Although the subject has probably been beat to death, is there any consideration for a power to weight rule for 2011? Seems to me this is the best way to control cost and equate the fields of cars that might be upwards of 15-20 horsepower apart. In my FFR car, even though everything is spec, there is a grid of weight with allowable HP and TQ. Easy to read, use, follow and enforce, and makes it so that building “pro” motors is not needed. Any thoughts on this?
2011 Rules
King_Tut
#2
The problem is finding a way to consistently dyno the cars to know how much HP they have. I like the rules now where we just limit what you can do to the engine.
Steve_D
#3
BigKeyserSoze wrote:
Beat to death? I dunno. Probably just in ICU. http://spece30.com/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,94/func,view/id,35688/catid,16/limit,10/limitstart,0/
A power/weight ratio doesn’t work that well for a single-car class IMHO because then you haven’t leveled the field for guys who want to test and exploit the various combinations of weight & hp at different tracks. Barber? I am going light, lower power. Road Atlanta? Gimme ballast and straightaway talent…
The issue I see with policing power is we have engine specs that never get teched. If we had a crew with a whistler, cam doctor, etc., it would be a different story. NASA’s just not set up for that aside from Nationals.
For power/weight to be feasible, you need an at-track dyno.
In my short time in SE30, the Southeast group is pretty darn effective in policing through peer pressure. That is the worst possible way to make sure cheating is minimized - except all the others.
scottmc
#4
I’ll throw my 2 cents in on this and if I sound like IndyJim, I apologize.
There’s a rule set to which we can and can not build our engines. I think if you have a legally built motor then your good. SO if you follow the rules that are already in place then it is what it is. I kind feel the same way about this as I do the factors in lowering the weight. We shouldn’t let those with weak motors set the rules to accommodate them (which I am one of them 
). I say leave the max HP alone… we have rules that cover this already in place.
Seems odd in a class built on being cheap and easy that there is no way to level the field from guys with tired old engines and those with “pro” motors. I think it sucks that the Miata guys have $10,000 engines to run in the front.
A quick power to weight table fixes that. Dynos at the beginning of the season, honor system during the season, and if you run nationals, you better be ready to be on the dyno rollers after every session. That’s just how it works.
Gilles
#6
There may be a way to do it without dynos also… If you had a few gps units that you could put into various cars during various runs, you could collect acceleration data to find the outliers and adjust weight limits as needed. Maybe an iphone app or similar?
I’m not very excited about having to try to build or perfect an engine… talking to a specmiata friend at RA at the last NASA weekend, he was really frustrated because of competitors spending $10k on an engine and blowing him down the straights.
If we want long term growth and cost control, a hp/weight balancing can’t be a bad idea, can it?
Ranger
#7
In the SE we’ve had guys occasionally show up with unusual power. Some were in-region and some not. An example of “unusual power” would be that you catch up to the guy’s bumper because you had better turn exit speed,you get right in his draft with 6" of separation…and then he leaves you.
Word got out quickly and folks bitched. A few events later those guys that were in-region had cars that no longer had “unusual power”. Some of those folks came clean as to what they changed, some remained quiet about what they changed.
We’re a pretty big class and that helps us acquite a reasonable feel for how much power a car ought to have. That makes “unusual power” evident pretty quickly. Engine #9 is cherry and has 159hp, but the only guy I pulled on at RA a couple weeks ago was Childress, who is down on power. Fred has 151hp and I thought sure I’d detect the hp difference, but I chased him at close range for several laps and I could not pull on him in the straights.
IMO a couple horses are meaningless. When you can detect a clear hp difference, there’s something fishy going on. And bitching to Mr. Fishy works, at least in the SE region. As Steve said, it’s not a terrific compliance system, but it might also be the least lousy.
If there were a couple hard-heads that were clearly pulling on me in the straights, and seemingly refused to do anything about it, I’d be advocating a dyno test. But until then, IMO the current system works.
Steve_D
#8
BigKeyserSoze wrote:
[quote]Seems odd in a class built on being cheap and easy that there is no way to level the field from guys with tired old engines and those with “pro” motors.[/quote] There is no cheap, repeatable way to police this. Search old threads and you will understand that the general consensus is that dynos are too variable, GPS/accelerometer based systems are worthless unless you can run each car under similar conditions without draft, etc. Engine tear-downs have been even less popular with the racers than the guy who might occasionally show up with beeeeg motors. For now, peer pressure seems to be the best enforcement tool.
[quote]I think it sucks that the Miata guys have $10,000 engines to run in the front. [/quote] I know some guys. I can get you hooked up for $7 grand.
[quote]… honor system during the season, and if you run nationals, you better be ready to be on the dyno rollers after every session. That’s just how it works.[/quote]That part of your quote is actually how we’ve been doing in the Southeast.
FishMan
#9
Ranger wrote:
[quote]…And bitching to Mr. Fishy works, at least in the SE region…
[/quote]
I take offense to this remark! :laugh:
jlevie
#10
Rule changes that I’d like to see are:
Ballast placement should be free provided that the ballast serves no other purpose.
