Why isn't the FRS killing TTD?

[Sterling Doc]

Now there is a contingency program specific to the '86 as well, including NASA TT: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54727

[getfast]

Actually it says "NASA Time Attack" which doesn't exist

[hhdinyuma]

That's pretty cool Eric. Thanks. Just registered. Hope they meant "Time Trial"

[Emmanuel B.]

Hope they meant "Time Trial"

 

Yes, he meant TT. He's been busy, was aware of the typo yesterday when I checked with him.

[ILIKETODRIVE]

Actually it says "NASA Time Attack" which doesn't exist

We have a Time Attack in AZ open to DE4/TT/Racers. 1 warm-up lap, 2 flyers, 1 cool-down lap.

[hhdinyuma]

We have a Time Attack in AZ open to DE4/TT/Racers. 1 warm-up lap, 2 flyers, 1 cool-down lap.

 

I mentioned our AZ Time Attack program when I registered for the contingency. Maybe they will include it on the list also...

[Greg G.]

You guys hit 19 pages! Awesome....ready for the next 19?

 

You guys do realize that E85 was almost penalized with Mod Points this year, but instead it was decided that it would be too unfair to those that have taken points for items like ECU, injectors, etc. already in order to benefit from E85. The NASA Exec's felt that the more appropriate way to monitor it, was via base classing adjustment of any vehicle that seemingly can have large HP gains without taking any points via just a No-Points ECU re-flash alone. They would like to see an asterisk added to whatever new cars that may fit this bill. As usual, (despite claims to the contrary), I have your backs, and I realize that the owners of these vehicles have likely already spent money, planning, and time using all of their available points, and adding an asterisk may be a very tough proposition. So, an increase in base weight is always an option. Ballast costs No-Points also. I'm sure that you guys must be aware that when the car was first classed, it wasn't even available yet for us to see, no less see what tuners were going to be able to do to it. Unfortunately, this may be an early/mid-season change, as this is still under consideration, and February was the month spoken about in regard to having enough data.

[Emmanuel B.]

You guys hit 19 pages! Awesome....ready for the next 19?

 

You guys do realize that E85 was almost penalized with Mod Points this year, but instead it was decided that it would be too unfair to those that have taken points for items like ECU, injectors, etc. already in order to benefit from E85. The NASA Exec's felt that the more appropriate way to monitor it, was via base classing adjustment of any vehicle that seemingly can have large HP gains without taking any points via just a No-Points ECU re-flash alone. They would like to see an asterisk added to whatever new cars that may fit this bill. As usual, (despite claims to the contrary), I have your backs, and I realize that the owners of these vehicles have likely already spent money, planning, and time using all of their available points, and adding an asterisk may be a very tough proposition. So, an increase in base weight is always an option. Ballast costs No-Points also. I'm sure that you guys must be aware that when the car was first classed, it wasn't even available yet for us to see, no less see what tuners were going to be able to do to it. Unfortunately, this may be an early/mid-season change, as this is still under consideration, and February was the month spoken about in regard to having enough data.

 

Thanks for having our backs, but I find it interesting that this there is even a conversation about class adjustment within just a year and only Jon Miller and Hal's classed cars from the results I've looked at from all the regions. How much data has been collected to validate that push? The numbers tuning shops claim to be the power potential of a car, IMO, should not set the standard for classing the vehicle. Adjusting base weight implies that everyone would be putting down those power numbers, a rather incorrect assertion. Not everyone has access to E-85 to take advantage of large HP gains. Clearly that wouldn't be fair to the competitors. And if we access points for different fuels, would this apply to race gas too as I modify a no points ECU flash to take advantage of VP116, and consequently would this then affect all of TT running on race fuel?

 

Personally, the draw to this car has little to do with having a TTD-killing-car, and more about the fact that is a great chassis and platform - a "driver's car" as has been touted... but to keep the conversation going another 19 pages, figured I'd toss in my thoughts.

[circuitmstr]

Let's not be naive.

There are a lot of options on the points list that not everyone could afford or may have access too. A lot of them wouldn't necessarily make the car much faster, and I think are probably more so to do with controlling cost. E85 is not expensive and is not particularly any harder to find than race fuel. I mean, there are only 2 stations in all of Orlando that carry it and I know there exact locations and store hours.

If you are not serious enough to do or spend whatever it takes to win, then why join the conversation or read the rule book at all?

[kbrew8991]

car classing should take into account the best case scenarios, not average or worst.

[Emmanuel B.]

Let's not be naive.

If you are not serious enough to do or spend whatever it takes to win, then why join the conversation or read the rule book at all?

There in lies the fundamental difference of opinion. This sport at the club level thrives primarily on participation, and that recipe isn't conducive to that... but I digress.

 

car classing should take into account the best case scenarios, not average or worst.

Certainly, a very fair point.

The topic at hand is why isn't the car killing TTD? So clearly the car isn't... at this time. Greg's note suggests something will be done next year (or as soon as February) with regard to the effects of E85 on certain cars - whether it's via weight/pts. My point, if perhaps moot given Ken's statement, is that the 2013 results of 2 cars is perhaps not enough to stipulate a re-classification based on E85 gains. And consequently, since I don't recall ever seeing a race car take points for race gas, would this be applicable in that same vain?

 

Yes, a rather simple point that I'm sure Greg and co will take into account... but a thought nonetheless.

[BlkGt3]

""If you are not serious enough to do or spend whatever it takes to win, then why join the conversation or read the rule book at all?"""

 

Erik,

 

At least 1 driver in TT isn't good enough to win if You or Ian show up BUT I still enjoy the competition and putting a TX on the car makes me driver harder. That being said I do believe in not limiting myself by not having a well prepped car for the class. Yes I read the rule book, event sups and the forums, where I get the Gospel about car prep under the theory if you read it on the interwebz it must be true.

 

Peter

[Varkwso]

a mid season reclass is what I was hoping to avoid, stable rulesets are conductive to participation. Race gas is available at every track. E85 has to be tankered in and is not available readily in my fairly large town. It does seem to sing in this platform but so does race gas in a boosted car and most NA cars. The tune for E85 in these cars seems to be ~$1500 which is way above the LS series tune cost (my only real baseline, personally).

 

Build to the rules usually gets your car bumped....

[BlkGt3]

a mid season reclass is what I was hoping to avoid, stable rulesets are conductive to participation. Race gas is available at every track. E85 has to be tankered in and is not available readily in my fairly large town. It does seem to sing in this platform but so does race gas in a boosted car and most NA cars. The tune for E85 in these cars seems to be ~$1500 which is way above the LS series tune cost (my only real baseline, personally).

 

Build to the rules usually gets your car bumped....

 

I thought that was E85 in the mason jars in your garage.

 

Peter

[Varkwso]

a mid season reclass is what I was hoping to avoid, stable rulesets are conductive to participation. Race gas is available at every track. E85 has to be tankered in and is not available readily in my fairly large town. It does seem to sing in this platform but so does race gas in a boosted car and most NA cars. The tune for E85 in these cars seems to be ~$1500 which is way above the LS series tune cost (my only real baseline, personally).

 

Build to the rules usually gets your car bumped....

 

I thought that was E85 in the mason jars in your garage.

 

Peter

 

 

It is a little better then that!

[Sterling Doc]

Having been involved in class rule making, I can see this is a difficult spot to be in. You need enough data to make a solid call (rule changes are always painful), but also want to do it as early as possible (if you must), to limit the number of cars affected by building to the current rules. From my point of view, I'd hate to see weight put on, as the much of the fundamental goodness of the car comes from it's low weight. In experiments with 944 Spec, it takes quite a bit a weight to substantially slow down an amateur driver (even a good one) much, especially when it can be placed adventagiously as ballast. If E85 gives 15+ more HP (speculation) than a 91 octane tune, that's close to 225lbs of ballast to balance the HP/wt. again . I'd rather take a star if need be. So far, there would not be many cars seriously affected.

 

All that said, I hope the BRZ/FRS gets left as is. With the driving talent this car attracts, it will likely do well, and get a haircut, though.

[Greg G.]

a mid season reclass is what I was hoping to avoid, stable rulesets are conductive to participation. Race gas is available at every track. E85 has to be tankered in and is not available readily in my fairly large town. It does seem to sing in this platform but so does race gas in a boosted car and most NA cars. The tune for E85 in these cars seems to be ~$1500 which is way above the LS series tune cost (my only real baseline, personally).

 

Build to the rules usually gets your car bumped....

 

I thought that was E85 in the mason jars in your garage.

 

Peter

Closer to E90

[Sterling Doc]

Let's not be naive.

There are a lot of options on the points list that not everyone could afford or may have access too. A lot of them wouldn't necessarily make the car much faster, and I think are probably more so to do with controlling cost. E85 is not expensive and is not particularly any harder to find than race fuel. I mean, there are only 2 stations in all of Orlando that carry it and I know there exact locations and store hours.

If you are not serious enough to do or spend whatever it takes to win, then why join the conversation or read the rule book at all?

 

Because amateur races are poor, but still competitive?

[Greg G.]

If E85 gives 15+ more HP (speculation) than a 91 octane tune, that's close to 225lbs of ballast to balance the HP/wt. again . I'd rather take a star if need be. So far, there would not be many cars seriously affected.

 

Eric, all cars are expected to get some HP from the No-Points ECU re-flash (and 5 points for FI cars). So, the question is how much "extra" are they getting from having a vehicle that can get large gains using E85 and a No-Points re-flash. So, any base weight increase would be equal to or, more likely, less than the weight reduction that can be obtained with seven points (an asterisk). So, one can get 110 lbs of weight reduction with 7 points. So, I would definitely not expect a base weight bump to be more than 110 lbs.

 

From a practical and "common sense" perspective, if we look at two of our best TTD/PTD contenders (Miatas and E36 M3's), a Dyno Re-class would put them in a PTD/TTD Base Re-class, at 190 rwhp, at about 75 lbs more than the FRS Base Weight. At 200 rwhp, it would be about 200 lbs. So, if we want to maintain close competition that has to do with driving, as opposed to purchasing the "next" class killer, these three vehicles should probably be starting with Wt/Hp ratios that are similar. Like I said before, the original classing of the vehicle was done before the vehicle was even available. There was no factor put in that the rwhp with no mods other than a re-flashed ECU, might be close to the factory crank HP rating.

 

So, the real question is, what are the "true" Dynojet numbers for an FRS with no other mods than an ECU Re-flash and E85? And, what are the "true" Dynojet numbers for an FRS with a +1 point intake, +2 point exhaust, and the No-Points re-flash?

[kbrew8991]

I thought we just proved you can't really do a +2 exhaust on one of those cars... not with common bolt on parts anyway

[Emmanuel B.]

I thought we just proved you can't really do a +2 exhaust on one of those cars... not with common bolt on parts anyway

 

My borla cat back exhaust came on the car from dealership, cat untouched, as compared to a friend's stock brz in the shop. Its the header that doesn't appear to be a +2 only mod without fabrication.

[hhdinyuma]

So...What does FR-S stand for anyway??

 

First Real Scion

 

Ferrari's Redheaded Stepchild

 

Thoughts???

[Emmanuel B.]

So, the real question is, what are the "true" Dynojet numbers for an FRS with no other mods than an ECU Re-flash and E85? And, what are the "true" Dynojet numbers for an FRS with a +1 point intake, +2 point exhaust, and the No-Points re-flash?

Thus far, different cars have produced a wide array of numbers and have responded differently to the various mods but I would truly like to see a test similar to this. I can source some of the available information, as well as results from my car as well if would prove helpful.

[Sterling Doc]

I can do some testing on this. My car has only a drop- in filter and E85 tune. I can reflash to a 91 octane tune. It would take a bit of coordination to get this all done on one day, with two different fuels, and some time for the ECU to re-adapt the fuel trims to the new tune, but it should be possible. The only remaining question is how much my "off the shelf" tunes are giving up to a full custom tune, and, of course, that my test is an N=1. If we all do some public testing, we could really have some something. We just need to do this by the book - standardized tire pressures, etc.

[Greg G.]

Emmanual and Eric,

 

We will take all of the data we can get.