Another Letter to the CRB on H Production Parity

[David Ferguson]

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.

They should make additional weight be rotating mass. Spec a heavier minimum flywheel weight, or minimum wheel weight. That would affect both the handling and acceleration/braking performance.

 

[disquek]

Please no SIR- Flat plates considered but not SIR. KISS.

Mike,

You continue to bring up plates. I'm sure you're a normal hard working racer. But what you see as simple, others see as opportunity to leave you in the dust.

A plate is anything but simple. It's opportunity. Make a plate the rule in a class with 1,542 different intake options and I will mop the floor with you. Now we've gone from "simple" to requiring an understanding the fluid dynamics of airflow through a complex intake tract with a plate in there somewhere. All to result in the effective dynamics of an SIR (but at a far larger diameter, since it's a "simple plate"). You want to talk about expensive? THATS expensive.

The only way to create parity using inlet restrictors in an open category like prod, is an SIR. If you spec a plate, you will increase the "have" to "have not" gap by ten fold.

Hell, please do it. I'd love to buy a prod car and mop the floor for a year. I have access to lots of CPU cycles, CFD software, and friends with 3d laser scanners and printers. Do you? I love "simple", because it's anything but.

-Kyle

 

[Curtis]

Why not request a 1380 bore solution now and an even larger displacement stroke solution at higher weight later. Bore now as Pistons already free. Stroke next year after the FP Miatas set precedent by getting the cranks they will need when they start running their new rods.

 

[Tom Broring]

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?
Mike MacQueen

Mike, that is where this gets very tricky. Spec changes have proportional results. The lower the compression you start with the more gain you get from each point. If nothing else in changed, a 10:1 to 11:1 increase may give 3% more HP but 13:1 to 14:1 only 1.5%. Torque should increase a little more. A compression increase in the range we are working should increase themal effficency, but may also allow different cams to be run and may or may not affect cylinder filling depending on intake so there is not a one size fits all adjustment. Of course with a proportional increase a larger engine benefits more. Some seriously experienced engine builders would need to weigh in on any proposed changes. At least there is alot more simulation software out there now than there was when the limited prep specs were first drawn up. You wonder why 11:1 was chosen pretty much across the board. As Ron points out, some calculations of HP effects on speed at the top speed range we run in would be helpful to be really accurate for a performance adjustment.

I think we all agree the GP cars were hardly affected by the modest weight adjustments they received when they were moved. I feel engine spec adjustments should be allowed for some of the limited prep HP cars which had been top of their class but are no longer. I wish there was an easy fix for the older full prep H cars.

 

[SPEEDSHAK]

Here we go again!!

I love you guys, I really do. And I do understand and appreciate all of your arguments.

(I cant believe Im taking the bait again)

Has everyone forgotten what Steve Sargis did to our all mighty CRX at Road America?? No one has even come close to his times.

Adding more weight to the CRX is just ridiculous. Tire management has become a huge issue. Anyone notice how Jason pulled me up the hill time and time again? Or under braking?

The argument that the LBC's have over 50 years of development is something I can't just accept. If I built my Prelude as it was raced in World Challenge in the late 90's, I would have never won EP in 2006. Although I'm positive they were developed to the max for that time... Naturally, evolution of components, tires, materials and ideas is why our Prelude was waaay faster than a Prelude ever was in WC. Is there truly nothing left to upgrade on the LBC's? Latest shocks? Lightest wheels? Latest header development utilizing SPD or Burns merges? Cam development after building such a header? Still using electromotive from 10 years ago? Develop the setup to use radials? I know the front 4 were on radials.

Giving the LBC's more power, when lap times are similar, isn't a solution either. Assuming they have an advantage in the corners and braking because of lightweight, giving them power will make that unfair too... Unless you also add weight. BTW, Steve Hussy's record still stands in his LBC at Laguna.

Ok, lets just put aside the above for a second.

