The Real STU (Super Turbo Über) Bitch thread

[Z3_GoCar]

You can ninja edit my thread all you like but you can't deny the fact that STU is no place to run a naturally aspirated car. All your efforts to reel in the turbo cars have been shown to be hollow and ineffective. You don't even have an effective way to determine that all the air flows through the TIR. All the N/A motors make EP power with roughly an extra 200lbs, while the turbo motors have a license to make as much power and torque as they can pump.

Why don't you get the factory guys to fund a few turbo teams... oh, I forgot they don't have the budget for amature racing with little/no ROI.

[benspeed]

Putting the smack down - what are you crazy?

Lol actually I agree- no turbo - no trophy - who will debate this? Bait in the water for tGA hahahaha

[Greg Amy]

Bait in the water for tGA hahahaha

Nah, I'm immune to the bitching now...I say let 'em vent. - GA

[lawtonglenn]

...I say let 'em vent. - GA

http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob...low_off_valves



.

[Z3_GoCar]

Nah, I'm immune to the bitching now...I say let 'em vent. - GA

Thank you...

I started the other thread just to see if there was a way to even get close to the output. To see what I possibly could do to at least get in the ball park, not to complain. Because of the delay in response, and other comments it just degenerated. The final straw was when someone else ninja edited my thread title.

So, what's next?

[Knestis]

Turbo diesel... Torque FTW.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Sorry, you mean Kia Optima oil burner. Might as well be new enough that you get some Mfg kick-back.

[Greg Amy]

So, what's next?

We keep chipping away. As I recall, we've reduced the TIRs since the Runoffs (did we also do weight?) and we even reduced further the Miata TIR. But if you guys think we're going to be doing some "Hail-Mary-adding-tons-of-weight" kinda deals you're going to be disappointed. We'll chip away at it until we get it.

While we'll continue moving forward (don't think we're not paying attention) I do have to confess that I'm getting the distinct impression that NA guys will never be happy until a turbo car never wins another race or sets another lap record...

In the meantime, I feel compelled to note that none of the dissenters have sent in any kind of alternate technical proposals. None. Closest I recall was a general "slow down the turbo cars" letter. If you've got some really cool solutions then feel free to propose them. Nothing proposed here on this forum can reasonably be expected to hit our committee's (or the CRB's) agenda. Formally-submitted letters are guaranteed to.

- GA

[Z3_GoCar]

No, I'll be happy when the turbo cars have to really race a N/A cars for the checker, not to keep from going a lap down.

[Knestis]

Hmmm. I seem to remember lapping a few cars in sprint races in the past couple years that were not only in the same class, but were also the same make and model as mine.

K

[Rabbit07]

Hmmm. I seem to remember lapping a few cars in sprint races in the past couple years that were not only in the same class, but were also the same make and model as mine.

K

Well put sir

[Z3_GoCar]

Hmmm. I seem to remember lapping a few cars in sprint races in the past couple years that were not only in the same class, but were also the same make and model as mine.

K

I'm sorry, did you think I was talking about my car??? I'm not talking about someone running months old tires on their 14-34 heat cycle. I'm talking about someone who can afford new tires for each day. Someone who built their motor for the class, not sourced another motor from the salvage yard and added an aluminum single mass flywheel.

Ultimatly, the real answer is to seperate the turbo and n/a cars into their own classes. As it seems to be impossible to either slow or police the turbo cars.

[Greg Amy]

Ultimatly, the real answer is to seperate the turbo and n/a cars into their own classes.

It's an idea I've bantered about within the committee, especially now that we've lost STO. But I suggest that's a long-term idea, given 1) most people oppose new classes and 2) it's a rule change, so won't happen 'til 2014 at the soonest, and 3) how you you reconcile creating a new class and making it immediately National? Otherwise you'd be pulling the turbo cars out of the National (Majors) racing program. And 4) it would significantly degrade the STU participation numbers, potentially placing the current STU in a status of possible losing National (Majors) status.

Not a terrible idea, but not a short-term solution.

