Building A DSM Road Racing Series...........................

[drivemusicnow]

Rear suspension design will be balanced by weight. The 1g fwd's had the worst suspension but were the lightest of all years as well. The 2g fwd was heavier but had better suspension. 2g awd's had a better suspension but still weighed more than the 1g awd's. I think the natural weights of the cars will balance everything reasonably well.

I really foresee the most competitive cars in this nature in the lower classes. 2g awd, 1g fwd/awd about the same, and then 2g fwd at the bottom. once you give the 1g fwd an lsd and let it add some sticky tires I really think that most races will be between a 2g awd and 1g fwd with the 1g awd and 2g fwd close behind.

Also, the USTCC i believe does an inspection on the top 3 finishing cars of every race. The idea is that if you're cheating and not finishing in the top 3 it's not a big deal because you suck at cheating

The natural weights of the car WOULD balance it out, however because we're allowing you to basically lighten the car as much as possible, and then you're required to add weight back in to meet a "required" weight (Without driver, after race), we must spec these minimum weights each car may be. Maybe give the 2g GSX the highest weight penalty (as is natural with the car anyway) saying that it must be more than 3000lbs, 1g gsx and 2g gst must be 2900 and the 1g fwd would be 2800.
As the classes move up, maybe a smaller distinction between them could be made between the car designations.

And I agree with the "top 3" inspection rule.

 

[mavisky]

Only problem is that the 1g fwd's weigh 2800 w/o driver from the factor as compared to 3200 for the awd's. I think that we should do 150-200 pounds under stock curb weights s per the 1000FAQ.

Vehicle -------------Base model -Mid model Upper model (FWD) Upper model (AWD)
1G Talon / Eclipse 2550 ---------2712 ------2791 ----------------3108
1G Laser -----------2530 --------2690 ------2745 ----------------3073
2G Talon/Eclipse - ------------- 2842/2906 2921/2998 ----------3157 / 3234
Galant VR-4 - - ------------------------------------------------------3295
Eclipse Spyder - ---------------- 2888 / 2943 3053 / 3142

 

[Ludachris]

This is a great discussion - I'm guessing there are a lot of people out there who want to work out the mod list for the higher classes since they've already heavily modded their cars. But even though many of us are already modded too heavily, I think the most important decisions will be the stock class decisions - not creating classes to fit around the cars that are already modded. That's where the series must start if it's going to take off. Hell, I might have to go out and buy a stocker to start over with just for racing

I'm thinking for the most basic stock class, there needs to be one car chosen - the one that has the most options of all the cars and allow stock swaps for all of the cars that didn't come stock with those options. For example, with the turbo cars, you'd have the 92-94 AWD cars that have bigger brakes, LSD, and 14b turbo. That's probably the best combo in a stock DSM. I'd propose allowing the 2g cars to upgrade to a 14b, and the pre-92 cars to upgrade to the 92+ brakes and LSD rear. Sure, that might not make it fair for all of the other cars who don't upgrade, but I'd think the only other alternative would be to add weight penalties to the best stock combo.

I would think there would be a little advantage for AWD cars compared to FWD cars. Maybe the minimum weight requirements would be different for them to equalize things in the lower classes.

Also, what would be done with N/T cars vs. turbo cars? Or would be mainly focus on turbo cars for now? Would we allow GVR-4 cars too?

I see the "slightly modded" class being the ticket here - cars with suspension improvements, boost controllers, 14b turbos, and other bolt-ons, along with some weight-savings. That would be damn fun to race! Of course, my car wouldn't qualify anymore, but as I said, I'd be interested in picking up a car just for this series.

 

[drivemusicnow]

I do think the 14B is allowed for all cars.

I hadn't even thought of the different rear ends. I don't see why not?

I think we were agreeing that the "stock" brake mod (as in 92-94 brakes) were going to be allowed.

I think GVR4s should be allowed. I think we'd need someone to decide how much of a weight penalty they would need

I don't think non-turbos would really work out in this class. We MIGHT be able to make it worke, however for 420A powered cars, there are other race classes that they can be competitive in. For turbo cars and first gen cars that didn't originally have turbos, but have been converted over, The rules seem to work.


Questions for Greg/Tom

The stock downpipe for the class makes sense, however if we are allowing a removal of the cat, shouldn't a "downpipe back" exhaust be allowed?