There's a simple fact that's being ignored. Sub 2000lb cars and cars with engines smaller than 1.5L are not being built anymore. I think its great seeing Jason out there in his Yaris as well as seeing a Honda Fit in HP. We need to keep in mind, without new cars being built, the class will not survive. To argue that 10 classic roadsters MIGHT come back and play is not a valid argument. These cars have an option of vintage racing. New cars do not. New cars are what would make sense to try to attract. Please take no offense, but pretty sure the goal isnt to take cars from vintage and get them to race HP. Its to bring new people into the class, at least IT cars.

Oh yeah... Did I mention how Sargis did at Road America in 2010?

Too much to type. Please dont get offended, its the last thing I want to do is offend anyone. Take a breath and think about whats best for the class not just your car or better yet, your pocket.

 

[JasonIsley99]

Has everyone forgotten what Steve Sargis did to our all mighty CRX at Road America?? No one has even come close to his times.

Did the CRX ever have a close ratio trans at Road America, or was MRLS the first year? Was it still also running a distributor back then? I only ask because people like to credit that car as being one of the few 100% efforts in H, but I wonder if it was a 100% when it had the stock trans and ignition, or is it 100% now? Hard to know what the benchmark is when it continues to develop and get faster - which is something we should all be trying to do.

 

[Brett W]

How top level 948 powered cars are running right now in HP? How many more would you attract if something changed?

 

[Joe Harlan]

LL, You are correct that cars should only be adjusted on a 100% effort but the line should not move so far that the existing class is left in the dust. The front 3 cars had 5 MPH over ever other car there without any loss in the other segments. Clearly the HP advantage is there. Not taking away anything from the drive of the front 3 cars.
The sedans clearly have advantage at the start and more topend makes it pretty tough for a momentum car to have any advantage.

 

[Ron Bartell]

Oh yeah... Did I mention how Sargis did at Road America in 2010?

Steve Sargis' run at RA is a perfect example of what we are talking about. He carried a lot more weight than he did when he ran the same car in G, and guess what, he turned lap times that are only about a second or so off of what he turned with the G car. Why? Because weight doesn't stop a higher horsepower car from reaching its top speed provided the straight is long enough. Steve was probably a couple mph slower than the CRX on the straight, and if you remember he got passed at the start but was able to get back by because he was close to the top speed of the CRX. He was 3 or 4 mph faster than the fastest Spridget IIRC because he definitely has more power than a LP1275..

We are not talking about lap times here. Latest shocks, lighter wheels and the like have nothing to do with trap speeds. There is no way that a car can be 4, 5 or as much as 8 mph different on the straight and make that up on braking or cornering. Do the math and see what 5 mph does over the length of one straight, then look at how many times in one lap you get to use that advantage, then look at how many laps there are. Jason was able to stay with you because he turned identical trap speeds as you did. If there was some trick that would make a Spridget 4 or 5 mph faster, one of the 8 or so Spridgets would have found it by now, but with stock carbs on stock heads there is not anything to work with which is why we are so similar in trap speed. There has been significant dyno time spent on this configuration so if there was something out there it would be known by now.

Of course you think giving the LBC's more power is unfair. That would put us more on an even keel with the CRX. I know that you think you have developed the crap out of your car, and I am sure you have. But don't belittle the efforts of all of the other guys that have developed their cars. And speaking of development, many of the former G car tin tops were hardly developed at all before they were brought into H. That is why they have continued to be developed over the years and have offset the advantage that we used to have with better aero. There is probably still some things that can be done to them even though they are already turning similar lap times. Bigger motors make bigger power. Bigger power makes cars go faster on the straight. Going faster on the straight will win the race every time until enough weight is added to offset the straight line speed with diminished acceleration, cornering, and braking. As I said, that will take quite a bit of weight either added to the front cars, taken off the cars behind, or a combination of both because weight isn't the answer to top speed. For info, your and Jason's trap speeds were closer to Huffaker and Linn's F speeds then they were to the rest of the H field. Joe has probably 20 to 30 more horses and weighs less than the H Spridgets, and was 2 mph faster than you and Jason.

As for more weight hurting your tire management, I feel for you about as much as you feel for me being 5 mph slower than you on the straight. I don't begrudge you winning. You and Jason ran a good race (although that one bobble you had in turn 9 would have put you in the weeds in a RWD car) and you deserve to win. The cars that used to dominate the class also deserve a chance to win as well or at least run up front, and that won't happen with what we have now. Steve Hussey and his Bugeye would be at least 2 seconds off of his record on the track as it is now. With maybe one exception there are no 948's that can keep up with a LP1275. I should know - I had a fast one.

I don't know what the answer is. I am just outlining the problem. I am not ready for vintage, but I am willing to go away if nothing can be done.

 

[JessePrather]

Why not request a 1380 bore solution now and an even larger displacement stroke solution at higher weight later. Bore now as Pistons already free. Stroke next year after the FP Miatas set precedent by getting the cranks they will need when they start running their new rods.

Ouch. You cut me Curtis

 

[JessePrather]

Balancing limited prep with full prep is a nasty task. Look at what happened in FP this year. We saw a Midget destroy the field with enough power to run with anything out there. How long have we been hearing about how this car is uncompetitive. For those of you that haven't seen the in car video's, check out Eric Prill's video to see what that Midget was doing down the straights. Very impressive! Those guys took it to the next level in developement, even Joe Huffaker was highly impressed. This means there's always more out there, no matter how long the cars have been running.

 

[Curtis]

Why not request a 1380 bore solution now and an even larger displacement stroke solution at higher weight later. Bore now as Pistons already free. Stroke next year after the FP Miatas set precedent by getting the cranks they will need when they start running their new rods.

Ouch. You cut me Curtis

Thank you for the smile Jesse so I don't have to wonder. And everyone knows I don't run HP, a Honda, or a Spridget so my opinion doesn't count. PS. I support your rods

But I was serious. If level 2 is headed toward allowing one offs to address specific situations why wouldn't this one qualify. A heavier option with more displacement is the only Daytona option I could see allowing a Spridget to run with a Honda, Mini, or 4ag Toyota at Daytona. Other adjustments to the current configurations this year won't be enough and would just leave the fwd cars on the outs in 2016. Maybe there is no good solution.

 

[SPEEDSHAK]

Ron,

I do care, I really do. Bunching up the field is a goal.

The speeds Jason and I had were definitely increased because we were inches apart basically the entire race. In 2013, when I was behind the VW, I had 5mph faster trap into 12 than once I got around him. And theres no question the VW's have more grunt than the mighty Honda we're worried about. It just so happens we found a good all around package which handles pretty well too.

Adding power to the LBC's is as much of a perfect solution as adding weight to the Honda.

But adding power AND weight to the LBC's is something I believe is the answer.

Its pretty tough to balance the frontal area (talking about top speed) of roadsters to tin tops in the first place. But here we have cars weighing almost 500lbs apart.

Jason, the close ratio gearbox was a big help at a short track like Laguna and plays a smaller role at RA. All mods done to my car, evolving from Moser's car were done right away. Meaning thats how we ran all season. Check out my lap times at RA and Gingerman this year. The infinity and the coil packs etc, made the car more consistent and drivable with less hiccups. Just development. Made the car more consistent. Every year its important to be better, not necessarily faster, but better.

Another fact that everyone seems to ignore... Is we have more time to work on setup, data, engine tuning because were not wrenching on a LBC between sessions! :lol:

EP, DSR, FB, HP.... Same team, same results. Or were those all improperly classed too? HYPERformance, is now open. We'd love the opportunity to work with anyone of you guys.

 

[Al Seim]

Two somewhat tangential comments -

1. Have a look at Kyle's "Concorde Agreement" thread in the General section. If that goes through, it's very likely that we won't have any Prod classes to have parity in. We'll be merged with ST or similar and good luck trying to bring parity to that. Write your Director, lobby your race buddies, come to the National Convention in Charlotte and argue against massive class consolidation or elimination.

Otherwise we're doing the proverbial rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Now about those deck chairs:

2. Don't forget that some of the tin tops are not ex-GP "torque monsters" (said with a smile). Some of the tin tops (such as my 1.6 LP Scirocco) were originally classified (in LP form) in HP and are certainly not dominant. So whatever HP parity solution (if any) emerges, it can't be as simple as "throw weight at the tin tops" or "supercharge the roadsters" please.

Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6

 

[Mark Meller]

Did the CRX ever have a close ratio trans at Road America, or was MRLS the first year? Was it still also running a distributor back then?

I can answer that question...
No to the close ratio trans. And if I had to decide again I'd make the same decision. It's not a situation where there's a 10% split between the peak torque and peak HP on these engines. Also given the fact that there's a ton of final drives available on these trans (enough for a separate trans for each track). and the stock ratio splits are really pretty good, I personally don't think it's worth the weight (or the money). Lawrence & I had this discussion.

No to the distributor also. In this case it's more of a reliability issue. Distributors on these things are notoriously bad. 70K miles (of 375K) on my 89 driver has seen 4 different distributors - I carry a known good one in the car. If I were to do it again, I'd do a crank trigger instead of the cam driven setup... but what's a little spark scatter at 11:1 CR... it's just me.

 

[Gary Wittman]

Adding power to the LBC's is as much of a perfect solution as adding weight to the Honda.

But adding power AND weight to the LBC's is something I believe is the answer.

That is pretty much saying that we should make HP a LP only class. You are ignoring the full prep cars. They are already at or near the maximum power. If you want a LP class only, then you are electing to lose a few more cars. Some may make the switch, others will drop out.

 

[Mark Meller]

I disagree with the premise that horsepower trumps handling/braking. Consider the Toyota Tercel that Peter let us use last year vs our HP 510 that we last raced in 2010. They made about the same HP (the Toyota less torque) and the Toyota was heavier (26#). The 510 was a little faster on the straight, but the Toyota was more than 5 seconds a lap faster (4 seconds a lap faster than Moser). If the small British cars cannot duplicate the handling/braking of a tube frame/stick axle 2035# Toyota, something is wrong.

By the way, did anyone notice how fast Sargis was in 2010?

 

[Joe Harlan]

I disagree with the premise that horsepower trumps handling/braking. Consider the Toyota Tercel that Peter let us use last year vs our HP 510 that we last raced in 2010. They made about the same HP (the Toyota less torque) and the Toyota was heavier (26#). The 510 was a little faster on the straight, but the Toyota was more than 5 seconds a lap faster (4 seconds a lap faster than Moser). If the small British cars cannot duplicate the handling/braking of a tube frame/stick axle 2035# Toyota, something is wrong.

By the way, did anyone notice how fast Sargis was in 2010?

Mark I could agree inside a reasonable window. When the straight line handling is that much better then an adjustment is needed. I would argue that the FWD newer cars are not far off a Full prep roadster in the handling department.

 

[JasonIsley99]

Mark I could agree inside a reasonable window. When the straight line handling is that much better then an adjustment is needed. I would argue that the FWD newer cars are not far off a Full prep roadster in the handling department.

Because struts and beam rear axles are the hot setup. :lol:

 

[Tom Feller]

If the small British cars cannot duplicate the handling/braking of a tube frame/stick axle 2035# Toyota, something is wrong.

That's funny, I always wondered why a tube-chassis-mini-TransAm car couldn't handle/brake as well as my 45 year old antique with a swing axle. :lol:

Sargis' car is a full prep Spitfire. Different car than Ron's hybrid Midget.