Vorshlag 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 11 Jul 2011 07:20 AM by  DrJones_CMR
BSP: You are not welcome in FP
 59 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>
Author Messages
vinax
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Apr 2011 05:47 PM
General Default wrote:
ratt_finkel wrote:
Kenny, As the basis for my appeal to the protest. I thought the same thing. Sadly, that's is not the case. A restrictor is not the same as an SIR. Let my DSQ stand as proof of this.

Well it seems to me that the rule needs some clarification. Maybe that was addressed in the decision. The GCR page 160 states that a restrictor is a part of SIR. The only place in the SR that uses SIR is the line that says it is not required. I have to admit I am not an expert on Prepared rules.

It would seem his "restrictor" had the desired diameter but not the desired length? It had legal diameter but ZERO length. It needs to be 0.5" long atleast. The rules are very clear about this - why even bother appeal if you know your car is in violation?

Page 125 states the following. "Induction systems must have a restrictor on the inlet side. This restrictor orifice must not be more than four inches from the compressor inlet and must maintain the specified diameter for at least 0.500&rdquo; (one-half inch). All inducted air must pass through this restrictor."

General Default
New Member
New Member
Posts:21


--
22 Apr 2011 06:21 PM
Well it seems to me that the rule needs some clarification. Maybe that was addressed in the decision. The GCR page 160 states that a restrictor is a part of SIR. The only place in the SR that uses SIR is the line that says it is not required. I have to admit I am not an expert on Prepared rules.

It would seem his "restrictor" had the desired diameter but not the desired length? It had legal diameter but ZERO length. It needs to be 0.5" long atleast. The rules are very clear about this - why even bother appeal if you know your car is in violation?

Page 125 states the following. "Induction systems must have a restrictor on the inlet side. This restrictor orifice must not be more than four inches from the compressor inlet and must maintain the specified diameter for at least 0.500&rdquo; (one-half inch). All inducted air must pass through this restrictor."

I think 17.11.A that states that a SIR (single inlet restrictor) is not required negates the rule you are referring to. Basically it is a take back as 17.11 seems to address all of section 17 except the section it specifically mentions. The GCR states that a SIR is a system. A restrictor is part of the system. Thus my conclusion that the system is not required and the restrictor is not required. It seems it gets down to the definition of a restrictor. Since I don't have any information about the decision I will just have to wait like everyone else to see their point of view.

You always appeal.

stevemhudson
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:349


--
22 Apr 2011 06:55 PM
17.11 does need some clarification. The reference to a SIR not being required was intended to allow cars built to GCR specs to not have to run the SIR. There are three types of restrictors defined in the GCR, SIR, flat plate restrictor, and a turbo inlet restrictor. In the GCR, turbo cars have a turbo inlet restrictor.
tholt29
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:154


--
22 Apr 2011 07:07 PM
General Default is right on both accounts... You should always appeal if for no other reason than to allow yourself time to review the rules and confirm that you are or are not legal, The rules are complicated and it is amazing what you can find even when you think you know the rules.

Secondly, 17.11 supercedes most of the rest of Section 17. It allows competitor to mix and match the Solo and GCR rules. The GCR has a much better glossary than the Solo rules and it clearly defines Single Inlet Restrictors, Flat Plate Restrictors and Turbo Inlet Restrictors. Three distinctly different items.

Tom
CHRISFP78
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:495


--
22 Apr 2011 09:11 PM
SmokingTires wrote:

Chris,

So we should buy these smaller turbos (That don't currently exist, I'm running the stock turbo), and your suggestion still requires 3rd gear to hit 72mph. So constant shift on course to keep up with smaller cars, that can hold 2nd gear.

So what your saying is I should develope a smaller turbo than the stock one I run now, have an engine built around it, and make less power than a BSP car. I'm sure it's possible, but I can't do it. I don't physically have the money on top of the almost $20k I have spent this year to do this and stay married. I will not be in the class if this happens. And you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who would want to spend all that money to make less power than BSP. It's putting restrictions in place that make the class undesireable to turbo car owners.

Can anyone honestly tell me they would build a car to this level, and have the choice to spend $10k on an engine and make 550whp and could run XP being very fast, but instead would choose to make 350whp, have a slower car and run FP?

