Proposed 2003 Linear Index Classification System

[Dave]

Attn All Solo 1 Competitors:

At the February Solo 1 Committee meeting the CCC proposed a new car classification system and revised car modification schedule based on a linear (or straight) index approach. The Solo 1 committee and Director gave the proposal their unanimous support at that time, though Eric Jurashka has subsequently voiced his objections and concerns and John Blennerhassett, President of BAC, has expressed concerned about implementing this change for 2003 (though he continues to support the idea of a linear index classification system for 2004). Given these concerns, we would like to solicit as much feedback as possible from all Solo 1 competitors about the implementation of the linear index classification system and the revised car preparation and modification schedule associated with it.

The file attached is the most up-to-date version of the proposed linear index classification spreadsheet (in text format due to the limitations of this messageboard...an MS Excel version has been e-mailed out on the solo 1 listserve). We have added all 'model variants' for each car since one of the advantages of this system is that we'll no longer be basing classification on the best 'variant', but rather each variant will have its own classification and starting class. The linear indexing of all cars in this spreadsheet is based on a 70% weighting of horsepower-to-weight ratio and a 30% weighting of our 'suspension' or handling index.

I will also attach a text file which includes a revised car 'Prep Schedule' (e-mailed out to the Solo 1 listserve in MS Word format), though it is important to note that the wording of the rules as they appear in this file are not final. They will be aligned more closely with the wording used in the 2002 rulebook so as to avoid as much confusion as possible. Included within this file is considerable discussion of how this new system is designed to work, what some of our assumptions were when developing it, and so on.

Once you've had a chance to look over both these files, I would encourage you to send your feedback to the Solo 1 Committee and the Car Classification Committee (CCC) by posting your thoughts here.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave]

attached is the car Preparation and Modification Schedule

[rpr]

Is that crank HP or wheel HP?

[Shaman]

Here's the original system in Access format:

[Shaman]

And the original prep schedule in Word format. They just needed to be "zipped". If you look below the Attach File requestor, you will see the valid extensions. Everyone knows Zip (or should), so this hopefully won't be a problem.

Any revisions, etc. just zip and upload. BTW, if anyone doesn't have Access or Word (like me on Linux) then a free office suite that will read these files is available at http://www.openoffice.org/

[Dave]

thanks Steve, that's very helpful! :)

[andrew1984]

:confused: my bug is 3005 lbs . where did you guys grab 2875 from? :confused:

[Dave]

Andrew, most of our data on car weight and horsepower rating came from either the yearly 'Car Guide' magazine or from the Carpoint website. It could be that the year and model version we've listed for the new Beetle was in fact lighter than yours. There is variation from year to year and from model version to version. We've included as many model versions as we could without becoming slaves to the spreadsheet, but obviously we don't have a listing for every car for every year and every model version. For the correct classification of your car, all you have to do is forward us (here, or via e-mail at dpratte4@cogeco.ca) the year and model version of your car along with the horsepower and curb weight rating out of the owner's manual (which we'll cross-reference with our sources). We'll input this into the official spreadsheet and you'll be good to go!

[Taylor]

Once again (in a more public environment) I want to thank the CCC for all their hard work and turning what I personally wanted to see into a workable system.

First off.. I personally preferred the straight Letter Class designations. I do appreciate the attractiveness of these newer class names, but I gotta tell you, I've never heard of Grand Sports... if we are to name them this way, I'm more in favor of Touring and GT classes. I suppose you could call the Grand Sports ones SGT or something, if it's necessary. Anyhow just my opinion there, I figure it would be somewhat less confusing. Frankly the letter designation is even less confusing, but isn't nearly as sexy.

Having looked at the most recent spreadsheet and plugging in my numbers I have a few comments.

My base class and the cars in it (top of Class F or Sports 3) feels appropriate for a 12 year old car with 12 year old technology. While my final placing based on PIP puts me into Class B (Grand Sports 2) which is obviously waaaay out of my cars league. This is the result of the high points a turbocharged car can accrue with typical/common mods. 6 points for my upgraded turbo, which is really just a rebuilt stock turbo with an altered internal wheel. This modification is very common with people with CT26 turbos, probably common with most tubo cars with many miles on them. The situation is such that you need to get the turbo rebuilt, so you put a wheel in that fits for the style of competition you're interested in. As a result, I maybe gain 3 or 4% in horsepower. Unfortunately this was not an optimal upgrade for me and I suffer (on the surface) from the 6 point PIP "penalty" as a result.

HOWEVER, the CCC seems perfectly content in my situation to accept an accurate dyno graph showing my vehicles actual power output and therefore they can calculate a new base class for me based on Engine and Drivetrain. This is a god send for people like myself, and no doubt the thousands of young import guys who have done mods to their car out of convienence or impulse rather than out of preparation for competition. I pretty much needed a new turbo and under the old system it didn't hurt me to upgrade my OE turbo like it does now. The new system doesn't see a difference between an upgraded/modified OE turbo and a new/different turbo, which perhaps it should, regardless, I have the ability to submit my dyno plot. This then places my car at a base of 76.2PIP with stock suspension, then add in my 5 points for my coilover setup and alignment and I'm at 81.2% or the bottom of Class C which is far more logical. Truefully I should be in Class D if I want to be competitive but that's where my choice in mods or engine components (i.e. boost pressure in my case) will come into play.

Basically I gain back 6 PIP's from my base+mod PIP's over a dyno calculated based + body+suspention PIP's. Frankly I feel this is accurate as I mentioned the modification to my stock turbo really doesn't do a heck of a lot but effect spool up time. My whole point in doing it was I had a turbo with 150,000kms on it.. I was going to need a rebuild, no one sells rebuilt OE ones with stock internals. Gains (or Losses!) are sub 5% on stock which is about 165hp or <8hp. This is really a 1 or 1.5% PIP mod for my application.

This system allows us to accept virtually any new competitor and give them the ability to be competitive day one (presuming they can actually drive). Of course this system should also give us better populated classes and battles that were unheard of (impossible) before.

Not only does the new system make the sport more exciting, it makes it more fair too.

As for implementation for 2003. I beg the community to implement it now. I know the CCC has spent time plugging in data from last year to see where people ended up in classes and such and it all makes sense. Since they seem perfectly content in integrating the system this year, I trust in their knowledge of the system that it's at a level where its worthy of implementation.

I fully expect a bit of tweaking here (it was done with the last system too) and there but this is basically the only future proof system that was presented, that I can think of, and that can also allow stock cars at the bottom of a class be competitive with the top dogs in their class with a few inexpensive and carefully chosen modifications. Which is basically the only fair thing you can do when everyone isn't rolling in the bling-bling and buying Type-R's, M3's or Z06's.

Kudos to the team. I look forward to my new home.. somewhere in the top of D or the bottom of C. Err. I mean Grand Sports 2 and 3. :)

[Dave]

Hehe...Taylor you have a point about the naming of classes. At first we had it numerically labelled (ie. Class 1, Class 2, etc.), then we switched to alphabetical (ie. Class A, Class B, etc.) and then at the last meeting we thought it might make things easier to remember if we used actual names like Grand Touring and Touring or whatever. Anyway, it's easy enough to change back to a numeric or alphabetic system if this is the preference of competitors. And now that you mention it, using SGT or Super Grand Touring would make more sense than Grand Sports since this would align our names a little more with the new GT Touring Car Challenge road race series.

[Dave Barker]

Originally posted by rpr
Is that crank HP or wheel HP?

We used manufacturers crank HP in our calculations and for the Dyno rule we will plan to account for drive train losses of 14 % to calculate crank hp from wheel hp. This can then be used to calculate a new PI and therefore class.

[Dave Barker]

After all the work we have done in the past few months the CCC would really like this to be implemented this season. We feel that the wide variety of choice of classes and the narrow range of PI in each class means that no one will need to make drastic changes to their car prep if any. We also feel that there will be no obvious class winners or class winning cars which will be an improvement over the last 2 years. Last year's rules were changed well into late January and considering that this proposal gives more flexibility , not less, then there should be a move to promote this immediately .

[andrew1984]

its a great idea. :thumbsup:

[Chris P]

Using letters to label the classes was just plain confusing......


personally i find numbers the simpliest but its lacks a certin zing.

A vote maybe?

[ADAM]

hi taylor,
glad to see you like the system,

re: turbos i was the resident turbo guru, and we tried to rate them fairly, we had to assume that if someone was changing the turbo they would drop in a power maker :)

like a nice t4 ect....or mid size frame turbo...you are correct just a compressor change is not that much of an improvement...you should have mabey clipped it as well :) ...but the dyno option is still there..and i think its a great option....

adam

...i like the funky names...for the classes :)

[Bubblecar]

Thank you Dave and the entire Classification Commitee for all of your work and effort.

I have not had time to make a detailed examination of your proposals - but on the surface - it looks very well done.

I am sure there will be many cases where individual cars may prove troublesome - but so it is with ANY and ALL classification schemes.

I am fullly in favour of proceeding with the proposed changes - now for the upcoming season.

Any misclassifications that may arise would likely be less than the overall improvement this proposal would bring to the class structure.

Nick

[TYSON]

Uh Oh.:(

I have a couple questions. If I replace the stock turbos and manifold with aftermarket, do I have to count points under rule 4 AND rule 20, or just rule 20?

After looking at my first question, do I have to count points under rule 18? It would be impossible to use the stock boost control system. Also rule 15 'Substitution of the ECU', would affect the boost pressure control system. Am I counting points under two rules for the same modification?

If the answer is yes for all of these, I have a problem. I need an emergency cage install AND fire supression.:D

The wording of rule 22 allows someone with a non-turbocharged engine to add a turbo for less points than someone upgrading a car with a stock turbo, unless rule 22 supercedes rules 20, 19, 18, 5, 4. I hope it does.:p

Not trying to pick on anyone, these are just things that may come out during the year if you get new people or newly modified cars. I am not worried about being competitive as a rookie, I just would like to prevent myself from being disqualified before turning a wheel.:(

[Chris P]

The wording is very preliminary with its purpose to allow the SOLO community to see what we have done.

I'll let one of the turbo guru's answer your questions.

[Taylor]

Yeah the ECU stuff and boost modification stuff should possibly be altered somewhat...

I also noted that non turbocharged cars can add a whole system that's less points than turbocharged cars installing a new system.

Bascially my gripe is with the ECU and Boost Mod points.

I have a Fuel Computer and I have an MBC (Manual Boost Controller).

This is 8 points. Or two whole class jumps for me! I needed the fuel computer because I was running WAAAAY too rich. What else can ECU replacements do? Because I'm concerned I might be getting knocked 5 points when my Fuel Management Computer is really only worth 3 points since it's only "half" an ECU upgrade.

However all that said, theres the dyno to fix things for guys like myself who haven't done optimal mods. But rather mods of convienence or the like. Especially when it comes to turbos. Perhaps I can find out why my ECU causes the car to run so rich when many guys with my car are able to turn up the boost sans-Fuel Management. Busted O2? Should get a code for that though eh?

Anyhow.. yeah I like the system.. case you don't remember, I was the one arrogantly TELLING everyone (i.e. the neysayers) it was the right system to go with at the Workshop. :)

[Taylor]

Tyson: What are you driving anyway?

[addbhp]

Maybe I'm blind, but didn't see a listing for 1985-1989 Toyota MR2's that are N/A. Not sure of weight, but their 112HP. I know of a couple of people that are thinking of running these.

[Dave]

Mark, it's possible we haven't added that car since we've never had one compete yet. I'll add one now and post the updated Excel file here (in Zip format).

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave]

Mark, I've added the 87-89 naturally aspirated MR2 to the spreadsheet. According to MSN Carpoint this car had 115 horsepower and a curb weight of 2350 lbs. If your information conflicts with this, please check your owner's manual and let me know what it says. Anyway, using the data from Carpoint the 89 MR2 has a starting PI of 53.6, in Touring 2. I based the suspension rating for this car on the MR2 supercharged version, but if you have knowledge that the naturally aspirated version has a lesser suspension design (ie. lacks roll bars, has a less performance oriented drivetrain, etc.) please let us know and we'll research it further so that we can correct the suspension rating accordingly.

Attached is the updated spreadsheet in zip format.

Cheers,
Dave

[TYSON]

Taylor, classify your fuel only controller as a fuel system upgrade:D which is included in rule 22. I wouldn't call it an ECU which means; engine control unit. It can not control your engine.;
)
I prefer to replace the entire ECU, as the fuel controller is an additional gadget that has to be working properly for your car to work. They are fine if you are only in need of fuel adjusment and would like to keep the stock ecu. Saves you money, too. My car just happens to have an adjustable ECU available that is very similar (Plug N' Play, honestly!) to the stock in function. So I took out the stock one and mounted this in its place. No need to mount additional gadgets and have them interface properly.

[Taylor]

Tyson: But my car is ALREADY Turbo. So it doesn't fit under 22.

BTW, I know what an ECU is. :) And yes, ECU's handle air/fuel mixture. In a turbo, it would also effect timing! And probably a half dozen other things I can't think of right now. Technically the HKS Controller I use is a modification of the ECU, as most fuel computers are. This particular one tricks the ECU so the mixture changes. Tells the ECU that the intake has registered so much air so that it compensates with more or less fuel! Piggyback system.

