Author Topic: WCMA Road Race Classing Review  (Read 54078 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

February 19, 2014, 08:45:06 PM
Reply #15

Chrisw

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
I'll pipe in here and explain that I really like the look of the NASA's classing. As someone who already owns a sorted drift car and is trying to figure out how it fits into WCMA racing, I have been struggling this off season with the current classing. The NASA is far more inclusive of all kinds of cars. It allows guys to run anything from a chumpcar crap box that may include an engine swap to a C4 corvette, and still fit in a class properly.

so i have gone trough the calculations, and i will fall into PTC , now we use to have 6-8 cars in stu. how man people are in PTC

If there is no one in PTC, the fix is VERY simple. Either add or remove a few parts to step up or down a class. Movement within the NASA's classes is much easier then the current system.

February 19, 2014, 10:01:12 PM
Reply #16

zhao

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-1

If there is no one in PTC, the fix is VERY simple. Either add or remove a few parts to step up or down a class. Movement within the NASA's classes is much easier then the current system.

yes this much i've figured out already reading through the nasa rules. very very easy to switch classes by even just shedding weight or adding weight. looks like my Rx7 would end up in PTE if we switched to those rules. One thing i've noticed though is, unless i'm reading how it works wrong, i'm severely underpowered for the PT classes, having a power:weight class of PTF for my RX7, and a class of PTE/PTD for mods thx to being under 2800 pounds in a car that was 2650 from factory.

What I like though, is besides the little quirk with being class X in one spreadsheet and class Y in another, excluding a little oddity (imo at least) here and there with their views on certain cars or mods, is that there really doesn't seem to be a severely under prepped car by their rules with a stock vehicle, and its only if someone modifies it really really poorly for the rules, that it would end up being classed really badly.

February 20, 2014, 03:48:48 AM
Reply #17

10cc

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • WCMA Affiliate Executive
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • ARCA Race Director
I'm kinda with Allen Brown here. Continual change is just as frustrating as a poor set of rules, so if we change, let's be sure we do it right.

The other aspect of this has also been mentioned. I have overheard, heard of, been involved in etc etc too many conversations with people who build cars, and then expect us to find a class to fit them into, or let them run illegally in some class. People who build cars that just do not follow class rules, but have been built because that's the way the builder wanted to build it.

OK, so maybe new rules will find a place for these cars, but my point is....read the damn rules BEFORE you start to build the car! Personally I am tired of the hissy fits in paddock and tech inspection when the Scrutineer rightly says that a car is not legal in the class the driver is trying to enter. This goes for all sorts of stuff, from tires to fuel cells, to cages.

So, if we change the rules, let's do it properly, clearly, and permanently, allowing the tech inspectors to do their jobs, and being firm about rules and classifications. We have rules, so let's stick to them, or why bother.

That's my rant for now.

Many thanks to Doug and Gary for the efforts so far....
G. Brooke Carter
#10 ST5
ARCA Race Director

February 20, 2014, 07:48:54 AM
Reply #18

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
Thanks for the feed back guys

February 20, 2014, 08:23:48 AM
Reply #19

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
What I like though, is besides the little quirk with being class X in one spreadsheet and class Y in another, excluding a little oddity (imo at least) here and there with their views on certain cars or mods, is that there really doesn't seem to be a severely under prepped car by their rules with a stock vehicle, and its only if someone modifies it really really poorly for the rules, that it would end up being classed really badly.

I have that a few of questions on the second tab,...
Think of the second tab as more of a safety net, most cars will be well below the max power to weight (above the weight to Power) of the class but if some how under the points system you find a way to add a lot of power (likely at the cost of all other mods), the W to P calculation in PT is the final safety net to insure competitive balance. You are always in the higher or the two calculations.

February 20, 2014, 11:13:42 AM
Reply #20

4kruzn

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
I will throw in my two cents also.   

I really like the format of the stu/o.  A lot of talk that big displacement doesn't fit good in it however.   Here is my example of why.   

I have a c6 7l corvette that I want to race but it would have to be 5000lbs...   :-(

In fact.  Not true.      7litre Vette motor is worth $20,000.00. Hmmm.
So I sell it and buy a 4.8l aluminium block.   Build a 20,000.00 build with it.   EVERYTHING allowed in the rules is in there.   

4800cc.  X .75 (2valve push rod).  3600cc.   Now times 1.15 cams. Then x new proposed .83 lbs/cc. And you end up with 3436 plus 180 for driver.

500plus hp.  Ability for huge tires, huge brakes etc. 
very competitive very fast STO car.   
3616lbs total weight. 
That's a STO build sheet.     

By contrast I bring out a mildly tuned 370z


3.7l.  Dual overhead cam 4 valve.  3700cc x .83 x1.15 cams
3532 plus 180 driver is 3712lbs.   And car makes 300rwhp

The problem isn't displacement or car fittment into class.   It is car prep and choices of the racer.   


Summary.   

I do not think STO/U should be blended with GT classes.
Our rules are not that bad.   
Please don't rush into a poor choice just for sake of change.

I hope this is coherent.     Sounded good in my head.  Lol. 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 11:19:39 AM by 4kruzn »

February 20, 2014, 01:07:00 PM
Reply #21

JustinL

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +1/-0
Those are good examples Conroy  (we still should have a chat over the phone) of the "right" and "wrong" cars in STO. I see you used .83 as the factor, has that one been confirmed yet? Under the current rules with .88 that corvette would have to weigh 3643lbs. The stock curb weight  with the 7L engine is 3350 which means that you need to add at least 293lbs of weight to a stock car.

The 370z would need 512 lbs over the curb weight with the current .88 (300lbs with the .83 factor).

Or you could make the best choice and go with an e46 M3 with a stock 343bhp engine that would weigh 2856 (without the 180lb driver) from a starting curb weight of 3415. That would be a weight reduction of 559lbs.

With displacement determining weight, it all boils down to bhp/L with a ceiling on how big of an engine you can go before the weight becomes totally unreasonable. We all do the math anyway when we go through these exercises by dividing the weight by power to get a rough estimate of the car's performance, why not use that same math to determine classes?

February 20, 2014, 01:36:47 PM
Reply #22

4kruzn

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
Justin,   Proposed .83 is unconfirmed.    And Yes,  call me.  Hahaha. 

I see merit in power to weight also, I'm just not completely convinced its right. 

My opinions.   I am open to being convinced.   




February 20, 2014, 06:44:45 PM
Reply #23

The Radium King

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-0
i think changing the CF for ST-O to 0.8 would be a big step towards making the current set of rules for ST more workable. i note that NASA doesn't require fuel cells so i presume this change is on the table also. removing the need for fuel cells in GT would make this class more accessible to cars that don't fit in ST. perhaps implement one or both of these changes for 2014 and see what happens. if it doesn't fix it, then the NASA discussion could happen next winter?

a more aggressive change to the current system might be to add a weight class to ST and reduce the number of weight classes in GT such that they mirrored each other; ie, <2.5, 2.5-4.0, >4.0. with the appropriate CFs this would give a driver options similar to those available in the NASA ST 1/2/3 regime.

February 20, 2014, 06:55:45 PM
Reply #24

giantkiller

  • **
  • Information Offline
  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 50
  • Karma: +1/-0
Great discussion, Gary and Doug thank you for tabling this topic.

In am a fan of HP:Weight classes, I think as 90/10 rule it is pretty close. I have currently run a car in ST with ICSCC and run the same car in NASA as a GTS4. HP:Weight is not perfect but as a starting point it is pretty darn good. I have now been involved in 3 races where a challenge was issued and in all 3 cases the car was ruled as being legal - some people can't believe that acceleration out of a corner has more to do with speed into the corner as it does size of your motor budget. Of course nothing is perfect , even in spec racing you find cars at the front , middle and back of the grid, but like with spec racing there is always someone to race with.

A few thoughts:

We need a stable rule set to attract new enthusiastic racers, it is a huge commitment of time and money to go racing - those that are serious will build a car to a rule set and develop it over time. Allowing cars that don't meet the rules to race in a particular class tends to only push away the ones that read the rule book. Seriously if you can't read the rule book I'm not sure i want to race with you...seriously. If you have questions there are plenty of guys who have forgotten more about classes than you and I will ever learn....ask them.

Unfortunately GT racing is pretty much dead, all over North America, as an owner of a GT3 car I would love to see the class evolve somehow do where some of us could add power while others add weight to increase class size while reducing # of classes. There are still lots of mod/GT cars being built but you need 100k per year to make it competitive. I would love to see us go to a GT/O and GT/U class where we could build up some cars and have some fun.

Reduce or consolidate  the number of generic classes (move to ST/O ST/U was a good step IMO), build stable rule set, and empower racers to build up interest in classes.

What about:
GT O/U with a HP:Weight formula
ST O/U with HP :Weight
And spec classes with a minimum car count.
Once we get to say 20 cars per class you race within the class and at 20 we look at splitting.?

There are over 100 cars at a typical ICSCC triple, until we have those numbers having 2 cars per class does little to attract, retain or maximize fun of racers.

In the end Gary and Doug can't fix this for us, they can only facilitate. Change is up to US.

Anthony




February 21, 2014, 06:07:22 AM
Reply #25

super70dave

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 33
  • Karma: +1/-0
I will have more to say on this topic however I want to address the current ST factors discussion.

The current ST Factors were based on the cars that then raced ITGT for the people in ITGT, using data from two racetracks racecity and gimli, the factors are not perfect. They were chosen based on what the competitors in ITGT asked for to make competition within that small number of cars.
The proposed factor change to STO from .85 to .83  is based on the small amount of data/lap time and car count from last seasons racing.
ST is a growing class with factors and displacement breaks that can be changed as it grows, also as new racetracks become available. Correct the current factors are not inviting to high HP high weight cars, however when created none of those cars were racing in the class.
Also none have applied to the tech committee to race in the class and have a factor changed.
As cars SHOW up and it grows it can be adjusted neatly and easily.

People say our rules are not inclusive I think under current rules all cars fit, the issue comes when people dont want to conform to the rules.

My biased rant.
Dave Gardiner #70 STU.

February 21, 2014, 08:23:06 AM
Reply #26

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
thanks for all the feed back guys

February 21, 2014, 11:59:58 AM
Reply #27

aavery

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
i agree with dave , stu is a growing class and i know a couple of other guy that are moving to stu and other than can mover from it2-it3 to stu with little to no mods.

we have 6 car from last year add 3 more this year we have 9 cars only class thats bigger is SM dosnt make sense to change whats working

to change every class and revamp all the rules to cut from 11-9 class seems a bit over kill,


February 21, 2014, 12:07:37 PM
Reply #28

4kruzn

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
Copied from Anthony.
"Reduce or consolidate  the number of generic classes (move to ST/O ST/U was a good step IMO), build stable rule set, and empower racers to build up interest in classes.

What about:
GT O/U with a HP:Weight formula
ST O/U with HP :Weight
And spec classes with a minimum car count.
Once we get to say 20 cars per class you race within the class and at 20 we look at splitting.?"


I also like this suggestion.   AND, in one sence we already have it.   With our rule set. 

Stu for example.   
Itr integra, fully built and prepped to the rules should make a solid 200+/- rwhp.    This car with cams would have to weigh in at aprox 2250lbs with driver.    So that is 11.25hp per pound.   Do this math on a fee examples and you will see a well prepped STU car should be in this range.    Now

Take my Vette example from yesterday and have a 3550lb car with 500rwhp. And that works out to aprox 7.2hp/lb.   

I have run a few cars through this calc and 7-8lbs is where most fully prepped cars would be. 

Now If this  takes off and we have a lot of cars in these groups you could also ad a third weight class.   

But also could consider to allow or disallow in these groups based on proof of dyno and scales to allow odd ball cars that don't meet exacting criteria.

Again just opinions.     Thanks for listening. 

February 21, 2014, 02:30:27 PM
Reply #29

10cc

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • WCMA Affiliate Executive
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • ARCA Race Director
Conroy...I am sure what you mean is pounds / horsepower.....not horsepower / pound
G. Brooke Carter
#10 ST5
ARCA Race Director