Vorshlag 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 29 Oct 2014 10:43 AM by  Nathan Atkins
STX Weight and power
 121 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 4 of 7 << < 23456 > >>
Author Messages
TeamRX8
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2405


--
12 Feb 2013 02:55 AM
Tom Reynolds wrote:
Dyno curves, not the actual peak numbers are very useful, unless you don't like what they say.

simpletons always prefer simple answers even if they're based on assumptions of unknown accuracy

CSP21
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:308


--
12 Feb 2013 02:45 PM
TeamRX8 wrote:
Tom Reynolds wrote:
Dyno curves, not the actual peak numbers are very useful, unless you don't like what they say.

simpletons always prefer simple answers even if they're based on assumptions of unknown accuracy

Is that directed at me?

85rx-7gsl-se
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:282


--
12 Feb 2013 03:31 PM
I think he is referring to folks who rely on peak dyno numbers.
Torino1985
New Member
New Member
Posts:98


--
12 Feb 2013 07:56 PM
Z3papa wrote:
85rx-7gsl-se wrote:
Z3papa wrote:I don't think pny car owners can expect to have more classes to dominate to the exclusion of competitions. I mean FS, ESP, CP, there comes a time when you have to pick you battles if this is the car you want to run. If you want a car friendly to ST tires, pick a car which is lighter. My car is not competitive in any class but I'm not asking for a classes to built around a BMW Z3.

Exclusion of who? Wouldn't it make more sense to let car likes the pony cars and 370z's run stu (where boost buggies will likey still dominate) instead of being forced to undertire the cars in stx/str? Or should we tel them sorry, look to an rcomp class instead?

I actually agree with you. Just don't think there should be a class for predominantly or only pony cars.

Why not have a ST class for pony cars they make up around 5% of car sale for cars you can actually autocross. How I got that number was 2011 sales took out the truck vans SUV's I left any car that would be able to autocross by the rules standard. I included Camaro Mustang Challenger and 370 probably could add some more cars to that class. Go look at Miata sales they sell less then 10000 .1 % of sales a year to 200,000+ Mustang Camaro Challenger sales. How can you make a statement these cars should not get a class when they have the sales to back it up. Same thing with S2000 sales they all toll for all years only sold 120,000 Yet we have STR for Miata's and S2000's.

Z3papa
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:525


--
12 Feb 2013 09:57 PM
Torino1985 wrote:
Z3papa wrote:
85rx-7gsl-se wrote:
Z3papa wrote:I don't think pny car owners can expect to have more classes to dominate to the exclusion of competitions. I mean FS, ESP, CP, there comes a time when you have to pick you battles if this is the car you want to run. If you want a car friendly to ST tires, pick a car which is lighter. My car is not competitive in any class but I'm not asking for a classes to built around a BMW Z3.

Exclusion of who? Wouldn't it make more sense to let car likes the pony cars and 370z's run stu (where boost buggies will likey still dominate) instead of being forced to undertire the cars in stx/str? Or should we tel them sorry, look to an rcomp class instead?

 

I actually agree with you. Just don't think there should be a class for predominantly or only pony cars.

 Why not have a ST class for pony cars they make up around 5% of car sale for cars you can actually autocross.    How I got that number was 2011 sales took out the truck vans SUV's  I left any car that would be able to autocross by the rules standard.   I included Camaro Mustang Challenger and 370 probably could add some more cars to that class.      Go look at Miata sales they sell less then 10000  .1 % of sales a year to 200,000+ Mustang Camaro Challenger sales.   How can you make a statement these cars should not get a class when they have the sales to back it up.       Same thing with S2000 sales they all toll for all years only sold 120,000   Yet we have STR for Miata's and S2000's.    

 

I guess with you in part as I think there are already too many classes dominated or setup for too few cars, the Miata, S2000 and Mustang, to dominate but you didn't see that they have BMW's including the newly approved S54 M Coupe/Roadster, Toyota MR2's, Nissan 350Z and possibly 370Z, a variety of Porsches, a proposal for inclusion of early gen Boxsters, and any number of other cars. If you someone said put them in STU so you can fit unlimited tires, I could support that. If someone said, include the Vettes so they have a place in ST to run, I could support that. About the only stock car that has a problem at the Lotus which probably can't be classed without problems. But to say sales should drive the equation, where are the classes designed to allow the Altima, Fusion, and Camry to dominate?
Torino1985
New Member
New Member
Posts:98


--
12 Feb 2013 10:29 PM

I can agree with that, too. Put them in STU, but at the same time I can not see why there could not be a pony car class with cars of the same weight class not power to weight ratio. But I cannot agree we should not have a ST class for Mustangs and Camaro's when we have one for Civics and S2000's/Miatas.

