Sports Sedan racing weights

[Mopar358]

Have to agree with Phil here, there is a well respected equivalency of 2to 1 in capacity for Turbo vs aspirated. SS have already given a free kick to turbos with 1.7 to 1. 2e club cars are restricted by a 36 mm restricted inlet on turbo engines maintaining Rotary dominance. The last aspirated car to win an Australian 2E title was either Roger Hurd in the Fred Krause Torana or the Ray Hislop BA falcon ( which would have cost more than Kerry Baileys Aston Martin). The rules as they exist are equitable but I like the concept of tyre width limitations fos S2 and U2l cars. The S2 limit should be 4 litre ad there are lots of easily adapted 3.6 to 4 litre engines made by Mitsubishi, Toyota, BMW, Holden / isuzu to name just a few. Please discuss!!

[MrBoost]

but honestly if you make the cars heavier do you think the order will change? maybe 1 or 2 cars may swap position but nothing will change. tony and darren will still be way out front. all that will happen is yes tyres will wear out quicker, people will need to buy more, people will run out of money quicker and less people will be able to afford to race.
Its quite obvious to me that there is much bigger problems in sports sedans 'closeness' than rules. Most of us like me are extremely part time drivers and i for one have stuff all capability compared to someone like tony or darren of getting the best out of my car right now. look at some of the cars out there that have had different drivers in them in the past and the different times they have done. Im sure there some cars out there who have never been quick that given the right engineer on the pit wall and driver could be up the front. Take away those top tow.... and i think you have FANTASTIC racing. If you saw some of the racing at mcm you would have LOVED it. it just comes with getting everyone there.

As you all know im a massive turbo fan, and i too agree that if one is built properly and has the time and research done on it... it should kick chev's ass. Dads is getting better and better. It runs low boost (19psi) it revs to 7800rpm and never over. It lasted all of mcm haha, we will just have to wait and see how the latest evolution goes.
Currently it gets at 75kg weight penalty and i think thats fair, removing the multivalve rule and allowing us to go to the 3.5L has helped alot in term of reliability. Everything about this engine is less stressed and making the same power as the 2.5L mazda which was running 28psi and revving to 9k+ all the time. Which made it a little ROCKET (better than the current one) but also a major hand grenade.

Might i add if some of you didnt know, Dad (graham smith) sadly hung up the helmet at mcm.

[Mopar358]

It's a huge loss for the class to lose a devoted and innovative racer/ builder like Graham. I know from speaking to Gary last week at Basky that he has been a major help in developing the v6 Buick to go into the Ex Camm Honda. The pace of the calibra is truly epic and I hope it stays in the family , as I believe the best is yet to come for the combo!!!

[Phast Phil]

So if we adopt the 12000 kilos and drop the 75kilo ballast for multivalve then the turbo calibra presently at 1200kilo ends up at 1200 kilo again and the V8's move up from 1125 to 1200.

Mr Boost I thought you would be delighted?

Seriously I doubt that anyone would build a 2V turbo car these days. I even wonder if there is any currently in existance, I certainly have not seen one at the track in the last 5 years from memory.

At 1.7 turbo multiplier I think we have some parity at 7800rpm so maybe leave that alone.

If harder compound tyres are needed (they already are needed) then so be it, that will even the field up even more for closer racing.

I agree with the difference in driver ability, look at what Luke Youlden did in the black Mustang a few years ago. In the end however it is not about giving slow Freddy (not you Fred A) a free kick though, it is about the car being able to compete on a level playing field with a similarly competent driver. Even the might of V8 Supercar and Nascar parity sees the best and few drivers picking up the wins; but the remaining field is not far behind and they know they have the equipment to win and car aspire to win.

[Toyzda]

Have to agree with Phil here, there is a well respected equivalency of 2to 1 in capacity for Turbo vs aspirated. SS have already given a free kick to turbos with 1.7 to 1. 2e club cars are restricted by a 36 mm restricted inlet on turbo engines maintaining Rotary dominance. The last aspirated car to win an Australian 2E title was either Roger Hurd in the Fred Krause Torana or the Ray Hislop BA falcon ( which would have cost more than Kerry Baileys Aston Martin). The rules as they exist are equitable but I like the concept of tyre width limitations fos S2 and U2l cars. The S2 limit should be 4 litre ad there are lots of easily adapted 3.6 to 4 litre engines made by Mitsubishi, Toyota, BMW, Holden / isuzu to name just a few. Please discuss!!

