gr42ai Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Combine the horsepower and torque numbers and divide by two then use this number with whatever ratio 9.0:1, 9.25:1. 9.5:1 to come up with the weight Example 325hp + 345tq = 670 335 x 9.5:1= 3183 Reason you have only one target number you are trying to achieve, eliminating trying to find that perfect combination of HP and TQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Thats a good idea, but would definately need a lower ratio. 9:1 or less in my opinion. I would suggest 8.75:1. That would be nearly perfect with a 200lb driver. When I ran my car with its original stock bottom end motor I think I was in the 2900 lb range. All steel, glass, etc. No weight reduction other than fiberglass hood. I was well under 300rwhp, but I could easily have tuned the motor for more. In those days however it was not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tornado Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Like that idea also with divide by two as it will save us alot of money in dyno tunning to max each. I also like a better then 9.5 to 1 level as some of us may run in other series like av8ss and it would keep us from having to add/remove restrictor plate and change chip (or retune). With more power these cars run the mid 1:30's at M-O not upper 30's. They have all the brakes, safety, etc.. to handle quicker lap times. A few vette guys wouldn't come over cause they thought the cars didn't have enough power (eye of the beholder I guess) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledfoot2 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Like that idea also with divide by two as it will save us alot of money in dyno tunning to max each. I also like a better then 9.5 to 1 level as some of us may run in other series like av8ss and it would keep us from having to add/remove restrictor plate and change chip (or retune). With more power these cars run the mid 1:30's at M-O not upper 30's. They have all the brakes, safety, etc.. to handle quicker lap times. A few vette guys wouldn't come over cause they thought the cars didn't have enough power (eye of the beholder I guess) You have to watch those Vette guys, especially the ones that are looking to run slower AI cars. I run in the lowest of the VVC or GPC class and it is a minimum of 8:1 ratio. I am right up against it with my car right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_tone Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I am 100% opposed to any change or modification of the ratio limits, it worked great this year. There were 7 guys that could have been on the podium at MO, why change a good thing. For this series to thrive there needs to be rules consistency year after year after year, continually changing the fundamental rule that the series was based on is not the way to grow the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardC Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Combine the horsepower and torque numbers and divide by two then use this number with whatever ratio 9.0:1, 9.25:1. 9.5:1 to come up with the weight Example 325hp + 345tq = 670 335 x 9.5:1= 3183 Reason you have only one target number you are trying to achieve, eliminating trying to find that perfect combination of HP and TQ. I like the simplicity of soemthing like this. Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff F Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I am 100% opposed to any change or modification of the ratio limits...For this series to thrive there needs to be rules consistency year after year after year, continually changing the fundamental rule that the series was based on is not the way to grow the series.I...agree...with...Tone...Ouch that hurts! There is a big flaw in your proposal. You open the door to building high-revving, high-dollar engines that make big HP and low torque. Let's say you have this 3183lb car with 325HP and 345TQ with an engine that spins 6000, and run 3.55 gears. Now you build an engine for the same 3183lb car that spins to 10,000RPM, and makes 230ft-lb but 438HP. Couple that with a ~5.30 gear and you get the same torque at the rear wheels, higher speeds in each gear, and 100+ more HP. Do the math. DON'T MESS WITH THE RATIOS! I've spent 3 years getting my engine and car tuned into those ratios. I don't want to start over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Jeff that strengthens my point about the ratios. If they were a bit lower it would not be so hard to tune the motor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr42ai Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 Tone, of those 7 guys what where the engine combos, Carb vs Fi, Ford vs chevy, Mod vs Pushrod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Another benefit to Guy's proposal is that it would allow for 4 cylinder cars to be competitive with the V8's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_tone Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I...agree...with...Tone...Ouch that hurts! . That's right Jeff - KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!! Guy, I'll get back to you on that. I'll have to look at my pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_tone Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Another benefit to Guy's proposal is that it would allow for 4 cylinder cars to be competitive with the V8's. I thought that the weight break would allow for that, and who says a 4 banger can't make 300/300? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff F Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Jeff that strengthens my point about the ratios. If they were a bit lower it would not be so hard to tune the motor.No, it makes no difference whatsoever. You take the target ratio and you build and tune to it. If you are having difficulty tuning down to the ratio, you chose the wrong parts. CMC cars don't seem to have a problem making 230hp and 300ft-lb at the the wheels. Meeting the basic numbers was easy. Tuning the engine to shape the torque and power curves to the optimum is what took years. New ratios, and that all goes in the trash for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Jeff, I have been doing this longer than yo think I have. These are not cmc cars. Carbs can be inconsistant and as Brian pointed out so can dynos. One thing that is overlooked is that motors with tunable fuel injection have an advantage because they can be electronically manipulated to make the right numbers and have a nearly flat power curve. With a carb you either mess around with restriction, which hurts the curve, or you spend lots of money on trying out several differnt combos and dyno test them all until you get something close. Brian, I am not saying that a 4 cylinder cannot make the numbers. It's just a question of how much will it cost and how much frustrations and time will be wasted doing so? Besides, this is just a proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jim P. Posted October 4, 2006 Members Share Posted October 4, 2006 I am 100% opposed to any change or modification of the ratio limits, it worked great this year. For this series to thrive there needs to be rules consistency year after year after year, continually changing the fundamental rule that the series was based on is not the way to grow the series. I agree with b_tone.... What is the world coming to?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizlbits Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I understand Jeff's numbers, but I think the big dollar motors can be limited by putting a requirement like: Torque & hp must be within 10, 15, or 20 % of each other maximum. The reason for the rule is not to allow the 10,000 rpm motors. It is to get the motors that are at the limit on one number to average it out some they don't have to throw more parts at the motor to get near the limit on both numbers. It is so they can average the numbers. Then all they have to do is adjust weight to match their motor numbers. I have seen some cars that are on limit on HP or Torque, but 30 or 40 down on the other number. I pointed this out and asked why don't you change this, the answer is always "It is too hard / expensive and I don't want to mess with the motor". This formula would allow them to be at the limit just by adding or subtracting weight. This should be cheaper for most people, and a lot less hassle / experimentation with motors, which should help draw people into the class. If they know whatever their combination comes up with can be competative, it may help the hesitation to jump into the class for fear of not making the optimal hp/torque numbers. And besides, I have already agreed with Tone once in another thread, once is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z28racergirl Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Gosh darnit! It's taken me how many years and how little money to get my engine built and tuned for two sets of numbers and now someone who doesn't run with us suggests a change? Guess what my response is: NO! I haven't thrown a ton of parts at this thing (too poor) and please tell me how to lose more weight out of the car without turning to a drastic diet myself. And I will NOT add more weight to #29--you can't make me! It's a pig as it is! Thanks for listening, Christine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racercosmo Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 I think that the person who requested the change has run as many races as you have in the past 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboss Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 Christine, that's the whole point. If what Guy suggested were used with the addition of a slightly lower ratio it would not take you very long at all to tune your motor for the numbers and you wouldn't have to worry about adding so much weight. Everyone could be more focused on enjoying the racing more rather than worry about the numbers so much. Hint, anything that doesn't have a purpose or required by the rules does not need to be on the car. That not doesn't only apply to bolt on items. -V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bob D. Posted October 7, 2006 Members Share Posted October 7, 2006 I agree with b-tone and Jeff F . Let the rules stand. If you have consistant rules the people will come. If we keep moving the target it gets difficult for people to get on board. And everyone saying it will save money..yea right! nothing is cheap, It like a politician saying " We need this for the working families and the children" yeah, yeah sure we do. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z28racergirl Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 "would not take you very long to retune your motor" Actually, I hope to never have to retune again--or at least for a very long time. That's because retuning is a huge, expensive, time-consuming pain in my arse. I've got the car as light as it's going to get, and as close to my target dyno numbers as it's going to get, and it took me three years to get there, and I don't want to have to go thru it again. Just my thoughts. I think a series that's got 5+ years under it's belt is pretty much proven by this time. Any changes should be minor adjustments. Thanks for listening. Christine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gr42ai Posted October 7, 2006 Author Share Posted October 7, 2006 After 5 years the only thing that is proven is that if you want to win races you need to run a fuel injected pushrod Ford, this rule would make the chevy and the 4.6 Ford more competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tornado Posted October 7, 2006 Share Posted October 7, 2006 I have not run series in almost 4 years so I agree with all being said and I have no real skin in the game yet. I just like the thought of not having to go to tuner and dyno tune mine with a restrictor plate and then burn a chip for it with no plate so I can run either way. I agree though, 5 years, working well, no big changes needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raybob9289 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 I agree with b-tone and Jeff F . Let the rules stand. If you have consistant rules the people will come. If we keep moving the target it gets difficult for people to get on board. And everyone saying it will save money..yea right! nothing is cheap, It like a politician saying " We need this for the working families and the children" yeah, yeah sure we do. Bob Let the existing rules stand. I am with my buddy Bob,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 After 5 years the only thing that is proven is that if you want to win races you need to run a fuel injected pushrod Ford, this rule would make the chevy and the 4.6 Ford more competitive. Not sure what you're looking at, but the Chevy (Gen I SBC) can make the # for $2500 complete. I think the motor rule is just fine for now, as a driver who hopes to join the series next year. There's plenty of other places I could spend the money. Besides, this is for winner's stickers and (sometimes) plaques, isn't it? If someone wants to rent the dyno and tuner for 8 hours, that's their decision. I'll go spend my money on the track and get by with a non-optimal tune. My $.02. I'm with Tone, Jeff, Bob, and Raybob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts