Special Stage Forums banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
OK, one more time. What do you guys think of using weight increases in lieu of smaller restrictors so slow cars down? Keep the present restrictors to cap HP (e.g., 40 mm for Open, 32 for PGT), but add weight.

The logic:
- Weight slows cars down due to slower corner speeds
- Weight forces you to brake earlier for corners
- Weight slows acceleration
- Weight doesn't allow you to go over rough stuff as fast
- Weight decreases decceleration 'g' forces for the car and the occupant in cases of hitting an object that moves, like Dennis' tree at LSPR (hence the one of the reasons that larger vehcles on the highway ARE safer; you punch deeper into a guardrail with a heavy car instead of bouncing off with a dinky car, with lower g's to the occupant)
- Weight does not increase G force to the occupants in case of hitting an immovable object
- With added weight, it does not necessarily make sense for engines to be rebuilt for lower end torque to compensate for loss in performance. This means that those in our sport with less $$ won't be put as at large a disadvantage as with smaller restrictors.
- I read a post (that I presume that is true) about the fact that WRC cars are now faster (by a bit) than in 1999. With weight, and with the displacement fixed and some inlet restriction, there is just so much that one can get out of an engine. Limited fooling around with torque and HP bands etc.
- Weight can be increased easily if a car or group of cars gets too fast for safety or too fast for class competitive issues. No major changes in engine technology.
- One performance increase that will occur to compensate for added weight is steeper axle gearsets. IMO, this is easier and more affordable for all concerned than engine mods and re-programmed ECU's. And as a consequence, top end speeds can drop. (The present restrictors should prevent engine rebuilds to peak HP at higher RPMS that would be the temptation to overcome steeper axle gearing.)

Disadvantages that I can see:
- Suspension changes in spring and damping rates are needed to compensate for extra car weight
- Securing weights safely
- Scales need to be available at each event

Let's face it guys: this is a very common way in other forms of racing to slow cars down and equalize performance. Look at the group F spec: it IS the method of choice to equalize performance. The circle track racers have figured this out many moons ago. Why not go out a bit outside of the 'rally thinking' box to address the problem we have of more danger with higher speeds?

I have wondered for some time why the restrictor route seesm to the main route for WRC. Is it because they knew the could change the engines to get around it?? Dunno, but it sure seems we should look at alternatives.

Looking forward to your comments.

Regards,
Mark B.
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Oh, no no no. Weight is bad. Very bad. Weight is the enemy of all things good. Weight makes the cars harder to stop, harder to turn, and harder to accelerate. That means we'll be going through brakes, tires, and drivetrain parts. For safety's sake we need to find an acceptible hp/weight ratio. I'll take lower weight over increased hp to make that ratio any day.

>- Weight decreases decceleration 'g' forces for the car and
>the occupant in cases of hitting an object that moves, like
>Dennis' tree at LSPR (hence the one of the reasons that
>larger vehcles on the highway ARE safer; you punch deeper
>into a guardrail with a heavy car instead of bouncing off
>with a dinky car, with lower g's to the occupant)

>Regards,
>Mark B.

The absolute last thing I would have wanted the other night was more weight. Attaining entry speed was not a problem on this corner, so more weight would have just mean more momentum. We hit three friggin trees as it was. Any more momentum and we could have hit four. And that fourth one could have been on the door, or through a window. If our cars were unbreakable bricks, more momentum wouldn't be a problem, but they aren't. Our cars bend and break, and sometimes there is very little between us and the immovable object outside (like in a door area).

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
Adding weight lengthens braking distances much more than it slows terminal velocity.

Lengthening braking distances forces the driver to back off sooner, but what about braking for the unexpected?

Adding weight can be done in an attempt to equalize competition (Group F), but I don't think adding several hundred pounds of ballast will make a car safer.
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
yee-zooow I say.

Energy equation is

1/2 mass velecity^2

Increasing mass increasing the total energy of the system.

Decrease the Velocity, don't increase the mass.

Larger cars were "safer" due to crush space- the extra metal made extra space to deform and decrease peak accelerations.
There are no guardrails in the woods :)

You can ballast a car to decrease it's performance potential.

You can not ballast a car and make it safer.
 

·
400 flat to crest
Joined
·
5,777 Posts
>


HiMark,
I'm going to poke some holes in some opf your ill founded suppositions.
You're old enough to remember Drivers ED back in 1967 aren't you?


>
>The logic:
>- Weight slows cars down due to slower corner speeds

Yeah cause of the limits of tire grip.
The currenty crop of youngish guys with no significant previous competition experience buy as their first rally cars just to use on glaring example say a Mistubishi Eclipse, DNFing -6 times and then running out and buying a shiney new EVObitchi seem to TEND to rely on the fact that the CARs 4wd system with lots of stiff diffs and newish TIRES _provides_ them with GRIP.
In the recent detailed analysis of the most recent of the string of crashes, in the middle of a rain drenched event the driver lost control when the (oddly enough) hit a slick spot, and lost grip.
80mph into the trees. (Ever notice its always 80 in these stories?)

More weight and the tires will loose grip not just at slower speeds but more suddenly.
Already these boys with barely a couple or three seasons (HOW MANY _HOURS_ per event, so how many total hours at whatever they imagine is their personal 10/10s in a coupel of short seasons of 1 1/2 long events) seem to have a lot of trouble maintaining control.
This would make it _more_ difficult for them.

>- Weight forces you to brake earlier for corners

Most already slow miles from the corner, the British and Paasonen knew how to brake.

>- Weight slows acceleration

Easy to compensate for via shorter gearing.

>- Weight doesn't allow you to go over rough stuff as fast

Actually when sprung and damped correctly, little difference, especially for cars.


>- Weight decreases decceleration 'g' forces for the car and
>the occupant in cases of hitting an object that moves, like
>Dennis' tree at LSPR (hence the one of the reasons that
>larger vehcles on the highway ARE safer; you punch deeper
>into a guardrail with a heavy car instead of bouncing off
>with a dinky car, with lower g's to the occupant)

Sorry, wrong.
When I did drivers Ed and they showed us all those horrible films from the Ohio State Police such as the gory "Death on the Highway" they stressed that the average number of people killed in the US (and the population at the time was 175,000,000) was 55-56,000. 95% of the cars were BIG DETROIT IRON. HEAVY. MADE of BALLAST.

Now we have 275,000,000 and we drive longer (12k/yr vs 10k), faster, on more densely trafficed roads in mostly weenie lightly built cars and we kill only 40,000.

The difference is the cars are _designed_ to be safe.
Race cars are super lightweight and the pansy wimps can drive them straight into walls at 175mph and >>>since the rules mandated it they don't even break their toes.

Safety is NOT an incedental function of weight.

Do you not recall in Daddy Bushs Administrastion the news of the SUPPRESSED NHTSA "big pig CAR T boning into POS Fiesta sized sh!tbox"
This case was that Ford wanted to (obviously) sell more crown Vics and wanted data to prove they were safer so thay rammed stacks of hem into those little Korean sh!tbox things that Ford was selling ALL UNDER NHTSAs scrutiny so they could have ammo for asking for relief from futher CAFE restraints.
Unfortunatly, they could not prove serious injuries to the occupants of the little things. So under Daddy Bushs orders, the report was suppressed.
And they went on to focus on selling those dumb HUGE SUVs.


>- Weight does not increase G force to the occupants in case
>of hitting an immovable object
It can increase the number of times a car might roll or trees it smashed thru and each encounter increase the chances for something to smash thru a window or a door.

Additionally increased weight stresses the suspension links and controls arms and I know that up in the NE and the Midwest or anywhere where salt is used then the a arms, or control arms and the attaching points are OFTEN ugly with rust, Fractures WILL be more frequent.

>
>- I read a post (that I presume that is true) about the fact
>that WRC cars are now faster (by a bit) than in 1999.


That approx 3 mph average is the same as the difference between the old Gp4 cars from the 70s like Escorts and Asconas and 131s and the GpB cars.
Think of that: 3 mph average increase and the world pulled their collective hair out at the _obvious HUGE INCREASE in SPEED!_.

>- One performance increase that will occur to compensate for
>added weight is steeper axle gearsets. IMO, this is easier
>and more affordable for all concerned than engine mods and
>re-programmed ECU's. And as a consequence, top end speeds
>can drop.
Since many many cars, especially the older Non-homologation specials, are waaaaaaaaaaaay overgeared in 4th and 5th, you can expect an INCREASE in speed usually when cars get shorter gearing in those two gears via shorter axle ratio: the motors can reach max rpm, rather than running out of breath from overgearing/wind/drag.



(The present restrictors should prevent engine
>rebuilds to peak HP at higher RPMS that would be the
>temptation to overcome steeper axle gearing.)
>
>Disadvantages that I can see:
>- Suspension changes in spring and damping rates are needed
>to compensate for extra car weight
>- Securing weights safely
>- Scales need to be available at each event
>
>Let's face it guys: this is a very common way in other forms
>of racing to slow cars down and equalize performance. Look
>at the group F spec: it IS the method of choice to equalize
>performance. The circle track racers have figured this out
>many moons ago. Why not go out a bit outside of the 'rally
>thinking' box to address the problem we have of more danger
>with higher speeds?

Mark, its the ROADS.
when guys with 20 to 30 hours toatl experience can do the average speed of men with many many more years experience in far harder fields, then one has two choices to think of:
We're all big HEROs or
the ROADs chosen are too simple and straight.


>
>I have wondered for some time why the restrictor route seesm
>to the main route for WRC. Is it because they knew the could
>change the engines to get around it?? Dunno, but it sure
>seems we should look at alternatives.
>
>Looking forward to your comments.
>
>Regards,
>Mark B.





John Vanlandingham
Seattle, WA. 98168

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
>The logic:
>- Weight slows cars down due to slower corner speeds

I could read a book while going up hills at STPR in my 3,000+lb stock engined/gearing RX-7. Going down hills the car went fast enough to get into serious trouble; especially with the extra mass.

>- Weight doesn't allow you to go over rough stuff as fast

It also reduces control. IMHO reduction of control is much more dangerous than too much horse power.
 

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
>Adding weight lengthens braking distances much more than it
>slows terminal velocity.

OK. But it also reduces the ability of the 'interconnected-gravel-dragstrips' aficionados to reach the speeds they're only capable of when armed with too much power and traction. Plus, any delay in reaching a car's potential straight line top speed is just that many more seconds - or fractions of a second - a driver has to realize the red mist may have descended.

>Lengthening braking distances forces the driver to back off
>sooner

Hallelujah! But 'back off' doesn't appear much in the latest generation of rally competitor's lexicon, does it?

>Lengthening braking distances forces the driver to back off
>sooner, but what about braking for the unexpected?

While I don't need to tell Mike Hurst this, the way to manage the unexpected must begin early in a rally driver's career when one should show the patience to learn everything he can about himself, his limits, his ability to assess a car's ever-changing potential, and when best to apply that knowledge to flirt with those limits when the risks might actually help a team obtain a worthwhile result. That may mean losing the attitude that one must drive every inch of every stage on the ragged edge. A less radical attitude is something folks can learn the way a lot of us did when the sport had far fewer competitors and was more close-knit (when newbies just sort of wound up with a mentor) or we can legislate whatever it takes to try to slow cars down and hopefully eliminate calls to Life Flight. I know we can't just keep on doing nothing.

Halley ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
>
>1/2 mass velecity^2
>
>Increasing mass increasing the total energy of the system.

ONLY if you keep V the same.

You need to do complete mathematics on this, Matt, before you make conclusions. With more weight or less power, the first law of physics takes control: F=Ma. With F constant and M larger, 'a' (acceleration) decreases, or vice versa. That is the whole theory behind restrictors: reduce F. More weight has the same effect on 'a'. In any case of weight decreased speed at the end of short straight, then a 5% increase in weight would decrease terminal velocity by about 5%, If you drop terminal V by 5% you decrease V^2 by about 11%. So a mass increase of 5% reduces 1/2MV^2 by about 5%.....! You will say that a 5% decrease in F would be better...well read on.....

>
>Larger cars were "safer" due to crush space- the extra metal
>made extra space to deform and decrease peak accelerations.
Again, no. Please reread my info. When you hit any movable object at a given speed but with more mass, there is a greater tranfer of engery from the moving to the unmoving object. (The total moments in the system remain constant.) The upshot is that there is less change in V of the moving object if the moving object is heavier. Less 'delta V/delta t' means less G force on the occupants. Remember, its the G force that breaks necks. (And by the way we could care less about V if we never hit anything...)

You can decrease the 'a' either way: Decrease F or increase M. There are 2 important results that can be achieved. With either increased M or decreased F, you achieve the first important safety improvement in that you decrease V. But if you can decrease the delta V (in some cases as pointed out) with more mass, you are better off. No matter how much or little car M there is, your head and helmet mass stays constant. If you decrease the rate of decceleration in a wreck (decreased G's)by incrasing car M, you decrease the force on that vulnerable neck of yours. Makin' more sense now??

>There are no guardrails in the woods :)

There are dirt and sand banks, smaller rocks, aspens like Dennis hit and broke, etc. If you hit these, they are movable, and more mass in the car means less decceleration g's at the moment of impact. (If you hit an oak tree in PA, we would have to add about 20,000 lbs of ballast so there are objects we can hit that won't move whatever.) But the whole idea behind 'softerning' guardrails (notice how flimsy they are these days?) is to lessen the G forces by allowing them to move; they are lighter (and have softer mountings which give). The ligther rails give the same effect in decreasing the G's as a heavier car.
>
>You can ballast a car to decrease it's performance
>potential.
>
>You can not ballast a car and make it safer.
Au contraire, mon ami. Think about what I just listed. AND, if you choose to ballast the car with a stouter cage, then you will be safer.

Move beyond 'the standard rally thinking' box a bit.

Regards,
Mark B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
>Oh, no no no. Weight is bad. Very bad. Weight is the
>enemy of all things good. Weight makes the cars harder to
>stop, harder to turn, and harder to accelerate. That means
>we'll be going through brakes, tires, and drivetrain parts.
>For safety's sake we need to find an acceptible hp/weight
>ratio. I'll take lower weight over increased hp to make
>that ratio any day.

Oh yes yes yes. Weight is your friend in an impact; it decreases the G forces that the car and occupants experience. And besides, do you want to go through more brake pads and tires, or re-engineer engines to get around restrictors like the WRC folks have done? The answer to that depends a lot on your budget, but that's a corollary argument.....read on to see how you have helped my argument in your next section.
>
>
>The absolute last thing I would have wanted the other night
>was more weight. Attaining entry speed was not a problem on
>this corner, so more weight would have just mean more
>momentum. We hit three friggin trees as it was. Any more
>momentum and we could have hit four.

Ah, thank you Dennis on several points; you're the best advocate I could have asked for. First if you had gone on to hit a 4th tree, IT WOULD ONLY BE DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOU AND YOUR CAR HAD EXPERIENCED LESS DECCELRATION WHEN HITTING THE FIRST 3!! That is the ADVANTAGE of more weight. You hit a movable/breakable object in the first tree, and more weigth would mean less deceleration. Your body's vulnerable parts are less stressed with less decceleration. Get it? AND, you continually preach to folks to build more cage. It not only gives you a better car in a crash, but (you did not realize it), with the extra mass, you get less decceleration when you hit movable things like No MI aspens or the dirt.

>And that fourth one
>could have been on the door, or through a window.
Oh for goodness sake, Dennis, think about what you're saying. The FIRST tree could've poked a branch through your window and ripped your head off. (Re-read some of my posts over a long time and my statements about logs poking people in the head; we won't stop that with restrictors or weight.)

If our
>cars were unbreakable bricks, more momentum wouldn't be a
>problem, but they aren't. Our cars bend and break, and
>sometimes there is very little between us and the immovable
>object outside (like in a door area).
Put in the extra weight in the form of more door bars! USE IT FOR SAFETY!

Regards,
Mark B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
What if it is in the form of better cages, with more door side bars, better front end bracing, thicker tubing?

Mark
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
you make some good points.

due to my newish schedule, I won't be able to go very in depth on this or any other topic for a while.

I worked from the assumption that cars would probably leave the road at the same velocity.

Or, alternately, not from the view point of the weight limiting performance, which it will, but from the standpoint of how it would change the way the car acts when a person is trying to get their patooties out of a mess.

I hadn't considered the car as a bullet and the woods as a ballastics gel, but it certainly appears to be a useful point.

I have some concerns that if weights were pushed up artifically, some safety systems such as brakes and tires are then performing below potential, again, artificially.


*If* a person can control neck accleration with a device such as the HANS and head nets, do you think the benefits of increased mass would still outweigh the potential problems with braking and traction?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
>>The logic:
>>- Weight slows cars down due to slower corner speeds
>
>Yeah cause of the limits of tire grip.
DUH; that's the point.

>The currenty crop of youngish guys with no significant
>previous competition experience buy as their first rally
>cars just to use on glaring example say a Mistubishi
>Eclipse, DNFing -6 times and then running out and buying a
>shiney new EVObitchi seem to TEND to rely on the fact that
>the CARs 4wd system with lots of stiff diffs and newish
>TIRES _provides_ them with GRIP.
So restrictors are going to help those folks more??

>In the recent detailed analysis of the most recent of the
>string of crashes, in the middle of a rain drenched event
>the driver lost control when the (oddly enough) hit a slick
>spot, and lost grip.
>80mph into the trees.
And I asked what the driver would do to avoid that situation, which is the best safety change that could ever be made. Dennis knows that, he is a pilot, and pilots strive hard to not repeat dumb things. Funny, I never got an answer...

>(Ever notice its always 80 in these
>stories?)
Yes that is odd...

>
>More weight and the tires will loose grip not just at slower
>speeds but more suddenly.
>Already these boys with barely a couple or three seasons
>(HOW MANY _HOURS_ per event, so how many total hours at
>whatever they imagine is their personal 10/10s in a coupel
>of short seasons of 1 1/2 long events) seem to have a lot of
>trouble maintaining control.
>This would make it _more_ difficult for them.
So having lighter cars is better for these types??

>
>>- Weight slows acceleration
>
>Easy to compensate for via shorter gearing.
As I pointed out in my initial post.

>
>>- Weight doesn't allow you to go over rough stuff as fast
>
>Actually when sprung and damped correctly, little
>difference, especially for cars.
Let me think about that one.....
>
>
>
>Sorry, wrong.
>When I did drivers Ed and they showed us all those horrible
>films from the Ohio State Police such as the gory "Death on
>the Highway" they stressed that the average number of people
>killed in the US (and the population at the time was
>175,000,000) was 55-56,000. 95% of the cars were BIG DETROIT
>IRON. HEAVY. MADE of BALLAST.
NO, John, YOU have it wrong. I did live at that time and went through those courses. Remember that cars did not have seat belts mandated until 1966? Ever notice that coincidence that those Ohio police films were of wrecks in the 50's and early 60's? (I paid attention to the car vintage..) No seat belts, metal dash borads, drum brakes, etc.
>
>Now we have 275,000,000 and we drive longer (12k/yr vs 10k),
>faster, on more densely trafficed roads in mostly weenie
>lightly built cars and we kill only 40,000.
It the overal safety increase. We have disc brakes on cars now, and much better tires, and airbags.
>
>The difference is the cars are _designed_ to be safe.
>Race cars are super lightweight and the pansy wimps can
>drive them straight into walls at 175mph and >>>since the
>rules mandated it they don't even break their toes.
We don't have mandated pods for our cars in US rally; I thought you would have noticed by now....
>
>Safety is NOT an incedental function of weight.
Redcuction in G forces at impact with a movable object IS. Stop and think, John, don't just react.
>
>Do you not recall in Daddy Bushs Administrastion the news of
>the SUPPRESSED NHTSA "big pig CAR T boning into POS Fiesta
>sized sh!tbox"
>This case was that Ford wanted to (obviously) sell more
>crown Vics and wanted data to prove they were safer so thay
>rammed stacks of hem into those little Korean sh!tbox things
>that Ford was selling ALL UNDER NHTSAs scrutiny so they
>could have ammo for asking for relief from futher CAFE
>restraints.
>Unfortunatly, they could not prove serious injuries to the
>occupants of the little things. So under Daddy Bushs orders,
>the report was suppressed.
>And they went on to focus on selling those dumb HUGE SUVs.
Then how do explain all the current complaints about SUV's hitting small cars and causing more injuries to the occupants in the smaller cars? It IS about the relative G forces that the 2 sized cars experience.
>
>
>>- Weight does not increase G force to the occupants in case
>>of hitting an immovable object
>It can increase the number of times a car might roll or
>trees it smashed thru and each encounter increase the
>chances for something to smash thru a window or a door.
See my post to Dennis. This can happen at ANY impact not just later ones. The question becomes: are more more impacts with lesser G's worse or better?
>
>Additionally increased weight stresses the suspension links
>and controls arms and I know that up in the NE and the
>Midwest or anywhere where salt is used then the a arms, or
>control arms and the attaching points are OFTEN ugly with
>rust, Fractures WILL be more frequent.
NOW you have finally made a good point, and one which I will endorse as a factor to consider seriously AGAINST weight.
>
>>
>>- I read a post (that I presume that is true) about the fact
>>that WRC cars are now faster (by a bit) than in 1999.
>
>That approx 3 mph average is the same as the difference
>between the old Gp4 cars from the 70s like Escorts and
>Asconas and 131s and the GpB cars.
>Think of that: 3 mph average increase and the world pulled
>their collective hair out at the _obvious HUGE INCREASE in
>SPEED!_.
Ah now I get theo point. Thanks.
>
>>- One performance increase that will occur to compensate for
>>added weight is steeper axle gearsets. IMO, this is easier
>>and more affordable for all concerned than engine mods and
>>re-programmed ECU's. And as a consequence, top end speeds
>>can drop.
>Since many many cars, especially the older Non-homologation
>specials, are waaaaaaaaaaaay overgeared in 4th and 5th, you
>can expect an INCREASE in speed usually when cars get
>shorter gearing in those two gears via shorter axle ratio:
>the motors can reach max rpm, rather than running out of
>breath from overgearing/wind/drag.
>
>
>Mark, its the ROADS.
>when guys with 20 to 30 hours toatl experience can do the
>average speed of men with many many more years experience in
>far harder fields, then one has two choices to think of:
>We're all big HEROs or
>the ROADs chosen are too simple and straight.
And I say good luck in finding different roads.

Regards, and you type too much...! I can't match you in verbosity!
Mark B. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
>
>you make some good points.
>
>I worked from the assumption that cars would probably leave
>the road at the same velocity.
>
>Or, alternately, not from the view point of the weight
>limiting performance, which it will, but from the standpoint
>of how it would change the way the car acts when a person is
>trying to get their patooties out of a mess.
>
>I hadn't considered the car as a bullet and the woods as a
>ballastics gel, but it certainly appears to be a useful
>point.
>
>I have some concerns that if weights were pushed up
>artifically, some safety systems such as brakes and tires
>are then performing below potential, again, artificially.

Matt, now you are making good points; brakes, suspenions, steering will get stressed more. I'll add this to the list AGAINST added weight, along with the 1 good, similar point that JVL made about suspnsion bits getting more stressd.
>
>
>*If* a person can control neck accleration with a device
>such as the HANS and head nets, do you think the benefits of
>increased mass would still outweigh the potential problems
>with braking and traction?
Well, there you are, making another good point! I am not any sort of ER physician; I don't know all the bad things that can happen with high G impacts, I have just been focusing on the obvious one that we all know about, in the stress on the neck area. I would certainly think that neck restraints would solve the problem better. So are we going to mandate that instead of restrictors?

My whole reason for starting this was to look at an alternative to even smaller restrictors with a lower cost, 'low tech' approach to reducing speeds.

I also make the assumption that when are car handles more like a pig, peole will slow down. Maybe a dumb assumption?

Good luck with your new sked.

Mark B.
 

·
codriveur
Joined
·
1,385 Posts
Hi Mark,

>Let's face it guys: this is a very common way in other forms
>of racing to slow cars down and equalize performance.

Yes, but they are made of tubes and sheet metal, it is very easy to add a box of lead with clamps, low and where ever to make the car slower/better handling. Doing it in a rally car is far more difficult. Mounting regulations are almost impossible to codify with all of the different vehicles running. I'm against mounting anything inside of the car and I'm wondering where else are you going to put blocks of lead that you ARE going to move several times. Do you want to open the world of filling bottom sections of cages and rocker panels with lead? (I've done enough work for dirt track guy's to know that would happen before the ink was dry in the rule book) Do you really want to add to the expense and hassle of every rally the use of scales? All of a sudden top teams will have them in the service area, just to tune even more, making the expense of the sport that much more.(they are not cheap) Not to mention we now will add more set up to the the car prep time and construction in a way that will detract from getting things done or for that matter having fun. I've got a bunch more reasons if you want.

>I have wondered for some time why the restrictor route seesm
>to the main route for WRC. Is it because they knew the could
>change the engines to get around it?

Well it's easy to identify a direct corilation of use/decreased performance. CHEAP, you won't try to move a restrictor 39 times to find the right set up for that day but you will move the weight, you don't have to scale the winner and disqualify them because they have a liter less fuel than they calculated, brakeing ability is not deminished, and it's easy to verify conformity,

In my mind if weight was the answer people would be screaming the past week about how all newbies should drive Audi's and a BMW 530i would be the new Group F spec class dream car.

Bernie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
>Mounting regulations are almost
>impossible to codify with all of the different vehicles
>running. I'm against mounting anything inside of the car and
>I'm wondering where else are you going to put blocks of lead
>that you ARE going to move several times.
I AM concernd about safe mounting too. That was one of my points. In stock-bodied circle track cars with which I am familiar, they get mounted under the floor pans. As far as moving them a lot, with rallying and the full range of lefts and rights that we make, I wonder how much 'weight tuning' would be of any benefit.

>Do you really want to add to the expense
>and hassle of every rally the use of scales?
I am not unsympathetic about this, and made this same point. But, you need only a few sets or scales; we have never had the situation where all events bought all their own timing equipment, so this would be no different.

>All of a sudden
>top teams will have them in the service area, just to tune
>even more, making the expense of the sport that much
>more.(they are not cheap) Not to mention we now will add
>more set up to the the car prep time and construction in a
>way that will detract from getting things done or for that
>matter having fun.
I won't spend the time. I wil put it in one place and leave it. I am too focused on other things in an event.

>I've got a bunch more reasons if you want.
No disrepsect meant at all, but all of the reasons above are like the ones against restrictors: Too much this or too much that. But that does not seem to have stopped the smaller restrictor freight train from rolling through. And none of your point address the alternatives of how do we slow cars down? (Assuming you agree that needs to be done.)
>
>>I have wondered for some time why the restrictor route seesm
>>to the main route for WRC. Is it because they knew the could
>>change the engines to get around it?
>
>Well it's easy to identify a direct corilation of
>use/decreased performance.

>CHEAP, you won't try to move a
>restrictor 39 times
Yes you are right on there!

> you don't have to scale the
>winner and disqualify them because they have a liter less
>fuel than they calculated,
We have a minimum weight for Open class now, so this is going to happen anyway.
>
>In my mind if weight was the answer people would be
>screaming the past week about how all newbies should drive
>Audi's and a BMW 530i would be the new Group F spec class
>dream car.
They aren't because nobody really LIKES performance decreasing changes. But given the choice between smaller restrictors and more weight, you seem to be in favor of smaller restrictors. That's OK. I wanted to throw the idea out to what folks thought.

Regards,
Mark B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
>
>I could read a book while going up hills at STPR in my
>3,000+lb stock engined/gearing RX-7. Going down hills the
>car went fast enough to get into serious trouble; especially
>with the extra mass.
The same happens with restrictors.

>
>>- Weight doesn't allow you to go over rough stuff as fast
>
>It also reduces control. IMHO reduction of control is much
>more dangerous than too much horse power.
This does not jive with JVL's assertion that the springing and damping can be changed to fix this and not have any speed reduction. Regardless of that, if you can't afford to change suspension to control the increased wieght, then I say you are right. I am working on the assumption that if the car is in less control, then folks will slow down. That may be a dumb assumption on my part!

Regards,
Mark B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Mike,

How about the minimum weight for Open class? Is that just an equalizer? I presume you have been involved the higher circles of discussion. Was this NEVER mentioned as being good because it would slow cars down?

Regards,
Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
>I know we can't just keep on doing nothing.

Yes Mike, I am with you on that. It probably took me far too long to get to this point, but I am a slow learner at times.

Regards,
Mark B.
 

·
Trogdor
Joined
·
915 Posts
>OK, one more time. What do you guys think of using weight
>increases in lieu of smaller restrictors so slow cars down?

Weight slows acceleration, but not top speed. As you go faster, wind resistance becomes the dominating force in preventing car acceleration.

So you'd have cars that didn't accelerate as well below 60-70mph, but no realistic difference over that.

Only now they are more heavily stressing their brakes, their traction, and their roll cages when they get hit by trees or rocks or whathaveyou.

No thanks.
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
>>In the recent detailed analysis of the most recent of the
>>string of crashes, in the middle of a rain drenched event
>>the driver lost control when the (oddly enough) hit a slick
>>spot, and lost grip.
>>80mph into the trees.
>And I asked what the driver would do to avoid that
>situation, which is the best safety change that could ever
>be made. Dennis knows that, he is a pilot, and pilots strive
>hard to not repeat dumb things. Funny, I never got an
>answer...

Well, if you're really concerned, there are three things I could have done to avoid that particular situation. Any one of them would have done it.

1. Fit new tires of the correct compound for the temps. I was running completely worn out tires that were too hard. I cheaped out before the rally, and we spent the previous service running around trying to beg KM6's off people. Didn't work.

2. Cranked the boost. Another 50 hp would have meant the car could muscle it's way around the corner. I currently run a stock block at 17psi, which is good for around 300-320 hp. To go any more would require a serious engine build, beyond my budget.

3. Slow down. In hindsight this is of course obvious. But at the time I was running in third place, setting times comparable to two of the best and most experienced drivers in the country, each of whom had superior equipment. We were at 11/10ths, it was awesome, and worth it despite the crash. The video showed that the soft spot was actually somewhat blind, into the corner, and very different than the rest of the stage (we hadn't encountered any before). I simply saw it too late, and was pushing too hard.

JVL would have you think that because I didn't spend 10 years in a rwd sh!tbox that I don't know how to drive and just rely on my car to get me around corners faster than all the "real drivers" out there. Apparently he forgot the fact that I successfully ran half the rally already in some of the most slippy and variable conditions all season. Or the fact that I've finished SnoDrift, a pretty slippy event, twice in two years in the top 5. I think I know a little bit about finding grip.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top