I suspect even my Fuel Cut Off which also tricks the ECU could be considered an ECU modification...

hmm maybe not, I may not actually have that connected to my ECU.

[TYSON]

Ahh, I see rule 15 does say modification. You be FUBARed:D

Maybe they'll let you go on the the manual boost controller if you set it to stock boost and you can't reach the control from the driver seat.

I wasn't knocking you about not knowing what the ECU stood for, I was only giving you ammunition for your tech inspection pleading. It doesn't help now though.:)

If all else fails, you can just race me in the non-competitive-in-over-your-head-why-didn't-you-buy-rcompounds-instead-of-moving-your-battery,-fool!! class. You'll kill me though.:D That's if I can even get in.:(

I see you have checked out the other thread and can see my reluctance to post what kind of car I have.;)

[Taylor]

Tyson: Email me then. :)

Naw I wouldn't set the MBC to stock boost.. I was really just trying to make a point about a fuel computer only changing one aspect of an ECU when most ECU upgrades or mods I typically think of are physical chip replacements or reprogrammed chips. Not a piggyback system like mine that only does 1 thing, alter A/F mixture.

But like I said.. regardless, I have the dyno chart on my side. :) So it's really not a beef about the system, rather some suggestion..

I still think there should be a separate line item for upgraded stock sized turbos. I dunno maybe it's just common to me because I'm used to the MR2 message boards.

[ADAM]

the rules are such that we assume if a boost control device is put in....we assume you are going to use it to your advantage..and with 10rwhp per psi on a small engine...boost controllers are powerfull little devices :)

[TYSON]

If my upgraded ECU controls the boost to any level I want, do I have to hit myself with the whole 8 points instead of 5?

[ADAM]

yep.....

any form of boost control is points....poking holes in wastegate lines...electric boost controllers...manual ...fish tank valves...ecu boost control....whatever...

if the boost is adjusted from stock form....its boost control....

any modification to the ecu is points. whether it is timing, fuel control..ect...

modification to the ecu and boost control...on even stock turbo setups can be very potent...as the stock injectors are usuallt no where near 100% duty cycle..so there is alot of room for power..

[ADAM]

also...to answer another question....why are turbo kits not hit as hard as turbo upgrades....in general

turbo cars from the factory are much better developed than turbo kits...as they have millions of dollars of engineering behind them from the OEM car MFG's...and an engine that was created for forced induction usage....

case in point would you rather race around in a 400hp turbo kit type R...or a stock porche 911 TT....

they may have the same power output...but they stock 911 is going to hold together much better than the highly modded and tweaked "kit" car...

that was our line of thinking....

[TYSON]

That was my point. Raising the power on an Eagle Talon to 400 hp would cost you more points than using a turbo to make 400 hp on an Integra.

Raising the power of a twin turbo Porsche through a custom turbo setup could easily give you 600 hp, which the Porsche could handle a lot better than strapping a Turbo on a Geo and making 400 hp. Yet that Porsche guy might end up being penalized more than the Geo.

Any thoughts about a properly installed 5 point harness giving credits for safety like the extinguisher or cage? This might be helpful, and would increase car control at any rate. I assume it is a no cost upgrade right now, maybe it could be a 1 point credit.

[ADAM]

i think in general the turbo cars are being classed fair with the PIPS (just so you know i have a silly turbo car as well) these rules should make for a VERY entertaining 2003...with NA V8 cars running against small displacement import turbos....it should be a very close 2003 season....with fewer total class blowout domination's than we have seen with the past rules....

i think we should rise to the challenge..and embrace a little change..

[TYSON]

I am my own challenge.:D I'm not worried about what class I will be in, I'm already through the roof. I've been waiting for the rules to see if I am legal to compete from a safety only standpoint.

Hope to see you there!:)

What cars have dominated classes over the past couple years? I looked through some of the results and saw a 69 Vette doing very well, or was I just dreaming?

[ADAM]

tyson,
its really a mixed bag of everything for good cars to compete in.....so far it seems the z06 corvettes are the "out of the box" killers...

what car do you drive?

regardless...come out and have fun...its a great series

[Taylor]

yeah BTW, that 69 vette is mearly a hint of it's former self. :)

It's a monster and as far as I know, a tube frame.

[BradM]

It looks to me like the CCC has done a lot of work on this, and while nothing is ever perfect out of the box, I believe that this system has more potential than the previous one. While I agree with others that it is later than ideal to start a new classification system, I think that we should go ahead with the new system this season.

I have several questions:

1) I am not clear on 5.11.6 vs the updated rule for 5.11.11 for seats. Rule 5.6 says sports seats (similar to stock, upholstered, reclining, etc.) are 0 PIPs, while the new rule says "reclining sports seats" are 1 PIP. It seems to me that the intent is not not impose a penalty for a seat that has similar weight to stock (Rule 5.11.6), where the new rule seems like it should apply only to race seats that have a significant weight advantage.

2) How would the suspension rules be applied for a car with non-adjustable camber and the installation of camber plates? I would like to add camber plates to save money on tire wear, as I only wear out the outside edges of my front tires.

The rules state non-stock alignment is 1 PIP, and any other (unmentioned) suspension mod is 1 PIP. It would seem fair to take 1 PIP under the non-stock alignment rule (as the camber plates only serve that one function), but the rules could be interpreted such that this would cost 2 PIPs. This seems like too steep a penalty for adding camber adjustment, particularly since my car is the only one in its class (GS3) that doesn't already have stock camber adjustment (that I am aware of).

3) I am not in favour of deducting a point for Nomex apparel. While I understand the positive side of promoting safety, I believe that it is not appropriate to skew a car modification system with points related to driver apparel that have no performance impact.

The CCC should be congratulated for all their hard work, and Solo 1 should take credit for listening to the competitors and trying to improve the series for everyone. Good work guys.

[Chris P]

its not a tube frame......... ;)




Hi Brad, Thanks for your comments, i only have time to answer a few of your questions.


2. Your camber correction device is included in the non-stock alignment settings.


3. The negitive points for nomex race suits only counter acts "Body & Trim" PIPs, not engine or suspension mods.

[TYSON]

Waaaitaminute!!:D

I may have a solution to my problem. Does anyone have a link to the 2002 rule book? I threw mine out midway through last year when I realized my car would not be ready in time.

[turboawd]

I'm definetly in favour of the index system but I believe that the turbo rules need some working. OEM turbo cars are being hit too hard compared to n/a cars with turbos.

I am assuming that an n/a car with a turbo kit for 13 pip does not include an additional 3 for an intercooler or 5 for an ECU. Those are in addition, correct?