I would rather just get rid of the tire size rule and not worry about adding another class. I agree we have too many small classes especially for local events. However STX seems to be a big class that could be split into two, and at nationals it didn't even include any pony cars.

CMF125
New Member
New Member
Posts:78


--
13 Feb 2013 09:56 AM

They should create an STR2 where the NB miata competes with the FRS/BRZ. They can populate it with other STR also rans. Any class with an uber-popular front runner will have the numbers and it wont shrink the other st classes.




mrazny
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:462


--
13 Feb 2013 11:01 AM
I really don't think that it's a flat percentage of sales equals people trying to autocross those cars. It's a hope I guess, but especially at the tuner class level, the correlation is just not linear.

If your thought is "there are people not in motorsports that own pony cars, show up, but leave us because they don't have an ST class for them"? I doubt that.

If your thought is "there are drag racers that could be autocrossing, but pissed there isn't an ST class for them and leave us", again their mods would push them out of the ST ruleset.

The classes aren't there to target cars, they are there to work well as entities. There are more reasons as to the "why no more classes" then small turnout locally.

With all that said, I do like the concept of a solution, since they are good cars, and any untapped source of membership should be pursued. If you want to take the sales angle, if you could also regionalize to demonstrate especially in smaller regions that this could be "something" to draw people in, it might have a better shot. If you bring up the 140+ though, you'll just hear "there is an RT subset" though. Which I don't 100% disagree with (or 100% agree).


dwx
New Member
New Member
Posts:21


--
13 Feb 2013 02:42 PM
Yeah there are far fewer RX-8s, Miatas and now BRZ/FR-S sold than Mustangs and Camaros but a much larger percentage of those owners autocross.

I'm all for increasing tire widths to allow them to be competitive, I don't think we need more classes and I don't think a class built for those cars would be sustainable.
Kiesgen117
New Member
New Member
Posts:6


--
13 Feb 2013 09:09 PM

I'm not claiming to have done the research or saying this is the best solution but has anyone considered a similar rule to modified categories, tire width rules? Correct me if I am wrong, but weight penalties for extra tire width, I think this concept could be applied to this situation very effectively, ( sample for the rule- &lt;2000 lb car, 205mm, &lt;2150,lb car, 215mm, &lt;2300 lb car 225mm,&lt;2450lb car 235mm, &lt;2600lb 245mm, &lt;2750 255mm, &lt;2900 265mm etc...) obviously it would not be to be the progression or numbers i used, just a thought rather than creating new classes or problems weights could be with or without driver, weight is one of the easiest things to police in comparison to most other mods. again just a thought I had while reading this thread if you disagree just let me know why don't just complain take it with a grain of salt and try and help develop a good solution that will be most effective.

Whiskey11
New Member
New Member
Posts:89


--
13 Feb 2013 10:19 PM
Kiesgen117 wrote:

I'm not claiming to have done the research or saying this is the best solution but has anyone considered a similar rule to modified categories, tire width rules? Correct me if I am wrong, but weight penalties for extra tire width, I think this concept could be applied to this situation very effectively, ( sample for the rule- &lt;2000 lb car, 205mm, &lt;2150,lb car, 215mm, &lt;2300 lb car 225mm,&lt;2450lb car 235mm, &lt;2600lb 245mm, &lt;2750 255mm, &lt;2900 265mm etc...) obviously it would not be to be the progression or numbers i used, just a thought rather than creating new classes or problems weights could be with or without driver, weight is one of the easiest things to police in comparison to most other mods. again just a thought I had while reading this thread if you disagree just let me know why don't just complain take it with a grain of salt and try and help develop a good solution that will be most effective.

Well then at what point do we draw the line for what is acceptable for tire width? Terry Fair, probably the closest to an expert on Mustangs on street tires, thinks that 285's are a step in the right direction but not enough for his car. I'm personally not sure. If we draw the line for those cars above 3300lbs at 285's why not just move them to STU? I can tell you a 285 may be more beneficial for the lighter Mustangs in STX (Fox/SN95) but I'm not sure it would make these cars any more competitive considering the suspension problems with the cars in ANY class. On my car I bet it would help A LOT, make them competitive? I don't know. I love the idea and would love for it to be implemented but I'm not sure what kind of data would be necessary to successfully lobby it to the STAC/SEB.

Kiesgen117
New Member
New Member
Posts:6


--
13 Feb 2013 10:32 PM
considering they already have a similar rule i feel it would be used to supplement the currant st rules, however it would level the playing grounds so to speak. I would not think their would be a need to "draw a line" put a 3800 lb car on 325's and it still most likely will not be competitive, its just the nature of the sport. but I do feel this would level the playing field without costing people as much money or ending development on cars, or any of the negatives listed so far, it would even help with the possible over dog that is the twins in stx a 245mm limit if they get under 2600 lbs i think some of them might opt for 255's and not as much weight reduction, level playing field not who can find the lightest car that can fit the most tire with decent power and suspension, some cars just are not designed to excel at the characteristics this sport implements however it would aid in leveling the playing field and negating over dogs and enabling those cars not fitting the "criteria" for competitiveness. fair.
modernbeat
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:842


--
14 Feb 2013 10:40 AM
You guys are already thinking in the right direction. Take a page from the SP rules (specific stick axle additional allowances) and another from the ST rules (different tire size maximums in the same class). I'd suggest moving the Pony cars to STU and give them a stick axle allowance for a 295 or 315 tire. The heavier pony cars (current Mustang and Camaro) can take the larger tires and the slightly lighter cars (4-gen F-body and SN95) can still use as much tire as they can fit in the fender.

This can now be done in the ST classes without fear of an RX3 or Vega coming in on 295s because there is no longer open enrollment for the class - each model must be assigned to a single class and the older flyweight stick axle cars can be assigned to STX/STR if they are classed at all.
Whiskey11
New Member
New Member
Posts:89


--
14 Feb 2013 07:48 PM

modernbeat, the current ST suspension rules (bar tires and wheels obviously) are identical to SP, down to the live axle rules. :) I believe you already knew that I just wanted to post it incase there is a new driver reading so they dont get confused by the post.


So then I would like to ask, what is the most effective way to propose such a reclass (with limited hard data and a lot of "no duh" intuition) that would not only reclass but expand the wheela/tires issue without getting the "Working as intended"or "not in our design" answer? I would be.more than glad to tarnish my non exiatent name to get aomething like this passed but I am not sure I could write such a proposal clearly enough to make it seem plausible.

mrazny
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:462


--
15 Feb 2013 02:05 PM
Whiskey11 wrote:

modernbeat, the current ST suspension rules (bar tires and wheels obviously) are identical to SP, down to the live axle rules. :) I believe you already knew that I just wanted to post it incase there is a new driver reading so they dont get confused by the post.


So then I would like to ask, what is the most effective way to propose such a reclass (with limited hard data and a lot of "no duh" intuition) that would not only reclass but expand the wheela/tires issue without getting the "Working as intended"or "not in our design" answer? I would be.more than glad to tarnish my non exiatent name to get aomething like this passed but I am not sure I could write such a proposal clearly enough to make it seem plausible.

STAC and SEB members aren't secret, but the scca website is a pain to dredge through. If i'm not mistaken once you login as a member, you can look through the member directory, and I believe the SEB and STAC members are either listed or searchable. I'd seek out some of them directly to discuss some of the philosophy and your issues. My intuition has usually been that the STAC would be more influential on the in-class rule particulars, while it's much more of a SEB and BOD thing about additional classes, though the STAC input I'm sure is vital as well.

I think you'd be fighting a harder battle to get an additional class, but maybe have some ground to approach the concept of weight variable Wheel/Tire. It'd in the end have to get to some harder figures on the positives (class participation numbers) vs. the backlash from established class participants. Though STX people seem to be reasonable folk. And it might end up a good compromise to keep the twins in class if they prove front-runners but maybe have to scale back to a 245 for how light they are

Crarrs
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
19 Feb 2013 12:04 PM
VT2WA29 wrote:
justint5387 wrote:

Stock boost and stock fuel pump internals? I don't even make that much running higher boost for track...

I remember Gen2 MS3 having to upgrade fuel pump internals just from intake and cobb stage1 tune. The way I read the rules, fuel pump internals can't be changed for ST

The boost tables and fuel pump is stock. You should keep an eye on the fuel pressure as some Gen 2's stock fuel pumps can't maintain the 1650 psi demand, however, some can. You have to test a few of them to find one that is strong enough and continuously monitor it to ensure you are constantly maintaining 1650+ psi.

Knowing a person with a dozen stock Gen2 fuel pumps laying around a testing machine for them helps. :)

I do believe I currently hold the record for Gen 2 hp on stock boost levels, stock turbo and stock gas (no E85). The tuner I used was trying to get 350 hp, but the closest he could get was around 340 hp, I had him detune it a touch since the car will be put under enough abuse. He has a few people who are running stock boost, stock turbo but tuned with E85 running upwards of 360 - 375 hp, but it wasn't a route I wanted to do.

(I don't think a MS3 Gen 2 or 1 will be a competitive enough car in autocross to really warrant pushing the performance to an extremely high degree. Intake/inlet and cat-back exhaust with tune with some minor suspension mods, cornerbalancing and aggressive alignment are enough for me)

All this is a moot point though, I currently run 235/45R18 tires on the car and running 245+ would rub. Rolling the inside of the fenders (can't change the external contour per the rules) might get me the 245, but it won't make that much of a difference. My guess is that in second gear, I can only get down 75% of the power I'm making anyways.

Now on a track, 3rd and 4th gear are awesome though!

These numbers still don't smell right. First of all, in stock form boost in 1st and 2nd gear are limited to around 7 psi and 10 psi, respectively. You may be making 350 hp on stock boost in 3rd gear (still a dubious claim IMO), but you shouldn't be making anywhere near that in 1st and 2nd gear, unless you're creatively interpreting the rules such that you can copy the 4-5 gear boost tables into 1-2 gears. Also, I have trouble believing your car is running fine on stock fuel pump internals with a downpipe. It's widely known and recommended that the stock fuel pump on Gen2 cars cannot handle the increase in flow from a downpipe. I'd be very interested in seeing your dyno sheet.

VT2WA29
New Member
New Member
Posts:7


--
19 Feb 2013 02:59 PM
Crarrs wrote:
VT2WA29 wrote:
justint5387 wrote:

Stock boost and stock fuel pump internals? I don't even make that much running higher boost for track...

I remember Gen2 MS3 having to upgrade fuel pump internals just from intake and cobb stage1 tune. The way I read the rules, fuel pump internals can't be changed for ST

The boost tables and fuel pump is stock. You should keep an eye on the fuel pressure as some Gen 2's stock fuel pumps can't maintain the 1650 psi demand, however, some can. You have to test a few of them to find one that is strong enough and continuously monitor it to ensure you are constantly maintaining 1650+ psi.

Knowing a person with a dozen stock Gen2 fuel pumps laying around a testing machine for them helps. :)

I do believe I currently hold the record for Gen 2 hp on stock boost levels, stock turbo and stock gas (no E85). The tuner I used was trying to get 350 hp, but the closest he could get was around 340 hp, I had him detune it a touch since the car will be put under enough abuse. He has a few people who are running stock boost, stock turbo but tuned with E85 running upwards of 360 - 375 hp, but it wasn't a route I wanted to do.

(I don't think a MS3 Gen 2 or 1 will be a competitive enough car in autocross to really warrant pushing the performance to an extremely high degree. Intake/inlet and cat-back exhaust with tune with some minor suspension mods, cornerbalancing and aggressive alignment are enough for me)

All this is a moot point though, I currently run 235/45R18 tires on the car and running 245+ would rub. Rolling the inside of the fenders (can't change the external contour per the rules) might get me the 245, but it won't make that much of a difference. My guess is that in second gear, I can only get down 75% of the power I'm making anyways.

Now on a track, 3rd and 4th gear are awesome though!

These numbers still don't smell right. First of all, in stock form boost in 1st and 2nd gear are limited to around 7 psi and 10 psi, respectively. You may be making 350 hp on stock boost in 3rd gear (still a dubious claim IMO), but you shouldn't be making anywhere near that in 1st and 2nd gear, unless you're creatively interpreting the rules such that you can copy the 4-5 gear boost tables into 1-2 gears. Also, I have trouble believing your car is running fine on stock fuel pump internals with a downpipe. It's widely known and recommended that the stock fuel pump on Gen2 cars cannot handle the increase in flow from a downpipe. I'd be very interested in seeing your dyno sheet.

I never claimed to be making 350 hp, on (page 1) I said 330 whp, and what you quoted was me saying the tuner was TRYING to get 350 hp (he only got to 340 hp) and I said 360 would be possible with E85. Not sure why it's hard to believe, several people on Mazdaspeed Forums are pulling 310 - 315 hp with full bolt ons, stock boost (for scca STX class), and a tune from one of the hack tuners on the forums through "e-tuning" (they do "pulls" while on the interstate and email the results to the "tuner"). I got another 15 hp from a certified Cobb-tuner during an actual dyno session.

I will admit though, the dyno was done in 4th gear (the one that is closest to 1.0 gear ratio), not second gear (what would be used in autocross). So I apologize for that deceiving behavior. I didn't know most people use 2nd gear for their dyno runs. My mistake.

It is widely known that MOST stock internals are not capable of handling intake and exhaust modifications. However, some are. If you test a dozen or so of them, you will find one.

justint5387
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:176


--
20 Feb 2013 11:58 AM
Link to 310-315hp on stock boost? I am on MSF myself and have not seen such claim.
Crarrs
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
20 Feb 2013 06:31 PM

Post your dyno sheet too, I'm interested in seeing the entire curve.

Also, you can easily fit 245 or more under the stock Gen2 fenders if you run a 35 or 40 sidewall. Are you running the 45 for extra gear length?

Fair
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1021


--
21 Feb 2013 03:27 PM

I wrote a letter to the SEB about moving the remaining V8 RWD Pony Cars to STU class (the few left in STX), such as the S197.

You can read that here: http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/show...php?t=8215

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 4 of 7 << < 23456 > >>


Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
Leroy Engineering Micro Button Sunoco 88x31 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