Should 2gs be allowed to use 1g BOVs?

what do you mean by "stock mass"

Possibly add something regarding stock oil pan, and yes or no to baffling?

Which would be more uniform, vacuum line to wastegate spring pressure, or stock boost control.

EVO 3 manifold allowed, but stock o2 housing? and if the evo3 manifold is allowed, should we draw the distinction at "must be a mitsubishi cast exhaust manifold?"
**I'm writing these up in a word document "formally" such that we can discuss and modify them and at the end have a printable set of rules for all of the classes.**

 

[mavisky]

I agree with Luda on the factory "best" stuff. Basically you could combine the best parts of the cars to build the car yours could've been. This would mean 14b's for 2g's, big brakes for the fwd's and early awd's, and lsd rears for all.

Also I believe any modification made exclusively for longevity of the car or safety should be allowed. For instance you could install a 90 oil cooler or aftermarket unit or upgraded radiator/fans, brake ducting would be legal as well.

 

[underradar92]

Good points all around, except brake upgrades should be manditory.

 

[drivemusicnow]

Good points all around, except brake upgrades should be manditory.

I disagree that it should be "manditory". I think its cheap and significant enough that I highly doubt anyone WOULDN'T do it, however I don't think we should not allow someone to race who has stock brakes with decent pads. If you're thinking a "safety issue" it is the drivers responsibility to make sure their car is safe for track use.

Again, the trans cooler, oil cooler, radiator etc would be "open" mods I think.

 

[mavisky]

aaaaaaaaaaahhh i hate this site some days

Had a great little set of rules, and then it crashed while trying to post. Luda you gotta yell at our server guys before I tear their eyes out.

I'm gonna go take a couple deep breaths, look at some porn, and hopefully calm down some then I'll be back to re-type it all.

 

[mavisky]

I disagree that it should be "manditory". I think its cheap and significant enough that I highly doubt anyone WOULDN'T do it, however I don't think we should not allow someone to race who has stock brakes with decent pads. If you're thinking a "safety issue" it is the drivers responsibility to make sure their car is safe for track use.

Again, the trans cooler, oil cooler, radiator etc would be "open" mods I think.

I think one or two hpde days would soon convince them to step up to the bigger brakes. You've got to remember that we're talking about spending over a thousand dollars in entry fees alone just to get to the point where they'll certify you for wheel to wheel racing. It's not like we'll have rookies right off the street out there banging fenders with you as they experience brake fade for the first time at 100mph. Hell I'll admit that I myself need some more track time before I feel safe in taking my car out there to go head to head with others.

 

[Quasimondo]

I do think the 14B is allowed for all cars.

I'm not sure if you guys are working on the spec-2 rules already, but I think for the turbos, we can probably rip a page from the Stock Appearing class of the DSM shootout and limit the turbos to a 16G for 1G's and a T28 for 2G's. I think Buschur's rules also allow for 2G's to use Mitsu turbos in place of the Garrett ones.

I think GVR4s should be allowed. I think we'd need someone to decide how much of a weight penalty they would need

The Galant VR-4 is significantly heavier than a 1G (3295 vs 3108), and 2G's are lighter than the GVR4 by about 60 lbs. I don't think a weight penalty for these cars would be necessary.

I don't think non-turbos would really work out in this class. We MIGHT be able to make it worke, however for 420A powered cars, there are other race classes that they can be competitive in. For turbo cars and first gen cars that didn't originally have turbos, but have been converted over, The rules seem to work.

N/T vehicles should have their own class. It would be unfair to try to have a 135 hp car compete with vehicles that have nearly 70 more horses.

Questions for Greg/Tom

The stock downpipe for the class makes sense, however if we are allowing a removal of the cat, shouldn't a "downpipe back" exhaust be allowed?

This could potentially present a problem if we're limiting the boost levels. If we put a 3" downpipe on these cars without doing any porting, boost will creep up and technically that'll be breaking the rules. Maybe a change to the rules to allow porting of the turbo exhaust housing only as a way to control boost creep?

Should 2gs be allowed to use 1g BOVs?

I think they should

what do you mean by "stock mass"

Factory mass airflow sensor. No hacking of 1G sensors, no swapping of 2G sensors to 1G's, no GM MAF/Translator, no VPC.

Possibly add something regarding stock oil pan, and yes or no to baffling?

I could be wrong, but I think the oil pans are internally baffled.

Which would be more uniform, vacuum line to wastegate spring pressure, or stock boost control.

Stock boost control is a vacum line to wastegate, with the BCS bleeding the line to increase boost pressure (when it closes, it sends more pressure to the wastegate, lowering boost). A vacum line to wastegate is much simpler, and a very quick thing to check during a technical inspection.

EVO 3 manifold allowed, but stock o2 housing? and if the evo3 manifold is allowed, should we draw the distinction at "must be a mitsubishi cast exhaust manifold?"

If we're not allowing any porting of the turbo, then we really can't use an Evo3 manifold since the collector on that has a 7cm diameter, vs the 2G manifold which is 6cm. The rule to allow a 2G manifold is because the 1G units crack too easily, and this is for durability purposes. As far as I know, the O2 housing on the 1G's don't crack, so this wouldn't be necessary to replace.

**I'm writing these up in a word document "formally" such that we can discuss and modify them and at the end have a printable set of rules for all of the classes.**

Very good questions you threw out there. As for swapping rear ends, I could be mistaken, but isn't the problem with the 3-bolt rear end is its questionable ability to hold up to repeated drag launches? If these cars are going to be seeing most of their action from a roll, so to speak, I don't see the necessity of upgrading to a 4-bolt.

 

[mavisky]

I'm not sure if you guys are working on the spec-2 rules already, but I think for the turbos, we can probably rip a page from the Stock Appearing class of the DSM shootout and limit the turbos to a 16G for 1G's and a T28 for 2G's. I think Buschur's rules also allow for 2G's to use Mitsu turbos in place of the Garrett ones.

For a class above the lower class this would be fine, but these turbo's take alot of other mods to keep them happy. Sticking with the 14b for the lower class keeps everything reasonably cheap. I'd be all for tdo5 limits on the other classes since I've got a tdo5 18g that looks stock other than its not all grimey

The Galant VR-4 is significantly heavier than a 1G (3295 vs 3108), and 2G's are lighter than the GVR4 by about 60 lbs. I don't think a weight penalty for these cars would be necessary.

I'm not sure how many people would be interested in racing their gvr4's but I think it would be fair to put their weight near the 1g awd's since they don't have any other real advantage other than a less aerodynamic shape

N/T vehicles should have their own class. It would be unfair to try to have a 135 hp car compete with vehicles that have nearly 70 more horses.

This is a touchy subject, but I'd guess they could be classified in with existing nasa classes along with other cars like neons and stuff. It's really hard to include everyone, although maybe we could give a big weight break to anyone wanting to run in one of the classes nt.

This could potentially present a problem if we're limiting the boost levels. If we put a 3" downpipe on these cars without doing any porting, boost will creep up and technically that'll be breaking the rules. Maybe a change to the rules to allow porting of the turbo exhaust housing only as a way to control boost creep?

I see your point, maybe a ported o2 housing would be ok so long as the turbo was still intenally gated.

Factory mass airflow sensor. No hacking of 1G sensors, no swapping of 2G sensors to 1G's, no GM MAF/Translator, no VPC.

Agreed on the lowest class although the only advantage would be to try and suck more timing out of the ecu. By forcing people to stick with stock injectors and fuel pump (rewired allowed) there wouldn't be much need to mod the mas.

I could be wrong, but I think the oil pans are internally baffled.

Yes they are, but this is one of those areas that I could care less about. So long as they're not running a dry-sump system I see no problem in them using any oil pan they want. If the 6 bolt guys wanna use the Moroso pan with extra volume, then that's fine by me.

Stock boost control is a vacum line to wastegate, with the BCS bleeding the line to increase boost pressure (when it closes, it sends more pressure to the wastegate, lowering boost). A vacum line to wastegate is much simpler, and a very quick thing to check during a technical inspection.

What boost does the t-25 run if you hardline the wastegate solenoid?

If we're not allowing any porting of the turbo, then we really can't use an Evo3 manifold since the collector on that has a 7cm diameter, vs the 2G manifold which is 6cm. The rule to allow a 2G manifold is because the 1G units crack too easily, and this is for durability purposes. As far as I know, the O2 housing on the 1G's don't crack, so this wouldn't be necessary to replace.

