[spoier]

Thought this was relevant:

http://www.worldrallynews.com/artman/publish/article_435.shtml

"In contrast, his Subaru counterpart David Lapworth felt that the proposal had almost nothing to recommend it, while believing that there is a case for a WRC2 class.

"Why would anyone want a WR Car with less performance than a Group N car? By putting a 30mm restrictor in, you'd need to change all your gear ratios and everything. It would give maximum power at 3,000 rpm or something," he commented."

I thought it was interesting that the first thing the top Subaru man mentioned was gear ratio changes that it would require.

Skye

 

[John Vanlandingham]

Oh what does he know, Pat and ACP haver both assured us that we don't have to and do i have to point out Skye that they are your compatriots, so they must be right.
If 30 is good, then maybe GpN should be 27mm.


John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

 

[jandreini]

Why does this begin to sound more and more like the Andy Granatelli turbine fiasco?

 

[patr]

no, hes saying, to get the ultimate performance, because their ratios are already tuned to what the car is. The change them almost every rally ! All we were saying is, no one is tuning their ratios to get the ultimate performance out of their 40mm cars, they are just using them as is, and nothing changes when you go to 34 you just go slower. But yeah we dont know anything compared to lapworth, but then again, this has to do with unlimited budget guys optimizing everything versus scca prorally where no one can even afford to do the whole series at the sharp end. what do you want to do argue it out all over again ?

and oh yeah, he now has lost his market for his used WRC cars... but that has nothing to do with it ! hehe

 

[starion887]

Thanks, Skye. I didn't think I could be more confused!

Thanks for sharing,
Mark B.

 

[John Vanlandingham]

Pat, humor, eh?
OOOOppps Humour, OK?
And you never addressed why you can't just build your car 34 or 32 if that what you wanted, and let me keep my 40mm car with the standard road car wide ratio box and 3.64 gearing, the final performance of the car will be similar, just different means to get there.
Oh, and a different brand.
Not what idf somebody builds a maxed out 40mm car.
Not what if.
My car.


John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

 

[patr]

I'm not against anything ! I'm just responding to the posts. its pretty funny though. I think if you said 40mm but forced to use std box and ratios, yeah I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

 

[starion887]

Is the rationale here that 40mm+std box/gears would control costs?

(Not a trick question....)

Thanks,
Mark B.

 

[spoier]

>I'm not against anything ! I'm just responding to the posts.
>its pretty funny though. I think if you said 40mm but forced
>to use std box and ratios, yeah I wouldn't have a problem
>with that at all.

I'm working under the following impression:

1. bigger restrictor means wider torque band
2. wider torque band means less need for close-ratio gearsets

therefore,
3. smaller restrictor means you MUST HAVE a close-ratio gearset

whereas,
4. larger restrictors reduces the advantage of a close-ratio gearset and it is therefore a MAY HAVE but only for the last <5% performance gain that always costs $$$

edit:
with the result that 34mm increases the gap between the haves and the have-nots

or ?? ed-joo-ma-kate me

Skye

 

[Gravel Spray]

>
>Pat, humor, eh?
>OOOOppps Humour, OK?
>And you never addressed why you can't just build your car 34
>or 32 if that what you wanted, and let me keep my 40mm car
>with the standard road car wide ratio box and 3.64 gearing,
>the final performance of the car will be similar, just
>different means to get there.
> Oh, and a different brand.
>Not what idf somebody builds a maxed out 40mm car.
>Not what if.
>My car.
>
>
>John Vanlandingham
>Seattle, WA. 98168
>
>Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

John,

What car?


Can't make rules based on your car, or anyone elses. We must consider what is possible with a given combonation within the rules, and what the end result is to the rally community long term.

Everytime you argue against 34 you use the argument that a 34 engine/car must be MAX spec and optimized to no end resulting is excessive expence. Then you say your 40 motor is cheap as it's stockish, what if someone really wants to win and maxes the 40 engine? You say it's still cheaper? explain.


Peter

 

[KevinG5Hahn]

Does anyone else not think that it would be easier to require a perdetermined amount of ballast to be added in prescribed areas, would, if done correctly, help to even the performance level while potentially offering an easier dual use of the car. If you didn't have to put in a restrictor and develop a new gearbox and retune the motor (although I would think a good ECCU would probably make the tuning aspect easy enough) and just had bolt in ballast and unbolt ballast would that seem easier?


Maybe I am not being very rallyist in thinking that if you add weight you slow down a car, and if you add weight to places above and below the center of gravity it would eliminate the performance that could be gained by putting the weight lower.


Maybe I am being too non SCCA or rally driver in my thinking....


Edit for stupid fingers the first time around.

 

[starion887]

Kevin,

A couple of us have raised this idea before in the last year, but it has not gained one iota of traction. It certainly is not a 'rally-ish' idea. Although it does have the added merit in that it slows one down in the curves as well as the straight. I know; I drive a 3200# pig!

As far as safety, one has to work to make secure compartments for the ballast. Circle track tube frame cars are easy to set up to take ballst along the lower sides. Doing so in a true stock bodied chassis is a much bigger problem; as a techie, I do worry about ballast 'missiles' in a wreck.

Keep thinking!

Regards,
Mark B.

 

[patr]

this is like the THIRD THREAD IN A WEEK to ask the same question, with different wordings

You dont NEED anything. The logic is correct ONLY IF THE ASSUMPTION that the now restricted car had to be as fast as the 40mm car, and that is an assumption, which I just said I wouldn't have a problem with, because in fact it would probably be faster. In other words, you dont need it, because everyone is slowed, you only need it if you want it, and right now, you can want it just as bad, and you need it just as badly (in the 40mm world). Nothing changes, just the overall performance is slowed. And nothing prevents someone from getting optimized gearsets now (in 40mm world). And a bunch of people do. In fact, the presumtion is a bit off because the stock gears are NOT optimized for the 40mm powerband anyhow, its just that the RELATIVE performance of the car is so much greater than the other classes that you dont notice it, but in fact it is noticeable if competition is tight, hence the point that the only argument one has re: that 34mm might be more expensive is if you care that the open cars are now getting closer speedwise to the other classes. And finally, THAT ARGUMENT was argued in Canada prior to the switch, and post-switch, we now have 6 possible stage winners instead of 2 pre-34. 34mm does not make it more expensive, only if you keep thinking in terms of getting the same performance as 40mm world (which you shouldn't). The point is, you dont need the same performance competition-wise (only ego-wise), and the other point is, some people with 40mm spend money on gearboxes now making it extra uber expensive, and the final point is the need for strenghened gears is diminished with 34mm. Lastly the spending in 34mm gets DIMINISHING RETURNS very quickly.

i.e. nothing stops people from doing this now, already, and it doesn't happen often, because NOBODY CAN AFFORD TO EVEN RUN A CAR AT THE TOP FOR THE WHOLE SEASON ANYWAYS

 

[patr]

kind of, in a smiliar "american style" vein. contrain the boxes or the engine, pick one, i'd pick the engine.

 

[KevinG5Hahn]

Mark,

I was thinking more like physically bolt it to the cage itself, the lower stuff would be harder to do. It would be secure as hell with some grade 8 bolts and nuts, I would think those should sufficently secure everything. The trick would be where to put the ballast and how to define the locations and distribution.

 

[lummer shawn]

but then people would complain that they had to make their cage "boltable"

you will never satisfy everyone

 

[AaronJMcConnell]

This restrictor stuff is getting ridiculous! I think it would be interesting to get rid of restrictors and just require that everyone run 85 octane. The result would be a car with performance almost as meager as a car fitted with an inlet restrictor of just 30mm. Wait, it makes sense! Lower fuel costs to competitors, while keeping spectators safe due to boring engine power. It's just the kind of policy the SCCA needs! But then you'd have to change out to a 6.88 final drive. Damn.

 

[John Vanlandingham]

Pete, look for the >>><<< thingies, it'll point to a important thing,
OK?
>>Pat, humor, eh?
>>OOOOppps Humour, OK?
>>And you never addressed >>>>>>>>why you can't just build your car 34
>>or 32 if that what you wanted,<<<<<<< and >>>>let me keep my 40mm car
>>with the standard road car wide ratio box and 3.64 gearing<<<<<<<,
>>the final performance of the car will be similar, just
>>different means to get there.

>>Not what idf somebody builds a maxed out 40mm car.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Not what if.<<<<<<<<
>>My car.
>>
>>
>>John Vanlandingham
>>Seattle, WA. 98168
>>
>>Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
>
>John,
>
>What car?
The only turbo car I have for rally.
The black Xtatty with the rebuilt to stock spec Ford Cosworth YBG 16valve motor
all stock except the mounts and the oil cooler, bolted to a stock road car gearbox (which cost less than $200, and the spare cost $125, the extra box for the case and 909 50Nm center VC cost $75, see the difference?????? under 200 bucks versus what for a good STI box which WILL FAIL repeatedly?)
>
>
>Can't make rules based on your car, or anyone elses. We must
>consider what is possible with a given combonation within
>the rules, and what the end result is to the rally community
>long term.

Pete WE must, if we are to use the word must, _SOMEBODY_ must JUSTIFY changes to domestic classes with more than saying lame things about "that's the trend elsewhere".
That's sorta about as bright as saying in a domestic series full of oddly enough here in USA Americans that we should all be compelled to have US flags by our names.
There is no point in a US class to reference elsewhere.
>
> Everytime you argue against 34 you use the argument that a
>34 engine/car must be MAX spec and optimized to no end
>resulting is excessive expence.
Well a STI or Evo with stock ratios homologated and therefore available in the box and the final drive is FAR more optimised and ready for the restrictor than my standard road car Ford box or the guys with Eclipses or virtually everthing else..

Fer Petes sake Pete have you noticed than eventually the two manufacturers who actually make available turbo 4x4 cars started making them with nice sets of ratios oddly enough as the restrictors went down in size?

maybe you young 'uns might go look at Rallybase.com and spend some time looking over the scores and times when GpA was 40mm and GpN was 38.
Remember, the GpN cars had standard wide ration boxes most with nearly the exact ratios that my Ford has.
Plenty of times back then GpN cars made decent top 10 results, and to quote the man who was running Ford's GpN development program then :
"The boxes weren't the problem, it was the lack of brakes!"

Now I am OK with having my standard roadcar box maybe with the stiffer center diff, if my motor can both pull and rev.

I don't think I will be very happy AND I STILL DON"T SEE THE POINT in an _OPEN_ class, with a motor which will not rev.







Then you say your 40 motor
>is cheap as it's stockish,
Very cheap to build and to run, since the size of the internals (57mm mains and 52 mm rod hournal, a _relatively_ speaking hugely strong crank and rods, and flywheel, good forged pistons stock essentially a notor which is safe well over 400 bhp therefore barely stressed at 330ish, and the T34 variaton will keep turbine speed to a road cars 85,000 rpm so good reliability there also.



what if someone really wants to
>win and maxes the 40 engine? You say it's still cheaper?
>explain.

No re read the post about this is pointlkess tautology to speak of motors and restrictors alone, they are bolted to gearboxs and final drives.
I am saying that if I can have my normal PGT/GpN 1/2 level powerplant with a nice "open" restrictor, then I am happy, I don't feel the need to do a box to do what I want.

Strangle my motor and yes every other motor and then those with the newish cars with the nice ratios and diff ratios will instantly be at a distinct advantage.

Let's be honest PLEASE, we all know this was part of the trend to have a two car-brand parade, aint it odd how all the supporters are in one or the other of the brands which sell GpN cars.
>
>
>Peter





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

 

[Adrian Wintle]

>This restrictor stuff is getting ridiculous! I think it
>would be interesting to get rid of restrictors and just
>require that everyone run 85 octane. The result would be a
>car with performance almost as meager as a car fitted with
>an inlet restrictor of just 30mm. Wait, it makes sense!
>Lower fuel costs to competitors, while keeping spectators
>safe due to boring engine power. It's just the kind of
>policy the SCCA needs! But then you'd have to change out to
>a 6.88 final drive. Damn.

Look at major racing series and ask how they control performance - you'll notice that a lot of them go with restrictors (or other devices to limit the air allowed). They are (mostly) easy to police and limit performance in a predictable way.

1. NASCAR - restrictor plates and controlled intakes
2. F1 - at one point controlled the maximum size of the airbox inlet and required an exit at the back of it to reduce ram effect
3. Sportscar racing (IMSA/FIA) - inlet restrictors
4. F3 - inlet restrictors
5. WRC - inlet restrictors
6. CART - blow-off valves (control the maximum intake pressure and are harder to police - even the spec ones varied in performance)

As an aside, Group C sportscars did it by limiting the fuel available for the race as well as by minimum weights - the engines were effectively free (until the FIA started meddling with the series for reasons that had nothing to do with sportscars). Have you big-horsepower guys looked at the propsed rule to have rally cars be able to go 100 miles between fuel stops?

Adrian

 

[randyzimmer]

RE: 30mm

We all know the FIA thinks a lot, sometimes to promote an idea or get you ready for something less crappy.
As far as the gearing, if 5000 max gets you 80MPH then a Taller ratio will be needed to run 3000 max on the straight. When teams run so close to the limit, gears are matched to the event. Not that important here in NA.
rz
edit, almost forgot:
The SCCA uses reward weight in the Speed series and some say at the run-offs too, Maybe Pat can just bolt on a permanent ton.