The Turbo problem in STU

[benspeed]

Greg fat fingered the link - times looked comparable...

That so blows- wrecked on the pace lap??? How

[Z3_GoCar]

According to his Facebook post, the pace car bunched the field up, to slow the start down. He says it cracked the welds on the x-bar, and maxed his g-meter out at 5.6g latteral.

[Greg Amy]

I don't understand how SRF results are pertinent....

Corrected.

Greg fat fingered the link - times looked comparable...

0.7s fast lap difference across the weekend.

[lawtonglenn]

Eric, didn't you have the pole, led flag-to-flag, and then the win on Saturday before you got wrecked out on Sunday...? In your non-turbo BMW E30?

Eric I don't see the data behind your argument... it seems as if you are saying
that the turbo Solstices should be slowed down because they have some possibility of catching you?



Is there some way you can build a bridge for me from Saturday's race data
to your conclusion? Because I don't see it.

.

[JS154]

As a committee member nI should have put more thought into it before posting the letter I sent to the CRB to a public forum, so i am taking it down.

[benspeed]

Eric - no worries about the letter. While the data from the Ohio race didn't back up your argument I tend to agree that STU is going to be a turbo class. The turbos walked the field at the Runoffs and I think will smoke the field at any big fast tracks like WGI.

I know I'd put. 944 2.5 turbo in the 968 if I was capable of funding an STU car.

[Z3_GoCar]

FI's still smoking the field... any plans to address this for next year? Laguna Seca may be a smaller track, but all the major straights are up hill, and some are pretty steep, so power to weight imballances will show up in a big way.

Maybe I should be asking, if STU is even going to be around next season. With only seven cars at the run-offs it seems doomed just like STO was two years ago.

[Knestis]

FI's still smoking the field... any plans to address this for next year? Laguna Seca may be a smaller track, but all the major straights are up hill, and some are pretty steep, so power to weight imballances will show up in a big way.

Maybe I should be asking, if STU is even going to be around next season. With only seven cars at the run-offs it seems doomed just like STO was two years ago.

FWIW, a slightly informed opinion having watched pretty carefully - and participated - for a season...

STU's challenge is NOT the turbos. It's the fact that it's STU, with all that the rule set proposes in terms of budget required to run a pointy-end effort.

I know the effort we've put into this year and have some idea what would be required to do it right - particularly in terms of braking and getting down to weight. An NA car COULD be competitive but it would take cubic dollars to make it happen. Right now, given the state-of-art and spending in the class, the returns on a forced induction engine are better at, say, 90% of an "all in" budget than for an unblown engine at the same level of spending...

...and at some point, diminishing returns means that (1) $1000 improves lap times less than it did earlier in the R&D process, and (2) the gains are made in areas other than the engine - gear ratios, for example - because those low-hanging turbo fruit have been picked. What kind of gear clusters are those uncompetitive NA cars running? Have they taken full advantage of brake system allowances? Etc.

The rules for ST - much like IT - have got to be made presuming that eventually someone will do a 100% version of every option, and "equity" among those options has to be estimated at that build level. Right now, a less-than-full-tilt build can make more horsepower, so a BIGGER DIFFERENCE, with a turbo than can be made with an atmospheric engine for the same dough.

I'd argue that accounts for a lot of the "overdog" anecdotal observations.

K