| Jsortor | 06-23-2005 04:40 PM |
August fasttrack is out!
�
�
Take a look at the proposals! SP boost proposal :banana:
| trhoppe | 06-23-2005 04:58 PM |
The cars will be competitive in BSP with boost. It will be cool as hell because it will be 99.9999% the same car for BSP or SM allowing the cars to do either "double duty" or run in whichever class is fuller for more competition. Cool!
Also some cool Touring class changes. Air bag systems may now fully go away and they allowed remote reservior shocks in finally. Looks like T3 and T4 are a go for 2007.
-Tom
Also some cool Touring class changes. Air bag systems may now fully go away and they allowed remote reservior shocks in finally. Looks like T3 and T4 are a go for 2007.
-Tom
| Dussander | 06-23-2005 05:08 PM |
[URL=http://www.scca.com/Garage/Index.asp?IdS=016220-5711F70&x=090|005&~=]Link for the lazy[/URL]
| Grintch | 06-23-2005 05:14 PM |
Yeah. Provides some much needed seperation between ST & SP. Makes it worth the move from ST and the move to BSP from ESP (to satisfy the ponycar crowd).
Write those letters, because the anti-turbo crowd are likely to oppose this proposal.
Write those letters, because the anti-turbo crowd are likely to oppose this proposal.
| trhoppe | 06-23-2005 05:30 PM |
[quote]Write those letters, because the anti-turbo crowd are likely to oppose this proposal.[/quote] I dunno. ESP will support it big time. BSP is already scared of the Rally cars :lol: so yes, those girls will be opposed to it.
-Tom
-Tom
| TheWRX | 06-23-2005 05:41 PM |
I'm sure that we'll see a lot of heated discussions over the next couple of months. I think opening up the boost is the way to go. It's just completely impossible to police. It obviously means that the STi and Evo will go to BSP, but that's probably going to happen anyway.
Since Tom was talking about girls: Did anybody notice the clarification under the tech bulletins saying that only females can run in ladies classes? :lol:
Since Tom was talking about girls: Did anybody notice the clarification under the tech bulletins saying that only females can run in ladies classes? :lol:
| dwx | 06-23-2005 07:07 PM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]I dunno. ESP will support it big time. BSP is already scared of the Rally cars :lol: so yes, those girls will be opposed to it.
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Yeah, all 4 guys that still run BSP...
-Tom[/QUOTE]
Yeah, all 4 guys that still run BSP...
| Butt Dyno | 06-23-2005 07:31 PM |
It's only the STi/Evo that would go to BSP, right? Not the WRX?
This makes ESP more enticing.. it would be nice to try R-tires.
(of course I am not going to be competitive no matter where I go)
This makes ESP more enticing.. it would be nice to try R-tires.
(of course I am not going to be competitive no matter where I go)
| timmyb21 | 06-23-2005 07:57 PM |
I see this getting very ugly very quickly...
| timmyb21 | 06-23-2005 08:00 PM |
[QUOTE=ButtDyno]It's only the STi/Evo that would go to BSP, right? Not the WRX?
This makes ESP more enticing.. it would be nice to try R-tires.
(of course I am not going to be competitive no matter where I go)[/QUOTE]I believe the regular WRX has been tried in ESP and was proven to be uncompetitive. Don't quote me on that...maybe the front diff from the '05 STi would help?
This makes ESP more enticing.. it would be nice to try R-tires.
(of course I am not going to be competitive no matter where I go)[/QUOTE]I believe the regular WRX has been tried in ESP and was proven to be uncompetitive. Don't quote me on that...maybe the front diff from the '05 STi would help?
| dwx | 06-23-2005 08:10 PM |
No one has ever tried a WRX in ESP, it's much easier to just go compete in STX or SM beyond that.
There have been DSMs that have competed in ESP in the past and some have been fairly competitive. With unlimited boost control I think you could build a WRX or DSM to be very competitive in ESP.
Should be interesting with the 2.5L WRX due out this year.
There have been DSMs that have competed in ESP in the past and some have been fairly competitive. With unlimited boost control I think you could build a WRX or DSM to be very competitive in ESP.
Should be interesting with the 2.5L WRX due out this year.
| Butt Dyno | 06-23-2005 08:13 PM |
[url]http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=557283[/url]
Doesn't seem unpossible, especially locally.
*i need to stop trying to rationalize new mods :)
Doesn't seem unpossible, especially locally.
*i need to stop trying to rationalize new mods :)
| Draken | 06-23-2005 08:54 PM |
Wow...a lot of G-stok cars moving down to HS. Ford Probe GT, Maza MX-6 V6, Civic Si, etc. There are times when some mid-level GS cars can beat top HS Minis.
Chris H.
Chris H.
| CamaroFS34 | 06-24-2005 12:42 AM |
I've been told that not all letters are getting through to the SEB or the appropriate committees. If you are going to write a letter regarding any of those proposals, make sure you get a confirmation and a log number. If for some reason, you do not receive a confirmation within a few days, [i]resend[/i] your letter, and if you have an email address for someone on the SEB or the appropriate subcommittee, CC it to them.
It's terrible when they ask for member comment, but then the comments aren't actually getting to those who want/need to hear them.
Karen
It's terrible when they ask for member comment, but then the comments aren't actually getting to those who want/need to hear them.
Karen
| Aaron B | 06-24-2005 10:08 AM |
So the way I read it, boost control modifications are allowed but superchargers are not allowed to change pulleys?
If so, that's good news for me, I wanted to give ESP a try next year (locally) The one guy in there that almost always wins, unless bumped to ASP, drives a supercharged Mustang Cobra, that should help me to run a little closer to him
If so, that's good news for me, I wanted to give ESP a try next year (locally) The one guy in there that almost always wins, unless bumped to ASP, drives a supercharged Mustang Cobra, that should help me to run a little closer to him
| zosima | 06-24-2005 10:47 AM |
what do you guys think of the ST treadware change? Anyone know which tires this would preclude?
| rankink | 06-24-2005 10:57 AM |
[QUOTE=zosima]what do you guys think of the ST treadware change? Anyone know which tires this would preclude?[/QUOTE]
Actually, I don't think it will affect any of the top tires. Falken, Kumho, Hankook, Toyo because they all have a treadwear of 200 or higher. The new advan neova has a lower treadwear, but it is still 180.
Actually, I don't think it will affect any of the top tires. Falken, Kumho, Hankook, Toyo because they all have a treadwear of 200 or higher. The new advan neova has a lower treadwear, but it is still 180.
| arubus | 06-24-2005 10:59 AM |
I know I'm a minority in this one, but why not move the Mazda Protege MP3 down to HS as well from GS? It was probably overlooked since there are so few of them, but it seems like they went over all the cars in class, so why overlook that one?
And why not move the GC8 to HS as well? Phillip was spot on with HS times at the SEDiv in Atlanta in his 2.5RS, and he is no slouch driver. Eh, maybe time to right a letter.
Godspeed.
--Wayne
And why not move the GC8 to HS as well? Phillip was spot on with HS times at the SEDiv in Atlanta in his 2.5RS, and he is no slouch driver. Eh, maybe time to right a letter.
Godspeed.
--Wayne
| funsti | 06-24-2005 11:06 AM |
That treadware change proposal would be a MAJOR bummer for the STi which has stock tires of 140 treadwear! I've already replaced the stock set with a set of takeoffs and I have another set of takeoffs sitting in my garage! I guess I'm finally going to have to get an extra set of wheels and some Hankooks to put on them.
I wonder where this proposal is coming from? Whiners complaining about STis probably. :D
I wonder where this proposal is coming from? Whiners complaining about STis probably. :D
| rankink | 06-24-2005 11:07 AM |
[QUOTE=funsti]That treadware change proposal would be a MAJOR bummer for the STi which has stock tires of 140 treadwear! I've already replaced the stock set with a set of takeoffs and I have another set of takeoffs sitting in my garage! I guess I'm finally going to have to get an extra set of wheels and some Hankooks to put on them.
I wonder where this proposal is coming from? Whiners complaining about STis probably. :D[/QUOTE]
Good point about the STi stock tires. I did not even think about that.
I wonder where this proposal is coming from? Whiners complaining about STis probably. :D[/QUOTE]
Good point about the STi stock tires. I did not even think about that.
| wrx2.0 555 | 06-24-2005 11:11 AM |
Dumb question----------
Why is the "August" fasttrack out in June?
Why is the "August" fasttrack out in June?
| omahasubaru | 06-24-2005 11:11 AM |
[QUOTE=trhoppe]Air bag systems may now fully go away...[/QUOTE]
Ok, I must not be reading the right section or something.
I saw nothing noted like this under the Street Touring section noted in the August fastrack.
Ok, I must not be reading the right section or something.
I saw nothing noted like this under the Street Touring section noted in the August fastrack.
| fliz | 06-24-2005 11:20 AM |
[QUOTE=rankink]Good point about the STi stock tires. I did not even think about that.[/QUOTE]
Even the stock RE-92s are only rated at 160. I understand they're not competitive, but it seems strange to disqualify a widely used stock a/s tire from the "Street" tire class.
Even the stock RE-92s are only rated at 160. I understand they're not competitive, but it seems strange to disqualify a widely used stock a/s tire from the "Street" tire class.
| zzyzx | 06-24-2005 12:02 PM |
[QUOTE=omahasubaru]Ok, I must not be reading the right section or something.
I saw nothing noted like this under the Street Touring section noted in the August fastrack.[/QUOTE]
^ Touring (think real racing) ;)
I saw nothing noted like this under the Street Touring section noted in the August fastrack.[/QUOTE]
^ Touring (think real racing) ;)
| Warp3 | 06-24-2005 12:14 PM |
Holy crap, there are a lot of proposals in there.
The '06 Z06 stock exclusion proposal shocked me at first, until I read farther down that it was for tire availability reasons. :lol:
I find it hilarous that they are proposing opening up boost control, but note that non-stock BOVs or CBVs are still illegal. :rolleyes: While this does fit in with the "modifying boost control without modifying the actual parts" concept they mentioned, it's still humorous that they are still so afraid of those things (especially since they don't actually control boost levels anymore on modern cars).
Shane -- SM 729
The '06 Z06 stock exclusion proposal shocked me at first, until I read farther down that it was for tire availability reasons. :lol:
I find it hilarous that they are proposing opening up boost control, but note that non-stock BOVs or CBVs are still illegal. :rolleyes: While this does fit in with the "modifying boost control without modifying the actual parts" concept they mentioned, it's still humorous that they are still so afraid of those things (especially since they don't actually control boost levels anymore on modern cars).
Shane -- SM 729
| WRX_Mundi | 06-24-2005 12:14 PM |
Yes, the STi and Evo have an issue there. I'm wondering if a solution would be to have an extra line about the OEM tire for the car being allowed (e.g. STi can run 225/45-17 RE070's in addition to any of the 180+ tires, Evo could run Advan's or otherwise legal tires, etc.). Like some others, I thought it would effect the top ST tires, but was surprised to see that most of them are already above 180. Someone raised a good point about a danger of Toyo adding some more rubber to the RA-1 to bring it up to 140. That tire would dominate.
The C4 to AS proposal doesn't seem to be going over well on sccaforums. It'd have a big effect on our local regions as one of the top PAX people is in an AS C4. I don't think I agree with it. Lots of DS/GS/HS moves -- I don't envy the SAC or SEB here.
I'm not thrilled with going to BSP without boost changes, but I like the boost change idea for SP, and then STi/Evo -> BSP makes lots of sense. It removes the whole cheating thing (though the NA people will always complain of it being terribly unfair) and seems like it will reduce costs for regional competitors who can now use any of the off-the-shelf kits instead of paying someone lots of money to remove the boost controls. I hope this one goes through (though I'd think they would want to somehow reserve the right to mid-year reclass turbo cars in SP).
The C4 to AS proposal doesn't seem to be going over well on sccaforums. It'd have a big effect on our local regions as one of the top PAX people is in an AS C4. I don't think I agree with it. Lots of DS/GS/HS moves -- I don't envy the SAC or SEB here.
