| Scooby South | 09-19-2005 09:03 AM |
ESP STi's to BSP?????
�
�
Well after all the dust has settled...it looks like there is a 1.8 Second gap between the top BSP car.... Rita Wilsey 1989 Chevrolet Corvette Blu. with a total time of 115.483 and top ESP car, 178 Andrew Lieber 2005 Mitsubishi EVO Red with a total time of 117.223...
obviously both of these cars are to the rules edge in each class...The question is going to come up...
"Can the transition to BSP for the EVO and the STi be competive in BSP????"
I somehow don't think so...There were some SERIOUS Effort ESP cars there this year....I just don't think it will be competitive in BSP with the monstor Vettes running around....almost 2 secs is ALOT to make up...
Pro SOLO is different because you have the launch...
I know that its just proposed..... but hopefully the board will see that its just not going to be competive in BSP...
Thoughts????
Bill
obviously both of these cars are to the rules edge in each class...The question is going to come up...
"Can the transition to BSP for the EVO and the STi be competive in BSP????"
I somehow don't think so...There were some SERIOUS Effort ESP cars there this year....I just don't think it will be competitive in BSP with the monstor Vettes running around....almost 2 secs is ALOT to make up...
Pro SOLO is different because you have the launch...
I know that its just proposed..... but hopefully the board will see that its just not going to be competive in BSP...
Thoughts????
Bill
| CamaroFS34 | 09-19-2005 09:06 AM |
There is no comparison. BSP ran Tues/Wednesday, on the original North Course, and ESP ran Thurs/Friday on the rerouted North Course. Weather conditions were completely different.
Karen
Karen
| Scooby South | 09-19-2005 09:12 AM |
[QUOTE=CamaroFS34]There is no comparison. BSP ran Tues/Wednesday, on the original North Course, and ESP ran Thurs/Friday on the rerouted North Course. Weather conditions were completely different.
Karen[/QUOTE]
True....
so do you think the evo's and sti's will be competitive then???
Karen[/QUOTE]
True....
so do you think the evo's and sti's will be competitive then???
| KC | 09-19-2005 09:16 AM |
To start, BSP ran Tues/Wed and ESP ran Thurs/Fri. Both ran North 1st/South 2nd.
They both ran the south in the dry.. but BSP was run in warmer temps than ESP did friday (on par to 10 degrees).
You can't compare them.
However.. if you wanted to try... the fastest South course scratch time for ESP was .5 seconds slower than BSPs fastest. If I were to base judgement on just one days run, I would also concur that ESP shouldn't be moved... but with BSP running in somewhat better conditions, it's hard to make a concrete judgement to move the cars based on that one result.
--kC
They both ran the south in the dry.. but BSP was run in warmer temps than ESP did friday (on par to 10 degrees).
You can't compare them.
However.. if you wanted to try... the fastest South course scratch time for ESP was .5 seconds slower than BSPs fastest. If I were to base judgement on just one days run, I would also concur that ESP shouldn't be moved... but with BSP running in somewhat better conditions, it's hard to make a concrete judgement to move the cars based on that one result.
--kC
| MrDestructo | 09-19-2005 11:25 AM |
Well, although I don't think SCCA should move the cars, I think they WILL. If they don't ESP will be a STEVO spec class next year (if it isn't already)...:lol:
| CamaroFS34 | 09-19-2005 11:31 AM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]True....
so do you think the evo's and sti's will be competitive then???[/QUOTE]
I think so. I don't think it'll be the cakewalk it was in ESP in the wet, but I think they have the ability to win if prepped to the limit of the rules, and if driven well.
Karen
so do you think the evo's and sti's will be competitive then???[/QUOTE]
I think so. I don't think it'll be the cakewalk it was in ESP in the wet, but I think they have the ability to win if prepped to the limit of the rules, and if driven well.
Karen
| Scooby South | 09-19-2005 11:36 AM |
Yeah...Hopefully SCCA will come out with a AWD class that they have been talking about...that would be good...if not..I won't stand a holy hell's chance to compete in BSP...
(Figuring out $$$ Budget for next year...so I can compete...this year was a wash with taxes and a vacation)...
Hopefully we will know soon...
Thanks Karen...
Bill
(Figuring out $$$ Budget for next year...so I can compete...this year was a wash with taxes and a vacation)...
Hopefully we will know soon...
Thanks Karen...
Bill
| Jsortor | 09-19-2005 11:43 AM |
They said at the town meeting that the STEVO move was also "somewhat" linked to the unrestricted boost proposition. It would make sense to me that if the STEVO was .5 down to the vettes in current trim, that the unrestricted boost could move things closer. Then again, Daddio barely ran a high 57 on the South course in SM trim so who knows how much boost will matter.....
| makofoto | 09-19-2005 12:08 PM |
Wet Asphalt next year ... :-)
| jcroy66 | 09-19-2005 12:32 PM |
Well, there is [b]over[/b] a 2-second gap from the top Evo/STi in ESP to the next ESP non-Evo/STi (Charles Moss in an Eagle Talon - Mark Jorgenson was apparently in an STi, not a Cobra as claimed). 117.223 for Lieber, 119.367 for Moss, then 121.593 for first non-AWD car. So seems to me that since they all ran at the same time, same conditions, then the evidence would seem to say that the STi and Evo don't belong in the class. Especially going to asphalt where AWD will probably make a bigger difference.
