Hp and 2 litre ITB cars

Al Seim":bobhcj2g said:

The most important thing is that we don't head into a spiral of speeding everyone else up to match any possible overdogs. That's an easy trap to fall into and is potentially quite destructive.

Click to expand...

This point is worth amplifying because it has happened before. Note that I'm stating a generality, not making any comment about the details of these new classifications. Just discussing how to handle an overdog should such a thing emerge.

If (when?) an overdog emerges, there is a strong temptation to take the easy way out and speed up the other cars. Why do I say "easy"? Because being racers we all love to speed up our cars, and hate slowing down our cars. And many of us, on or off the committees, hate to be "that guy" and penalize / slow anyone down.

So let's say "car x" emerges as an overdog. I own a "car a". I don't want to be "that guy" and advocate a lead trophy (or worse) for "guys x". So I write in and ask for half a point of compression and a 50 lb reduction for "car a". The nice guys on the committee give it to me because that will make me happy and won't PO "guys x" as much as a lead trophy. The owners of cars b, c, d, and e do the same with similar results. The owners of cars f and g get mad and quit racing.

Now "we" have spent a pile of money, have less reliable cars that cost more to build, and a smaller field. Hooray! At least no one got a lead trophy and got upset.

FWIW this is the driver who wrote the letter for the 626 to be moved into HP. From the horses mouth

rekcik15":2lipthwp said:

FWIW this is the driver who wrote the letter for the 626 to be moved into HP. From the horses mouth

Click to expand...

That's not saying much. I lap his FP Mazda 626 at least once in my HP Golf depending on which Topeka configuration. His best lap last year at Topeka was a 2:16.107 and mine was a 1:51.705.

Al Seim":37g1rxsr said:

Al Seim":37g1rxsr said:

The most important thing is that we don't head into a spiral of speeding everyone else up to match any possible overdogs. That's an easy trap to fall into and is potentially quite destructive.

Click to expand...

This point is worth amplifying because it has happened before.

Click to expand...

Amen.

I'm in HP because it is slower. B-Spec is on our RADAR in the near future...because it is slower. I like making slow cars go fast. I have absolutely no interest in racing a fast T1 or T2 Corvette.

I personally think these cars were brought in too aggressive; I'd have preferred they were brought in heavy and gradually lightened as opposed to potentially too light and later weighted up...but that's water under the bridge now.

I'm keeping an open mind on this.

But if we find we've made a mistake, I implore the PAC show some humility and admit your mistake, and slow the newcomers down.

Please do not try to "fix" that mistake by speeding everyone else up. We don't want to go faster. That's why we're in HProd, not Eprod (or T2 or T1, or etc).

This class is showing a major resurgence. All we can do right now is fudge that up.

Let's not.

GA

VWRalf":3so5dq4n said:

rekcik15":3so5dq4n said:

FWIW this is the driver who wrote the letter for the 626 to be moved into HP. From the horses mouth

Click to expand...

That's not saying much. I lap his FP Mazda 626 at least once in my HP Golf depending on which Topeka configuration. His best lap last year at Topeka was a 2:16.107 and mine was a 1:51.705.

Click to expand...

My exact point. Why is this our benchmark for deciding that car needs to be put in HP. Going back to my original point in a previous post, where is the evidence for the argument that these cars can't be competitive in FP? Where are the developed cars with the fast drivers that are struggling?

I'm not trying to rag on this drivers driving ability here, just that it shouldn't be justification to get that car reclassed.

rekcik15":iuqs6bca said:

VWRalf":iuqs6bca said:

rekcik15":iuqs6bca said:

FWIW this is the driver who wrote the letter for the 626 to be moved into HP. From the horses mouth

Click to expand...

That's not saying much. I lap his FP Mazda 626 at least once in my HP Golf depending on which Topeka configuration. His best lap last year at Topeka was a 2:16.107 and mine was a 1:51.705.

Click to expand...

My exact point. Why is this our benchmark for deciding that car needs to be put in HP. Going back to my original point in a previous post, where is the evidence for the argument that these cars can't be competitive in FP? Where are the developed cars with the fast drivers that are struggling?

I'm not trying to rag on this drivers driving ability here, just that it shouldn't be justification to get that car reclassed.

Click to expand...

That car in particular was fully built by Jesse Prather, with no real expense spared, and Jesse has even driven it to get it set up and see what it can do. Needless to say, a very complete data set was collected of what it was capable of under its FP spec line, on the dyno, on the scales, and on the track. Even with Jesse driving it, competitive HP lap times were a ways off, and that was at its 2000lbs, 11.0:1, and .450" lift FP specs. It's HP specs are 2300lbs, 11.0:1, and .425" lift.

That's not saying much. I lap his FP Mazda 626 at least once in my HP Golf depending on which Topeka configuration. His best lap last year at Topeka was a 2:16.107 and mine was a 1:51.705.[/quote]

My exact point. Why is this our benchmark for deciding that car needs to be put in HP. Going back to my original point in a previous post, where is the evidence for the argument that these cars can't be competitive in FP? Where are the developed cars with the fast drivers that are struggling?

I'm not trying to rag on this drivers driving ability here, just that it shouldn't be justification to get that car reclassed.[/quote]
That car in particular was fully built by Jesse Prather, with no real expense spared, and Jesse has even driven it to get it set up and see what it can do. Needless to say, a very complete data set was collected of what it was capable of under its FP spec line, on the dyno, on the scales, and on the track. Even with Jesse driving it, competitive HP lap times were a ways off, and that was at its 2000lbs, 11.0:1, and .450" lift FP specs. It's HP specs are 2300lbs, 11.0:1, and .425" lift.[/quote]

Exactly Kevin. Guys, you're afraid of the unknown and I get that. These cars and engines aren't going to even sniff the front of the HP field anytime soon.

I just hope they don't decide to fix things by giving existing Hprod cars a weight break, I am already heavy at plus 80 lbs, and there's no way I could lighten the car without compromising something, I am glad to have the heavy cage and reinforcing tubing, hit the wall doing 70+ at VIR and while I broke a lot of stuff (including a rib), the frame is intact.

kruck":2egjyrv3 said:

That car in particular was fully built by Jesse Prather, with no real expense spared, and Jesse has even driven it to get it set up and see what it can do. Needless to say, a very complete data set was collected of what it was capable of under its FP spec line, on the dyno, on the scales, and on the track. Even with Jesse driving it, competitive HP lap times were a ways off, and that was at its 2000lbs, 11.0:1, and .450" lift FP specs. It's HP specs are 2300lbs, 11.0:1, and .425" lift.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the clarification. That helps to know. You can understand why I was weary.

Hoping for the best here whatever that may be. As a group, we've done ALOT of work to get HP where it is and I'd hate to see that fall apart. Having a healthy Production group in SCCA is crucial.

Hoping for the best here whatever that may be. As a group, we've done ALOT of work to get HP where it is and I'd hate to see that fall apart. Having a healthy Production group in SCCA is crucial.[/quote]


This is exactly the advisory board's goal, not to shake things up. We know very well how healthy the classes are right now and this 2 liter discussion has been going on for months and months gathering all sorts of data.

I'm all for adding the 2.0 litre cars to HP with enough weight that they will be mid pack for a couple of years..
The VW 2litre runs at 2395 in IT prep . And it runs right in the middle of HP tiime at the SE tracks. Sebring ITB Mk 3 Golf laps at around 2:44. HP laps around 2:42 with a cold day lap record set by Bartell. (drafting an STL car at 2;37 ish. ) 2:42 wins most of the races. At Regionals or Majors .

The FP prepped Mk 3 laps around 2:39 at level 2 prep .

At Daytona the ITB Mk 3 runs near the front of HP times as it is.
The 1.8 dynoes around 137WHP and the 2.0 Dynoes around 150 HP with 10 more Torque than the 1.8 .
The weight should be at least 2400 and probably 2450. Thanks for your time. Mike Ogren

I get, and share the concern, but we can cherry pick instances all over if we want to tell a different story.

Mk3 VW ITB holds the track record at Road America - 2:51.224
HP record is over 10 seconds faster.

Mk2 VW ITB holds the track record at Blackhawk - 1:24.869
HP record is over 4 seconds faster on a 1.8 mile lap.

All of those times are for nationally fast examples - that Mk3 IT car was on the podium at the ARRC - that Mk2 was on the front row at the ARRC - the BHF HP record holder is the infamous multi-driver national champion CRX - the RAm track record is probably the most stout you can find anywhere with the level of car competing at multiple runoffs and decades of June Sprints.

Based on that you could argue that there is no way these cars could compete as classed. Truth is neither your anecdotal examples or mine tell the full story.

I'd rather we use more objective data rather than individual car/track/day examples.

Ok guys. I get that I'm not very popular right now. First Ralf my best lap a Topeka last year was a 2:13 and change. Second Jesse has turned a 2:00 lap in the car with the Toe way off. Third the car is a work in progress and so is the driver. Fourth this request was made to reclassify the car based on discussions with Jesse. We felt that based on the engine potential when fully developed the car is better suited in HP.
So, I guess we will see. Won't we? Why not give it a chance and give a chance to complete the development on the car. Will it be a front runner I don't know and neither do you.

itbmazda":2izc2p1h said:

So, I guess we will see. Won't we? Why not give it a chance and give a chance to complete the development on the car. Will it be a front runner I don't know and neither do you.

Click to expand...

The real issue here is that HP is in a very good place right now. This move seems like one that would be done for a dying class, not a healthy one. There has been a lot of work done to bring more people into the class to the point where guys are putting more of their own money into a championship being completely run by the drivers in the class. This championship is just one of the many tools we have used to grow numbers. If this underdeveloped car (and the others in the same boat) IS a front runner, then it throws a wrench into all the work that has been done and will upset a lot of people and undo a lot of the progress that has been made. I don't think that risk is worth it. The potential positives don't outweigh the potential negatives.

At the end of the day, it shouldn't be "We will see, won't we". It should be "There has been a lot of development and driving done in these cars and given their current success and speeds, we will put them into HP and they certainly will be in line with the BOP." As you stated, these cars haven't been run enough to know. While I don't know the numbers myself, I trust the people that do, and they are saying we could be in trouble. We should error on the side of caution with a class doing as well as HP that has a delicate BOP.

Ran HP with Boles last week . My Mk 1 VW at 2100. His Mk 3 at 2350ish? He just made the switch to HP from F.
Our cars pulled the straights dead even. I only gapped him in the long turns at Sebring . When he gets the new weight/ chassis sorted , he will be as fast as the Mk 1-2 cars.

Mk 3 may roll well at Daytona tho.

Protech Racing":2nqvjlye said:

Ran HP with Boles last week . My Mk 1 VW at 2100. His Mk 3 at 2350ish? He just made the switch to HP from F.
Our cars pulled the straights dead even. I only gapped him in the long turns at Sebring . When he gets the new weight/ chassis sorted , he will be as fast as the Mk 1-2 cars.

Click to expand...

Aren't you running on the Nankang 100TW tires which are slower than the slicks? And you still gapped him?

Yes he was running the Nankang and David was running Hoosier slicks, the mk3 2325 weight is high, at least need 100 lbs reduction before it is close to mk2 performance.

Our two cars pulled the same on the straights. Gerry's VW was right there also (my cam and tune in his car). My Slick pace is normally about 2:37 ish at that time of day and air density. The 100TW tires only can go about 2:39, floggin .
Due to late for grid start, I could not pass David until we came to T 17 , where my car works very well, and he went wide .

lb11":35ofnkqe said:

Yes he was running the Nankang and David was running Hoosier slicks, the mk3 2325 weight is high, at least need 100 lbs reduction before it is close to mk2 performance.

Click to expand...

You need more than 1 car, 1 driver, and 1 data point to make a blanket statement like that...