Skid plates should be free provided that they only attach to the front cross member and lower radiator support and serve no purpose other than protecting the oil pan.
Rear windows may be replaced with lexan for the purpose of fitting NACA ducts.
scottmc
#11
jlevie wrote:
[quote]Rule changes that I’d like to see are:
Ballast placement should be free provided that the ballast serves no other purpose.
Skid plates should be free provided that they only attach to the front cross member and lower radiator support and serve no purpose other than protecting the oil pan.
Rear windows may be replaced with lexan for the purpose of fitting NACA ducts.[/quote]
If we can’t lower our weight (or even if we do), I’d love to see the rules permit us to more additional weight to the trunk.
The other 2 are GREAT ideas as well.
Another to add to the list: Spec the exhaust but open it up to other suppliers.
I’m normally for rules stability but there are several things that need fixing, as seen from all the discussion.
I think it would be great to only look at updating rules ever 4-5 years. That would make for stability… The only exception is if the wording of the rules leave too many loopholes and the rule is in need of clarification.
I also think rules need to be finalized and posted on the 1st of the year. That way we’ll have 2 months to comply.
Ranger
#12
FishMan wrote:
[quote]Ranger wrote:
[quote]…And bitching to Mr. Fishy works, at least in the SE region…
[/quote]
I take offense to this remark! :laugh:[/quote]
Bad choice of words on my part, sorry.
Steve_D
#14
jlevie wrote:
Ballast placement should be free provided that the ballast serves no prohibited purpose.
What if I built one that extends from wheel well to wheel well and back to the firewall? I want to protect my pan from flying debris coming from all sides in case I end up in China Beach at Mid Ohio next year.
Rear side windows only? What if I install lexan for the purpose of fitting NACA ducts, but don’t actually install NACA ducts?:laugh:
I love me some rules writin’.
PS - In all seriousness, I agree with all these and -50 pounds.
jlevie
#15
In that case you’d be violating the rule I proposed as a full undertray provides aero benefit and thus serves another purpose other than just protecting the sump.
That is fine with me. I’d just like to come up with a way of blasting more air onto the driver. Shucks, I’d be fine with lexan weighted to be the same as the glass.
PThibault
#16
I would like to see…
-
Min weight 2650
-
Ballast wherever you would like to install.
-
Adjustable brake bias
-
More NorthEast Spec E30’s!!!
Peter Thibault
djs325
#17
Guys, with your rule set you could easily look at a car weight of 2600 or 2650lbs. Even with 200lb+ drivers, this is acheiveable.
I would also recommend allowing:
-Lowered steering columns (addition of spacers to the steering column mounting bolts)
-Larger BMW Master Cylinder e.g. E32 735/750 25.4mm version, improved pedal feel dramatically.
-Not adjustable brake BIAS, but adjustable brake PROPORTIONING - allow the standard valve to be removed and replaced with an adjustable unit e.g. Tilton, and have a vote on whether you want it adjustable by the driver whilst the vehicle is in motion, or not adjustable whilst in motion, or located under the bonnet aka 'hood.
Just my $0.02
PThibault wrote:
[quote]I would like to see…
-
Min weight 2650
-
Ballast wherever you would like to install.
-
Adjustable brake bias
-
More NorthEast Spec E30’s!!!
Peter Thibault[/quote]
Z3SpdDmn
#18
djs325 wrote:
[quote]
I would also recommend allowing:
-Lowered steering columns (addition of spacers to the steering column mounting bolts)
-Larger BMW Master Cylinder e.g. E32 735/750 25.4mm version, improved pedal feel dramatically.
-Not adjustable brake BIAS, but adjustable brake PROPORTIONING - allow the standard valve to be removed and replaced with an adjustable unit e.g. Tilton, and have a vote on whether you want it adjustable by the driver whilst the vehicle is in motion, or not adjustable whilst in motion, or located under the bonnet aka 'hood.
Just my $0.02[/quote]
- I can see the steering column adjustment as safety/ergonomics related, while being cheap and easy.
- I could see the Master Cylinder for pedal feel, as its not really a performance advantage and not everyone needs to do it (not necessarily cheap).
- I DON’T understand the purpose of the brake proportioning adjustment, other than to add speed, while giving the drivers another thing to adjust and have to figure out how to “set up”. That seems contrary to the purpose of this series, to me.
Just my $0.02 
donstevens
#19
Ranger wrote:
I have experienced this down here with the Black’s car. It sucks. Im not questioning the legality of their car, it just happens to be a fast example. Mine happens to be down a few ponies.
I agree.
Ranger
#20
PThibault wrote:
[quote]I would like to see…
3. Adjustable brake bias
[/quote]
I’d love to have adjustable brake bias, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a rule change that fits the series. This is one of those on the “if we did this, our cars would be faster” rule change list. The problem is that’s a really long list. Almost infinitely long.
In contrast, consider rule mods that increase safety, reliability and durability. And mods that result in decrease consumables cost or decreased build difficulty. Coaching a desired rule change in those terms is more likely to succeed.