I personally will be stunned if the STi and Evo are NOT moved to BSP for 2006.
I personally will be stunned if the STi and Evo are NOT moved to BSP for 2006.
| KC | 09-19-2005 12:42 PM |
Oh, I forgot about the boost proposal. If that goes through, then yeah... BSP fo shuah.
--kC
--kC
| Fastech | 09-19-2005 12:43 PM |
I understand Jorgenson ran his Cobra day 1 then jumped ship on day 2, when he could see the writing on the wall.... not certain, but that's the story I heard.
| KC | 09-19-2005 12:54 PM |
Other way around. STi in the wet on day one, then Cobra day two. IMHO, that should be addressed in the rules for next year.
You should have to run the same car on both days unless one is taken out with a VERIFIED mechanical (or in the case of the STS civic that was running a different class being in impound for protest).
It's smart for him to do, yes, but it raises the cost of elegibility to run in the event to now have to have 2 cars to compete.
If anything, I thought it was covered under the following rule that I'm surprised no one thought about using for the basis of a protest:
[QUOTE]4.4 CAR/DRIVER LIMITS
C. If, during the event, a vehicle experiences mechanical problems resulting in its permanent withdrawal from the day�s competition, the driver may finish his/her runs in another car legal in that class.[/QUOTE]
--kC
You should have to run the same car on both days unless one is taken out with a VERIFIED mechanical (or in the case of the STS civic that was running a different class being in impound for protest).
It's smart for him to do, yes, but it raises the cost of elegibility to run in the event to now have to have 2 cars to compete.
If anything, I thought it was covered under the following rule that I'm surprised no one thought about using for the basis of a protest:
[QUOTE]4.4 CAR/DRIVER LIMITS
C. If, during the event, a vehicle experiences mechanical problems resulting in its permanent withdrawal from the day�s competition, the driver may finish his/her runs in another car legal in that class.[/QUOTE]
--kC
| Fastech | 09-19-2005 01:01 PM |
[QUOTE=KC]Other way around. STi in the wet on day one, then Cobra day two. IMHO, that should be addressed in the rules for next year.
You should have to run the same car on both days unless one is taken out with a VERIFIED mechanical (or in the case of the STS civic that was running a different class being in impound for protest).
It's smart for him to do, yes, but it raises the cost of elegibility to run in the event to now have to have 2 cars to compete.
If anything, I thought it was covered under the following rule that I'm surprised no one thought about using for the basis of a protest:
--kC[/QUOTE]
Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant!!!!
You should have to run the same car on both days unless one is taken out with a VERIFIED mechanical (or in the case of the STS civic that was running a different class being in impound for protest).
It's smart for him to do, yes, but it raises the cost of elegibility to run in the event to now have to have 2 cars to compete.
If anything, I thought it was covered under the following rule that I'm surprised no one thought about using for the basis of a protest:
--kC[/QUOTE]
Yeah, yeah, that's what I meant!!!!
| Jsortor | 09-19-2005 01:15 PM |
On the south course, in the dry, Navid told me he had top time and a pony car was only 3 tenths back. Connor Botkin was only 5 tenths back, and that was on his first run IIRC.
| KC | 09-19-2005 01:18 PM |
And many of the big players in the pony car crowd were in different classes, even last years national champ... who drove a non camaro in FS. ;) So a pony car *could have* won... but with them not being there, who's to know?
--kC
(But open boost they are BSP cars) ;)
--kC
(But open boost they are BSP cars) ;)
| EHK | 09-19-2005 01:38 PM |
This just goes to show that the SCCA has their head in the wrong place, again. If they cared to really see how BSP and ESP rally cars compared they would have had them running in the same heat on the same course. Or atleast within a heat of each other. To place them on seperate days when they are considering moving cars around when it is so contentious, is just irresponsible, or at least shows very poor forsight on their part.
Then again, that is just MHO... as if anyone here or there cares what I think.
E
Then again, that is just MHO... as if anyone here or there cares what I think.
E
| jcroy66 | 09-19-2005 01:39 PM |
If a trophy winner changed cars (and his original car wasn't broken), I'm surprised it wasn't protested. I know for a fact that this exact issue was broached in STXL. Ann Hollis would have preferred to go back to the Civic on Day 2, simply because she was more familiar with it than Jason's WRX. She inquired about it and was told that once class competition has begun, you may only change cars for mechanical reasons. But that if she asked her competitors and they said ok, it would be overlooked. She did not wish to do this because she felt it was unfair to her competitors to ask them to make that decision. I told her I didn't care, that if she wished to change back, I would not protest her, as I understand about wanting to be in one's own car. And I felt the WRX had an advantage on the North course (if the Civic had had the advantage, I probably would have asked that she stick with the WRX, her original car). I don't know if she ever talked to Tara and Julie, but it didn't matter - she stuck with the WRX anyway, being the stand-up lady that she is. :)
I did hear that the powers-that-be were very upset to hear that Julie DID change cars after Day 1, especially given that the issue had already been specifically broached. I had told Julie prior to Day 2 runs that I personally was ok with her changing cars as I had about a 5.5 second advantage, and if she managed to overcome that large a deficit, I had clearly done something VERY wrong anyway. But I don't know if Julie had cleared the car-change with Tara and Ann. I got the impression that perhaps she had not.
