 |
|
^ Was exactly my point of bringing up the idea.
I took a look at the FFR table and it looks decent.
The other idea was to allow the guys who are very low in weight to not have to add ballast, and possibly just add a restrictor. Safer than carrying around a ton of lead.
I’m thinkin a 2900 lb se30 is not in the best interest of the class. What is this becoming, occupy spec e30? 
Some are actually learning about racing. Fact…some people will spend whatever is necessary to run up front. Fact…some people will bitch about not being able to run up front with a budget car. Inequity? NO!!! It is a choice…make your own and live with it. Chuck
My idea was along the idea of Rangers. Keep all current rules, but a weight adjustment based on power. It isn’t GTS at all. We do this in Factory Five and it works great, and keeps cost down. I thought the whole goal of this series was to have cars that were as close to identical as possible and let the driver be the difference. I guess some want the engine to be the difference…My car makes 141hp, and candidly, I just don’t want to spend another $6k on a race engine to have 160ish horsepower. And if you don’t think 20 horsepower is a game changing difference in a race, you are sadly mistaken. I agree with ranger, chasing 3 horsepower does not matter, but 20 does matter.
I can see the merit to the pwr/wt idea, but it can’t be a “cake and eat it too” kinda thing. You cant have rules that would allow for a 160hp motor, but then require that car to carry 2900lbs. Rather, reduce (significantly) the min wt, say to 2500, and add the “power penalty” to that so that you get somewhere around 2600 for that 160hp monster. Then you’d have someting more in line with the spirit of SE30 AND the spirit of racing–you can spend 6k on a motor, or you can be “cheap” and do “free” weight loss.
Just don’t like the idea of “dumbing” all the rules down so that every guy that chooses to run power windows and a junkyard motor can be competitive with the guy who preps to the limit of the rules.
I thought this was the whole point of Spec E30, and the original intent of Spec Miata…
If you want it to be about car prep, then don’t have a spec class. There will always be people who have tricks and such for the cars. That is the nature of racing. However, being able to take one giant bite out of one of the most expensive parts of racing is, in my eyes, a good thing. Any good race engine builder has his tricks that are in the grey area of the rules. Nobody in SCCA or NASA that I am aware of has caught any of these motors, and I don’t think they will in the future either.
And how exactly would you be dumbing down the rules? If I had the cash to get a pro race motor, I would. Then again, I wouldn’t race Spec E30 if I had the money.
[quote=“cosm3os” post=62232]I can see the merit to the pwr/wt idea, but it can’t be a “cake and eat it too” kinda thing. You cant have rules that would allow for a 160hp motor, but then require that car to carry 2900lbs. Rather, reduce (significantly) the min wt, say to 2500, and add the “power penalty” to that so that you get somewhere around 2600 for that 160hp monster. Then you’d have someting more in line with the spirit of SE30 AND the spirit of racing–you can spend 6k on a motor, or you can be “cheap” and do “free” weight loss.
Just don’t like the idea of “dumbing” all the rules down so that every guy that chooses to run power windows and a junkyard motor can be competitive with the guy who preps to the limit of the rules.[/quote]
Foglight is right. What you’re criticizing is precisely what the rules are trying to create.
Re. cake and eat it too. I’m missing the metaphor.
Re. can’t have the rules allow a 160hp motor and then require the car weigh 2900lbs. Why not? Sure, folks could fool around trying to get more out of the torque curve, but given the rest of the rules there’s a real limit to what can be acheived there. Specifying a weight/hp # would be an easy 90% solution and significantly reduce the engine arms race.
On the subject of motors…
A decent (100-150k) junkyard motor with a head rebuild and good tune should make in the 150’s. A completely legal built motor should make about 162. That isn’t much difference in power. The guy that carries a bit more speed through the corner will wind up in front with either motor. Think of Skeen and his junkyard motors.
[quote=“jlevie” post=62246]On the subject of motors…
A decent (100-150k) junkyard motor with a head rebuild and good tune should make in the 150’s. A completely legal built motor should make about 162. That isn’t much difference in power. The guy that carries a bit more speed through the corner will wind up in front with either motor. Think of Skeen and his junkyard motors.[/quote]
Skeen mentioned to me at the 2011 Nationals that his car dyno’d in the 155 range.
[quote=“Rob in VA” post=62250][quote=“jlevie” post=62246]On the subject of motors…
A decent (100-150k) junkyard motor with a head rebuild and good tune should make in the 150’s. A completely legal built motor should make about 162. That isn’t much difference in power. The guy that carries a bit more speed through the corner will wind up in front with either motor. Think of Skeen and his junkyard motors.[/quote]
Skeen mentioned to me at the 2011 Nationals that his car dyno’d in the 155 range.[/quote]
I ended up with the motor that Skeen pulled out of his car prior to the '08 Nationals. It was a high mileage bottom end and a freshened head. Nothing special.
[quote=“Ranger” post=62242][quote=“cosm3os” post=62232]I can see the merit to the pwr/wt idea, but it can’t be a “cake and eat it too” kinda thing. You cant have rules that would allow for a 160hp motor, but then require that car to carry 2900lbs. Rather, reduce (significantly) the min wt, say to 2500, and add the “power penalty” to that so that you get somewhere around 2600 for that 160hp monster. Then you’d have someting more in line with the spirit of SE30 AND the spirit of racing–you can spend 6k on a motor, or you can be “cheap” and do “free” weight loss.
Just don’t like the idea of “dumbing” all the rules down so that every guy that chooses to run power windows and a junkyard motor can be competitive with the guy who preps to the limit of the rules.[/quote]
Foglight is right. What you’re criticizing is precisely what the rules are trying to create.
Re. cake and eat it too. I’m missing the metaphor.
Re. can’t have the rules allow a 160hp motor and then require the car weigh 2900lbs. Why not? Sure, folks could fool around trying to get more out of the torque curve, but given the rest of the rules there’s a real limit to what can be acheived there. Specifying a weight/hp # would be an easy 90% solution and significantly reduce the engine arms race.[/quote]
Cake="no further weight loss"
Eat=“limits on hp”
Cake+Eat=“Spec FAT Miata” (cute, eh?)
No one has commented on what I thought was a pretty good compromise (reduce the min wt and add a hp/wt formula). Thoughts?
I like the idea of reducing the minimum weight and adding in a weight penalty for power. That said, I don’t think it will ever happen, but it has kept engine cost in check in FFR, and nobody has a complaint about power anymore. I think its a great solution to a series on a budget.
[quote=“cosm3os” post=62254][quote=“Ranger” post=62242][quote=“cosm3os” post=62232]I can see the merit to the pwr/wt idea, but it can’t be a “cake and eat it too” kinda thing. You cant have rules that would allow for a 160hp motor, but then require that car to carry 2900lbs. Rather, reduce (significantly) the min wt, say to 2500, and add the “power penalty” to that so that you get somewhere around 2600 for that 160hp monster. Then you’d have someting more in line with the spirit of SE30 AND the spirit of racing–you can spend 6k on a motor, or you can be “cheap” and do “free” weight loss.
Just don’t like the idea of “dumbing” all the rules down so that every guy that chooses to run power windows and a junkyard motor can be competitive with the guy who preps to the limit of the rules.[/quote]
Foglight is right. What you’re criticizing is precisely what the rules are trying to create.
Re. cake and eat it too. I’m missing the metaphor.
Re. can’t have the rules allow a 160hp motor and then require the car weigh 2900lbs. Why not? Sure, folks could fool around trying to get more out of the torque curve, but given the rest of the rules there’s a real limit to what can be acheived there. Specifying a weight/hp # would be an easy 90% solution and significantly reduce the engine arms race.[/quote]
Cake="no further weight loss"
Eat=“limits on hp”
Cake+Eat=“Spec FAT Miata” (cute, eh?)
No one has commented on what I thought was a pretty good compromise (reduce the min wt and add a hp/wt formula). Thoughts?[/quote]
Rereading the details of your idea, I think we’re saying the same thing except that you are going for a lower min. weight. The precise min. weight chosen isn’t going to determine if the idea is a big win or not. The reason I chose a higher min. weight is to avoid the scenario where the newby with the 145hp motor is forced to work hard to reduce his car’s weight to 2500lbs. We’re trying to make it easy for the newby to be competitive and I’d a had a helova time removing 200lbs of weight w/ a car that hiccups below a half-tank.
Adding weight is easy tho. In the add weight scenario someone makes a conscious decision to go after 160hp. Towards that end they work their ass off, spend a bunch of money, and do so full knowing that they will have to add some ballast. The ballast simply becomes part of the big engine plan.
You would need to allow for people who have heavy and light cars along with the hp/tq numbers. I think the weight is important here. The range between the cars seems to be a few hundred pounds, which I find odd.
It would be really nice to get my car the way I want it, and then adjust by either adding some equipment back in or adding a restrictor plate.
[quote=“Foglght” post=62261]You would need to allow for people who have heavy and light cars along with the hp/tq numbers. I think the weight is important here. The range between the cars seems to be a few hundred pounds, which I find odd.
It would be really nice to get my car the way I want it, and then adjust by either adding some equipment back in or adding a restrictor plate.[/quote]
Re. range being a few hundred pounds which seems odd. Math is odd?
Re. restrictor plates. That adds too much complexity to the idea.
[quote=“Ranger” post=62260][quote=“cosm3os” post=62254][quote=“Ranger” post=62242][quote=“cosm3os” post=62232]I can see the merit to the pwr/wt idea, but it can’t be a “cake and eat it too” kinda thing. You cant have rules that would allow for a 160hp motor, but then require that car to carry 2900lbs. Rather, reduce (significantly) the min wt, say to 2500, and add the “power penalty” to that so that you get somewhere around 2600 for that 160hp monster. Then you’d have someting more in line with the spirit of SE30 AND the spirit of racing–you can spend 6k on a motor, or you can be “cheap” and do “free” weight loss.
Just don’t like the idea of “dumbing” all the rules down so that every guy that chooses to run power windows and a junkyard motor can be competitive with the guy who preps to the limit of the rules.[/quote]
Foglight is right. What you’re criticizing is precisely what the rules are trying to create.
Re. cake and eat it too. I’m missing the metaphor.
Re. can’t have the rules allow a 160hp motor and then require the car weigh 2900lbs. Why not? Sure, folks could fool around trying to get more out of the torque curve, but given the rest of the rules there’s a real limit to what can be acheived there. Specifying a weight/hp # would be an easy 90% solution and significantly reduce the engine arms race.[/quote]
Cake="no further weight loss"
Eat=“limits on hp”
Cake+Eat=“Spec FAT Miata” (cute, eh?)
No one has commented on what I thought was a pretty good compromise (reduce the min wt and add a hp/wt formula). Thoughts?[/quote]
Rereading the details of your idea, I think we’re saying the same thing except that you are going for a lower min. weight. The precise min. weight chosen isn’t going to determine if the idea is a big win or not. The reason I chose a higher min. weight is to avoid the scenario where the newby with the 145hp motor is forced to work hard to reduce his car’s weight to 2500lbs. We’re trying to make it easy for the newby to be competitive and I’d a had a helova time removing 200lbs of weight w/ a car that hiccups below a half-tank.
Adding weight is easy tho. In the add weight scenario someone makes a conscious decision to go after 160hp. Towards that end they work their ass off, spend a bunch of money, and do so full knowing that they will have to add some ballast. The ballast simply becomes part of the big engine plan.[/quote]
That’s exactly what I was doing. I’d try to balance the conscious decision that one guy makes to build a 160hp motor against the conscious decision another guy makes to run windows and A/C. Both conscious decisions should have “consequences”.
Fog, I pulled the numbers out of my butt. The bottom weight should be the lightest min weight possible. My sense from what others have said is that its possible to get these cars down to 2500ish with driver if you did weight reduction to the limit of the rules and you didn’t go nuts on the cage or at the holiday dinner table. The max weight should be the point where the car isn’t worth driving (ie fun factor) on current tires, no matter the hp, etc. I haven’t driven at 2700 or 2750, but I suspect that those weights are still reasonably fun on this chassis. I suspect something close to E36 weight would not be fun (2900ish).
For the hp, everyone seems to agree the best motor can make low 160s. What’s the average 200k junk yard motor that is reasonably maintained make? Low 140s seems about right.
So now you have your hp/wt range: 160/2750 to 140/2500. It just so happens (I swear I didn’t pic up the calulator til after I typed that last sentence) that those are both 17.8:1. There’s your number.
So do we include full freedom of weight removal? If so I need to figure out how to cut the front cylinder off of my motor since I will want to run minimum weight possible.
Respectfully I think some of you new guys need to run in the series a bit before getting too excited about changing things.
This is all just an off season exercise. Although I haven’t run yet, I’m all for a lighter car as others who have raced have proposed. There isn’t a racecar out there that doesn’t benefit from adding lightness. Don’t need to drive a SE30 to know that, but I understand this is really a philosophy issue, not a driving dynamics issue.