Jump to content
Greg G.

2009 ST Rules

Recommended Posts

David M. Pintaric

Danny,

 

I am not saying it doesn't make a difference, but the torque does comes with some negative side effects. Namely lack of RPMs. I can't tell you how many times I wish I didn't have to shift at 5500 RPM when chasing those pesky T1 C5s and their 7200 RPM redline. Shifting to 5th gear jsut kills the car. I notice my car jumps out of low-speed corners really well. Mid and high speed ones not so much, in fact I see stocks LS6/LS2 Vettes pulling me in some cases.

 

That being said, I did run the "other" series with about 100 lbs more weight than in NASA, which would have put me smack dab in the middle of an "averaged" HP/Torque ST2 ratio, and I did fairly well "over there."

 

I get real thin-skinned about these things; "over there" my car is like the red-headed step-child, ie not wanted. So I get defensive when I read the word "torque." My Internet browser has a program that sends me email warnings whenever a person submits a post with the word "torque" in it, kinda like the government...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAFTRACER

I understand David....completely. That may be the limitations of your power plant. My engine however I could build another 100-150 rw torque and still spin the same RPM, and still make the same hp-limited. I am sure there are many power plants that have these capablities maybe not V10's.

 

I guess the F1 cars dont have much torque.......

 

I like your internet browser alerting you to "torque"

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MJM
If we want to start some rumors: If you have a tube-frame car that has not been eligible for anything except Super Unlimited in the past, but you don't have 600+ hp or weigh 1250 lbs, we do have something in the pipeline for you.

 

The 2009 ST Rules are out. We do not plan on "revoking" any of the currently approved tube-frame "spec" cars in the 2009 season.

 

Can you elaborate a bit more on this?

 

Does this mean that from 2010 onward there will be a separate class for the tube frame / kit car / purpose built racecars that have been granted exceptions to class down to ST1 and ST2?

 

Will ST1 and ST2 return to an absolute requirement that all cars start as mass produced vehicles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Z06RACER

I like you internet browser alerting you to "torque"

damn............I'd hate to tell you guys what my browser alerts me to

Ahhhhhhhhh..........you probably know!!

 

Pintaric..............you should be down here in Palm beach. 3 T1 cars(Ingle,Dipippo, Yaroz)>>>and 80' .

(I know.....its 80' in ohio today.) Still time to come to Sebring.

 

Danny...time to turn your car into an STO car and come SCCA racing as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAFTRACER

Z06RACER..............You suck !!!!

 

Wish I could be in Florida racing my car................

 

 

Back on topic........Not monitoring tq is going to have people building 800 rwhp cars and limiting them to having dead linear 5.5:1 or 8.7:1 rear wheel numbers.....Will make it a little hard to monitor for Greg and gang at all other times other than when on a dyno.......Way too many electro gadgets for them to monitor . Torque isn't as easy to hide or limit. As far as policing goes for comliance, if they ever had to utilize the GPS monitoring device, not monitoring torque puts a large "fudge-factor" in the results. (Not that they had anyone capable of reading and deciphering data at Nationals in 07 )

 

Maybe I'll go "green" and get an electric motor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orawiec

I.ve always thought a Vette with a diesel and a two speed powerglide would make a good enduro car. Big fuel tank to offset the front engine weight. May never need to come in for fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L98Terror
I.ve always thought a Vette with a diesel and a two speed powerglide would make a good enduro car. Big fuel tank to offset the front engine weight. May never need to come in for fuel.

 

 

 

Now I read some and not all of the arguments up until now and it seems clear that by just using the peak # it seems to me that some cars would have a distinct advantage over others. That advantage could be minimal now but once people start building engines specifically for a hp/lb ratio it seems that advantage will widen.

 

There has to be a simple way to police the issue, like Greg said maybe used the HP # 1000 RPM before and after peak and average all three.

 

I keep hearing rumblings about people looking to exploit the rule and it seems that other classes wouldn't have instilled such rules that account for both HP and Ft-lbs if there wasn't an issue.

 

I for one would like to see some sort of rule making it a little harder to take advantage, since ST one basic rule is HP/lb it wouldn't seem like that big of a deal to make it more sound. Power curves come in all shapes and sizes it seem to reason that we wouldn't only look at one number at one point.

 

JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L98Terror

And on another note for those that don't think Torque matters, I happen to have two Corvettes a 1991 modified L98 with a LPE Super ram (short runners high torque) that car has never dynoed over 300 (296 I believe) RWHP (11.82 : 1) and a 03 Z06 stock Dyno 355 RWHP(9.38:1). My 91 weights in at about 3500 with me in the car and my 03 at 3330.

 

The 1991 runs 12.0 in the 1/4 mile and the 03 runs 11.93 both with full hook. 1.6x 60 in each car.

 

Looking at HP/lb you would never even think the two cars are in the same league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrc24x
And on another note for those that don't think Torque matters, I happen to have two Corvettes a 1991 modified L98 with a LPE Super ram (short runners high torque) that car has never dynoed over 300 (296 I believe) RWHP (11.82 : 1) and a 03 Z06 stock Dyno 355 RWHP(9.38:1). My 91 weights in at about 3500 with me in the car and my 03 at 3330.

 

The 1991 runs 12.0 in the 1/4 mile and the 03 runs 11.93 both with full hook. 1.6x 60 in each car.

 

Looking at HP/lb you would never even think the two cars are in the same league.

 

 

Ken,

 

Most modified L98's w/ a superram make 320-340 ish rwhp. Did you ever dyno it with it running properly?

Also, didn't you run that with DR's and skinnies on the front? What were the trap speeds??

 

The higher torque helps off the turns but the top speed of the C5Z and higher revving HP will walk away from a C4 that has to shift at 5000 rpm.

 

The HP limit already takes into consideration torque and rpm. It's up to you to decide if swapping that waaay fast L98 engine into your C5Z is worth it.....You can by a L98 crate motor for $1200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L98Terror
And on another note for those that don't think Torque matters, I happen to have two Corvettes a 1991 modified L98 with a LPE Super ram (short runners high torque) that car has never dynoed over 300 (296 I believe) RWHP (11.82 : 1) and a 03 Z06 stock Dyno 355 RWHP(9.38:1). My 91 weights in at about 3500 with me in the car and my 03 at 3330.

 

The 1991 runs 12.0 in the 1/4 mile and the 03 runs 11.93 both with full hook. 1.6x 60 in each car.

 

Looking at HP/lb you would never even think the two cars are in the same league.

 

 

Ken,

 

Most modified L98's w/ a superram make 320-340 ish rwhp. Did you ever dyno it with it running properly?

Also, didn't you run that with DR's and skinnies on the front? What were the trap speeds??

 

The higher torque helps off the turns but the top speed of the C5Z and higher revving HP will walk away from a C4 that has to shift at 5000 rpm.

 

The HP limit already takes into consideration torque and rpm. It's up to you to decide if swapping that waaay fast L98 engine into your C5Z is worth it.....You can by a L98 crate motor for $1200.

 

Actually I had it Dynoed when it was still a 350 at 384 RWHP and it ran 12.1xx at 112 back then. I never had it dynoed in it's current set up with it runnning correct nor have I run it at the track. With it not running right it went 12.0.

 

Yes it did have drag radial, the exact same DR I ran on the C5 & I had full size fronts on both. The c4 trapped 112 and the Z trapped 114- 116 ( I ran 11.93 5 times with traps all between (114 & 116)

 

Also I shift my C4 at 6200ish and my C5 at 6600ish, where the C5 walks away is when the C4 shifts into 3rd it's such a big drop from 2-3 in a 700R4.

 

BTW it's hardly a crate L98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAFTRACER

Good.......more discussion on pwr/torque to weight ratios......

 

If horsepower is a function of torque and /or vice versa why dont we just use a torque to weight ratio.................

 

My opinoin would be hp+tq/2......................

 

Easy to hide horsepower, not so easy to hide torque.......

 

 

Gregs going to lynch us all................

 

I dont feel like building a 700 rwhp engine to run in a 550rwhp class......and probably no one else does either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg G.
Good.......more discussion on pwr/torque to weight ratios......

 

If horsepower is a function of torque and /or vice versa why dont we just use a torque to weight ratio.................

 

My opinoin would be hp+tq/2......................

 

Easy to hide horsepower, not so easy to hide torque.......

 

 

Gregs going to lynch us all................

 

I dont feel like building a 700 rwhp engine to run in a 550rwhp class......and probably no one else does either.

Now, lets see. You guys run around 530 rwhp. If you want to run against someone with 700 rwhp and 360 ft/lbs of torque, with open transmission gearing, then you are not as smart as I thought you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAFTRACER
Good.......more discussion on pwr/torque to weight ratios......

 

If horsepower is a function of torque and /or vice versa why dont we just use a torque to weight ratio.................

 

My opinoin would be hp+tq/2......................

 

Easy to hide horsepower, not so easy to hide torque.......

 

 

Gregs going to lynch us all................

 

I dont feel like building a 700 rwhp engine to run in a 550rwhp class......and probably no one else does either.

Now, lets see. You guys run around 530 rwhp. If you want to run against someone with 700 rwhp and 360 ft/lbs of torque, with open transmission gearing, then you are not as smart as I thought you were.

 

Right now I think it would be more like 550 ish rwhp ( for a long time ) and 750 rwtq ( again for a long time ) still using open gearing........

 

I just think monitoring more than hp would be an attempt to keep costs down in a class that is already expensive to run and particpation may currently be suffering because of costs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbrew8991

outside of Spec classes (and even there it is tough) you can't really legislate money in the rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vette6autox
Right now I think it would be more like 550 ish rwhp ( for a long time ) and 750 rwtq ( again for a long time ) still using open gearing........

 

I just think monitoring more than hp would be an attempt to keep costs down in a class that is already expensive to run and particpation may currently be suffering because of costs...

I'd like to hear more about this 750 RWTQ engine. Any details?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bart Carter
I'd like to hear more about this 750 RWTQ engine. Any details?

 

Well, in general, to have 750 RWTQ you need to have over 850 FWTQ. To have over 850 FWTQ you will probably be over 600 cubic inches in displacement.

 

Unless you are supercharged and pump up the boost at lower RPM and limit the upper RPM to wherever it makes the limit HP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...