So my understanding is that unless Jorgenson had cleared switching back to the Cobra with ALL his competitors, he was definitely subject to disqualification.
I did hear that the powers-that-be were very upset to hear that Julie DID change cars after Day 1, especially given that the issue had already been specifically broached. I had told Julie prior to Day 2 runs that I personally was ok with her changing cars as I had about a 5.5 second advantage, and if she managed to overcome that large a deficit, I had clearly done something VERY wrong anyway. But I don't know if Julie had cleared the car-change with Tara and Ann. I got the impression that perhaps she had not.
So my understanding is that unless Jorgenson had cleared switching back to the Cobra with ALL his competitors, he was definitely subject to disqualification.
| jcroy66 | 09-19-2005 01:41 PM |
EHK, which classes run on which days is determined a year in advance! And my understanding is that it usually swaps back and forth - STX was Tues/Wed last year, Thurs/Fri this year. So unless they wanted to mess up that rotation, it would not have been possible to run them on the same day.
| Scooby South | 09-19-2005 01:46 PM |
well...if the boost limit is raised....that might make a difference...I don't think it will because you never get to FULL boost anyways and be able to hold it...without a in and out of the throttle ...Quicker Spool...yes...19 PSI on STi...Nope...PLUS...I don't think Daddio's motor was all that developed...suspension...maybe...but pretty much bolt ons for motor...and its a EVO...which isn't that torquey anyways down low...
so if they do raise the boost level....and you have to run a STOCK turbo...that would be about 300 AWHP down to the ground...maybe some more with water inj...from my knowledge...that would put a STi down about 150 HP to some of the more developed Vettes out there...
Oh and EHK...I agree about Scca's head..;)
Bill
so if they do raise the boost level....and you have to run a STOCK turbo...that would be about 300 AWHP down to the ground...maybe some more with water inj...from my knowledge...that would put a STi down about 150 HP to some of the more developed Vettes out there...
Oh and EHK...I agree about Scca's head..;)
Bill
| KC | 09-19-2005 01:58 PM |
Jen... Eric != n00b. ;)
Do a search on his old screen name (Eric) and he was member #48.
Eric... they can get that old name back for you now if you want it. PM fishguy and you can get it back.. along with the member number.
Do a search on his old screen name (Eric) and he was member #48.
Eric... they can get that old name back for you now if you want it. PM fishguy and you can get it back.. along with the member number.
| CamaroFS34 | 09-19-2005 02:01 PM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]So my understanding is that unless Jorgenson had cleared switching back to the Cobra with ALL his competitors, he was definitely subject to disqualification.[/QUOTE]
I talked to Mark about it in grid on Friday, after what Ann had said she was told. Mark said he'd heard the same thing, so he asked the Chief Steward (Kathy Barnes), who said it was okay because he never took a run in the Mustang. Though, the fact that he was switching out of a non-broken car (which was still run by his codriver) made it still a contentious move.
Karen
I talked to Mark about it in grid on Friday, after what Ann had said she was told. Mark said he'd heard the same thing, so he asked the Chief Steward (Kathy Barnes), who said it was okay because he never took a run in the Mustang. Though, the fact that he was switching out of a non-broken car (which was still run by his codriver) made it still a contentious move.
Karen
| Imprezivblue | 09-19-2005 02:06 PM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]If a trophy winner changed cars (and his original car wasn't broken), I'm surprised it wasn't protested. I know for a fact that this exact issue was broached in STXL. Ann Hollis would have preferred to go back to the Civic on Day 2, simply because she was more familiar with it than Jason's WRX. She inquired about it and was told that once class competition has begun, you may only change cars for mechanical reasons. But that if she asked her competitors and they said ok, it would be overlooked. She did not wish to do this because she felt it was unfair to her competitors to ask them to make that decision. I told her I didn't care, that if she wished to change back, I would not protest her, as I understand about wanting to be in one's own car. And I felt the WRX had an advantage on the North course (if the Civic had had the advantage, I probably would have asked that she stick with the WRX, her original car). I don't know if she ever talked to Tara and Julie, but it didn't matter - she stuck with the WRX anyway, being the stand-up lady that she is. :)
I did hear that the powers-that-be were very upset to hear that Julie DID change cars after Day 1, especially given that the issue had already been specifically broached. I had told Julie prior to Day 2 runs that I personally was ok with her changing cars as I had about a 5.5 second advantage, and if she managed to overcome that large a deficit, I had clearly done something VERY wrong anyway. But I don't know if Julie had cleared the car-change with Tara and Ann. I got the impression that perhaps she had not.
So my understanding is that unless Jorgenson had cleared switching back to the Cobra with ALL his competitors, he was definitely subject to disqualification.[/QUOTE]
Julie had cleared it with me and I said it was fine.
I did hear that the powers-that-be were very upset to hear that Julie DID change cars after Day 1, especially given that the issue had already been specifically broached. I had told Julie prior to Day 2 runs that I personally was ok with her changing cars as I had about a 5.5 second advantage, and if she managed to overcome that large a deficit, I had clearly done something VERY wrong anyway. But I don't know if Julie had cleared the car-change with Tara and Ann. I got the impression that perhaps she had not.
So my understanding is that unless Jorgenson had cleared switching back to the Cobra with ALL his competitors, he was definitely subject to disqualification.[/QUOTE]
Julie had cleared it with me and I said it was fine.
| KC | 09-19-2005 02:06 PM |
If the chief steward said it was ok, that's the final word on that.
-kC
-kC
| EHK | 09-19-2005 02:15 PM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]EHK, which classes run on which days is determined a year in advance! And my understanding is that it usually swaps back and forth - STX was Tues/Wed last year, Thurs/Fri this year. So unless they wanted to mess up that rotation, it would not have been possible to run them on the same day.[/QUOTE]
I see your point, but as a sanctioning body (SCCA) I believe they should mess up the rotation of the day order before they mess up the classing of the cars :) They make the rules, they have the right to change the rules...
I see your point, but as a sanctioning body (SCCA) I believe they should mess up the rotation of the day order before they mess up the classing of the cars :) They make the rules, they have the right to change the rules...
| trhoppe | 09-19-2005 03:04 PM |
[quote]so if they do raise the boost level....and you have to run a STOCK turbo...that would be about 300 AWHP down to the ground...maybe some more with water inj...from my knowledge...[/quote] Try 375hp/400tq to the wheels if they get boost. Right now, its 350/350ish (again wheels) with stock boost.
-Tom
-Tom
| AUTOwrXER | 09-19-2005 03:31 PM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]well...if the boost limit is raised....that might make a difference...I don't think it will because you never get to FULL boost anyways and be able to hold it...without a in and out of the throttle ...Quicker Spool...yes...19 PSI on STi...Nope...PLUS...I don't think Daddio's motor was all that developed...suspension...maybe...but pretty much bolt ons for motor...and its a EVO...which isn't that torquey anyways down low...
so if they do raise the boost level....and you have to run a STOCK turbo...that would be about 300 AWHP down to the ground...maybe some more with water inj...from my knowledge...that would put a STi down about 150 HP to some of the more developed Vettes out there...
Oh and EHK...I agree about Scca's head..;)
Bill[/QUOTE]
A few things to remember:
1) BSP was one of the few classes that ran both days in the dry.
2) BSP ran a longer North course that was later changed due to surface deterioration.
3) 1 & 2 make all comparisons between overall ESP and BSP results invalid.
4) Both classes ran the South course in the dry. Top Evo time was 57.5, while the top BSP Vette (Rita) ran 57.3. Neither of which are very impressive based on the fact that Junior Johnson ran a 56.4 in the SS Lotus. Daddio had one of the worst days in his autocross career on the South course.
Why not 19 psi in the STi? Granted you wouldn't hold it to redline, but 21 psi in the midrange isn't out of the efficiency curve with good intercooler, race gas, WI, etc. I am at 333 whp now without the improvements to boost. With the surface for National moving to asphalt, I have no hesitations running in BSP. Lee's M3 looked real fast on the North course, and it won't be a cakewalk, but BSP should be a fair fight...
so if they do raise the boost level....and you have to run a STOCK turbo...that would be about 300 AWHP down to the ground...maybe some more with water inj...from my knowledge...that would put a STi down about 150 HP to some of the more developed Vettes out there...
Oh and EHK...I agree about Scca's head..;)
Bill[/QUOTE]
A few things to remember:
1) BSP was one of the few classes that ran both days in the dry.
2) BSP ran a longer North course that was later changed due to surface deterioration.
3) 1 & 2 make all comparisons between overall ESP and BSP results invalid.
4) Both classes ran the South course in the dry. Top Evo time was 57.5, while the top BSP Vette (Rita) ran 57.3. Neither of which are very impressive based on the fact that Junior Johnson ran a 56.4 in the SS Lotus. Daddio had one of the worst days in his autocross career on the South course.
Why not 19 psi in the STi? Granted you wouldn't hold it to redline, but 21 psi in the midrange isn't out of the efficiency curve with good intercooler, race gas, WI, etc. I am at 333 whp now without the improvements to boost. With the surface for National moving to asphalt, I have no hesitations running in BSP. Lee's M3 looked real fast on the North course, and it won't be a cakewalk, but BSP should be a fair fight...
| jcroy66 | 09-19-2005 03:31 PM |
[QUOTE=EHK]I see your point, but as a sanctioning body (SCCA) I believe they should mess up the rotation of the day order before they mess up the classing of the cars :) They make the rules, they have the right to change the rules...[/QUOTE]I can certainly see the logic of changing the order around last year before the announcement, given that the BSP move was being contemplated at that point (but ultimately being basically discarded until resurrected again this year). But once they announced the order, I think it would have been irresponsible to change it. Some people make decisions on what class to compete in for the year, based on what days they will be able to be in Topeka. Or they ask for days off, based on what class they're in. Or they determine if they'll even be able to attend, based on what class (and therefore what days). Etc.
| EHK | 09-19-2005 03:59 PM |
[QUOTE=jcroy66]Etc.[/QUOTE]
OK. I hope everyone enjoyed Nationals this year. Maybe I will make it back next year...