Exactly, the 2g would be allowed to keep the 1g from falling apart, not as a performance mod.

Very good questions you threw out there. As for swapping rear ends, I could be mistaken, but isn't the problem with the 3-bolt rear end is its questionable ability to hold up to repeated drag launches? If these cars are going to be seeing most of their action from a roll, so to speak, I don't see the necessity of upgrading to a 4-bolt.

The "swapping rear ends" was to get lsd's into the rear of those cars that didn't come with them from the factory. The 3 bolt/4 bolt wouldn't really matter here, it's the diff they're after not the stronger axles.

 

[terefic181]

Geeeeee, these discussions are moving right along. First of all, I think we should put Greg Collier in charge of directing NASA DSM, and then make him run DSM/SU instead of his regular gig.

Mavisky - Awd VS fwd - I agree- We'll have to get as close as we can to the weight limits for each one, on paper and put it to the test on the track and see what happens. If after a bit of racing things look swayed then we should be able to re-adjust the weight penalties.

Chris - There may need to be some changes in this inital class but the idea we were throwing around yesterday is: To try to make this initial class low on mods and high on safety and longevity. There's going to be quite a bit of a cost outlay for initial safety items and such. If it looks to be, that most everyone involved has a few similar mods, then maybe we should open it up a a bit. N/T I'm not sure of at this point. Anyone?

drivemusicnow - Stock downpipe/cat - The cat is emissions oriented and you won't need anything but a straight pipe. Mass - as was said no gutting etc. I think the 1G BOV for all is good. The EVO I put a ? on, because I wasn't to sure on that one. The idea, as has been said, was to get away from the cracking 1G mani, it's back to the longevity thing.

Mavisky- My thought was to hold off on LSD's till the middle group, (1G mentality here, sorry) you guys are making some good points on that. It was an expense thing. Longevity and safety

drivemusicnow - Mandatory brake upgrade - I agree the rule would be set to allow them, if you don't take advantage of it, You just don't get the benefit of it. Unfortunately that's racing.


Tom

 

[Greg Collier]

Man… you guys have gone to town since I went to work this morning. How cool is this? I think there needs to be more of a format in determining the classes and modifications. Things tend to get scattered with all the numerous concepts that are being discussed.

The first concept that you need to understand is that NASA needs as much simplicity that we can give them in the areas of a visual tech of modifications. If they’re spending an hour or more checking our class requirements, and then they need to check for safety items the series won’t fly… You have to realize at the beginning of the year on “Tech Day”, there are over a hundred cars being scrutinized for class and safety violations. NASA only has a limited amount of people on hand to make these inspections, so if 20 DSM’s takes 20 hours of examination, you’re talking over two days for just the DSM class…
If you look at the present NASA class requirements they are fairly simple, once you bring turbo-ed and or super-charged vehicles into the picture, the technology looks staggering to a distributor/carburetor mentality type guy. This is the reason both NASA and SCCA don’t class our cars and we have nowhere to race!

The stock class has to remain as stock as possible with the limited modifications that we’ve already mentioned.

The unlimited class is the easiest (with the exception of throwing a Viper V-10 motor in your Talon).

It’s the in between class(s) that are going to be the most difficult to mandate. I’m talking Kyle’s, Greg’s and Rich’s. With this said, there can’t be too many classes between stock and unlimited because of the tech issues I’ve already discussed.

Might I suggest you create (two) typical scenarios for these classes? I know it will be difficult but try to keep it coherent. The idea is for what the typical Tuner does to get 250 to 350 hp, add brakes, suspension, LSD, AWD vs. FWD, etc. etc. etc.

Rich may just end up in the DSM unlimited class, as would Ludachris’s present car just by adding a roll cage and other safety items. They wouldn’t be running against Ferrari’s and Viper’s, they’d be running against DSM’s with like modifications. Rich might have 400 hp running on 9.5-rims and 275/40’s while Luda would be running 465 hp on 8-inch rims with 245/40’s. Luda might have the advantage on the straights but Rich will stick his nose into any apex he see’s, and with that extra rubber he has he leaves Luda in the dust on the turns. I can’t tell you how many 800hp Vipers are a distant memories, in my rear view mirrors, on the inside road course at California Speedway

 

[drivemusicnow]

Quick reply now that I'm back from work.

I agree with a "not quite stock", a "b" class, and an "A" class then have a DSM SU class. I think we can draw large enough differences between these to be easy to recognize. I think we can also get some people that know DSMs to be part of the process to inspect cars. I know I'd be up to donate some time in order to get cars classed and checked.

I think the weight "penalties"/ minimum weights are neccesary to the series, and are going to be the most difficult part of this. It may come down to some trial and error in the end. I'm not sure what exactly you meant by "stock mass" would that be setting the minimum weight for each car at its curb weight stock? I think we need to limit the amount of ballast that is allowed to be used. (for example honda challenge allows only 200 lbs ballast)

By the way, I agree with the stock downpipe, my question is relating to the "stock exhaust" I think after the downpipe, where you would be adding a straight pipin in place of the cat, the rest of the exhaust could be modified however you chose, as long as it meets track noise rules.

I also think the hacked maf should be allowed as it is a "free" mod.

 

[drivemusicnow]

weight problem I'm running into. taking the table mavisky posted and rounding off the numbers:

Vehicle ___________Base________ Mid _______ GST __________GSX
1G T/E ___________2600 ________2700 ______2800 _________3100
1G Laser __________2500 ________2700 _______2800_________3100
2G Talon/Eclipse_________________2900________2900_________3200
Galant VR-4 ____________________________________________3300
Eclipse Spyder _________________2900________3100

We get that. mad: spaces don't work)

I think it would be easiest if we say Stock curb weight (as listed above) subtract the "allowance" in each class (say 100 lbs for the stock class) we then add in any weight penalties accrued, and Voila! we have our Minimum weight.

My questions:
Should I even include non turbo models? (420A??)

Should we give the galant some sort of extra allowance?

How do you class non turbo cars that have been turbo'd? Should a Turbo "RS" 1G model be classified and weighed as a 1g GST?

 

[Greg Collier]

Non-turbo cars can presently run in PSO class no problem (at present the whole world of amateur racing is non-turbo). The DSM class is for the the unclassifiable turbos only...

The existing curb weights between the AWD and FWD should be maintained as a class difference with the AWD having the advantage.

Tom's "stock mass" is MAF.

Shouldn't have to worry about DB requirements at race tracks, it's a given unless you're running at Laguna Seca.

NASA techs are paid officials of NASA. To expect volunteers at each region throughout the country is unreasonable and will most likely be denied by NASA (impartiality issue)

 

[terefic181]

I'm not sure what exactly you meant by "stock mass" would that be setting the minimum weight for each car at its curb weight stock? As Greg said, Mass, not as in weight but as in Mass Air Flow Meter. Sorry for the short cuts, that list was originally just for me to start working with.

By the way, I agree with the stock downpipe, my question is relating to the "stock exhaust" I think after the downpipe, where you would be adding a straight piping in place of the cat, the rest of the exhaust could be modified however you chose, as long as it meets track noise rules. At the time I was thinking diameter size, I really wasn't thinking one would be running a muffler except just to stay within the noise rules, if necessary. QUOTE]

 

[terefic181]

NASA techs are paid officials of NASA. To expect volunteers at each region throughout the country is unreasonable and will most likely be denied by NASA (impartiality issue)

This is going to be a strong point throughout this process. We're going to have to continually consider the ramifications of what we're doing and how it will affect the time frame of a single tech session. As Greg said earlier, if we make it to difficult to accomplish, these new DSM class/s, are just not going to happen.



Tom

 

[mavisky]

For one I would gladly help out in the nasa tech department with all other classes than my own, so there's no grumbling I'd only do the stock and more modified classes than mine. I've been around the dsm world long enough to that I could easily performance tech a complete dsm in about 15 minutes top.

Tomorrow I'll start compiling everyone's idea into one coherent mass hopefully.

weight on the gvr4- I personally think making it weigh as much as the 1g awd or 2g awd's would be fair. It's already losing in aerodynamics, no point in making it lose points for weight too.

A turbo'd nt like mine would weigh in with the car it most resembles, in this case a 1g fwd turbo. same would go for anyone building a 420a with a hahn kit I suppose. Although we may have to class them up a class as we can't restrict them to stock items like mas and other stuff. You can exactly replicate a 1g fwd turbo dsm with your 1g nt though so they could run stock class if built right.

 

[drivemusicnow]

Non-turbo cars can presently run in PSO class no problem (at present the whole world of amateur racing is non-turbo). The DSM class is for the the unclassifiable turbos only...

The existing curb weights between the AWD and FWD should be maintained as a class difference with the AWD having the advantage.

Tom's "stock mass" is MAF.

Shouldn't have to worry about DB requirements at race tracks, it's a given unless you're running at Laguna Seca.

NASA techs are paid officials of NASA. To expect volunteers at each region throughout the country is unreasonable and will most likely be denied by NASA (impartiality issue)

Yay... I didn't want to be the one that dissallows non-turbos

We're going to need "regional directors" or something similar won't we? I also think we could make a list of the things that actually need to be checked versus not, and then have the top 3, or top 4 in each race have a required tech inspection.

Mass air flow, should "hacking" it be allowed?

and if we allow "any fuel pump" limiting to stock fpr, stock fuel rail, and stock injectors would seem to work. You'd still be able to "tune" the car based on the pressure regulator over run (extra fuel) and hacked MAF. If this is what you're trying to avoid...?

 

[drivemusicnow]

For one I would gladly help out in the nasa tech department with all other classes than my own, so there's no grumbling I'd only do the stock and more modified classes than mine. I've been around the dsm world long enough to that I could easily performance tech a complete dsm in about 15 minutes top.

Tomorrow I'll start compiling everyone's idea into one coherent mass hopefully.

weight on the gvr4- I personally think making it weigh as much as the 1g awd or 2g awd's would be fair. It's already losing in aerodynamics, no point in making it lose points for weight too.

A turbo'd nt like mine would weigh in with the car it most resembles, in this case a 1g fwd turbo. same would go for anyone building a 420a with a hahn kit I suppose. Although we may have to class them up a class as we can't restrict them to stock items like mas and other stuff. You can exactly replicate a 1g fwd turbo dsm with your 1g nt though so they could run stock class if built right.

Before you type anything, PM me your email address. I have most, if not all of this seperated into 4 classes and almost all the way typed up. The classes still need some work, especially the two middle ones. I think we're about set on the stock class. I'll email it to you, Greg, Tom, and anyone else who would like to scrutinize it and figure out what will and won't work. Greg gets to make up the rules for "his" DSM-U class

 

[Slow old poop]

Tomorrow I'll start compiling everyone's idea into one coherent mass hopefully.
.

My thoughts, as the instigator of all this:

Whatever you do, be sure to legislate an upgrade path that makes sense, lets someone build a car one mod at a time, and moves the car up through the classes in a progressive manner. Don't make builders replace things that work in one class but not the other. For example, turbos: Turbos should be free, so that the first upgrade to a turbo is the last one. No need to run a 14 B in one class and then have to upgrade to a 20G for the next class. Another example: Brakes. All brakes, except 6-calipers, should be free. Same with suspensions, wheels, tires, camber plates, strut braces and the like. There really isn't that much difference, is there? I mean, once you replace the stock struts and springs with race parts, the difference between Ground Control and Tien is minimal and not worth legislating. (Unless, of course, there is some outrageously expensive and superior system that I don't know about).

SU can run anything, of course, but the lower classes -- whatever they turn out to be -- should make economic sense to someone building a bone stock car from scratch.

I like the NASA TT points system, which assesses points according to mods, but doesn't limit what you can do. To mimic it, you could, for example, assess different points for different turbos, but don't outlaw anything that would work in a higher class. Just assign more points to it.

Also, it might be a good idea to keep a hairy eyeball on some of the SCCA rules that apply to classes where we MIGHT be permitted to run, such as ITE or ITS. Although the rules vary from region to region, they seem somewhat the same, so it would be nice if our NASA Classes could match up in some way to the SCCA classes, just in case SCCA ever notices that we're out here building cars and looking for places to run them. Once they see a few dozen DSMs running NASA, they will become more willing to accommodate us, so we shouldn't be building cars that would be illegal in SCCA.

As for the specific mods you have in mind for the classes, I leave that up to you, the real racers who have been there and know the difference between mods.

Just don't forget the little guy who is building a car from scratch on a budget. In other words, don't worry as much about making nitpicky rules about cars running in higher classes as you should about helping racers get started in DSMs. Keep it as simple and uncomplicated as possible. Once we have a decent number of cars on track, then we can worry about the fine points of this turbo v that turbo, or Stoptechs v carbon fiber.

Rich

 

[drivemusicnow]

(Edit: the point system works because you're not wheel to wheel racing. If we say "anything goes, but we'll add this weight penalty" Things get complicated quickly. I Wish there was a better way to end up with cars that go around the track in the approximately the same times, with totally different modifications. You have to think "what if someone has the money and wants to win". Can we still let people be competitive?

This is the problem that I've been working around.

The stock class is easy. Its "stock" with very few exceptions. The "super unlimited" is unlimited with very few exceptions. (no tube frames for instance)

However saying that anyone can run any suspension doesn't work. There is a difference between a JIC setup and adjustable AGXs with GC springs. this difference may show up on lap times. Theres a difference between a 14b and a 20g. This difference will show up on lap times. There is also a difference between the 12 inch rotor kits with 4 piston wilwoods, and the 13 inch stoptechs or 6pot willwoods. this difference WILL show up in laptimes.

I figure we have basically 2 seperate modified classes. One probably doesn't lead to the other, as to have the best parts in one, will not be the best parts in the other.

The only way around this that I see, is to create a "any brakes and suspension, stock motor, turbo, downpipe, intercooler" such that you have fully setup brake and suspension packages with the stock powered motors. and then have the next class have extensive engine modifications allowed.

This does let you go from stock, to "B", to "A" to "U" while never having to replace the same part twice. However the cost of a "full prepared A class car" and cars that would be bumped into "A" because they added a new intercooler, or turbo, seems to be strange. I think B will be a stepping stone into A, and it allows people who already have cars/mods to find someplace where without spending another $10k they can be competitive. A would be fore those who have and want the best components, but weight limits would still exist, and to win, you'd probably have about $20K into the car.

When I get home from work I'll send what I've come up with so far, and then decide if a different route needs to be taken for the "A" and "B" classes.

 

[Slow old poop]

Here's another thought:

How about specifying "spec engines"?

In other words, determine the kinds of mods that are legal for heads and short blocks, and allow engine builders to build such an engine and issue a certificate that the head, for example, has Stage 4 porting and polishing, big valves, titanium keepers, and so on. The short block could have forged pistons, forged rods, balance shafts removed, 2.0 L engine size, etc. The racer would keep a copy of the certificates handy, thus eliminating the need for detailed questionairres, tear downs, and protests. Each certificate would be good for three years, after which it would need to be re-certified.

We could have Stage 1 and Stage 2 motors, with a Stage 2 being a rational upgrade from a Stage 1. P&P, for example, might be enough to move from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

I doubt seriously if anyone would pay $4,000 for an engine build on a 2.0 and then tear it down again to make a 2.4 stroker, or make any other expensive mods on a certified motor. Anybody with that kind of money wouldn't be in our lower (under SU) classes.

This would not only standardize the motors, it would prevent needless squabbling over what's in there, and it would promote competition amongst engine builders. Autopower, where I am getting my engine rebuilt, has a standard "kit" it uses, as -- I suspect -- do most other engine builders. It would be a small matter for them to look at our engine rules and build motors to our specs.

Anybody who cannot produce such a certificate would be subject to all the teardown and protest problems listed above.

Rich

 

[drivemusicnow]

how are you going to tell the engine thats been "certified" versus the one that hasn't? (as in, I have 2 engines built, one to spec, one with more than is allowed, and you can't tell which of the two engines I put in the car.

You'll always have protests and such. I think by limiting the compression ratio in C and B, and just having a penalty weight for strokers and higher compression motors, we'd be okay.

With the heads I think we can say stock = stock head, B = cams, but stock head internals/NO porting, A = any porting, cams valves etc.

Stroke is fairly easy to measure, and so is compression. I'm not sure how extensive these tech sessions are, however we do a wet compression test on all cylinders, this should give us a good idea of what compression ratio the pistons are. (if they're higher C/ratio pistons and its reading low enough to qualify as 8.5 or lower, do you really need to have a penalty put in place for a motor that most likely has rings that are failing?)