I'm not thrilled with going to BSP without boost changes, but I like the boost change idea for SP, and then STi/Evo -> BSP makes lots of sense. It removes the whole cheating thing (though the NA people will always complain of it being terribly unfair) and seems like it will reduce costs for regional competitors who can now use any of the off-the-shelf kits instead of paying someone lots of money to remove the boost controls. I hope this one goes through (though I'd think they would want to somehow reserve the right to mid-year reclass turbo cars in SP).
| funsti | 06-24-2005 01:00 PM |
So do we just send in an e-mail to [email][email�protected][/email] to convey our concerns? I am teh noob.
| MrDestructo | 06-24-2005 01:17 PM |
[QUOTE=WRX_Mundi]Yes, the STi and Evo have an issue there. I'm wondering if a solution would be to have an extra line about the OEM tire for the car being allowed (e.g. STi can run 225/45-17 RE070's in addition to any of the 180+ tires, Evo could run Advan's or otherwise legal tires, etc.)[/QUOTE]
Does the OEM tire allowance carry over from stock class? If not then this affects many cars, STI, EVO, RX8, G35 Coupe, new BMW 3 with Sport Package, etc.
anyone that is in the know want to chime in on this? KC,TOM, et al.????
This could have huge implications...
Does the OEM tire allowance carry over from stock class? If not then this affects many cars, STI, EVO, RX8, G35 Coupe, new BMW 3 with Sport Package, etc.
anyone that is in the know want to chime in on this? KC,TOM, et al.????
This could have huge implications...
| AUTOwrXER | 06-24-2005 01:29 PM |
Hell, even the RE92s on the regular WRX are 160 treadwear IIRC...
Edit - I was a little late on that one.
Edit - I was a little late on that one.
| funsti | 06-24-2005 01:43 PM |
[QUOTE=MrDestructo]Does the OEM tire allowance carry over from stock class? [/QUOTE]
Huh, I just sent my e-mail out to [email][email�protected][/email]. I should have asked that very same question but I hadn't read the stock class rules lately so I didn't think of it.
Huh, I just sent my e-mail out to [email][email�protected][/email]. I should have asked that very same question but I hadn't read the stock class rules lately so I didn't think of it.
| dwx | 06-24-2005 02:01 PM |
The treadwear rating rule overrides the stock class allowance.
I don't know why they even use treadwear, it's just an arbitrary number made up by the manufacturer. They should just have a tire allowance list, or better yet an exclusion list. Right now I can't think of anything that would be excluded...
The treadwear thing could pass and would effectively keep an OEM from putting some kind of cheater tire on their car stock. That way you would have some one-off OEM tire that was much faster than what was publicly available in many different sizes. Unless they put a 180 treadwear rating on it of course. ;)
I don't know why they even use treadwear, it's just an arbitrary number made up by the manufacturer. They should just have a tire allowance list, or better yet an exclusion list. Right now I can't think of anything that would be excluded...
The treadwear thing could pass and would effectively keep an OEM from putting some kind of cheater tire on their car stock. That way you would have some one-off OEM tire that was much faster than what was publicly available in many different sizes. Unless they put a 180 treadwear rating on it of course. ;)
| typer_801 | 06-24-2005 02:41 PM |
The SEB has expressed concern after speaking with tire manufacturers and their percieved ability to meet the 140 treadwear rating with R-compound tires (by increasing tread depth). The Pirelli P-Corsa in the 215/40/17 is a perfect example. 60 in all sizes except the one above when it's 140 all because the tread depth is greater.
Raising the limit from 140 to 180 does affect a lot of cars. Anything with a Bridgestone Potenza (RE0x0, S-02), some Pirelli, and some Yoko's (i.e. EVO OEM tires). Probably others. STI's, EVO's, Type R's, 3-series w/sport package, etc. all would not be allowed to compete on their OEM tires whether competitive or not.
I'd strongly encourage you to do further research and write a letter with your opinion on this.
[QUOTE=MrDestructo]Does the OEM tire allowance carry over from stock class? If not then this affects many cars, STI, EVO, RX8, G35 Coupe, new BMW 3 with Sport Package, etc.
anyone that is in the know want to chime in on this? KC,TOM, et al.????