E
OK. I hope everyone enjoyed Nationals this year. Maybe I will make it back next year...
E
| 10th Warrior | 09-19-2005 04:10 PM |
[quote]the fact that he was switching out of a non-broken car (which was still run by his codriver) made it still a contentious move.[/quote]
I don't think it was contentious at all. It certainly wasn't with myself or James, and I didn't hear any grumbling from others. Mark has been talking about doing this for months. I don't think it was a big deal, personally.
I don't think it was contentious at all. It certainly wasn't with myself or James, and I didn't hear any grumbling from others. Mark has been talking about doing this for months. I don't think it was a big deal, personally.
| Scooby South | 09-19-2005 04:17 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]A few things to remember:
1) BSP was one of the few classes that ran both days in the dry.
2) BSP ran a longer North course that was later changed due to surface deterioration.
3) 1 & 2 make all comparisons between overall ESP and BSP results invalid.
4) Both classes ran the South course in the dry. Top Evo time was 57.5, while the top BSP Vette (Rita) ran 57.3. Neither of which are very impressive based on the fact that Junior Johnson ran a 56.4 in the SS Lotus. Daddio had one of the worst days in his autocross career on the South course.
Why not 19 psi in the STi? Granted you wouldn't hold it to redline, but 21 psi in the midrange isn't out of the efficiency curve with good intercooler, race gas, WI, etc. I am at 333 whp now without the improvements to boost. With the surface for National moving to asphalt, I have no hesitations running in BSP. Lee's M3 looked real fast on the North course, and it won't be a cakewalk, but BSP should be a fair fight...[/QUOTE]
Thanks Joel...
Always a pleasure to get "GOOD" inside info from someone who's fully developed the STi...Probably some more room there to...according to Tom..
19 PSI is good..:)..I am ALL for that...I think what I was trying to say...is that even 19 PSi...your never going to get FULL boost on a AutoX course unless it has sometype of straightaway...
Asphalt is good...but Concrete is better..;)
New Asphalt is amazing...especially if its SMooooooooooooooooooth...;)
Bill
1) BSP was one of the few classes that ran both days in the dry.
2) BSP ran a longer North course that was later changed due to surface deterioration.
3) 1 & 2 make all comparisons between overall ESP and BSP results invalid.
4) Both classes ran the South course in the dry. Top Evo time was 57.5, while the top BSP Vette (Rita) ran 57.3. Neither of which are very impressive based on the fact that Junior Johnson ran a 56.4 in the SS Lotus. Daddio had one of the worst days in his autocross career on the South course.
Why not 19 psi in the STi? Granted you wouldn't hold it to redline, but 21 psi in the midrange isn't out of the efficiency curve with good intercooler, race gas, WI, etc. I am at 333 whp now without the improvements to boost. With the surface for National moving to asphalt, I have no hesitations running in BSP. Lee's M3 looked real fast on the North course, and it won't be a cakewalk, but BSP should be a fair fight...[/QUOTE]
Thanks Joel...
Always a pleasure to get "GOOD" inside info from someone who's fully developed the STi...Probably some more room there to...according to Tom..
19 PSI is good..:)..I am ALL for that...I think what I was trying to say...is that even 19 PSi...your never going to get FULL boost on a AutoX course unless it has sometype of straightaway...
Asphalt is good...but Concrete is better..;)
New Asphalt is amazing...especially if its SMooooooooooooooooooth...;)
Bill
| CamaroFS34 | 09-19-2005 04:24 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]I don't think it was contentious at all. [/QUOTE]
I meant contentious in the fact that if someone wanted to protest the move, they could have. The way the rules are [i]written[/i], you should only be able to switch cars if there is a mechanical issue with the one you are currently running. The way the rules are [i]enforced[/i], however, that is not the case. Obviously -- the chief steward on the north course (Bill Goodale) told Ann Hollis one thing about switching cars, while the chief steward on the south course (Kathy Barnes) told Mark Jorgensen something else.
Karen
I meant contentious in the fact that if someone wanted to protest the move, they could have. The way the rules are [i]written[/i], you should only be able to switch cars if there is a mechanical issue with the one you are currently running. The way the rules are [i]enforced[/i], however, that is not the case. Obviously -- the chief steward on the north course (Bill Goodale) told Ann Hollis one thing about switching cars, while the chief steward on the south course (Kathy Barnes) told Mark Jorgensen something else.
Karen
| sciolist | 09-19-2005 04:32 PM |
Any other thoughts on the operational characteristics of the WI system? How much useable power do you think it adds?
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]A few things to remember:
1) BSP was one of the few classes that ran both days in the dry.
2) BSP ran a longer North course that was later changed due to surface deterioration.
3) 1 & 2 make all comparisons between overall ESP and BSP results invalid.
4) Both classes ran the South course in the dry. Top Evo time was 57.5, while the top BSP Vette (Rita) ran 57.3. Neither of which are very impressive based on the fact that Junior Johnson ran a 56.4 in the SS Lotus. Daddio had one of the worst days in his autocross career on the South course.
