Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok, maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but this restricter thing keeps getting under my skin. It's kinda like watching lemmings go off a cliff, or sending in my tax money, I know it's all a lost cause. I just have a gut feeling that we are all gonna put the smaller restrictors in, spend a bunch of coin respeccing the motors, and nothing significant will happen. Sure, we'll go a little slower, but the accident rate, cornering speeds, lopsided competition, etc.. will remain the same.

I'm also a little miffed at our leaders on this one. I was told that using the Jemba stage models, they were gonna plug in different car specs (40mm open car, GrN car, 34mm Open car, WRC car) and determine the relative speeds. The restrictor decision was supposed to be made according this analyis. But apparently this never happened. Maybe it's because it's impossible (I.e. the Jemba system won't do it), or maybe someone dropped the ball. The most I found out was that our 40mm cars are about as fast as a WRC car (according to Jemba), and coincidentally about a quarter of a million dollars cheaper. So here's the miffed part...Why can't we drive cars that are as fast as WRC cars (and cheaper!)? Are we too retarded, us stupid Americans? Why must we have slower cars than the rest of the world? There is talk in another forum of preparing a US driver for the WRC, but now we won't even let him or her drive a car of similar speed. Same speed as WRC car, 1/4 the cost, and this is a bad thing?????

But, I think it's counterproductive to complain on this forum without offering a solution. WE HAVE TO SLOW THE CARS DOWN. It's probably a function of the roads, but our TOP SPEEDS are getting way to fast. So here's an idea I floated to Doug Robinson to slow the cars down:

Gear limit the cars to 125mph. Why can't this be done? The Evo "short" box already does this. And putting a different trans in an open class WRX is already a forgone conclusion. It would be real easy to spec out dogboxes or final drives that limit the top speed. I'd rather dump $5k into a bulletproof dogbox that will make my car stronger and quicker (while still limiting top speed) instead of dumping it into a 34mm motor that is testy, weak, sluggish, and won't necessarily limit top speed (given enuf road and gearing). We theoretically have to tools in place to check gear boxes for the GrN cars, so testing Open cars shouldn't be an issue, correct?

I dunno, just a thought. There has gotta be a better way. Any other ideas out there??????

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
Slid'n around 'n havin a ball
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
RE: alternates to restrictors

Dennis,
I don't mean to sound like a jerk but, how much time do you spend on stage over 125MPH?
I'm going to guess that this $5K short box will speed up stage times considerably and make the cars much faster overall, not slower.
A cheaper way to do it would be to make everyone run Pirellis and have them explode whenever you get over 100.
Do drivers have to run WRC times to learn to drive?
There isn't one form of racing out there that expects junior classes to run as fast or faster than the series it feeds, ARCA and Busch were both clipped when they got equal or close.
Ban forced induction or 4wd and save the roads.
rz
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
RE: alternates to restrictors

>Dennis,
>I don't mean to sound like a jerk but, how much time do you
>spend on stage over 125MPH?
>I'm going to guess that this $5K short box will speed up
>stage times considerably and make the cars much faster
>overall, not slower.

Oi Oi oi Randy watch your choice of terms, eh?
The boxes available in the nicer Sububitchis and Mistsuburus, the
"short" Evo box and the 4.44 Sub-a-rat boxes make the cars considerably QUICKER thru the gears, but unless they can rev high or have even more gears the top speed will be limited.
They will have better stage times, all those 30mph to 90mph blaaaaaaaaats will see to that.

Back when GpA was at 40mm, and GpN at 38 that being 1990, Gp N cars were often in the top 10 but some of that was that they could and DID exceed 140 on the stages when the GpA cars typically were geared for max 112 or so.
The guys I knew then said on the 4x4 Cosworths they were feeding in new discs in the front after every stage.



>A cheaper way to do it would be to make everyone run
>Pirellis and have them explode whenever you get over 100.
Naughty Boy!!

>Do drivers have to run WRC times to learn to drive?
Yes and they have to have notes read to them even when they are lost, otherwise when they watched their in car video stuff how would they have their Walter Mittyesque fantasies?

.
>Ban forced induction or 4wd and save the roads.
>rz
Oi Randy, you sound like the idea of making Gp222 the only class which awards points towards the drivers Championship (allowing people to continue in their cars they drive so moderately if they choose, just not be able to say they are this place or that in the "United States Rally Championship") makes some sense to you?

This would also instantly make the split between the so called 'factory' (sheeeeesh I think its soooo stooopid calling Importer teams "Factory" teams, but whatever doooods) or so called "Pro" and all the rest of us manifest.

And when I say ban turbo 4x4 as a DriversNational Championship class it's not self serving, I have a nice 4x4 Cosworth nad I can do it as 40mm or 34mm or even pitch the 4x4 junk and go Gp5.

Dennis, when using the 34 and 32 and limiting the air into the motor,
but not what can be done after the air is in, that lesser amount can still be squeezed tighter and POP bigger, HP limited as HP is Torque times time, but max torque isn't limited.
More booost and squeeeze it tighter, and we're all happy till it goes KABOOOOOM!




John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
RE: alternates to restrictors

>There isn't one form of racing out there that expects junior
>classes to run as fast or faster than the series it feeds,
>ARCA and Busch were both clipped when they got equal or
>close.
>Ban forced induction or 4wd and save the roads.
>rz

Actually in the morning before the long beach grad prix (CART) they would have go cart races on the same track. Guess what-the go carts turned faster lap times and were a better show-that quickly got nixed from the same day schedule!:)
 

·
Slid'n around 'n havin a ball
Joined
·
2,953 Posts
RE: not a typo

John, I didn't mis-type the OR in, "forced induction or 4WD" but it could also be AND as long as OR is also considered.
I don't really care which but I wasn't directly endorsing F222 specifically, just a way to do more than one thing at a time and that is slow the speeds AND save the roads. Both these items have come up for discussion a few times in the past. (and typed to death too I might add.)
rz
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
RE: alternates to restrictors

>Dennis,
>I don't mean to sound like a jerk but, how much time do you
>spend on stage over 125MPH?
>I'm going to guess that this $5K short box will speed up
>stage times considerably and make the cars much faster
>overall, not slower.

Thanks Randy for making my point! We don't spend a lot of time at 125mph, yet we are actively trying to keep the cars from getting there. What is wrong with speeding up the cars between 40 and 100? That's not the dangerous part, correct? Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but I thought the intention of the restrictor was to decrease the TOP SPEED of the car, not the corner speeds. Cuz it certainly won't decrease the corner speeds. Whether you go 1mph or 15mph faster than the max corner speed, you lost it. The only difference is the amount of energy you are dissipating before you stop. So the only way to effectively lower the corner speed is to keep reducing the power until we don't have to brake any more. Just put your foot down and steer. Doesn't sound like much fun, eh? You use the brakes Randy, better slap a restrictor on that bad boy or you might overcook and corner and hurt yourself. :)

Still don't believe me, here's proof. Mark Utecht and Shane Mitchell swapped stage times all season in WRX's. The difference was Shane's car had about 50 more HP than Mark's. How was Mark able to keep up? Certainly he wasn't beating him on the straights, he didn't have to power. He kept up by flogging it in the corners. Despite the less HP, he was able to corner at the same (or higher) speeds. Let's recap: Same cars, same corner speeds, same danger, not same power.

I'm an engineer, and I know that energy goes up at the square of velocity, and that when you off it,every MPH counts. I just don't believe a smaller restrictor will reduce those MPH's. Somebody, please PROVE (I wanna see a study with numbers) wrong.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
789 Posts
RE: not a typo

You could always slow things down with something like a 2.5 gallon fuel cell rule for turbo cars besides the spec Pirellis. A minimum combined driver co-driver weight of 500 lbs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Dennis,

I'd like to find another way too. Why? The cost to the small competitor to re-engine is going to a problem. Only the well-funded will be able to do this soon, although over the long term (a few years) many of the smaller guys will take the financial plunge ONCE to make the engine changes. I just hope they don't find that these high torque engines are grenade engines. Then this will be a ral mess because the small guys wil be permenenetly out.

