Sterling Doc Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Hal, link is not working. Might be time to look into some smaller A6's based on what Greg is saying! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ja1217 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 We have our own data with our top drivers that show that this car needs some classing adjustment. So are there going to be any changes for the 2014 season? Its probably too late for some as far as point spending goes, but the sooner the better with this sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel B. Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Taking records with barely any pts mods almost certainly calls for an adjustment. Not excited about what comes next, but I'm glad this thread has provided some useful info on the subject. Would have sucked if the adjustment happened with everyone in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhdinyuma Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 So, if an FRS or BRZ are able to start with 190 rwhp without any points mods, they are already at a 75 lb advantage to both the E36 M3 and the Miatas. If they can make 200 rwhp with no points (or +1 point for an intake as Bill states), then they are 200 lbs lighter at the same power level, AND, they have 2013 suspension, body, chassis technology compared to 1995-2005. We have our own data with our top drivers that show that this car needs some classing adjustment. Yeah, except that since those cars start out in a lower class they have the ability to add aftermarket suspension goodies that are far superior to the stock components we must use and bring them, at least, up to the level of the twins. Most of the top cars are on a dyno reclass that has them giving up roughly 1.00 in regards to MAX Weight/HP. That is their choice and it definitely frees up a lot of points for other mods. Yeah, it is fairly easy (though not cheap) for the twins to get close to MAX weight/HP but that has always been in the rules as far as I know. Seems like suddenly a rules change is warranted just because it is easier for one particular car to take advantage of a no-points mod. I think you have the classing just right and have created a perfect balance of cars able to compete on an even playing field. Until those top drivers show up and start killing the rest of the field why not leave things as they are? If your assumptions are right, then the rest of us less talented driver's will simply adjust to whatever you decide is necessary. The year has already started for some of us and that means that we have waited patiently all year for the classing decisions to be made. We have made choices, spent money, and worked hard to prep our cars based on the rules you gave us. Seems pretty one sided to now have to worry about classing changes that might or might not be coming that could affect everything we have already done. Especially so, since there are no official competition results, in sufficient quantity, to justify any change at this time or at any time this year. To quote what has become the unofficial mantra of the TT Forums " Every frog has it's warts". Well, the twins have them too! I am not opposed to competition adjustments and will make any change necessary to make my car competitive, when it is justified. All that being said, TT is where it's at. Best drivers, best cars, most fun/$ anywhere. I will be in no matter what is decided!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhdinyuma Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Hal, link is not working. Might be time to look into some smaller A6's based on what Greg is saying! Eric, Try the link again. It worked for me. It just goes to my photo page. If not try http://www.photos.masterwings.com and go from there. I am saving my hard earned Hoosier contingency tires for 225 A6's. I can feel the * coming already!! Might actually be better since I could use coil-overs then instead of the stock springs I am using now. As a backup plan, I have a TTC classification form ready and will be the first to post in the new thread "Why isn't the FR-S Killing in TTC?" Ha Ha...kinda kidding. I love TT and will do what ever it takes to participate and win if possible... I still think it pre-mature to make adjustments until we have more results, but I secretly love the drama it has caused!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhdinyuma Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Taking records with barely any pts mods almost certainly calls for an adjustment. Not excited about what comes next, but I'm glad this thread has provided some useful info on the subject. Would have sucked if the adjustment happened with everyone in the dark. Phast, Dude, don't cave so easily. I have taken "19 points mods". How is that "barely any mods"? Look at my classing sheet here: http://www.nasaaz.com/classing/tt/TTD%20-%20Harold%20Dunn.pdf What is being discussed is fundamentally a change in the no-points mod list that has been in place for a long time. It is being suggested that since the twins are able to take advantage of the allowance's that it is somehow at an unfair advantage. Every TT car has had the ability to maximize their cars while taking advantage of the no-points mod list. Somehow the twins have been portrayed as being some kind of uber car able to extract an extra advantage not available to other competitors. Read closely, that is not the case. I am really looking forward to meeting you in person at RATL. Hope that happens! EDIT: Check out the body roll in my sig pix. Compare that to the Miata's and M3's that we are pitted against! Strock springs...Just think what would be possible with a few extra points for coil overs that the other's have available to them?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhdinyuma Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 More in 5th than 4th? That's odd. I've always seen higher numbers with my car in 3rd than 4th. 1) At least three (3) separate, reproducible tests shall be made for each Fuel/Timing Map with the vehicle at normal operating temperature, and the tires inflated to at least 28 psi, either in 4th gear (or the gear closest to a 1:1 ratio if six or seven speed transmission). Advanced Technical DataNumber of Passenger Doors:2EPA Greenhouse Gas Score:6Fuel Economy Est-Combined (MPG):25Engine Order Code:N/ATrans Order Code:N/ATrans Type:6First Gear Ratio (:1):3.626Second Gear Ratio (:1):2.188Third Gear Ratio (:1):1.541Fourth Gear Ratio (:1):1.213Fifth Gear Ratio (:1):1.000Sixth Gear Ratio (:1):0.767Reverse Ratio (:1):3.437Clutch Size (in):N/AFinal Drive Axle Ratio (:1):4.100Tons/yr of CO2 Emissions @ 15K mi/year:7.3 Seems pretty clear to me!! Fifth gear equals 1:1. By the rules... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel B. Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Taking records with barely any pts mods almost certainly calls for an adjustment. Not excited about what comes next, but I'm glad this thread has provided some useful info on the subject. Would have sucked if the adjustment happened with everyone in the dark. Phast, Dude, don't cave so easily. I have taken "19 points mods". How is that "barely any mods"? Look at my classing sheet here: http://www.nasaaz.com/classing/tt/TTD%20-%20Harold%20Dunn.pdf What is being discussed is fundamentally a change in the no-points mod list that has been in place for a long time. It is being suggested that since the twins are able to take advantage of the allowance's that it is somehow at an unfair advantage. Every TT car has had the ability to maximize their cars while taking advantage of the no-points mod list. Somehow the twins have been portrayed as being some kind of uber car able to extract an extra advantage not available to other competitors. Read closely, that is not the case. I am really looking forward to meeting you in person at RATL. Hope that happens! Haha! Not excited about having to deal with the resultant need for a defense is probably the tone being detected. That first line was actually my wife's response the second I read your post out loud followed by Greg's post. My initial argument was that only 3 guys have run the car competively from my research, thus more data was/is needed to even begin the discussion of reclassing. While I did expect some track records, all 3 drivers have taken records at the various events attended. And Greg's statement implies the necessary amount of data needed to revisit the topic has been reached. If the twins are capable of reaching max pwr/wt ratio in class without any engine mod pts - however impractical or unrealistic that tune may be, there is bound to be an unwelcome controversy surrounding "why it's killing TTD". I personally don't think that's realistic. And even at that pwr/wt, the torque numbers don't even come close to that of an e36 m3, so the comparison of wts for adjustment doesn't seem fair. My closing statement was because of a good point made by Jeff earlier - "build your car to the rules, and it will get bumped". This was educational, in that light. I'll be at every SE event on the calendar, so I'll def see you there. EDIT: Quick replies on the cell phone while laying in bed don't express the full thought. I'll be sure to work on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 14, 2014 National Staff Share Posted January 14, 2014 So, if an FRS or BRZ are able to start with 190 rwhp without any points mods, they are already at a 75 lb advantage to both the E36 M3 and the Miatas. If they can make 200 rwhp with no points (or +1 point for an intake as Bill states), then they are 200 lbs lighter at the same power level, AND, they have 2013 suspension, body, chassis technology compared to 1995-2005. We have our own data with our top drivers that show that this car needs some classing adjustment. Yeah, except that since those cars start out in a lower class they have the ability to add aftermarket suspension goodies that are far superior to the stock components we must use and bring them, at least, up to the level of the twins. Most of the top cars are on a dyno reclass that has them giving up roughly 1.00 in regards to MAX Weight/HP. That is their choice and it definitely frees up a lot of points for other mods. Yeah, it is fairly easy (though not cheap) for the twins to get close to MAX weight/HP but that has always been in the rules as far as I know. Seems like suddenly a rules change is warranted just because it is easier for one particular car to take advantage of a no-points mod. I guess you don't understand what I'm saying. A 1993 Miata with an '01 motor swap, or a 1995+ BMW E36 M3 that are base classed in TTD with a Dyno Re-class (some of the top cars in TTD nationwide) at 190 rwhp, weighs 75 lbs more than the FRS as currently classed in TTD. Those same two cars, at 200 rwhp, are re-classed in TTD (same class that the FRS starts in) with 200 lbs more than the FRS. They are not starting in a lower class and using points to add suspension any more than the FRS. The Miata is more theoretical, because it would tend to run less HP, and a lighter weight, and then use smaller tires, but that is not the point. The point is that the starting Wt/Hp ratio of the much newer and superior vehicle in terms of Coef. of drag (huge difference), and possibly chassis and suspension, turns out to be better than those vehicles. None of this could have been known at the time the car was originally classed, when we did not even have access to one. So, yes, I'm telling you that there is an adjustment coming. Like I said, I'm trying to keep the Exec's from forcing an asterisk or two on the vehicle. Our test driver has run essentially TTD track record times on Toyo 888's, with plenty of points to spare for much faster tires. It is a fantastic car--no need to undersell it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 14, 2014 National Staff Share Posted January 14, 2014 Or, for those of you keeping score, it must be another one of those cars that "Greg hates". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhdinyuma Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Or, for those of you keeping score, it must be another one of those cars that "Greg hates". I think it's more a case of envy since you don't have one...Yet! I guess my point really goes something like this: Stop by Hertz on the way to the track, pick up a Camry, put a TOP driver in it and he or she will place in just about any points class on any given weekend anywhere. Here in AZ we have a TOP driver in TTC this year. He is driving a 20 something year old Camaro that has seen competition adjustments. Those adjustments have not had any effect on the outcome of any session, of any season, so far for him. The only effect that has been noticeable in the results are those achieved by the average driver he shares the car with. Since the majority of the fields in TT are made up of drivers that are average or above average shouldn't they be the ones used to determine what adjustments, if any, are necessary for any vehicle used in TT. No doubt that a TOP driver will notice things the rest of us won't but the adjustments made will only be evident in the results if the entire field is made up of equally talented drivers. In the hands of the average TT competitor, the twins are very good and provide a thrilling challenge to everyone in the class whether they drive one or not. I am not opposed to any change that improves the competition. Just the opposite actually. My reason for commenting is that this season has already started. The car has been out for a year and a half and has been classed for a full season. There was evidence already existing before the close of last season that could have been used to make any adjustment required before publishing the 2014 rules. We all waited patiently for the new rules to be published, and when they finally arrived went ahead with plans for the new season. None of this is easy and making adjustments now will make it difficult and expensive for those of us who have prepared our cars to the limit allowed by the rules. In other words, you had plenty of time to assess the car and by the time the rules were ready saw no need to make any changes. The car isn't killing anything. It has however, proven to be a serious contender in the hands of the drivers who make up 99% of the TT fields in the country. It's a new tech car that is being prepped and driven competitively. I am sure that threatens some of the old standards but isn't that a good thing really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhdinyuma Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Those same two cars, at 200 rwhp, are re-classed in TTD (same class that the FRS starts in) with 200 lbs more than the FRS. They are not starting in a lower class and using points to add suspension any more than the FRS Well if I understand your example correctly the car re-classed at 200 RWHP and TTD starts out with a 40 RWHP advantage over an FRS as it is currently classed and in stock form. If it is a Miata then they probably are running a 225 tire which means they have 23 points to spend versus the FRS on a 245 tire with 19 points. The re-classed car doesn't have to spend any engine or weight points while the normally classed FRS does if any those mods are performed. Seems like plenty of room for equalizing the platforms to me or am I still not seeing something. It is probable that an FRS could make 200 RWHP with a ragged edge tune and using E85, but my experience has shown that 190 is a more realistic number if you want to have any chance of keeping it together. I can say for sure that my car has spent many hours on the dyno with a competent tuner and 192 RWHP was the best he could do with just a re-flash on E85. Also, The lack of torque is apparently something that can't be handled on an NA car with just a tune, which of course really doesn't matter. I question anyone claiming 180+ RWHP in stock form. Something seems fishy there from what I have seen with my own car. Maybe those claims are secretly being made by folks who actually own a Miata??? The whole E85 deal has muddied the waters a bit I think. The FRS isn't certified by the manufacturer to use E85 so everyone using it is taking a risk. There was a stock car with a 350 Chevy running a carburetor using E85 at WHPE this weekend. Tells me that those who claim it can't be done are being a little pessimistic or maybe dramatic. If it proves necessary, I will graciously accept any adjustments deemed appropriate. I just hope that they can be phased in instead of just dropping out of nowhere so soon after the new rules have been published. Edited January 14, 2014 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 So, if an FRS or BRZ are able to start with 190 rwhp without any points mods, they are already at a 75 lb advantage to both the E36 M3 and the Miatas. If they can make 200 rwhp with no points (or +1 point for an intake as Bill states), then they are 200 lbs lighter at the same power level, AND, they have 2013 suspension, body, chassis technology compared to 1995-2005. We have our own data with our top drivers that show that this car needs some classing adjustment. chassis technology? I'd be careful these are still MacStrut cars. It's not like the Miata's 1990s double-A-arm is vastly inferior or anything We have *two* signed up in TTD for NASA-TX's opener. Guess we'll see I know it's still just one small pond though, hoping that everyone does look beyond each of their own ponds to spot the overall trends and adjust from there only when it makes sense to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 More in 5th than 4th? That's odd. I've always seen higher numbers with my car in 3rd than 4th.Seems pretty clear to me!! Fifth gear equals 1:1. By the rules... I wasn't arguing which is the legal gear to perform the dyno procedure in. I was simply stating that it is ODD that in a numerically higher gear (lower ratio) the greater whp number was achieved. I was comparing that to my car which has shown higher whp numbers in 3rd (1.458) than 4th (1.107). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhdinyuma Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Yeah, Sorry. I didn't mean for my response to sound that way. We did try 4th gear and saw a little lower numbers than in 5th. Didn't try 3rd though to see what that was. Next time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circuitmstr Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) The Miata is a Hyper-developed platform. A new platform should not be able to immediately step up and contend. In all reality they should be forced to put in some development time to catch up. If the new platform is equalized (obviously overly so) right away, then by the time that platform really gets developed it will be a bloodbath. The car that has the most development should be the fastest. Just because someone hasn't got the job done yet doesn't justify allowing them to do so in the near future. Lets not shut the barn door after the cows are already out. and stop yapping about your lack of torque and pretending that miatas are torque monster either. my car is at 116ft/lbs Edited January 14, 2014 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel B. Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 and stock yapping about your lack of torque and pretending that miatas are torque monster either. my car is at 116ft/lbs but you're just a big go-kart anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILIKETODRIVE Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Yeah, Sorry. I didn't mean for my response to sound that way. We did try 4th gear and saw a little lower numbers than in 5th. Didn't try 3rd though to see what that was. Next time... I'd actually like to see a 6th gear pull and see if it went up even more lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 15, 2014 National Staff Share Posted January 15, 2014 You guys should actually start testing in multiple gears. NASA is doing our own research on known HP vehicles as to whether or not we should require all vehicles to comply with the Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio (and Dyno Re-classing) in all usable gears. This will take care of those that are cheating with gear dependent ECU mapping, and think that we won't test in 2nd, 3rd, or 6th gear. We need more data, and expect a Technical Bulletin on this in a few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Yeah, Sorry. I didn't mean for my response to sound that way. We did try 4th gear and saw a little lower numbers than in 5th. Didn't try 3rd though to see what that was. Next time... I'd actually like to see a 6th gear pull and see if it went up even more lol. It can, and the lower ones can show up less. It's very dependent on the inertia setup of the drivelines, low MOI (small) clutch cars and cars with very light drivelines are going to drive NASA batty with multi gear testing. Said another way, you could take an OEM car and get +/- same numbers in 4th gear as a car with a light weight/low inertia driveline (long, slow tall loaded 4th gear pull that doesn't allow for inertia gains), but get drastically different numbers in the lower gears where the rev rates are quicker. Which is the same reason these cars accelerate quicker on the track in the lower gears than a stock car, with the same "hp". NASA is on the right idea, but it'll be a can of worms to police or rather, draw solid data/conclusions from. I'm a racer, builder, tuner (and tuner of competitor cars) and am happy to help in testing/data if need be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted January 15, 2014 National Staff Share Posted January 15, 2014 Yeah, Sorry. I didn't mean for my response to sound that way. We did try 4th gear and saw a little lower numbers than in 5th. Didn't try 3rd though to see what that was. Next time... I'd actually like to see a 6th gear pull and see if it went up even more lol. It can, and the lower ones can show up less. It's very dependent on the inertia setup of the drivelines, low MOI (small) clutch cars and cars with very light drivelines are going to drive NASA batty with multi gear testing. Said another way, you could take an OEM car and get +/- same numbers in 4th gear as a car with a light weight/low inertia driveline (long, slow tall loaded 4th gear pull that doesn't allow for inertia gains), but get drastically different numbers in the lower gears where the rev rates are quicker. Which is the same reason these cars accelerate quicker on the track in the lower gears than a stock car, with the same "hp". NASA is on the right idea, but it'll be a can of worms to police or rather, draw solid data/conclusions from. I'm a racer, builder, tuner (and tuner of competitor cars) and am happy to help in testing/data if need be. It may drive the competitor "batty", and not NASA. Depending on our findings with OEM/BTM vehicles, modified vehicles, carb'd vehicles, ultimately, a rule may be written that requires the competitor to ensure compliance in all gears (whether or not some additional factor is needed). Ultimately, the goal would be that any car that has not been modified, should be legal under this type of testing. Go with a lightweight clutch, a re-flashed ECU, a lightened driveline and you are responsible to make sure it is still legal. This all may be temporary as NASA takes us into the future of racing---what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 It may drive the competitor "batty", and not NASA. Depending on our findings with OEM/BTM vehicles, modified vehicles, carb'd vehicles, ultimately, a rule may be written that requires the competitor to ensure compliance in all gears (whether or not some additional factor is needed). Ultimately, the goal would be that any car that has not been modified, should be legal under this type of testing. Go with a lightweight clutch, a re-flashed ECU, a lightened driveline and you are responsible to make sure it is still legal. This all may be temporary as NASA takes us into the future of racing---what? So Greg, will we be legal or illegal when we have different mapping in different gears in order to be compliant, when the rule says we can't have multiple mapping in different gears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bnjmn Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 A non-gear dependent tune is surely a safe harbor for a rule meant to prevent a gear-dependent tune, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circuitmstr Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 relevant to this conversation. Does anyone know where the nearest E85 station to Road Atlanta is? Im considering adding a 55gallon e85 drum for the trailer but would like to avoid that if possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ja1217 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 relevant to this conversation. Does anyone know where the nearest E85 station to Road Atlanta is? Im considering adding a 55gallon e85 drum for the trailer but would like to avoid that if possible Looks like there's 2 stations within 20 miles (RA Zip: 30517): http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_locations.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.