Special Stage Forums banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
"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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
RE: response, email the PRB

there is a similar post in the USA forum regarding the new issue of fasttrack. I have posted my response there and forwarded it to the PRB as well.

PLEASE NOTE: the email address provided for feedback is wrong, the correct address is [email protected] not @scca.com

Everyone, please post your feelings here AND forward them to the PRB in the hopes that we can prevent these rules from becomming official.

Greg,
Crew Chief
1989 GTX #291

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Go get 'em John

Go get 'em John! You forgot to mention that with their lips firmly attached to the buttocks of the FIA, they have lost sight of who their constituency is and what they want.

This is why SCCA Pro Racing and SCCA Club Racing are separate ... their goals and constituencies are different.

It's enough to send me back to road-racing, where Midwest Council, VSCDA, and other groups provide venues and support for SCCA refugees. (Hmm! There's an idea . . . )

That GTI I'm building will work quite nicely as an IT car in one of the non-SCCA sanctions.

Ken Hawley
Silenus Motorsports
Kalamazoo, MI
http://www.silenus.com/khawley/Silenus577_48x48.jpg
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
RE: response, email the PRB Individually!

Send your thoughts to each PRB member INDIVIDUALLY, there are still strong politics going on with the SCCA PR department and even if the PRDood no longer can invent on the spot rules, he could not have done the sort of stuff he either did or attempted without some compliant memebers on the PRB, so do not trust that your comments will be distibuted to all the members, send them to all.

Seiously, to each one. I was told to do this by a PRB members

Oh if we some direct means of tracking each additional rule proposal to see where the source of this type of nonsense originates from...

Of course then it would be the next problem...... no way to apply and pressure to remove those who continually attempt to craft rule the obvious intent of which is to HANDICAP THE PRIVATEER.

Because it will not hurt those with the relatively unlimited budgets of the Hired Guns, or richest privateers buying their cars from the places running the hired guns.

If you who wrote this proposal are serious, you are incompetent,

OR Cynically dishonest

OR Both.

Resign.



John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
RE: Go get 'em John, can't do it alone Ken, Join in!

Ken don't give up! Gravel rally is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more fun than squealing around on asphalt especially with a low powered car!


Get a real trannie for your car, and a good club spec motor*, and join the ranks of the Gr222, and join the ranks of the Prole-le-ralliat, the disenfrnchiced who make the show, but who do not own the means of Production (of the rules).

Add to your signature the growing sentiment "Vive la Prole-le-ralliat"
or the Spanish version "Viva la Pro-le-ralliat" or whatever the hell you want to create, but add something.

And read the fine well reasoned editorial by Derek Bottles over on Editorials.



John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

* stay tuned for features about building the ultimate
CheapCompetitiveCarProject

And build you car right and lobby those Road race guys to slot you in somewhere so you can play in between rallys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
RE: response, email the PRB Individually!

John,
Could you post the addresses of the PRB members and I"ll gladly send it to them individually.

Greg,
Crew Chief
1989 GTX #291

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat!!!
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
RE: Go get 'em John, can't do it alone Ken, Join in!

>34mm?
>
>Could it be a little help for the SRTUSA? Maybe to help out
>the gearbox issue?

Actually Pete, according to two gear makers I talked to regarding options for the Ford MT75 4x4, they said and it made sense, that the shift to high compression, high boost motors making insane torque at silly low RPM are much much harder on the trannies.

Think about it, on a normal aspirated car the motor makes x ft/lbs and so the box sees x then after the box you use a 5.1 final drive.

Old 40mm turbo car make sheeet loads more phuuuuut/lebz, so box sees 3.5x and then you use a 4.6 or 4.8 final drive.

Current 34mm restrictor car optimised makes 4.5x the ft/lbs of the N.A. Motor so the box is stresssed all to hell, but now you can use a 4.4 final drive.

That is one way that the 40mm thing is cheaper for Privateers

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE TECHNICAL GENIUSES ARE CLAIMING AS MOTIVATION ON THIS RULE, 180 OPPOSITE.
>
>
>The 40mm risty is REALLY the only thing appealing about SCCA
>open class cars.
>
>Heavy dumb chassis + big power = sideways.

Hey, my cars only 2715 lbs who you calling heavy and dumb?
>
>
>peter

Pete something is missing from you signature, we're going to hold you down and force you to drink a lot of beer tommorrow and then log on and modify yer siggy to (you know what!!).





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
 
G

·
RE: Go get 'em John, can't do it alone Ken, Join in!

The farther the engine and engine management system creeps away from the stock system, development costs can only increase. Obviously this would favor people with deeper pockets.

I'm not sure how this will increase reliability or competitiveness.

Later in the Fasttrack, there is some comment asking if the PRB should make attempts to reduce top speeds.

This issue should be addressed first. What are the desired goals? *Then* go about making rules to achieve those goals.

We are seeing "more restriction to make the car slower" being proposed. Then asking "We want to go slower, don't we?"

Identify a problem that needs corrected. Don't create a rule, then find a problem it supposedly fixes.


m
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
RE: Go get 'em John, can't do it alone Ken, Join in!

Good lord john what did you put in your tea?

I understand that sugar and meth LOOK alike but you need to label those jars. I've never seen such savagery from you.

but really, settle down, you are taking this way too seriously like the people you and i make fun of. look at it this way, if it ruins PRORALLY then you will be in a prime position to form a better sanctioning body namely somewhere along the lines of CCCP+SCCA-SCCA bullshit+me and all my glory.

I'll repeat it, settle down, its only rally.

Hooray for X-long strut bodies.

Peace(really)
Noah
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
A question...

This is a question from a rally enthusiast who wants to know more about how all of this engine trickery works;
Why has it not been such a problem in Canada? We adopted the 34mm last year and I haven't heard of any major complaints. Now that is not to say I would know of any complaints, but.....maybe someone in open class in Canada will pipe up to fill us in...

So, why is it different? or is it the same problem and I just don't know?

Thanks
John Vanos
 

·
Faster Mabricator
Joined
·
3,611 Posts
Canada 34mm

The annoying aspects of Canada adopting 34mm restrictors was the expense of having the cars remapped. Several teams paid for European and Asian engine tuners to come remap their cars. Then, without additional remapping, those wishing to enter SCCA events were less competitive against 40mm Open SCCA cars. I ran at Maine last year in in a Canadian Open class Subie with the 34mm restritor just because we didn't want to have to remap to 40mm for Maine and then back to 34mm for Rally St Agathe.

In Canada last season Open and GrN were competing for overall wins and a GrN team won the National championship.

Seems to me Open class is being phased out. Its been 2 years that there has been no Open class North America Rally Cup class nor for CNAR or whatever they are calling it these days either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
946 Posts
RE: Canada 34MM

>In Canada last season Open and GrN were competing for
>overall wins and a GrN team won the National championship.


Ding, Ding, Ding. Looks like we have a winner... Seems to me that if you choke the Open class cars enough, Group N will become the class of choice. Have you seen the Group N Contingency lately for Subaru?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
RE: Canada 34MM

I remapped to 34mm and we lost some horses. And it cost $$$ to get it done properly (remapped for cats last year too - we're waaaay ahead of you guys in the suffering department).

That said, I don't blow engines like Seamus (I blow them differently, in point of fact, but certainly less often). Further, Buffum and I were talking about it at Charlevoix and he said he didn't feel much difference - now, his car was very carefully mapped on the engine bench in NZ to a 34mm at the same time it was done to a 40 and it was a tricky rally and he had 5 mins on me and I had 5 mins on third so we were cruising. But still - his line was "I'm really surprised. I don't feel much difference."

Again, Thumper wasn't complaining at Quebec, although that was a winter event. Big grin at the end anyway.

I miss the naked horsepower of the 40mm a little, but appreciate the lower risk to the engine and improvement in tractability. No matter what you think about the gearboxes etc. the fact is that a more strangled motor at 300hp and 20lbs boost is going to last longer than a less strangled motor at 370hp and 26lbs.
And it's all arbitrary anyway - Heck JV, throw away the restictors entirely and let's see if it helps the privateer. I rather suspect it won't.

ACP
www.musketeerracing.com
Flirting with the laws of physics.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
RE: Canada 34MM

Andrew, John, et al who responded about 34mm and non-dire consequences noticed in Canada so far,

It is safe to say _from what you have given us here_ that either you were given incomplete information on what is the correct way which to build an engine equipped with a 34mm turbo inlet restrictor, or you were given the information and youopted not to follow it or not to relay it here.

I don't want to engage in a long debate, this is not about OPINIONS about what one _believes_ or _percieves_ in your car, I can't tell you what you "feel" or believe and your perceptions are not the issue here.

The subject is what FAULTY LOGIC of this rule and the unforgivable cynical or ignorant explanation offered as "justification".

Do not take this as an attack Andrew, you are an enthusiast and are spending no doubt a stack of buckskis Canadienne and having lots of fun, but I don't think you quite understand the factors involved in engines at the next level, the one where there is 60 cars prepared to the same level as yours so the ones that are done right go better.
And they do right because they do the entire motor as a package.
This is not your job is what I am hinting gently at.

First there is the need to get air into the cylinder.
Normal aspirated motors depend on the low pressure of the last chage out the exhaust (created by the high velocity of the gasses) and camshft opening rates to create a low pressure which atmospheric pressure fills.

Once it is in the cylinder the next big thing is how hard you squeeze it. The amount of torque and engine produces is linked to those two factors: how much air (which detirmine how much FUEL you can add) and how much COMPRESSION.

Traditional turbo motors as street cars started around 8:1, rally motors were,pre 40mm, around 7:1; with 40mm right back to 8:1.
Camshafts could and often were standard road car cams, afterall the shape of the power curve is very similar , nearly indentical in fact to what we want in a rally car: pull like a very fast tractor at all rpm with no hestitation, and rev reasonably well to whatever.

OPTIMISED 34mm motors, that is to say REAL GpA engines, have compression ratios now around 9.2:1 to 9.4:1, and they make boost in the high 20s or low 30s *. Additionally they have what just last week one fellow called "real silly f***ing cams", that is to say extremely fast opening rates banging the valves open fast and to max lift and holding for rather longer durations than would be possible IF NOT FOR ANTI_LAG and the revised very expensive gearboxes**.

See? Bang the valve wide open quickly, cram in as much as possible for as long as you can,and with REAL anti-lag there is what 14psi in the manifold at all times minimum (Ford figures from late 90s) you are really going to get a big deep breath CRAMMED in, then squeeze it much harder than before.

Compression ratio has a multiplying effect on the ft/lb figures (look at the formula for BMEP, CR is a multipier).

The max airflow into the motor is limited with a 34mm restrictor, but what happens downstream of the turbo is what gives PROPER, OPTIMISED GpA motors the crazy ass torque figures thay are producing,
and I've seen upwards of 33-40% more torque, and YOU WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME MATCHING THAT SORT OF DIFFERENCE.

Note that these wacky things with effectively diesel like compression ratios don't rev really, so with peak torques so low and no point to rev past 6000, the cars need lots of gears, they'll run thru a gear in a second or two and then it's change up!
Noticed the effort everybody has expended on making X-Trac in Woking really RICH?
Without those insanely priced gearboxes, (not $15,000, more like $50,000+) the ft/lbs a really optimised 34mm motor makes would clean the teeth off a production based box in a second or two.

Now Andrew, you ready to spend $16,000 US bucksis on a motor, £ 1200 for optimised turbo plus spare, a bunch more for live engine mapping, and then who knows what for a real trannie, real diffs, real driveshafts (Mistubitchi GpA driveshaft rear £1250 each, tee hee)
and on and one?

And of course if you don't and somebody else does what are you gonna do?

When Sub-a-rat brough over the proper WRC car for Lovell, the difference in performance was embarrassing, Lovell himself opined that there was little point in such an excercise, as it really wasn't competition.

In short, Manufacturer supported cars, or filthy rich idle children, can and do afford optimised complete POWERPLANTS and Gearboxes which will not be troubled unduly by a 34mm rule, I don't think there will be many willing privateers wanting to spend the $30-90K for drivetrain alone playing around amusing themselves on the weekend.

and all things being equal, they will beat all of us like a drum.

And as always Andrew, when something is stressed harder, and hi comp and 30psi boost is stress for all current motors, there is much reduced margin before things go, as they say up in Possum Flats,
"KABOOM!!"

Reliability is reduced IN OPTIMISED 34mm motors.

It is not surprising that merely remapped cars were not quicker and that well done GpN cars are competitive up there........

Look at WRC results for the last 7-8 years since 34mm GpA and 32mm GpN
and the typical time interval between first GpA and First GpN is 19-20 minutes on 3+hours events.

Reintroduce GpA if they want to have a place for these sort of cars.
Leave US Open class alone.

Read Derek Bottles Editorial.


(and this is of course with inter-connecting piping sized correctly, not silly stuff like many Japanese cars come equipped with originally which will give high PSI readings for the Bling Bling Boys but not pass the CFM to make real power).


John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

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

·
R2- 50...WAIT! Make a left!
Joined
·
258 Posts
RE: Canada 34MM

<snip>
>Traditional turbo motors as street cars started around 8:1 <snip>

??? With 70s technology &/or with poorly matched engine/turbo (& resulting turbo 'lag') maybe...

I don't know where OEMs are today but, as shipped from some factories (i.e., it'll last w/out warranty issues), mid-80s electronic boost control technology allowed running 9:1 pistons w/ a 1 bar turbo.


>Compression ratio has a multiplying effect on the ft/lb
>figures (look at the formula for BMEP, CR is a multipier).
<snip>
>Without those insanely priced gearboxes, (not $15,000, more
>like $50,000+) the ft/lbs a really optimised 34mm motor
>makes would clean the teeth off a production based box in a
>second or two. <snip>

;-) What's this "ft/lb" thing to which you refer? Piston stroke divided by piston weight? ;-)
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top