Restrictor for GT Class. Am I the only one who think it is a bad rule?
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Joined
·
1,401 Posts
Wanna clarify the question?
The inverse phrasing of the question could be confusing. Perhaps simplify the questions to:
I'm in favor of the PGT restrictor rule.
or
I'm opposed to the PGT restrictor rule.
Personally, I'm opposed.
[hr]
[p align=right]John Dillon
John @ WidgetRacing.com
www.WidgetRacing.com
The inverse phrasing of the question could be confusing. Perhaps simplify the questions to:
I'm in favor of the PGT restrictor rule.
or
I'm opposed to the PGT restrictor rule.
Personally, I'm opposed.
[hr]
[p align=right]John Dillon
John @ WidgetRacing.com
www.WidgetRacing.com
Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
I just got a 02 WRX and did my first rally at Rim. I didn't have time to test the car with the restrictor until the start of the race. 2 minute first of Saturday stage I realise the car is a fat pig. The restrictor pretty much kill the engine after 5k. I used to race a 88 Mazda 323 gtx, I had to changed to newer car if I wanted to stay in GT, so my choice went for a WRX. I spend a lot of money and time putting that car together. At the end I have a new car slower than the Mazda for 3 time the price. Why I ask myself? In GT you are not allowed to do anything on the engine, trany and shell of the car (can't remove any heavy part), which is good (keep the cost down), but you have to add a safety cage, skid plates etc... which translate in a lot of weight. On top of this you have to tune-down your engine (restrictor), So what do you have, a heavy showroom Subaru with a weak engine.
In a word a fat Pig. I thing SCCA GT is the only class where the showroom car is a better car than the race car.
I know they put that rule to have the non-turbo car even with the turbo. But honestly how many competitive non-turbo are still racing. And if you use the excuse of " we want to get the GT ready for GpN in a couple years", than let us play with the engine, trany and weight of the car.
So I just want to know if I'm the only one unhappy with the rule. If I'm, than I'll be quiet and go with the flow, but if I'm not I think we should do something about it.
Stephan Verdier
I just got a 02 WRX and did my first rally at Rim. I didn't have time to test the car with the restrictor until the start of the race. 2 minute first of Saturday stage I realise the car is a fat pig. The restrictor pretty much kill the engine after 5k. I used to race a 88 Mazda 323 gtx, I had to changed to newer car if I wanted to stay in GT, so my choice went for a WRX. I spend a lot of money and time putting that car together. At the end I have a new car slower than the Mazda for 3 time the price. Why I ask myself? In GT you are not allowed to do anything on the engine, trany and shell of the car (can't remove any heavy part), which is good (keep the cost down), but you have to add a safety cage, skid plates etc... which translate in a lot of weight. On top of this you have to tune-down your engine (restrictor), So what do you have, a heavy showroom Subaru with a weak engine.
In a word a fat Pig. I thing SCCA GT is the only class where the showroom car is a better car than the race car.
I know they put that rule to have the non-turbo car even with the turbo. But honestly how many competitive non-turbo are still racing. And if you use the excuse of " we want to get the GT ready for GpN in a couple years", than let us play with the engine, trany and weight of the car.
So I just want to know if I'm the only one unhappy with the rule. If I'm, than I'll be quiet and go with the flow, but if I'm not I think we should do something about it.
Stephan Verdier
Joined
·
960 Posts
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
>I just got a 02 WRX and did my first rally at Rim. I didn't
>have time to test the car with the restrictor until the
>start of the race. 2 minute first of Saturday stage I
>realise the car is a fat pig. The restrictor pretty much
>kill the engine after 5k. I used to race a 88 Mazda 323
>gtx, I had to changed to newer car if I wanted to stay in
>GT, so my choice went for a WRX. I spend a lot of money and
>time putting that car together. At the end I have a new car
>slower than the Mazda for 3 time the price. Why I ask
>myself? In GT you are not allowed to do anything on the
>engine, trany and shell of the car (can't remove any heavy
>part), which is good (keep the cost down), but you have to
>add a safety cage, skid plates etc... which translate in a
>lot of weight. On top of this you have to tune-down your
>engine (restrictor), So what do you have, a heavy showroom
>Subaru with a weak engine.
>In a word a fat Pig. I thing SCCA GT is the only class
>where the showroom car is a better car than the race car.
>I know they put that rule to have the non-turbo car even
>with the turbo. But honestly how many competitive non-turbo
>are still racing. And if you use the excuse of " we want to
>get the GT ready for GpN in a couple years", than let us
>play with the engine, trany and weight of the car.
