| johnfelstead | 05-14-2004 01:34 PM |
madmaxxx is refering to flywheel BHP, not wheel BHP. Or am i missing something? because he says Burkes car has 400BHP as a reference and that isnt at the wheels surely?
| verdier | 05-14-2004 01:35 PM |
horatio,
remenber PGT run a 32mm restrictor, so there is no way you'll be making more power than a stock US WRX.
remenber PGT run a 32mm restrictor, so there is no way you'll be making more power than a stock US WRX.
| johnfelstead | 05-14-2004 01:48 PM |
Dont agree with that at all Stephan. You can make 270BHP with a 32mm restricted Impreza engine and a hell of a lot more torque. You should be able to get well above 220BHP with a 32mm restrictor, even running fully legal and you certainly will make more than stock torque figures.
| Sergeant_V | 05-14-2004 02:00 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]Dont agree with that at all Stephan. You can make 270BHP with a 32mm restricted Impreza engine and a hell of a lot more torque. You should be able to get well above 220BHP with a 32mm restrictor, even running fully legal and you certainly will make more than stock torque figures. [/B][/QUOTE]
John! Please don't make him any faster! :p
Abel
[B]Dont agree with that at all Stephan. You can make 270BHP with a 32mm restricted Impreza engine and a hell of a lot more torque. You should be able to get well above 220BHP with a 32mm restrictor, even running fully legal and you certainly will make more than stock torque figures. [/B][/QUOTE]
John! Please don't make him any faster! :p
Abel
| CosmoTheCat | 05-14-2004 02:07 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by verdier[/i]
[B] horatio,
remenber PGT run a 32mm restrictor, so there is no way you'll be making more power than a stock US WRX. [/B][/QUOTE]
Surely you can overcome the restrictor with increased boost and fuel maps to create more power, plus you're only required to run 1 cat iirc. Single cat plus high flow muffler (if any) alone is good for quite a bit of power from what I've heard.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead[/i]
[B] Dont agree with that at all Stephan. You can make 270BHP with a 32mm restricted Impreza engine and a hell of a lot more torque. You should be able to get well above 220BHP with a 32mm restrictor, even running fully legal and you certainly will make more than stock torque figures. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think we were getting crossed on our numbers, the 150 is definately a wheel figure, whereas the 400 would more reasonably be a crank number. But I do agree that you can make more power legally than stock.
[B] horatio,
remenber PGT run a 32mm restrictor, so there is no way you'll be making more power than a stock US WRX. [/B][/QUOTE]
Surely you can overcome the restrictor with increased boost and fuel maps to create more power, plus you're only required to run 1 cat iirc. Single cat plus high flow muffler (if any) alone is good for quite a bit of power from what I've heard.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead[/i]
[B] Dont agree with that at all Stephan. You can make 270BHP with a 32mm restricted Impreza engine and a hell of a lot more torque. You should be able to get well above 220BHP with a 32mm restrictor, even running fully legal and you certainly will make more than stock torque figures. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think we were getting crossed on our numbers, the 150 is definately a wheel figure, whereas the 400 would more reasonably be a crank number. But I do agree that you can make more power legally than stock.
| johnfelstead | 05-14-2004 02:16 PM |
Its not me getting crossed up. ;)
I would expect to lose about 65BHP from the flywheel figure on a PGT car with VC centre diff setup, so that does tie in with aprox 155BHP at the wheels stock. Should be more once the boost and fuelling has been setup and will go up a lot in the midrange torque curve area.
I would expect to lose about 65BHP from the flywheel figure on a PGT car with VC centre diff setup, so that does tie in with aprox 155BHP at the wheels stock. Should be more once the boost and fuelling has been setup and will go up a lot in the midrange torque curve area.
| verdier | 05-14-2004 03:02 PM |
John,
Be sure to see me next time you come by. We've been trying to get more power with boost and fuel and 150 was our max. Remember you can't touch the timing and you have to keep the stock ECU. If you can get about 200 HP at the wheel LEGALY, come see me. Before Pikes peak if you can. I might be able to win an overall.
Be sure to see me next time you come by. We've been trying to get more power with boost and fuel and 150 was our max. Remember you can't touch the timing and you have to keep the stock ECU. If you can get about 200 HP at the wheel LEGALY, come see me. Before Pikes peak if you can. I might be able to win an overall.
| JC_595 | 05-14-2004 03:40 PM |
ANd then be so kind as to let me in on the classroom session!!!
:D
Please!
JC
:D
Please!
JC
| madmaxxx | 05-14-2004 04:11 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]Dont agree with that at all Stephan. You can make 270BHP with a 32mm restricted Impreza engine and a hell of a lot more torque. You should be able to get well above 220BHP with a 32mm restrictor, even running fully legal and you certainly will make more than stock torque figures. [/B][/QUOTE]
***??
270bhp with 32mm and PGT rules...keyword is PGT.
stock block, cylinder head, ecu, turbo and intercooler.
I would love to see that...
[B]Dont agree with that at all Stephan. You can make 270BHP with a 32mm restricted Impreza engine and a hell of a lot more torque. You should be able to get well above 220BHP with a 32mm restrictor, even running fully legal and you certainly will make more than stock torque figures. [/B][/QUOTE]
***??
270bhp with 32mm and PGT rules...keyword is PGT.
stock block, cylinder head, ecu, turbo and intercooler.
I would love to see that...
| johnfelstead | 05-14-2004 04:24 PM |
:D
You have reflashed the ECU already then Stephan?
What matters most on these restricted engines isnt peak power, that tends to be hit at around 4500rpm which is quite low down the rpm range, they tend to have usable power until 5500rpm. You should see higher than stock power levels at that lower rpm point IMHO.
If you want to really talk about a PGT cars performance you should be talking about the torque its producing. You should be seeing higher than stock torque from around 3000rpm and it should be much higher than stock levels by about 3700rpm where it will peak out and then drop away steadily, but still be strong to the shift point.
I personally wouldnt reflash your ECU, i'de blow it up. :lol: i leave that to the good Subaru mappers i know who are friends of mine here in the UK. I would just plug my datalogging in and have a look at what you are running.
