Joined
·
6,117 Posts
"In order to reduce speed and increase reliability.........."
It is proposed to reduce the restrictor on open class cars from 40mm to 34mm.
There have been a whole series of ill concieved and poorly written, un edited, un proof-read rules in the recent past from the SCCA PR department, and nobody can suggest an answer how these snafus continue to pour forth from what source, since there are never names attached to proposals.
As such we who are interested in some sence of logic and consistancy and predictability in the rules making process are left with no specific person to direct question of competency or expertise or in the case of this pearl, simple sanity.
I direct this to whoever initiated this rule proposal, and if you didn't the relax:
What? Just what kind of idiot are you? (that is a famous line from vaudeville but will suffice nicely here)
Have you not noticed the WRC cars are in fact averaging several MPH faster in the last few years?
Don't have cable?
Head up a dark orifice maybe?
How can somebody sit on the PRB and even consider writing such crap as this?
patently absurd.
I suggest all readers to see the latest clear, lucid editorial from Derek Bottles on who should own the classes that people compete in.
Regarding the idiotic suggestion to DQ cars if they fail to start a stage within 20 sec of start signal, I counter-propose that all PRB members and the PRDood be fired if they do not give coherant answers to this BS logic "explaining" the reduction from 40mm to 34mm in 20 seconds.
Perhaps I should note for those who are unfimiliar with the effects of turbo inlet restrictors that many years ago when the FIA was mandating 40mm, SCCA adopted it also in a misguided effort at some lame sort of alignment of rules on this one subject.
FISA has progressively reduced the size of the restrictor to the current 34mm, but oddly, at the same time, the average MPH has inched progressivly upwards, the difference being approx 2.5 mph faster now, a difference it should be noted approximating the change from old rwd Gp4 cars from the late 70s to the 1990 spec GpA cars w 40mm.
Plenty of records on these times for those who care to trouble themselves with reality.
Peak BHP has been finally capped at near the old 1987 madate of around 300bhp, but peak torque continues upward, and as anybody with a quarter ounce of brains knows, if you have massive amounts of ft/lbs, and a motor that won't or CAN'T rev, the merely swap the final drive ratio and you have the same top speed at lower engine rpm.
And still blistering accelleration.
So to comply with these rules, to be competitive, all everybody has to do is throw away their exsisting motors, build new motors with high comp pistons, a big hybrid turbo, dyno it and re map your ECU, fling in a 4.1 diff or 3.9 and you'll do just the same as before.
No problem, same speed as before, maybe faster since your wallet will be substaially thinner.
It's just money, no problem eh?
IF YOU WHO WROTE THIS proposals ARE SERIOUS, Then you are incompetent.
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
It is proposed to reduce the restrictor on open class cars from 40mm to 34mm.
There have been a whole series of ill concieved and poorly written, un edited, un proof-read rules in the recent past from the SCCA PR department, and nobody can suggest an answer how these snafus continue to pour forth from what source, since there are never names attached to proposals.
As such we who are interested in some sence of logic and consistancy and predictability in the rules making process are left with no specific person to direct question of competency or expertise or in the case of this pearl, simple sanity.
I direct this to whoever initiated this rule proposal, and if you didn't the relax:
What? Just what kind of idiot are you? (that is a famous line from vaudeville but will suffice nicely here)
Have you not noticed the WRC cars are in fact averaging several MPH faster in the last few years?
Don't have cable?
Head up a dark orifice maybe?
How can somebody sit on the PRB and even consider writing such crap as this?
patently absurd.
I suggest all readers to see the latest clear, lucid editorial from Derek Bottles on who should own the classes that people compete in.
Regarding the idiotic suggestion to DQ cars if they fail to start a stage within 20 sec of start signal, I counter-propose that all PRB members and the PRDood be fired if they do not give coherant answers to this BS logic "explaining" the reduction from 40mm to 34mm in 20 seconds.
Perhaps I should note for those who are unfimiliar with the effects of turbo inlet restrictors that many years ago when the FIA was mandating 40mm, SCCA adopted it also in a misguided effort at some lame sort of alignment of rules on this one subject.
FISA has progressively reduced the size of the restrictor to the current 34mm, but oddly, at the same time, the average MPH has inched progressivly upwards, the difference being approx 2.5 mph faster now, a difference it should be noted approximating the change from old rwd Gp4 cars from the late 70s to the 1990 spec GpA cars w 40mm.
Plenty of records on these times for those who care to trouble themselves with reality.
Peak BHP has been finally capped at near the old 1987 madate of around 300bhp, but peak torque continues upward, and as anybody with a quarter ounce of brains knows, if you have massive amounts of ft/lbs, and a motor that won't or CAN'T rev, the merely swap the final drive ratio and you have the same top speed at lower engine rpm.
And still blistering accelleration.
So to comply with these rules, to be competitive, all everybody has to do is throw away their exsisting motors, build new motors with high comp pistons, a big hybrid turbo, dyno it and re map your ECU, fling in a 4.1 diff or 3.9 and you'll do just the same as before.
No problem, same speed as before, maybe faster since your wallet will be substaially thinner.
It's just money, no problem eh?
IF YOU WHO WROTE THIS proposals ARE SERIOUS, Then you are incompetent.
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
