I like close racing and the idea, even if my driving doesn't match up, that I can compete.
Are we at parity between the FWD and RWD groups?
When it comes to the two camps, what about the different engine sizes?
S2
I like close racing and the idea, even if my driving doesn't match up, that I can compete.
Are we at parity between the FWD and RWD groups?
When it comes to the two camps, what about the different engine sizes?
S2
Judging by the recent change in weight penalty for RWD I would say that the STAC doesn't think they have achieved parity yet. This year will see more development on FWD combos, less RX-8's and more weight on current RWD guys so they are headed in their intended direction.
Chris "The Cat Killer" Childs
Angry Sheep Motorsports
810 417 7777
angrysheepmotorsports.com
IT,SM,SS,Touring, and Super Touring
I don't know why you would see that as a negative Chris. With a class this young, the committees need to make changes until they feel they have hit their goals. The inclusion of the rotards was done to bolster numbers and while it gave the developers a goal because a lot of those cars entered in very developed form, it's not unreasonable to determine that 215whp is outside the target for the class, at any weight, given the way cars get spec'd into the STCS.
The new RWD adder is more in line with what IT did when they used software modeling at these HP levels.
I see these changes right in line with original goals and recent results. The only grey area will always be that the FWD cars are still very much in development so some reverse actions may need to be taken in the future but that is fine too.
My only wish for this class will continue to be modern, legal engines in chassis from any year. The combinations would be epic.
No Negative Outlook
I'm just tired of talking about it.
Chris "The Cat Killer" Childs
Angry Sheep Motorsports
810 417 7777
angrysheepmotorsports.com
IT,SM,SS,Touring, and Super Touring
AGree with all of this but caveat on the bolded part. We didn't use "software modeling." We took a look at a program (Lapsim I think) that we didn't understand, that simpy had a box entitled "FWD," and then used that to create a POOMA weight modifier. Let's not impart any scientific reliability to what we did.
From afar, I remain interested in STL but would prefer RWD and just not sure where this going. My perception (just that -- just an opinion) is that a couple of excellent drivers in an RX8 are skewing the numbers and creating a bigger handicap for RWD cars than is necessary. Just my opinion though.
NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
http://www.lapsim.nl/index.html
What's interesting is that we had our straight-up POOMA's as baselines, had some theories about weight/HP/linear or not application of said weight and we used an industry SIM to check were our POOMA's were. Surprisingly or not to some, we were damn close and some of those theories were validated by the SIM and some tweaks were made.
I personally loved the process and the results. Like the SIM or not, to me it gave some validation to that aspect of the Process which in reality is one giant POOMA.
Bookmarks