Jeremy,
Who is this Kevin, and what is he giving advice on? We never said there shouldn't be a smaller restrictor, just that 38mm is too small.



Here's a suggestion, give us a limited prep option. BSP rules on your engine, and you can run a 50mm restrictor.

The turbo's exist you just have to buy them. That seems to be your problem. It cost money to go fast and even more to win especially in a prepared class. Gear the car to go 70 in second gear that is the magic speed in an FP car. You have way way more torque than anyone else in the class so your car will pull off the slow corners plenty good enough.

SmokingTires
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:263


--
22 Apr 2011 09:37 PM
CHRISFP78 wrote:

The turbo's exist you just have to buy them. That seems to be your problem. It cost money to go fast and even more to win especially in a prepared class. Gear the car to go 70 in second gear that is the magic speed in an FP car. You have way way more torque than anyone else in the class so your car will pull off the slow corners plenty good enough.

It's spending money to go slower. Like I said before. It's making the class unattractive to the turbo cars. Make them spend money to build a car that is slower than if they spent less money and ran a lower class. It's a great way to force them out. Why would anyone spend a ton of money to build a car for FP and try to beat John Thomas, when they could spend less and fight Jeremy and Tom Berry for a BSP title?

I never said this class was cheap. I'm not sure what the Datsun guys have into their cars, but I'm pretty sure my car costs 3-4x as much baseline. I know cost is never a good argument in racing, but this is what it comes down to for me. I'm about $40k into this between car and modifications. I won't be able to build this engine on top of it. I have spent a lot of money this year to get the car up to the letter of the rules. And if it goes through, this will be my only year. Because spending $30k into a car to have a cruddy (compared to BSP) power band and less power just isn't going to happen. I don't think you will find any other Evo owners that want to put that kind of money into that car either.

I guess I'll have to make my one year count.

kevind
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Apr 2011 04:10 AM
Evo8RA wrote:
ratt_finkel wrote:
Chris speaks the truth. The 38mm restrictor will do nothing to slow down the EVO's. You will see NO appreciable difference in power levels for a properly built motor. All this does is add additional expense in the Evos attaining those numbers.

Jeremy,

A 38mm restrictor will limit turbo power output. WRC 34mm restrictors limit turbo power output to approximately 300.

Mark

true mark, the WRC restrictor does limit the cars to about 300bhp. the 34mm restrictor flows roughly 10.75m^3/min of air at STD temp+pressure. this is also about 29lbm/min mass flow with dry air. and without going into to many calculations, garrett claims on average a turbo car will hit 9.5-10.5 hp/lbm/min, and since the rally cars are expected to reach the best BSFC possible, you could assume it will be on the high end of that range. so 29*10.5 = 305bhp.

i have a simulation i built for sizing injectors/restrictor calculations and turbo efficiency selection a while back. i extracted just the restrictor flow rate calculations for this example to see what kind of power the different restrictors will make. for the current 52mm restrictor it can flow near 67lbm/min good for between 637bhp and 670bhp. if you assume a 18% driveline loss thats 522whp. your car mark isn't even maxing that out with the FP HTA green which is rated at roughly 54lb/min. the turbo is your limiting factor, not the restrictor.

so what would happen if they cut it down to the 38mm restrictor? i calculate about 36lb/min good for 342-378bhp and 18% driveline loss for about 280-310whp. thats a big loss in power!

to verify my sim i used the NASA mass flow choking calcuations here: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/ai...flchk.html i was within 1% accuracy. i wanted to check again for a known restricted car i have tuned to the maximum which is the FSAE car with the 18mm restrictor, flowing roughly 8lb/min, good for 84bhp, or ~75whp with the much lower driveline loss of 10-12% (dog box tranny, RWD, chain driven). which is what most people get out of those cars.

