SPS 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 03 Feb 2015 09:37 AM by  The_Winch
ESP V8 guys have done it again! Nice!
 70 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 4 of 4 << < 1234
Author Messages
Joseph Carozzoni
New Member
New Member
Posts:22


--
05 Dec 2013 08:01 PM

Fedja,

I started Solo II (I know, now Solo, excuse my age ;o) in a 1984 Turbo Mustang (145 HP) -  I've got *possible* permission from the Mrs (i.e. The REAL Boss - not FORD Boss), to add a 2016 (need time to save $$ ;o) Mustang 2.3L Ecoboost  next to the 2011 Evo X MR.  It will be very interesting where this new Mustang will be classed.  Early testing indicates this new IRS "horse" in basic GT trim laps Ford's test track faster than a 2013 Boss.  My 1984 was in GS over two decades ago - I am like a "Child at Christmas" trying to figure out where the various engine-versions of the new Mustang will be classed. I love the Evo X, but have had 3 prior Mustangs.  CP and FS is  where my heart really is, but AWD is where my age is it  ;o).

 -- ml

MrAWD
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:880


--
05 Dec 2013 09:43 PM

Posted By <a href='http://www.sccaforums.com/user-profile/userid/44078' class='af-profile-link'>Mario Linguini</a> on 05 Dec 2013 08:01 PM
<p>Fedja,</p>
<p>I started Solo II (I know, now Solo, excuse my age ;o) in a 1984 Turbo Mustang (145 HP) -  I've got *possible* permission from the Mrs (i.e. The REAL Boss - not FORD Boss), to add a 2016 (need time to save $$ ;o) Mustang 2.3L Ecoboost  next to the 2011 Evo X MR.  It will be very interesting where this new Mustang will be classed.  Early testing indicates this new IRS "horse" in basic GT trim laps Ford's test track faster than a 2013 Boss.  My 1984 was in GS over two decades ago - I am like a "Child at Christmas" trying to figure out where the various engine-versions of the new Mustang will be classed. I love the Evo X, but have had 3 prior Mustangs.  CP and FS is  where my heart really is, but AWD is where my age is it  ;o).</p>
<p> -- ml</p>

Man, I didn't expected to be hit for my age like that just because I drive EVO X!!
mrazny
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:462


--
06 Dec 2013 11:08 AM
Posted By Mario Linguini on 05 Dec 2013 07:38 PM
mraznyUser is Offline- I fully agree with your response - as long as their intent is based on knowledge and experience and not "helping a friend without actually knowing what the issues are".  Agree?

I don't think it's fair to assume that this is what's going on though.  It's possible its just a complete lack of context, but the overall tone of your first post implied thats exactly what you believed was happening, not just hoping that it's not going that way.

 

The SPAC and the SEB have been reading letters for a long time, and can sniff out uninformed letters pretty well.  And if the "friends" actually copy/paste, its even easier to spot the BS letters from the informed opinions.

 

Knowing little about the DSM options, does moving them both on the same line help anything UD/BD?  In general I'd think it should either be specifically targeted everyone can benefit moves (the WRX), or complete (all AWD cars).  I'm not sure why the DSM is targeted, and thus I'm not writing any letters unless I feel better about all parts.

MrAWD
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:880


--
06 Dec 2013 12:19 PM
Posted By mrazny on 06 Dec 2013 11:08 AM

Knowing little about the DSM options, does moving them both on the same line help anything UD/BD?  In general I'd think it should either be specifically targeted everyone can benefit moves (the WRX), or complete (all AWD cars).  I'm not sure why the DSM is targeted, and thus I'm not writing any letters unless I feel better about all parts.

I did mentioned earlier that this discussion about DSMs in ESP took a great amount of time and threads in the past, and it was accepted back than that it makes no sense to move those out of the class. Things that were discussed in detailes were power and torque graphs combined with the gearing that goes for each car and thing were never showing up in favor for DSMs. One reason for this is that 2G DSMs came with puny turbocharger named T25. With all bells and whistles this turbo is maxed out at about 275 HP and a bit under 300 for torque. And those are flywheel numbers! 

The only advantage was the amount of weight these things could go down to and Charles's car is in 2900s and things are pretty much done with that car. They were also narrower from most of the other cars in the class, but with going to 285 (which is also the max width this one can take due to some issues in the front), width is pretty much on the same page as those other cars in the class. 

So, from any angle you go at it, this is pretty much it. Charles is running triple 8760 Penskes all around and they work pretty well after all these years. Camber is maxed out for the front and geometry is as good as it gets (or pretty darn close to it).

Update/backdate options are not there for the DSMs since rules were purposefully changed back in 1999 or so to eliminate using a turbo from the 1G cars that was helpful and increased power levels to low to mid 300s. Even with that thing allowed now, this would still be far from matching turbos that EVOs from all generations are using and getting amount of air flow those are capable off. Basically, with all bells and whistles from any potential and improbably backdates, DSMs would still be behind the EVOs - plain and simple!

The same goes for any other move that could be taken into consideration. If we would use BSP where M3s are which used to be in ESP - that match up is futile. CSP is different type altogether, so I will not even try it. DSP is dominated by the Bimmers and times those car are doing are always way faster then anything in ESP. FSP would be nice place and I would come out from retirement with great chances of getting a jacket!

Times that were done so far from DSMs in ESP are pretty much in line with everything else that is in there right now. There are two generations of WRXs in there and newer one has bigger engine (2.5 vs. 2.0 litters) and that is a plus for sure! When it showed up while back I was saying this would be a good car to have. And according to latest Nationals results, it is definitely a good car to have. But, on the day one fastest time was pulled by the 3rd gen Camaro/Pontiac car. Second day was better for WRX and they won. By a whopping 0.6 seconds and that is just that - a single data point that went on the side of WRX-es. It could have been that Mark had a bad day - he is still human at the end - and that is why this happened. It could be the other way around too and WRX guy had a bad day and he could have smoked everyone by over a second on both days. But, nothing is there to convince anyone to make any conclusion for that single data point.

