My higher weight variant of this idea is an easier sell to the directors.
Your idea can be sold on the basis of creating a way for folks with low hp cars to acheive the same hp/weight ratio and therefore everyone is more equal. That’s an entirely legit justification.
On the otherhand, a hp/weight ratio that would result in ~100lbs more car then you suggest not only enjoys the justification of your idea, but also makes it easier for a newby to build a car for the series. You would force the 140hp guy to reduce a lot of weight and it takes experience to know how to do that. Therefore this is going to be a problem for that newby with the 140hp car. It’s a helova lot harder to get to 2500 then it is to get to 2600.
Making it easy for the newby to create a competitive car is a very important part of the culture.
I see your point. To be clear, I think the compliance issue is still a big problem with any class/rule based on dyno numbers. But the exercise of tweaking other’s ideas is always beneficial.
As to your argument that weight reduction is hard for newbs, I’m curious where you get that. I’ve found, at least in my region, that E30 guys tend to be the most knowledgeable about their cars than any other class, and most have an engineering background that lends itself to this kind of tinkering. Wouldn’t seem to be an issue with these guys. More importantly, which rule allowing removal of a system would be beyond the kin of the typical racer (even with the help of this forum and others). There’s only so much the rules allow you to do. This isn’t like GTS where you are fabricating stuff and swiss cheesing the right panels, etc to get out all the weight. Hell, I’m not mechanical at all, but spent a winter getting my E36 from 3275 with cage to 2605 with basic tools, jackstands and a cold garage.
I have an answer to my question, at least personally. I’d puss out on removing the heater core and dealing with the sunroof! I’m calling Ben Thongsai to do that for me. But a newb building his own car can install his own suspension, including bushings everywhere, but can’t gut the car?
I don’t like the idea of a fixed hp/weight ratio. Aside from the fact that I don’t like it, it won’t work. Just using myself as an example, I’m already carrying the max allowable ballast weight, along with a full tank. I also have a freshened motor, on a budget (~155hp). So, my only option is to de-tune my engine (restrictor).
Secondly, just because we fix the hp/weight ratio, it doesn’t mean that people stop spending money on engines. They just spend it in different ways. Look at GTS. Huge flat torque curves win by maximizing the area under the curve. So, you still need a built bottom end to maximize the torque and then you’ll spend more in tuning out peak hp.
Thirdly, this will cost everyone money. Everyone will need to confirm their power on the dyno ($100 per session). Even if we dyno at the track, that costs us or NASA money. If it costs NASA money, then guess where that money comes from… It’s still us. THEN everyone will need to spend money on easily “addable” and “subtractable” ballast. There are cheap ways, but no free ways (and they must be SAFE). Then, if we adjust our weight to comply to the hp/weight ratio, we need to corner weight again, which costs money for those of us who don’t have $1100 scales.
If you’re not balancing your corner weights, then, frankly, you’re not trying very hard anyway and I don’t feel sorry that you have a 140hp engine. Afterall, these are race cars, not LeMons cars. Ability to run junkyard motors at the top level of our competition is not a requirement of the series to comply to, imo. Build a motor once and hope it lasts several years. Complying to the hp/weight will cost everyone money throughout every year.
[quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62279]I don’t like the idea of a fixed hp/weight ratio. Aside from the fact that I don’t like it, it won’t work. Just using myself as an example, I’m already carrying the max allowable ballast weight, along with a full tank. I also have a freshened motor, on a budget (~155hp). So, my only option is to de-tune my engine (restrictor).
Secondly, just because we fix the hp/weight ratio, it doesn’t mean that people stop spending money on engines. They just spend it in different ways. Look at GTS. Huge flat torque curves win by maximizing the area under the curve. So, you still need a built bottom end to maximize the torque and then you’ll spend more in tuning out peak hp.
Thirdly, this will cost everyone money. Everyone will need to confirm their power on the dyno ($100 per session). Even if we dyno at the track, that costs us or NASA money. If it costs NASA money, then guess where that money comes from… It’s still us. THEN everyone will need to spend money on easily “addable” and “subtractable” ballast. There are cheap ways, but no free ways (and they must be SAFE). Then, if we adjust our weight to comply to the hp/weight ratio, we need to corner weight again, which costs money for those of us who don’t have $1100 scales.
If you’re not balancing your corner weights, then, frankly, you’re not trying very hard anyway and I don’t feel sorry that you have a 140hp engine. Afterall, these are race cars, not LeMons cars. Ability to run junkyard motors at the top level of our competition is not a requirement of the series to comply to, imo. Build a motor once and hope it lasts several years. Complying to the hp/weight will cost everyone money throughout every year.[/quote]
Don’t say it won’t work when it clearly does for many other classes. Just sayin…
[quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62279]
Secondly, just because we fix the hp/weight ratio, it doesn’t mean that people stop spending money on engines. They just spend it in different ways. Look at GTS. Huge flat torque curves win by maximizing the area under the curve. So, you still need a built bottom end to maximize the torque and then you’ll spend more in tuning out peak hp.[/quote]
If you were allowed to tune the computer, I’d say this is legit. You can change the swirl by tweaking a few things, and certain restrictors will allow for lessened top end, but other than that, tuning a flat torque curve in a class that has a car that already has a decently flat curve, and you can’t tune the computer seems a little off.
[quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62279]
Thirdly, this will cost everyone money. Everyone will need to confirm their power on the dyno ($100 per session). Even if we dyno at the track, that costs us or NASA money. If it costs NASA money, then guess where that money comes from… It’s still us. THEN everyone will need to spend money on easily “addable” and “subtractable” ballast. There are cheap ways, but no free ways (and they must be SAFE). Then, if we adjust our weight to comply to the hp/weight ratio, we need to corner weight again, which costs money for those of us who don’t have $1100 scales.[/quote]
Almost everyone on this site has posted dyno numbers already, which means they’ve been there a few times.
If you don’t have $1,100 scales, you aren’t cornerweighting your car and maximizing anyway.
For you, it would be pretty easy to have a few restrictors fabbed up and end up being able to take all that weight out of your car.
[quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62279]
If you’re not balancing your corner weights, then, frankly, you’re not trying very hard anyway and I don’t feel sorry that you have a 140hp engine. Afterall, these are race cars, not LeMons cars. Ability to run junkyard motors at the top level of our competition is not a requirement of the series to comply to, imo. Build a motor once and hope it lasts several years. Complying to the hp/weight will cost everyone money throughout every year.[/quote]
See, here is where I take issue with the race car vs. street car idea. The rules state you can run a stock exhaust system if you want because there are some guys that drive to and from the track. You guys seem to have a bunch of different ideas about what this class represents. Either its a budget spec class, or it isn’t.
Building a motor once and hoping it lasts several years is a very budget class oriented statement. Personally, I’d never expect a good race motor to last more than 2 seasons before it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
Don’t say it won’t work when it clearly does for many other classes. Just sayin…[/quote]
I just gave an example of a car that it won’t work on without a) lowering min weight or b) fitting an intake restrictor.
[quote=“Foglght” post=62281][quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62279]
Secondly, just because we fix the hp/weight ratio, it doesn’t mean that people stop spending money on engines. They just spend it in different ways. Look at GTS. Huge flat torque curves win by maximizing the area under the curve. So, you still need a built bottom end to maximize the torque and then you’ll spend more in tuning out peak hp.[/quote]
If you were allowed to tune the computer, I’d say this is legit. You can change the swirl by tweaking a few things, and certain restrictors will allow for lessened top end, but other than that, tuning a flat torque curve in a class that has a car that already has a decently flat curve, and you can’t tune the computer seems a little off.[/quote]
I’m saying that those who are looking to maximize and have the ability to do so will still try. And find ways.
[quote=“Foglght” post=62281][quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62279]
Thirdly, this will cost everyone money. Everyone will need to confirm their power on the dyno ($100 per session). Even if we dyno at the track, that costs us or NASA money. If it costs NASA money, then guess where that money comes from… It’s still us. THEN everyone will need to spend money on easily “addable” and “subtractable” ballast. There are cheap ways, but no free ways (and they must be SAFE). Then, if we adjust our weight to comply to the hp/weight ratio, we need to corner weight again, which costs money for those of us who don’t have $1100 scales.[/quote]
Almost everyone on this site has posted dyno numbers already, which means they’ve been there a few times.
If you don’t have $1,100 scales, you aren’t cornerweighting your car and maximizing anyway.
For you, it would be pretty easy to have a few restrictors fabbed up and end up being able to take all that weight out of your car. [/quote]
I RENTED scales. I have tuned my cornerbalance and only need scales again if I were to change my weight.
[quote=“Foglght” post=62281][quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62279]
If you’re not balancing your corner weights, then, frankly, you’re not trying very hard anyway and I don’t feel sorry that you have a 140hp engine. Afterall, these are race cars, not LeMons cars. Ability to run junkyard motors at the top level of our competition is not a requirement of the series to comply to, imo. Build a motor once and hope it lasts several years. Complying to the hp/weight will cost everyone money throughout every year.[/quote]
See, here is where I take issue with the race car vs. street car idea. The rules state you can run a stock exhaust system if you want because there are some guys that drive to and from the track. You guys seem to have a bunch of different ideas about what this class represents. Either its a budget spec class, or it isn’t.
Building a motor once and hoping it lasts several years is a very budget class oriented statement. Personally, I’d never expect a good race motor to last more than 2 seasons before it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.[/quote]
You can run a stock exhaust system and keep your car otherwise street legal if you want to drive your car to the track. You are also not likely to be running up front in that case, but the rules allow that to be done. None of what we’re proposing would make the car not street legal (aside from the lack of DOT approved belts, seats, but that’s another story.).
This class accepts a lot of different racers. Those who want to drive to the track and have a go at wheel-to-wheel competition may. It also should not disallow those who want to put the effort in to maximize their equipment within the rule set to do so. It would become a joke of a race class if we did that. This is just natural progression.
Building a “STOCK” race motor to last “a few years” is reasonable. Within the rule set, these are not super high-strung engines, even at 160hp output.
NOTE the following ended up in my post, but was written by Ranger (weird glitch?). IMO, it won’t work because NASA doesn’t level their scales:
Subject change. The way to do corner weights on the cheap is to go to an event with some weight lifting weight plates. When you have some down time disconnect your sways and go weigh your car. Run the #'s thru your corner weight spreadsheet (google it) and move some weight around.
This assumes that NASA-SE gets all 4 scales working.
[quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62279]I don’t like the idea of a fixed hp/weight ratio. Aside from the fact that I don’t like it, it won’t work. Just using myself as an example, I’m already carrying the max allowable ballast weight, along with a full tank. I also have a freshened motor, on a budget (~155hp). So, my only option is to de-tune my engine (restrictor).
Secondly, just because we fix the hp/weight ratio, it doesn’t mean that people stop spending money on engines. They just spend it in different ways. Look at GTS. Huge flat torque curves win by maximizing the area under the curve. So, you still need a built bottom end to maximize the torque and then you’ll spend more in tuning out peak hp.
Thirdly, this will cost everyone money. Everyone will need to confirm their power on the dyno ($100 per session). Even if we dyno at the track, that costs us or NASA money. If it costs NASA money, then guess where that money comes from… It’s still us. THEN everyone will need to spend money on easily “addable” and “subtractable” ballast. There are cheap ways, but no free ways (and they must be SAFE). Then, if we adjust our weight to comply to the hp/weight ratio, we need to corner weight again, which costs money for those of us who don’t have $1100 scales.
If you’re not balancing your corner weights, then, frankly, you’re not trying very hard anyway and I don’t feel sorry that you have a 140hp engine. Afterall, these are race cars, not LeMons cars. Ability to run junkyard motors at the top level of our competition is not a requirement of the series to comply to, imo. Build a motor once and hope it lasts several years. Complying to the hp/weight will cost everyone money throughout every year.[/quote]
Re. it won’t work. Sure it would. The ballast rule gets changed in this idea such that you are allowed to get to the weight your hp requires.
Re. secondly people will still spend money to get better torque curves. Sure they will, but the enemy of “good enough” is “perfect”. There will never be a perfect solution, but this hypothetical is a pretty good 90% solution in that it puts a 145hp motor on an even plane with a 160hp motor. It would be a helova lot harder to eke out that kind of advantage in torque curves in some legal way. Why diss a good 90% solution for failing to be 100%?
Re. thirdly costing everyone money. One the contrary, the idea reduces the incentive to participate in an engine arms race. There would be far fewer high end engines built. Folks might do a head refresh when entering the series but other than that folks would run the engines until a bearing wiped. When newbies were evaluating which series to build a car for they’d see SpecE30 and think “if I race with them I don’t have to build a race engine”.
All of these proposals are just adding complexity, and lack of complexity is precisely what attracted me to SE30. There’s a set weight, a set group of components…bang, done. Maximizing those limited components is what makes a racer, a racer, isn’t it?
Re hp/lbs not working: Am I the first one to actually run the numbers? If we use a 150hp engine and our current 2600 lb weight as the baseline, that yields a 0.0577 hp/lb ratio (that is 17.33 lbs/hp). To match this:
A 160 hp engine would have to weigh in at 2773 lbs.
A 140 hp engine would have to weigh in at 2426 lbs.
That is a 350 lb spread between high and low cars. There is no way that a 140 lb car is going to get down to 2426 without extreme measures (people have been bitching about how hard it would be to drop 50 lbs!). On the other end of the spectrum, a 160 hp car cannot safely add enough ballast (by our rules, 125 + spare tire is max) to get up to 2773, even if that car is currently hitting 2600 lbs with NO ballast!
[quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62283]
Subject change. The way to do corner weights on the cheap is to go to an event with some weight lifting weight plates. When you have some down time disconnect your sways and go weigh your car. Run the #'s thru your corner weight spreadsheet (google it) and move some weight around.
This assumes that NASA-SE gets all 4 scales working.[/quote]
WTF??? I did not write this in my post. Did an admin add this or does someone know my login info?? Or is this some weird system glitch??? (EDIT: It looks like it was a system glitch and Ranger’s post was added in mine)
Additionally, the NASA scales are NOT LEVELED and therefore DO NOT work for corner balancing.
[quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62290][quote=“Z3SpdDmn” post=62283]
Subject change. The way to do corner weights on the cheap is to go to an event with some weight lifting weight plates. When you have some down time disconnect your sways and go weigh your car. Run the #'s thru your corner weight spreadsheet (google it) and move some weight around.
This assumes that NASA-SE gets all 4 scales working.[/quote]
WTF??? I did not write this in my post. Did an admin add this or does someone know my login info?? Or is this some weird system glitch???
Additionally, the NASA scales are NOT LEVELED and therefore DO NOT work for corner balancing.[/quote]
I wrote that part re. the scales. Might have been my goof if it got attributed to you, sorry.
You make a good point re. scales being level. I do mine at Roebling and that’s a permanent scale installation so hopefully it’s reasonably level. CMP probably is but it’s worth checking. The RA tech shed might be but they’ve been setting up the scales lately in the RA pro pits and that’s certainly not level.
[quote=“Ranger” post=62291]I wrote that part re. the scales. Might have been my goof if it got attributed to you, sorry.
You make a good point re. scales being level. I do mine at Roebling and that’s a permanent scale installation so hopefully it’s reasonably level. CMP probably is but it’s worth checking. The RA tech shed might be but they’ve been setting up the scales lately in the RA pro pits and that’s certainly not level.[/quote]
Very weird, as it was written inside MY post.
I was amazed the first time at how much difference the leveling made, as well as disconnecting the sway bars (they are both a must).
E30, cheap, simple and competitors are what attracted me to spec E30. The ideal class for me would be cheap E30 RACECARS. I would like to keep the mods as is and cut the car to the bare bones to make weight while still accounting for the 150lb weight variance in drivers. I don’t understand why we need the class to make everyone happy. There are a dozen classes in NASA or more. I think Jim or Scott said a few days ago that getting hit was inevitable. If you’re car really is street legal it’s not very safe or competitive. Not to mention the car is uninsurable during a competition. It seams like everyone that I disagree with on this forum uses the “what about the guys who can’t afford it” argument. I am that guy. If I had money I would have been racing a year ago. The biggest expense is tires am I right? They will last longer if our cars are lighter and an extra 20mm of tread would be worth it also. If your motor makes 140 on a Dyno-Jet it is worn out and if it’s a junkyard motor it probably leaves a puddle of oil anywhere you park it. Why the rules should be adjusted to make that competitive I don’t understand.
If you’re motor is worn out then rebuild it. I don’t see how a blueprinted motor and a homebuilt motor can be that different on power. There aren’t any tricks allowed in the rules other than optimizing tolerances. Most of them are measured in thousandths and I doubt the manufacturers or your local machinist are off by a thousandth on anything. You could of course blow a bunch of money on forged pistons which I don’t know why it is allowed in the rules.
I finally sell a bunch of stuff to build a new motor and now someone wants me to add weight because they’d rather sleep in an RV at the track than have a decent motor. My tow vehicle has body panels in three different colors from three different vehicles. I’ve slept in the E30, I’ve slept in the truck and my best track accommodations were when I borrowed my brothers tent. Next thing that happens is maybe I’ll sell my truck and borrow my dad’s when I need to tow. You can stop with the what about the people who can’t afford it BS because I don’t want to hear it anymore.
While i know that this is supposed to be a cheap series, think about what is being said… a Cheap racing series. if i didn’t know any better id laugh at someone or tell them they are mistaking autoXing for road racing, and even that can be expensive. if you want real cheap racing you ride motorcycles, or hell even bicycles or just go do sprint races on foot. My point is that there is a point were cheap is just a word with respect to what you are doing, so if you want to keep your car street able and not spend some time on your back scrapping sound deadening material off your car because you want to find every pound, then i think you should doing something else, just my opinion, either hate me for it or not.
This series is about learning, about a grassroots racer trying to get into the sport or the seasoned racer who is looking for something a little more on the fun side. racing is a sport and no sport is easy, i don’t care what you say every sport takes some kind of dedication and determination. if you want to win then you do what it takes to do it. get you grubbies on and find every pound in the car to be shed. if you can’t afford to have someone build your motor, go buy a book and learn how to do it. if you can’t do something you figure out how to do it.
If i were going to change the rules right now i would make the tire a 225 45r15 on a 15x8 rim, allow the minimum to be 2600 and subject to change as i am still not sure how light these cars can get, allow the use of rear wings for aerodynamic tuning (mainly for dealing with our tendencies for these cars to either Understeer or Oversteer not find a happy balance) and one thing I’m still on the fence about is engine tune-ability, not sure that would be in the spirit of spec, but i know id love to be able to tune my motor!
Thats just me, a person who is a little tired of multiple threads geared towards the same idea of making these cars faster and perform better within the rules, looking what the series and seeing what its about, i am willing to bet the rules will not change and these threads are pointless.
A few tweaks to your suggestions. I usually run 225/45/17 on 17x7.5 wheels. They rub pretty bad so I would stick with the 15x7 and hope the smaller diameter is enough to eliminate it. I wouldn’t allow rear downforce. I would allow more weight out of the front. I’ve never bought an E30 or driven a car with working ABS so why start now. The ABS on my truck doesn’t do shit on the snow. Who knows if its working or not. There is no bright light to tell my ABS took a shit on me. Get rid of the ABS brick up front and take out the unnecessary wires. Remove the big pipe and spring assembly that lifts the hood up and just pin it on. Ditch the headlights and horns. Not everyone runs enduros and if they want lights they can have them but it shouldn’t be at our expense.
When I get the wiring back in I’ll have a switch to disable the ABS if I ever get it working in the first place. All of you who want this to be the learning class should think about learning to threshold brake without it.
16 pages on how to ruin my favorite spec series. :dry:
I’m curious to know where the guys who so adamantly want to change things are finishing? Frustrated mid-packer, or potential front-runner who can’t quite seem to make it happen?
I’m a mid-pack guy on a good day (or if it’s wet, haha!). I’ve watched the front runners in my regions. I know why they are faster, and it’s not because of some magical motor. They are better drivers, plain and simple. My car prep is not what theirs is. I don’t bring my own portable alignment ‘rack’ to the track (you know who you are ) nor spend hours fussing with tire pressures. I accept that these things will keep me from the front. I haven’t heard anything from the other mid-pack guys I’m racing with, and I’m guessing it’s because we like where we are; just racing with a bunch of guys with a similar talent and prep level for fun. When you want to implement new complications to the series, all you do for us (the bulk of participants, I’d wager) is create hassle and expense. The cars run fast enough for my level of skill and handle darn well, IMO. Learn to drive. Learn to tweak your settings, if that’s what you’re into. But aside from our tire durability issues, stop trying to fix something most of us feel isn’t broken.
[quote=“turbo329is” post=62294]E30, cheap, simple and competitors are what attracted me to spec E30. The ideal class for me would be cheap E30 RACECARS. I would like to keep the mods as is and cut the car to the bare bones to make weight while still accounting for the 150lb weight variance in drivers. I don’t understand why we need the class to make everyone happy. There are a dozen classes in NASA or more. I think Jim or Scott said a few days ago that getting hit was inevitable. If you’re car really is street legal it’s not very safe or competitive. Not to mention the car is uninsurable during a competition. It seams like everyone that I disagree with on this forum uses the “what about the guys who can’t afford it” argument. I am that guy. If I had money I would have been racing a year ago. The biggest expense is tires am I right? They will last longer if our cars are lighter and an extra 20mm of tread would be worth it also. If your motor makes 140 on a Dyno-Jet it is worn out and if it’s a junkyard motor it probably leaves a puddle of oil anywhere you park it. Why the rules should be adjusted to make that competitive I don’t understand.
If you’re motor is worn out then rebuild it. I don’t see how a blueprinted motor and a homebuilt motor can be that different on power. There aren’t any tricks allowed in the rules other than optimizing tolerances. Most of them are measured in thousandths and I doubt the manufacturers or your local machinist are off by a thousandth on anything. You could of course blow a bunch of money on forged pistons which I don’t know why it is allowed in the rules.
I finally sell a bunch of stuff to build a new motor and now someone wants me to add weight because they’d rather sleep in an RV at the track than have a decent motor. My tow vehicle has body panels in three different colors from three different vehicles. I’ve slept in the E30, I’ve slept in the truck and my best track accommodations were when I borrowed my brothers tent. Next thing that happens is maybe I’ll sell my truck and borrow my dad’s when I need to tow. You can stop with the what about the people who can’t afford it BS because I don’t want to hear it anymore.[/quote]
You have a tow vehicle? You lucky dog! I have to beg, borrow and steal a tow vehicle and my trailer is registered to a guy named Ulysees Haul.
That being said, I do sleep in an RV at the track and have a decent motor. Can’t say I don’t have my priorities straight!
) nor spend hours fussing with tire pressures. I accept that these things will keep me from the front. I haven’t heard anything from the other mid-pack guys I’m racing with, and I’m guessing it’s because we like where we are; just racing with a bunch of guys with a similar talent and prep level for fun. When you want to implement new complications to the series, all you do for us (the bulk of participants, I’d wager) is create hassle and expense. The cars run fast enough for my level of skill and handle darn well, IMO. Learn to drive. Learn to tweak your settings, if that’s what you’re into. But aside from our tire durability issues, stop trying to fix something most of us feel isn’t broken.