Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Group T means Turbo, eh. It's like GpF with Turbos. I just made that up.

Let's put some love back into 2wd. Let's make it official.

I think RA should put the FIA minimum weight/displacement table, plus 100 lbs. into effect for G2 and come up with something similar for G5 for 2006.

Gotta go, eh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
For a while there was a fair amount of discussion about how to get GpF to fit turbo cars. When it came down to it it was decided that it would just be to complicated so they were left out in the cold. GpT could pick up where GpF left off and include the rest of the 2Wd cars and do it in a fashion that they are all competitive with each other. It, like GpF, would use a weight displacement chart. I am not sure if it would be as simple as "add 100lbs" or what but I think it could be definitely be modified to fit. I am sure that there is a basic correlation to power/torque vs. turboed displacement. Not sure if the curve is at the same slope as the normal GpF chart.

Currently G5 is basically dominated by the factory Neons, given the drivers behind these 2.4l(?) 350+ hp machines are damn good the cars are just as awesome. How cool would it be to see a large variety of turbo 2WD cars swapping times with them. 1.8T golfs running right with the neons as well as a volvo, mazda, SR20DET nissan, eclipse, supercharged 1.8l integra, and a turboed 1.3l swift! GpT would be great for smaller displacement engines, embrace tighter competition, and would encourage more creative racecars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
>Currently G5 is basically dominated by the factory Neons,
>given the drivers behind these 2.4l(?) 350+ hp machines are
>damn good the cars are just as awesome. >


Where do I get one of those 350+ HP engines? I sure could use it!x(



What's the difference between G5 and GTurbo? Why would I want to compete in one class over another?


C. Whiteman
 

·
C.m.f.S.
Joined
·
1,268 Posts
I think the idea would be to axe both group 2 and group 5. Then, in their place, have group f and group t.

group f would have a larger number of competitors than group 2 did because non-forced induction larger displacement cars from group 5 would be competative with the smaller displacement cars from group 2, due to the weight vs displacement table.

And since it would be hard to come up with a fair way of incorperating forced induction cars into group f, Jake has now come up with the idea of group t. Which would give the forced induction cars, that are "left over" from axing group 5, a level playing field to duke it out on with each other. Again using the same idea of a weight vs displacement table to even thing out and create more competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
>I finally get it!!!
>
>:7

I heard that some guys in the south of Michigan were talking about a weight/displacement table for turbocharged cars a while back, similar to group F.

I'm a firm believer in trying to do everything we can to put more emphasis on spending money on entry fees, not machinery. This would help us all to learn how to be better rallyists. One way we could do this would be to further embrace the importance of 2wd rallying and what it means to the cost effective development of driving skills.

So far the tight battles in Cendiv G2 and GpF have been super fun. Lots of teams means more competitive driving and that's a blast. The more fun we can make 2wd, the more teams will stick with it and further enhance the competition. This will change the ideas that 2wd classes are just a starting place until moving onto an AWD turbo car and foster the development of drivers within these classes.

Another reason this would be good to do is that people will be spending more on entry fees, and less on machines. This puts more entries at events and thus starts the snowball effect. More entries could eventually bring down costs.

I think that in more ways than one the success of rallying is built upon the successes of grassroots teams with cheap cars who are working on their driving and can usually contest most local events. How many of these competitors have we lost?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
Where are we going to get our weight/displacement table?

Use a multiplier like the 1.7x one for turbos thats currently in place in the GpF table?

I'm at 3.4L that way, if I use the GpF weight for 2v+/cyl I'm only at 2,712# required, my car weighs just a bit over that. If I put my boost back up and run race gas rather than pump, I'm at 300-350hp.

If I was in something lighter with a bigger turbo motor, I'd not be so keen on adding weight. Sterling's Omni is an example, 2.2L turbo, its gotta weigh 2,888#, and I'd guss that'd mean adding a bit of weight. Even with that weight, I'm not sure they're pushing that much power.

The srt-4's would likely have to ballast up a bit to 3,086#, I'd think they're a bit lighter than that. They're at 350hp+ now.

G5 is a bit different to throw in as a ballasted class, because more of us would be adding weight. You F'ers are mostly overweight, so it requires no change. Has anybody actually ballasted their car for F yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
>Where are we going to get our weight/displacement table?

Not sure but with some digging and research I have no doubt that we could put something together that made sense.

>Use a multiplier like the 1.7x one for turbos thats currently
>in place in the GpF table?

It just might be that simple.

>I'm at 3.4L that way, if I use the GpF weight for 2v+/cyl I'm
>only at 2,712# required, my car weighs just a bit over that.
>If I put my boost back up and run race gas rather than pump,
>I'm at 300-350hp.

Yeah, can you start to see why including tubros in GpF is undesirable.

>G5 is a bit different to throw in as a ballasted class,
>because more of us would be adding weight. You F'ers are
>mostly overweight, so it requires no change. Has anybody
>actually ballasted their car for F yet?


I see your point. I seriously doubt that anyone has ballasted up yet, but there are definitly some cars that are underweight or quite close. None-the-less all GpFers are driving naturally asperated G2 and G5 and P cars. They were built for THOSE classes not F. Over a few seasons there will be more and more cars built with GpF in mind rather than G2 and such. Cars with slightly larger displacements like 2.5l will be built and it'll be easier to get them down to weight. I am sure it would be much easier for turbo guys to get down to weight and even ballast up. If they don't want to thats cool, their choice, but they'll be missing out on the super close and exciting GpT competion!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
>>Where do I get one of those 350+ HP engines? I sure could
>use
>>it!x(
Stage 3 factory upgrade for the SRT-4. Mopar Performance Catalog.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
I don't know if weight based "equalization" is as beneficial in the realm of turbocharged cars. The reason it works so well for naturally aspirated car is because there is a realistic and well defined/acknowledged upper power limit that any engine can make given a certain displacement and 1 atmosphere of pressure.

Turbos are way too variable for such a formula. The upper power limit that a (given disp.) turbo engine can make varies HUGELY with boost. And how much boost is determined by the strength of the parts. And the strength of the parts is very often (but not exactly always) determined by cubic dollars spent.

I think GpF is a great solution for a ton of cars that work under the weight table. I don't think a weight-based class for turbo cars would be nearly as effective.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>I don't know if weight based "equalization" is as beneficial
>in the realm of turbocharged cars. The reason it works so
>well for naturally aspirated car is because there is a
>realistic and well defined/acknowledged upper
>power limit that any engine can make given a certain
>displacement and 1 atmosphere of pressure.
>
>Turbos are way too variable for such a formula. The upper
>power limit that a (given disp.) turbo engine can make varies
>HUGELY with boost. And how much boost is determined by the
>strength of the parts. And the strength of the parts is very
>often (but not exactly always) determined by cubic dollars
>spent.
>
>I think GpF is a great solution for a ton of cars that work
>under the weight table. I don't think a weight-based class
>for turbo cars would be nearly as effective.

Boys you're ideas are good but listen to Oncle Lurchie-poo.

And remember this phrase: The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good.

Gp F is obviously a good idea and many people have seen it and realised the multiple benefits.

Some have thought tinkering with it (other than dropping references to homologated parts) might "perfect" it.
Still others tried vigourously to broaden it to be "all inclusive".

Keep it at the good for maximum compwetition.
Stay with the F, trust the F(orce), Luke.....

OOOPs wrong movie....

The coolest road race series the world ever saw, the mid 90s BTCC had a few clear limits and was enormously sucessfull and exciting AND tight with some guys winning one week but qualfing 18th the next but only fractions out of the top 3 and thewre was stacks of manufacturer involvement.
4 major rules beyond starting from a production car:
2000cc
850 kg (?)
8500 max engine revs
max wheel width.

See?, easy to check, clear for everybody including the fans, and POTENTIAL future teams, everybody understands the limits, and most everbody can aim to reach them.
That's why I've been trying since the mid 90s to push a version of that as the Premier Class for US DRIVERS Championship in rally.


But trying to extend the Great F'ing idea to turbocharged cars is futile efforts for all the reasons Lurch and I have detailed time and again.

There is nothing wrong with the class Gp5 now except spotty attendance, and historically poor driving, but that has to do with incredibly poor choice of vehicles and openly expressed desire to cherry pick.

I think more good would be had trying to spread the word and to
"Institutionalize the Revolution"







John "Iskra" Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

janvanvurpa (at) f4 (dot) ca

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
Lurch kinda brought up something I had thought of, but didn't know how to put into words. I can see prices going up as power goes up for sure as far as engine builds goes. GrpF has a similar possibility, but not quite to the extreme.

By the time GF people are all out of G5, it'll be all turbo anyway, then us remaining competitors can sort it out. Hopefully I'll be driving well enough by then to be competitive.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>Lurch kinda brought up something I had thought of, but didn't
>know how to put into words. I can see prices going up as
>power goes up for sure as far as engine builds goes. GrpF has
>a similar possibility, but not quite to the extreme.

Volume x compression ~~~ft/lbs
Little point of simply revving the hell too much and moving max ft/lbs rpm up the scale to a silly 6-7k rpm
>
>By the time GF people are all out of G5, it'll be all turbo
>anyway, then us remaining competitors can sort it out.
>Hopefully I'll be driving well enough by then to be
>competitive.
worry about delivery of power, not absolute power. And get some rods that won't break.






John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

janvanvurpa (at) f4 (dot) ca

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
You all sure make things complicated..... Tell ya what.... How about you and I get our 2 wheel drive cars out in the woods and have a go at it??!!?? I Don't really care what G2/G5/GpF/GpT #### you got....... Close a road... go as fast as you can.... see who wins. }(

For those who may not know me out there, ask any old timer if I'm up to the task. Even in an old Mazdolvo !!!

p.s. I got me a kewl Volvo now!!

I've been lurking in the shadows for a while watching the rally world and saving my money to rally again. What a bunch of turmoil and B.S.!!

Help us Rally America!!!

Please keep the rules simple. There seems to be more class regs and rules than competitors. At least on this board.

COMPETITORS: Quit spending your time worrying about what class you or your competition is in and DRIVE. You will be better in the long run.

G2 + G5 = Gpf + GpT..... F__K IT!!

Over 2 litre and Under 2 liter, Group 5 and Group 2, G2+5 add 3 divide by the size of your turbo, carry the 7 and multiply by Pi. ARRRGG!!!! Does it really matter??

To all who have had to read this dribble... Thanks for putting up with me. I shouldn't type drunk...
Peace on earth and good will to everyone.

I'm done now. Can I have my meds??!

Vance

:+
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Vance! you're alive!!!
When you going have that old schoolbus ready??

Young 'uns this guy will show what a nice simple car can do.

And Vance you type just fine, better than some of us!




John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

janvanvurpa (at) f4 (dot) ca

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!
Vive Le Groupe F!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,738 Posts
Welcome back Vance from another old timer. Your drivel makes a lot more sense than some of the stuff out there. They're way too complicated!

Now go take your meds!

Can't see me in your mirrors?
I must be in front of you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
Thanks JV-
I actually feel like my car is a bit easier to drive since I turned the boost down a bit. I have a much more usable powerband since I don't break traction until 5.5k-6k, and its not a huge hit down low. Durability is also up. :)
 

·
Faster !!!!
Joined
·
768 Posts
>
>p.s. I got me a kewl Volvo now!!
>

:) Great to hear that you're bringing the yellow bus back out !
(will it still be yellow ???)


When will you be running it ?

Doo-**** ?......Oregon Trail ?
(1st OA ?).........(Top 3 ?)

hehehehehehe .... }(
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top