Another Letter to the CRB on H Production Parity

Seeking parity for antique vs. "modern" engineering will be the death of HP. Trying to preserve value by ignoring engineering advances is only good for preserving assumed value for a vintage car. The proposed weights reminds me of this Vintage Race Rules.

Trying to fix parity across half a century? Who would want that? Why would they want it? When you answer those questions you will know if it's about sport or value.

James -r
 
Tom Feller":353htnnn said:
I'm saying put an appropriate restrictor on cars that need it, but lighten the weight considerably. Do that, coupled with maybe some things to make the Level 2 roadsters faster power-wise. Then the tin tops will handle better but not be as fast in a straight line. Ultimate lap times would be about the same as they are now. Tires and brakes would last longer. Racing would be "better."

I guess I would be resistant too if I had a tin top. It would be nice to keep passing pesky roadsters on the straights and at the green flag. :ask:

Ever raced a FWD car Tom? With a strut front, beam axle rear, and a high CG, a weight reduction is not going to make most of the tin tops race like a roadster. The FWD car does not get through the center of the turn, or corner exit, nearly as well as RWD. There is always going to be a handling disparity.

The modern cars are not going to get light, and its only getting worse each year. I could not hit 1900lbs, it was only once we went to an alt trans our numbers matched up. The difference in body/chassis construction over the decades is massive. As the Feds change crash standards the weight numbers only go up. Our 2012 Yaris build had 30lbs more in the body due to bigger C pillars, and other areas, (side impact and rollover standards) than our 2007.

Brakes, mine last all year. I burn two tires a weekend. Both are acceptable rates of usage to me.

I know you welcome the modern cars, but think they should conform and not define the class... But when was the last LBC built? Have you not already seen a change in the overall Prod landscape? Which direction do you think the ratio of roadsters to tin tops would go even if the rules were in your favor? Assuming Prod even exists in 5-10 years (has not been eaten by GT or ST), I doubt the number of roadsters increases. :wink:
 
Jason@SportsCar":22lbkqm5 said:
The modern cars are not going to get light, and its only getting worse each year. I could not hit 1900lbs, it was only once we went to an alt trans our numbers matched up. The difference in body/chassis construction over the decades is massive. As the Feds change crash standards the weight numbers only go up. Our 2012 Yaris build had 30lbs more in the body due to bigger C pillars, and other areas, (side impact and rollover standards) than our 2007.

Ever thought about making a roadster Yaris? that would take a lot of weight off. ;)
 
Matt93SE":1tx5lf5r said:
Ever thought about making a roadster Yaris? that would take a lot of weight off. ;)

So much bracing and fiberglass it saved nothing. But it was supercharged. 8) I have always wondered how a modern Mini convertible would do in HP.

How about allowing composite roof panels and doors? :ask:

image.jpg
 
Looks like someone stepped on a jelly bean!
yeah, I wasn't even expecting anything but an eyeroll for that question and here you come back with that. crap. I gotta find better material. :ask:
 
James Rogerson":cl09ss2t said:
Seeking parity for antique vs. "modern" engineering will be the death of HP. Trying to preserve value by ignoring engineering advances is only good for preserving assumed value for a vintage car. The proposed weights reminds me of this Vintage Race Rules.

Trying to fix parity across half a century? Who would want that? Why would they want it? When you answer those questions you will know if it's about sport or value.

James -r
Actually James I disagree, mixing modern in a closer to (stock) Production model will take the class full circle and may actually cause growth in the class if the older models are the targets for the class.
 
Jason@SportsCar":3pgbtjhm said:
Matt93SE":3pgbtjhm said:
Ever thought about making a roadster Yaris? that would take a lot of weight off. ;)

So much bracing and fiberglass it saved nothing. But it was supercharged. 8) I have always wondered how a modern Mini convertible would do in HP.

How about allowing composite roof panels and doors? :ask:

image.jpg

That roll bar doesnt look safe. :lol:
 
What was under the hood of the Craig Chima's Midget in 2006?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDRaFDLQ3co

Looks pretty quick in a straight line.

I guess the cat is out of the bag about the Datsun? 8)

If you want another recent example of it being more the driver/ effort. Look at the Miata in EP. Matt Reynolds and Jim Daniels (both stupid fast Spec Miata racers) show up and multiple Nat'l Champion John Brakke isn't anywhere close to their speed, of course, they add weight despite both drivers being pro level shoes.
 
hoffman900":1n7m3ofu said:
If you want another recent example of it being more the driver/ effort. Look at the Miata in EP. Matt Reynolds and Jim Daniels (both stupid fast Spec Miata racers) show up and multiple Nat'l Champion John Brakke isn't anywhere close to their speed, of course, they add weight despite both drivers being pro level shoes.

That was Jon's first race at Laguna Seca and he still finished fifth with the fourth fastest time. I suspect he will only get better at the track with more seat time.

...just saying

- Michael
 
Thank you to those for the really, really, nice comments.. So much appreciated I cant even put it in words.

I just watched this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk_lwAbeCeI

And left Adam this comment:

Hi Adam, awesome race! I had no idea when I put +275 on our cars last year that you had +270 on yours 11 years prior! And that I'm now reliving the same CRB adjustments to our "overdog" Honda.... And 5 championships too... CRAZY!!! Love to talk sometime, too much in common. Cheers.

No bearing on the subject, but that's quite the coincidence!

But wow, you guys have been around longer than I thought. :lol:
 
But all the comp adjustments just handed out should be rescinded.

And you LBC's need to lobby for some help to get your cars up to speed again. Alt motors, whatever. More power and more weight. Its not the same H prod anymore, it wont ever be. And it shouldn't be. We need to structure it to welcome more new cars.

Oh yeah.... Good point... Many track records, including Hussey's in a LBC, still stands at Laguna. And Sargis's at RA... No one has ran a 39 since and it got a weight break????
 
Or Weber's times at Mid-Ohio.

<sarcasm> As for Lawrence, maybe it would be better to hobble him by tying his shoelaces together and duct taping his arms to his sides. That'll surely make him closer to the rest of us. </sarcasm>

There is nothing worse in the SCCA than winning.

James -r
 
SPEEDSHAK":1l1q44yw said:
But all the comp adjustments just handed out should be rescinded.

And you LBC's need to lobby for some help to get your cars up to speed again. Alt motors, whatever. More power and more weight. Its not the same H prod anymore, it wont ever be. And it shouldn't be. We need to structure it to welcome more new cars.

Oh yeah.... Good point... Many track records, including Hussey's in a LBC, still stands at Laguna. And Sargis's at RA... No one has ran a 39 since and it got a weight break????

I'm a hardcore LBC guy and I agree with you 100%. I can remember back in 2005 at MO, there were like 80 Spridgets there at the runoffs in three prod classes, now what are we talking about, maybe 25 on a good year. There are still a lot of guys racing in the regional events in their Spridgets, you see a lot them at MARRS and SARRC events. Every dog has it day in the sun an Lord knows the Spridget has had one hellva run. I think everyone in HP needs to band together to help the LBCs, it will continue to dwindle in numbers in HP, but keeping it competitive for a awhile longer is healthy for the HP class overall. There are options, but outside the normal realm of SCCA thinking, well for prod anyway, larger bores size, as you can convert a 1275 to 1380cc, as well with stroker cranks to as much as 1490cc, so this engine does have displacement options. I think the first logical option is to up the CR one point to 12.0 to 1, this would be easy adjustment for most, just surface the head.

Spridget racing is still very much alive and well, just not in the SCCA as used to be. I've been to several vintage races where in we have 20-25 Spridgets and Spitfires in group 1 FP, when is the last time any of you have seen that many LBC in a single class in a SCCA race. You look around the paddock, and you see the same folks you did at the runoffs a few years back, now vintage racing. I think some think of vintage racing as parade racing, but it has changed greatly in just the last few years, you want to run up front at a big vintage race, you better bring your A game. Also while vintage is way more limited in things like suspension, or body mods, it allows more you can do do to the race engines, so I do things now on regular basis to vintage engines now, that I never could to SCCA prod motor, bigger valves , longer rods, more carbs choices, think of a vintage LBC motor, more like a GTL wet sump motor. For me it is more interesting engine formula to work with. I love the SCCA and always will, but my business, and personal racing in now deeply seeded in vintage racing, as it should be with a car that quickly is approaching being 50 years old :) The other thing that astonishes me is that the SCCA did not have the foresight to see how big vintage racing would become, and plug into that, as they already had a ready made market, it has to be one of the biggest blunders of SCCA management of all time.

In closing, you cannot slow down the evolution of what now has became the HP class. It is crazy to keep pounding, and slowing down the new era of cars, all this will do is discourage new blood from entering into the game, at best you can try to speed up the old LBCs, and help them hang on for a little longer. The LBCs have had a 45+ year run, that within itself is almost freaking unbelievable.
 
I think it is pretty obvious that the days of old LBC cars in SCCA is getting closer to the end. We need them now to keep H-Prod numbers up to keep it alive. I think it is a risky idea to ask the LBC guys to spend a lot of money trying to make their cars go faster and less reliable, knowing they will not have a place in that class someday.

At this time there are not enough of the newer cars to keep HP going without the LBC cars but we could lose it without them too. I think we need to come up with an way to so slow some of the newer cars with a not so expensive, complicated way; so as not to scare them away. In HP it is primarily the 4 valve cars that need to be slowed down for parity. Restricting intake air flow seems to be a good approach but the SIR is disliked by many. Limiting valve lift is a very good way to limit intake air flow without having to add all the plumbing that is needed in a SIR. I think the best way to limit valve lift is at the cam. It would not be that expensive to have a cam reground or install a new one that is ground to spec.

Once we reach the point were there are enough of these newer cars to take over a class, we can then determine if we want to speed up the these cars to allow more of the latest newer, faster cars in the class. The old LBC cars will then be able to move off to vintage or whatever without having spent a lot trying to keep up.

I am afraid if we force the LBC cars to go faster to keep up now, many will not want to deal with the expense and drop out. This is a similar scenario that happened in GP.
 
That's why I suggested raising the CR 1 point, it is easy and cheap, might cost one $100 to do counting the resurfacing, and head gasket. The first LP cars to come in prod were the EP cars and they were 12.0 to 1 and allowed alternate rods, so this is nothing new.
 
Acme Speed Shop":ux35pr0m said:
That's why I suggested raising the CR 1 point, it is easy and cheap, might cost one $100 to do counting the resurfacing, and head gasket. The first LP cars to come in prod were the EP cars and they were 12.0 to 1 and allowed alternate rods, so this is nothing new.
How do you speed up the fullprep HP cars Hap?
 
Back
Top