prodracing.com

Unofficial SCCA Production Racing Forum
It is currently Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:32 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:39 pm
Posts: 487
tschreyer wrote:
GT6 wrote:
Dakar318, are you making an argument regarding the proposed brake rule? I can't tell whether you want to change or keep the rules.
Maybe you're suggesting further rules change?
Certainly if you re-plumb and re-wire your car you can keep the stock calipers and rotors?


Also confused, because how would this rule change any of that for you? Or perhaps to GT6's point, you are saying you wish there was an ABS allowance so you didn't HAVE to do that?

Not trying to be smart, but trying to understand what you are saying...


If this is addressed to me - it doesn't really matter to my personal situation. I race a 34 year old hatch back, and it's not hard to modify the brakes without affecting other "control" systems.


I am just pointing out that the interconnection of systems IS a barrier to developing a newer car with our current brake rules. It forces an all or nothing approach to get everything working. Regardless of whether 50% or 5% of new builds will be cars built in the last 15 years, this is an issue those new cars will present. Not complaining - just observing and commenting.

_________________
Chris Schaafsma


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:08 am
Posts: 128
Location: Dubuque, Iowa
Wasn't at you Chris, I was lost in the reasoning as to how the main complaint was all of the integrated electronics on Dakar318's car, and puzzled how a caliper and rotor allowance fixes any of that.

And I agree, even 20 year old cars have some barriers, and it amplifies the closer we get to current era vehicles.

But this rule doesn't address any of that, thus my confusion on where Dakar318 is headed.

My head keeps going back to spec lines. Let someone submit a new VTS, present the case that the car is basically rendered useless if computer XYZ is removed, address it on the spec line that whatever function must be present, and then the PAC reviews the correct performance for that application based on how the car spec's out.

That approach keeps the old machinery, and allows the new stuff to be introduced...

This is just like the technology transformation from carbs to fuel injection IMO... a lot of spec lines saying "stock fuel injection" in IT spec lines... This was accounted for in the VTS vetting process.

_________________
#38 EP BMW


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:57 am
Posts: 138
Protech Racing wrote:
Prod should look far enough ahead to allow the ABS, traction etc with some weight corrections .

Eh, we tried that. My proposal was declined in the same Fastrack.

Best alternative is to leave our Honda Civic in ITR prep and run it in EP (and STU) with ABS in-place. No re-engineering required. It'll be a strong midpack-upwards 85% EP car as-is and we'll have other places/options to race it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:39 pm
Posts: 487
Greg Amy wrote:
Protech Racing wrote:
Prod should look far enough ahead to allow the ABS, traction etc with some weight corrections .

Eh, we tried that. My proposal was declined in the same Fastrack.

Best alternative is to leave our Honda Civic in ITR prep and run it in EP (and STU) with ABS in-place. No re-engineering required. It'll be a strong midpack-upwards 85% EP car as-is and we'll have other places/options to race it.


Have you tried the other path?
Request a spec line allowance?

_________________
Chris Schaafsma


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:57 am
Posts: 138
chois wrote:
Have you tried the other path?
Request a spec line allowance?

Nah. Given the moaning about a B-Spec with ABS in HProd, along with a stated lack of interest in ABS (or, for the last 12 pages, brake changes), the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

It is telling, however, that even Improved Touring - the historic category of "no, no, no!" - has admitted that ABS is a viable factor in its future growth.

HProd is even fraidy-scared of 95hp engines, just because they're 2 liters. Eventually the OBC contingent will go vintage (or get too expensive on the resale market to justify racing) and we can re-discuss about where Prod's headed. :)

ITR works fine, with occasional pokes into STU and EProd (and regional catch-alls). Offers a lot more flexibility for a lot less work and money.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:10 pm
Posts: 86
What B Spec car is 2 liter's ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 476
Location: Huntsville, AL
914 with a limited Prep 2.0 engine was proposed in HP and the world almost ended.

_________________
Brett W
Huntsville, AL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:57 am
Posts: 138
Jerry Lee Oleson wrote:
What B Spec car is 2 liter's ?

Yup, we took three different shots at Prod:

- Entered a B-Spec Honda Fit into HProd, leveraging its allowance as an ITB car. Heads asploded.
- Requested my 2L 914 into HProd Limited Prep. Heads asploded.
- Requested factory unmodified ABS into Prod with a weight adder (mine's an EProd 2008 Honda Civic Si.) Heads didn't asplode - it was actually considered - but it was declined.

We're pursuing alternatives. The next one will probably asplode heads, too...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:47 am
Posts: 411
Brett W wrote:
914 with a limited Prep 2.0 engine was proposed in HP and the world almost ended.


They had already asploded when I tried to get the Volvo classed in HP before I built the Integra hell they actually voted on the Volvo and it actually passed for about 36 hours then they realized the world just ended and jerked it back

_________________
Les Chaney
Integra FP #33


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:39 pm
Posts: 487
Greg Amy wrote:
Jerry Lee Oleson wrote:
What B Spec car is 2 liter's ?

Yup, we took three different shots at Prod:

- Entered a B-Spec Honda Fit into HProd, leveraging its allowance as an ITB car. Heads asploded.
- Requested my 2L 914 into HProd Limited Prep. Heads asploded.
- Requested factory unmodified ABS into Prod with a weight adder (mine's an EProd 2008 Honda Civic Si.) Heads didn't asplode - it was actually considered - but it was declined.

We're pursuing alternatives. The next one will probably asplode heads, too...


Greg is so dramallama with his story telling.
- I don't think anyone really likes adding a much slower car to their run group - whether its an under developed bugeye or an underdeveloped Fit
- Pretty sure the 914 answer was that there is a place for that car in H and a place for that engine in Prod, which may well have missed your point, but it wasn't a needle moving event
- The ABS thing is a good idea, and should be requested again by anyone reading this who agrees with this

Looking forward to seeing the next alternative.

_________________
Chris Schaafsma


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group