Speed Factors & PGT

>
>Let's see I was at 80% pre-restrictor in PGT.
>
>I ran two stages at LSPR, 1 Friday and 1 Saturday and now I
>am at 78%.
>
It's not so much your speed as it is the increase in speed at the front of the field.

example;

LSPR 01 Herman 7.23 mi.
Bodnar 8:28

Fast time
Burke, 7:16
............

LSPR 03 Herman 7.23 mi.
Bodnar 8:30

Fast time
Hagstrom 6:39!!

Edit: corrected Burke's time

>i don't like it either. I couldn't keep the car in 5 gears
>this week end at Ramada and keep the speed up, unless it was
>flat and hard pack I had to shift back to 4th.
>I asked if we could remove to restrictor for nex t season
>and they told me, "why you are faster than the Open class".
>I think the car is dangerous to drive, the power band is to
>small, if you get in trouble in a turn you can count on the
>Hp to save you.
>Nobody will listen to me because of my speed.
>Every single driver of turbo PGT hate the restrictor. If
>every turbo driver ask to remove the restrictor then maybe
>they will listen to us.
>By the way i drive a wrx.
>
>Stephan

Quite Quickly I might add... How many minutes did the Restrictor cost you at Laughlin...

Mike,
You've read how much I _love_ ruyles that materialize from nowhere and miraculously POOOOF! a rule which nobody can figure out where they come from are rubber stamped by teh WHOLE PerfRally Board.

The first thing to do is to demand an accounting of how, and who originated the proposal, and demand an clear public explanation, not this call us or email and then each person with the exact same query can be schmoozed and mollified one at a time.

I say that by attaching a name to a proposal, and a name who brings the idea to the PRB table we wouldn't be wondering aloud here at the PGT 32mm thing or the equally stupidly concieved and cynically pushed thru 34mm restrictor for Open.

I think in both these cases, the 32mm and 34mm, we all know that our dear lamented Kurtsie Spitzner was prevailed upon by the Subaru representaitve at a super secret Manufacturer Cabal meeting to introduce these ideas and he had and still has allies and misguided apologists on the PRB.

No PGT car owner and no Open owner that I know of asked for these things.

So that's the first thing.
The second is to take control of the class ala Gp222, get together with other PGT folks and show some class solidarity and refuse to do the restrictor and refuse to protest the lack of it.

No reasonable person could posit any reason that the PRB should not instantly respond to the wishes of the majority of the participants of any given class.

PERISTOIKA IN SCCA NOW.
ALL POWER TO THE CLASS MEMBERS.
PRB: ADMINISTER, NOT MANDATE.

In case you PRB guys don't understand, there are numerous simultaneous competitions running simultaneously at any given rally, there is no need to scheme and lie and be rationalize rules pushed thru trying to create equality or partity BETWEEN different classes.
DUH!!!
END 32mm restrictor NOW
End 34mm restrictor now.
Show that you have some morals.


John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

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

Mike and all other PGT competitors -

I have assembled a petition for the repeal of the restrictor rule as it currently stands in PGT. I will be bringing this petition to Sno*Drift for all to sign.

Additionally, I would like to invite any and all to e-mail me privately ([email protected] until this Friday; [email protected] thereafter). I will forward to all who desire a copy of the proposal and a signature sheet.

This issue must be resolved. If it is not resolved to the satisfaction of the competitors then we will, as JVL suggests, need to take the matter into our own hands. A "gentlemens" aggreement to run without (as long as the stock, unaltered ECU unit remains in place) restrictor and agree to no protests related to restrictors.

Scott
www.teamharco.com
www.nokiantires.com
Team Harco Motorsports
"Win on Sunday, Sleep on Monday"

>I have publicly been an advocate for safety and I do believe
>that our top speeds are increasing too rapidly. That said,
>300 hp seems to be at the top end of what makes sense from a
>competition/speed/relative safety stand point. (Note that
>the WRC cars are supposed to have 300 HP)
>

This changes the subject a bit, but it is interesting to note that the average winning speed at Sno*Drift has remained virtually unchanged for 30 years. In 1982(the first year of the Quattro) we saw JB go 5mph faster than in prior years. The following year we eliminated the fastest stages, but kept many roads which are still used. Speeds fell back and have remained in the mid 50mph range since. The cars and drivers have gotten better, but the speeds have remained pretty much the same.

So, to bring this back on topic, all the rules and restrictors and other performance related changes have had no effect on speed. They have only made the cars more difficult and less fun to drive. The same occurred in the WRC. Ban the Group B cars, and within a year stage times were back where they had been(except in this case, the cars became less difficult and more fun to drive).

>
>So please, remind me why PGT cars need restrictors.
>
>Mike
>

Does anyone consider it a benfit that NA cars are now competitve in this class?

Does the restrictor level the competition within the field of turbo cars (make a new WRX less of an advantage over a DSM or GTX)?

Jim Cox
#558
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>Does anyone consider it a benfit that NA cars are now
>competitve in this class?

Jim:

The 2.5 RS was proven to be competitive with the Eclipses/Talons by Pat Richard with the DSM using a 40 mm restictor in Canada. (And although Randy Zimmer is running Open class, I am not sure how far away from a PGT car his really is, and he is very competitive.) The 2.5 which prior to restrictors were capable of winning in PGT should now have a distinct advantage.

More to the point, the 2.5 RS existed before the restrictor rule, and saw a few entries, now with the restrictor rule it is argueabley (proven by Pat pre restrictor) a better package. If there was a goal to make the NA cars competitive it should be discussed, but history states that the 2.5 is competitive.

If there is a goal to equalize the cars in the class then we should adopt rules to that effect. (I would prefer to work with power to weight ratios.) The restrictor limits the power band, like driving a diesel with no torque - you only have 2,000 -- 3,000 rpm to work within.

I would be open to a NA AWD PGT type class, but currently it would be a one car class, the 2.5 RS. (There are other cars that fit the class, but either have significant less HP - Toyota Matrix, or are significantly more expensive - Jaguars and Volvos) I would love the Australian 2.5 RS spec class, but I don't live in Australia. (And there is no incentive or rules stability to encorage a switch.)

>
>Does the restrictor level the competition within the field
>of turbo cars (make a new WRX less of an advantage over a
>DSM or GTX)?

Only an opinion - no. The WRX is a more capable package with or without the restrictor. I really can't argue the engineering (as I am not an engineer), but the restrictor should have less of a power reduction on the 323 because I believe it starts with a smaller turbo/turbo inlet. I don't know the spec difference between a WRX and a DSM, but the WRX seems to have less of an obsticle with a restrictor. The WRX does start as a better package with more HP than the DSM or the 323, and although there should be some way to equalize HP with a restrictor my guess is that different engines, turbo designs, would need to be restricted buy different size inlets.


Important: PGT has never been about an equal class for all the available makes/models. And in any Production class your dependent on the manufacturers decisions to make better faster cars or not.

To me the restrictor rule in PGT is about drive-ability. My car was not designed to be driven with a restrictor and little in the rules would let me optimize the effects of the restrictor. The rules for PGT are aimed at low cost competition and I would not want to change the rules to add any additional costs. (I would be in favor of taking some of the allowed engine modifications out - keep the cars even closer to stock.)

Equalizing the cars is an interesting path, and I would not be opposed to brainstroming about how best to do that. My goal is simply to allow the current crop of available PGT cars to compete as they were built by the manufacturers. These cars are performance oriented and designed to exhibit a specific set of characteristics. Unlike the very costly Group N cars or the very flexible Open cars, PGT does not allow you to re-optimise the car with engine mapping and transmissions, and PGT should not.

Mike

>Can't say for sure, Eric. I did mention that we changed the
>mix of roads when the Quattros appeared to bring the speeds
>back down. They haven't, however, changed much since then. I
>don't think the type of surface matters as much as road
>selection, since a .8(or .9 or .5) driver at Sno*Drift is
>also a .8 driver at STPR. If speeds on some rallies have
>become faster, as they have at STPR and RIM, it's road
>selection & not ice that amkes them so. LSPR has not become
>faster, even on its fast stages. Bob Lake & Delaware Mine
>are no faster now than in the 80s.

I may have it wrong here but I feel that some sort of restriction at SnoD actually makes a car easier to drive. I artificially restrict torque by pulsing the brake pedal and short shifting. I basically use 3rd gear all the time.

Contrasting that to POR, holy cats, it was like a drag race, and them guys open up a couple of cans on me.