The only race that matters

[Protech Racing]

Ron, I expect the 2016 Runoffs to be full of the LBC. I believe that the lighter cars wil run very well there. esp for the 50 miles .
I am not opposed to GP at all be we need more cars to ever consider that option. @ this point we have 5-6 cars per and that is weak. Th regional races are about the same . With the LBC cars running and the Majors drivers often skipping.
Just changing the points options for runoffs to 1X points for regionals and 2.5 or something for "Majors" might change the car counts.

 

[disquek]

Hi Ron,

I'm not familiar with the HP specifics.

My only point was that I'd think that having the rules constantly changing to accommodate an estimate of what will work at this year's runoffs track seems like a recipe for disaster participation wise.

I understand the focus on the runoffs, but I don't work all year for 45 minutes of fun. The regular season has to be fun too. And as much as I'd love to win the big one, I wound't trade a successful regular season for it. I love to race.

I'd look more to see that the runoffs gets to as many handling tracks as it does HP tracks than adapt everyone's car every year.

-Kyle

 

[Rob Futcher]

Physics provides the answers:
1) Cars need to have not only a similar power to weight ratio, but similar power and weight for them to perform equitably on most (read different) types of track.
2) A higher power car on a fast track will always beat a lower powered car that has the same power to weight ratio (as speed rises, power becomes the dominant factor, not weight).
3) On a mid-speed track with any sort of a straight where both types of car turn the same lap time, the higher powered car stands a great chance of out-dragging a low powered car to the first turn. From there it is relatively easy to defend in the slower sections and stretch out on the straight. Only when (if) the heavier car (which normally has bigger wheels and tires) completely burns off its rubber would the lower powered car stand a chance of coming back late in the race.
4) Only on a go-kart track will a low powered/low weight car have a true advantage.

Aerodynamics aside, for any formula to work and be reasonably fair to all, cars with similar weight and power and also with the same size wheels, tires and brakes should be grouped together.

Without a philosophical change to how equalization is achieved, the bickering shall continue……

 

[disquek]

Here is an opportunity for Topeka to employ simulation software (e.g., Bosch Lapsim) to provide empirical answers to these questions.

I realize this would be a lightning rod. Time and patience will make this a super useful tool for the club. But impatience and self-interest will easily kill it.

Just a thought.

-Kyle

PS: I did the civilian version of LapSim back in 2008 and it was scarey realistic and helpful. It can be done, and pro teams do it all the time.

 

[Ron Bartell]

My only point was that I'd think that having the rules constantly changing to accommodate an estimate of what will work at this year's runoffs track seems like a recipe for disaster participation wise.-Kyle

Agreed completely. The CRB has an unbelievably hard job dealing with the disparity in performance potential for the various types of cars that are in the Production ranks. Obtaining low lap times can be accomplished in so many ways, and with the Runoffs being shifted around, it makes it virtually impossible to have all of the Production contingents happy at any one time.

I am obviously very transparent in my relentless pursuit for getting the LBC's back in the game. With the exception of Daytona last year I have tried to provide a yardstick for the CRB to monitor the competitive potential of the Level one-two H cars because we have lost so many talented drivers in H because their car doesn't have a chance. Many of them have dropped out and sold their car or in the best case scenario are racing in other classes or with other cars in H. Some are in the process of building new cars.

Although on a windy hill the feathers are out of that pillow, maybe we can keep some of the current cars and attract some new enthusiasts for the traditional Production car. They are a joy to drive, are becoming reasonably reliable because over the 50 plus years that they have been raced, we have broken everything that can be broken, and replaced it with stuff that works. There are a bunch of these cars out there, and from what I have seen, no shortage of 1275 parts, so it should be easy to get out there and have some fun with these open top roadsters. Since nothing can be legally done to the head other than getting the right compression ratio and port-matching, it makes it very easy to build a motor that can be within maybe 5% of the best out there. As long as you don't get a boat anchor for a head and get a good valve job it will flow pretty close to the best. Being within 5% of the best motor out there would be something that I bet a lot of people would like.

Physics provides the answers:
1) Cars need to have not only a similar power to weight ratio, but similar power and weight for them to perform equitably on most (read different) types of track.
2) A higher power car on a fast track will always beat a lower powered car that has the same power to weight ratio (as speed rises, power becomes the dominant factor, not weight).
3) On a mid-speed track with any sort of a straight where both types of car turn the same lap time, the higher powered car stands a great chance of out-dragging a low powered car to the first turn. From there it is relatively easy to defend in the slower sections and stretch out on the straight. Only when (if) the heavier car (which normally has bigger wheels and tires) completely burns off its rubber would the lower powered car stand a chance of coming back late in the race.
4) Only on a go-kart track will a low powered/low weight car have a true advantage.

Aerodynamics aside, for any formula to work and be reasonably fair to all, cars with similar weight and power and also with the same size wheels, tires and brakes should be grouped together.

Without a philosophical change to how equalization is achieved, the bickering shall continue……

Rob - You make too much sense. Don't confuse us with the facts.

 

[Brett W]

Is this just a LBC problem? It seems like that is who always seem to be discussing this.

 

[Ron Bartell]

Is this just a LBC problem? It seems like that is who always seem to be discussing this.

I would guess that it would apply to any class that has a wide dispersion of weights and power. The underpowered/smaller displacement car will always have a problem on tracks that favor torque or top speed. In the Production ranks the LBC's are the most prevalent version of this problem.

 

[Jason Stine]

Here's an idea... Feel free to chew it up and spit it out, but it makes sense to me.

Bring back G and restore production to what it was. Like Ron said, there's dozens of people with cars parked in both traditional G and H trim. There's no TV contract anymore that limits the number of classes, so why not? The argument that car counts were too low and G had to die is irrelevant, now that T3 had an average of 3 cars per majors weekend and only 9 cars at the runoffs last year. I don't see T3 on the chopping block. They're not going to merge T3 into a very healthy T4 class and fiddle-fart with the ruleset to a point where people park their cars or take them to another club. So why does G still remain inactive? Some might argue that bringing it back will kill H due to most of today's "H" cars being traditional G cars. I say, give us a shot and prove us wrong. If after a few years the parked cars don't come back, then bring the H cars into G and speed them up. Ron's video shows it all. There's a few times that he gets passed by an H car going 5-10 mph faster than him. No amount of handling or weight advantage can make up for that halfway down the next straight. Bottom line... The approach to parity needs to be changed.

 

[RICK HAYNES]

I am happy to see there are others dissatisfied with the current 3 class situation also. I remember being told back when the class cutting was being done, that combining class's was good because there would be more cars in each class to race with. As in,2 class's with 15 cars becomes 1 class with 30. But what really happens is you end up with is 1 class with 20 cars because of all the racer that quit, most being in the slower class that got gobbled up. In the end you have 10 less entries. Except for the rules makers I think that's what most people expected to happen That's why so many regions are having trouble getting the numbers to put on races or break even when they do. I like the idea of bringing back G and maybe D too. Have 5 class's to spread the existing cars over and may be close up the differences in weights and HP in any 1 class. That might have the desired affect of getting more cars to come out. I don't know if it will work, It could be that the damage done by the past class consolidation is irreversible. But if it added just 10 cars to a race weekend it would be worth doing and it wouldn't add any extra race sessions because they all run together any way. Clearly there is resistance to doing any thing like this and those that have benefited by the status quo will criticize the supporters motives. But I haven't read any good reasons so far not to try it.

 

[David Dewhurst]

To prove your point of bringing G Prod back:
How about those that are so sure if the G class is there they will come/they will change/they will whatever, you folks start the class in your Division as a Regional class.

 

[mlewis]

curtis, please elaborate on that. i really havent been involved in any form of club management but for the 6 years on the bioard so the 25 year thing doesn't really ring true? also i have an opinion as do you , as does everyone. how is mine any less sincere than yours or anyone's?

 

[Curtis]

curtis, please elaborate on that. i really havent been involved in any form of club management but for the 6 years on the bioard so the 25 year thing doesn't really ring true? also i have an opinion as do you , as does everyone. how is mine any less sincere than yours or anyone's?

I am old Michael. I remember everything. Not just your efforts to eliminate GTL recently but more. For example the "GT Summit" in the 90s which would have eliminated 60+% of GT participants, in an effort to "professionalize" GT, and at the expense of grassroots non-tube frame racers.

I do respect your opinion, and really really respect your abilities behind the wheel. I took minor offense to your representation, as accepted fact, that fewer classes are the solution to many of our problems. This is your opinion, that you tirelessly lobby for, but one which a very large number of racers and members do not share or accept.

My response was a little aggressive. I'll apologize but also ask that you be more transparent with your real vision for our club

 

[Protech Racing]

If the thought is that the bigger power cars go to G, that leaves the cars that factor at 1600# and under to H. Right? IMHO Part of the reason for Prods resurgence is that that the Adhoc has done a great job with keeping the cars close,new cars have been listed, and the failure of IT ADhoc to correct the old cars better. All have more CC and need more weight to be close.
The issue I see is that there are not any new cars that would factor into HP , with 90Hp. There are no 2V 1500cc engines being made.. There just aren't cars being made that small and light . The only cars close are the B spec cars if they leave the plates and weight per their spec.
Maybe adding some spec lines, like a single carb version of the BMW 1600, PL510, Toy 2TC, VW 1600, may allow a few to move to H.
The result may be that H fades away as the cars die off and the old timers that race them "leave". Just looking at the cost of the LBC. 40K for the fastest car? 10K engines?

I still will bet that the Runoffs @ MO will see the LBC cars near the front. Right behind our VW

 

[Brett W]

Does anyone know the average age of the LBC drivers? Of those cars that are sitting idle now, how old are their drivers and do they have any interest in coming back to national level racing?

One thing that folks seem to sacrifice in the name of Nationals racing is regional racing. Many guys can't afford to take off two weeks and travel to a single race, plus they don't have the funds to run all of the Majors, but they can run three to five localish events. How about we eye decisions that will help bolster regional racing and getting more guys to show up there? If we fix the local regional participation we may see more guys wanting to come run the big show after a couple of years. I for one would like to run majors, but I am doing good to put together a TT car, much less a fully developed National Level Prod car. It will take me another two to three years to pull that off.

We, as a club seem to miss the fact that there are two dozen opportunities for people to get their cars on track today. SCCA is no longer the premiere name in racing. Unfortunately most of the people wanting to get on track now aren't interested in rocking some 50year old LBC. They want more modern cars they grew up with and have been tuning since they got their licenses. That would be one of the reasons STL has done so well and why you are seeing all these FWD cars starting to show up in Prod. LBCs are for the most part Vintage now and even though there are some badass LBCs still running in Prod, they certainly aren't the future.

SCCA does not guarantee competitiveness of any specific model.

Its a painful line to accept in the glaring light of day. LBCs, 356s, etc had their run for the better part of 40 years, I don't think there is a good way to keep that going against the new models. Hell its getting to a point where the new cars are advancing so fast I suspect those of us with 20yo Hondas will be voicing a similar concern in a few years. We won't even get 40 years.

 

[Matt Blehm]

Does anyone know the average age of the LBC drivers? Of those cars that are sitting idle now, how old are their drivers and do they have any interest in coming back to national level racing?

One thing that folks seem to sacrifice in the name of Nationals racing is regional racing. Many guys can't afford to take off two weeks and travel to a single race, plus they don't have the funds to run all of the Majors, but they can run three to five localish events. How about we eye decisions that will help bolster regional racing and getting more guys to show up there? If we fix the local regional participation we may see more guys wanting to come run the big show after a couple of years. I for one would like to run majors, but I am doing good to put together a TT car, much less a fully developed National Level Prod car. It will take me another two to three years to pull that off.

We, as a club seem to miss the fact that there are two dozen opportunities for people to get their cars on track today. SCCA is no longer the premiere name in racing. Unfortunately most of the people wanting to get on track now aren't interested in rocking some 50year old LBC. They want more modern cars they grew up with and have been tuning since they got their licenses. That would be one of the reasons STL has done so well and why you are seeing all these FWD cars starting to show up in Prod. LBCs are for the most part Vintage now and even though there are some badass LBCs still running in Prod, they certainly aren't the future.

SCCA does not guarantee competitiveness of any specific model.

Its a painful line to accept in the glaring light of day. LBCs, 356s, etc had their run for the better part of 40 years, I don't think there is a good way to keep that going against the new models. Hell its getting to a point where the new cars are advancing so fast I suspect those of us with 20yo Hondas will be voicing a similar concern in a few years. We won't even get 40 years.

I've been saying this for years. Nobody else is listening.

 

[Bill Blust]

I believe that the only issue for the LBC cars is in H. So lets stay on the HP issue with LBC cars. Not sure if reinstating G will do anything more than have two classes with low representation. If all that have voiced their opinions here recognize that the top notch/best prepared LBC 1275 LP cars in HP (cars like Ron Bartell's) are no longer competitive with the similarly prepared newer cars, then just give the 1275 LP better compression and valve lift to compete on par with them. If you do not support that change, you are destined to have the same thing happen to you and your investment in the near future.

 

[disquek]

Unfortunately most of the people wanting to get on track now aren't interested in rocking some 50year old LBC.

True or not true, this is no reason to not work toward better parity. I don't know if there is parity now or not, but this attitude has no place in a discussion about parity.

-Kyle

 

[Darryl Saylor]

I'm trying to sell one on my Spridget but I'm going to keep my old one. It's ready to race but I'm pretty much switching to Honda. I'll race the Spridget if I'm working on the Honda. I'm a dead last Spridget and if any Honda or VW shows up, there is no way I have a chance. I just pray to finish. If you can't beat'em, join'em. I'm a Spridget guy to heart but I've had enough of having my butt handed to me. So there's 2 HP Spridgets parked in my garage. One can be racing this year, with a little tweaking.

When I was at Savannah a couple of years ago. The HP Spirdget guys were talking age. One was 72, others were 66 and 60 and I was the baby at 52. I'm usually the youngest Spridget guy in the SEDIV.

 

[David Dewhurst]

Bill, no question adding Majors classes is a, YOU WANT WHAT? No question Ron is a racer at hart and dose his everything at each outing. Those wanting more classes should prove an additional class out at the Regional level to make their point.

There were and are some 1.6L folks in SM (pretty sure enough 1.6L entries to have a separate 1.6 SM class) that would like a 1.6L only class at the Majors level. Some have started a 1.6 class at the Regional level and are doing fine. For my 2 cents, never going to be a Majors level class. Their attempting to see if some of the so called cars in the barn come out to play. From info I read, not so much to date.

 

[Brett W]

Unfortunately most of the people wanting to get on track now aren't interested in rocking some 50year old LBC.

True or not true, this is no reason to not work toward better parity. I don't know if there is parity now or not, but this attitude has no place in a discussion about parity.

-Kyle

I won't disagree with you and that's not what I meant. It just seems like its hard to create parity when the cars are so far behind the newer cars even in full prep trim.

What else would fall into the "new" G class besides LBCs?