I am having a play with a small turbo 2 litre engine myself next week though, not a subaru but very similar spec wise to the US WRX, i'll be altering just the boost profiles and fueling with external controlers and wont be touching ignition. This particular engine produces [email�protected][email�protected] out of the box running 10psi boost, so that should give you an idea of how similar they are, if anything its slightly less performant that the WRX. If i dont see 220lbft by 3700rpm, 250lbft by 4500rpm and [email�protected] i'll be disapointed. I am fairly confident i can get the torque to come in lower down than that, but we shall see. :)
You have reflashed the ECU already then Stephan?
What matters most on these restricted engines isnt peak power, that tends to be hit at around 4500rpm which is quite low down the rpm range, they tend to have usable power until 5500rpm. You should see higher than stock power levels at that lower rpm point IMHO.
If you want to really talk about a PGT cars performance you should be talking about the torque its producing. You should be seeing higher than stock torque from around 3000rpm and it should be much higher than stock levels by about 3700rpm where it will peak out and then drop away steadily, but still be strong to the shift point.
I personally wouldnt reflash your ECU, i'de blow it up. :lol: i leave that to the good Subaru mappers i know who are friends of mine here in the UK. I would just plug my datalogging in and have a look at what you are running.
I am having a play with a small turbo 2 litre engine myself next week though, not a subaru but very similar spec wise to the US WRX, i'll be altering just the boost profiles and fueling with external controlers and wont be touching ignition. This particular engine produces [email�protected][email�protected] out of the box running 10psi boost, so that should give you an idea of how similar they are, if anything its slightly less performant that the WRX. If i dont see 220lbft by 3700rpm, 250lbft by 4500rpm and [email�protected] i'll be disapointed. I am fairly confident i can get the torque to come in lower down than that, but we shall see. :)
| johnfelstead | 05-14-2004 04:28 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by madmaxxx [/i]
[B]***??
270bhp with 32mm and PGT rules...keyword is PGT.
stock block, cylinder head, ecu, turbo and intercooler.
I would love to see that... [/B][/QUOTE]
Read the whole paragraph again Max. I said 270BHP with a 32mm restrictor is posible, i then said above stock levels of power are posible running a PGT legal car. From that you should be able to deduce the 270BHP level is for a car that isnt legal in PGT.
[B]***??
270bhp with 32mm and PGT rules...keyword is PGT.
stock block, cylinder head, ecu, turbo and intercooler.
I would love to see that... [/B][/QUOTE]
Read the whole paragraph again Max. I said 270BHP with a 32mm restrictor is posible, i then said above stock levels of power are posible running a PGT legal car. From that you should be able to deduce the 270BHP level is for a car that isnt legal in PGT.
| Porsche914boxer4 | 05-14-2004 04:32 PM |
are PGT cars allowed to use intercooler srpayers if they are not stock?
| johnfelstead | 05-14-2004 04:36 PM |
no. IC sprays do very little for power anyway on a TMIC, WI is what helps a lot.
| Mako | 05-14-2004 09:53 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B]Where do i mention me or my ability to win at Rim in anything Mako? It wasnt in reference to winning anything at all. What are you so SHOCKED about?
I met you at Rim last year didnt I? If so i am suprised at your tone in this post, especially as you havnt a clue what i said to Jason meant. [/B][/QUOTE]
No big deal. (And we have never met, btw). My point was, you sounded haughty yet unexplaining in your post.
What you said was:
"I am glad you are now learning how to co-drive Jason, it apears there is still a lot you dont understand about what makes a good co-driver though."
My opinion is if you're going to make such statements to someone, at least do them the courtesy of explaining what, in your humble opinion, the person doesn't understand about being a co-driver.
Having found no record about you being an experienced co-driver of winning rally teams, I was curious what gave you the right to use that comment with no additional explanation.
[B]Where do i mention me or my ability to win at Rim in anything Mako? It wasnt in reference to winning anything at all. What are you so SHOCKED about?
I met you at Rim last year didnt I? If so i am suprised at your tone in this post, especially as you havnt a clue what i said to Jason meant. [/B][/QUOTE]
No big deal. (And we have never met, btw). My point was, you sounded haughty yet unexplaining in your post.
What you said was:
"I am glad you are now learning how to co-drive Jason, it apears there is still a lot you dont understand about what makes a good co-driver though."
My opinion is if you're going to make such statements to someone, at least do them the courtesy of explaining what, in your humble opinion, the person doesn't understand about being a co-driver.
Having found no record about you being an experienced co-driver of winning rally teams, I was curious what gave you the right to use that comment with no additional explanation.
| AlexP | 05-14-2004 11:07 PM |
[QUOTE]*lanes were way way way too narrow
Many cars crossed over into the other lane.... including me.
[/QUOTE]
:lol:
Heaven forbid another racecar passes into your lane. Lord knows we wouldn't want to see that in rally... there's already too much of that in other NHRA/IHRA/NASCAR/
SCCA/IMSA/NASA/FIA/FIM/SKUSA/
AMA/CASCAR/ARCA/ASA/BTCC/DTM/
SAE/BMWCCA/PCA/EMRA/COM sanctioned races, time trials, rallies, sprints, enduros, etc. etc. etc.
ITS A RACECAR. It's designed to protect it's occupants in event of collsion. Racing is dangerous. If you can't handle it, OSB.
AP
Many cars crossed over into the other lane.... including me.
[/QUOTE]
:lol:
Heaven forbid another racecar passes into your lane. Lord knows we wouldn't want to see that in rally... there's already too much of that in other NHRA/IHRA/NASCAR/
SCCA/IMSA/NASA/FIA/FIM/SKUSA/
AMA/CASCAR/ARCA/ASA/BTCC/DTM/
SAE/BMWCCA/PCA/EMRA/COM sanctioned races, time trials, rallies, sprints, enduros, etc. etc. etc.
ITS A RACECAR. It's designed to protect it's occupants in event of collsion. Racing is dangerous. If you can't handle it, OSB.
AP
| Mako | 05-14-2004 11:46 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AlexP [/i]
[B]:lol:
Heaven forbid another racecar passes into your lane. Lord knows we wouldn't want to see that in rally... there's already too much of that in other NHRA/IHRA/NASCAR/
SCCA/IMSA/NASA/FIA/FIM/SKUSA/
AMA/CASCAR/ARCA/ASA/BTCC/DTM/
SAE/BMWCCA/PCA/EMRA/COM sanctioned races, time trials, rallies, sprints, enduros, etc. etc. etc.
ITS A RACECAR. It's designed to protect it's occupants in event of collsion. Racing is dangerous. If you can't handle it, OSB.
AP [/B][/QUOTE]
Cool member number. Errr, that sounds inappropriate...:banana:
[B]:lol:
Heaven forbid another racecar passes into your lane. Lord knows we wouldn't want to see that in rally... there's already too much of that in other NHRA/IHRA/NASCAR/
SCCA/IMSA/NASA/FIA/FIM/SKUSA/
AMA/CASCAR/ARCA/ASA/BTCC/DTM/
SAE/BMWCCA/PCA/EMRA/COM sanctioned races, time trials, rallies, sprints, enduros, etc. etc. etc.
ITS A RACECAR. It's designed to protect it's occupants in event of collsion. Racing is dangerous. If you can't handle it, OSB.
AP [/B][/QUOTE]
Cool member number. Errr, that sounds inappropriate...:banana:
| ANZAC_1915 | 05-15-2004 12:46 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AlexP [/i]
[B]:lol:
Heaven forbid another racecar passes into your lane. Lord knows we wouldn't want to see that in rally... there's already too much of that in other NHRA/IHRA/NASCAR/
SCCA/IMSA/NASA/FIA/FIM/SKUSA/
AMA/CASCAR/ARCA/ASA/BTCC/DTM/
SAE/BMWCCA/PCA/EMRA/COM sanctioned races, time trials, rallies, sprints, enduros, etc. etc. etc.
ITS A RACECAR. It's designed to protect it's occupants in event of collsion. Racing is dangerous. If you can't handle it, OSB.
AP [/B][/QUOTE]
Rallying is not about wheel-to-wheel racing. Rally cars typically use ALL of the road, so if you start two cars together on a super special, you want a fairly solid barrier or large-ish gap between them.
[B]:lol:
Heaven forbid another racecar passes into your lane. Lord knows we wouldn't want to see that in rally... there's already too much of that in other NHRA/IHRA/NASCAR/
SCCA/IMSA/NASA/FIA/FIM/SKUSA/
AMA/CASCAR/ARCA/ASA/BTCC/DTM/
SAE/BMWCCA/PCA/EMRA/COM sanctioned races, time trials, rallies, sprints, enduros, etc. etc. etc.
ITS A RACECAR. It's designed to protect it's occupants in event of collsion. Racing is dangerous. If you can't handle it, OSB.
AP [/B][/QUOTE]
Rallying is not about wheel-to-wheel racing. Rally cars typically use ALL of the road, so if you start two cars together on a super special, you want a fairly solid barrier or large-ish gap between them.
| johnfelstead | 05-15-2004 04:05 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mako [/i]
[B]No big deal. (And we have never met, btw).
My opinion is if you're going to make such statements to someone, at least do them the courtesy of explaining what, in your humble opinion, the person doesn't understand about being a co-driver.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, i now realise you arnt the person i met at rim, similar username, he was a very friendly person. :)
I did give Jason the courtesy of explaining my comment, in some detail, in a Private Message 2 days ago.
[B]No big deal. (And we have never met, btw).
My opinion is if you're going to make such statements to someone, at least do them the courtesy of explaining what, in your humble opinion, the person doesn't understand about being a co-driver.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, i now realise you arnt the person i met at rim, similar username, he was a very friendly person. :)
I did give Jason the courtesy of explaining my comment, in some detail, in a Private Message 2 days ago.
| ANZAC_1915 | 05-15-2004 10:09 AM |
John, are you still stirring up trouble? :lol:
| AlexP | 05-15-2004 06:57 PM |
[QUOTE]Rallying is not about wheel-to-wheel racing.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the tip.
[QUOTE]Rally cars typically use ALL of the road, so if you start two cars together on a super special, you want a fairly solid barrier or large-ish gap between them.[/QUOTE]
Nonetheless, there IS passing. These cars DO have rollcages/harnesses/raceseats/etc. In fact, the rollcages in rallycars are almost always 10x more redundant that roadracing or drag cages. As I'm sure you're aware, on a normal SS, a driver could be doing 100+ miles an hour down a single lane dirt road over a blind crest at night. This is the norm.
So why the hell would a car crossing into your lane on a slow (as everyone has pointed out) super special stage be considered dangerous?
Lets see.
100mph. Trees. Rocks. Blind curves/crests. Dark. Raining. Driver not experienced with stage. No problemo.
55mph. Dirt everywhere. Uh-oh, a car just moved into my lane! I think I just turned my fruit-of-the-looms into a fudge factory! How do those road racers handle this! MOMMMY!!!!
Thanks for the tip.
[QUOTE]Rally cars typically use ALL of the road, so if you start two cars together on a super special, you want a fairly solid barrier or large-ish gap between them.[/QUOTE]
Nonetheless, there IS passing. These cars DO have rollcages/harnesses/raceseats/etc. In fact, the rollcages in rallycars are almost always 10x more redundant that roadracing or drag cages. As I'm sure you're aware, on a normal SS, a driver could be doing 100+ miles an hour down a single lane dirt road over a blind crest at night. This is the norm.
So why the hell would a car crossing into your lane on a slow (as everyone has pointed out) super special stage be considered dangerous?
Lets see.
100mph. Trees. Rocks. Blind curves/crests. Dark. Raining. Driver not experienced with stage. No problemo.
55mph. Dirt everywhere. Uh-oh, a car just moved into my lane! I think I just turned my fruit-of-the-looms into a fudge factory! How do those road racers handle this! MOMMMY!!!!
| johnfelstead | 05-15-2004 09:40 PM |
I am not trying to Glenn. :)
Rallying and Racing are completely diferent disiplines Alex. If you suddenly find yourself on the route you shouldnt be and you know you are in the space your competitor should be, that would tell anyone with a decent modecum of inteligence you are in a dangerous situation. You would normally be completely blind to where your competitor is should that happen, so it should concern you. If it doesnt i personally wouldnt want you anywhere near me on a rally.
When you drive in a race you are sharing a race track and space with a competitor and both of you are expecting to be fighting for the same tarmac, so you make allowances for that in your driving. When you are driving in a rally you are not factoring in other cars, Rallying is against the clock, its not a road position disipline, so the potential for harm is much higher should you find yourself in an area you shouldnt be. Race circuits are designed and licenced to be safe in a car on car contact situation, Rally stages are not.
All the super specials i have ever seen have armco barriers, large banking or large space between the lanes to stop the cars getting together. They do this for one reason, safety, something not to be joked about or ridiculed in any motorsport disipline.
Rallying and Racing are completely diferent disiplines Alex. If you suddenly find yourself on the route you shouldnt be and you know you are in the space your competitor should be, that would tell anyone with a decent modecum of inteligence you are in a dangerous situation. You would normally be completely blind to where your competitor is should that happen, so it should concern you. If it doesnt i personally wouldnt want you anywhere near me on a rally.
When you drive in a race you are sharing a race track and space with a competitor and both of you are expecting to be fighting for the same tarmac, so you make allowances for that in your driving. When you are driving in a rally you are not factoring in other cars, Rallying is against the clock, its not a road position disipline, so the potential for harm is much higher should you find yourself in an area you shouldnt be. Race circuits are designed and licenced to be safe in a car on car contact situation, Rally stages are not.
All the super specials i have ever seen have armco barriers, large banking or large space between the lanes to stop the cars getting together. They do this for one reason, safety, something not to be joked about or ridiculed in any motorsport disipline.
| Mopho | 05-15-2004 10:05 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AlexP [/i]
[B]Thanks for the tip.
Nonetheless, there IS passing. These cars DO have rollcages/harnesses/raceseats/etc. In fact, the rollcages in rallycars are almost always 10x more redundant that roadracing or drag cages. As I'm sure you're aware, on a normal SS, a driver could be doing 100+ miles an hour down a single lane dirt road over a blind crest at night. This is the norm.
So why the hell would a car crossing into your lane on a slow (as everyone has pointed out) super special stage be considered dangerous?
Lets see.
100mph. Trees. Rocks. Blind curves/crests. Dark. Raining. Driver not experienced with stage. No problemo.
55mph. Dirt everywhere. Uh-oh, a car just moved into my lane! I think I just turned my fruit-of-the-looms into a fudge factory! How do those road racers handle this! MOMMMY!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]
Because it is not worth putting the crews in danger or ruining their rally for the sake of a little spectator entertainment:rolleyes:
[B]Thanks for the tip.
Nonetheless, there IS passing. These cars DO have rollcages/harnesses/raceseats/etc. In fact, the rollcages in rallycars are almost always 10x more redundant that roadracing or drag cages. As I'm sure you're aware, on a normal SS, a driver could be doing 100+ miles an hour down a single lane dirt road over a blind crest at night. This is the norm.
So why the hell would a car crossing into your lane on a slow (as everyone has pointed out) super special stage be considered dangerous?
Lets see.
100mph. Trees. Rocks. Blind curves/crests. Dark. Raining. Driver not experienced with stage. No problemo.
55mph. Dirt everywhere. Uh-oh, a car just moved into my lane! I think I just turned my fruit-of-the-looms into a fudge factory! How do those road racers handle this! MOMMMY!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]
Because it is not worth putting the crews in danger or ruining their rally for the sake of a little spectator entertainment:rolleyes:
| Mako | 05-16-2004 12:29 AM |
Is Felstead an experienced rally driver or not? It appears he has done only tarmac/Ring racing? His STi is outfitted towards street.
Don't get your panties in a twist John. It's nothing personal--just curious about your rally experience. Your street experience is well known and respected (including by me).
Don't get your panties in a twist John. It's nothing personal--just curious about your rally experience. Your street experience is well known and respected (including by me).
| johnfelstead | 05-16-2004 09:27 AM |
Does it matter? Anyway, to humour you i'll give you some info on my experience in motorsport. I started marshalling on rallies when i was 17, i built and then drove in my first rally car when i was 19. I co-drove for the first time when i was 26, i have been the mechanic on a privateer british national rally championship winning team for 11 years running 2litre 2WD and then GroupA (open class in USA terms) spec, at the same time i also race engineered a 5 litre prototype GT race car, currently in the middle of a 6 litre build for that. I have competed in sprints as a driver, TSD rallies as a navigator in the USA/Canada in 2001/2002. I spent 2003 as a guide on the WRC, taking spectators and VIP's to the stages, highlight of that was taking a former works driver and winner of the RAC rally/British championship around Cyprus for a week. I have friends who have co-driven at WRC level, most of my rally experience is hands on at British national rally championship level, i havnt driven my own rally car for a while because i dont want to bankrupt myself, so do the best i can to be part of a succesful team and offer help to other people i think would apreciate it when i can. Thats just a small part of my motorsport involvement, it's been in my blood all my adult life. I am now 38.
Find me a car and fund it and i'll come over to the USA and drive it in Pro Rally for you if you are curious enough to see if i can drive or not. Pikes Peak would be ideal for me i think. ;)
Find me a car and fund it and i'll come over to the USA and drive it in Pro Rally for you if you are curious enough to see if i can drive or not. Pikes Peak would be ideal for me i think. ;)
| Pete 97 GS-T | 05-16-2004 09:32 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by johnfelstead [/i]
[B] I spent 2003 as a guide on the WRC, taking spectators and VIP's to the stages.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'll give you a call when I plan on coming over for an event.
Pete
[url]www.onalimbracing.com[/url]
[B] I spent 2003 as a guide on the WRC, taking spectators and VIP's to the stages.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'll give you a call when I plan on coming over for an event.
Pete
[url]www.onalimbracing.com[/url]
| AlexP | 05-16-2004 05:10 PM |
[QUOTE]Rallying and Racing are completely diferent disiplines Alex. If you suddenly find yourself on the route you shouldnt be and you know you are in the space your competitor should be, that would tell anyone with a decent modecum of inteligence you are in a dangerous situation. You would normally be completely blind to where your competitor is should that happen, so it should concern you. If it doesnt i personally wouldnt want you anywhere near me on a rally.[/QUOTE]
Wow, the old "you're too dangerous, I don't want to rally with you" argument. :rolleyes:
Yeah, that holds a lot of water. Anyway, I am fully aware that in stage rally it's competitors against the clock, but you have still not answered my question:
100mph. Raining. Dark. 15' wide mud road. Driver unfamiliar with stage => Not Dangerous
55mph. Sunny. Dry. Tons of run-off. ONE SINGLE CAR MOVING IN YOUR DIRECTION. =>Dangerous
If the drivers didn't like the SSS because it was a car breaker or slow or boring or there weren't enough spectators, so be it. But complaining that it was "too dangerous" is ludicrous. [I]Those[/I] are the drivers that I wouldn't want with me on a SS.
AP (and yes, I've got road-racing, chasis building, solo, and rally experience, too.)
Wow, the old "you're too dangerous, I don't want to rally with you" argument. :rolleyes:
Yeah, that holds a lot of water. Anyway, I am fully aware that in stage rally it's competitors against the clock, but you have still not answered my question:
100mph. Raining. Dark. 15' wide mud road. Driver unfamiliar with stage => Not Dangerous
55mph. Sunny. Dry. Tons of run-off. ONE SINGLE CAR MOVING IN YOUR DIRECTION. =>Dangerous
If the drivers didn't like the SSS because it was a car breaker or slow or boring or there weren't enough spectators, so be it. But complaining that it was "too dangerous" is ludicrous. [I]Those[/I] are the drivers that I wouldn't want with me on a SS.
AP (and yes, I've got road-racing, chasis building, solo, and rally experience, too.)
| jwainwri | 05-16-2004 05:47 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by horatio102[/i]
[B] :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
mmmmmkay yeaah. :lol:
Next time I'm going to bust out a stopwatch and clock him because his accelleration down the front stretch seemed to be about as fast as Burke's.
:lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by verdier[/i]
[B] Last 2 super stage I was pair with Plesk (open class) he had at least 2 car lenght at the jump on me. Stephan Verdier [/B][/QUOTE]
Not to beat a dead horse but I have video, not the best though, of Verdier being blown away off the line on the last SS stage saturday night by an Evo, .
By the time they made it to the jump the Evo was probably 3 car lengths ahead. However, the evo got buried in the sand and Verdier finished clean. He is just a very good and smooth driver.
PM me and I'll email it to you if want to take a look.
Later,
John
[B] :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
mmmmmkay yeaah. :lol:
Next time I'm going to bust out a stopwatch and clock him because his accelleration down the front stretch seemed to be about as fast as Burke's.
:lol: [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by verdier[/i]
[B] Last 2 super stage I was pair with Plesk (open class) he had at least 2 car lenght at the jump on me. Stephan Verdier [/B][/QUOTE]
Not to beat a dead horse but I have video, not the best though, of Verdier being blown away off the line on the last SS stage saturday night by an Evo, .
By the time they made it to the jump the Evo was probably 3 car lengths ahead. However, the evo got buried in the sand and Verdier finished clean. He is just a very good and smooth driver.
PM me and I'll email it to you if want to take a look.
Later,
John
| CoiloverKid | 05-16-2004 06:06 PM |
stephan, you kicked ass out there, and the car is great. the only injustice going on is sponsors not begging you to run their product! I'd like to come by and see the car, maybe take some pics..Horacio says hello as well :)
| johnfelstead | 05-16-2004 06:12 PM |
OK Pete, if you think i can help get in touch. :)
I guess we will have to disagree on this one Alex. :)
Just going back to the discusion on mapping. I just spent today setting up this 2 litre engine with a boost controller, havnt got the fuel computer on there yet but do have the fuel supply improved. Exhaust system is now free flowing 3" downpipe into a 2.5" centre and backbox, nice and quiet and now not restricted by the two factory cats.
I have upped boost from 0.7BAR peak to 1.1BAR with it tapering off to 1BAR at 5Krpm, i have pulled in the boost a lot lower down too, with it pulling 1.1BAR by 2500rpm. :D Torque is up masively in the mid range, i havnt got any figures as such but i estimate i have gained 100lbft around the 3500-4000rpm range. It's so much stronger the clutch has died. :lol: Now if i floor it at the engines VE point in 4th/5th it just spins the clutch up. :devil:
The clutch is usually OK to about 290lbft on these cars. Once that's sorted and the fuel computer on i'll get it fine tuned for power (its a bit rich at the moment) and measured on the rollers.
I guess we will have to disagree on this one Alex. :)
Just going back to the discusion on mapping. I just spent today setting up this 2 litre engine with a boost controller, havnt got the fuel computer on there yet but do have the fuel supply improved. Exhaust system is now free flowing 3" downpipe into a 2.5" centre and backbox, nice and quiet and now not restricted by the two factory cats.
I have upped boost from 0.7BAR peak to 1.1BAR with it tapering off to 1BAR at 5Krpm, i have pulled in the boost a lot lower down too, with it pulling 1.1BAR by 2500rpm. :D Torque is up masively in the mid range, i havnt got any figures as such but i estimate i have gained 100lbft around the 3500-4000rpm range. It's so much stronger the clutch has died. :lol: Now if i floor it at the engines VE point in 4th/5th it just spins the clutch up. :devil:
The clutch is usually OK to about 290lbft on these cars. Once that's sorted and the fuel computer on i'll get it fine tuned for power (its a bit rich at the moment) and measured on the rollers.
| patr | 05-17-2004 03:18 AM |
I'm not going to argue with any armchair experts but there is a huge amount of misinformation in this thread.
First of all, a 2002 PGT WRX can be *legally* almost as quick as a 2002 Grp N WRX.
Second of all, you can put any diffs you want in it.
Third of all, you can modify the electronics if you want.
I'm saying this, from a guy who has been protested about twenty times in PGT, and who has won the US and Cdn championships both twice in PGT. My PGT car was never found to be illegal, although more people than this were musing about this and that and whatnot (and still do for some lame reason). And at the time, no, we weren't using a modified ECU, no we weren't using an active diff, and no, there was no turbo (it was an RS). But it still didn't stop the guy from having our restrictor checked (true story).
But all that aside, moaning on the internet about someone who is fast and speculating about his or her car and making like they are cheating is totally lame. Deal with it at the rally, or deal with it when you are trying to go to sleep on your own.
First of all, a 2002 PGT WRX can be *legally* almost as quick as a 2002 Grp N WRX.
Second of all, you can put any diffs you want in it.
Third of all, you can modify the electronics if you want.
I'm saying this, from a guy who has been protested about twenty times in PGT, and who has won the US and Cdn championships both twice in PGT. My PGT car was never found to be illegal, although more people than this were musing about this and that and whatnot (and still do for some lame reason). And at the time, no, we weren't using a modified ECU, no we weren't using an active diff, and no, there was no turbo (it was an RS). But it still didn't stop the guy from having our restrictor checked (true story).
But all that aside, moaning on the internet about someone who is fast and speculating about his or her car and making like they are cheating is totally lame. Deal with it at the rally, or deal with it when you are trying to go to sleep on your own.
| johnfelstead | 05-17-2004 06:00 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by patr [/i]
[B]
First of all, a 2002 PGT WRX can be *legally* almost as quick as a 2002 Grp N WRX.
Second of all, you can put any diffs you want in it.
Third of all, you can modify the electronics if you want. [/B][/QUOTE]
Pat, there are GroupN cars and then there are groupN cars, you know what i mean by that. The US spec WRX has never been homologated for GroupN, so it's a little hard to work out what you have there with your local homologation rules. Even so, [b]almost[/b] as fast as a US spec GroupN WRX is posible, hence why i have been saying it's a nonsense to sugest a mapped PGT car cant produce good torque which is significantly higher than stock.
You can put any diffs in you want as long as you dont modify the gearbox casing, so you are limited to using a VC centre diff, you cant use a DCCD setup.
You can modify [b]some[/b] of the electronics, you cant alter timing control. That isnt such a handicap for producing torque/power on the WRX as an older car with less advanced ECU technology because the WRX has a very good active ignition control strategy anyway, so as long as you let it learn the boost profile and get the fueling right it will auto compensate to a large extent. It wont be as good as a groupN engine on proper management, but it will be able to run a lot more boost and produce a lot more torque than stock, legally.
[B]
First of all, a 2002 PGT WRX can be *legally* almost as quick as a 2002 Grp N WRX.
Second of all, you can put any diffs you want in it.
Third of all, you can modify the electronics if you want. [/B][/QUOTE]
Pat, there are GroupN cars and then there are groupN cars, you know what i mean by that. The US spec WRX has never been homologated for GroupN, so it's a little hard to work out what you have there with your local homologation rules. Even so, [b]almost[/b] as fast as a US spec GroupN WRX is posible, hence why i have been saying it's a nonsense to sugest a mapped PGT car cant produce good torque which is significantly higher than stock.
You can put any diffs in you want as long as you dont modify the gearbox casing, so you are limited to using a VC centre diff, you cant use a DCCD setup.
You can modify [b]some[/b] of the electronics, you cant alter timing control. That isnt such a handicap for producing torque/power on the WRX as an older car with less advanced ECU technology because the WRX has a very good active ignition control strategy anyway, so as long as you let it learn the boost profile and get the fueling right it will auto compensate to a large extent. It wont be as good as a groupN engine on proper management, but it will be able to run a lot more boost and produce a lot more torque than stock, legally.
| Sergeant_V | 05-17-2004 09:16 AM |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Patr
But it still didn't stop the guy from having our restrictor checked (true story).
[/QUOTE]We've been told "I need to see your restrictor" at every rally we've entered in the 2.5RS." :)
But it still didn't stop the guy from having our restrictor checked (true story).
[/QUOTE]We've been told "I need to see your restrictor" at every rally we've entered in the 2.5RS." :)
| Porsche914boxer4 | 05-17-2004 11:58 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by patr [/i]
[B]Deal with it at the rally, or deal with it when you are trying to go to sleep on your own. [/B][/QUOTE]
quote of the year.
[B]Deal with it at the rally, or deal with it when you are trying to go to sleep on your own. [/B][/QUOTE]
quote of the year.
| patr | 05-17-2004 12:50 PM |
> You can put any diffs in you want as long as you dont modify
> the gearbox casing, so you are limited to using a VC centre diff,
> you cant use a DCCD setup.
You are quoting rules not part of the American ruleset, but in any case, yes you can have an ECMD in a PGT WRX with a 5spd EMCD unit. same case. I pointed out this 'loophole' to the rules guys, but since no one is doing it (yet) they seemed to not want to bother. As an aside, even if someone did do this, they would probably be slower since they would have a pretty hard time learning how to set it right (even if they set it to some 'static' value).
> You can modify some of the electronics, you cant alter timing control.
your intepretation of this statement is based on... ? As I've stated on specialstage and elsewhere, when I was running in PGT, ECUs were 'free' because it was impossible to verify if someone changed their ignition timing or not. It was of absolutely no use to a 2.5RS. But lots of 323s, Talon/Eclipses etc. are/were running aftermarket ECUs, and lots of WRXes are as well. Every top competitor in Canada (same exact rule wording) is using aftermarket ECUs. No one in the last few years, since this exact same issue was last raised, has implied it was not legal and in fact, the whole assumption that you cant alter ignition timing is based on one relatively new competitors' recent interpretation of a flimsy ruleset. I can tell you that aftermarket ECUs in PGT represented the accepted practise and intent of the rules, unless they have changed (i.e. the competitors have changed, the rules havent). I assume you are talking ignition timing here.
This is more of a case of a poorly written rule being matched with a new persons' interpretation. While I agree it isn't clear, it also matches up with the thinking of moving t0 32mm for PGT, and it also matches up with the fact that it would be impossible to police if this interpreation were true, and it also matches up with the fact that this is/was accepted practise with most turbo cars.
Even if you can or you cant, the stock ECU does this on its own anyways !
So simply put, *if* this interpretation of the rule is correct, then what stops you from using the _same_ aforementioned program to set the stock ECU to use agressive ignition timing (i.e. disable knock sensor sensitivity) ? Nothing. And doing that *is* within that interpretation of the rules. I would even go so far as to say that this is one company's take on rules in order to promote specific sales of a certain product !
Furthermore, there are essentially no restrictions on fuel in the USA, which means that the same ECU again will be agressive in its ignition advance curves.
All I am saying is, I myself have raised this ECU issue 3 years ago and it was deemed to be within the rules (despite how they are written).
> the gearbox casing, so you are limited to using a VC centre diff,
> you cant use a DCCD setup.
You are quoting rules not part of the American ruleset, but in any case, yes you can have an ECMD in a PGT WRX with a 5spd EMCD unit. same case. I pointed out this 'loophole' to the rules guys, but since no one is doing it (yet) they seemed to not want to bother. As an aside, even if someone did do this, they would probably be slower since they would have a pretty hard time learning how to set it right (even if they set it to some 'static' value).
> You can modify some of the electronics, you cant alter timing control.
your intepretation of this statement is based on... ? As I've stated on specialstage and elsewhere, when I was running in PGT, ECUs were 'free' because it was impossible to verify if someone changed their ignition timing or not. It was of absolutely no use to a 2.5RS. But lots of 323s, Talon/Eclipses etc. are/were running aftermarket ECUs, and lots of WRXes are as well. Every top competitor in Canada (same exact rule wording) is using aftermarket ECUs. No one in the last few years, since this exact same issue was last raised, has implied it was not legal and in fact, the whole assumption that you cant alter ignition timing is based on one relatively new competitors' recent interpretation of a flimsy ruleset. I can tell you that aftermarket ECUs in PGT represented the accepted practise and intent of the rules, unless they have changed (i.e. the competitors have changed, the rules havent). I assume you are talking ignition timing here.
This is more of a case of a poorly written rule being matched with a new persons' interpretation. While I agree it isn't clear, it also matches up with the thinking of moving t0 32mm for PGT, and it also matches up with the fact that it would be impossible to police if this interpreation were true, and it also matches up with the fact that this is/was accepted practise with most turbo cars.
Even if you can or you cant, the stock ECU does this on its own anyways !
So simply put, *if* this interpretation of the rule is correct, then what stops you from using the _same_ aforementioned program to set the stock ECU to use agressive ignition timing (i.e. disable knock sensor sensitivity) ? Nothing. And doing that *is* within that interpretation of the rules. I would even go so far as to say that this is one company's take on rules in order to promote specific sales of a certain product !
Furthermore, there are essentially no restrictions on fuel in the USA, which means that the same ECU again will be agressive in its ignition advance curves.
All I am saying is, I myself have raised this ECU issue 3 years ago and it was deemed to be within the rules (despite how they are written).
| johnfelstead | 05-17-2004 01:25 PM |
Pat, did you ever ask for or get a written statement from the SCCA saying it is legal to run an aftermarket ECU? The PGT rules seem quite explicit in that you cant change anything on the car unless it is stated as allowed, and there is no mention of changing the ECU, only altering the boost and fuelling.
I cant see how you could get the DCCD control wires out of the gearbox without modifying it from stock. Maybe you can show me.
The active ignition corection functionality of the WRX has already been mentioned a few times. The stock ECU runs a very efective active ignition strategy (if you allow it time to learn) that if you give it good fuel it will make use of it. This is especially so for the new age cars.
Some of these SCCA rules are very poorly worded, why dont people lobby the SCCA to get them cleaned up, then this type of debate would be dead and buried? It's no good saying this is how its always been, and i got away with it, because one day you could get excluded due to a new scrutineer interpreting the rule to the letter, and that does nobody any favours.
I cant see how you could get the DCCD control wires out of the gearbox without modifying it from stock. Maybe you can show me.
The active ignition corection functionality of the WRX has already been mentioned a few times. The stock ECU runs a very efective active ignition strategy (if you allow it time to learn) that if you give it good fuel it will make use of it. This is especially so for the new age cars.
Some of these SCCA rules are very poorly worded, why dont people lobby the SCCA to get them cleaned up, then this type of debate would be dead and buried? It's no good saying this is how its always been, and i got away with it, because one day you could get excluded due to a new scrutineer interpreting the rule to the letter, and that does nobody any favours.
| patr | 05-17-2004 04:12 PM |
thats not what I said john, what I said was, the last time this was queried, I am telling you what the response was (and it was ME doing the querying !), and adding some context to show that this is indeed the way the rules are interpreted
if someone thinks that there is a problem then go ahead and file a protest and get a ruling for your own sake. I am just telling you the results of the last time this was queried (the rules havent changed since), and futhermore pointing out that it doesn't matter on this particular car anyways !
if someone thinks that there is a problem then go ahead and file a protest and get a ruling for your own sake. I am just telling you the results of the last time this was queried (the rules havent changed since), and futhermore pointing out that it doesn't matter on this particular car anyways !
| hoche | 05-17-2004 05:54 PM |
Getting back to the Special Stage jump...
I'd have to agree that I didn't think it was the safest layout. I'm also suprised at Ray's comments, because our crew chief says he SAW the jump being rebuilt into a kicker before the second SS. After reading this thread last Friday, I asked him again if he was sure about that, because there was supposedly no change. His response? "Bull****. They were out there with a grader pulling dirt from the bottom and piling up on top." This weekend, I talked to a couple of other people who were at the event who had the same response.
At any rate, I think what happened was that a lot of drivers remembered what it was like from the night before and didn't bother to check it out before running again.
Other just random thoughts:
I thought the lane width was ok. I appreciated that they widened out in the turns. I would've liked a little more separation between lanes for the jump though.
The water crossing seemed fine. Putting it right after a turn was a good idea because cars were moving somewhat more slowly at that point.
I think the course was overwatered, but as long as it was overwatered for everyone, I don't have a problem with it. It just makes it more of a challenge. It certainly worked to keep the dust down!
I wonder how many rally drivers have rallycross/autocross experience? I was, frankly, surprised at all the lane swapping. That's just sloppy driving, no two ways about it. If you drive like that on stage, you're done.
If the divider between the two lanes is going to be dirt, then perhaps a lane-change penalty is in order, to act as a deterrent against overdriving. Concrete walls would also act as a deterrent and would be an effective safety barrier, and would cure the dirt flinging problem, but would probably be kind of spendy.
By the same token, I can't figure out how to do a lane-swap without putting in a big concrete bridge. It's a topology issue, see. And last I looked, bridges are expensive. I doubt we'll see any in SuperSpecials in the near future.
-michel
I'd have to agree that I didn't think it was the safest layout. I'm also suprised at Ray's comments, because our crew chief says he SAW the jump being rebuilt into a kicker before the second SS. After reading this thread last Friday, I asked him again if he was sure about that, because there was supposedly no change. His response? "Bull****. They were out there with a grader pulling dirt from the bottom and piling up on top." This weekend, I talked to a couple of other people who were at the event who had the same response.
At any rate, I think what happened was that a lot of drivers remembered what it was like from the night before and didn't bother to check it out before running again.
Other just random thoughts:
I thought the lane width was ok. I appreciated that they widened out in the turns. I would've liked a little more separation between lanes for the jump though.
The water crossing seemed fine. Putting it right after a turn was a good idea because cars were moving somewhat more slowly at that point.
I think the course was overwatered, but as long as it was overwatered for everyone, I don't have a problem with it. It just makes it more of a challenge. It certainly worked to keep the dust down!
I wonder how many rally drivers have rallycross/autocross experience? I was, frankly, surprised at all the lane swapping. That's just sloppy driving, no two ways about it. If you drive like that on stage, you're done.
If the divider between the two lanes is going to be dirt, then perhaps a lane-change penalty is in order, to act as a deterrent against overdriving. Concrete walls would also act as a deterrent and would be an effective safety barrier, and would cure the dirt flinging problem, but would probably be kind of spendy.
By the same token, I can't figure out how to do a lane-swap without putting in a big concrete bridge. It's a topology issue, see. And last I looked, bridges are expensive. I doubt we'll see any in SuperSpecials in the near future.
-michel
| johnfelstead | 05-17-2004 06:09 PM |
You shouldnt have to protest someone to get a clarification of the rules Pat.
This isnt about any particular competitor and complaining about them, i personally havent anyway. I am just pointing out the technical situation with what is achieveable with a PGT car and what isnt legal acording to the regulations as they are written.
It isnt a waste of time querying things at the highest level, i have done it myself in the UK with some positive results. Someone needs to ask the questions though, otherwise how will the rule makers know there could be a problem? Generally speaking the people who make the rules are too up to their eyeballs in other work to study the regulations for anomolies, thats something competitors should persue in a positive way. Or am i missing something about the culture in US rallying and the SCCA?
Anyway, its been an interesting debate so far and quite informative with regards to the spec of Stephans car, it has a very good setup on the diffs and is not bone stock in terms of engine mapping, which was the original sugestion, so its not surprising he is doing very well. Of course he has to drive it too, and he seems to be very tallented in that respect. :)
This isnt about any particular competitor and complaining about them, i personally havent anyway. I am just pointing out the technical situation with what is achieveable with a PGT car and what isnt legal acording to the regulations as they are written.
It isnt a waste of time querying things at the highest level, i have done it myself in the UK with some positive results. Someone needs to ask the questions though, otherwise how will the rule makers know there could be a problem? Generally speaking the people who make the rules are too up to their eyeballs in other work to study the regulations for anomolies, thats something competitors should persue in a positive way. Or am i missing something about the culture in US rallying and the SCCA?
Anyway, its been an interesting debate so far and quite informative with regards to the spec of Stephans car, it has a very good setup on the diffs and is not bone stock in terms of engine mapping, which was the original sugestion, so its not surprising he is doing very well. Of course he has to drive it too, and he seems to be very tallented in that respect. :)
| patr | 05-17-2004 06:36 PM |
john I dont agree with what you should have to do to get clarification of the rules, I'm just saying that this is the state of USA rallying. I dont like it either, but that is the way it is being done right now. In Canada we get the rules interpreted for us so we dont have to protest :-).
All mu postings have been based on previous protest experience and experience running in this specific class in question for three years running. I'm not saying about what 'should' or 'shouldn't be' :-)
All mu postings have been based on previous protest experience and experience running in this specific class in question for three years running. I'm not saying about what 'should' or 'shouldn't be' :-)
| johnfelstead | 05-17-2004 06:59 PM |
Understood Pat. :) I am just used to rules being concrete and strickly enforced by scrutineers. Rules in a stock car class should be simple and aplied to the letter is my phylosophy, otherwise it doesnt make any sense to bother with a PGT class at all, you may as well just run GroupN (whatever that is in the USA. ;) )
| bjorn240 | 05-17-2004 07:37 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by patr[/i]
[B] john I dont agree with what you should have to do to get clarification of the rules, I'm just saying that this is the state of USA rallying. I dont like it either, but that is the way it is being done right now. [/B][/QUOTE]
Just a personal opinion -- the best thing SCCA could do for rallying in the US is to adopt the Canadian rulebook (with the possible exception of replacing the Nerf(tm) chicanes with roundbale chicanes).
I am working to try to convince all the stakeholders that a rulebook more inline with FIA international regs and (especially) the CARS rules would be a very good thing for rallying in the US.
Help me! (Pat, want to join the rules committee???)
- Christian
[B] john I dont agree with what you should have to do to get clarification of the rules, I'm just saying that this is the state of USA rallying. I dont like it either, but that is the way it is being done right now. [/B][/QUOTE]
Just a personal opinion -- the best thing SCCA could do for rallying in the US is to adopt the Canadian rulebook (with the possible exception of replacing the Nerf(tm) chicanes with roundbale chicanes).
I am working to try to convince all the stakeholders that a rulebook more inline with FIA international regs and (especially) the CARS rules would be a very good thing for rallying in the US.
Help me! (Pat, want to join the rules committee???)
- Christian
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét