 |
|
Or, instead of restrictor plates, how about adding more ballast? So for every 1HP over the limit, you run 10lbs of ballast?
If we pick a good limit, is someone really going to be able to build a legal motor that puts out 10HP more? This IS an M20 we’re talking about here.
traqrat wrote:
[quote]Or, instead of restrictor plates, how about adding more ballast? So for every 1HP over the limit, you run 10lbs of ballast?
If we pick a good limit, is someone really going to be able to build a legal motor that puts out 10HP more? This IS an M20 we’re talking about here.[/quote]
I agree I think weight is a much better way to go. You can more finely tune the power to weight and theres still incentive not to build a monster motor.
Lance - nice idea regarding weight.
I did the stats on the cars dyno’d at Mid-Ohio:
Mean hp = 151
95% confidence interval = 148.5 - 153.7
Standard deviation = 2.83
Range = 148 - 156
I am admittedly a newby to this, but as Michael noted below, the range of mods within the rules are broad, not to mention basic good maintenance (new plugs, oil, wires, fuel pump efficiency, etc.) which may account for the variances noted above.
I am in the process of building our second car and am hoping to have some good safe, close racing, and fun on the track with the group.
I am confident that Carter/Mike will come up with a good decision for all of us based on the evidence at hand.
Ed
Setting a peak HP number is also misleading!
What is really important is area under the HP curve.
That area is "unpoliced" and that is where you will see the clandestine money spent.
HHHMM maybe a cam with a bit more duration and less lift. Get you more torque down low and similar peak HP?
Add in a little creative tuning on the air temp sensor to get a bit more fuel…after all it is just a resistor that is measuring air temp. How hard could that be to trick?
Heck maybe even a chip that knocks the ignition back before you get to 150 hp.
Shave a little weight off the flywheel…adds NO HP, but hmmm accelerates faster…
It will be fun staying ahead of the cheaters!!!
Rob, it will take about $3000 retail to build a fresh engine–I like the "claimer" idea. Ed, thanks for the statistical numbers as it puts the "all at one time" testing into the proper perspective. Simon and Mike have the right idea about using weight as an equalizer at a given track event with everyone on the dyno. However, there really should not be anyone too far out of the statistical box(given what we’ve seen at Mid Ohio and other dyno tests).Rick is correct with the "big dollar monster engine" build, but the spec administrators are not rookies in racing and the penalties for that kind of bliant cheating would admonish one from further competition. Good inputs…I’m confident that Mike’s and Carter" s experience will provide us with a stable rule as they are required. Regards, Robert Patton
It is also very easy to check cumbustion chamber volume with a whistler at the track. Cobetto said that he had access to one at mid-ohio, but I don’t think anyone thought that a certain car or cars needed to be checked because the dyno proved everyone’s motor was resonably close. I also think that the max hp/tq thing is being taken out of perspective, and I would like to see some post race tech that was a little more in depth as far as suspension components go. I think you could gain a much greater advantage with more camber, greater spring rates and lighter wheels than you could with 10hp or 10lb/ft torque. None of which was checked at nationals. I’m not saying that nationals wasn’t fair I think everyone aggrees that the cars were legal and close. I’m just looking towards the future and if max HP and weight is the only thing that is on the minds of the post race techs, I think this would be a problem.
With Spec 36 coming into play hopefully money racers who were think of doing spec 30 will go that direction and we won’t have to worry about the built to the max engine or the tinkerers coming into the series.
Just reading through this thread - some very interesting ideas.
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but - personally - I just can’t understand why anyone would want to shell out beaucoup money to get a 5-10 hp advantage in this class. I would think that anyone having $25k to spend on a racecar would be racing an IP e36 m3, which is a better, faster, newer, better looking, and easier to drive car. Of course I would say the same thing about spec miatas, and would be proven wrong there.
it is fascinating to see how fast the spec e36 discussion has degraded over at bimmerforums - you’re already seeing people who were thinking spec e36 but the tone of the discussions turned them off.
cheers,
bruce
To address Bruce’s tone of discussion comment, I think this group of racers has done an admirable job of staying within the rules. Period. End of conversation. If one can beat the front runners in Mid Atlantic then they’re good racers. I guess that is what keeps the discussions helpful rather than spiteful. To comment on the suspension tweaks that Mike Davidson brought up: It is so easy to check camber----just slap a Longacre gauge on the wheel. Visual inspection will almost do the trick. Any thing more than ~3.75 and there is something going on (the strut was or got bent somewhere in its life), as the spring will hit the inside of the tower. Spring rates and shocks: just check for the H&R and Bilstein part numbers. Having run the J Stock stiffer springs and shocks (the spring rates are about double the stuff we use) for years, I can tell you that they don’t offer any advantage, especially on a bumpy track as the car acts like a go cart and becomes very darty. Lower front suspension: check the strut housing length to make sure a racer hasn’t cut/rewelded the tube.Suspension tweaks are not difficult to spot. Regards, Robert Patton