For OEM turbo cars I think the 5 ECU and 3 Boost mod is overkill. Either combine them or downgrade them or add a max of 5. Also 6 pip for a larger turbo is also rather harsh, especially when adding an extra 5 for ECU and 3 for boost. Thats a total of 14 which is more than the 13 for a whole turbo kit including a downpipe (+3 for turbo car). Obviously this is not fair. I believe some max. pip must be applied to OEM turbo cars or some of them reduced by half or some combo rules established.

Adam, turbo kits have become very common and the knowledge and info to install and tune them is also becoming much more common so an n/a car with a turbo kit has just as much potential.

My other observation is that most SP cars will now be forced to have a roll cage because most will be over 25 pip. I would love to have a cage but they get rather pricey.

[Dave]

Nino, good to hear from you on this. You are correct that an intercooler and ECU upgrade for 'kits' designed for na cars require the use of extra PIPs.

We discussed at our last committee meeting the idea of having a combined value for competitors who have both an ECU upgrade and a boost controller because we were also concerned that we were hitting them too hard. There is some overlap in the function of these two devices, so having a cap or a combined value lower than the individual values total does make some sense. We did do a ton of research looking at the effects these two mods have on a wide variety of turbo cars, so we know that our individual PIP values are quite accurate, but what we have less certainly of is the 'diminishing return' when the two are combined. This is certainly an issue the committee can work on further given the concerns expressed here by you and few other turbo guys.

The roll cage thing is a bit misleading. We won't be requiring anyone to install a full roll cage. But we will be requiring high PIP cars to install at least a roll bar. The exact PIP level where this rule will come into effect is still being discussed, but there really is no getting around the safety issue in general. With growing insurance concerns and beefed up safety regulations coming down the pipe from CASC, we won't be able to avoid this kind of requirement for 'Street Prepared' or Starting Class +4 type cars.
A pre-fabbed 4-point roll bar isn't terribly expensive ($400-500)compared to how much money a 'Street Prepared' level car has in it already, they are quite easy to install, a bolt-in unit is removable so it won't permanently "disfigure" your car, and there are even units with removal main hoop cross-members so that the rear seats are still useable. And lets keep in mind that in the U.S. ALL Solo 1 cars require full roll cages, fire supression systems, and nomex suits. So we're still getting off pretty easy compared to those guys.

[ADAM]

yeah BUT alot of the issues arize that NA cars do not have good compression ratios...so then they have to take even more points on changing compression ratios....then that means points for lightening the rotating assembly...so its not as cut and dry...

case in point..take one of those rat hondas with 10:1 or 11:1 compression....and then the guy wants to add a turbo kit onto it...the high compression is gonna kill him on detonation (save running some race fuel) vs your talon is already prepped from the factory with th eproper compression ratio....

i would no underestimate the preparedness (if thats a word :) ) of OEM turbo setups....

case in point...the nissan RB series and SR series of factory turboed engines...
the RB series can handle 700-800rwhp on stock internals....and the SR 300-450.....

you cannot underestimate the engineering advantage that turbo OEM cars have vs kits...IMO



if a turbo car OEM or kit..is set up correctly...i have NO doubt in my mind it will kick arse in this series...and be able to dominate...any and all cars...that is why these points are fair IMO...

thats not to say we can't look at them..and re evaluate some issues...

p.s what are your injectors rated at in stock form (ie how many CC's are they)

with that we can do a little case in point study

adam




Originally posted by turboawd
I'm definetly in favour of the index system but I believe that the turbo rules need some working. OEM turbo cars are being hit too hard compared to n/a cars with turbos.

I am assuming that an n/a car with a turbo kit for 13 pip does not include an additional 3 for an intercooler or 5 for an ECU. Those are in addition, correct?

For OEM turbo cars I think the 5 ECU and 3 Boost mod is overkill. Either combine them or downgrade them or add a max of 5. Also 6 pip for a larger turbo is also rather harsh, especially when adding an extra 5 for ECU and 3 for boost. Thats a total of 14 which is more than the 13 for a whole turbo kit including a downpipe (+3 for turbo car). Obviously this is not fair. I believe some max. pip must be applied to OEM turbo cars or some of them reduced by half or some combo rules established.

Adam, turbo kits have become very common and the knowledge and info to install and tune them is also becoming much more common so an n/a car with a turbo kit has just as much potential.

My other observation is that most SP cars will now be forced to have a roll cage because most will be over 25 pip. I would love to have a cage but they get rather pricey.

[turboawd]

Dave, I'm glad you are looking at these turbo PIPs. I don't want to come across as n/a cars with turbo kits should be hit harder, I'd rather see the OEM turbo Pips reduced. Every 5 pips is another class jump and OEM turbo cars that were SP are now being hit with mega PIPs that are jumping us 5-6 classes into Grand Sports when you take into account routine suspension mods.

later...

[TYSON]

Hey, that reminds me. Any fuel limitations? 87 octane? 94 octane? C16?:D , methanol?:eek: Nitromethane?:rolleyes:

[Dave]

Adam, Talon turbo injectors are 440 cc I believe. I had a 1990 Talon turbo in my lost youth. The newer Talons like Victor's may have 470cc injectors. There's tons of DSM sites out there with this info on them, I'm just too lazy to look it up for you :P

[ADAM]

eagle talon...
comes stock with 450cc injectors..or 43lb/hr...

43x80%/.6

43lb injectors x 80% duty cyclex.6 brake specific fuel consumption for turbo applications...

that equals....57.33 hp per injector at 43psi fuel pressure....so in stock form they are capable of providing 229 hp....

now all we have to do is raise the fuel pressure......with a rising rate regulator..to lets say 80psi....
80/43=1.86 square root=1.363 ratio...

1.363x43lb=you now have 58.6lb injectors at 80% duty cycle (you would most likely need a aftermarket fuel pump)

so...
58.6x80%/.6=78.13 hp per injector...thats now a whopping..

...312 hp from your STOCK injectors....all you would need is....

upgraded fuel pump....(maybe)
rising rate regulator...
boost controller....
dyno tuning time....

of course this is not exact...but pretty close...a larger intercooler would be a good choice also..since your little stock turbo at this level will be pumping out tons of heat...

adam

[ADAM]

lazy honda weasel.....from the net they are 450cc.... big guns..

[turboawd]

Adam, no need to deabate about talon vs. silvia. Each car has pros and cons. However, increasing boost pressure has a correlation with increasing compression. My 93 car is 7.8:1 stock so I can turn up the boost a bit more. 1995+ has 8.5:1 and higher factory boost. However if you have 10:1 compression you can get the same power with less boost. There is an equivalent chamber compression = piston compression ratio + boost pressure. Also, higher initial compression provides faster turbo spool up. And greater displacement provides increased torque, especially bottom end. Your car has 20% more displacement and higher compression ratio.;)

[ADAM]

just trying to show a case in point...for bang for the buck with turbo cars....a 300hp talon is gonna move....then add 5 PIPS for coilovers....voila...a nasty machine..


does a talon have a MAP or MAF fuel system? hopefully a MAF

[ADAM]

good article below..on differences on reducing compression ratio, or having to retard the ignition to get the same effect......



By compressing the mixture through turbocharging, the rate of flame front progression increases and slightly less ignition advance is required to achieve PCP at the correct moment. In most cases, less than 5 degrees of retard is required however. We see many people throwing in 15 to 25 degrees of retard in a vain attempt to stop detonation at very high boost pressures for the fuel and compression ratios that they are running. It should be stressed that there are no free rides here. If you plan to achieve high specific outputs on low octane pump fuels for extended periods, you WILL have to reduce the CR. Truly high specific outputs are only available when using high octane fuels or by injecting anti-detonants. There are sound scientific reasons why there are no factory 10 to 1 CR turbocharged engines which produce specific outputs of 175 hp/L. In fact, there is NO production, piston, automotive engine which I am aware of which can achieve a specific output of this level on 92 octane pump fuel anywhere. Despite this fact, many people try to do this with expensive results. High compression ratios and high boost simply don't mix on pump fuel. If you try this, you will either be unhappy with the results or blow up the engine.

[Taylor]

Yeah I don't entirely buy the whole high-strung 4 banger honda compression excuse.. so what then, maybe they're a bad target for a turbo kit.. but an early-mid 80's turbo vette would kill. :)

Course I also think what turboawd is saying in regards to higher compression engine's netting similar performance gains from low compression engines with less boost sounds right to me.

[turboawd]

Increasing base fuel pressure is not the correct way to increase fuel for more boost (it can for small increases). Running FIs above 90% DC loses efficiency and decreases life of the injectors. Better to increase size of injectors provided you can feed them. All OEM turbo cars have a rising rate FPR but the problem is they can't be adjusted to set base fuel pressure when increasing fuel pump size. Dynoing an AWD is a pain as you have to drop the rear axle and modify the center diff... no thanks.

[ADAM]

i know BUT...the ability to turn up boost in relation to the static compression ratio is what we are debating.....

case in point....would you rather....

have a 8:1 compression engine..that you can boost to 15psi before detonation on 94 fuel.....

or a 11:1 compression engine that you can boost to 10psi before detonation on 94 fuel...

1 point in compression is worth about 1% power increase due to increased thermal efficiency up to a point of 15:1 where diminishing returns start to happen...

each engine will produce about 10rwhp per 1 PSI of boost...

lets say the 8:1 motor starts off at 100hp in NA form...

8:1 motor=15psi @10rwhp per psi=250hp

11:1 motor..has 3 points compression more... @ 10psi boost=103base hp+100boosted hp=203hp x 3% overall increase for increased compression=its at 209hp

this would be simular to what a real world car would see....

now IF...you said i could run whatever fuel i wanted..lets say 122 octane race fuel...THEN i would agree...go with 15:1 compression and boost away to your hearts content..cause the extra thermal efficency you gain from the increased compression ratio would be worth it...cause detonation would not be as much an issue....

BUT..we have to look at cars we are going to see coming out to solo 1, and i cannot see anyone running race fuel or alky injection..just to beat the system..






Originally posted by turboawd
Adam, no need to deabate about talon vs. silvia. Each car has pros and cons. However, increasing boost pressure has a correlation with increasing compression. My 93 car is 7.8:1 stock so I can turn up the boost a bit more. 1995+ has 8.5:1 and higher factory boost. However if you have 10:1 compression you can get the same power with less boost. There is an equivalent chamber compression = piston compression ratio + boost pressure. Also, higher initial compression provides faster turbo spool up. And greater displacement provides increased torque, especially bottom end. Your car has 20% more displacement and higher compression ratio.;)

[TYSON]

ADAM,

I like how that article slips in production PISTON engine.:D 196 hp / L factory, baby! 400 hp/L now :D

[ADAM]

ohh i agree totally its not the right way to do it...but it could be done..none the less




Originally posted by turboawd
Increasing base fuel pressure is not the correct way to increase fuel for more boost (it can for small increases). Running FIs above 90% DC loses efficiency and decreases life of the injectors. Better to increase size of injectors provided you can feed them. All OEM turbo cars have a rising rate FPR but the problem is they can't be adjusted to set base fuel pressure when increasing fuel pump size. Dynoing an AWD is a pain as you have to drop the rear axle and modify the center diff... no thanks.

[ADAM]

i also agree the small turbo cars are under very heavy load and abuse...VS the v8's that they may have to do battle with..maybe that has to be taking into consideration?

or maybe its like.....why are you bringing a knife into a gun fight..as the V8 guys would probably say :)

BUT that being said.... turbo cars with over 25 PIPS should easily have over 120rwhp per litre outputs if properly designed...and that makes for some very quick little turbo cars... IMO enough to hand a (few) V8's thier walking papers :)

so it should be a very intersting battle shaping up for 2003 season...

[turboawd]

Saab 9-5 Aero. 2.3L, 20psi (spike) , 250hp, 9.5:1. Stock!

[turboawd]

300+ hp talon is the easy part, its the understeering pig part that hard :D

Dave, this thread is getting waaay off topic, maybe you should clean it up.

[Dave Barker]

Originally posted by turboawd

Dave, this thread is getting waaay off topic, maybe you should clean it up.
Yes , what do the rest of you who have been following this thread think of the linear system and putting it in place this year ?

[pokey1]

I'd like to see it applied to solo II. It would give the little guy a chance, eg: currently a 1.5l sohc civic (102hp) competes against a 2.0l acura rsx (160hp) in B1. With the new classification they would be in touring3 and sports4 respectively... oh well maybe next year...

Solo I related: I won't personally be running in it this year but it sure looks like a lot of thought went into it and it seems like a fair system to me.

w.

[Director]

You can download the Classification Spreadsheet in an Excel version or MS Word at http://www.soloontario.com

[Taylor]

Pokey: This system wouldn't be right for Solo 2. Solo 2 is so very much more complicated (I think) to classify. I would like to see some sort of linear system of course, bu tthis particular one wouldn't work, the PIP's would have to change, there would probably have to be different levels for the different types of cars. RWD vs. FWD vs AWD...

Our Solo 2 needs an SCCA clone, especially since we're so close to the US. We'd probably draw a FEW more from Michicgan and I'm more likely to go down there too knowing I have a class competitive car. Plus it's a tried, tested and true system. Much more data to back up that system.

Sorry.. off topic I know..

We must implement this this year damnit..

What's the deadline for this decision? is there a deadline? How's it decided? General concensous? OSO Club representavie reports?

[ctenche]

Dave,

Can you give us a sense of the type of feedback you've been getting? We've basically got about a half dozen people that have responded via this message forum but I'm hoping that you have had more response via email.

No need to give us all the detail, I'm just curious as to how many people have responded either possitively or negatively to this proposal and what the general consensus (yeah or nay) is.

[roooo]

Hmm oh dear. If Solo 2 is going SCCA rules we should decide soon because that will have an effect on the wheels and tires many people buy . . unless we have that one caveat of the SCCA stock class rules.

[Taylor]

Rowan: Nothing like that will be happening with Solo 2 classification this year. :) But there has been discussion to move to the CNAC (which is basically a rip from SCCA) type classification for 2004. At least it was brief discussion in November at the Solo workshop. I think there might be some small adjustments to a few cars here and there for this year but I have no idea what those might be, if they might be. I just know we also talked about that (actually I came in about 45 minutes late into the discussion because we were not done with the Solo 1 discussion in the other room) and when I got in there Blair was talking about A1 and it's classification and PAX factors... I'm not sure much was decided that day but rather just a sounding board for ideas.

As for Wheels and Tires, if we do adopt the CNAC rules, CNAC allows you 2 preparation points in stock, r-compound tires are 1 and the other can be removing a seat or whatever. Things like a strut tower bar start at 3 points.. so there's really only 3 or 4 1 point things which I think are all things considered today as allowable mods.

Based on our numbers, I just don't see us adopting exact SCCA rules as they probably average near twice the numbers we do per event, so I would expect us to have half the classes. But whatever, like I said, I dunno if that's happening in 2004 and I'm not part of the decision making process.. but I wouldn't worry this year.

[Dave]

Caius, I have received some feedback via e-mail, and Dave Barker has presented the system to OMSC at their last club meeting and Rob McAuley did the same at the last TAC meeting.
According to my e-mails from Dave and Rob, both clubs unanimously liked the system and endorsed the change. Both also made some useful comments about specific rules that have allowed us to refine the PIP system. The CCC has also had a very fruitful e-mail exchange with Jud on wide range of issues and we've been able to make some really positive refinements to the system as a result. I believe Jud likes the system though he also expressed concern about it being implemented in 2003. Other than that, I've had a dozen or so e-mails from different competitors asking for clarification on specific rules or asking for their specific model variant to be added to the spreadsheet, but all of these communications have included very positive reactions to the system in general and support for its implementation for this year. So overall, the reaction so far has been very positive on the whole, with the expected questions/concerns about specific rules. And as I noted at the beginning of this thread, Eric has voiced his strong objections via e-mail and Jud and John Blennerhassett's have voiced their concern about implementing this change for 2003 (though I believe they both like and support the system).

I think it's important to point out that no system is perfect and that this new linear system and associated prep schedule has its fair share of flaws, but I do think overall it does give a far greater number of cars a fun and competitive class to play in than the previous system. For me, this is an appealing bottom line since ultimately I believe we're all in this to have fun and to compete and having a full class with an interesting and diverse set of cars in it that are closely matched should really turn the dial up on both counts.

That being said, the committee would really appreciate any further feedback before finalizing the rulebook for 2003 so that as many perspectives as possible can be taken into consideration.
I am a little surprised this thread hasn't stirred up more controversy and created a more heated debate. This could mean that people are generally pleased with the change or it could mean that people are confused by the change or just plan uninterested. I'm not sure which the case is, but I'm hoping it's the first one :)

[JohnC]

Dave, you and the other committee members are to be commended for all the work you've put into this. I'm not sure how it will affect me, but this will be a learning year for me anyway, switching from fwd to rwd. It seems most comments are positive, and endorse the implementation of this for this year. Go for it!
John

[ctenche]

Thanks for the feedback Dave. It's good to hear about the positive reception of this proposal.

Granted, NO system will be perfect. I am also sure that we will have some hicups and some minor tweaking but those will be ironed out. Overall, this system seems like a great package.

I was talking to Taylor about the proposal yesterday and what I told him was that my favourite things about this new system are:

1) You can be at the bottom of your class and by adding a couple of mods you can make your car competative and still stay in the same class. I think that's awesome and will be welcome by many competitors that don't have the hot car for their class.

2) Classes will be large. It will be a ton of fun to compete in a class of 10-15 cars vs. the 3 or 4 car classes of the past.

3) You will be able to compete against a WIDE variety of cars that you weren't able to compete against before. Why shouldn't a Type-R compete against a BMW? Why shouldn't a fully prepped Civic compete against the Vettes? They should and it will make it just that much more exciting.

Overall, this new classification method using PIPs is simple and makes a lot of common sense and that is why I think it is great.

Thank you CCC.

[James Mewett]

The proposed classification system supposes that based on weight to power ratio and handling index all cars can be classified in a coherent linear system. This is a very appealing notion.

It follows that any car, regardless of how it got to its weight, power and state of suspension tuning should be classified the same as any other car with the same weight, power and state of suspension tuning.

This is not the case with the proposed system.

The only way for the classification to treat all cars equally is to treat weight decreases as weight decreases and power increases as power increases, and to reapply the formula that calculates PI using the revised weight and power. A system that simply adds PI points to a base value cannot work fairly.

The reasons for this are relatively easy to show and are explained in the attached pdf file.

[Dave]

James, I appreciate all the trouble you've gone through to analyze the PIP system. First of all let me say that our intention is indeed to treat all cars as fairly as possible, regardless of level of preparation. That being said, if we must err to one side or the other for reasons of practicality, we will favor stock to mildly modified cars (ie. suspension upgrades and bolt-on engine parts) over heavily modified ones since we are of the opinion that this is where the growth of the sport will come from.

I agree that there is not always a 1 to 1 relationship between the PIP values in the 'Engine and Drivetrain' section and the 'Body & Trim' section. However, I think we've come very close to this for the majority of power-adding modifications as a result of an extensive research process where we collected data on how each modification enhances power on a wide variety of cars. But admittedly the 'Body & Trim' section is far less refined, simply because there is little to no data available on how much various body parts weigh on a large sample of vehicles. Instead, we've essentially set PIP levels in relation to the negative PIP schedule so that competitors who invest in safety equipment will not be penalized for making their car safer. For competitors with heavily modified body & trim on their car, there does appear to be a rather severe penalty based on your analysis.

The question is, how do we address this problem? We can either go to a system like you're suggesting where everything is dealt with on a case-by-case basis where competitors are providing data on weight reduction and power improvement and we then plug this into the base ratings in the spreadsheet, or we can develop a more general and admittedly simplistic (and thus less accurate) system that is easily applied and understood by all competitors. The beauty of your way (which we did strongly consider at the beginning of this process) is that it does result in the best possible classification for individual cars, but the drawback is that we end up with a much more cumbersome system that requires a lot of work on the part of competitors, and it potentially introduces a whole new source of error given the probability of inaccuracies in reporting from competitors on weight reduction and power gain.

What we've opted for is a simpler approach because in our opinion an overly complicated and cumbersome classification system is going to act as a barrier for many new competitors and in our experience it has the tendency to introduce as much error as it eliminates. One of our mandates with this new system has been to provide a rulebook that represents a simpler approach to classification that will attract new competitors because it's not intimidating or difficult to understand where your car fits in. For the majority of the cars we see in this series, a prep point system like we've developed works very well.

It's really only at the extreme end where cars have heavily modified engines or body&trim that we start to see things become distorted. We've recognized this problem in the 'Engine & Drivetrain' section by giving competitors the option to provide a dyno plot for their engine should they feel their PIP total is not an accurate or fair assessment of their modified horsepower level. We could introduce a similar rule where competitors with heavily modified body&trim provide us with an accurate modified weight (ie. taken using corner weighting scales) which we could then plug into the spreadsheet as you've suggested. This would give us a sort of two-pronged approach to classification, where stock to moderately modified cars will tend to use the PIP schedule for simplicity sake and with the knowledge that it is giving them a fair classification and where more heavily modified cars can opt for the dyno plot plus weigh-in approach to avoid what could well be too high a PIP total to fairly classify them.

All that being said, I will bring your feedback to the committee meeting so that we can take it into consideration while making final adjustments to the system prior to publication.

Cheers,
Dave

[Eric]

James Mewett, I don't know who you are, but that was an excellent post!

You're the first person I've seen that has actually been able to see and articulate the fundamental "unfairness" of using the PIP system, as presented, for assessing modifications.

I would also like to point out that Dave Pratt has stated that I have expressed strong objections to the new classification system. That's not entirely true! I have yet to comment on the latest iteration of this proposal. What I did object to was the Solo Committee agreeing to use the new system for the 2003 competition year as it was presented at the Feb 13, 2003 Solo Committee meeting.

At that time the PIP system for assessing modifications needed a lot of work. In my view the preparation schedule part of the new system is every bit as important as the classification of the base, stock vehicles and therefore represents half of the work. Since this clearly wasn't completed at that time and it was unclear if it could be completed by mid March, in order to get the rule book out in time I expressed strong objections to implementing it for this year. I was also concerned that competitors wouldn't have ample time to assess the new system and provide feedback before the rule book went to print.

That was 2 weeks ago. Since that time I have sent numerous emails to the new CCC outlining some of the shortcomings of the new system. To their credit, these guys have done a hell of a lot of work over the past 2 weeks as the proposal everyone is seeing here is a vast improvement over what they had on Feb 13th. The current spreadsheet is now on version 4. Version 1 is what we saw on Feb 13th. In version 1, all SS and SP authorized mods were assessed PIPs. That should give everyone a good idea how much this proposal has changed over 2 weeks.

My view now is that the proposal does have a lot of positive aspects and they have been pointed out (a little tootin' of the CCC's own horn), but it also has some negative aspects that need to be identified before a proper decision can be made as to whether we should use it. So I applaud James for his contribution. He has shown us one of the shortcomings.

I urge everyone to consider all the pros and cons before endorsing this new system (something I don't believe is possible if you are saw this proposal for the first time at a club meeting). For now I'm going to be a bit of a fence sitter until all the pros and cons have been identified.

Eric Juraschka
Past CCC Chairman

PS. Dave, there may be a chance you'll still win me over!

[Bubblecar]

As previously stated - I would like to see the new changes implemented for the upcoming 2003 season.

Some of the comments made me go back and look through my old e-mails (yes I keep most of them).

Of note - I don't think the last series of changes in 2001 was finalized and published until the end of February or maybe even early March.

I stand to be corrected - but I seem to think that this proposal is not much later than in previous years.

Nick

[Dave]

Eric, if we can win you over by horn tootin' or any other means, it will be a major accomplishment and a very good sign that the system is workable :) Toot toot!

James does have some very good points and we'll definitely take a close look at it this weekend. I have to say, we've received some incredibly valuable input from Eric, Jud, John Paczynski, and now James to name but a few. It's really encouraging to see competitors giving us such thoughtful feedback and its already paid huge dividends in terms of improving the system.

There's no denying the fact that we're recommending the implementation of this system very close to the start of the season. This does present some real challenges for the CCC and for competitors and there's certainly an argument to be made that we should wait until 2004, though we've also had a lot of competitors urge us to implement it this year. My feeling is that we'll learn a lot more by implementing the system this year and examining how things worked (or didn't work) at season's end, and since the general consensus of the Solo 1 community does seem to be that a linear system is the most appealing way for us to be classifying cars I think perhaps we're further justified in going ahead with this despite the short notice.

Thanks again to everyone for the continued feedback and fruitful discussions.

Cheers,
Dave

[James Mewett]

I agree with the philosophy that preparation points should err in favour of unmodified cars. The sport should not be encouraging modifications to take advantage of some loophole in the rules.

I am not suggesting that each driver present an accounting of his actual weight savings and actual power gains. You have already determined the power gains for the range of modifications in preparing the draft prep points schedule. I am suggesting that these be converted into percentages of the base power. The prep schedule would provide a percentage for each type of modification. You would sum all the applicable percentages, and then increase your base power by that percentage to get your corrected power. This corrected power would be substituted into the basic formula.

The weight changes are quite easy to assign arbitrary values to, particularly if your stated intent is to discourage such modifications. In your stated example of a Honda Civic, 1 PIP corresponds to 38 lbs. Simply multiply your currently assigned PIP values by 38 lbs to get a weight "penalty" to be applied to the basic car weight (common to all cars). Actually it would be easy to come up with a more accurate set of numbers by simply finding the weights of representative glass and body panels and assign say 75% the total weight as a penalty in the case of substitutions, and 100% in the case of removal. Simply applying 38 lbs per PIP would be more reasonable than the current proposal because few cars are only 92 hp. As I previously pointed out the currently proposed penalty for a 200 hp car is 83 lbs per PIP (which is clearly unreasonable).

One problem with the current proposal is that we must take on faith that the prep points are in fact reasonable. With the adjustment I am suggesting, you could present the data you have used to show that say a downpipe produces a 5% increase in power. As new data becomes available, the percentages can be reviewed and adjusted. The system is open to examination. If there are peculiar examples of modifications that have an effect profoundly different from the average on a particular car, those cases can be addressed by a special adjustment for that type.

