Re: Turbo guys get screwed again...
Did anyone read the Parity article in SportsCar this month ? They
assembled representative, fully developed examples of each car in
each class. Had a set of experience drivers flog them on various
types of road courses and compared various performance factors. This
is data can then be used to keep the playing field relatively level.
Although the issues are slightly different in Stock class or Touring
class road racing, they were after a similar goal: Reduce class
turnover (everyone switches cars, every year) when new models are
introduced to existing classes.
GH Sharp wrote:
> Before any of you guys wear out your keyboards.......
> There are only two turbocharged cars that have appeared at the Solo
> II Nationals in recent years that were (as near as we could tell)
> prepared to the limits of the rulebook in their category, and
> driven by National Championship-caliber drivers: Craig Nagler's
> 2nd-gen RX-7 Turbo in which Craig won 3 National Championships
> from 1992-94, and Craig's 3rd-gen RX-7 Turbo which won the 1996
> ASP National Championship. Shauna Marinus drove this same car
> to the 1998 ASP National Championship.
> The key phrases here are "prepared to the limits of the rulebook"
> and "driven by National Championship-caliber drivers". These two
> things are the foundation of nearly every classification decision
> we make, and many of our rules changes. This method is not perfect,
> but it's the best one we have; the best-prepared cars driven by the
> best drivers on the same courses under the same conditions. Yes,
> there is no evidence that the DSM cars are dominant in ESP. Neither
> have we seen at Topeka an example as noted above which
> would_establish_their_competitiveness_ (or lack thereof) against a
> John Ames, Ken Mitchell, or Gary Thomason in a well-prepared
> Mustang or F-body. Until this happens, you're right.... the SEB
> doesn't know, and neither does anyone else, and no amount of arguing
> over HP and quarter-mile times is going to change that. So the
> SEB is left with trying to make two dissimilar cars equally
> competitive, one of which is pretty much at the end of its
> development curve SP-wise, and the other one that is still being
> developed. And we have no meaningful National results on which to
> base any of our decisions. The DSM guys go off in a huff because
> they feel they're being treated unfairly, and the ponycar contingent
> in ESP is afraid that if the DSM cars are allowed too much freedom
> under the rules that a National-caliber driver will seize the
> opportunity to build one and dominate a popular class. It's a
> no-win situation for everyone, including the SEB.
>
> GH Sharp
> Solo Events Board Chairman
If I understand GH Sharp's response, we effectively use our National
Championship competition for keeping class parity in check. However,
the SEB also has to watch the class situations throughout the year
as well. For example, a rule being applied in a different manner, or
outside the intention of the rule, between dis-similar cars in the
same class (e.g. unrestricted intake & exhaust).
When you introduce a dis-similar car to an existing class of cars
that have been competitive for a long time, the issues of class
turnover and maintaining class parity arise.
The DSM cars are pretty remarkable when you consider all they can
do and the potential they have. I believe they need a place to play
as much as the next car. AWD, turbo, fuel injected, independent rear
suspension cars should be grouped with cars of similar ability AND
*similar approach to making and applying power*. Or, if grouped with
cars of dis-similar approaches, then the rules, perhaps, need to
be adjusted to comprehend the situation.
These cars (DSM AWD turbos & V-8 muscle cars) clearly go about
the job of making and applying power differently. Different is
not bad just different. However, it must be understood and kept
in parity with the other cars in the class. Otherwise the cost of
the sport goes up for everyone - class turnover.
Turbo's, while physically placed in the intake and exhaust stream,
affect pumping abilities of the motor in manner only obtainable
by naturally aspirated cars with mods illegal for SP. Things like,
radically increased compression ratios, larger valve sizes,
different cams, ported heads, etc... would be required.
If we create and environment where you have to buy and develop
a car every year to be competitive - well most of us don't
have pockets that deep. The total SCCA Solo membership loses. We
rely on the SEB to keep things consistent, as best they can.
Its not ego's that drive these discussions its the concern of
having to dump that investment (time & money) sitting in the
garage and pursue the hot car of the year.
GH Sharp also wrote:
> GH Sharp
> Solo Events Board Chairman
> As for the turbo update/backdate issue, the SEB discussed the current
> popular notion that turbochargers are a part of the intake or exhaust
> system (or both) for the purposes of the SP rules, an issue that to my
> knowledge has never been officially ruled upon by any previous SEB,
> and decided that if this interpretation was followed to its logical
> conclusion,
> there was absolutely nothing to prevent someone with a Camaro, M3,or
> whatever in SP to add a turbo to their car. After all, if I can
> change the turbo on a DSM car because it's part of the exhaust
> system and that is an unrestricted area of the SP rules, by the
> same logic I should be able to_add_a turbo to any car I want.
To *only* implement the "disallow turbo's from being added" rule, would
not address the entire issue. This clarification is needed but also
"the consideration of the turbo as part of the motor" due to its
affect on the pumping characteristics of the motor. Policing and
regulating the mix 'n match combinations would be a nightmare.
Without *both* rules, wouldn't I still be able to:
- add (I mean backdate to) a turbo on my '93 Cobra (remember, there
were turbo Mustangs & SVO is listed on the same line as V8).
Yeh, its a SVO that I updated to a Cobra V-8 :)
- backdate to a turbo on a Camaro (remember, there were turbo
Trans AMs in '89 & they are listed as Camaro/Firebird '82-'92).
I agree with the conclusion, not because I drive a Mustang but
because I fail to see the benefit (to the class or total membership)
of having everyone go develop a turbo system for their SP cars to
remain competitive. The SEB conclusion is correct (at least from
my vantage point). If intake & exhaust are unrestricted for DSM
cars, they are unrestricted for ALL cars. Update & backdate rules
need to be applied equally to ALL cars as well.
Maybe with the onset of a new Street Prepared class (FSP) there's
a little more room on the SP tree to comprehend turbo AWD/
independent suspension cars in a more appropriate class. Turbo
MR2s are classed in ASP, right ? Maybe they are up against the
same problems, just not as vocal ? I do not envy the SEB's
responsibility on this issue.
Dave Guard
'93 Cobra, #31 ESP
|