This could have huge implications...[/QUOTE]
Raising the limit from 140 to 180 does affect a lot of cars. Anything with a Bridgestone Potenza (RE0x0, S-02), some Pirelli, and some Yoko's (i.e. EVO OEM tires). Probably others. STI's, EVO's, Type R's, 3-series w/sport package, etc. all would not be allowed to compete on their OEM tires whether competitive or not.
I'd strongly encourage you to do further research and write a letter with your opinion on this.
[QUOTE=MrDestructo]Does the OEM tire allowance carry over from stock class? If not then this affects many cars, STI, EVO, RX8, G35 Coupe, new BMW 3 with Sport Package, etc.
anyone that is in the know want to chime in on this? KC,TOM, et al.????
This could have huge implications...[/QUOTE]
| DrBiggly | 06-24-2005 02:45 PM |
The smartest thing to do would be to have exceptions on the tire-exclusion list. I think the current system works pretty well so far.
They have 1 single case of this and want to disrupt a whole series of classes over it? :confused:
They have 1 single case of this and want to disrupt a whole series of classes over it? :confused:
| jmott | 06-24-2005 02:59 PM |
rule restrictions aren't made out of fear.
if the rules allowed turbo cars to dominate a given class they would just bump them a class.
allowing boost to be unrestricted doesn't really have much benefit except to make policing the rules easier. the downside is you will all have to run dangerous levels of boost to be competitive.
a pretty serious downside.
[QUOTE=Warp3]Holy crap, there are a lot of proposals in there.
The '06 Z06 stock exclusion proposal shocked me at first, until I read farther down that it was for tire availability reasons. :lol:
I find it hilarous that they are proposing opening up boost control, but note that non-stock BOVs or CBVs are still illegal. :rolleyes: While this does fit in with the "modifying boost control without modifying the actual parts" concept they mentioned, it's still humorous that they are still so afraid of those things (especially since they don't actually control boost levels anymore on modern cars).
Shane -- SM 729[/QUOTE]
if the rules allowed turbo cars to dominate a given class they would just bump them a class.
allowing boost to be unrestricted doesn't really have much benefit except to make policing the rules easier. the downside is you will all have to run dangerous levels of boost to be competitive.
a pretty serious downside.
[QUOTE=Warp3]Holy crap, there are a lot of proposals in there.
The '06 Z06 stock exclusion proposal shocked me at first, until I read farther down that it was for tire availability reasons. :lol:
I find it hilarous that they are proposing opening up boost control, but note that non-stock BOVs or CBVs are still illegal. :rolleyes: While this does fit in with the "modifying boost control without modifying the actual parts" concept they mentioned, it's still humorous that they are still so afraid of those things (especially since they don't actually control boost levels anymore on modern cars).
Shane -- SM 729[/QUOTE]
| typer_801 | 06-24-2005 03:03 PM |
Again, please write your letters!!! Also note the wording in my previous response. There was no mention of the STAC wanting to do this anywhere and that wasn't by accident ;)
-Jeff
-Jeff
| dwx | 06-24-2005 03:24 PM |
[QUOTE=jmott]rule restrictions aren't made out of fear.
if the rules allowed turbo cars to dominate a given class they would just bump them a class.
allowing boost to be unrestricted doesn't really have much benefit except to make policing the rules easier. the downside is you will all have to run dangerous levels of boost to be competitive.
a pretty serious downside.[/QUOTE]
Yep that's the big downside to the proposal. They also make fuel cut defensers and other boost limiting devices legal so boost really is completely unlimited until you run into injector limitations. Throw some VP Import (120 octane) in there, run 13:1, and pull the wastegate line. :)
Of course at some point you are going to overcome the limit of some other things like the BOV, etc. but that's ok.
if the rules allowed turbo cars to dominate a given class they would just bump them a class.
allowing boost to be unrestricted doesn't really have much benefit except to make policing the rules easier. the downside is you will all have to run dangerous levels of boost to be competitive.
a pretty serious downside.[/QUOTE]
Yep that's the big downside to the proposal. They also make fuel cut defensers and other boost limiting devices legal so boost really is completely unlimited until you run into injector limitations. Throw some VP Import (120 octane) in there, run 13:1, and pull the wastegate line. :)
Of course at some point you are going to overcome the limit of some other things like the BOV, etc. but that's ok.