Why not 19 psi in the STi? Granted you wouldn't hold it to redline, but 21 psi in the midrange isn't out of the efficiency curve with good intercooler, race gas, WI, etc. I am at 333 whp now without the improvements to boost. With the surface for National moving to asphalt, I have no hesitations running in BSP. Lee's M3 looked real fast on the North course, and it won't be a cakewalk, but BSP should be a fair fight...[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]A few things to remember:
1) BSP was one of the few classes that ran both days in the dry.
2) BSP ran a longer North course that was later changed due to surface deterioration.
3) 1 & 2 make all comparisons between overall ESP and BSP results invalid.
4) Both classes ran the South course in the dry. Top Evo time was 57.5, while the top BSP Vette (Rita) ran 57.3. Neither of which are very impressive based on the fact that Junior Johnson ran a 56.4 in the SS Lotus. Daddio had one of the worst days in his autocross career on the South course.
Why not 19 psi in the STi? Granted you wouldn't hold it to redline, but 21 psi in the midrange isn't out of the efficiency curve with good intercooler, race gas, WI, etc. I am at 333 whp now without the improvements to boost. With the surface for National moving to asphalt, I have no hesitations running in BSP. Lee's M3 looked real fast on the North course, and it won't be a cakewalk, but BSP should be a fair fight...[/QUOTE]
| jmott | 09-19-2005 04:43 PM |
I think worrying about power issues for the various SP classes is ridiculous.
Watching dry course times on the south course, DSP was faster than BSP despite having less power.
DSP, BSP, SS all had similar times on the same day (57.xx). power is all over the board in these classes, running from 220 crank to 405 crank.
Watching dry course times on the south course, DSP was faster than BSP despite having less power.
DSP, BSP, SS all had similar times on the same day (57.xx). power is all over the board in these classes, running from 220 crank to 405 crank.
| 10th Warrior | 09-19-2005 05:59 PM |
gotchya Karen. of course, its always easy for something "break" on a car :)
oh, i would say the rules were followed/enforced correctly. Nobody protested, end of story IMO.
oh, i would say the rules were followed/enforced correctly. Nobody protested, end of story IMO.
| sciolist | 09-19-2005 06:08 PM |
[QUOTE=jmott]DSP, BSP, SS all had similar times on the same day (57.xx). power is all over the board in these classes, running from 220 crank to 405 crank.[/QUOTE]
In what way does that translate into a prospective BSP driver's desire for more power being "ridiculous"?
In what way does that translate into a prospective BSP driver's desire for more power being "ridiculous"?
| jmott | 09-19-2005 06:12 PM |
[QUOTE=sciolist]In what way does that translate into a prospective BSP driver's desire for more power being "ridiculous"?[/QUOTE]
Much of the discussion of whether BSP is a fair class for the STIs to be in revolves around how much power will be available to them via the proposed boost rules.
I am suggesting that this power difference won't significantly change the situation and need not be a focus of the discussion.
It is never crazy to want more power....
do be sure you find the optimum tire first though, it matters more...as I learned the hard way this year, lol.
Much of the discussion of whether BSP is a fair class for the STIs to be in revolves around how much power will be available to them via the proposed boost rules.
I am suggesting that this power difference won't significantly change the situation and need not be a focus of the discussion.
It is never crazy to want more power....
do be sure you find the optimum tire first though, it matters more...as I learned the hard way this year, lol.
| sciolist | 09-19-2005 06:27 PM |
^ At this point, I would be able to put more power *and* more tire to constructive use. Not necessarily every second of every run, and certainly not necessarily with national-level podium finish results, but they would help.
Having attended my first NT event this season and having paid close attention to the BSP runs, I'll be taking pretty much whatever I can get, lol.
Having attended my first NT event this season and having paid close attention to the BSP runs, I'll be taking pretty much whatever I can get, lol.
| AtomicRacer | 09-19-2005 06:28 PM |
[QUOTE=jmott]
do be sure you find the optimum tire first though, it matters more...as I learned the hard way this year, lol.[/QUOTE]
Jack, you going to 285's now?
-Paul
do be sure you find the optimum tire first though, it matters more...as I learned the hard way this year, lol.[/QUOTE]
Jack, you going to 285's now?
-Paul
| jmott | 09-19-2005 06:39 PM |
[QUOTE=AtomicRacer]Jack, you going to 285's now?
-Paul[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if I keep autocrossing in DSP I'll definitely step up to 285s.
-Paul[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if I keep autocrossing in DSP I'll definitely step up to 285s.
| racerjon1 | 09-19-2005 09:09 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]I don't think it was contentious at all. It certainly wasn't with myself or James, and I didn't hear any grumbling from others. Mark has been talking about doing this for months. I don't think it was a big deal, personally.[/QUOTE]
I was on the grid with STXL of course when Hollis came out with the WRX.. I have to say I wasn't happy about it, and was very glad to see her stick it out in the WRX..
but... If you say its not a big deal what you do is set precedence for people bringing multiple cars to nationals. G-Stock.. Mini and a 2.5 RS hauled out to Topeka maybe..
How about we jsut do away with mechanicals on a national level, if you cant keep a car running for 6 or so min (2 drivers) then oh well.. no other top level series gives chances like that. (well other than F1 on seriously messed up startes where half the field crashes)
Jon
I was on the grid with STXL of course when Hollis came out with the WRX.. I have to say I wasn't happy about it, and was very glad to see her stick it out in the WRX..
but... If you say its not a big deal what you do is set precedence for people bringing multiple cars to nationals. G-Stock.. Mini and a 2.5 RS hauled out to Topeka maybe..
