Jump to content

Pie in the sky rule change requests - 2012


jason

Recommended Posts

Either way, you guys have fun, wheel-to-wheel racing is another hit off the go-fast crack pipe and I most likely wont be in TT anyway.

GTS or PT? If its PT you probably outta keep caring about the classing jus' sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 764
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • kbrew8991

    128

  • Varkwso

    74

  • TurboShortBus

    66

  • drivinhardz06

    45

so all you're doing is bitching about how you don't like the way things are done without offering anything that's better

 

no offense intended, but "come on man!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To back up a couple of pages, how many of the ** cars would even be able to comply with the adjusted weight/power ratios to stay in their base class? As an example, I know for a fact that the base TTE**/3273 lbs for my 2004 Mustang GT would not come close to 16.5:1 without it running on a 245mm tire and weighing 4950 lbs (that's 1677 lbs over the 3273 base weight).

 

Here's a thought: It might be time to require everybody to fill out and submit Appendix C in addition to their classification forms. I already have a single-page form all set up for it. We are all required to be compliant with the adjusted weight/power ratios, so why not just submit a single sheet that shows that we are?

 

l.jpg

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, you guys have fun, wheel-to-wheel racing is another hit off the go-fast crack pipe and I most likely wont be in TT anyway.

GTS or PT? If its PT you probably outta keep caring about the classing jus' sayin'.

 

 

GTS, PTC/PTB doesnt exist around Mid-Atlantic. Shame too cause GTS is way more a budget killer than TT/PT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no reason you couldn't keep the car where it'd be easy to switch back over to PTC/B for Nationals I guess People like Eric Wong seem to manage it pretty well

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so all you're doing is bitching about how you don't like the way things are done without offering anything that's better

 

no offense intended, but "come on man!"

 

No, what I'm saying is that I'm not the first to bitch about this and nothing will change. It's the status quo, man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOL! He might be the poster child for the "momentum first" theory.

 

Still, Brian has a point about overall speed on track. Keeping your foot on the floor through the kink side by side with another car at 150mph is no picnic. I drove 300+whp Talon on track for all of my instructing years (ten) and I never kept my foot in it all the way down a front straight. That car would run down a C5 and put car lengths on an E46 M3 in the straights.

 

Still, there's more to going fast and racecraft than overcoming fear.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To back up a couple of pages, how many of the ** cars would even be able to comply with the adjusted weight/power ratios to stay in their base class? As an example, I know for a fact that the base TTE**/3273 lbs for my 2004 Mustang GT would not come close to 16.5:1 without it running on a 245mm tire and weighing 4950 lbs (that's 1677 lbs over the 3273 base weight).

 

Here's a thought: It might be time to require everybody to fill out and submit Appendix C in addition to their classification forms. I already have a single-page form all set up for it. We are all required to be compliant with the adjusted weight/power ratios, so why not just submit a single sheet that shows that we are?

 

Mark

 

The expectation is that those cars won't run in their respective base classes. I've run across this with other cars too, the Lotus Elise comes to mind.

 

I like your idea of adding the sheet though. How about taking that a step further and making portions of competitor classification sheets public information? HP, weight, tires, section point totals and adjusted hp/weight all on a single sheet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so all you're doing is bitching about how you don't like the way things are done without offering anything that's better

 

no offense intended, but "come on man!"

 

No, what I'm saying is that I'm not the first to bitch about this and nothing will change. It's the status quo, man!

 

 

The system is set. I fought against it. I called Jerry Kunzman because I thought the whole dyno reclass thing was crap and we went back and forth for sevaral days over it. I felt like it gave advantages to certain cars, ignored torque, and made it difficult for points cars to be competitive. But that ship has sailed. Get over it. If you have a gripe with 1-2 cars then compile some data and get those cars slapped with a performance adjustment. They system WILL allow for adjustments but they system itself not going to change. Your option (and mine) is use the appropriate channels to get what you want or go somewhere else.

 

I chose to drop it and work within the rules and continue racing because I like racing better than arguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy - why don't you go start your own thread.

You have managed to single handedly drag this one into the mud when we had a pretty good thing going. There were some very valid points made and all you've managed to do is bog it down with your whoa is me dyno re-class entitlement attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your idea of adding the sheet though. How about taking that a step further and making portions of competitor classification sheets public information? HP, weight, tires, section point totals and adjusted hp/weight all on a single sheet?

I already have; for the past 3 seasons, all of the Florida TT and PT classification forms have been posted in a public directory on Google Documents, so that all competitors can review each others' forms at any time, day or night. Being in a smaller region, I have the luxury of only dealing with about 70 sets of forms, rather than 100+, as other regions have.

 

The development of a national database (and online classing) for TT has been ongoing for a while, but it's not quite there yet. But, in the short-term, it's fairly easy to have all drivers submit their forms in .pdf format and post them to Google Documents or another free service.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already have; for the past 3 seasons, all of the Florida TT and PT classification forms have been posted in a public directory on Google Documents, so that all competitors can review each others' forms at any time, day or night.

Mark

 

Mark, good job. We have talked about doing that in our region as well and I haven't talked to anyone that doesn't think it's a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your idea of adding the sheet though. How about taking that a step further and making portions of competitor classification sheets public information? HP, weight, tires, section point totals and adjusted hp/weight all on a single sheet?

In GL/MW the HP and Wt are on the windshield. The tires, are well, on the wheels... The adjusted pwr/wt is based on the class on all four sides of the car. The dyno reclassed cars are based on the HP and Weight on the windshield.

 

The rest, you can ask to pull a sheet on anyone at anytime, we've even done group review of sheets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all of the Florida TT and PT classification forms have been posted in a public directory on Google Documents, so that all competitors can review each others' forms at any time, day or night.

Mark

 

Yep - that's a great idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the s2000 chassis is better but the E36 will make more power and torque for less points so better power/weight.

 

That 240HP Honda quotes is about 190/195RWHP on a dynojet and you'd have to spend 7+points to max out around 205/210WHP.

 

Stock s2000, 190-195 dynojet

Stock m3, 195-210, (from what ive seen on bimmerforums it goes wildly side to side)

 

S2000 minimum weight 2850

M3 minimum weight 3176

 

s2000 PW 15:1 to 14.6

M3 PW 16.2 to 15.1

 

So even at 210whp which would be considered factory freak, its still less power to weight than an incredibly weak s2000 at 190hp.

 

More power and torque for less? Where do you get that from? Both are N/A cars, m3s dont see much with an intake and exhaust, in fact cat-backs typically dont make any more power :/ (which ive heard is same truth with the s2000)

 

Were you in the red M3? At nationals my s2000 was maxed out at maybe 210WHP using 7+points and that red one passed me at the end of the straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, good job. We have talked about doing that in our region as well and I haven't talked to anyone that doesn't think it's a good idea.

Thanks! Let me know if you guys need any help with setting it up, although it is pretty simple; if I can figure it out, then literally anybody can...

 

While there are still some frustrations with Google Documents, I am clearly getting exactly what I'm paying for.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do the Corvettes compare to their listing for example.

 

3118 is exactly what a C5Z weighs with a full tank of fuel, bone stock. FRC C5 is like 327x I think, which is about what they are stock. 324x I think for the base C5? which should be pretty close.

 

Is an E36 really almost 3200 lb curb? I would have thought that's a ~3k car or high 29xx...

 

FRC comes in under 3200. The coupe comes in around 3300.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all of the Florida TT and PT classification forms have been posted in a public directory on Google Documents, so that all competitors can review each others' forms at any time, day or night.

Mark

 

Yep - that's a great idea.

 

You volunteering to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the s2000 chassis is better but the E36 will make more power and torque for less points so better power/weight.

 

That 240HP Honda quotes is about 190/195RWHP on a dynojet and you'd have to spend 7+points to max out around 205/210WHP.

 

Stock s2000, 190-195 dynojet

Stock m3, 195-210, (from what ive seen on bimmerforums it goes wildly side to side)

 

S2000 minimum weight 2850

M3 minimum weight 3176

 

s2000 PW 15:1 to 14.6

M3 PW 16.2 to 15.1

 

So even at 210whp which would be considered factory freak, its still less power to weight than an incredibly weak s2000 at 190hp.

 

More power and torque for less? Where do you get that from? Both are N/A cars, m3s dont see much with an intake and exhaust, in fact cat-backs typically dont make any more power :/ (which ive heard is same truth with the s2000)

 

Were you in the red M3? At nationals my s2000 was maxed out at maybe 210WHP using 7+points and that red one passed me at the end of the straight.

 

I was the white m3. #186

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You volunteering to do it?

Heck yeah I'll spearhead that if I can get the part time jr assistant director title and some comped track time.

I have nothing else better to do anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You volunteering to do it?

Heck yeah I'll spearhead that if I can get the part time jr assistant director title and some comped track time.

I have nothing else better to do anyway.

Having the competitors pre-scan the forms into .pdf format will save you a TON of time.

 

Mark

Link to comment
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...