If there is truth in what you said about needing 50 or so letters from members to add proposal to the rules, those guys would have to do the same against the 3rd gens as well. Everything is pointing out that those cars are on the same page as the results WRX showed. So for those 50 or so drivers things would be the same - trophy feeders! They typically have inferior car preps, run with all of the extra weights, rarely have anything better than Koni yellows, and they are not that good of the drivers to challenge those like Mark (you can use Dadio here if you wish as well!). But, I don't think this is something that happened and made SPAC adding this as proposal.

What else could make them to do this? I do believe that SPAC might be trying to make some changes here and this looks like they are bringing back from the death idea about the AWD Street Prepared class again! This effort was running around for a while several times and it was always rendered as wrong. Of course, it could be something else altogether, but I am not able to read their minds at this time!

If they are attempting AWD class, than wording is really insulting and makes no sense! It could be just a first step to pile more of these cars to the ASP (well it looks kind of like AwdSP). Again, there are lots of "could" words in here, but there is nothing else that makes any more sense other than that. So, either way they go, there are too many AWD cars out there that they can all be stuffed into the same class. On one end you have those like GTR, Porsche 911, R8, or other of those more or less super cars. Than, you have cars like EVOs and STIs which are in class of its own in a way. Than you have WRX and DSMs as well. Now where in all of that we should have AWD Bettles, Golfs, Audis, Fords, other (mostly non-turboed  Subarus, and others? What we do with older versions of these cars? They have completely different potential levels and there is no way someone can decide with clear mind to put them in the same class! Have two or three of those classes makes even less sense.

At the end, DSMs were part of the ESP for more then 2 decades and shown to be good competition to the rest of the class over and over again. If SPAC wants to kill those cars and stuff them in ASP for whatever reason they could come up with, so be it. If it happens to be that way, I think it would be shame and no way how members should be treated in SCCA. If majority agrees that is OK to do so, that is what will happen nevertheless! It still would not make it more appropriate or right!

Fedja

mrazny
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:462


--
06 Dec 2013 04:12 PM
That's a lot of exclamation points...

the 50 was a random figure to donate a large discrepancy, not anything to model anything over...

The WRX move to ASP has some credible reasoning to it, in that in time it can benefit both ESP and ASP. It's also likely the major focus of most that are even talking about the situation.

I'm not sure why the DSMs are part of the equation. That's where the speculation comes in. If it actually is about not having AWD in ESP and seeing even more potential in ESP with their exclusion, then why does it stop at DSMs? If it isn't about that, then why the DSMs? This shouldn't be about having an AWD-SP whatever subcategory. It's about the health of ESP. If it's a zero-sum move that only costs money, it's likely a bad one. If this move makes Subarus more viable within ASP, and in the end increase ASP participation levels, and does nothing for ESP, then it's not all that great but OK. If the move also has a lemming effect that increases the viability of ESP, and does the other things, this is a great move. Does the DSM move have any of the positives though is my question.

Fedja, you have experience directly with some of the cars involved. But your speculation about dastardly intentions or whiners getting their way isn't helping IMO. I can easily create the scenario where ESP and ASP are better with the WRX move, and it's spelled out within the wording of the *proposal*.

If you just want to help out the DSMs, talk about the DSMs. Drum up support for the DSMs. Speculation about intentions doesn't really help IMO and can cloud up the discussions that could actually help the bottom line of what you see as wrong about the proposal.

With SP as a whole down a bit, the health of the classes is much more paramount than particular cars places. But if there is no gain to the category from a move, we should be focusing on that.
coneassasin
New Member
New Member
Posts:20


--
15 Apr 2014 01:29 AM
McCance always has beer; that's good enough reason for the WRX to stay in ESP. Keeps it interesting
MrAWD
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:880


--
15 Apr 2014 03:32 PM
Especially not to go to ASP
ST///M
New Member
New Member
Posts:11


--
01 May 2014 10:17 AM
I can't possibly read all of this, but I skimmed over it. Just ran my first Pro Solo ever last weekend as an ESP competitor. One with the V8 and the stick axle. When cars are this different, course dependence will invariably give one side an advantage in a lot of cases. I don't think either side has a one sided advantage beyond that. No problem with the WRX or DSM being here though, enjoy the diversity of this type of racing. Besides, it's even added a fun rivalry to it. I'm not sure where else you would class these two, as others have stated, a DSM/WRX absolutely does not belong in ASP from a speed or durability stand point. Last week at the DC Pro, with a very slick surface and an uphill start, I felt like the WRX may have had some advantage. Maybe not? This week in NJ with a high grip surface, I expect it could go the other way. Maybe not?
Grintch
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:259


--
29 May 2014 02:50 PM
REALLY? Forester XT in ASP? How many National events have been won by XT's in ESP? What next, the 4x4 versions of pickup trucks will be ASP?

AWD is one feature, it does not define the whole performance of the car. Classing cars apparently solely based on which wheels they have driven is BS.
SIMMONS-RACING
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:345


--
25 Jun 2014 11:06 PM
Posted By coneassasin on 15 Apr 2014 01:29 AM
McCance always has beer; that's good enough reason for the WRX to stay in ESP. Keeps it interesting

You mean McCance Always drinks my beer.

 

Simmons

The_Winch
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1749


--
03 Feb 2015 09:37 AM
Wow. I've been away for a decade, on a different continent, and ESP car classing controversies haven't changed much. ;-)
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 4 of 4 << < 1234


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