Quote:
Originally Posted by
pkeane 
Just a couple of points of clarification, the STAC have not changed the rear wheel drive multiplier. We have discussed it and we are going to continue to watch the performance levels. Jim (CRB member and friend) your STL Miata is currently only 60 pounds heavier than my Integra. I do not think we would change the RWD multiplier until after the Runoffs, and only if the data supports it.
I believe the bigger STL issue is to give the FWD strut cars an increased weight break. I do think a 5% (maybe more) deduct might be right for these cars. This would help the VW, Mazda, Neon, Nissan and Toyotas.
Interesting.
Peter, an interesting thought experiment would be to take a good RWD chassis from Honda and the best FWD chassis they have and put the same engine in them. Understand the driveline differences and adjust HP accordingly. So, in a race between an Integra and an S2000* say, with equal drivers, over an average track and a normal race distance, which will win? By how much? Most will say the S2000, and by more than 2.5% extra weight will equalize.
So, irregardless of the struts, the
first thing** I see that needs to be nailed is the basic number for FWD vs RWD. Afterall, ALL cars are one or the other (or AWD). Once THAT is nailed, THEN a strut subtractor can be established.
I'd also suggest that, if you are going to give a subtractor to FWD cars with bad drive end geometry, then the same consideration should be given to RWD cars with bad drive end geometry. Now, you can do that as an adder, (as in
add X% to cars with Double wishbone type suspensions on the drive end, OR, use those as the standard and subtract X% for cars that lack DW type suspensions on the drive end. Depends on what you consider your 'norm'. Seems like the bogey car has been the Integra, so yea, a subtractor for stut based cars would be the way to go.
Note that the X% RWD subtractor might not be the same percentage as the FWD subtractor. The committee might find that the negative effects of a bad suspension at the drive end is worse for a FWD car than a RWD car..
So, I'd see it playing out as something like:
Basic CC per pound math. (ie 1.8L =2430) Norm car is DW FWD.
RWD? Add 5%.
FWD with struts? Minus 2.5%
RWD with bad (non double wishbone type) suspension at drive end? Plus 5%, but minus 1%.
(Establish a policy on the order of math. ie, if RWD, add 5%, (2.0L =2700, plus 5%, (135) =2835, THEN minus 1% for a total of: 2806.65, rounded to 2805. OR, just use 4% from the start. Once rounding is done it likely makes little difference. 2700 x 4% =2808, rounded is 2810. Just do it the same every time)
So, a RWD car with a good suspension would be 7.5 % more than a FWD car with strut front.
I think the 5% factor is more appropriate, and looking at World Challenge weights backs that up. Also, HP levels are in the ITR-ish range, and experience there is that the FWD factor is pretty darn close.
Quote:
I am also making a pitch at the convention to allow non US spec engines in ST on a case by case basis. This would allow BMW to run the euro 2.0l in STL and will also help Nissan’s, Toyota’s, Subaru’s and VW.
PK
IF it helps diversity and getting more COMPETITIVE options, then I'm for it. I understand the issues are with understanding the allowances on a committee level, and that's tricky, but, overall, the pain is worth it.
*. Regarding the S2000, can you, Peter (since you were in on the inception of the class), or anyone, explain to me why the S2000 chassis is forbidden, BUT, the Miata (and, intheory, all cars like it) is allowed? Seems to me they share the same generic stuff. Yea wheelbase is different, but I KNOW you guys can't be parsing wheelbase differences as there aren't even chassis adders in the class. So what gives? Makes no sense to me.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
Though that thing would slot nicely into STU (and would drop right into Eric's car...) - GA
Bookmarks