2016 Rule Proposal--Decrease ST2 to 7.5:1 Adjusted Wt/HP

[LJ32]

Kevin,

No need to post a dyno... Nobody is being called out.

hear me out.

Simply put, a v8 can make more tq than it does hp easily, this is impossible to do in a 4 cylinder and near impossible for a v6 to do reliably all while maintaining the same performance, speed, and reliability like a v8 or v10. Adding TQ to the ratio will level the playing field without saying "hey you have to take a point factor for detuning" thats not needed and would just be another rule tacked on to our factor sheet that we don't need. People should still be able to detune if they want. Some might like driving that kind of set up better than others. ST should be open to do what you want. It should be the same for a v10 trying to cut to st2 as a v8 cutting to st3.

 

With a TQ/HP/LB ratio you would find yourself landing in the appropriate tier by the overall performance of the car. I would hope this idea would eliminate the advantage between displacement of engines and only leave driver experience and track layout as the benefiting factor to racers. therefore removing the need to try and shift ratios for closer or better racing. It may even be appealing to some of the gts and american Iron guys that were on edge about racing st2 and 3.

 

As for the pic of the black vette above.... This is obviously why I said leave aero out of the factor in any ST class because all of that is custom! lol you can add any kind of aero to anything. It doesn't have to be "off the shelf for your car".

Edited October 5, 2015 by Guest

[Grintch]

THE ONLY WAY to obtain closer racing in ST2 and ST3 is to factor HP AND TQ in the ratio. Doing so will push cars into their appropriate tier by the size of the engine and weight of the car. Stop shifting the ratios and add some simple MATH into them. I can't even believe you suggested that is an option!

 

Torque is already factored in. The ratio is race weight / ((RPM x Torque)/5252)

 

Using a HP + Torque number is junk science.

Look at a stock Honda F20: 237hp @ 8300 & 153 ft-lb @ 7500 (HP + TQ/2 = 195).

Now compare this to a a slow reving V8 with exactly the same power but at half the rpm:

237 hp @ 4150, 305 ft-lb @ 3750 (HP + TQ/2 = 271)

Is this engine almost 40% better? NO, it has exactly the same power, and with equivalent gearing (a 0.5 overdrive to provide the same speed in gears as the F20) it provides exactly the same torque to the wheels.

 

Another approach is to look at the gear charts, where you will notice that the torque monsters that LJ32 is afraid of should never see their max torque under racing conditions (when shifting at or near the redline). For example my Mustang makes 400 ft-lb at 4250 RPM, but if shifted at readline will only drop to 4870, 5470, or 5300 rpm (2-3, 3-4, and 4-5 shifts).

[LJ32]

hold up! LMFAO

First off bruce let's get your post in order, since you wanna throw out my name!

If you followed the ST facebook page you would have seen my posts taunting my fellow mafia friends before I went out east to VIR. This is not LJ32 afraid of TQ monsters. This is, why change numbers to make ppl spend money adjusting their power levels for NO reason. I race them all the time with no complaints... did so with an LS swapped 944 last weekend on a F'ING ROVAL so sit down! Unless you plan on coming to ST, then Hey great to meet you! hope to see you at the track with ST stickers! This is about changing Ratio numbers as indicated in the title of this thread. My suggestion is to help eliminate this.

 

You have a better one?

 

Crickets......

Edited October 5, 2015 by Guest

[Sterling Doc]

I'll save Greg from some typing here. Here was his response to this same issue a few years ago:

 

I have been getting tired of re-writing the arguments against the typical weight divided by hp+tq/2 equation (done multiple times on the NASA Forums) What matters is the area under the hp curve, not maximum torque. It would be too difficult to have rules that used "area under the dyno hp curve" to class cars, so the much easier calculation of max HP is used. I have even considered using a more complex formula, that would use Max HP, and then two other hp levels (picked fairly randomly--like 1000 rpm below the max and 2500 rpm below the max), but as you can imagine, it would end up being a nightmare. So, gearing is open, which allows those with lower torque to take advantage of their high revving, high hp/low tq motors. Ultimately, the only way to TRY and ensure that cars are equal, would be to keep a garage full of identical cars with a single mechanic working on them using identical specifications (including alignment, tire pressure, etc) to set them up. Even then, as all of you that play with public indoor karts know, unless the cars were rebuilt every weekend, eventually there are slightly better and slightly worse vehicles. So, we write rules that help to level the playing field. The rest of the job is up to the competitors.

 

I'd agree that LS1's make a pretty flat TQ curve easily, which is one of the reasons that I chose to go that route. Are we writing rules around "easy" ? [if so, I really want a competitive no areo modifier because that's definitely easier!] There was a GTS 944 Turbo at the East Coast Nationals that made virtually identical (like within 3%) peak HP and torque numbers to my car, and and even more flat TQ curve. ST3 power levels aren't tough for a well built 944 turbo motor. That's another effective solution. For me an LS motor was more fun, and that is the beauty of ST - we get to choose.

 

Your S2000 weighs what, 2700? The Vettes typically run in the low mid 3K range in weight. You need to make at or under 300 Ft/Lbs of torque to make it "equal" (discounting gearing, which works to your advantage), etc.). You can't bult a reliable FI motor to make 300 ft/lbs?

Edited October 5, 2015 by Guest

[LJ32]

Couldn't where the numbers are needed within the RPM range with a turbo. Among others... Trying with a supercharger this winter.

[Sterling Doc]

Well, I applaued you for making making a go at it, and good luck.

[Sterling Doc]

Maybe we can get CW Baader to run his diesel Rabbit in ST, and see how that works out.

[Balroks]

Maybe we can get CW Baader to run his diesel Rabbit in ST, and see how that works out.

 

I hear a bunch of VW diesel's just went on sale... Just sayin

[Sterling Doc]

ROFL!

 

VW pulled the "dyno cheat" on the EPA.

[brkntrxn]

I'll save Greg from some typing here. Here was his response to this same issue a few years ago:

 

I have been getting tired of re-writing the arguments against the typical weight divided by hp+tq/2 equation (done multiple times on the NASA Forums) What matters is the area under the hp curve, not maximum torque. It would be too difficult to have rules that used "area under the dyno hp curve" to class cars, so the much easier calculation of max HP is used. I have even considered using a more complex formula, that would use Max HP, and then two other hp levels (picked fairly randomly--like 1000 rpm below the max and 2500 rpm below the max), but as you can imagine, it would end up being a nightmare. So, gearing is open, which allows those with lower torque to take advantage of their high revving, high hp/low tq motors. Ultimately, the only way to TRY and ensure that cars are equal, would be to keep a garage full of identical cars with a single mechanic working on them using identical specifications (including alignment, tire pressure, etc) to set them up. Even then, as all of you that play with public indoor karts know, unless the cars were rebuilt every weekend, eventually there are slightly better and slightly worse vehicles. So, we write rules that help to level the playing field. The rest of the job is up to the competitors.

 

I'd agree that LS1's make a pretty flat TQ curve easily, which is one of the reasons that I chose to go that route. Are we writing rules around "easy" ? [if so, I really want a competitive no areo modifier because that's definitely easier!] There was a GTS 944 Turbo at the East Coast Nationals that made virtually identical (like within 3%) peak HP and torque numbers to my car, and and even more flat TQ curve. ST3 power levels aren't tough for a well built 944 turbo motor. That's another effective solution. For me an LS motor was more fun, and that is the beauty of ST - we get to choose.

 

Your S2000 weighs what, 2700? The Vettes typically run in the low mid 3K range in weight. You need to make at or under 300 Ft/Lbs of torque to make it "equal" (discounting gearing, which works to your advantage), etc.). You can't bult a reliable FI motor to make 300 ft/lbs?

 

 

I have been saying this for years!

 

If I am down anywhere near my good torque numbers, I am in too low of a gear to accelerate. At ALL tracks I race, I stay above 5200rpms almost everywhere, which is where my torque falls like a rock.

[Balroks]

 

 

I have been saying this for years!

 

If I am down anywhere near my good torque numbers, I am in too low of a gear to accelerate. At ALL tracks I race, I stay above 5200rpms almost everywhere, which is where my torque falls like a rock.

 

Meh, Technically the nature of a v8 right, torque the instant you put your foot down and slowly creeps. However to keep it accurate the only way "drop like a rock" works is if you tuned for a dead flat HP curve in which you need to loose torque at a specific rate in order to keep HP from going up. Most LS maps I've seen at PCM reflect....very little drop. As in 40-50 max lol. So if we can't get torque in seamlessly, then what about making them run 245 tires...damn wait they won with that too. . I'm just gonna sneak boulders into Kevin's care next time I see him

 

semi-final vote: 5.5 - 7.5 - 9.5, and treat A's between a R and slick where it belongs.

 

<-Re'up member of the run what you brung club and founding president of the pray for rain consortium.

[mlwbcolorado]

Greg - Can you provide an update on when the 2016 rules will be announced?

[Grintch]

hold up! LMFAO

First off bruce let's get your post in order, since you wanna throw out my name!

If you followed the ST facebook page you would have seen my posts taunting my fellow mafia friends before I went out east to VIR. This is not LJ32 afraid of TQ monsters. This is, why change numbers to make ppl spend money adjusting their power levels for NO reason. I race them all the time with no complaints... did so with an LS swapped 944 last weekend on a F'ING ROVAL so sit down! Unless you plan on coming to ST, then Hey great to meet you! hope to see you at the track with ST stickers! This is about changing Ratio numbers as indicated in the title of this thread. My suggestion is to help eliminate this.

 

You have a better one?

 

Crickets......

 

 

So you didn't say "THE ONLY WAY to obtain closer racing in ST2 and ST3 is to factor HP AND TQ in the ratio"? I realize you are not the guy who suggested using (HP + TQ)/2, but that was the only specific suggestion on how to factor in TQ.

 

I agree that area under the curve is the real answer, but from a rules & enforcement perscpective it would be MUCH harder to deal with than a single peak HP value. So that's my preference.

 

P.S. data point for showing how HP+ TQ is not a good predictor of performance:

2015 Golf (base gas engine) 170 hp & 200 ft-lbs (185 average) - 0-60 time - 6.8s

2015 Golf TDI, 150 hp & 236 ft-lb (193 average) - 0-60 time - 9.0s

Edited October 17, 2015 by Guest

[haase1375]

the LS engine could show 335 hp on dyno but could produce 600 ft of tq. with the correct engine/electronics mods and goodies..

HP wins on dyno ... TQ wins on the track. the engine TQ needs to be factored in.

 

regards

[brkntrxn]

the LS engine could show 335 hp on dyno but could produce 600 ft of tq. with the correct engine/electronics mods and goodies..

HP wins on dyno ... TQ wins on the track. the engine TQ needs to be factored in.

 

regards

 

 

First off, no LS motor will make that much power in that manner. Even if it were possible (ie, turbo diesel) the max torque would be at such a low RPM that you would NEVER use it.

 

rpm tq hp

1500 1173 335

1750 1005 335

2000 880 335

2250 782 335

2500 704 335

2750 640 335

3000 586 335

3250 541 335

3500 503 335

3750 469 335

4000 440 335

4250 414 335

4500 391 335

4750 370 335

5000 352 335

5250 335 335

5500 320 335

5750 306 335

6000 293 335

6250 282 335

6500 271 335

6750 261 335

7000 251 335

7250 243 335

7500 235 335

[Sterling Doc]

Hard to respect those who pull numbers out of thin air to argue a point.

 

The hypothetical unicorn powered LS1 would make peak HP at about 2,900 RPM.

 

 

 

This thread was about input on adjusting a ratio. As posted above, Greg has made his opinion clear on the HP + TQ issue.

 

[Billy Bass]

 

Ill leave nasa If the ST3 aero gets bumped up to 1.0 That's about the dumbest thing Ive heard! You are taking away the only benefit light weight smaller cars with aero have against the corvettes on tight tracks. There should not be an aero factor in ST at all in any of the tiers 1-3!!! Super Touring is an unlimited modification class so stop trying to regulate it. If you don't have the money to make or buy aero then get out of ST and into a Spec class. Detuned big a$$ engines is whats causing the unsettlement in our classes. THE ONLY WAY to obtain closer racing in ST2 and ST3 is to factor HP AND TQ in the ratio. Doing so will push cars into their appropriate tier by the size of the engine and weight of the car. Stop shifting the ratios and add some simple MATH into them. I can't even believe you suggested that is an option!

 

Oh no I'm SOOO sorry, please don't leave! You have a Honda? How about a 1 point bonus for you, I don't really give a crap.

 

You seriously think another car with zero aero would dominate a car with fully developed aero at most road courses with a 1 point bonus? You are WAY overestimating the benefit of torque and WAY underestimating the additional grip provided by good aero. Horsepower is what accelerates your car and torque is already factored into the equation. Please don't make me give you a physics lesson. And no that would not take away the "only benefit of a lightweight car with aero vs a corvette on tight tracks". The lighter car with aero has an advantage on tight tracks! Look, your talking to the wrong guy because I've been running under-powered in ST2, ST1, and SCCA every year up until this year and you are welcome to take a look at my results if you like. Hp/tq are the LAST concerns I have when it comes to building a fast car. Why do the think the ST2 cars generally run the same lap times as ST1 cars even with 2-300 less hp/tq? And ST3 cars are right there with ST2? Wouldn't a 300 hp advantage make a HUGE difference according to you? It doesn't, it helps a little. So guess what, giving a car with no aero a 20-30 hp advantage over a full aero car isn't going to make much difference but it will give the guy who can't afford a $5000 aero package some extra help. I'd still take the aero car for sure unless we are at Daytona or Cal Speedway. All my ideas would save money for racers, not add expense. All the ST3 aero guys would have to do is put in a restrictor or detune. That's cheap.

 

Here's my ST2 dyno sheet, torque is good but still lower than my hp numbers. My friend has an identical car making the same horsepower, but with 580 ft-lbs of torque (220 more than mine!) and I've driven his car. The only difference is in a couple corners maybe I won't shift to 2nd gear in his car. But overall they turn the same lap times and trap speeds, because wait for it ........... only power and gearing matters, that's right! Like I said, I don't care about high torque numbers down low in the rpm range, we're not pulling plows. Just get to the power/weight ratio for your class and get the optimal gearing for the track. If your car is slower than the corvettes, then look at their cornering speeds and braking. That's where you'll find the time assuming you are at equal power to weight ratios .

 

[davidfarmer]

for conversation purposes only...... I entered the data below into my wheel/torque spreadsheet to determine shift points.....

 

 

The torque-monster argument really doesn't hold water in the extreme. Even in a theoretical 600-ft-lb example shown below, your ideal shift points are above 5000rpm, and you are already way off of the torque curve. For my example (345hp), there is no reason to make more than about 385 ft-lb of torque, because if you are using it, then you are in the wrong gear!!! Yes it helps drivability if you like to "lug" out of corners, and would reduce some shifting, but it should help lap times very little.

 

So while it would be great to slightly overbuild (10% or so) in order to get a nice flat HP curve, there is no outright performance reason to build a "torque monster"

 

Flame away....

 

 

[Apexkingjusto]

LJ these are some good and interesting points about tq. I'm going to have to say I'm willing to give up that fight for simplicity of the rules. That said, I'm still putting up a fight to keep the non oem type hardtop! I also wish the 20page thread about this rule wasn't deleted. Is love to better understand it.

 

Now back to topic. 7.5:1 vs 8:1. If we go to 7.5, I'll bump up to st3.

[[email protected].]

I would rather keep it the way it is, rule changes scare many people away. We are starting to get a larger ST2 group and might move people in different classes. I would keep the 8.00:1 ratio.

[Mrsideways]

for conversation purposes only...... I entered the data below into my wheel/torque spreadsheet to determine shift points.....

 

 

The torque-monster argument really doesn't hold water in the extreme. Even in a theoretical 600-ft-lb example shown below, your ideal shift points are above 5000rpm, and you are already way off of the torque curve. For my example (345hp), there is no reason to make more than about 385 ft-lb of torque, because if you are using it, then you are in the wrong gear!!! Yes it helps drivability if you like to "lug" out of corners, and would reduce some shifting, but it should help lap times very little.

 

So while it would be great to slightly overbuild (10% or so) in order to get a nice flat HP curve, there is no outright performance reason to build a "torque monster"

 

Flame away....

 

 

 

 

I'm at the oppsite end of this, I have a car that makes Peak HP and peak tq at damn near redline. It's a small N/A motor ringing the guts out of it to get to a TT3/ST3 hp. Car is as light as I can get it. And mods + dyno reclass it can't get into B, Not even close. Not much I can do other then build a higher displacement motor and try to make more TQ.

[LJ32]

My vote is to keep the ratios the same, ST2 and 3. I'll still be boosted and can just retune.. I'm just feeling sorry for others that will have to spend a lot of money to adjust because of senseless changes. Seems like the opposition in favor of changing ST2 or 3 have no clue on how to keep car counts up and/or growing... I still think there are other things that can be done rather than moving numbers ups and down.

 

Bruce,

My thought behind it was to factor TQ/weight if TQ is Higher than HP. Im gonna go out on a limb and say Mcaleenan wouldn't have been able to pull a 3 second gap over the majority of st3 entries at laguna seca if that ratio was in play IMO and would be closer racing. Ill let you do your own research about his build...

 

1.3 total aero factor is absurd. I can't even take that suggestion seriously...

Pretty sure half the entries in st3 would be looking for another class or association.

 

 

 

Billy.

Ill take you up on that,

On record... me at 8 you at 9?

What region are you in? I would really like to come out to one of your regions races so we can discuss. Want to see if you still run that mouth in person.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Guest

[mlwbcolorado]

Greg - Can you provide an update on when the 2016 rules will be announced?

[Mrsideways]

I think the way to do this is to include either A) a slightly different modification factor based on Forced Induction or Large Displacement. Or B) Have a different Modifier based on how close your peak TQ is to redline based on percentage. Reason for doing it like that is that you can simulate TQ with gearing, but to do so you need to have a very high reving engine, otherwise your just shifting A LOT. I'm trying to figure out a way of doing Math so you don't end up with a little engine getting a large advantage because it makes 100ft/lbs of TQ but revs to 12000 rpm and geared very short so the TQ at the ground is the same as a 500ft/lbs V8 and the MPH in each gear is the same because of 12,000 rpm vs 6,000 rpm. I think the only way to do that is to toss in a Modifier for RPM.

[Grintch]

Ratio = race weight / (( TQ x RPM) peak/5252)

 

Torque & RPM are already factored in.

 

Now if you want to eliminate the light car penalty, I would be behind you 100%.