| Jsortor | 06-24-2005 04:46 PM |
So, are you saying that this should not become a rule? What the hell are we going to do to not be called cheaters then? I say, the SCCA buy a polygraph machine and do a lie detector test on all turbo car drivers about their boost. If you fail, your protested.
| ChrisW | 06-24-2005 04:57 PM |
[QUOTE=TheWRX]I'm sure that we'll see a lot of heated discussions over the next couple of months. I think opening up the boost is the way to go. It's just completely impossible to police. It obviously means that the STi and Evo will go to BSP, but that's probably going to happen anyway.
Since Tom was talking about girls: Did anybody notice the clarification under the tech bulletins saying that only females can run in ladies classes? :lol:[/QUOTE]
the potential of the STI/EVO move to BSP is certainly more likely with unregulated boost controls, but the wording is telling me that it's not a done deal yet.
Since Tom was talking about girls: Did anybody notice the clarification under the tech bulletins saying that only females can run in ladies classes? :lol:[/QUOTE]
the potential of the STI/EVO move to BSP is certainly more likely with unregulated boost controls, but the wording is telling me that it's not a done deal yet.
| dwx | 06-24-2005 05:12 PM |
[QUOTE=Jsortor]So, are you saying that this should not become a rule? What the hell are we going to do to not be called cheaters then? I say, the SCCA buy a polygraph machine and do a lie detector test on all turbo car drivers about their boost. If you fail, your protested.[/QUOTE]
Well it won't change anything with the ST classes, only SP. Those cars were probably going to be moved to BSP anyways regardless of the boost control issue. Now it's just another group that will complain (Corvettes) as opposed to the current ESP people complaining.
Well it won't change anything with the ST classes, only SP. Those cars were probably going to be moved to BSP anyways regardless of the boost control issue. Now it's just another group that will complain (Corvettes) as opposed to the current ESP people complaining.
| Jsortor | 06-24-2005 05:19 PM |
[QUOTE=dwx]Well it won't change anything with the ST classes, only SP. Those cars were probably going to be moved to BSP anyways regardless of the boost control issue. Now it's just another group that will complain (Corvettes) as opposed to the current ESP people complaining.[/QUOTE]
BUT, at least they can bitch about getting beat by a rules "legal" car, instead of saying "oh they are probably cheating on boost anyway".
Plus, Changing Boost in SP is just a test bed for the rule. If it works out, you could see it in ST in a couple years......
BUT, at least they can bitch about getting beat by a rules "legal" car, instead of saying "oh they are probably cheating on boost anyway".
Plus, Changing Boost in SP is just a test bed for the rule. If it works out, you could see it in ST in a couple years......
| arubus | 06-24-2005 07:19 PM |
[quote]Spec Miata
Item 1. Effective 10/1/05: Change section
17.1.9.C.4.e to read as follows:
Suspension alignments (camber, caster, toe)
are unrestricted within the limits of the
unmodified factory adjustments.[/quote]
OOOOOoooooo....gonna have to get a new pyrometer and fine tune the Miatas set-up. Before we just maxed out the camber up front to 2*. Now we actually have to set it up. Yea!!!!!!
Godspeed.
--Wayne
Item 1. Effective 10/1/05: Change section
17.1.9.C.4.e to read as follows:
Suspension alignments (camber, caster, toe)
are unrestricted within the limits of the
unmodified factory adjustments.[/quote]
OOOOOoooooo....gonna have to get a new pyrometer and fine tune the Miatas set-up. Before we just maxed out the camber up front to 2*. Now we actually have to set it up. Yea!!!!!!
Godspeed.
--Wayne
| Scott Farmer | 06-25-2005 02:04 PM |
Part of the "benefit" to strict rules is that it keeps costs down. Sure, we could all throw our hats (and wallets) into SM, but most of us can't do that because of the massive expense (mods and losing a streetable car). Unlimited boost without allowing the other safeguards needed when increasing boost over stock is going to affect reliability, which in turn will affect costs. But of course, allowing the "other safeguards" will add even more expense.