>So I just want to know if I'm the only one unhappy with the
>rule. If I'm, than I'll be quiet and go with the flow, but
>if I'm not I think we should do something about it.
>
>Stephan Verdier
The Trevor opinion is the GT restricter is totally about getting you to go ahead and run it in Group N and not GT. It looks better for SCCA to have larger Group N field.
>I just got a 02 WRX and did my first rally at Rim. I didn't
>have time to test the car with the restrictor until the
>start of the race. 2 minute first of Saturday stage I
>realise the car is a fat pig. The restrictor pretty much
>kill the engine after 5k. I used to race a 88 Mazda 323
>gtx, I had to changed to newer car if I wanted to stay in
>GT, so my choice went for a WRX. I spend a lot of money and
>time putting that car together. At the end I have a new car
>slower than the Mazda for 3 time the price. Why I ask
>myself? In GT you are not allowed to do anything on the
>engine, trany and shell of the car (can't remove any heavy
>part), which is good (keep the cost down), but you have to
>add a safety cage, skid plates etc... which translate in a
>lot of weight. On top of this you have to tune-down your
>engine (restrictor), So what do you have, a heavy showroom
>Subaru with a weak engine.
>In a word a fat Pig. I thing SCCA GT is the only class
>where the showroom car is a better car than the race car.
>I know they put that rule to have the non-turbo car even
>with the turbo. But honestly how many competitive non-turbo
>are still racing. And if you use the excuse of " we want to
>get the GT ready for GpN in a couple years", than let us
>play with the engine, trany and weight of the car.
>So I just want to know if I'm the only one unhappy with the
>rule. If I'm, than I'll be quiet and go with the flow, but
>if I'm not I think we should do something about it.
>
>Stephan Verdier
The Trevor opinion is the GT restricter is totally about getting you to go ahead and run it in Group N and not GT. It looks better for SCCA to have larger Group N field.
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
Since I only have a couple of months left before my ProRally license expires (big waste of money but that's another story...) I want to throw my $0.02 in. I don't like the restrictor rules in PGT WHATSOEVER!!!
No, I don't run in PGT and I have no plans to but in talking with a couple of competitors in PGT they all have the same thing to say; "Restrictors SUCK!!! They turn a decent car that would be a blast on dirt roads into cars that you have to relearn to drive." If SCCA is really as big on GrpN as it appears that they are then they would encourage the manufacturers that they're sleeping wit, uh, I mean, are in business deals with to bring in true GrpN cars, make paperwork and GrpN parts readily available, and use their influence to make the prize purses a bit bigger. If the SCCA doesn't want to have PGT as a class anymore then they need to pass a rule that says "effective xx/xx/xx PGT will be discontinued as a class." instead of making the cars so frustrating to drive that no one wants to compete in the class.
PGT should be the class where cars compete on even footing based on the way the factory put them together, not after a committee agrees during a meeting that "effective xx/xx/xx all PGT cars shall run xx.xxmm restrictors on the inlet side of the turbocharger". LET THESE GUYS RUN TRUE PRODUCTION CARS!!! If it turns out that Subaru is faster than the Mitsubishi (or vice-versa), so be it, let them slug it out toe-to-toe!
To be honest, if I were considering building a PGT car right now, I'd find something that had no turbo so I wouldn't have to worry about a restrictor but I would also build one that would only be eligible for about 3 years so that I could then turn it into an Open car. Unfortunately that only leaves a couple of Audis and the Subaru Impreza 2.5RS and Legacy 2.5GT.
Sorry for the rant...
George Thompson
1982 Volvo 242 Performance Rally Toy (still under repair, anyone got any rust-free 242 shells kicking around?)
1995 Honda XR600R Dual-Sport Motorcycle (MUCH cheaper than rallying SCCA-style!)
Since I only have a couple of months left before my ProRally license expires (big waste of money but that's another story...) I want to throw my $0.02 in. I don't like the restrictor rules in PGT WHATSOEVER!!!
No, I don't run in PGT and I have no plans to but in talking with a couple of competitors in PGT they all have the same thing to say; "Restrictors SUCK!!! They turn a decent car that would be a blast on dirt roads into cars that you have to relearn to drive." If SCCA is really as big on GrpN as it appears that they are then they would encourage the manufacturers that they're sleeping wit, uh, I mean, are in business deals with to bring in true GrpN cars, make paperwork and GrpN parts readily available, and use their influence to make the prize purses a bit bigger. If the SCCA doesn't want to have PGT as a class anymore then they need to pass a rule that says "effective xx/xx/xx PGT will be discontinued as a class." instead of making the cars so frustrating to drive that no one wants to compete in the class.