- GA

[Knestis]

I'm sorry, did you think I was talking about my car??? I'm not talking about someone running months old tires on their 14-34 heat cycle. I'm talking about someone who can afford new tires for each day. Someone who built their motor for the class, not sourced another motor from the salvage yard and added an aluminum single mass flywheel.

Ultimatly, the real answer is to seperate the turbo and n/a cars into their own classes. As it seems to be impossible to either slow or police the turbo cars.

I'm talking about ANY cars in ANY class. On-track observations and comparisons of lap times simply can't accommodate all of the variables involved.

That said, handicapping NA and turbo cars has always been tough.

K

[Flyinglizard]

Combustion pressure makes torque. Airflow and fuel make HP.
The Turbo cars may make over 2X the torque of the NA cars. A well designed turbo car is entirely different than the NA car. Max downforce over drive tires, BA drive tires, Taller gear for longer pulls in the torque range,etc.
My Turbo car makes around 230# torque, 177HP @ 11# boost.
The NA car makes 120#, 118Hp.

Regulating the TIR will not control the chamber pressure, only regulating the boost value will.
Regulate the Boost. There are some very good programs/equations to show power level vs boost.
I dont think that there are any estimation programs that involve the TIR. Due to the fact that the TIR is pressure sensitive and a constant variable .

[Rabbit07]

Combustion pressure makes torque. Airflow and fuel make HP.
The Turbo cars may make over 2X the torque of the NA cars. A well designed turbo car is entirely different than the NA car. Max downforce over drive tires, BA drive tires, Taller gear for longer pulls in the torque range,etc.
My Turbo car makes around 230# torque, 177HP @ 11# boost.
The NA car makes 120#, 118Hp.

Regulating the TIR will not control the chamber pressure, only regulating the boost value will.
Regulate the Boost. There are some very good programs/equations to show power level vs boost.
I dont think that there are any estimation programs that involve the TIR. Due to the fact that the TIR is pressure sensitive and a constant variable .

What you have stated is mostly true.

At the Club Racing level we have no way to regulate boost. This requires a tech staff that can record and review data.

The TIR is a restriction in Airflow, so yes you can estimate the power output of a given engine with a TIR installed. I personally have dyno'd different combinations of Turbo Cars with TIR's and the FIA TIR chart is quite accurate in it's assumptions of Horse Power. This really is only the Peak Horse Power Number. Peak Torque still varies from Engine/Turbo combo to Engine/Turbo combo.

This is where the STAC and CRB have been working at sneaking up on the proper TIR/Weight. Torque is the variable that continues to change the curve on how well these packages perform on track. What hasn't been talked much about is that there are currently "SOME" Turbo Cars that perform well, and "SOME OTHERS" that do not. As we get closer to the ideal TIR/Weight this will become even more evident. Then the job will be to match the Best NA to the Best Boosted package. My personal opinion is that we are closer than most believe.

[jmac36]

What you have stated is mostly true.

At the Club Racing level we have no way to regulate boost. This requires a tech staff that can record and review data.

The TIR is a restriction in Airflow, so yes you can estimate the power output of a given engine with a TIR installed. I personally have dyno'd different combinations of Turbo Cars with TIR's and the FIA TIR chart is quite accurate in it's assumptions of Horse Power. This really is only the Peak Horse Power Number. Peak Torque still varies from Engine/Turbo combo to Engine/Turbo combo.

This is where the STAC and CRB have been working at sneaking up on the proper TIR/Weight. Torque is the variable that continues to change the curve on how well these packages perform on track. What hasn't been talked much about is that there are currently "SOME" Turbo Cars that perform well, and "SOME OTHERS" that do not. As we get closer to the ideal TIR/Weight this will become even more evident. Then the job will be to match the Best NA to the Best Boosted package. My personal opinion is that we are closer than most believe.

Looks like bullshit, sounds like bullshit, smells like bullshit....... Most likely it's bullshit.

Every engineer in the business will tell you that you are pissing upwind with the TIR. Look around, even the fine folks at GrandAm have figured this out; there is no way to control torque output with an air restriction, it simply makes getting the same or better output more interesting. Chris, need I remind you that was exactly what you did last year?

