Are 944 Turbos at a Disadvantage in PCA Club Racing?
11-23-2007, 02:28 PM
#31
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I forgot to say that I do feel bad for the 944 turbo guys who are looking at having to change things under the new rules if they want to stay at the calculated top of whatever class they choose. This is not lost on me.
Folks, lets focus on solutions rather problems for a moment. What do you think the PCA should have done to address the continuing advancements of the turbo cars against the normally aspirated cars? If you have a better suggestion than what the PCA came up with, please share it here.
Thanks,
Jeff
Folks, lets focus on solutions rather problems for a moment. What do you think the PCA should have done to address the continuing advancements of the turbo cars against the normally aspirated cars? If you have a better suggestion than what the PCA came up with, please share it here.
Thanks,
Jeff
11-23-2007, 02:30 PM
#32
Race Car
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for clarification. I had a 2005 Rule book. I read it to say that under GT3, a 2.5 has a minimum weight of 2500lbs with Driver. Now it's 2760!? I'd have to add another engine. How about GT2? Whats the minimum weight there? Has that changed?
11-23-2007, 02:33 PM
#33
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff
11-23-2007, 02:34 PM
#34
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff
11-23-2007, 03:07 PM
#35
Race Car
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just went over 2008 rules. I see where the 2755lbs comes in. top of GT3class (5.51) with their math and calcutions. Using our motor index. using weight in algebraic form as X=2755. Got it.
I see there's no point in getting your car less than 2550lbs in this class then.
ok. Looking at GT2. (4.26 Top of class power to weight.)
4.26 X 500 = X
X= 2130. Damn that's light. I can't get my car down to 1930lbs.!!!!! Well. I can probably get close with another 10,000 bucks and Then have to blow away that 200hp/liter number. - not easy. I see what you guys are saying now.
I see there's no point in getting your car less than 2550lbs in this class then.
ok. Looking at GT2. (4.26 Top of class power to weight.)
4.26 X 500 = X
X= 2130. Damn that's light. I can't get my car down to 1930lbs.!!!!! Well. I can probably get close with another 10,000 bucks and Then have to blow away that 200hp/liter number. - not easy. I see what you guys are saying now.
11-23-2007, 03:26 PM
#36
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In D Nile
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arguments do wander a little but the biggest point of affecting a large portion of one type of car can’t be denied. That is the sad fact that the MAJORITY of the 944T’s around the country where they run mid pack now in GT3 are screwed. For what ever the reason money, weight, less hp, less development the point is you are punishing the vast majority because a FEW with the dollars are pushing the envelope. You should make the rules work for the majority and figure out how to handle the few. Look around at the race results, you don’t see the majority of 944T’s dominating the top positions (why screw them more), but you do occasionally see a few. So restrict the majority even more for the actions of a few? I am lucky (or was lucky before the change) because I did have a pretty well prepared car for GT3. I would probably be in the few category. Should my results or pocketbook dictate the outcome of the majority? NO!!! I need to make a decision, do I want to add 350lbs to stay in GT3 going backwards and be less competitive, do I spend more money on a 2.8L and go to GT2 after I just spent a lot to get competitive in GT3, or go to a series that does a true hp/weight ratio to class there cars? The GT classes in PCA are getting thin enough already.
11-23-2007, 03:52 PM
#37
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Craig / Scott / Chris - I hear you loud and clear. It sounds like many of you would prefer rules that would keep as many racers as happy as possible. This is a noble cause and one that makes a lot of sense.
But, the big question is -> How do we do this? One way that has been suggested would be to go to rules where the actual HP is frequently checked on a dyno and divided by the actual weight of the car with the driver. A true HP to weight rule as one lister called it. This concept is interesting because it really seems to be the only way for low budget guys (including myself) to have a competive car. However, how are the following issues handled:
1. The turbo driver who keeps his boost turned down during the tech inspection dyno runs but secretly turns up the boost during the actual on track racing.
2. The HP/weight numbers are put into class ranges. Those class ranges are naturally going to favor certain engine and chassis configurations better than others.
Jeff
But, the big question is -> How do we do this? One way that has been suggested would be to go to rules where the actual HP is frequently checked on a dyno and divided by the actual weight of the car with the driver. A true HP to weight rule as one lister called it. This concept is interesting because it really seems to be the only way for low budget guys (including myself) to have a competive car. However, how are the following issues handled:
1. The turbo driver who keeps his boost turned down during the tech inspection dyno runs but secretly turns up the boost during the actual on track racing.
2. The HP/weight numbers are put into class ranges. Those class ranges are naturally going to favor certain engine and chassis configurations better than others.
Jeff
11-23-2007, 04:26 PM
#38
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The arguments do wander a little but the biggest point of affecting a large portion of one type of car can’t be denied. That is the sad fact that the MAJORITY of the 944T’s around the country where they run mid pack now in GT3 are screwed. For what ever the reason money, weight, less hp, less development the point is you are punishing the vast majority because a FEW with the dollars are pushing the envelope. You should make the rules work for the majority and figure out how to handle the few. Look around at the race results, you don’t see the majority of 944T’s dominating the top positions (why screw them more), but you do occasionally see a few. So restrict the majority even more for the actions of a few? I am lucky (or was lucky before the change) because I did have a pretty well prepared car for GT3. I would probably be in the few category. Should my results or pocketbook dictate the outcome of the majority? NO!!! I need to make a decision, do I want to add 350lbs to stay in GT3 going backwards and be less competitive, do I spend more money on a 2.8L and go to GT2 after I just spent a lot to get competitive in GT3, or go to a series that does a true hp/weight ratio to class there cars? The GT classes in PCA are getting thin enough already.
11-23-2007, 04:28 PM
#39
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In D Nile
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff
I have not ran NASA but I know they somehow keep an eye on the boost issue. I don't now how or if it is worth the effort to check and re-check peoples boost ****. On way would be to simply torq putty the **** (black **** not the driver) after a dyno run and check it again after the race in impound as they check cars now if you placed in the top 3 of your class but there are always ways to get around everything. Maybe make it where the **** has to have something to be safety wired to.
You are also right that the numbers are not going to be spot on for everyone in a certian class but they need to be close.
The other point of all of this is 1st place and last place get paid the same prize money so why turn the microscope in as tight as they are trying to do?
I have not ran NASA but I know they somehow keep an eye on the boost issue. I don't now how or if it is worth the effort to check and re-check peoples boost ****. On way would be to simply torq putty the **** (black **** not the driver) after a dyno run and check it again after the race in impound as they check cars now if you placed in the top 3 of your class but there are always ways to get around everything. Maybe make it where the **** has to have something to be safety wired to.
You are also right that the numbers are not going to be spot on for everyone in a certian class but they need to be close.
The other point of all of this is 1st place and last place get paid the same prize money so why turn the microscope in as tight as they are trying to do?
11-23-2007, 04:43 PM
#40
Nordschleife Master
How is HP to Weight even a fair measurement?
That sounds like the dumbest idea I have ever heard for so many reasons...
1. Power isn't really just peak HP
2. Turbo cars have lag
3. Weight of a car still plays to its disadvantage
4. Supercharger seems to be the only way to go!
That sounds like the dumbest idea I have ever heard for so many reasons...
1. Power isn't really just peak HP
2. Turbo cars have lag
3. Weight of a car still plays to its disadvantage
4. Supercharger seems to be the only way to go!
11-23-2007, 04:43 PM
#41
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In D Nile
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for you being competitive in GT3 , use the boost **** , it is still unrestricted .
__________________
Problem solved everyone!!! Ha haaaa I need some more turkey.
__________________
Problem solved everyone!!! Ha haaaa I need some more turkey.
11-23-2007, 04:44 PM
#42
Nordschleife Master
What?? Your reply doesn't make sense in the above paragraph that you wrote. A guy running a 2.6 liter 911 turbo in GT3 will have the SAME issues as a 2.6 liter 944 Turbo. The 2.6 liter 911 Turbo WILL change from GT3 to GT2 under the new rules just like the 944 Turbo will. Only the 944 Turbo has the advantage of being assigned a lower HP/L number so the 944 turbo could increase engine size to 2.8 liters in GT2, whereas, the 911 Turbo is stuck at 2.6 liters (assuming similar combined total weight of car and driver). I think this gives the advantage to the 944 Turbos over the 911 Turbos in GT2. I do agree with you that the number of 2.6 liter 911 Turbos in GT3 is probably small (or maybe even nonexistant?). However, I think it will be very cool to see how the turbo cars run in GT2 since they were not allowed there under the old rules.
One other important point -> I think the normally aspirated 911s running in GT3 under the old rules were pretty much developed to their limit with next to nothing left to be gained by further development. Whereas, EVERY 944 Turbo running in GT3 under the old rules still has a lot of development gains still possible (both engine and chassis). Don't get me wrong, there are some big dollar 944 Turbos running the series but every one of them I have seen STILL has significant further gains that can be made in their development.
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that the guy who only spent $20,000 or less on his 944 Turbo will have a much more difficult time in GT3 under the new rules. However, it is important to keep in mind that most of the 911 guys he was competing with have over $50,000 invested in their engine alone!!
Jeff
One other important point -> I think the normally aspirated 911s running in GT3 under the old rules were pretty much developed to their limit with next to nothing left to be gained by further development. Whereas, EVERY 944 Turbo running in GT3 under the old rules still has a lot of development gains still possible (both engine and chassis). Don't get me wrong, there are some big dollar 944 Turbos running the series but every one of them I have seen STILL has significant further gains that can be made in their development.
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that the guy who only spent $20,000 or less on his 944 Turbo will have a much more difficult time in GT3 under the new rules. However, it is important to keep in mind that most of the 911 guys he was competing with have over $50,000 invested in their engine alone!!
Jeff
Don't blame the 944 guy for picking the cheaper car.
11-23-2007, 05:15 PM
#43
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been thinking about this a bit more and it dawned on me that we have two different philosophies in play for the same Horsepower divided by weight concept:
1. New PCA Rules - Because the series is now based on theoretical max HP/liter it challenges everyone in each class to develop their cars to the max. Good drivers in less developed cars can still win, but it is more difficult.
2. NASA GTS using dyno tested HP numbers - Assuming the two issues I mentioned in an earlier posting can be solved, then this series is attempting to find equalization among cars of widely varying levels of development. This is a very cool concept and one that will work well for many.
So . . . I guess this is good because we all have a choice. Do you want to compete in a series that encourages each racer to develop their car to the max and really challenge their engineering skills - then choose PCA. And, you can also run your PCA car in NASA. Or, do you want to compete in a series where it is less important to develop your car, then choose NASA. Both series should be a lot of fun and give your driving skills a great challenge!!
It is noted that the PCA series should continue to prove to be a strong challenge for everyone's car development skills and wallet. However, please recognize that not everyone has to spend a fortune to develop their cars to a high level. There are many mechanics and engineers in the sport who have access to fabrication equipment who can personally build a highly developed car for a reasonable cost.
Jeff
1. New PCA Rules - Because the series is now based on theoretical max HP/liter it challenges everyone in each class to develop their cars to the max. Good drivers in less developed cars can still win, but it is more difficult.
2. NASA GTS using dyno tested HP numbers - Assuming the two issues I mentioned in an earlier posting can be solved, then this series is attempting to find equalization among cars of widely varying levels of development. This is a very cool concept and one that will work well for many.
So . . . I guess this is good because we all have a choice. Do you want to compete in a series that encourages each racer to develop their car to the max and really challenge their engineering skills - then choose PCA. And, you can also run your PCA car in NASA. Or, do you want to compete in a series where it is less important to develop your car, then choose NASA. Both series should be a lot of fun and give your driving skills a great challenge!!
It is noted that the PCA series should continue to prove to be a strong challenge for everyone's car development skills and wallet. However, please recognize that not everyone has to spend a fortune to develop their cars to a high level. There are many mechanics and engineers in the sport who have access to fabrication equipment who can personally build a highly developed car for a reasonable cost.
Jeff
11-23-2007, 05:26 PM
#44
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not ran NASA but I know they somehow keep an eye on the boost issue. I don't now how or if it is worth the effort to check and re-check peoples boost ****. On way would be to simply torq putty the **** (black **** not the driver) after a dyno run and check it again after the race in impound as they check cars now if you placed in the top 3 of your class but there are always ways to get around everything. Maybe make it where the **** has to have something to be safety wired to.
In NASA, a turbo car can probably use an electronic boost controller to do whatever they want, whenever they want. If manual boost controllers were mandated and locked in place, then just create a hidden leak in the wastegate control line to manipulate the boost curve. That leak magically fixes itself before the car has to go back on the dyno for another check. There are MANY ways to cheat with turbo cars. That is why almost all professional racing series can't figure out how to run them.
Jeff
11-23-2007, 06:35 PM
#45
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know, the ONLY way to accurately and reliably monitor turbo drivers for cheating with their boost levels would be to install some sort of intake manifold pressure sensor that can be data logged by the racing series and not tampered with. Although, the cost, time, effort, etc for doing this is probably too much for any series. Therein lies the big challenge with turbo cars.
There are MANY ways to cheat with turbo cars. That is why almost all professional racing series can't figure out how to run them.
Jeff
There are MANY ways to cheat with turbo cars. That is why almost all professional racing series can't figure out how to run them.
Jeff
I'd think it would be relatively simple to install a preset and sealed relief valve on the the intake tract somewhere if you really wanted to police boost levels. I believe it would take all the electronic control hijinks out of the equation.