Equalization Philosophy

It certainly would shift some advantage away from power/aero drag toward power/weight. In cars that are not flat through there it would also shift some advantage from handling toward power/weight. In cars that are flat through the kink maybe the other way, some advantage back to handling via the "addition of another corner".

I'd assume that most HP cars are flat through the kink in good conditions.?

I don't have enough data to say how much, but running the chicane would presumably help my car (1.6VW) against say a 1.8VW with approx same power/weight but better power/aero drag. Would take some thought (or a computer sim!) to see how it would affect a Sprite vs the "big" fwd cars.... Could help them since the chicane would be another corner to be faster out of vs kink being "just a straight" if all are flat out.

Not simple for sure!
 
Al Seim":yb7rgejf said:
It certainly would shift some advantage away from power/aero drag toward power/weight. In cars that are not flat through there it would also shift some advantage from handling toward power/weight. In cars that are flat through the kink maybe the other way, some advantage back to handling via the "addition of another corner".

I'd assume that most HP cars are flat through the kink in good conditions.?

I don't have enough data to say how much, but running the chicane would presumably help my car (1.6VW) against say a 1.8VW with approx same power/weight but better power/aero drag. Would take some thought (or a computer sim!) to see how it would affect a Sprite vs the "big" fwd cars.... Could help them since the chicane would be another corner to be faster out of vs kink being "just a straight" if all are flat out.

Not simple for sure!
Click to expand...

I didn't think about the fact that HP cars are probably flat through it anyway. I know that EP and FP are in the speed range where you actually have to make a decision each lap. That makes it fun in my opinion. I remember talking to Tony Rivera about his World Challenge Porsche and got the impression that it was far less entertaining or a "gut-check" in that car since he knew every lap he had to hit the brakes. Of course he was doing 138 going into the Kink, which offers a different kind of entertainment factor!
 
EPrill":7lkyjcqf said:
I didn't think about the fact that HP cars are probably flat through it anyway. I know that EP and FP are in the speed range where you actually have to make a decision each lap. That makes it fun in my opinion. I remember talking to Tony Rivera about his World Challenge Porsche and got the impression that it was far less entertaining or a "gut-check" in that car since he knew every lap he had to hit the brakes. Of course he was doing 138 going into the Kink, which offers a different kind of entertainment factor!
Click to expand...

With that little one in your arms you ought forget about "138 entertainment factor", yes I know you said Tony.
 
]I didn't think about the fact that HP cars are probably flat through it anyway. I know that EP and FP are in the speed range where you actually have to make a decision each lap.
Click to expand...

I believe that is how this thread first got started making small displacement cars more competetive with larger displacement ones particular HP cars. It would also work for E and FP. There will always be cars that will be faster on the straights and others that will always handle better, period. That's what makes racing interesting.
I do not believe there is a EP car that goes thru the kink without lifting, maybe some of you FP guys do with large attachments. :mrgreen: I am sure you know that the highest speed is just before corner 12 and not the speed trap before 5. Having said that I think the chicane before the Kink would be a great equalizer for all especially HP cars. One might actually get more entries for HP.
#48EP
Mike
 
if we can do predictive lap times and simulations for any given track, then we should also be able to plot out on a scale where a track falls in the power vs handling department. Then the gross outliers can be found and adjustments made accordingly. Of course with racers, we'd misuse the data and argue the fine points of two almost identical tracks as well.
 
I have been traveling and just noticed this thread. I sent this letter to the comp board last week.

Folks,

Believe it or not, there are quite a few racers within the SCCA ranks with the singular goal of winning RunOff's and capturing the elusive National Champion status. They look at races through out the year only as stepping stones to achieve that goal.

Road America is a wonderful venue and Road America is a big motor track that rewards raw power and provides a great advantage to the cars that have it. On the other hand, if the RunOffs were held at Lime Rock ( NO I am not suggesting that it be held there) the small nimble cars would enjoy that same great advantage.

What I am proposing is to have a "RunOffs only Spec" for all cars and that spec varies with the track where the RunOffs are being held. The spec. change could be as simple as a change in weight.

At the 2007 RunOffs, I brought a Huffaker built and sponsored Midget to Heartland Park and ran it in both FP and HP. We ran a 1275 in FP and a 1098 in HP. Brian Linn drove the car in both races and many that were there along with the announcers on TV said that those two races were two of the best they had ever seen. In FP we raced the Miata of Jesse Prather and in HP the Spitfire of Tom Feller. HPT is a track that neither favors or punishes horsepower or agility. It has enough slow corners to showcase the Midgets agility and it has enough straights to benefit the Miata's power. HPT was a good track that provided wonderful competition under the rules specs at that time.

Above I said "HPT is a track that neither favors or punishes horsepower or agility", Road America does not offer that same equality. Road America is a track that truly rewards horsepower and torque. The track itself takes cars that are highly competitive at most other tracks in the country and relegates them to back markers and also rans. At Road America the pendulum has swung and without some changes RA will continue to dictate the cars that have a true chance of winning that national title. That inequality is why I am not racing in FP currently and is why many other racers I know are not or contemplating to stop. They say, "Why should I spend all that money, time and effort and still know that I have no chance of winning the RunOffs?"

But changing the spec's in the GCR does not address the issue. Adding or removing weight trying to equalize the cars works only if we race at the same track year after year. Some might say "I do not care about the RunOffs' and I say what I am proposing then does not affect you. Throughout the year you will be racing under the same spec that you enjoy/promote currently. That process can remain as it has been. I just want equality at whatever track the RunOffs are held.

Yes, I have been racing BMC cars for awhile but I am not trying to "get something" for the old guys cars. I am trying to get parity for all. I am trying to give all an equal chance to win. I am suggesting that, IF any competitor thought that he /she had a viable chance of winning the RunOffs, SCCA would have more cars running races through out the year and more folks would attend the RunOffs.

Weather it be a Midget, Miata, VW or a Fiat. Whatever the car it is, at any future RunOffs there should be a "RunOffs Spec" for all cars to better equalize the cars to the track. At future RunOffs, the Spec Rule may not be needed. Maybe that future site will not favor one or the other and so no adjustment would be needed. But currently, at RA, we have a problem and it is showing up in many ways. Less cars, less satisfaction, revenue loss, etc..

I believe our club would benefit if we could address this issue and all would enjoy higher satisfaction, increased revenue, tighter racing, greater interest......... to name a few.


Thanks,

Bill Blust

269887
 
With track data for both configurations and a tool like lapsim, this a trivial exercise.

For the life of me, I cant understand why the club doesn't invest in this kind of tool and the expertise to use it to make informed decisions.

It would make their life so much simpler.

-Kyle
 
More concurrence with Bill, especially the part about HPT. I've never driven a slow car there and can only tell you that it is real busy in a CSR. Even one that has teething issues and then no transponder when I finally got it to run.

James -R
 
Bill
That is a fantastic idea.
Thank you for voicing it.
Please let us know what number the CRB assigns to it so we might send in our concurrences.
 
The need for "Equalization" has been explained, and some of the technology to accomplish it has been identified.

But, is there the WILL to do so?

RJS
 
One suggestion to make the job less burdensome - only consider creating the "runoffs spec" for the relatively few cars in the PCS that actually show up for the Runoffs, otherwise it's a huge task with no data for most of the car lines.

Kyle - I know from a recent conversation that at least one of the category advisory committees is using full strength registered version Lapsim. Another, I think, is using the less powerful unregistered version. I still would not call it a trvial task, but certainly a doable one with this kind of tool.

Al Seim
Race Technology USA
 
OK, so I've read a lot over the past couple of years since GP (my class) was eliminated. Here is a starting list of what I hear we want.
1. We want parity for closer racing at ALL tracks.
2. We want more cars in each class on track.
3. We want to get cars that are parked to come back.
4. We want to control expense, to a degree.
5. We want to be in control of our own prod classes.

So here is my radical thought:

THROW OUT THE RULE BOOK
Save the safety bits.
Save the cars listed in each class, as a starting point.
Save the track dimensions for these cars (so we don't have Rabbits & Spridgets lookig like GT5 Minis)
THROW OUT EVERYTHING ELSE !! then
Set the current track record at each track as the number that designates what class you will run.
For instance: Road America, EP= 2:28.7 FP= 2:31.5 HP= 2:39.0
If you want to run HP, you can't run faster than 2:39.0. If you do, then slow yourself down or move up to FP.
If you are at that speed stay with what you run.
If you are faster, add 50#, 100#, or maybe knock a couple of hundred RPM off your rev limiter.
If you are slower, less weight, or larger carbs or valves, or a 5-speed might do it- but maybe crossflow head & a
side draft Weber or a Rotary might bring someone out of the garage. Try whatever you want.
You would police yourself to stay within the lap times of the class you want to run.
Innovators like Chima & Haynes would have a hayday dreaming up new stuff to try.
Anything goes. NO RULES= No complaining
No cheating
No protests
No impound
It's run what you brung- Go fast- Have fun.
Thoughts?
Thom

I'm dreaming of a fuelie Spridget or a BMW K1100 had conversion!
 
Not sure that I like the idea of "bracket road racing" but I could make a lot of money selling electronic equipment that could tell you within a hundredth of a second ,or so, how close you are running to your target time....

If you really want to throw most of the rules book out there's always the NASA approach of relying mostly on power/weight as measured on a chassis dyno...
 
I've done bracket road racing. Mostly in a vintage Sprite, and mostly running against cars like 944's, CRX's, RX-7's, 911's, 240Z's and SX's, 3-series BMW's and similar size cars. It can work well and produce close racing for cars of similar size, weight, tires and preparation level. However, it definitely favors higher horsepower, poor handling cars over low horsepower, good handling cars.
 
There is a Canadian road racing series that uses brackets for road racing. All driver aids for lap timing etc are banned.
 
Bracket racing isn't even racing. More like high speed TSD Rally. I am shocked anyone would even bring it up in a group of real racers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top