How about we jsut do away with mechanicals on a national level, if you cant keep a car running for 6 or so min (2 drivers) then oh well.. no other top level series gives chances like that. (well other than F1 on seriously messed up startes where half the field crashes)
Jon
| 10th Warrior | 09-19-2005 09:55 PM |
I was refering to ESP. I have no idea what happened in STXL. anyway, i really don't think people will start bringing multiple cars to Nationals. hell, Mark won't even be able to do it next year ;)
| jcroy66 | 09-19-2005 10:13 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]anyway, i really don't think people will start bringing multiple cars to Nationals.[/QUOTE]I disagree. Completely, actually. Take STX. If it were judged legal to drive different cars under different conditions, I might seriously consider forming a partnership with our good friend Andy Basham. His BMW has some serious advantages from a handling perspective. We prep both cars. We practice in both cars throughout the season, as he's only 2 hours away. We bring both cars to Nationals. Then, after course maps are available, we decide which car to drive on each course. If weather plays a part, we take that into account too. Keep in mind that Andy took 2nd in STX at Nationals, and fastest time on the North Course. He's not a slouch of a driver, nor is Phil. The advantage of having that flexibility of switching back and forth between the cars course to course (or even run to run, as in cases of sudden rain) could likely throw the results over the edge and decide a Championship. And then once we'd succeeded doing it, you can bet others would do the same. Soon, anyone who brings only one car to Nationals is at a severe disadvantage, just like anyone who only brings one set of tires. The difference between the two? First, one option is clearly legal and the other isn't, except that a Chief Steward apparently said it was ok (and as pointed out, the Chief Steward on the other course said it was NOT ok). But the biggest difference? A whole pile of [b]$$$[/b].
| racerjon1 | 09-19-2005 10:15 PM |
I was refering to STXL cause I was there, but I would say the same thing about ESP, stock, whatever... setting up to allow different cars for different conditions is a bad direction.
Jon K
Jon K
| crystalhelix | 09-19-2005 10:51 PM |
[QUOTE=sciolist]Any other thoughts on the operational characteristics of the WI system? How much useable power do you think it adds?[/QUOTE]
I have spoken with Joel about this (Joel correct me if I am wrong).
It aids with pump gas (93-94) allowing near C16 timing advancement/management.
It did not help much with the C16.
Those were my impressions from what Joel explained.
-Justin
I have spoken with Joel about this (Joel correct me if I am wrong).
It aids with pump gas (93-94) allowing near C16 timing advancement/management.
It did not help much with the C16.
Those were my impressions from what Joel explained.
-Justin
| CamaroFS34 | 09-20-2005 07:21 AM |
[QUOTE=racerjon1] setting up to allow different cars for different conditions is a bad direction. [/QUOTE]
Several of us in FS have kidded around about "third gen" vs. "fourth gen" courses (referring to 82-92 Camaros and 93-02 Camaros) and how it would be beneficial to have one of each for the different "types" of course setup. No one's done it..... [i]yet[/i], but that's not to say it hasn't been [i]seriously[/i] discussed....
Karen
Several of us in FS have kidded around about "third gen" vs. "fourth gen" courses (referring to 82-92 Camaros and 93-02 Camaros) and how it would be beneficial to have one of each for the different "types" of course setup. No one's done it..... [i]yet[/i], but that's not to say it hasn't been [i]seriously[/i] discussed....
Karen
| KC | 09-20-2005 07:58 AM |
From another forum: "The ESP initial change was allowed because the Chief Steward may allow an entrant to modify his/her registration."
It was the chief stewards decision to allow this change. I don't think any more can be written in the rules because the chief steward will always have this descision available to them. Unless that option is removed from the chief steward... but then I see other implications to a member if they are no longer allowed to make this decision in the long run.
--kC
It was the chief stewards decision to allow this change. I don't think any more can be written in the rules because the chief steward will always have this descision available to them. Unless that option is removed from the chief steward... but then I see other implications to a member if they are no longer allowed to make this decision in the long run.
--kC
| CamaroFS34 | 09-20-2005 08:29 AM |
[QUOTE=KC]From another forum: "The ESP [color=red][b]initial[/b][/color] change was allowed because the Chief Steward may allow an entrant to modify his/her registration."[/QUOTE]
That doesn't explain the reasoning for allowing the [i]subsequent[/i] change. The [i]initial[/i] change to running the STi as a second driver (instead of the Cobra he was registered in) is one thing. I think what's being discussed is the change on Friday to running the Cobra.
Karen
That doesn't explain the reasoning for allowing the [i]subsequent[/i] change. The [i]initial[/i] change to running the STi as a second driver (instead of the Cobra he was registered in) is one thing. I think what's being discussed is the change on Friday to running the Cobra.
Karen
| KC | 09-20-2005 08:54 AM |
good point.
| jcroy66 | 09-20-2005 09:42 AM |
One of my biggest concerns is that this COULD be used as a competitive advantage, but yet it is apparently up to the Chief Steward currently as to whether they allow it.