One extremely important thing to consider with the restrictor use though, as mass flow through the throat increases, downstream pressure decreases. this downstream pressure is actually the inlet pressure to the turbo. the inlet pressure is part of the pressure ratio (Pout/Pin) you use to map the compression efficiency of the turbo. normally, with a large intake, the Pin value stays at atmospheric pressure because a large intake isnt a restrictor and minimally loses pressure. with the restrictor the pressure drop is a function of the size of the restrictor and of course the inlet temp and pressure differential (and for pre-turbo restrictor, the P1 pressure is atmospheric, and temp is usually also atmospheric +- your engine bay temps or air filter location).

here is the outlet pressure plot with the 52 mm restrictor from my simulation:


the top plot shows the outlet pressure of the restrictor (in bar absolute). you can see it drop off significantly as the mass flow increases. the bottom plot is the mass flow in lb/min. what your looking for is what the outlet pressure is, compared to the amount of boost you are running. for example, if you are running 30psi at the outlet of the turbo, and your inlet pressure of the turbo is .95 bar (roughly 30lb/min mass flow rate), your pressure ratio for the turbo is 44.7psia/14.7 = 3.02barout / .95barin = 3.2 Pr. this can be used for calculating the efficiency of the turbo by plotting it on the compressor map. almost always if you run to much Pr the efficiency drops way off though. so look what happens on that plot if you run it near the choke point of 67lb/min. the downstream pressure of the restrictor is now .54bar, look what that does to your pressure ratio of the turbo: 3.02barout/.54barin = 5.5Pr !!!! i can't even find a compressor map that has an efficiency point that high. so its obvious if you start running down the curve, that your turbo will loose efficiency even though the restrictor can flow more. intercooling and E85 can improve some of the losses due to inefficient heating and restore some of the air density going into the engine, but it still is a loosing battle.

SOOO, in conclusion, for the current rule set, Jeremys car is nowhere near the limit of power for FP. he clocked in at 396whp, far below the 522whp the 52mm restrictor can flow. assuming hes flowing roughly 44-46lb/min (the max the stock 9 turbo is rated at) you can see hes still at a healthy .9bar turbo inlet pressure with the 52 mm restrictor.

Mark, your car proves that you can make signficantly more then what jeremy makes. if your making 475whp, it puts you in the 52-55lb/min (what the HTA green is rated for) it shows your at a turbo inlet pressure of about .82-.85bar, so still not terrible, but not perfect either.

if you guys all get dropped to the 38mm restrictor you'll all be hurting for power.

tholt29
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:154


--
23 Apr 2011 09:40 AM
That's good info Kevin, thanks for the thorough write up. But, as others have said, keep in mind what he NA cars in FP are capable of. The strongest Z's are putting out about 220 ftlbs and 240-250whp. As Chris Cox said, his former M3 was putting 305 Hp to the ground, A stock (and FP legal) Porsche GT3 is about 405 hp. So trying to reign the turbos in to the high 300's or low 400's is not putting them into the range of hurting for power for the class.

It does sound like the Evos might have a gearing issue, but this is not an Evo only discussion. What does the change mean to the STi as far is RPM range and gearing are concerned? Based on it's larger displacement, I assume it will have a larger affect on it's rpm range? What about the MR2 Turbos? I know of a couple of those cars being prepped for FP.

I know the Z's are geared for about 65-70 mph in 2nd. I also know Mark Berry's Evo is geared for 80-82 in second, With the extra power he is shifting at about the same place on course I am, but going 10mph faster.I have driven Marks car and know that cornering is less critical than my Datsun, because of the ability to out accelerate everyone else in the class. When someone shows up with a car that can keep up with the fastest Z's, Porsches and BMW's in the turns, and then has a 150 hp advantage in the acceleration zones, who are you going to bet on?

So the goal here is not to simply handicap the turbo cars, We are hoping to achieve some level of parity where the NA and Turbo cars can compete evenly for years to come. If 38mm is certain death for ALL turbo cars (with optimized gearing), what is a good size that is fair to all in the class? FP has been showing a lot of growth and diversity over the past couple of years and we are hoping get in front of the turbo curve before it's too late and we end up with the NA attrition we saw in BP and are seeing in BSP.

Finaly, to answer Mark Brausens question of why build a car for FP with a smaller restrictor versus an unrestricted XP... One word. Weight. 2400 lbs in FP is hard enough for that car. Do you want to try for 1760 in XP?

Tom
(ya know we really ought to take this discusssion to the Prepared section)
kevind
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Apr 2011 12:07 PM
i wonder why SCCA doesn't follow the NASA TT model for classing the prepared cars? NASA TT S/U/R classes are Power/Weight rule set with some slight modification for tire compound/size, and some modifiers for chassis type (RWD/FWD/AWD, dog box/manual, 4dr/2dr, i understand that its hard to prove ones HP at an event, but you can always weigh a car easily, and require dyno sheets (and don't tell me a prepared car shouldn't require a dyno sheet... i know what kind of money it takes to build a prepared car, and more then likely they have all been tuned on a dyno). and if restrictors is the easy way to measure or restrict HP, offer a variety of restrictors, but set weight limits to each size restrictor. if you drive a heavy evo X your allowed a bigger restrictor. drive a porsche 914? smaller restrictor. both will come out to the same power/weight and likewise have similiar acceleration properties. suspension mods are allowed, so lower the evo x and stiffen it up to be competitive with the 914.

this would kind of set the NA vs Turbo comparison to the backburner. reason being, obviously your little nissan will be significantly lighter then an evo. and your not going to make as much power either. allow unlimited engine modifications as long as your power/weight ratio doesn't exceed the class restriction. if you think the P/W ratio is to high, run the car in a slightly lower class. the TTS/U/R cars are allowed pseudo unlimited (there are safety restrictions of course) engine mods, aero mods, and suspension mods, but they break the classes down by 8.7 lb/hp and above for TTS, 5.5lb/hp for TTU, and everything else in TTR (in autocross, even a well built TTU car would be way to much power).


because i don't autocross anymore personally i haven't taken issue with anything. but my mechanics evo X is extremely competitive in TTA class in nasa. there is a BMW M3, ford mustang, and chevy corvette all within a second of each other, just in our region. i've never seen a autocross class that had more then 2 different types of cars competitive in a class. and usually its 1 car totally dominating it, with 75% of the national cars in a class being the same car. at that point you might as well just call it a spec class.
SmokingTires
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:263


--
23 Apr 2011 01:48 PM
Tom,

Do you honestly think weight would be the only reason to justify spending XP money on a slower FP car? We're leaving out that people come out here to have fun. And not many people are going to build a car with the same money they could for other classes and be slower. People want to come out and drive a fast car. I don't know many people that would spend tens of thousands of dollars to run a slow car. When you look at results, John Thomas has raw timed XP two of the last three years. If the Evo is such an over-dog, then why would anyone stay in FP? Why not move on to win in XP with more power and the 2200lbs we can reach?

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would be a rough number how much you have into building your engine and your car?



I think the focus needs to come off peak power numbers, and look at what the restrictor does to a turbo car. Peak numbers is a short cut to making a decision. But Turbo cars in autocross don't rely on peak numbers. Drag cars care all day long. But we need a decent power curve to be able to make useable power.

I don't disagree that 52mm is too big of a restrictor. What bugs me, is that 38mm will require my transmission to be rebuild and geared once again, and I still will have to use 3rd gear. Rally cars can work with these odd power ranges because there is constant shifting. They aren't trying to hold one gear for the length of 60 seconds. I think this issue needs to be address as what it does to the car as a whole, not just what their peak power numbers will be.
tholt29
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:154


--
24 Apr 2011 09:29 PM
Hi Mike,
I didn't mean to imply weight is the only reason, but it is a major reason for many. (Also, my math was wrong... Evo's should weigh 1950 in XP). Getting anywhere close to that is another layer of expense that will be required on top of the power bill...

Cost on my car... That's a bit of a fuzzy question for me in particular. I bought the car built as fully prepped FP car back in '93 and have been tweaking and rebuilding for the last 17 years. So I have never had to pay for a complete ground up engine build. If someone were to pick up the phone and call Rebello and have Dave send him a race ready FP Z motor, you would be looking at $6000-8000 for the long block. If you need triple carbs, add about $1500. If you want FI, add $3000 plus... The strongest road race Z motors I am aware of make about 330-350 HP at the crank. Most of the autocross motors close to mine. Some with a lttle more peak HP but few with more torque as low as mine.

So if 52mm is too big and 38 is too small, what is the right size to keep an Evo fun and competitive and not leave the door wide open for another turbo with better default gearing to come in and blow the whole class away?


Tom
Toby Larsson
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
24 Apr 2011 11:10 PM
tholt29 wrote:

So if 52mm is too big and 38 is too small, what is the right size to keep an Evo fun and competitive and not leave the door wide open for another turbo with better default gearing to come in and blow the whole class away?


Tom

Euro rallycross cars like the Citroen C4 T16 will make about 500-550 hp with 45mm restrictors fwiw. The car that could blow the class away in my opinion is the turbo Solstice/Sky.

snaponbob
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2862


--
24 Apr 2011 11:23 PM
Toby Larsson wrote:. The car that could blow the class away in my opinion is the turbo Solstice/Sky.

As Larry the Cable Guy says - "I don't care who ya are, that there is funny!!!"

Toby Larsson
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
24 Apr 2011 11:53 PM
snaponbob wrote:
Toby Larsson wrote:. The car that could blow the class away in my opinion is the turbo Solstice/Sky.

As Larry the Cable Guy says - "I don't care who ya are, that there is funny!!!"

A 2248 lbs Solstice with 400+whp and a proper transmission/gearing does sound like fun......except for anybody else in the class!

kevind
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
25 Apr 2011 01:58 AM
SmokingTires wrote:

I think the focus needs to come off peak power numbers, and look at what the restrictor does to a turbo car. Peak numbers is a short cut to making a decision. But Turbo cars in autocross don't rely on peak numbers. Drag cars care all day long. But we need a decent power curve to be able to make useable power.

I don't disagree that 52mm is too big of a restrictor. What bugs me, is that 38mm will require my transmission to be rebuild and geared once again, and I still will have to use 3rd gear. Rally cars can work with these odd power ranges because there is constant shifting. They aren't trying to hold one gear for the length of 60 seconds. I think this issue needs to be address as what it does to the car as a whole, not just what their peak power numbers will be.

the focus never has been on peak numbers, as we all know peak numbers don't tell anything about a cars performance. the restrictor does tell us how much airflow we can have, and gives us a good indicator on what kind of power we can expect out of it (and tells us the limitations of the car most importantly). if i were to build an XP car with a required 38 mm restrictor, i would run a garrett turbo, most likely a GT2859. its tiny, will offer extremely fast spoolup (on a stock 2.0L, i cant say for sure, but the turbine map indicates roughly 2500rpm, and it will be limited slightly less then what the restrictor can flow (~33lb/min)). since you FP guys are so hell bent on not shifting :lol: running this in 2nd gear wouldn't work (to many rpm and to much airflow for the restrictor and the turbo selected). the better choice would be to run it in 3rd gear. keep the rpms down, and run the course in 3rd without shifting. ditch the 4.11 final, and run the stock evo 8 final and 3rd gear. you can spool the turbo from 30mph at around 2500-2700rpm, to 70ish mph at around 6500rpm. using 3rd gear will give the added load on the drivetrain to spool quicker as well. i'm not sure if using such a small turbo will run into surge problems... my guess is no ( it usually happens running to large a turbo on to small an engine).

and i have no idea whos working on your car, but we use the best evo engines in the business and they aren't that expensive. i've made 725whp on a 2L motor with 580ftlb. the motor cost $3050. my labor adds ~2000 to it for removal and install, and gaskets/fluids/belts etc can add ~500 more. that motor would work just as good for a car wanting full boost at 2500rpm making only 300hp, but i would guess 400-450ftlb through a decent power band. running the smaller turbo might not like huge pressure ratios from running 30-35psi, but you could have a slightly higher CR and make up the difference in torque by mechanical advantage and reduce the boost required from the turbo. have you considered a dog box and shift occasionally?

mtbprelude
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:460


--
25 Apr 2011 11:16 AM
Toby Larsson wrote:
tholt29 wrote:

So if 52mm is too big and 38 is too small, what is the right size to keep an Evo fun and competitive and not leave the door wide open for another turbo with better default gearing to come in and blow the whole class away?


Tom

Euro rallycross cars like the Citroen C4 T16 will make about 500-550 hp with 45mm restrictors fwiw.