But to win against the BSP vettes is going to require "more" than we have now. Just looking at the times between ESP and BSP at nats explains that. I don't know how I feel about it yet.
But to win against the BSP vettes is going to require "more" than we have now. Just looking at the times between ESP and BSP at nats explains that. I don't know how I feel about it yet.
| dwx | 06-25-2005 09:44 PM |
I was thinking and what would work better than allowing unlimited boost and moving the STI/EVO to BSP is to just leave boost alone and move the cars there anyways. If they are moving the AS vettes to SS, why not move the BSP vettes to ASP? That would give BSP as a place for the EVO/STI/M3/S2000 to compete against eachother.
| ChrisW | 06-26-2005 12:21 PM |
[QUOTE=dwx]I was thinking and what would work better than allowing unlimited boost and moving the STI/EVO to BSP is to just leave boost alone and move the cars there anyways. If they are moving the AS vettes to SS, why not move the BSP vettes to ASP? That would give BSP as a place for the EVO/STI/M3/S2000 to compete against eachother.[/QUOTE]
I have read someone talking about doing just that. Of course, I think it would be better to leave us in ESP and change the pax...
I have read someone talking about doing just that. Of course, I think it would be better to leave us in ESP and change the pax...
| dwx | 06-26-2005 01:17 PM |
I don't think there is any way the cars will remain in ESP, boost or not.
| BIGSKYWRX | 06-26-2005 08:35 PM |
Running on S02's :( Tranny mount :)
| kwh29 | 06-26-2005 10:30 PM |
[QUOTE=dwx]The treadwear rating rule overrides the stock class allowance.[/QUOTE]
There's some debate about this. I've seen at both interpretations stated by seb members.
In any case, I think the whole treadwear rating as an indicator of tire performance is ludicrous anyway. If someone on the STAC is spazzed about ringer tires being built for the class by Toyo or someone just use the tire exclusion list that IS ALREADY THERE. There's no need to impact everyone in the class over 1 or two "cheater" tires. If the committees are so scared they should send a letter to every tire company that they can think of stating that attempts to make cheater tires out of deep tread R tires will be met with immediate listing on the exclusion list. The Pirelli mentioned a few posts above is a prime example -- it was listed and IIRC a blurb posted on the web within a month of someone noticing the tire and asking about it.
On boost: You all are forgetting compressor efficiency! The stock turbo and intercooler has to stay. No CO2 or ice water is allowed to cool the intercooler except unmodified stock systems like the STi. Thus there is an innate limit to the power potential of high boost cars in SP. Trying to up boost beyond a certain point simply yields more hot air, not more power.
Write your letters! [email][email�protected][/email] is the address. Be sure to get a confirmation number, as Karen said.
--Kevin H.
There's some debate about this. I've seen at both interpretations stated by seb members.
In any case, I think the whole treadwear rating as an indicator of tire performance is ludicrous anyway. If someone on the STAC is spazzed about ringer tires being built for the class by Toyo or someone just use the tire exclusion list that IS ALREADY THERE. There's no need to impact everyone in the class over 1 or two "cheater" tires. If the committees are so scared they should send a letter to every tire company that they can think of stating that attempts to make cheater tires out of deep tread R tires will be met with immediate listing on the exclusion list. The Pirelli mentioned a few posts above is a prime example -- it was listed and IIRC a blurb posted on the web within a month of someone noticing the tire and asking about it.
On boost: You all are forgetting compressor efficiency! The stock turbo and intercooler has to stay. No CO2 or ice water is allowed to cool the intercooler except unmodified stock systems like the STi. Thus there is an innate limit to the power potential of high boost cars in SP. Trying to up boost beyond a certain point simply yields more hot air, not more power.
Write your letters! [email][email�protected][/email] is the address. Be sure to get a confirmation number, as Karen said.