Something you should know: I did correspond privately with SCCA via email on this, advocating others methods, and finally got a polite reply that it was pretty much just gonna be that way. So I am not expecting SCCA to change this course without being seriously bludgeoned on the issue.

Has there been any serious disccsuion of imposing higher minimum vehicle weights versus restrictor size? It sure has the cost advantage. But, it does have its problems:
1) Safely securing weights (thought this is easy to inspect)
2) Re-engineering spring and damping rates for heavier cars amy not be cheap

So, I don't have any magic bullets, but I sure wish there was more creative thinking being considered on this. Maybe we just let it happen and see if a mess comes out of it, and then step in with the 'fix' and be heroes. (Easy for me to say!)

Regards,
Mark B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
I suggest folks start figuring out how to shoehorn 3+ liter non-turbocharged motors into their engine bays and bolting them up to their AWD trannies. It'll be necessary in a few years. Ya'll better get started.

andy
--
Viva la ProleRalliat!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
Dennis you are absolutely correct, people want to look at what a PGT WRX can do just look at the results of Laughlin this year. Stephan Verdier was able to finish second just two minutes behind Millen though the difference in power between the EVO and the PGT imprezza was easily 100hp and Stephan did not have Anti-lag (Before anyone asks Stephans Car is legal), another case in point that restrictors do not reduce overall speed.
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
And the truth shall set us free!!

Well, it took some prodding, but I finally found the real reason for the 34mm restricter. Can you say "risk management"? Apparently insurance companies don't like deviations from the norm, and since the rest of the world is 34mm, well.... And don't try and big any logical arguments into this one, becuz the PRB already tried.

MY APOLOGIES TO THE PRB ON THIS ONE! Apparently the PRB tried standing their ground with 40mm, but risk management rammed it down their throats. The '05 deferment was the best they could come up with. As to why this wasn't communicated to the members is beyond me. Perhaps the PRB likes being beat up on special stage? Oh wait, now I remember. My membership card says SCCA on it, which obviously stands for Secret Car Club of America. Yup, that makes sense. :)

Anywayz, thanks for trying guys. Hopefully we can make it work.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
Hey, come on, more like 175 hp, Millen's guys were claiming over
400hp and I was helping with tech and they both had restrictors in, at least at the start. But that was really the only tech for class
that we did, nothing on gear sets or overall gearing, internal changes,computers,etc. Stephen is one hell of a driver, better than Millen if he kept it SCCA legal.

Roger
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Hey yeah! A 4.2L Jaguar (FORD) aluminium-block V-8 has 303 ft-lbs right out of the box! And it's a Duratec...
Or how much oomph does an aluminum Vette motor have? And it's probably about as heavy as my 3.0L Volvo tractor engine!

But what about the gearbox... Hey, I know! maybe a T-5 from a Blazer or sumpthin. Yeah!

Now, just gotta figure out how to make the front diff go though the oilpan.

Haha! just kidding! I'm going G5, my car won't have no steenking restrictor.
}>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,146 Posts
RE: And the truth shall set us free!!

It seems to me that the air opening is a very crude way to restrict power, open to loopholes such as more pressure or lower temp. If there is a need to restric power how about restricing mass of fuel via a regulator?

Just a thought, I am happy in my N/A class these days so not personally involved.

Derek
 

·
SURF!!! I'll cover you myself!
Joined
·
663 Posts
RE: And the truth shall set us free!!//Hah hah

How about we issue every Turbo AWD car a tank of(Certified SCCA turbo air) air, and the engine can only get it's air from the tank, only so much air in the tank.


Oddly enough, just read a little passage in Racecar engineer, seems Subaru and Ford WRC teams are capturing their BOV surge air, storing it in a tank, and releasing it backinto the engine when boost preasure drops, sweet.


pete:7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,258 Posts
I'm one of those little guys. I don't need or want 300+ hp but don't know how I'm going to afford to do what's necessary to my engine to maintain some compatible hp to stock WRX (or afford replacement when it blows up). I might as well have stayed at 135 hp. Even thought it seems like a dead issue, I for one am going to keep trying to make my point. At least we've still got 2004 to enjoy what we have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
The big problem with the restrictor is not to much the top speed. Yes my top speed was around 110 , 120 at laughlin and I could gone 120, 130 without the restrictor. There is not a lot of rally in the US were you can rich this speed anyway, so the top speed is not the problem. The problem is the power band, on the WRX you have maybe around 2000rpm to play with. It is really hard to drive a car in 2000rpm power band. You have to be almost perfect in every turn. If your are to fast in one turn you can't recover by putting you foot in,'cause you have no power left.
You can say Gpn have the same problem, but they are allowed to have antilag and dog box.
None of the turbo car were design to work with a restrictor. The stock gear box doesn't match the power band. Instead of making the car slower you made more dangerous. If you look at the Canadian they are allowed in PGT to have a after market ECU and antilag. Why can't we do the same.
Or if you don't want the expense of a new ECU and antilag, take the restricor off and keep the car stock.
the PGT is a great class for anybody who wants to play on the week end and can drive there car to work. You can't ask a guy to buy a show room car, put all the safety equipment and rally stuff, invest all that money in it and say "by the way we are going to take some power out of your car, have fun"
Rally in the US is having a big problem right now, we need more people to race and to WATCH. PGT is the entry level for 4wd turbo. Nobody is going to race or watch knowing that the race car is slower than the show room car.
I can't stand that restrictor, but I can't afford GPn or Open, so I'm stuck here in PGT.(I'm thinking doing other kind of motorsport until I can afford a GPN or Open and living PGT if they don't change that stupid rule)
MAKE PGT FUN TO DRIVE AGAIN.
Subaru and Mitsu are out of US rally. That mean our voices can be heard again, lets take advantage of that. Lets tell the SCCA the PGT car will not race with a restrictor, if you want us to show up, take it off.
Remember it is hard for me to complain, I try at laughlin and they told me "why do you want the restrictor off, you are betting the Open class", but if all of us do it we might succed.

Stephan
 

·
www.christianedstrom.com
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
RE: And the truth shall set us free!!

Cat. Out of bag.

The basic story was "Come up with a plan, or you'll have 34mm for 2004."

The PRB debated, with one member wanting 34mm immediately, 2 members explicitly wanting 40mm in perpetuity, and the others undecided.

After debate, it was my perception that the vote was going to go 4-3 against implementing 34mm restrictors in 2004. (And that we were likely to be overruled by risk management/BoD.)

Here's my complicity:

The threat of an an overrule and immediate enforcement of 34mm restrictors made me propose a 2005 implementation plan. I knew this would be unpopular, but at least it saved anyone from being in the middle of building a motor and suddenly finding out that the motor wouldn't be good any more, and allowed people to include a rebuild in their 2004 budgets.

The 34mm-2005 plan passed 5-1, with one PRB member grudgingly voting for it, and one vehemently opposed.

In retrospect, it might have been better for us in the eyes of the community if I had not proposed a (consensus) 2005 implementation date. I think the PRB would then have voted 4-3 to keep 40mm restrictors, and would have been overruled by risk management via the BoD. But at the time, I was really worried that people would be building motors for 2004 in October 2003, only to have this sprung upon them. It seemed to me that 2005 was the best compromise we could offer at the time.

>As to why this wasn't
>communicated to the members is beyond me.

Sniff, sniff. Is that dirty laundry? I guess it just seemed that whether the PRB liked making the decision or not, it was made, and we stand behind it.

>Perhaps the PRB
>likes being beat up on special stage?

Well, some of us do appear to.

FWIW, we were again asked by the BoD in September to reconsider implementing 34mm restrictors for 2004, with the implicit message that that would be preferred. That was voted down 6-0. Maybe 5-1. It's listed in the Fastrack minutes in Sept or Oct.

- BCE

Bjorn Christian Edstrom
www.christianedstrom.com
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top