PGT should be the class where cars compete on even footing based on the way the factory put them together, not after a committee agrees during a meeting that "effective xx/xx/xx all PGT cars shall run xx.xxmm restrictors on the inlet side of the turbocharger". LET THESE GUYS RUN TRUE PRODUCTION CARS!!! If it turns out that Subaru is faster than the Mitsubishi (or vice-versa), so be it, let them slug it out toe-to-toe!
To be honest, if I were considering building a PGT car right now, I'd find something that had no turbo so I wouldn't have to worry about a restrictor but I would also build one that would only be eligible for about 3 years so that I could then turn it into an Open car. Unfortunately that only leaves a couple of Audis and the Subaru Impreza 2.5RS and Legacy 2.5GT.
Sorry for the rant...
George Thompson
1982 Volvo 242 Performance Rally Toy (still under repair, anyone got any rust-free 242 shells kicking around?)
1995 Honda XR600R Dual-Sport Motorcycle (MUCH cheaper than rallying SCCA-style!)
Joined
·
6,117 Posts
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
>
>No, I don't run in PGT and I have no plans to but in talking
>with a couple of competitors in PGT they all have the same
>thing to say; "Restrictors SUCK!!! They turn a decent car
>that would be a blast on dirt roads into cars that you have
>to relearn to drive." If SCCA is really as big on GrpN as
>it appears that they are then they would encourage the
>manufacturers that they're sleeping wit, uh, I mean, are in
>business deals with to bring in true GrpN cars, make
>paperwork and GrpN parts readily available, and use their
>influence to make the prize purses a bit bigger.
If the
>SCCA doesn't want to have PGT as a class anymore then they
>need to pass a rule that says "effective xx/xx/xx PGT will
>be discontinued as a class." instead of making the cars so
>frustrating to drive that no one wants to compete in the
>class.
George!!! that has things turned around and is the very essence of the problem: the PrDood and the PRB misunderstands their role which is to craft rules afetr the desires, whatever they may be of the membership, and nothing else.
It is silly to say that thias was done to make the classes more competitive between each other, hooooy!! they're different classes.
>
>PGT should be the class where cars compete on even footing
>based on the way the factory put them together, not after a
>committee agrees during a meeting that "effective xx/xx/xx
>all PGT cars shall run xx.xxmm restrictors on the inlet side
>of the turbocharger". LET THESE GUYS RUN TRUE PRODUCTION
>CARS!!! If it turns out that Subaru is faster than the
>Mitsubishi (or vice-versa), so be it, let them slug it out
>toe-to-toe!
>
>
>
>Sorry for the rant...
No, that's OK.
The poor sods in the class should all just simply refuse to comply and then NOT PROTEST EACH OTHER.
>
>George Thompson
>1982 Volvo 242 Performance Rally Toy (still under repair,
>anyone got any rust-free 242 shells kicking around?)
Yeah I got a real pearl just perfect for a rally car cause it's too ugly to make into a street car and somebody gave me a clean 88 Xratty.
West Coast non-rusty 2 door no sunroof. runs. Volvo 5 spoke alloys.
Perfect flames on the hood and fenders, red dash. You have the email and sorry i haven't written back been waaay busy.
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
>
>No, I don't run in PGT and I have no plans to but in talking
>with a couple of competitors in PGT they all have the same
>thing to say; "Restrictors SUCK!!! They turn a decent car
>that would be a blast on dirt roads into cars that you have
>to relearn to drive." If SCCA is really as big on GrpN as
>it appears that they are then they would encourage the
>manufacturers that they're sleeping wit, uh, I mean, are in
>business deals with to bring in true GrpN cars, make
>paperwork and GrpN parts readily available, and use their
>influence to make the prize purses a bit bigger.
If the
>SCCA doesn't want to have PGT as a class anymore then they
>need to pass a rule that says "effective xx/xx/xx PGT will
>be discontinued as a class." instead of making the cars so
>frustrating to drive that no one wants to compete in the
>class.
George!!! that has things turned around and is the very essence of the problem: the PrDood and the PRB misunderstands their role which is to craft rules afetr the desires, whatever they may be of the membership, and nothing else.
It is silly to say that thias was done to make the classes more competitive between each other, hooooy!! they're different classes.
>
>PGT should be the class where cars compete on even footing
>based on the way the factory put them together, not after a
>committee agrees during a meeting that "effective xx/xx/xx
>all PGT cars shall run xx.xxmm restrictors on the inlet side
>of the turbocharger". LET THESE GUYS RUN TRUE PRODUCTION
>CARS!!! If it turns out that Subaru is faster than the
>Mitsubishi (or vice-versa), so be it, let them slug it out
>toe-to-toe!
>
>
>
>Sorry for the rant...
No, that's OK.
The poor sods in the class should all just simply refuse to comply and then NOT PROTEST EACH OTHER.
>
>George Thompson
>1982 Volvo 242 Performance Rally Toy (still under repair,
>anyone got any rust-free 242 shells kicking around?)
Yeah I got a real pearl just perfect for a rally car cause it's too ugly to make into a street car and somebody gave me a clean 88 Xratty.
West Coast non-rusty 2 door no sunroof. runs. Volvo 5 spoke alloys.
Perfect flames on the hood and fenders, red dash. You have the email and sorry i haven't written back been waaay busy.
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
Joined
·
960 Posts
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
>The poor sods in the class should all just simply refuse to
>comply and then NOT PROTEST EACH OTHER.
John -- Its not quite that easy anymore. They checked restricters at Tech at Rim on all the turbo cars. Also weighed them all in tech line too. They are trying to do a bit more class verification without leaving it 100% up to the competitors. I think this is a positive thing.
>The poor sods in the class should all just simply refuse to
>comply and then NOT PROTEST EACH OTHER.
John -- Its not quite that easy anymore. They checked restricters at Tech at Rim on all the turbo cars. Also weighed them all in tech line too. They are trying to do a bit more class verification without leaving it 100% up to the competitors. I think this is a positive thing.
RE: Wanna clarify the question?
This will make me unpopular, but oh well......:
I think the restrictor is justified. The cars are supposed to be "stock" but the very first thing every turbo GT driver does is add a boost controller and crank the boost up 50% over stock. ): If the SCCA had an enforcable method of controlling boost on the cars so that it was kept stock, then a restrictor would not be needed, but policing boost is a lot harder than it may seem. There's a million ways to cheat while still looking stock. The only alternative is to place a restrictor (sized to max displacement) in order to limit a theoretical level of horsepower. The sizing of the restrictor has to do with keeping the cars slower than the open cars and aligning the GT and GrN classes (no conspiracy theory here, it's a fact).
For the record. Doug Robinson is lobbying heavily for the removal of interiors and other useless crap on production cars. The matter was put up for comment by the BoD a month or two ago, and the most recent Fastrack shows that maybe less than a dozen members actually bothered to comment.
So write in and support Doug on this one.
Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
This will make me unpopular, but oh well......:
I think the restrictor is justified. The cars are supposed to be "stock" but the very first thing every turbo GT driver does is add a boost controller and crank the boost up 50% over stock. ): If the SCCA had an enforcable method of controlling boost on the cars so that it was kept stock, then a restrictor would not be needed, but policing boost is a lot harder than it may seem. There's a million ways to cheat while still looking stock. The only alternative is to place a restrictor (sized to max displacement) in order to limit a theoretical level of horsepower. The sizing of the restrictor has to do with keeping the cars slower than the open cars and aligning the GT and GrN classes (no conspiracy theory here, it's a fact).
For the record. Doug Robinson is lobbying heavily for the removal of interiors and other useless crap on production cars. The matter was put up for comment by the BoD a month or two ago, and the most recent Fastrack shows that maybe less than a dozen members actually bothered to comment.
So write in and support Doug on this one.Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
The engineer in me couldn't leave this one alone.
As one poster pointed out, find a way to limit the cars to stock chips and I'll bet the restrictors would go away. Theoretically, since this is supposed to be a "production" class, we need a way to limit the cars to stock performance in an enforceable way. Some sort of restrictor is a simple, easily measurable way to do this, since we can't seem to enforce stock engine management chips. The restrictors keep getting smaller because the engine builders keep getting smarter...which really gives you guys with stock chips the short end of the stick.
Don't any of you engine wizards have another solution short of a chassis dyno?
Bruce
The engineer in me couldn't leave this one alone.