--Kevin H.
| jcroy66 | 06-27-2005 08:11 AM |
[QUOTE=Scott Farmer]But to win against the BSP vettes is going to require "more" than we have now. Just looking at the times between ESP and BSP at nats explains that. I don't know how I feel about it yet.[/QUOTE]In 2004, BSP ran Thurs/Fri as I recall. ESP ran Tues/Wed. Don't forget that times SHOULD drop as the week goes on, as rubber gets laid down.
| dwx | 06-27-2005 08:16 AM |
No one is forgetting the limits of the turbo, you can make more torque at low RPMS by running high boost. You can run 25 psi on a stock STI turbo and while after 5000 rpm you are going to run into a wall, you will make more power down low than running 18psi. The turbo runs out of its efficiency at high RPMs. Intercooler changes are legal in SP so you can improve the cooling a bit. I've seen a guy run a 11.6 second drag time in an EVO by throwing in C16 and running 28psi on the stock turbo... There is an inherent limit to peak horsepower but you can still make more power running high boost, at the cost of the turbo, engine, and other components. I sent in my letter against the proposal.
| gotsol | 06-27-2005 09:21 AM |
Regarding the tire wear rating. I used to work for a tire company. One of the last things I did was help create our first passenger car tire marketing program. As part of that program we had to come up with a wear rating.
All tires are tested by standard testing labs at their facility in TX. They mount up the tires on pickup trucks (no lie) and drive them for something like 8,000 miles nonstop on a closed facility. They have one truck with a standard tire Cooper makes just for this test. The test tires are evaluated regarding wear against this standard tire.
The tire company then evaluates the data and comes up with their own rating based on the findings. There is no law that requires the company to use the number. Our tire tested in the 400-500's but we chose to rate it around 300 due to its position in the market.
Basically, a tire company can call it what ever they want, they just have to be able to back up the claim. Most rate down like we did for warranty sake
All tires are tested by standard testing labs at their facility in TX. They mount up the tires on pickup trucks (no lie) and drive them for something like 8,000 miles nonstop on a closed facility. They have one truck with a standard tire Cooper makes just for this test. The test tires are evaluated regarding wear against this standard tire.
The tire company then evaluates the data and comes up with their own rating based on the findings. There is no law that requires the company to use the number. Our tire tested in the 400-500's but we chose to rate it around 300 due to its position in the market.
Basically, a tire company can call it what ever they want, they just have to be able to back up the claim. Most rate down like we did for warranty sake
| AUTOwrXER | 06-27-2005 09:31 AM |
[QUOTE=dwx]I don't think there is any way the cars will remain in ESP, boost or not.[/QUOTE]
Probably not, but I'm waiting until after Peru to make that call. In Toledo on Sunday (only dry day) the fastest pony car was .1 second behind the fastest rally car. Peru should be a good test, but I understand that the Tak/Lieber car broke in Oscoda and may not be there. Tommy and I may be the only well prepared rally car there.
Probably not, but I'm waiting until after Peru to make that call. In Toledo on Sunday (only dry day) the fastest pony car was .1 second behind the fastest rally car. Peru should be a good test, but I understand that the Tak/Lieber car broke in Oscoda and may not be there. Tommy and I may be the only well prepared rally car there.
| crystalhelix | 06-27-2005 11:11 AM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]Probably not, but I'm waiting until after Peru to make that call. In Toledo on Sunday (only dry day) the fastest pony car was .1 second behind the fastest rally car. Peru should be a good test, but I understand that the Tak/Lieber car broke in Oscoda and may not be there. Tommy and I may be the only well prepared rally car there.[/QUOTE]
[rob schneider]You can do IT![/rob schneider]
Go for it man, good luck! At least there will be one good Rally car there.
Justin
[rob schneider]You can do IT![/rob schneider]
Go for it man, good luck! At least there will be one good Rally car there.
Justin
| 10th Warrior | 06-27-2005 03:15 PM |
[quote]And why not move the GC8 to HS as well?[/quote]
no car that trophies in GS is going to HS. the RS and ACR are going nowhere.
as for boost, i think its going to have to happen, though it will unfortunately increase costs quite a bit.
i like the Stock class moves, except for the C4. that's just weird. Better to move other things down from SS to AS IMHO.
no car that trophies in GS is going to HS. the RS and ACR are going nowhere.
as for boost, i think its going to have to happen, though it will unfortunately increase costs quite a bit.
i like the Stock class moves, except for the C4. that's just weird. Better to move other things down from SS to AS IMHO.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét