Evo Uprights Legal in PCA Stock Class ?
11-12-2008, 03:12 AM
#16
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Sean will confim, this is why NASA GTS rules are much more economical than the stock PCA rules are. If you want to bump your horsepower by tearing down your engine and spending $$$ fine, but you just may move up a class after your dyno (or need ballast). On the other hand if you are short on HP, you can put your car on a diet and remove weight which is usually the most economical thing to do.
11-12-2008, 07:49 AM
#17
Rennlist Member
Greg,
NASA GTS rules simplify the build to HP/wt ratio leaving options otherwise free. It is the open system that ironically levels the playing field. Power to weight is the biggest advantage in a PCA stock class and the NASA rules help to minimize this difference. I think your comparing GTS in PCA to NASA, not the same thing.
NASA GTS rules simplify the build to HP/wt ratio leaving options otherwise free. It is the open system that ironically levels the playing field. Power to weight is the biggest advantage in a PCA stock class and the NASA rules help to minimize this difference. I think your comparing GTS in PCA to NASA, not the same thing.
11-12-2008, 08:21 AM
#18
Nordschleife Master
The one major flaw with power/weight classes is that is gives an advantage to a better chassis. A 2500#/300hp 996 is faster than a 2500#/300hp torsion bar 911. It also does not help to control costs at all as you'd need many expensive add ons to be competitive (big wing, regeared trans per track, etc). It may not have happened get to GTS, but sooner or later people will start building these class killers.
11-12-2008, 08:32 AM
#19
Rennlist Member
Colin, It sounds like spec racing is the only way to control cost in stock class and require a dyno sheet and ballast the cars to the same ratio. I realize aero on the new cars is an advantage, but you won't have the huge disparity of drag races down the straights.
11-12-2008, 09:56 AM
#20
King of Cool
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
...I think you have to remember the philosophy of stock class racing and the fact that you are racing against other models. Lets say GT2 Uprights were allowed for a 993 which provide a performance advantage (lets be honest here), then what would you suggest for a Boxster S (996 RSR uprights?), 2.7 Carrera lightweight (935 adjustable arms?) 944 Cup Turbo (nothing available???), 964 RSA (GT2 Evo?) to remain on a competitive playing field? Now this increases the cost of entry for all stock cars in your class. Further, you've now altered the instant centers and therefore, the roll center of the front, but have not yet addressed the instant centers and roll centers in the rear. Should we then allow fixes to the rear suspension too like the GT2 tilt kit, RSR arms?
You can begin to see the larger picture and limitations of stock class racing rules can't you?
You can begin to see the larger picture and limitations of stock class racing rules can't you?
Sorry for injecting myself into your conversation, but I feel compelled to jump in here....
Having just completed building a 993 G "Stock" class car, I have to agree with Geoffrey... Yes I want a "stock" car that feels like a race car, BUT we really need to limit costs. To take advantage of the limited options avaible today its going to cost upwards of $35k (not including the car). That is me doing most of the work, the quote I got from a race shop was $50k for them to do it... this is to keep it "stock" remember....
They have to draw the line somewhere.. yes I like the idea of having a "perfect" setup, but there will always be that "just one more thing " to make it better/safer... I, for one, am very happy with where it is today... ok, so I dont understand the camberplate thing... but other than that....
Just my 2 cents... maybe less....
Having just completed building a 993 G "Stock" class car, I have to agree with Geoffrey... Yes I want a "stock" car that feels like a race car, BUT we really need to limit costs. To take advantage of the limited options avaible today its going to cost upwards of $35k (not including the car). That is me doing most of the work, the quote I got from a race shop was $50k for them to do it... this is to keep it "stock" remember....
They have to draw the line somewhere.. yes I like the idea of having a "perfect" setup, but there will always be that "just one more thing " to make it better/safer... I, for one, am very happy with where it is today... ok, so I dont understand the camberplate thing... but other than that....
Just my 2 cents... maybe less....
It's mostly about the cost. For example I wish they'd even not allow the remote reservoir shocks but since so many already have them, they have to. And that's only because of cost.
11-12-2008, 09:59 AM
#21
Nordschleife Master
It may not have happened get to GTS, but sooner or later people will start building these class killers
11-12-2008, 10:39 AM
#22
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collin,
Cost is a relative issue. You will never be able to control it. I've got a friend who just built a D class SC and he had it built right (and legal). You wouldn't believe the cost, and that's without a refreshed engine.
Heck (I mean hell), some of the costs I've heard for building a spec miata "right" are outrageous.
To your point, what do you think the difference in performance is between the 996 and torsion bar 911 given the same power to weight ratios?
G.
Cost is a relative issue. You will never be able to control it. I've got a friend who just built a D class SC and he had it built right (and legal). You wouldn't believe the cost, and that's without a refreshed engine.
Heck (I mean hell), some of the costs I've heard for building a spec miata "right" are outrageous.
To your point, what do you think the difference in performance is between the 996 and torsion bar 911 given the same power to weight ratios?
G.
11-12-2008, 02:28 PM
#23
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg,
NASA GTS rules simplify the build to HP/wt ratio leaving options otherwise free. It is the open system that ironically levels the playing field. Power to weight is the biggest advantage in a PCA stock class and the NASA rules help to minimize this difference. I think your comparing GTS in PCA to NASA, not the same thing.
NASA GTS rules simplify the build to HP/wt ratio leaving options otherwise free. It is the open system that ironically levels the playing field. Power to weight is the biggest advantage in a PCA stock class and the NASA rules help to minimize this difference. I think your comparing GTS in PCA to NASA, not the same thing.
The one major flaw with power/weight classes is that is gives an advantage to a better chassis. A 2500#/300hp 996 is faster than a 2500#/300hp torsion bar 911. It also does not help to control costs at all as you'd need many expensive add ons to be competitive (big wing, regeared trans per track, etc). It may not have happened get to GTS, but sooner or later people will start building these class killers.
Spec Racing does not control costs IMO, it merely puts those costs into other areas such as testing, tires, testing, gas, and testing. IMO, dyno-ing a spec car and re-ballasting it to a hp/weight ratio accordingly is dumb.
11-12-2008, 03:00 PM
#24
Rennlist Member
So Greg what is the solution to cutting cost? If the front running GTS cars in NASA are within 10th's, then I think the system is working:
eg Thunderbolt race last weekend:
Class GTS3
1 199 Eric Wong 13 23:55.334 1:30.017 2 89.983
2 130 Philip Eiseman 13 23:57.037 1.703 1:30.439 6 89.563
3 015 Barry Battle 13 23:57.709 2.375 1:30.556 6 89.447
4 152 paul sedacca 13 23:58.619 3.285 1:30.557 6 89.446
All top for cars finished 3 secs apart and .5 secs for fast lap. That is close racing.
eg Thunderbolt race last weekend:
Class GTS3
1 199 Eric Wong 13 23:55.334 1:30.017 2 89.983
2 130 Philip Eiseman 13 23:57.037 1.703 1:30.439 6 89.563
3 015 Barry Battle 13 23:57.709 2.375 1:30.556 6 89.447
4 152 paul sedacca 13 23:58.619 3.285 1:30.557 6 89.446
All top for cars finished 3 secs apart and .5 secs for fast lap. That is close racing.
11-12-2008, 09:25 PM
#25
Nordschleife Master
So true. Just ask the Spec Miata guys about $20k blueprinted engines. Every spec class gets to this phase sooner or later. The difference in a spec class is that you spend big $s to get really small gains, because those small gains matter. When spec classes are in the early phases, costs remain low and the myth is developed.
11-12-2008, 09:49 PM
#26
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of those cars are built anywhere near the rule limit. Give me $100k and I could build a car that could beat those cars by a couple seconds. There are a lot of 'crossover' cars currently, wait till more people with money start building GTS specific cars.
So true. Just ask the Spec Miata guys about $20k blueprinted engines. Every spec class gets to this phase sooner or later. The difference in a spec class is that you spend big $s to get really small gains, because those small gains matter. When spec classes are in the early phases, costs remain low and the myth is developed.
11-13-2008, 11:15 AM
#29
Three Wheelin'
So true. Just ask the Spec Miata guys about $20k blueprinted engines. Every spec class gets to this phase sooner or later. The difference in a spec class is that you spend big $s to get really small gains, because those small gains matter. When spec classes are in the early phases, costs remain low and the myth is developed.
You guys all need to go take up golf.
11-13-2008, 11:49 AM
#30
Rennlist Member