Author Topic: WCMA Road Race Classing Review  (Read 54267 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

February 21, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
Reply #30

4kruzn

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
Hahaha...    Ooops! 


February 21, 2014, 05:09:01 PM
Reply #31

JustinL

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 15
  • Karma: +1/-0

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. 

I'm sure that a workable system could be come up with, and this idea seems ok, but it doesn't satisfy the criteria laid out in the proposal. Aligning a rule set with neighboring regions makes a lot of sense to me. It opens the market to both buy and sell racecars as well as allowing racers to race in different places under the same rules. You wouldn't need to swap in a built high strung 4.8L engine into your C6 Z06 corvette race car to get essentially the same power as stock.

I like weight/power because it is inclusive. It's as affordable as you want it to be, there isn't a huge incentive to chase after high volumetric efficiency. It's flexible in that it doesn't care how the power is produced, just the output at the wheels. That lets small, big, old, and modern all race under the same formula. The organizers also don't have to chase after correction factors for modifications that have different effects on different engines. I.e., is 1.15 appropriate for all cams for all cars? Is 0.75 the right number for all pushrod engines?

:) another opinion

February 22, 2014, 05:13:54 PM
Reply #32

zhao

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-1
One of the things I dont like about our current system is you get these anomalies on the fringes and its an imperfect set of rules for classing cars similarly for car competitiveness

- you have a class modifier for weight based on displacement which is fine and dandy for majority of the cars people would race, but it doesn't work at all for the minority, and that leaves a big window for exploits. example: honda s2000's in STU would clean up in that class. you'd have a car that has 240hp from the factory being allowed to weigh <2200 lbs racing against civics. you wouldn't even have to modify the s2000 very much to dominate that class, but you'd be allowed to. Then you have high displacement cars needing crazy amounts of weight added. changing the modifier may make high displacement cars now have realistic weights, but then it means lower displacement cars now get to be retardedly light. No modifier number with the current calculation will ever solve the problem we have now.
- it favours european and japanese cars for IT/ST, and turbo cars for ST. hp/cc is king for our rules, so what do you do? You buy a car with the highest HP/L possible, which really means you should race a honda because they build engines that are 120hp/L, and you avoid anything made on this continent like the plague unless you're going GT1. ST favours turbo cars because while there are limits to NA builds, there is no limit to how much boost you can run or how big of a turbo you put on your engine. Someone someday is going to build a car to the actual limits of what ST allows, and its going to lap the field.
- You get these arbitrary class divide points which leave cars obviously wrongly classed and in a position to annihilate the field. Thus ITCS is born which seems logical, but in reality its still flawed, because you see all kinds of illogical arbitrary decisions being made for car reclassification and thus we have first gen rx7s being reclassed with 100hp from IT3, where they obviously belong, to run against FD rx7s and m3s... and you have 95 240sx's being adjusted to be allowed to weigh 2200lbs in IT2 with a 2.4L engine, but 94 240sx's with the same engine must weigh 2800lbs (who's friend owns a 95 240sx race car is my question).

Our rules are reactionary, not proactive.

So with all that I see potential headaches and pissing people off because we are going to get these issues that arise where the rules allow for glaringly obvious choices for someone to pick a winning race car to build, and someone is going to do it.  You're going to have a guy that reads the rules and decides hey, Car X classes amazing for Class Y, and i'm allowed to do XYZ to it to make it even better. I'm going to read the crap out of the rules and build it exactly to the rules and destroy everyone (because almost no one builds their cars to maximize the rules of what's really allowed here). Then racer X shows up with his 99spec FD rx7 in IT1 with 300hp, drops its weight down to 2440lbs with driver which is what the numbers come out to for allowed weight, and does the legal mods he's allowed to do with exhaust, downpipe, and intake, and tuning it, and now you have a car that is 7.x power to weight ratio in IT1 passing current STO cars on the straights.

or maybe racer X wants to show up in STU, and decides to bring a 2L s2000 that's allowed to weigh 2180lbs in STU, and if he's a good driver, is going to coast to first place. Then what happens? I feel with our rules how I see things playing out, he'd be bumped to another class, which imo is a terrible thing to do to someone and is basically saying; thx for actually reading the rules but you built your car too good to them and for that we are punishing you (I know i'd be pretty steamed if i built my car exactly to the limit of what the rules allowed and someone made a judgement call to bump me to a class i'm now out classed in, or that no one races in. it'd be kinda like saying ur $500,000 ALMS GT1 car is too fast so now you have to race with the LMP's). Or the alternative is you have a ton of cars that have no hope of winning unless first breaks down or doesn't show up, which may drive people away from racing.


There is a lot to be said for a classing structure built more closely related to power to weight ratio. However, I wouldn't say i dislike our rules; far from it. I like about 95% of what they are and how they have played out so far, its just that 5% i dont like i see so much potential for it to create a mess down the road and can't see any way to fix that with the current set of rules. I also gotta say, i dont like everything about the NASA Rules either. It still has the same problem with way too many classes for the fields of cars we are seeing, but I do like that it is somewhat easy to jump into another class; i'm just unsure how that would actually play out in real life in our region.

February 22, 2014, 05:57:36 PM
Reply #33

The Radium King

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-0
i'll see your S2000 and raise you a 2000 lb Spec Miata with a 300 hp normally-aspirated ported 13B transplant. it would own the field. i was seriously thinking of abandoning my current track car (torqued every bolt by my own hand, know every ecu pin, fixed every failure point) and running Spec Miata until i could do the swap and move to ST-U. build a car to the rules like everyone says. now i am banking on the ST-O CF change so that i can run my current car and not have to add 200 lbs. i don't necessarily want to win, but i do want to race. and to race my car has to fit into a class.

February 22, 2014, 08:52:43 PM
Reply #34

SputnikRSS

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
Not rule wise but one of the points was to include more people and encourage people to travel between regions.

Step 1 to help this would be to not make our schedule the exact same race days as mission one of few neighbours.

February 23, 2014, 03:39:30 AM
Reply #35

10cc

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • WCMA Affiliate Executive
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • ARCA Race Director
For the most part, we don't have a lot of choice when it comes to getting tracks for our races. We are not the only users of these tracks, and we usually end up with what dates the track owners want to give us. I have scheduled races for many years, and know this to be true.
G. Brooke Carter
#10 ST5
ARCA Race Director

February 24, 2014, 09:33:28 AM
Reply #36

SputnikRSS

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 30
  • Karma: +0/-0
I thought I remember hearing at one of the drivers meetings that since Castrol was happy with us we where going to have first choice of Race dates for this season?

Also whomever is running this forum needs to get rid of all the security questions just to make a post its beyond ridiculous.


February 24, 2014, 01:27:46 PM
Reply #37

10cc

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • WCMA Affiliate Executive
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • ARCA Race Director
Paddock space is always an issue, and as it is we are sharing space for several weekends, and that is not optimal, nor in my opinion safe.

There are only so many weekends in the short summer, and we also have to avoid long weekends whenever possible, leaving some breathing space between races. It is inevitable we will have date conflicts...as we are planning on 6 race weekends and a school.
G. Brooke Carter
#10 ST5
ARCA Race Director

February 24, 2014, 05:02:28 PM
Reply #38

Tachyon

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: +1/-0
The comments so far on this topic have been great.  Gary R & Doug C initially alluded to why we’re once again going through this process.  Last Fall when Michael Lemanski announced he was stepping down as President, I was swamped with comments from people who have been having issues for years with WCMA’s car classifications.  Some people were quite brutal with their choice of words & phrases about our “antiquated car classifications” and that maybe WCMA should step into the 21st century.  Last Fall I once again  re-read all of CASC- Or , NASA, SCCA ( I had read them many times over the past 30 years.) and CACC rule sets.   As many of you know I have been trying for years to have us reduce the number of classes and at the same time make it easier for non-mechanically inclined “potential” competitors to find a way to compete with their favourite marquis and yet allow the very skilled & brilliant mechanically aptitude type competitors to build their own creation that fit into “existing” classes and to get rid of “catch all or what to you got on the back 40 type cars.”    With all these accusations flying about,  WCMA’s voting members had a beneficial conference call and at that time Gary Roberts and Doug Campbell stepped up to initiate this new proposal.   Please keep the dialogue going and see if we can reduce the number of classes, increase the number of cars per class to the point where you as “Class Champion” can say I finished first, ahead of 20 cars in my class and instead of 1st in my class of 2 cars. I strongly believe if we can improve the level of preparation of all cars and have an easy to understand car classifications we would have superior racing and increase the number of participants.  The competitor who finished 12th out of 20 cars would make efforts to improve the competitiveness of their car and would probably look a lot deeper at their own skill level which mostly would have improve by being amongst many better drivers in his own class during the season. Let’s see if we can stay on topic and come up with a nice clean set of rules that increase the # of competitors in each class and yet still allow competitors to come & go between other tracks in North America.  Gary Leadbetter

February 24, 2014, 07:25:55 PM
Reply #39

The Radium King

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-0
here's some very rough math for consideration:

NASA uses weight/hp = 9 or 8 or 5.5 depending on class (with no other modifiers).

Assuming a race engine putting out a very robust 100 hp/liter at the flywheel = 85 hp/liter at the wheels with 15% drivetrain loss:

hp = 85 x displacement

Substituting:

weight/displacement = 85 x (9 or 8 or 5.5) = 765 or 680 or 468

weight = displacement x (.77 or .68 or .47)

NASA CFs are .77 or .68 or .47.

WCMA uses weight = displacement x ST (1.00 or .88) or GT (1.2 to .53)

Conclusion? NASA has more favorable CFs. Further, WCMA classing becomes approximately equal to NASA at 130 hp per liter. Of course that will never happen for most of us. So, I could never be able to take a WCMA car and be competitive in NASA unless I was running GT1.

February 24, 2014, 07:49:45 PM
Reply #40

gary

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 42
  • Karma: +0/-0
When we created the current IT and ST rules there was never any intent to exclude  any type of  cars. I think  we may have unknowingly done so due to the  popularity of current cars at the time. One thing we did know for sure is that they would be evolving as the years gone by, perhaps we didn't keep up. It is very hard to create rules to fit all types of cars. there are so many different combinations  of engines, ones with high torque but low Hp, ones with high Hp but low torque, low displacement, large displacement , old technology, new technology, in large cars, in small cars. I could on.  Then we have chassis/ suspension styles , unibody, tube frame,  A arm front ends, struts, solid axles,  independent rear axles of various styles.  Our rules do not give advantage  or disadvantage to styles of suspension, I noted NASA does not either. Is there a way to include this in any new rules we create?
Whatever we create I think we should make a list of pro's and con's of  all ideas we come up with( or steal from other sets of rules).
 Pro's  for wcma rules;
-with the AGM proposed rule for allowing all cars into GT classes that fit safety rules and fuel tank specs( within wheel base) as in ST classes, we can now fit almost any modern car.
-Existing race cars  do not have to change.
-current performance tires now  are equal and sometimes better than slick tires so ST cars need not change.
-similar to scca rules .
- the rules  have been stable for many years, allowing racers to  tune their  cars  within rules they know well.
Pro's for Nasa rules;
-   Hp/ weight equalizes competition.
- a points structure to calculate classing
- ability to more up or down classes based on mods done/removed.
- unprepped car can still compete.
 Con's  for wcma.
- rules outdated?
-rules assume car preparation is done to the max.
-does not align with nearby regions.
 Cons for Nasa.
- something new, high resistance to change from  some racers.
- rules not  easier to read/understand .
- extra administration to   police dyno tests and weights.
- extra expense for dyno time.

These are just a few examples.  I am sure there are more for both sides. would love to have everyone contribute positively  so we can improve.
 personally I like  our existing rules but I would like to somehow incorporate to Hp /weight ratio into our classes
and the ability to be bumped up/down based on a points system for modifications.

Thank you to Gary R and Doug C for getting the ball rolling.

Gary L

February 25, 2014, 11:28:17 AM
Reply #41

The Radium King

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-0
well, if the GT fuel cell regs are open to change, and there is a potential CF change in ST, then perhaps:

- revise GT to GT-U, GT-O and GT-S. now you have a chain of progression for racers; IT to ST to GT.
- review CFs so that the majority of cars prepped for WCMA can find a class in BC, ON and northern US, and visa versa.

if done well you've:

- reduced the number of classes;
- not had to go to a completely new set of rules;
- facilitated participation with other regions;
- made it easier for larger displacement and lower hp/displacement cars to participate.

February 25, 2014, 11:47:55 AM
Reply #42

The Radium King

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Newbie
  • Posts: 19
  • Karma: +2/-0
sorry to belabour with multiple posts. on a totally different track, but still in keeping with modifying the original rules (not that I am opposed to NASA in any way); one way to continue to use a weight/displacement system, but get closer to a weight/HP system, would be to introduce a DF for stock HP/displacement. you already have the DFs for modifications from stock, but nothing to set the stock baseline. stock HP info is readily available without having to dyno (published manufacturer HP ratings) so should just be a matter of finding workable numbers?

February 25, 2014, 01:45:26 PM
Reply #43

10cc

  • *
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • WCMA Affiliate Executive
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • ARCA Race Director
Just out of curiosity, where would a 1st gen 12a RX-7 with a streetport fit in these "new" rule ideas if there wasn't a CC class?
G. Brooke Carter
#10 ST5
ARCA Race Director

February 25, 2014, 02:21:31 PM
Reply #44

Spec Volcanic

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Full Member
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 129
  • Karma: +0/-0
Just out of curiosity, where would a 1st gen 12a RX-7 with a streetport fit in these "new" rule ideas if there wasn't a CC class?


I quickly 2 min look has a CC as follows (I may have missed something)

A 12a RX-7 is PTG** (PTG+14) tires 205 (+1), RR (+9), intake porting on a 12a (+2), fuel pump, jets (+2), Pully (+1), LSD (+3) shock, springs, swag bar (removal) (+7), allowed body work (+1) or PTG + 40 = PTE with lots of room for improvements or run RA-1 and you have a PTF car and min weight is down 5lb to 2345