The Turbo problem in STU

[Knestis]

Are you making the argument based on power/weight or on Runoffs results...?

The difference between 8.87 lb/hp and 8.33 lb/hp simply doesn't guarantee a win irrespective of other variables that influence lap times. No way.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Are you making the argument based on power/weight or on Runoffs results...?

The difference between 8.87 lb/hp and 8.33 lb/hp simply doesn't guarantee a win irrespective of other variables that influence lap times. No way.

K

Ah, but my arguement is that there's no way that a 2750lb/310 flywheel hp -> 2750lb/256 whp -> 10.7 lbs/hp has a chance aginst a 8.33 lb/hp car... unless the driver in the 8.33 lb/hp car is suffering from CO poisining.

I'm saying the finshing order at the run offs is direcly predicted by the hp/weight of the cars. 1st/2nd were in the 8.3 range 3rd was at the 9.7 range and 7th was in the 10.5 range. That is a disparity that's not being addressed to date, and will only be made worse at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca by all the up-hill straights.

[Knestis]

At which point you're making comparisons between examples using a mix of "flywheel hp" and "whp," using what I presume are "known" values - and I tune out as quickly as I do when people start playing math games with driveline loss and dyno rumors in IT.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

I am building an all out engine, and so have several others. I know that the VAC car that finished 7th was with an all out built motor and chassis. Irish Mike was using his acutal World Challenge car. So, your insinuation that there are no fully built N/A cars is patently false. It's also false that a turbo car would be any less expensive build than a N/A build, it requires an additonal highly engineered part that stresses all other parts around it.

[Rabbit07]

My observations of the Result of the RunOfFs are that the only car that really needs an adjustment is the Lotus. There wasn't a single Turbo car there other than the one found to be non compliant that went any faster than the NA cars.

[JS154]

My observations of the Result of the RunOfFs are that the only car that really needs an adjustment is the Lotus. There wasn't a single Turbo car there other than the one found to be non compliant that went any faster than the NA cars.

Non-compliant, that sounds so nice.

I have a stronger opinion that I will keep to myself for now.

Chris is pretty right, except for one angle I think is "small FI cars" need to be adjusted. The rest of them were on par with where we expected them to be.

The Audi we knew was going to be a threat if it rained. It did.

Irish Mike and I were on par with where we were the last couple of years. The VAc car was a full build, but not fully sorted. Mike's car is built and sorted, and mine is built and (now) sorted too.

[Knestis]

I am building an all out engine, and so have several others. I know that the VAC car that finished 7th was with an all out built motor and chassis. Irish Mike was using his acutal World Challenge car. So, your insinuation that there are no fully built N/A cars is patently false. It's also false that a turbo car would be any less expensive build than a N/A build, it requires an additonal highly engineered part that stresses all other parts around it.

I didn't say either of those things.

I said that it's easier to get more bang for the first 90% of spending (against a theoretical all-in build) with a turbo than it is with an NA engine, and I stand by that assertion.

As to particular examples, I have exactly ZERO knowledge of what Flynn or anyone else spent on their engines. Whether it's his "actual" WC car (or not) has no bearing.

My general complaint is that this argument focuses on only one factor - and a binary one at that. Whether a car has a turbo (so code that"1" in the data) or no turbo (code it "0") simply is NOT a good predictor of lap times, in and of itself without considering other variables.

How about roof height for starters...? My PERSONAL druthers are that "Touring" cars should be defined by interior volume, before other factors get dealt with, to make sure that they are all starting on a more even platform. Lots of other variables (e.g., weight reduction potential, frontal area, parasitic drag, add-on wing efficiency, CoG, etc., etc.) are built on that foundation and "Lotus" and "Miata" don't seem consistent with first-principle understandings of what a Touring Car is (see also, "Grand Touring").

K

[Rabbit07]

K, I am with you brother. Cars such as the Miata, Solstice, Lotus really have no place in touring car racing. I noticed this when I first became aware of the class. I even had mentioned it to rules makers, but was dismissed. No surprise to me that cars such as this have an advantage regardless of them being boosted or not.

[Greg Amy]

Amen.