As one poster pointed out, find a way to limit the cars to stock chips and I'll bet the restrictors would go away. Theoretically, since this is supposed to be a "production" class, we need a way to limit the cars to stock performance in an enforceable way. Some sort of restrictor is a simple, easily measurable way to do this, since we can't seem to enforce stock engine management chips. The restrictors keep getting smaller because the engine builders keep getting smarter...which really gives you guys with stock chips the short end of the stick.
Don't any of you engine wizards have another solution short of a chassis dyno?
Bruce
Joined
·
6,117 Posts
RE: Wanna clarify the question?
>This will make me unpopular, but oh well......:
>
>I think the restrictor is justified.
Good, put one in YOUR car.
The cars are supposed
>to be "stock" but the very first thing every turbo GT driver
>does is add a boost controller and crank the boost up 50%
>over stock. ):
Naturally, and a rule about exhaust pipe diameter would also VERY effectively keep a cork in it, BUT!!!!!
BUT!!!!
This is PGT, who said that PGT needed to keep a lid on HP?
The sizing of the
>restrictor has to do with keeping the cars slower than the
>open cars and aligning the GT and GrN classes (no conspiracy
>theory here, it's a fact).
m
Being a fact is fine but it doesn't make any sense.
If this were track and field meet the different classes would corresspond to different disciplins OK?
Would it make sense to put scuba weight belts on 100m hurdle runners so they're not faster than say shot putters?
They are different classes for different purposes.
PGT is about good cheap fun at a reasonable cost.
GpN is about income redistribution for those with too much money.
Additionally the concept of unknown people deciding on THEIR own to do this is really an outrage, and should be repealed for that reason alone.
The PRB must be made to realise what their job is.
Same with the already written 34mm rule folks.
If they want GpA, introduce GpA.
Sheer and unadulterated NONSENSE in the "explanation" and an admission of technical ignorance if it is to be believed as really meaning what they are saying.
But it's not relly intended.
It is transparently obvious what the intent is.
>
>
>Dennis Martin
>[email protected]
>920-432-4845
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
>This will make me unpopular, but oh well......:
>
>I think the restrictor is justified.
Good, put one in YOUR car.
The cars are supposed
>to be "stock" but the very first thing every turbo GT driver
>does is add a boost controller and crank the boost up 50%
>over stock. ):
Naturally, and a rule about exhaust pipe diameter would also VERY effectively keep a cork in it, BUT!!!!!
BUT!!!!
This is PGT, who said that PGT needed to keep a lid on HP?
The sizing of the
>restrictor has to do with keeping the cars slower than the
>open cars and aligning the GT and GrN classes (no conspiracy
>theory here, it's a fact).
m
Being a fact is fine but it doesn't make any sense.
If this were track and field meet the different classes would corresspond to different disciplins OK?
Would it make sense to put scuba weight belts on 100m hurdle runners so they're not faster than say shot putters?
They are different classes for different purposes.
PGT is about good cheap fun at a reasonable cost.
GpN is about income redistribution for those with too much money.
Additionally the concept of unknown people deciding on THEIR own to do this is really an outrage, and should be repealed for that reason alone.
The PRB must be made to realise what their job is.
Same with the already written 34mm rule folks.
If they want GpA, introduce GpA.
Sheer and unadulterated NONSENSE in the "explanation" and an admission of technical ignorance if it is to be believed as really meaning what they are saying.
But it's not relly intended.
It is transparently obvious what the intent is.
>
>
>Dennis Martin
>[email protected]
>920-432-4845
John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168
Vive le Prole-le-ralliat
Black Rocket Rally Tires
http://www.blackrockettires.com/
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
As another engineer: in another series, I forget which and maybe it did not even happen, spec chips were proposed. The teams got their chip from the organizer on race day.
Also, can the OBDII computers recognize when a chip has been seriously altered?
Richard
As another engineer: in another series, I forget which and maybe it did not even happen, spec chips were proposed. The teams got their chip from the organizer on race day.
Also, can the OBDII computers recognize when a chip has been seriously altered?
Richard
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
What about a spec pop-off valve (pressure relief valve)?
This limits the boost pressure. With the stock turbo and a pop-off valve there is no chance of running higher air volumns at low pressures and the pop-off valve would limit the PSI. Unlike a waste gate the pop-off valve is located between the turbo and cylinder head, in the plumbing or inlet maniold-when pressure gets to the set amount it bleeds the excess off maintaining the maximum set pressure.
The pop-off valve could be set to the manufacturer of an individual car maximum specification of boost pressure -keeping it at stock pressures. Chipping the computer and raising the boost pressures will not effect it as it is a stand alone component that just regulates pressure.
One problem is the air dumped is hot and can damage items near by if not protected.
What about a spec pop-off valve (pressure relief valve)?
This limits the boost pressure. With the stock turbo and a pop-off valve there is no chance of running higher air volumns at low pressures and the pop-off valve would limit the PSI. Unlike a waste gate the pop-off valve is located between the turbo and cylinder head, in the plumbing or inlet maniold-when pressure gets to the set amount it bleeds the excess off maintaining the maximum set pressure.
The pop-off valve could be set to the manufacturer of an individual car maximum specification of boost pressure -keeping it at stock pressures. Chipping the computer and raising the boost pressures will not effect it as it is a stand alone component that just regulates pressure.
One problem is the air dumped is hot and can damage items near by if not protected.
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
Wouldn't a pop-off valve be pretty expensive - tailored to each car? And wouldn't it be hard to verify its function at tech? Just being devil's advocate here...we started out talking about ClubRallies, after all.
Bruce
Wouldn't a pop-off valve be pretty expensive - tailored to each car? And wouldn't it be hard to verify its function at tech? Just being devil's advocate here...we started out talking about ClubRallies, after all.
Bruce
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
>Wouldn't a pop-off valve be pretty expensive - tailored to
>each car?
I don't know exact prices-a few years ago around $150-genaric. They are adjustable and could easily be locked and sealed.
And wouldn't it be hard to verify its function at
>tech?
A boost gauge and a test drive would be easeist. However there are other ways. It takes a while to verify restrictors and to do fuel sampling and weighing the cars too.
Just being devil's advocate here...
Good!
we started out
>talking about ClubRallies, after all.
Did we? I did not see that-I'll read the thread again.
>
>Bruce
>Wouldn't a pop-off valve be pretty expensive - tailored to
>each car?
I don't know exact prices-a few years ago around $150-genaric. They are adjustable and could easily be locked and sealed.
And wouldn't it be hard to verify its function at
>tech?
A boost gauge and a test drive would be easeist. However there are other ways. It takes a while to verify restrictors and to do fuel sampling and weighing the cars too.
Just being devil's advocate here...
Good!
we started out
>talking about ClubRallies, after all.
Did we? I did not see that-I'll read the thread again.
>
>Bruce
Joined
·
2,516 Posts
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
>>Wouldn't a pop-off valve be pretty expensive - tailored to
>>each car?
>
> I don't know exact prices-a few years ago around
>$150-genaric. They are adjustable and could easily be locked
>and sealed.
However, as the Indy cars found out (before the became Champcars or whatever today's term is), pop-off valves are very dependent on the geometry and dynamic flow characteristcs of the duct/manifold on which they are mounted. If you are talking about a series of spec (or semi-spec) cars, this isn't a problem. With a random collection of cars (as in rally) it would be very difficult to ensure that identically set pop-off valves opened at the same level of boost on all cars. Restrictors are much easier because their limiting action isn't dependent on system dynamics.
>And wouldn't it be hard to verify its function at
>>tech?
>
> A boost gauge and a test drive would be easeist.
That would open a whole new can of worms - location of boost guage wrt. pop-off valve, accuracy of boost guage (spec boost guages, anyone?), etc.
>However
>there are other ways. It takes a while to verify
>restrictors and to do fuel sampling and weighing the cars
>too.
All of those (except maybe the fuel) are objective, static tests.
A lot of racing series use restrictors of some form to control horsepower - it seems to work.
If we do keep restrictors for PGT cars, the rulebook should explicitly allow aftermarket/programmable ECUs to allow the cars to be tuned for the new airflow characteristics (it should for the Pro cars anyway).
Adrian
>>Wouldn't a pop-off valve be pretty expensive - tailored to
>>each car?
>
> I don't know exact prices-a few years ago around
>$150-genaric. They are adjustable and could easily be locked
>and sealed.
However, as the Indy cars found out (before the became Champcars or whatever today's term is), pop-off valves are very dependent on the geometry and dynamic flow characteristcs of the duct/manifold on which they are mounted. If you are talking about a series of spec (or semi-spec) cars, this isn't a problem. With a random collection of cars (as in rally) it would be very difficult to ensure that identically set pop-off valves opened at the same level of boost on all cars. Restrictors are much easier because their limiting action isn't dependent on system dynamics.
>And wouldn't it be hard to verify its function at
>>tech?
>
> A boost gauge and a test drive would be easeist.
That would open a whole new can of worms - location of boost guage wrt. pop-off valve, accuracy of boost guage (spec boost guages, anyone?), etc.
>However
>there are other ways. It takes a while to verify
>restrictors and to do fuel sampling and weighing the cars
>too.
All of those (except maybe the fuel) are objective, static tests.
A lot of racing series use restrictors of some form to control horsepower - it seems to work.
If we do keep restrictors for PGT cars, the rulebook should explicitly allow aftermarket/programmable ECUs to allow the cars to be tuned for the new airflow characteristics (it should for the Pro cars anyway).
Adrian
Joined
·
230 Posts
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
"If we do keep restrictors for PGT cars, the rulebook should explicitly allow aftermarket/programmable ECUs to allow the cars to be tuned for the new airflow characteristics (it should for the Pro cars anyway)."
A few years ago, this would have meant an expensive stand-alone TEC-II type system which defeats the purpose of a stock-based class like PGT.
The theory that if you're running stock, you should be able to stay stock, without the added expense and potential damage caused by a restrictor is completely sensible, but also completely unenforcible as others have pointed out.
These days, you can get a re-flashed ECU that not only gives a different boost curve and limit, ignition and fueling to match and even anti-lag! All in a stock-appearing package. This makes restrictors the only solution if you want to allow turbo AWD cars in PGT.
So, maybe we should consider excluding turbo AWD cars from PGT? Let the 20psi Talons and WRXs run with the EVOs by making Group N a hybid class for not-quite-Open class supercars, and leave PGT for the many inexpensive AWD, but not turbocharged cars out there. That would make it a true entry level class for AWD cars, while also keeping 350HP cars away from newbies.
"If we do keep restrictors for PGT cars, the rulebook should explicitly allow aftermarket/programmable ECUs to allow the cars to be tuned for the new airflow characteristics (it should for the Pro cars anyway)."
A few years ago, this would have meant an expensive stand-alone TEC-II type system which defeats the purpose of a stock-based class like PGT.
The theory that if you're running stock, you should be able to stay stock, without the added expense and potential damage caused by a restrictor is completely sensible, but also completely unenforcible as others have pointed out.
These days, you can get a re-flashed ECU that not only gives a different boost curve and limit, ignition and fueling to match and even anti-lag! All in a stock-appearing package. This makes restrictors the only solution if you want to allow turbo AWD cars in PGT.
So, maybe we should consider excluding turbo AWD cars from PGT? Let the 20psi Talons and WRXs run with the EVOs by making Group N a hybid class for not-quite-Open class supercars, and leave PGT for the many inexpensive AWD, but not turbocharged cars out there. That would make it a true entry level class for AWD cars, while also keeping 350HP cars away from newbies.
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
If the turbo on the car is STOCK, but the full capacity is not used in the streetcar form, so what. I don't see any problem maxing out what comes STOCK on the car.
A home-made 'manual' boost control can be done for <$20, so I don't see it as a huge expense.
If you want to risk popping the lump because you run out of pulse width with the stock ECU, that is a choice you make.
Per the rules, you are ALLOWED to add more fuel, but must live with the airflow limitations of the stock components. If they are under-utilized....there is a potential performance gain to be had without breaking the rules.
Matt Manspeaker
Seattle, WA USA
89 323GTX - OPEN
97 Escort Cosworth - WIDE OPEN
If the turbo on the car is STOCK, but the full capacity is not used in the streetcar form, so what. I don't see any problem maxing out what comes STOCK on the car.
A home-made 'manual' boost control can be done for <$20, so I don't see it as a huge expense.
If you want to risk popping the lump because you run out of pulse width with the stock ECU, that is a choice you make.
Per the rules, you are ALLOWED to add more fuel, but must live with the airflow limitations of the stock components. If they are under-utilized....there is a potential performance gain to be had without breaking the rules.
Matt Manspeaker
Seattle, WA USA
89 323GTX - OPEN
97 Escort Cosworth - WIDE OPEN
Joined
·
303 Posts
RE: Restictor on GT car. Good or Bad
>The theory that if you're running stock, you should be able
>to stay stock, without the added expense and potential
>damage caused by a restrictor is completely sensible, but
>also completely unenforcible as others have pointed out.
If it is not enforcible then we need to eliminate the class and have nothing but Open classes.
The whole concept of the P classes was to a) provide a "relatively" low cost place for teams to compete, and b) provide a place for the manufacturers to showcase the strength and reliability of their vehicles under the guise of "showroom stock". I still think this is a valid place for both of these concepts though the latter seems to have now become an all but forgotten idea.
>These days, you can get a re-flashed ECU that not only gives
>a different boost curve and limit, ignition and fueling to
>match and even anti-lag! All in a stock-appearing package.
>This makes restrictors the only solution if you want to
>allow turbo AWD cars in PGT.
OK. This assumes everyone is cheating and the only way to be competitive is to cheat as well. Is there no integrity left in the sport? Why must we artificially limit the cheating by forcing everyone to run a restrictor? This only penalizes the ones who play by the rules.
>So, maybe we should consider excluding turbo AWD cars from
>PGT? Let the 20psi Talons and WRXs run with the EVOs by
>making Group N a hybid class for not-quite-Open class
>supercars, and leave PGT for the many inexpensive AWD, but
>not turbocharged cars out there. That would make it a true
>entry level class for AWD cars, while also keeping 350HP
>cars away from newbies.
There aren't any LEGAL 20 psi turbo cars running in PGT. 250 bhp is likely the mean for a well tuned and reliable car in the class. Is there something wrong with this? If we can't enforce the rules - penalizing the ones who do play by the rules is not the answer.
Scott
www.teamharco.com
Team Harco Motorsports
"Win on Sunday, Sleep on Monday"
>The theory that if you're running stock, you should be able
>to stay stock, without the added expense and potential
>damage caused by a restrictor is completely sensible, but
>also completely unenforcible as others have pointed out.
If it is not enforcible then we need to eliminate the class and have nothing but Open classes.
The whole concept of the P classes was to a) provide a "relatively" low cost place for teams to compete, and b) provide a place for the manufacturers to showcase the strength and reliability of their vehicles under the guise of "showroom stock". I still think this is a valid place for both of these concepts though the latter seems to have now become an all but forgotten idea.
>These days, you can get a re-flashed ECU that not only gives
>a different boost curve and limit, ignition and fueling to
>match and even anti-lag! All in a stock-appearing package.
>This makes restrictors the only solution if you want to
>allow turbo AWD cars in PGT.
OK. This assumes everyone is cheating and the only way to be competitive is to cheat as well. Is there no integrity left in the sport? Why must we artificially limit the cheating by forcing everyone to run a restrictor? This only penalizes the ones who play by the rules.
>So, maybe we should consider excluding turbo AWD cars from
>PGT? Let the 20psi Talons and WRXs run with the EVOs by
>making Group N a hybid class for not-quite-Open class
>supercars, and leave PGT for the many inexpensive AWD, but
>not turbocharged cars out there. That would make it a true
>entry level class for AWD cars, while also keeping 350HP
>cars away from newbies.
There aren't any LEGAL 20 psi turbo cars running in PGT. 250 bhp is likely the mean for a well tuned and reliable car in the class. Is there something wrong with this? If we can't enforce the rules - penalizing the ones who do play by the rules is not the answer.
Scott
www.teamharco.com
Team Harco Motorsports
"Win on Sunday, Sleep on Monday"
Joined
·
1,099 Posts
RE: Wanna clarify the question?
>GpN is about income redistribution for those with too much
>money.
You amaze me John. You have insisted in the past that you mean no offense other than the issue you are dealing with yet you make statements like this.
I can tell you without a doubt that I do not have too much money. What I do have is a passion for this sport and thus I spend all available time and money on my enjoyment of the sport. That make me one of many in our sport.
Please desist from categorizing others and demeaning those categories in your unsuccessful attempts to support your arguements.
I do support those that are trying to get the PGT restrictor rule "undone" but I take issue with being pigeonholed and insulted by someone that I actually agree with on the PGT restrictor issue.
Mark Utecht
>GpN is about income redistribution for those with too much
>money.
You amaze me John. You have insisted in the past that you mean no offense other than the issue you are dealing with yet you make statements like this.
I can tell you without a doubt that I do not have too much money. What I do have is a passion for this sport and thus I spend all available time and money on my enjoyment of the sport. That make me one of many in our sport.
Please desist from categorizing others and demeaning those categories in your unsuccessful attempts to support your arguements.
I do support those that are trying to get the PGT restrictor rule "undone" but I take issue with being pigeonholed and insulted by someone that I actually agree with on the PGT restrictor issue.
Mark Utecht
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