You need to get out and see IPRA more often... Last years nationals saw Leane Tander as the only fast Mazda. She was surrounded by 4WD Turbo's (WRX won the meet) and V8 Commodore's / Monaro/s. In NSW no-one can catch the Turbo Starlet, but right behind is a good field of Mazda's, Turbo's and V8's nearly as fast. And do you know why the Mazda's have lost their advantage to the v*'s and Turbo cars??? They allowed a bigger lower profile tyre into the class - more grip means heavier torquier cars are more competitive!

I strongly agree with bringing the 6L cars to 1200kg and 2L to 800kg and a linear scale inbetween. I also think there should be a 4L at 1000kg official class@

[MrBoost]

haha phil, as happy as it would make me i know its wrong.

Dont speak too soon on the 2v turbo, i believe thats what loser is building? and its a damn good engine too! We havent had anything to do with losers engine tho, just a few pointers here and there as to what has worked and not worked for us. It a worthy engine for the same reason your chevs are worthy. Someone in america has already speent millions developing them into bulletproof engines. They are the ex indy car turbo 6's right?

lol you would agree with making the big cars 1200kg toyzda! you own a light little mazda with a 4 banger dont you??

[2002 turbo]

All I know after discussing these weights is that the car I am involved with is far too heavy!!!!

On a serious note though the linear method does have some merit, it is not drastically different but does make more sense. I think the 3 rotor cars would appreciate a little bit less weight, every bit helps for them.

[Toyzda]

haha phil, as happy as it would make me i know its wrong.

Dont speak too soon on the 2v turbo, i believe thats what loser is building? and its a damn good engine too! We havent had anything to do with losers engine tho, just a few pointers here and there as to what has worked and not worked for us. It a worthy engine for the same reason your chevs are worthy. Someone in america has already speent millions developing them into bulletproof engines. They are the ex indy car turbo 6's right?

lol you would agree with making the big cars 1200kg toyzda! you own a light little mazda with a 4 banger dont you??

She was a little chunky, bit is on a major diet... whole re-design of rear end and other components to suit the 2L under way ATM... but 800kg 2L means a 710kg car for me, and with a little engine i need it to be as light as possible!!!!

Honestly though, this linear weight scale won't change much for me or anyone else is my opionion...

I hope more turbo cars are built and have a strong presence against the 6L chev's... would be great to watch the different engines at it

[Ricey88]

[quote]Ricey,


Why are you only asking for a change for fairer competition without considering all the aspects of it? I agree that cheating can be an issue under the current rules. I agree that your linear system is a fairer way to manage capacity / weight limits. If anything your system may stop people from pushing the capacity limits and declaring the correct cc's because they will only get a few 10's of kg penalty for it. But if the rules are to change again, why not do it properly and cover all the bases?

To further that, all my "off topic" comments were hinting at maybe changing more rules to make it even fairer again...

Hi toyzda
All aspects are as you say worthy of discussion but I believe
the best I can hope to achieve is to chip away at the small things, a few things at a time.
At the moment I would give my weight proposal a 25% chance of it finding it way into
this years rule changes , I still believe it is a MUCH better system that what we have in place.
I do not want to confuse this topic or making it any more complicated.
Its Simple, its just a weight scale But it isn't going to create "World Peace"
Ricey

I would seem 25% chance was being over Optimistic.
I think this got hijacked by 1 or 2 people into being used as an opportunity to
Raise the weights of 6L cars.
So This is dead in the water and going nowhere.

Calculation ( Engine Capacity in CC's) X ( .09468 Kg's ) + ( 557 Kg's )
Minimum weight 680Kg's

Is still a good idea, disadvantages no one and is easy

[Ricey88]

Bump