One factor not mentioned is torque in relation to (peak) hp. While the FIA claims the WRC Group A8 (non-Super2000) cars make ~300whp w/ the mandated 34mm restrictor, sources inside/outside the factories report 360-400+whp is more accurate (intercoolers, staged injectors, high comp internals etc). Group-N cars, with the 32mm restrictors, stock internals, stock (or smaller) turbos, stock diffs, but unlimited ECUs, transmissions, and anti-lag are reported to make 280 to the low 300's. And while the peak horsepower is moved to between 4000-07000rpm for WRC A8, and 4500-6500 for the N cars, the torque curves have considerable area underneath them from 3000-3500 rpm (2000-2500rpm w/ anti-lag) until the power peak, where they decline. I have a couple of friends that used to rally and now run various time-attacks/hillclimbs that "generally" agree with the A8/Group N/Production numbers (and don't have/won't share dyno charts). (Source: http://www.motorsportforums.com/for...index.php)

WRT anti-lag - yes it's expensive and not good for reliability, however just because it is out of one person's budget does NOT mean it is out of another person's budget or not allowed somehow.

Another factor not mentioned in this discussion is the power/weight ratio:

FP Z (2.4) - 1900-2100#/240-250hp = 7.6-8.4#/hp

E36 BMW - 1900-2400#/280-305hp = 6.3-7.8#/hp

914/6 - 1900#/300+hp = &lt;6.33#/hp (I'm sure Leeds/Greg know the exact number, I only know that it is a ~$20K+ engine)

911 GT3 - 2500#/415+hp = &lt;6.0#/hp

EVO - w/out restrictor -

2400/ 397 (Jeremy's BSP power) = 6.1#/hp

OR the closest FP build EVO and the outlier in the class as far as #/hp:

2400/440 (Mark's 'low' power) = 5.4#/hp

2400/475 (Mark's 'high' power = &lt;5.1#/hp

(http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...p;theater)

mtbprelude
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:460


--
25 Apr 2011 11:18 AM
kevind wrote:
SmokingTires wrote:

I think the focus needs to come off peak power numbers, and look at what the restrictor does to a turbo car. Peak numbers is a short cut to making a decision. But Turbo cars in autocross don't rely on peak numbers. Drag cars care all day long. But we need a decent power curve to be able to make useable power.

I don't disagree that 52mm is too big of a restrictor. What bugs me, is that 38mm will require my transmission to be rebuild and geared once again, and I still will have to use 3rd gear. Rally cars can work with these odd power ranges because there is constant shifting. They aren't trying to hold one gear for the length of 60 seconds. I think this issue needs to be address as what it does to the car as a whole, not just what their peak power numbers will be.

the focus never has been on peak numbers, as we all know peak numbers don't tell anything about a cars performance. the restrictor does tell us how much airflow we can have, and gives us a good indicator on what kind of power we can expect out of it (and tells us the limitations of the car most importantly). if i were to build an XP car with a required 38 mm restrictor, i would run a garrett turbo, most likely a GT2859.

There are no restrictors in XP - the 38mm proposal is only for FP. But otherwise I'd agree with the small turbo - quicker spool/more tuned flow, etc.

kevind
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
25 Apr 2011 12:28 PM
mtbprelude wrote:

There are no restrictors in XP - the 38mm proposal is only for FP. But otherwise I'd agree with the small turbo - quicker spool/more tuned flow, etc.

my typo, i meant FP.

SmokingTires
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:263


--
25 Apr 2011 01:18 PM
Tom,

I would think a 41mm restrictor with an adjusted weight penalty for turbos would be an improvement. From the math I have found (33mm being about 290hp by WRC numbers with 35psi, so (41x41)/(33x33), you would get a 54.3% increase), it would be at about 450hp,which would be around 380-390whp(feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I did my research on the internet after all). That should give some breathing room on the engines to rev higher. That puts it in about the same power range as the GT3's. It still puts restriction that will require tuning and some building around. You could make the turbo weight adjustment .450 instead of .375. That would the AWD car's 2.0L and larger up to the maximum 2500lbs, and the 2.0L 2WD cars like the Saturn Sky Redline and MR2 would be at 2400lbs making them less of a concern for destroying the class as well. It the rules can always adjusted down later if the car does prove to still be an over-dog.

tholt29
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:154


--
25 Apr 2011 02:12 PM
Hi Mike,
Now we're getting somewhere! Good suggestions... Please write another letter to the SEB/PAC with those ideas. As I said before the goal of the proposal was not to alienate the turbo cars but get a foot in the door with something that might actually keep the class healthy from both sides of the fence.

Tom
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 2 of 3 << < 123 > >>


Sunoco 88x31 Button
SPS 88x31 Button Woodhouse Motorsports
Vorshlag 88x31 Button G-Loc Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner