SS rules wish list

[FalconEL]

Just one other thought. In a couple of other threads there has been a bit of talk about control chassis and achieving parity and that sort of stuff. In my opinion it flies in the face of what Sports Sedans are about and what they have always been about, so I don't like the idea. The freedoms we enjoy in this wonderful category need to be maintained - where would we be without the engineering masterpieces such as Torana-man's Folden, the Audi or the Saab (just to name a couple)? Sports Sedans are about freedom of design, performance and vehicle choice. Let's keep it that way.

And the Winner............. of "Post of the Day" goes to................ Toymax! (***** Loud Cheer *****) ;)

[Toyzda]

SS cannot go to a controlled chassis, you are correct. There would be 5 cars racing and in 2 or 3 years it would be an extinct class. The individuality of SS makes it unique.

1. rotary multiplyer down to 1.74 instead of 1.75 only puts a NA 12A into u2000cc, the 13B, 20B and turbo variety of all 3 engines stay the same.

3. your success with classes is good news. I was un-aware of the lap time system inplace. It would be very hard to keep it uniform across tracks and series' and my biggest concern is the direction of regulation racing. What is stopping someone baulking to keep in a class bracket? I think the idea is good because you say its working - so it has to be good for NSW SS racing! But i would like to seecapacity split classes (obviously by my origina post)

8. Under my system you could run the 370 tyre in S1 or stay in S2 and run a 280 tyre. You are spot on with the Corolla comment. The reason would be to provide a fairer playground for the smaller capacity engines. You chose to build a big heavy car without going 6L chev like everyone else. So that tells me you were never expecting to challenge the outright guys. Wouldn't you like the opurtunity to be the top of S2? As far as your lateral grip comment goes, that is a chassis and suspension issue you have. Don't V8SC run a 280 tyre at 1350kg and 600hp??? why couldn't S2 sports sedans?

10. I like Sports Sedans too. I grew up with it and like it. But I have found other people are easily confused with sports cars category and super sedans in speedway. Was just thinking outside the box... what about Car Formula 1 (CF1, CF2, CF3)???.... Super Ultra Mega Cars with Wings.... Honestly I would keep SS. Just putting ideas up....

[Toymax]

What is stopping someone baulking to keep in a class bracket? I think the idea is good because you say its working - so it has to be good for NSW SS racing!

Baulking hasn't happened at all so far, but we already considered it when planning the move to these divisions. Except in the case of a brand new car, we already history to go by. A quick scan of Natsoft results and you know what a car can do. We based the divisions on the first qualifying session of the year (which was EC in this case) and anyone who wasn't at that was placed in a division based on either their history or an equivalent lap time at WP (our only other circuit).

We also knew that with it being a new system we may encounter some teething problems and therefore kept it a little open and flexible to begin with. In fact our allocations were pretty close, with only one competitor requesting a move to a different division (from D1 to D2). His evidence of why he wasn't a D1 competitor was sound so the move was no problem, and he is running down the order in the D2 points, so he certainly didn't drop back a division and dominate it.

We also "regrade" at the end of the year, ensuring cars in each division should be in that division again next year. One comes to mind already who will be moved from D2 to D1 as his performance this year has improved - he started squarely in D2 but just really got into it this year and now sees lap times well inside the D1 benchmark. Having that flexibility in our system really helps with maintaining it.

[Toyzda]

Sounds like it is working well! Well done to all involved.

What do you think about my retort to point 8? Does no comment indicate how strongly you disagree? I wouldn't suprise me as I have encounted the same response from everyone. I understand the outright cars wanting so much rubber, but a split to a real division 2 (or 3) class should have a smaller tyre to enable the smaller (cheaper??) cars to be more competitive... just my view though.

I remember Dad talking about division 1 and 2 sports sedan split back in the old, old days. I will ask him how they used to do it.

[Toymax]

No comment doesn't mean I strongly disagree, just that I was focussed on answering the other part.

That said, I disagree with dropping the minimum size to 280. I can think of a couple of cars (at least in NSW) that would suffer at such a change. None of them are V8 supercars. Mine is just one example - it is not a small car, but certainly a cheap one (in terms of Sports Sedans, not in terms of my salary). V8 supercars run a few sets of new tyres per race meeting. I will be relying on second hand sets and will possibly buy a new set once a year, if I'm lucky. Those second hand sets will come from your S1 type cars, so obviously someone in my situation would like to be able to use them.

I don't know about suspension or chassis issues yet. Will let you know after the car is tested...

The message I was trying to convey with the comment in relation to my Corolla was that if I was still running it, I probably wouldn't have an opinion as it wouldn't affect me - the tyres were way smaller than 280 and so the rule wouldn't have penalised the Corolla.

What you have to be careful of when tyring to enable your smaller (cheaper?) cars to be more competitive is that you do just that - make them more competitive. You'll never succeed if the way you intend to do this is hobble every other car back to your level of performance. Instead you need to move forward with your own car and driver, working to make them faster, reliable and competitive. That's what happened with my Corolla, until it just couldn't go any faster without spending thousands, which was just not financially viable considering the minimal gain it would achieve. That's why I sold it and moved on to constructing something else - bigger and more powerful, sure, but within the rules as they exist and still pretty cheap (I keep using that term "cheap", but in reality it is not. It is a race car after all).

[Toyzda]

I understand many of the state level competitors use the used tyres from the outright competitors. If taking that away from competitiors means they won't race anymore, then i would not want that.

All of the suggested rules I have posted will not advantage or disadvantage my car. There is no personal interest in this other than improving the possiblities in SS. I will be lucky to even have my car going for next years season after the crap that happened last year in testing. Any rule change that happens will make no difference to how early I am testing my car and then maybe racing it. As you said, there is no such thing as a cheap race car. They cost what you got!

I am not trying to hobble cars back as such, just would prefer a deeper line in the sand between classes... as you have pointed out (and others outside of this forum) reducing tyre size is not a popular notion. Honestly, I don't have a problem with that either. It is just a concept I believe in.

I hope more people throw there two cents around to keep this going.

[Ricey88]

I think that Racing Divisions, Classes etc... Should remain the domain of the Competition organizers/ clubs.
As distinct for having one set of basic rules.
Phil has tried some classes and I am happy for it to be left up to the Nationals
association to draw there own lines in the sand for there competition .
Same with Vic, NSW, Qld, Promoters should be able to decide how to divide up the trophy's.
This allows each state to take advantage of the available pool of likely competitors each year.

[Ricey88]

here is another one a bit left of centre
Turbo and rotorys should be required to have 10% of there minimum weight
as lead non structural removable ballast bolted to the chassis at crankshaft height.
not sure that I have thought this one through! (I'm still looking for FAIR)

[Phast Phil]

Ricey, I agree....you have not thought that one through hahaha.
Dont see the point in that. I would bolt it down the back for more rear weight. Best the min weight be appropriate and the weight be in a strong construction as lead bolted in does not add to safety, it actually detracts from safety and I will not vote for or sign off on anything that obviously reduces safety.

[Toyzda]

here is another one a bit left of centre
Turbo and rotorys should be required to have 10% of there minimum weight
as lead non structural removable ballast bolted to the chassis at crankshaft height.
not sure that I have thought this one through! (I'm still looking for FAIR)

This is not you looking for fair, this is you looking out for your best interests. You want these engines to be big and heavy similar to a v8 so they disadvantage weight balance similarly.

I think that has no place in any racing.