Jump to content
LJ32

Thunder Roadster Modifier for 2015?

Recommended Posts

Lance Bazoo

I have competed with a TR at the regional & national level for several years. I understand the points made about short course/long course, etc.

How about this for a simple & practical solution: keep the ST3 rules as they are but add one additional rule -- 4 cylinder engines only.

The V8's now running ST3 can easily make the jump from 9/1 to 8/1 & run in ST2.

ST3 would still recognize all approved production & non-production cars but would limit them to 4 cyl. This allows TR's, Legends, Miata's, the new Mustang 4cyl ecco boost engine, Caterhams, MNR Vortx, Factory Five 818, etc.

Keep it as it now exists, you just have to have an adjusted 9/1 per the rules but it must be a 4 cyl motor.

This ends the V8/torque argument & maintains the spirit of NASA promoting car prep, design & innovation.

 

Gary Klein

#333

Great Lakes Region

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mhoward1

But turbo 4s can make as much power and TQ as a V8. What about 6 cylinders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braknl8

The V8's now running ST3 can easily make the jump from 9/1 to 8/1 & run in ST2.

 

Gary Klein

#333

Great Lakes Region

 

Seeing as a stock '99 c5 corvette makes about 285hp would you mind telling me how I can easily do that....you writing the check?

 

Of course, I'm only saying this after c5's have been kicked out of xxb, gotten pta/tta completely abolished and were forced into an open-wallet class (you know adding 15k worth of aero, big brakes, big tires, etc is certainly going to slow them down), ST/TT3 ....and now you're just throwing out pushing up the chain farther? When does it stop? almost 20 years old, no oem aero and leaf springs and still....., unbelievable. Of course all of this is old news and has been beaten to death in other threads.

 

I challenge you that are proposing this to do research...I mean stay up all night at it, learn, think, be creative...study the rulebooks AS THEY ARE NOW, spend all of your nights and free time/$ working on the car. Do it religiously for an entire season and see where you are at. If you've actually developed a chassis to its max then the complaints may have merit. I've seen very few cars built as such...

 

Also, do watch Kevin's video of the start at Barber re: tq and straights of TR's...

 

I sincerely don't mean this to be offensive but the classes have to remain somewhat structured, for some time. It's difficult to build a car for a moving target of a class...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbrew8991

there's already help in the formula for smaller engines...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vettedoctor

Seriously!!! Push the Vettes out of ST3???

 

What happens when another car comes in and kicks your a$$ do they have to leave too? You're running in a (fairly) open class - mod up or accept the results!

 

Also if I'm reading this correctly you don't want the Vettes in your class because you would have to modify your engines to keep up with them, but those same Vettes that you want out of ST3 would have to modify there engines to be competitive in ST2.

So it's ok for those guys to mod up but not you? They want to keep there motors stock just as bad as you guys do. Plus those guys just got done modding there cars up to be at a competitive ST3 level.

 

Everyone wants the same thing good close racing between multiple platforms, the challenge for multi-platform racing is that each platform shines in different areas, the beauty of ST is that you can fix whatever area you need help in - but it will take time and money, no way around that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lance Bazoo

Gentlemen, it was not my intent to "push" anyone/any car out of a class. Competition is good for everyone. When I ran in STR2 & then ST3 it was always exciting to try to run against all entrants.

My only purpose in that suggestion was to offer up an alternative to what I perceived as a leaning towards same car classes. If you offer a modifier for one type of car what comes next ?

I retired my TR because I think I have an idea for a better alternative to be competitive in ST3.

For what it's worth my wife & I just purchased a new Corvette as our three Season driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braknl8

How about this for a simple & practical solution: keep the ST3 rules as they are but add one additional rule -- 4 cylinder engines only.

 

Gentlemen, it was not my intent to "push" anyone/any car out of a class.

 

 

images.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firouz H.

I do love corvettes, I do have a 2005 vett with 14k miles. so nothing against corvettes..

 

firouz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drivinhardz06

How about this for a simple & practical solution: keep the ST3 rules as they are but add one additional rule -- 4 cylinder engines only.

 

I'd build a 2300 lb alum frame C6 with a boosted Ecotech just for you. It might even be quicker with maybe 75 lb less on the nose?

 

VERY doable. Stupid, but VERY doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbrew8991

I will send you $100 to make this happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firouz H.

not to get off the subject. simply put the thunder roadster group need help vs the corvettes in long tracks.

 

regards

firouz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braknl8
not to get off the subject. simply put the thunder roadster group need help vs the corvettes in long tracks.

 

regards

firouz

 

Maybe all that aero is hurting a little? I imagine it sticks like glue in the turns, however....adjust to your liking. Give a little and take a little where you want it on the track to optimize what you have.

 

@ ~ 1000lbs lighter don't the TR's have somewhat of an advantage in the transitional stuff and braking? Doesn't each platform have it's strengths and weaknesses? Did anyone study those prior to picking their weapon of choice or was the cheap consumables a big selling point and now you want to massage everyone else so that you fit?

 

Edit: can't you guys also run full slicks (or was it A's) with no additional changes/modifications/hits? And didn't I see in another thread that you don't like them as they were only a little faster and didn't last as long? Could that little bit be the free steak on the plate that you aren't eating because they don't last as long?

 

I'm only asking these questions to understand the mentality, please hang in there with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brkntrxn

Guys,

 

Mike was picking at me when he made the suggestion for Corvette's to go to ST2. Mike was behind me and watched me deal with the ST2 traffic in every single race at the Championships. He is also aware of my comments that I made about running switching to ST2 in order to be ahead of the ST2 cars that caused me issues. Please drop it, it started as a joke.

 

 

To be competitive on the longer tracks, the ST3 TRs will need to modify their engines. Simply put. That is the ONLY help they need and it comes from their pocket book. And that is the one thing they DON'T want to do because then they cannot swap between the Southeast Thunder Roadster class and ST3 with ease. It is NO DIFFERENT than us C5 guys not wanting to spend the money to modify our engines to be competitive in ST2 or ST1 so we can swap between light ST2 fields and ST3 fields.

 

HOWEVER, on the shorter tracks the ST3 TRs do just fine. Again, I refer to my Barber races with the TRs. The class rules cannot be built around one specific track type and you guys all know that. So again, pick your weapon and make the changes necessary to be competitive at a specific track. I could have done it for Barber and did not because my focus was on Road Atlanta this year.

 

If I were a TR guy, I would be lobbying like hell to get the "spec" Southeast TR added to Performance Touring in the B class. That would be about the perfect transition class for them. They were pretty competitive when we were all in PTA. I think the perfect swap over would be spec TR and PTB with a bit of weight, in my opinion.

 

 

-Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firouz H.

i think doing MOD. to the hayabusa engine is a wrong approach in order to be competitive with corvettes in long tracks. what is attracting the new group of racers (i do think TR it is the fastest growing class in NASA) to the TR class is the reliabilities of the engines in the stock format (me included). it is a fact that as soon as anyone starts to modify these engines they will come apart and the cost of modification and not finishing racers will drive racers way from this growing class.

i do know it would cost corvette and v8 guys $$$$ to purchase more performance in order to run in st1 or st2 class. that is not fare for you guys either. When we all run in our own regions there is some what of a balance (few short tracks and few long tracks), however when we all go to a national championship which is always held at a long track, game over corvettes and v8 engines win.

 

i have to agree with Kevin, the best way to Handel this issue is to create a TR class under ST3. where the engine has to remain in stock H.P format. PROBLEM RESOLVED..... I do hope NASA management would look into this issue and make some kind of adjustments. Where both groups would be happy, after all we race because we love it and want to have fun doing it.

 

guys this just an idea.. no insults intended to anyone

 

regards to all,

firouz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braknl8

 

If I were a TR guy, I would be lobbying like hell to get the "spec" Southeast TR added to Performance Touring in the B class. That would be about the perfect transition class for them. They were pretty competitive when we were all in PTA. I think the perfect swap over would be spec TR and PTB with a bit of weight, in my opinion.

 

 

-Kevin

 

 

 

i have to agree with Kevin, the best way to Handel this issue is to create a TR class under ST3. where the engine has to remain in stock H.P format. PROBLEM RESOLVED..... I do hope NASA management would look into this issue and make some kind of adjustments. Where both groups would be happy, after all we race because we love it and want to have fun doing it.

 

guys this just an idea.. no insults intended to anyone

 

regards to all,

firouz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LJ32
Guys,

 

Mike was picking at me when he made the suggestion for Corvette's to go to ST2. Mike was behind me and watched me deal with the ST2 traffic in every single race at the Championships. He is also aware of my comments that I made about running switching to ST2 in order to be ahead of the ST2 cars that caused me issues. Please drop it, it started as a joke.

 

 

To be competitive on the longer tracks, the ST3 TRs will need to modify their engines. Simply put. That is the ONLY help they need and it comes from their pocket book. And that is the one thing they DON'T want to do because then they cannot swap between the Southeast Thunder Roadster class and ST3 with ease. It is NO DIFFERENT than us C5 guys not wanting to spend the money to modify our engines to be competitive in ST2 or ST1 so we can swap between light ST2 fields and ST3 fields.

 

HOWEVER, on the shorter tracks the ST3 TRs do just fine. Again, I refer to my Barber races with the TRs. The class rules cannot be built around one specific track type and you guys all know that. So again, pick your weapon and make the changes necessary to be competitive at a specific track. I could have done it for Barber and did not because my focus was on Road Atlanta this year.

 

If I were a TR guy, I would be lobbying like hell to get the "spec" Southeast TR added to Performance Touring in the B class. That would be about the perfect transition class for them. They were pretty competitive when we were all in PTA. I think the perfect swap over would be spec TR and PTB with a bit of weight, in my opinion.

 

 

-Kevin

 

I absolutely agree kevin, there is no reason to push vettes out of st3 because they run v8’s. that’s ridiculous. if you picked a light 4cyl as your weapon of choice use it to its advantages. Im going to have to turbo to be competitive but this is an open rule class so I expect that. I started this thread with a regional time sheet comparison to point out the huge time advantage I thought existed which did not in the end (my mistake) but I was more so concerned on how the TR’s are so much different from that of a “GT car.” I saw an advantage to a car that was basically a Go-kart compared to its heavier full sized car competition and was wondering if they should be in their own class much like the legend cars. I was trying to point out the those differences. IMO if it’s a “touring car” it belongs in super touring 3 no matter the engine/weight. That’s what the power to weight ratio is for. But at what point do you say, ok, do these somewhat open wheel spec go-karts (no disrespect) really belong in a full size touring car class regardless if they have an advantage to them or against them.

 

I can’t tell you how much I want car count! But not if the cars are of a different breed so to speak…

Im still pushing the GTS/ST/AI merge for car count tho! 25+ touring road car class all under the ST rules set because the power to weight ratio works perfectly (it’s your own fault if you go to one extreme and need a short or long track) . ST1,2,3,4 M3’s, mustangs, s2000’s, vettes, whatever, with ratios of 6, 7.5, 9, and 10.5 in a perfect world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erioshi

I find it interesting to see the whole big engine / small engine thing come back up again. It's an interesting problem and the current rules are part of why I'm not interested in competing in any of the NASA classes that do not use both horsepower and torque when trying to balance performance. Mod factors for engine size can help, but it would be hard to come up with a set of effective mod factors that work everywhere. If I were to consider racing in ST with NASA, I'd probably look at doing it with a middle weight V8 based car set up to provide noticeably more torque than horsepower.

 

I have always maintained that both horsepower and torque need to be considered when looking at engine performance. I understand that both of these values are different ways of representing essentially the same thing, but hear me out. The way each is expressed is different enough that with most of currently available engines, adding torque to the power to weight calculation adds a normalizing factor. Including peak torque would give a second point of reference when determining how much power a specific engine actually has available. There is even a decent chance that adding that second data point could eliminate the need for engine size, type and displacement adjustments. If all engines were locked into running a specific RPM, and we measured WHP at that RPM then the current system could accurately compare engine performance. But on a race track, engines are constantly changing their RPMs, and consequently their power output, and one single data point (peak WHP) doesn't seem to be an effective tool for comparing engine performance throughout the entire engine operating range.

 

There are already other classes within NASA that factor torque in when calculating power to weight, so it seems counterintuitive to me to have some classes measure power to weight with one method, and others use a different technique. I'm sure it complicates and probably limits opportunities for racers (and their cars) to effectively double-dip at events. I believe in one series peak WHP is used, except when peak torque exceed peak WHP. In that case an average of peak WHP and peak WTQ are used. That would probably work in a series where the cars were all fairly similar, but I'm not sure that would work (as well) in the ST classes. For ST I would prefer to see a straight average WHP and WTQ. That would cover the differences in power delivery between small, high reving normally aspirated engines, low-rev big displacement engines, and even turbo engines. It may also offer an opportunity to simplify the current weight mod factor tables.

 

While averaging WHP and WTQ wouldn't solve every problem, I feel it would be a step in the right in the right direction. My instinct tells me that with such a formula in place (and a maximized TR build), it might be the thunder roadsters that need to be slowed a bit.

 

Two more points:

 

I'm not currently a NASA racer. I'm playing elsewhere right now but like to poke in here because I really enjoyed my time with NASA.

 

If the current TR builds are not optimized and maximized, then there is no way to know if the current rules actually work. Without proof that the current rules are broken, there is little incentive from above to look at making changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brkntrxn

I disagree on the need to include TQ in our power-to-weight ratio classes in Super Touring. In classes where an engine can be overbuilt and then detuned to a capped horsepower, the torque is capped right along with the horsepower level. This is the case for EVERY SINGLE ENGINE if the owner overbuilds the engine to hit a flat curve on either hp OR tq. Mathematics and effective rpm range for your gearing determine the curve of hp if you want flat tq or the tq curve if you want flat hp. And even if you have a monster torque number in a horsepower-capped car, that peak tq number is so low in the rpm range that you NEVER see that low of an rpm while on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mhoward1
I disagree on the need to include TQ in our power-to-weight ratio classes in Super Touring. In classes where an engine can be overbuilt and then detuned to a capped horsepower, the torque is capped right along with the horsepower level. This is the case for EVERY SINGLE ENGINE if the owner overbuilds the engine to hit a flat curve on either hp OR tq. Mathematics and effective rpm range for your gearing determine the curve of hp if you want flat tq or the tq curve if you want flat hp. And even if you have a monster torque number in a horsepower-capped car, that peak tq number is so low in the rpm range that you NEVER see that low of an rpm while on track.

 

 

That's not completely true and was proven by Audi by running diesels in a few series. You can also play with the numbers by not only detuning the engine, but also by limiting RPM. A large displacement or alternate fuel engine (Diesel), can have significant amount of torque without having a high peak number. Example:

 

The engine can have 400 Ft/lbs from say 1800 on up with the drop off at 6800, but then you hard limit the motor to just 4800 RPM. Now the peak HP is only ~350 HP, well with in the limits of ST3 in a 3200 lb car. Now you adjust the gearing to use the effective power band of gears 1-3 to have a longer run with the gain of TQ, but the loss of range. Keep 4 as 1:1, and then adjust 5th. Because you have the power to run longer 2-3 gears, you could effectively by putting down more power than the standard car that is running the same peak HP at say 6500 RPM but only has roughly 282 lb/ft of TQ.

 

FFR runs both HP and TQ on the power to weight charts and we have to match both to see what our running weight needs to be. The same approach could actually make the ST calculations easier with no mod points needed for displacement. You would just have a table like:

HP 300 310 320 340 360

TQ

300 2900 2910 2920 2930 2940

310 2920 2930 2940 2950 2960

320 2940 2950 2960 2970 2980

 

 

Do that for HP and TQ figures for reasonable ranges for ST1-ST3.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rmj951

Good points made here I would have loved to go over these items with Greg G at RA unfortunately I was not able to meet him.

 

Not picking on the Vette's but, if the TR's didn't show would ST3 have had a class at RA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firouz H.

hello all

 

great point guys. the most important thing is to grow the st3 class. the 2014 nationals st3 class would have had total of three entries 2 corvettes and one Mazda if it was not for 7 TR (3 seconds a lap slower then corvettes). now you have to ask your self why such a low none TR entry. the post earlier is dead on the hp and tq should be included in the st3 formula.

please let me explain. take a ls2 engine turn it 5k rpms, lower the hp to 330 or so and then install much longer rods and a stroker crank shaft .. wala you have some where around 550 to 600 tq. there is not another st3 power plan that can touch that short track or long track.... please look at the lap times from Atlanta.... if those guys want to that and build a expensive tq monster no problem go for it, but if you want to make the st3 class grow there has to be level playing field. what my point is that the thunder roadster cars have no chance against the mega tq monsters 3200 pounds/550tq=5.81 tr 1700pounds/109tq=15.5. either tr are in the wrong group or there has to be major adjustments.

I have been racing for over 35 years and I have seen it all. the class would gets dominated by few and the most will pick up their toys and go home and then the class would die. example see how the entry list for st3 in west cost nationals. I am not going..

 

please do understand i am happy for the guys that push the envelop to max their performance and that is racing but at what cost.

our objective as a group should be to grow the class. i knew when i left for Atlanta i knew i did not have chance in st3 vs corvettes however i did go and i had a great time and meet great guys like (Kevin) and lot of others but i wanted to be more competitive not 3 seconds slower then corvettes. mike rae in thunder roadster was faster then i was but i was in the hunt entire time (great race) but the corvettes were gone like the wind i could not even see their tail lights. turn off the lights the party is over.......

the thunder roadster group is growing fast because they are low cost and fun to drive. my recommendation would be if there is 10 cars on the entry list give them their own class under st3 if not then they have to run in normal st3..

 

best wishes to all

firouz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmanuel B.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but here's a thought since kicking the vettes out of ST3 is unreasonable, and ST/SU is an open class where the guy who spends the most resources on development is rewarded for his efforts.

 

Why don't TRs in the various regions just grow the TR class and get it nationally recognized? i.e. contingencies, etc.

 

The cars are absolutely fun in the current SPEC form being run in the SE and we always have 10+ cars in the TR group. If the car counts are growing nationally, it's time for one or 2 guys from the various regions to get together with Randy and Darrel in the Southeast and figure out the next steps. Return the TRs back to TR spec form and enjoy that performance balanced race or make everyone buy more go fast parts since it's so low cost. You can always have all the TRs upclass into ST3 on any given weekend at favorable tracks where they feel competitive in the spec trim against the vettes.

 

While I'm sure Scott and Kevin are out there to win, they'd rather be in a race long battle for the win, as opposed to turning hotlaps for 35mins, but they've already been forced out of PTA into ST3 and will worry about making up their own numbers there. If throwing XX amount of $$$ into a TR to it's maximum potential still leaves it uncompetitive in the ST system at high HP tracks, then it simply shouldn't be in ST.

 

Summarizing my unsolicited 2 cents of an opinion: we own a '37 ford roadster with 937hp, but isn't the best handling car. No matter how much $$$ we throw at suspension & chassis modifications, and detune to meet ST1 limits, it'll never be competitive against a developed a modern viper or cadillac or similar sportscar ... but I could probably lobby for a modifier for drag cars turned road racing cars. Grow the TR class!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erioshi
I disagree on the need to include TQ in our power-to-weight ratio classes in Super Touring. In classes where an engine can be overbuilt and then detuned to a capped horsepower, the torque is capped right along with the horsepower level. This is the case for EVERY SINGLE ENGINE if the owner overbuilds the engine to hit a flat curve on either hp OR tq. Mathematics and effective rpm range for your gearing determine the curve of hp if you want flat tq or the tq curve if you want flat hp. And even if you have a monster torque number in a horsepower-capped car, that peak tq number is so low in the rpm range that you NEVER see that low of an rpm while on track.

I'd have to say your argument above really doesn't stand any stronger than telling telling the TR guys they need to optimize their builds to the current rules. I'm not aware of any current car in ST that is fully optimized to take advantage of the existing loophole available with unrestricted torque. If someone has not already build a turbo V8 torque-monster, either gas or diesel, with low gearing and a low preferred operating RPM specifically as an ST monster, I'd like to predict that it's only a matter of time.

 

With the rules as they are now in ST, it is possible to build a very highly torque focused engine (like a diesel .. or electric .. how about essentially 100% torque from almost 0 rpm?) and gear the car for a significant advantage. Under these same rules, it would be almost impossible to build a very small displacement engine, which would be dependent on high very RPMs, with the same relative percentage of usable power band. A turbo or supercharger can help close that gap, but even turbos and supercharger are dependent on engine RPMs to function. These devices are generally deliver more performance gain as engine RPMs increase. Of course someone could also choose to build a large V8 with small turbo and optimize the engine for sub 5,000 RPM operation, pushing low RPM torque numbers much, much higher under the current rules.

 

Here's a slightly different way of looking at the problem. Under 5250 rpm (where torque and HP cross) there is currently almost no limit on engine performance. For a car with a 6,000 rpm redline, that means essentially 87.5% of the rev range has almost no effective power limit, leaving only 12.5% of the RPM range constrained. For a car dependent on an 11,000 rpm redline, only the bottom 47.7% is effectively unrestricted, while the top 52.3% is constrained.

 

And here's a third way of looking at the problem. From a purely mathematical perspective, torque is the value that is actually measured, and horsepower is a secondary value derived from that measurement. I would therefor argue that if only one measurement was going to be used when comparing engine performance, it probably should be torque, the measured value, instead of a calculated value like horsepower. The formula for calculating horsepower is HP = (RPM * TQ) / 5250. If torque were used instead of horsepower, then the real peak engine power couldn't be "hidden" under the divide by 5250 math.

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...