Should SpecE30 go to coilovers?

JamesClay · 2015-10-14 10:53:46 UTC

My feedback was to solve the stated problem of haves and have nots on reaching max camber. When I see that the stated objective is to be like SE46 because a stiffer car feels more like a racecar, I disagree. SE30 is a fine spec class as-is. If you have a parity issue and a smaller diameter spring solves it, go for it, and if there is a better match to the new front setup at the same time, then consider doing 4 corners rather than making new builders buy a set of 4, plus 2 fronts.

jb325is · 2015-10-14 11:08:22 UTC

With 375/600 would we be nearing the limits of the stock valving on the Bilsteins?

Also, regarding the cost of scales/corner weighting. There will undoubtedly be guys who are on the scales all weekend, but the guy who doesn’t want to spend the money on a set of scales could potentially get his car corner weighted at the beginning of the season and just keep a detailed log of any cross changes made at the track. If you took out a 1/4 turn of cross at Roebling, write it down and put it back in when you get home. Make sure you sway bar links are free and bars are greased and you should be able to hold numbers pretty well.

Som · 2015-10-14 13:35:55 UTC

Another option – and I bring it up as purely a discussion point, not in any way as a suggestion since I haven’t really thought of all the implications – would be to fragment the series. As in, have “Spec E30” and “Spec E30 X” (or come up with a better name).

You can then provide some additional things for X cars that might add 3-5k to the car cost, but would make the car “more race car like” or “better suited for more experienced racers” or whatever other reasons people have for wanting to improve the capabilities.

In that class, you could have, say, spec coilovers, open ECU, and open intake and/or exhaust (edit: and a corresponding power max increase – 180hp?). One possible added benefit here would be to set the rules up in such a way that puts the car on equal grounds with other class equivalents. I don’t know what SCCA’s ITS rules are, but I was under the impression a standard SE30 car would have a hard time being competitive there. Maybe set up the rules so an X car could be competitive, thereby incentivizing people to invest in building more cars? Or maybe even luring away ITS racers to run SE30X? Again, don’t know the rule differences, so maybe they’re not that close…

Keep the racing in the same pack (as there’ll probably be SE30 drivers that will be faster than slower SE30X drivers), but give out podium finishes to both groups.

On the surface, I’m not a big fan of this idea from a “what it would do for me” perspective because I like having 20-30 identical cars to race against. Then again, I’m a ways away from sniffing the front half of the pack anyway. If it provides options for people that feel like they’ve “outgrown” the car and keeps them racing in the SE30 family, maybe it’s an idea worth discussing? Even if it means shooting holes in it and watching it come crashing down in a fiery ball of shit.

Som

donstevens · 2015-10-14 18:54:50 UTC

My vote is no simply because I cannot afford any mods.

I like the fact that any change would not be mandatory.

jb325is · 2015-10-14 19:35:01 UTC

[quote=“Som” post=81774]Another option – and I bring it up as purely a discussion point, not in any way as a suggestion since I haven’t really thought of all the implications – would be to fragment the series. As in, have “Spec E30” and “Spec E30 X” (or come up with a better name).

You can then provide some additional things for X cars that might add 3-5k to the car cost, but would make the car “more race car like” or “better suited for more experienced racers” or whatever other reasons people have for wanting to improve the capabilities.

In that class, you could have, say, spec coilovers, open ECU, and open intake and/or exhaust (edit: and a corresponding power max increase – 180hp?). One possible added benefit here would be to set the rules up in such a way that puts the car on equal grounds with other class equivalents. I don’t know what SCCA’s ITS rules are, but I was under the impression a standard SE30 car would have a hard time being competitive there. Maybe set up the rules so an X car could be competitive, thereby incentivizing people to invest in building more cars? Or maybe even luring away ITS racers to run SE30X? Again, don’t know the rule differences, so maybe they’re not that close…

Keep the racing in the same pack (as there’ll probably be SE30 drivers that will be faster than slower SE30X drivers), but give out podium finishes to both groups.

On the surface, I’m not a big fan of this idea from a “what it would do for me” perspective because I like having 20-30 identical cars to race against. Then again, I’m a ways away from sniffing the front half of the pack anyway. If it provides options for people that feel like they’ve “outgrown” the car and keeps them racing in the SE30 family, maybe it’s an idea worth discussing? Even if it means shooting holes in it and watching it come crashing down in a fiery ball of shit.

Som[/quote]

That is a pretty good idea. I wonder how a Pro3 car would compare to ITS? A friend of mine is very quick in ITS in an Integra and I think he is in the high 38’s, low 39’s on a good day @ Rd Atl, kind of a long way to go for a spec e30.

harper · 2015-10-14 19:49:45 UTC

can we just lock this thread at this point and go back to business as usual before scare off anyone who might be building a car in the offseason…(i know of several in my region that I want to continue building cars)…threads like this do not help draw people to Spec e30…if people are bored and want something to talk about, debate convertibles again, that’s always good for a few laughs…

Ranger · 2015-10-14 20:30:08 UTC

A number of folks in the fb thread talked about adjustability.

The scenario would have a min height spec so there’d be no using the coilovers to get our cars any lower than they are now. In my case, I was just going to make sure my corner weights were ok and then let it go at that. There’s no way I’d bother screwing with corner weights for different tracks. But that said, maybe this is just because I don’t know much about “setting up a car for a specific track.” Are there folks that would intentionally change their corner weights for one track or another? One guy envisioned cars doing a Friday test day for the sole purpose of “setting up coilovers.” What am I missing?

I did some thinking on how we might go to a 2 1/2" spring, and therefore eliminate the OEM top hat, yet not end up with adjustable ride heights. I couldn’t come up with a realistic way to do it that everyone could do in their own garage and it would all work out predictably. The only way I could imagine trying to come up with a spec is a bunch of trial and error with springs of different height vs. fresh H&R Race springs. That sounded like a year of hassle, which is an awful lot of time to spend on an idea that might end up going no where. For the sake of debate, any other ideas on how to go to a 2 1/2" w/o introducing adjustability?

A general point. In the previous discussions over the years re. coilovers, the idea was a lot more popular. So maybe what we’ve learned here is that as the idea is only popular when it’s abstract. Once we start looking at a serious proposal, it gets less popular. Good to know.

djjerme · 2015-10-14 20:50:28 UTC

I posted this on the FB pages, but will repost here…

Any current SE30 driver is more than welcome to check out my PRO3 car at a track day if you happen to make it up to the PNW to see what SE30 will be like on coilovers.

I had tried running as pure SE30 (complete suspension) a while back before NASA NW collapsed. That lasted for only a handful of races before I went back to coilovers - the car just felt too dead.

Actually, to correct a previous post, we are usually running between 600-750# in the front and 700-1000# in the rear depending on the shocks, swaybar…etc.

I built my own coilovers and they originally where Billy’s all around before I shortened the housing and went full 'tard on ride height. Then I had to go Koni singles - I ended up using G60 Corrado’s in front and Fox body Mustang in the back.

Going coilovers I don’t think is going to change the series dynamic as much as say opening up diff ratio or allowing no hp restriction on supposed “stock” rebuilds, but there will be some difference. But you can’t rule out all differences in cars, despite them all being “matched.” Even in SRF or FV there is going to be cars that are a little “hotter” than the rest…

Cheaters are going to cheat, people with money to burn to get to the front are going to continue to spend thousands for a cheap plastic trophy, will that change what you get out of racing? For me, it’s about the competition, but also having fun with friends and like minded individuals. Coilovers definitely increase the “fun” factor in that you really can just hammer the car in to the corners harder than the existing SE30 suspension. So for me, that is a net win…

Also, coilovers (or suspension in general) is not a huge wear item like tires, engines, or even fire gear. Heck, there is some cars still running round on the same coilover shocks they had when the series was first getting of the ground (2004-ish?) So for the majority of the pack it’s a buy or build it and forget it. The shocks can be rebuilt or revalved, but like I said, these are not a high wear item…

Any whoot, offer still stands feel free to reach out to me if you want to take me up on it.

jb325is · 2015-10-14 21:03:22 UTC

[quote=“Ranger” post=81778]A number of folks in the fb thread talked about adjustability.

The scenario would have a min height spec so there’d be no using the coilovers to get our cars any lower than they are now. In my case, I was just going to make sure my corner weights were ok and then let it go at that. There’s no way I’d bother screwing with corner weights for different tracks. But that said, maybe this is just because I don’t know much about “setting up a car for a specific track.” Are there folks that would intentionally change their corner weights for one track or another? One guy envisioned cars doing a Friday test day for the sole purpose of “setting up coilovers.” What am I missing?

I did some thinking on how we might go to a 2 1/2" spring, and therefore eliminate the OEM top hat, yet not end up with adjustable ride heights. I couldn’t come up with a realistic way to do it that everyone could do in their own garage and it would all work out predictably. The only way I could imagine trying to come up with a spec is a bunch of trial and error with springs of different height vs. fresh H&R Race springs. That sounded like a year of hassle, which is an awful lot of time to spend on an idea that might end up going no where. For the sake of debate, any other ideas on how to go to a 2 1/2" w/o introducing adjustability?

A general point. In the previous discussions over the years re. coilovers, the idea was a lot more popular. So maybe what we’ve learned here is that as the idea is only popular when it’s abstract. Once we start looking at a serious proposal, it gets less popular. Good to know.[/quote]

IMO if you’re going to bother with going to a 2.5" spring you might as well just add the adjusters.

As far as adjusting corner weights for each track, absolutely. For the most part you are making small adjustments, basically +/- 1%, but a car with 51% cross is going to feel a lot different at Roebling than one with 49%. There are people that don’t care and won’t care, but allowing participants in the series to experiment with setup changes like this and learn what it does to the car is in no way a detractor from the series IMO. Spece30 is great for competition and racecraft, but so is Spec Miata, which is really a better platform with more adjustability but a ridiculously high cost. I feel like added adjustability would even the playing field a little bit and maybe attract some people that don’t want to spend $8k on an engine just to be competitive.

Forgot to add regarding adjustability for each track, most of them are pretty neutral and you can “set it and forget it,” I keep using Roebling as an example because it’s an oddball track and a good one for feeling a difference in cross weights

Matt_H · 2015-10-14 21:34:43 UTC

Can anyone quantify how springs are a wear item? They have a free length and a rate. What changes over time and how much does it change?

The springs in my car are probably ~10 years old and I have no problems running with new-build cars. I also have no plans to change my springs, so my projected cost is $0. Any change will cost me money, time with my kids, and/or sleep. All three are things I really don’t want to give up.

If coilovers are allowed I’ll feel forced to make the change.

I vote NO.

juliancates · 2015-10-14 21:48:09 UTC

Hard to quote properly on my phone. Somebody was saying if changing springs, go ahead and add adjusters. I wanted to point out that adjustable spring perches are already legal per the current ruleset.

Ranger · 2015-10-14 21:57:14 UTC

jb325is: I didn’t want to add adjustability. I just felt forced to. When playing with rule change ideas one has to be wary of creating unintended consequences. So you kinda have to wargame all the ways an idea might go bad. Imagine if there was some kind of fixed length 2 1/2" spring and associated hardware substituted for ours, but suddenly a guy calls you from across the country and says “dude, my cross weights were fine, but I put in the new springs and now they’re all screwed up. Wtf”.

So the scheme that was intended to equalize the playing field for camber and caster suddenly screws up a guy. Lets assume he installed it correctly. So now what do you do? You’ve created an unintended consequence…how are you going to fix it? Change the rule again with some tweak that fixes this guy’s problem? Folks hate rule changes, and every change can create more unintended consequences.

So I figured that the scenario had to allow adjustability in order to ensure that it didn’t screw anyone up. But, that raises the specter of suspension tuning, a subject that I don’t know much about. It was hard for me to imagine that the average person would bother attempting to intentionally unbalance their cornerweights in different ways for each track. But there’s always risk when one is dismissing the significance of a subject they don’t know much about.

Matt. Re. quantify how springs are a wear item. You saw what I wrote on that, correct? That info came from James Clay. It’s not exactly “quantified”, but it should be enough for you to conclusively decide that James believes that you need new springs.

Rnz520 · 2015-10-14 21:59:03 UTC

I like the idea of 2.5 inch stiffer springs, but adding adjustability to the equation may be too much.
I just built a car and would gladly invest in narrower springs and/or just a stiffer set of springs, but I don’t know who makes them.
So talking to a company like garagetistic about making a non adjustable set of 2.5 inch perches is not out of the question, then the spring choice is huge, and not very expensive.
But adjustability favors the wallet or the savvy, and would uneven our playing field and take more out of drivers hands.
Losing another 50 to 100 lbs would also be helpful, along with a cheaper way to make 160 hp other than a fresh engine/head.
And that’s coming from someone that can build his own engines.
The series is far from perfect, but the competition is hugely attractive as well as its low cost. Cannot lose sight of that for minimal lap time gains of adjustable suspension.

King_Tut · 2015-10-14 22:03:01 UTC

I vote NO.

Matt_H · 2015-10-14 22:27:22 UTC

I read every line and understand that James thinks I need new springs. My argument is that my racing isn’t going to be made significantly “better” or “safer” or “more fun” by spending $380 for new H&Rs (nor by spending $550+ for coilovers) than it is now. I just don’t see the return on investment. If you can show me that the ROI is there, I’ll do it.

Maybe with new springs I could go wheel-to-wheel with someone who’s currently 1/2 second faster than I am, but for my money that’s not $400 better than the guys who I can go wheel-to-wheel with right now. And, it doesn’t make the beer in the paddock taste any better.

[quote=“Ranger” post=81784]Folks hate rule changes…
[/quote]

danny325is · 2015-10-14 22:47:19 UTC

I am very casual racer I get out 2 times a year currently so maybe I am not the target market here, but with that said I do not want any more adjust ability/variables. I just dont have the time. I want to enjoy my time at the track and focus on racing and getting my slow ass a little further up the pack. I dont want to be chasing the hot setup.

Between sessions I check the Tire pressures/torque and make sure all fluids look good and nothing is broken, bam I am ready fgo. I get to spend the time hanging with the guys and watching the other races. or even helping the guy that broke something. If i have to spend time working on setup that is less time I am helping someone else or BSing with other racers.

ddavidv · 2015-10-14 23:56:40 UTC

I have a very hard time believing people are abandoning SE30 for SE46 because of how the car feels.

The SE30 package we have now certainly DOES feel like a race car. Ever drive one of these things stock with the off-road suspension?

I love driving my car on the track. Love it. Very fun, very predictable and no constant fussing with adjustments to suit every track or weather condition. I am in this series because I want to drive, not fudge millimeters to try to outsmart the guy ahead of me.

There’s NOTHING wrong with the current setup. I’m adamantly opposed to coilovers.

If anything, we should be allowed to replace all the glass except the windshield with plexi to reduce weight.

donstevens · 2015-10-14 23:58:16 UTC

[quote=“danny325is” post=81788]I am very casual racer I get out 2 times a year currently so maybe I am not the target market here, but with that said I do not want any more adjust ability/variables. I just dont have the time. I want to enjoy my time at the track and focus on racing and getting my slow ass a little further up the pack. I dont want to be chasing the hot setup.

Between sessions I check the Tire pressures/torque and make sure all fluids look good and nothing is broken, bam I am ready fgo. I get to spend the time hanging with the guys and watching the other races. or even helping the guy that broke something. If i have to spend time working on setup that is less time I am helping someone else or BSing with other racers.[/quote]

I agree 100%

Ranger · 2015-10-15 00:44:39 UTC

Lots of folks talking about how they dislike the adjustability of the idea. I’m still waiting tho for someone to write up a compelling argument that it is really likely to happen. If you buy into that point, explain it’s merits pls, because I honestly don’t understand.

Also, who here would really intend to go to the bother of intentionally unbalancing cornerweights to varying degrees for different tracks?

If we wanted to, we could adjust corner weights differently for every track right now easily enough. Spring pads and weight distro would get it done. But afaik, no one does any of that. So why do we imagine that all the sudden adjustable cornerweights would be a big deal? Don’t just complain and make assertions, explain.

JamesClay · 2015-10-15 00:48:28 UTC

Winners.

In all seriousness, the biggest issue you will have with ride height adjustability is the search for the sweet spot. You can make the car better now, but it will take more effort. Yes, some are doing with pads, but it is harder and less likely to really be done. And you are locked into some smallish range by default.

Better cars don’t make spec racing better. Again, the most compelling reason for the change was lack of parity - cars all the same make spec racing better. IF camber adjustment is really an issue, and it isn’t just a problem for people that have excessively beat-up cars that need to be repaired properly, this to me is the reason to look at this change.