That's BS, IMO. If it's allowed, fine, allow it. If it's not allowed, then don't. But don't make it a luck-of-the-draw about who you happen to have as a Chief Steward for your course about whether it's allowed!
That's BS, IMO. If it's allowed, fine, allow it. If it's not allowed, then don't. But don't make it a luck-of-the-draw about who you happen to have as a Chief Steward for your course about whether it's allowed!
| CamaroFS34 | 09-20-2005 10:01 AM |
Well, keep in mind that just because a Chief Steward says you can do it doesn't mean the rules actually allow it. I present to you the GS tire-changing debacle from 2004 as proof....
Karen
Karen
| jcroy66 | 09-20-2005 10:08 AM |
Good point.
| Scooby South | 09-20-2005 11:38 AM |
Karen has MUCH Knowledge..:)..
Bill
Bill
| 10th Warrior | 09-20-2005 12:31 PM |
but in the GS case (of which the car in question was gridded next to me for those that don't know), it was not a decision by the Chief Steward that allowed them to take the mechanical, it was by the grid guy. What [i]should[/i] have happened was the grid guy should have asked the Chief Steward and that didn't happen, thus the problem.
anyway, i just don't by the reactionary opinion that next year if you want to win you'll need two cars. I just don't see it happening. I mean, even Scotty White only brings one car ;)
anyway, i just don't by the reactionary opinion that next year if you want to win you'll need two cars. I just don't see it happening. I mean, even Scotty White only brings one car ;)
| jcroy66 | 09-20-2005 01:11 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]anyway, i just don't by the reactionary opinion that next year if you want to win you'll need two cars.[/QUOTE][b]Need[/b] two cars? No, of course not! Just like you don't [b]need [/b]shaved, rain, or even top tier tires. You don't [b]need[/b] coilovers in STX or sway bars or a downpipe or...
But every little bit makes a difference. And I think having 2 fully prepped cars with different advantages would be more than just "a little bit" of an advantage. Could someone win with only 1 car? Absolutely! But if the option's available, I can pretty much assure you I would take advantage of it. And I wouldn't be the only one.
But every little bit makes a difference. And I think having 2 fully prepped cars with different advantages would be more than just "a little bit" of an advantage. Could someone win with only 1 car? Absolutely! But if the option's available, I can pretty much assure you I would take advantage of it. And I wouldn't be the only one.
| AUTOwrXER | 09-20-2005 01:18 PM |
[QUOTE=Scooby South]Karen has MUCH Knowledge..:)..
Bill[/QUOTE]
She dyes her hair blond.
Bill[/QUOTE]
She dyes her hair blond.
| AUTOwrXER | 09-20-2005 01:21 PM |
[QUOTE=crystalhelix]I have spoken with Joel about this (Joel correct me if I am wrong).
It aids with pump gas (93-94) allowing near C16 timing advancement/management.
It did not help much with the C16.
Those were my impressions from what Joel explained.
-Justin[/QUOTE]
That's correct, for stock boost levels. The leaded gas burns cooler than pump gas, which meant that we didn't see any benefit to WI. If boost is de-regulated and the air temp exiting the intercooler is significantly higher (from the turbo running at the upper end of it's efficiency range), then I think WI will help even with C16.
It aids with pump gas (93-94) allowing near C16 timing advancement/management.
It did not help much with the C16.
Those were my impressions from what Joel explained.
-Justin[/QUOTE]
That's correct, for stock boost levels. The leaded gas burns cooler than pump gas, which meant that we didn't see any benefit to WI. If boost is de-regulated and the air temp exiting the intercooler is significantly higher (from the turbo running at the upper end of it's efficiency range), then I think WI will help even with C16.
| makofoto | 09-20-2005 01:23 PM |
hahaha ...
... and ... The two car thing is no problem ... you just team up with someone that has the other car you need ... and after checking out conditions ... you decide which car to share ... and I guess, call a mechanical ... that part might take some planning.
... and ... The two car thing is no problem ... you just team up with someone that has the other car you need ... and after checking out conditions ... you decide which car to share ... and I guess, call a mechanical ... that part might take some planning.
| CamaroFS34 | 09-20-2005 01:36 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER]She dyes her hair blond.[/QUOTE]
Let's not go there, okay? ;) :cool:
Karen
Let's not go there, okay? ;) :cool:
Karen
| CamaroFS34 | 09-20-2005 01:38 PM |
[QUOTE=10th Warrior]but in the GS case (of which the car in question was gridded next to me for those that don't know), it was not a decision by the Chief Steward that allowed them to take the mechanical, it was by the grid guy. What [i]should[/i] have happened was the grid guy should have asked the Chief Steward and that didn't happen, thus the problem.[/QUOTE]
You're right, but I think the problem was that there were other classes where it [i]was[/i] allowed (though the conditions weren't as drastically improving as GS was).
This year, there was a case in ES which appeared to be a mechanical for tire swapping, but it was ruled legal because a camber bolt had slipped.
Karen
You're right, but I think the problem was that there were other classes where it [i]was[/i] allowed (though the conditions weren't as drastically improving as GS was).
This year, there was a case in ES which appeared to be a mechanical for tire swapping, but it was ruled legal because a camber bolt had slipped.
Karen
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét