Another Letter to the CRB on H Production Parity

Ron Bartell

Ron Bartell

Well-known member
Boy, do I hate to have to write letters to try to get adjustments in our class. I wish the CRB would be more proactive in making adjustments, but they probably feel good about the parity in H because the lap times are not too far off. But that is only part of the story, and the LBC’s really have no actual chance to win.

So, I gave in to stupidity and wrote yet another letter to the CRB asking for some improvement in the disparity of performance potential between some of the roadsters and some of the sedans. If someone doesn’t do it, nothing will happen, and apparently I have some semblance of credibility due my runoffs wins, 6 runoffs poles and 8 front row starts. I provided some ammunition to make changes by giving them spread sheets with trap speed data and a video of race starts and qualifying runs.

http://youtu.be/WW3_XKKf-1E

In the request I mentioned that the lap times are relatively close with my theoretical time less than a second slower than the pole at Laguna Seca. But unfortunately with such a difference in top speed any gain on the back side would be gobbled up on the next straightaway. Granted I could have been faster – we all could be faster, but I am regrettably the best we have at the moment. The only way we will get some of the other former champions and HP front-runners to come back out is to make their cars competitive. Some of these guys actually look at me and say if he can’t do it, I can’t either.

I frankly fail to see why we have to put up with this inability to actually win year after year. We already have no chance to win against the front-wheel drive cars when the grip is poor like on a wet track. Now even on a handling track like MRLS the roadsters in H couldn’t get the job done. In order to properly think about this situation, what we have in H is really G Production as we used to know it. What would you think it would take for a 948 cc Sprite to be able to keep up with the former GP frontrunners? Again, the lap times were not that far off, but there would never be any chance to lead the last lap.

That 948 Sprite is currently unable to compete at the highest level, even though it is listed at an almost unattainable weight. And yet this is the car that is used as a benchmark for determining the weight of some of the other LBC’s. If you took some significant weight off the 948 there would be an outcry that this group couldn’t get down to that weight, but it still wouldn’t be able to compete. That is a good indication of how far the class has moved over the years where the mainstay of the class is no longer able to compete at any weight. My opinion is that the class has passed the 948 cc by, and is in the process of passing ALL of the old traditional H-cars by unless some changes are made. Therefore it makes no sense to tie the 948 to the performance of the other LBC’s. Just let it go.

So, with the new information on trap speeds it should be clear that the advantage that the roadsters have in aero that was supposed to offset the lack of torque in getting out of a corner, is not there anymore. Improvement in power from the tin-tops have killed the aero advantage. If the CRB can accept that what I have for power is close to the most that can be had with this motor configuration, then they have what they need to understand the problem. At R.A. I had one lap with a tow that was within 5 mph of the fastest tin top. Most laps were 7 to 8 mph down on speed. That is way too much to be made up by braking or cornering.

I would be interested in opinions on whether anyone else thinks something should/could be done, and what you think it ought to be.
 
Ron, et.al.,
I'd love to see a HP car win HP again. But with guys like Loshak building super-duper, roofed cars out there, its like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The Hondas and VWs have the ability to be just as slippery and have waaay more power. They just have to haul around a bunch more weight. And, so far, that doesn't seem to have been that much of a hinderance.

In doing some research for my current HP project, I spoke with Jason Stine. For those who don't know, he runs the ex-McGinley, silver bugeye (a VERY nice car.....very well prepped and a fine example of the brand). It has a FP 948 and an FP chassis. He can't get close to 1425. And if that skinny kid can't get a 948 FP chassis down to weight, who can? So cutting the weight of the LBCs won't be effective. We don't need more tire. Adding more CR might be nice but that means all of us LBC folks go back to our engine builders. And I'm sure the roofed guys are sick of adding weight to their cars. But that's an easier remedy than taking our motors to the dyno again. Maybe the answer is more carb....

My guess is that more LBCs will come out of the woodwork this year since the Runoffs are now back on this side of the continent (more cars overall, too). And with any luck, we'll see some data to support a review of the class.

I flagged the FP race from T8 at MRLS and the Miatas were right with the Spridgets. So there is precedent for multiple marques playing together.

Two things are givens.....one, this isn't simple as the answer would have been discovered already and , two, Daytona will NOT be a fair knife/gun fight. :wink:

Dayle
 
Seems as tho the Honda has done well enough to gain some weight. 3yrs= 3 wins ? Is that right?
The CRX @ Daytona will be the top 3. It has clean aero, good gear sets, enough power.
 
Ron, very well stated. Unfortunately I agree that the LP British Cars in the 1200 cc range are the most common, and have the greatest need for parity in order to encourage people to keep racing them. In 2013 I had at least 6 poles in my Spit and in every race the torque of the previous GP cars running in H resulted in me being passed at the start. Higher cornering speeds do not help when a 2000 lb sedan is in front of you on the same line. If you loose your exit speed you will not win a drag race to the next corner. Lap speeds are difficult to compare due to different tracks, but it is clear that far more torque and usually more gears are a performance advantage in a race.

I feel the LP specs for some cars could benefit from increased compression and possibly cam lift. I am not saying go to full prep levels, but a measured increase in power potential would be the performance adjustment I would focus on. The several weight adjustments over the last several years have had little affect in my opinion. Of course there is expense to any motor changes, but probably not more than what we invest in entry/travel/tires etc for one frustrating weekend.
 
Agreed that there needs to be more parity in HP, but I feel the way to do it is to slow down the tip tops. Weight adjustments, chassis limitations, gearing limitations, etc. to the tip tops can all help. We can't make a true HP car competitive in GP, but we can slow down a GP car to keep the parity in HP.

The LBCs have been engineered for 50 years and are pretty much developed as far as they can be. Allowing more lift, compression, or over-bore to the chambers could be an option to help the LP LBCs, but it would all but kill the 948 and the 1098 and lead to more LBCs being parked. Like Dayle mentioned, I'm still running a full prep 948 and even with the recent weight adjustment I was granted, am still swallowed up at the starts. I can get down to about 1460 lbs. with a dry fuel cell and when I'm in marathon/triathlon training season, but have never actually seen less than 1465 in tech (min weight = 1450). Once the car is going, lap times aren't too far behind the leader at most tracks (and a lot of that is the driver), but there still isn't enough ground made up in the turns to combat being down on straight line speed and acceleration.

Jason
 
They need to put GP cars back in GP and leave HP cars in HP. We're sitting here with 2, formerly very competitive, HP Spridgets and we don't know what to do with them. We would like to come back but they obviously don't have a chance at the runoffs.
 
Don Feller":je57fhq2 said:
They need to put GP cars back in GP and leave HP cars in HP. We're sitting here with 2, formerly very competitive, HP Spridgets and we don't know what to do with them. We would like to come back but they obviously don't have a chance at the runoffs.
Click to expand...

And makes two classes that are under subscribed and ready for the chopping block? No thanks. I'd like to think that there's room for LBCs with tin tops. But the right balance has to be struck.

C'mon Don, drag those cars out of mothballs and get them on track. Or sell (rent?) one to Jay and see if he wants to play. Just because the Sprite may not be able to win the championship doesn't mean you can't have fun at this gig.

Dayle
 
Dayle Frame":2f7ejbr1 said:
And makes two classes that are under subscribed and ready for the chopping block? No thanks. I'd like to think that there's room for LBCs with tin tops. But the right balance has to be struck.

C'mon Don, drag those cars out of mothballs and get them on track. Or sell (rent?) one to Jay and see if he wants to play. Just because the Sprite may not be able to win the championship doesn't mean you can't have fun at this gig.

Dayle
Click to expand...

I agree. Admittedly the merge happened before I paid much attention to Prod, so I don't know which cars were which, but based on current entries we would end up two classes the size of B-Spec - which is last in participation and was on the verve of not making a class at the Runoffs.

Maybe its time to slow the front of the pack a little?
 
I wish we had some data from Michigan last year as far as trap speeds.

I have my timer data, but nothing from other classes. 119mph was best i could get...not sure what any of the F cars or other H cars hit.

At this point i'm not a huge fan of weight changes, I really don't think it affects the performance as much as people thinks. Various cars over the years have had weight piled on, but still remain competetive.
 
Based on the trap speeds at laguna the front 3 were 5 to 6 MPH faster down the straight. It does not look like the give up anything in the other sections of the track. The issue is not even so much the topend as much as how quick they get there. It really doesn't look like it would take a huge adjustment if it were done the right way.
 
The problem is that we always think of it as a hp to weight thing. Top speed is a horsepower to frontal area drag issue. It can't be easily fixed by weight because at top speed weight has practically no effect on speed. We always try to fix the problem with weight and wonder why it doesn't have much effect. If top speeds are the same then weight can make a difference, but weight will not slow the top speed of a car appreciably.
 
what would be an acceptable compromise engine formula for the 1275, remaining in H but not going all the way to Fprod specs. 12:1 CR, or 12.5:1 CR and carb mods? 1.5:1 rockers? Lord knows I can't take any weight off my car, it's down to about 1390-1400lbs minus driver and there not much else I can think of to take off it.
Mike MacQueen
H Prod Midget
WDCR
 
Adding weight is not just a matter of making the minimum weight of the car heavier. Before any weight is added, the CRB needs to know what the racing weight of the go fast, can't be passed, runaway winner actually weighs. If the listed minimum weight for the car and driver is 2000lbs and the actual on track weight is 2180, then adding 100 or 150lbs isn't going to make any difference in the car's performance. Sort of like saying the Sprigets can cut their minimum weight by the same amount. There will not be a performance gain there, because the cars can't possibly get down to the new minimum weight. If the CRB is not taking a very close look at the impounded weights after the race, it does not have enough date to make a valid decision. Plus, if there is a killer car that is a DNF and would not normally go to impound, that car should be directed by the CS to go to impound for a weight check. That's the only way juggling weights can have any real meaning. If you do not think increasing racing weight makes a difference, just take a look at what the added/subtracted weight changes have done in the TUDOR series, because they know what weight the cars are actually weighing at the end of the race before they make a change.
 
mmacquee":3a86rr1w said:
what would be an acceptable compromise engine formula for the 1275, remaining in H but not going all the way to Fprod specs. 12:1 CR, or 12.5:1 CR and carb mods? 1.5:1 rockers?
Click to expand...

That's my question......which 'fix' would suffice? Carbs? Lift? CR? I'm not a motor builder so what effect would going from a CR of 11 to 12? Would that's be 5hp? 10? 15? I have no idea. And what would and extra 10hp do to the acceleration rate that Ron discussed? If it would make a Spridget accelerate the same amount at a CRX, then that might be the edit that would do the trick.

Maybe adding 1/4" of carb would do it. Again, since I'm not a motor builder, would going from 1.25" to 1.50" give additional power? My guess is not that much. You can only push so much air through a stock head. And NOBODY wants to get into port and polishing (no SM allowances, right?).

We need to think long and hard about which ONE upgrade will allow LBCs to gain the oomph to compete. Nobody wants to have a change and then have to go back a few years from now and revisit the issue. Cost containment.

Dayle
 
Dayle Frame":1ypqyniz said:
mmacquee":1ypqyniz said:
what would be an acceptable compromise engine formula for the 1275, remaining in H but not going all the way to Fprod specs. 12:1 CR, or 12.5:1 CR and carb mods? 1.5:1 rockers?
Click to expand...

That's my question......which 'fix' would suffice? Carbs? Lift? CR? I'm not a motor builder so what effect would going from a CR of 11 to 12? Would that's be 5hp? 10? 15? I have no idea. And what would and extra 10hp do to the acceleration rate that Ron discussed? If it would make a Spridget accelerate the same amount at a CRX, then that might be the edit that would do the trick.

Maybe adding 1/4" of carb would do it. Again, since I'm not a motor builder, would going from 1.25" to 1.50" give additional power? My guess is not that much. You can only push so much air through a stock head. And NOBODY wants to get into port and polishing (no SM allowances, right?).

We need to think long and hard about which ONE upgrade will allow LBCs to gain the oomph to compete. Nobody wants to have a change and then have to go back a few years from now and revisit the issue. Cost containment.

Dayle
Click to expand...

Does helping one car at the "back" change the gap for the rest of the class?
 
racer_tim":29z9d76b said:
BRING BACK G Production. That would fix the full prep 948 issue
Click to expand...
How many cars are actually running the 948?

I think the issue is that the 1275LP motor is not competitive with the bigger (torque) engines. Adding back GP will only end up killing HP and you are back in the same place.
 
Most have either parked their 948's, run Vintage, or like Mike Cummings, replaced it with Level 2 prep 1275 from Huffaker.
 
Are'tn the Bugeyes allowed to use the 1275 ? Or 1500?

As mentioned, if the 948 cant get to weight, when the big bore cars can, maybe the solution is to add weight to all of the cars, keeping the same ratio between the cars. Working from actual min weight of the LBC .
Maybe the Honda needs 100# and the VWs need 50#. ):

Please no SIR- Flat plates considered but not SIR. KISS.
 
Ron hit the nail on the head. Power to weight doesn't account for areodynamic drag. For a 1275LP MIdget to compete it needs a higher top speed. That means it needs more hp. Give it more hp then add weight to get back to the original power to weight figure and you would be close. Raising compression might result in more power but it probably decreases reliability which goes against the philosophy of LP. Adding roller rockers would add hp and reliability. Going to 1.5" carbs may add hp and has no effect on reliability. I haven't looked to see max allowed cam lift, but it may need to be increased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top