March, I'm thinking about selling the car and going to GTL instead. Ruleset is more stable.

Forget it....