For some f#+king reason you two are hung up on this "we can't police it at a club level" excuse. Respectfully, Chris, and Greg ( and yes I do have respect for you, even as I disagree, strongly ), if you can't see beyond this rather lame excuse, maybe it's time you resign from the STAC, and let some folks with a bit more vision step up and see what can be done.

As far, Greg, as writing letters to the board, really, whats the point? You two, both members of STAC, have, if you will, your fingers on the pulse right here. You both were told that there are more than a few ways to police the boost issue, and yet you choose to ignore those ideas in favor of the direction, which based on this years results, have done nothing to slow a well thought out and well prepped FI car down.

I also think your wait and see attitude is a bit apalling. I'm not going to waste money and time running in a class which,by the very fact I don't run FI, delegates me to an also ran. And I think you will see that attitude from my fellow front running NA drivers. Does this mean I want you to ban the FI cars, Hell no! I love FI, and applaud the fact there is a venue for them to run in. We tune way more FI cars than we do NA, so them being here is simply good for my business.

Guys, simple and straight, get your heads out of your asses, listen to some of the folks that understand the problem, and work on solving the issue. Boost control is simple, it's police able at any level, and it works. If you need to solve a car( make/model) having a run away advantage, the adjustment is simple and fast. No mucking with TIR sizes or weight issues, just reduce the manifold pressure a few millibars until you get the balance right.

[Greg Amy]

As far, Greg, as writing letters to the board, really, whats the point?

Apparently the same point as you constantly bitching on this board about it.

- GA, hoping to see JMac's volunteering his "vision" to the CRB...but ain't gonna bet on it. Not with my money.

[jmac36]

Apparently the same point as you constantly bitching on this board about it.

- GA, hoping to see JMac's volunteering his "vision" to the CRB...but ain't gonna bet on it. Not with my money.

Like I said before, and you seemed to ignore, is that not EXACTLY the point of you and Chris being accessible online? Are you not the guys that make reasonable( some would laugh at this) suggestions, based on what you see and understand to be issues in this class and its structure?

And BTW, you and I both know that letter writing to the CRB does dick in most cases, and that most rules get fixed thru the back door, and yes I have made myself and my opinions known to the CRB, or at least the folks on the CRB that have the power to make adjustments.

Greg, I grow more and more annoyed by your flip answers and attacks on myself and those that have valid points of view on this matter. Regardless of your disclaimer in your signature here on these forums, YOU represent US, the members of this club, and more specifically the folks who spend time, sweat and money to run this class. And frankly, at this point, I have seen nothing out of you, or Chris that would point to the fact you understand this. I think there is a pretty good assemblage of facts that would point an open minded board member to understand that the folks they represent are more than a bit upset with the direction we are heading, and the BS we are hearing from said representatives.

Face the facts;

there is a HUGE disparity between the front running NA cars, and the front running FI cars

The rules changes you suggested to the board do not seem to have made any difference based on early season results.

And you guys really have no idea how to stick your finger in this particular dike to stop the leakage of cars heading the other direction.

[Greg Amy]

... is that not EXACTLY the point of you and Chris being accessible online?

Not at all. I'm online here because I've been racing Improved Touring since around, oh, 1984 or so and I also happen to be a STL competitor. I've personally been a member of this forum for well over a decade, long before anyone ever thought about Super Touring (or even cared).

So, what's your point for being on this board?

But I do have to admit, such attitudes are a damn good supporting illustration for us to abandon these unofficial and completely "ex-parte communications", and force members to go through formal channels (CRB letter submission, emails, snail mails, faxes, your BoD rep, family vacations to Topeka Kansas). Or, if you prefer, we can take these conversations to the official SCCA.com forums.

In fact, that's starting to sound pretty damned attractive (the snail mail part. I haven't quite gotten the hang of this Internet thing...)

- GA, who understands that what happens here in Vegas - uhhhh, the IT/ST forums - truly stays here. You want action, you write a letter.