I would suggest not permitting dyno runs to reduce a car’s estimated power from that predicted by the formula. There is no practical way to know or police level of tuning, so dyno runs look like an administrative nightmare. The percentages used to adjust the base power should be those arising from a well implemented and properly tuned modification. A car should not be given benefit for poorly implemented or tuned modifications (which is what allowing dyno data does).

[Eric]

Originally posted by Bubblecar
Of note - I don't think the last series of changes in 2001 was finalized and published until the end of February or maybe even early March.

I stand to be corrected - but I seem to think that this proposal is not much later than in previous years.

Nick

Hi Nick,

The last time we went through this, a preliminary proposal was presented at the Nov 2000 Workshop, the original draft proposal was posted on the Solo Ontario website for all competitors to see in Dec 2000, just before New Years. That posting included the exact wording for the rule book. We gave the competitors a month to provide feedback. Based on that feedback we did some minor tweeking towards the end of Jan 2001 and had everything finalized and ready to go to print for the Feb 2001 Solo 1 Committee meeting. This time around the competitors are only seeing the new proposal for the first time at the end of February. The new CCC's proposal for 2003 is at least 2 months behind the 2001 proposal's schedule. Unfortunely, the rule book must be finalized by mid March if it is going to be ready for distribution at the Open House (which many feel is already too late to properly prep a car to the new rules). This leaves very small time window for proper competitor feedback and for the CCC to work all the bugs out.

Just so you know!
Eric J.

[Brent]

Originally posted by James Mewett
I would suggest not permitting dyno runs to reduce a car’s estimated power from that predicted by the formula. There is no practical way to know or police level of tuning, so dyno runs look like an administrative nightmare. The percentages used to adjust the base power should be those arising from a well implemented and properly tuned modification. A car should not be given benefit for poorly implemented or tuned modifications (which is what allowing dyno data does).

I like the idea of using a dyno to show your cars HP rating. In my case my cars engine is rated at least 10 HP over what it really puts out. Another example would be cams. To charge the same points for street performance cams that will pass emissions testing and for full race cams in a trailered car leads to an imbalance that the dyno sheet could help correct.

Even without the dyno thing, I like the new system.

[ctenche]

I am assuming though that the "rules" portion of Solo 1 will stay the same so there really isn't anything new to absorb there. The only portion that is under change consideration is the new classification and PIP system.

The new classification in terms of the PI index is very similar to the previous system. Similar enough that it is quickly digested. This leaves just the PIP system to consider.

I'm not bad mouthing the old system but I think everyone will agree that it was quite a challenge to understand; especially for the newcomer.

This new system is dead easy. You start off with a PI of 40? Look at the mod table. Total up your PIPs. Add them to the PI and boom there's your new class.

I believe that because of the straight forward approach that the new linear classification system it does not really take that much time to digest.

Anyway, let's face it. There is no perfect system. However, this system does address most of the concerns that the competitors raised in the survey held last year.

I'm all for it for 2003.

[James Mewett]

1) Consider the addition of a cat back exhaust that adds 1 PIP. If you apply this to a Z06 with 405 hp, this implies that the cat back adds 25 hp for a change of 6%.

Consider the same mod on a Suzuki Swift with 79 hp, and it implies that the cat back adds 1.4 hp for a change of 2%.

Does a cat back produce a 6% increase in power or a 2% increase in power?

2) Consider the removal of a passenger seat that also adds 1 PIP. If you apply this to a Z06 with 405 hp and a weight of 3130 lbs the implied weight of that seat is 168 lbs for a weight change of -5%.

Consider the same mod on a Suzuki Swift with 79 hp and a weight of 1896 lbs and the implied weight of the seat is 33 lbs for a weight change of -2%.

Does a seat weigh 168 lbs or 33 lbs?

3) Many near stock cars will accumulate very few engine and drivetrain points and very few body points. The suspension points I think everyone accepts as reasonable. Given this, I agree that most cars will not be too seriously impacted or misplaced by the points schedule.

4) Turbo cars, and any cars with engine management or internal mods will be seriously affected. I respectfully suggest that these cars will not be fairly placed.

5) The basic ranking of cars as presented in the classification spreadsheet makes great sense. This is why when the average driver looks at the system, he finds it immediately appealing. The remarkable thing is that it is constructed with a simple formula requiring only weight, power and suspension index. For the ranking of cars to continue to make such sense after their preparation points have been assessed, mods affecting weight must revise the weight in a rational manner, and mods affecting power must revise the power in a rational manner. The only reason the results look reasonable for most cars, is that most cars will move less than two classes in any system due to their modest level of preparation.

6) The proposed PIP system has no rational basis. Such a system will not engender confidence in the fairness of the sport. Addressing its deficiencies by allowing competitors to dyno (and perhaps weigh) their cars simply provides a means for some to fix what is most definitely broken. Simplicity, and simple mindedness is no reason to adopt a deeply flawed preparation point system.

7) Perhaps it is not apparent, but I like the idea of a linear classification system. I think that the CCC has got the basic framework right. If points are accumulated in a manner consistent with the assumptions that created the framework, the classification of cars will work well also.

[Dave]

James, you're killing me! My fingers can't keep up with you ;)

To address your first point, here's a sample of the research we did on cat-back exhaust systems:

Example 1. 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse V6 with a Greddy Evolution cat-back exhaust: this system made an extra 7.5whp over the stock system (http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/tech/0205scc_mitsu/), translating to an increase in overall PI of 1.5%, or a PIP value between 1 and 2.

Example 2. 1999 Camaro SS with Corsa 3’’ cat-back system: the car (http://www.corsaperf.com/cfhorsepowerlg.gif) picked up just under 14whp, which translates to an increase in overall PI of just over 1%, or a PIP value of 1.

Example 3. 2001 Toyota Celica GT-S with a TRD (Toyota Racing Development) cat-back: this system resulted in a gain of 5.7whp at its peak (http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0209tur_exhaust/), translating to a increase in overall PI for this car of just over 1% or a PIP value of 1.

Example 4. 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX with a Blitz Nur-Spec Racing cat-back exhaust: This system picked up 13.9 horsepower over the stock system (http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0212tur_exhaust/), translating to an increase in overall PI of just over 2%, or a value of 2 PIPs. Of course if you remove the cats on this car, the power potential of the exhaust system goes way up, as Andrew undoubtedly knows.

Example 5. 2001 VW Jetta 1.8T with an Autotech Sport Tuning cat-back exhaust: this system netted 14whp on a 180 hp 1.8T VW engine (http://www.europeancarweb.com/tech/0111ec_exhaust02/), resulting in an increase in overall PI of 3.6% or a PIP value of 3-4.

Example 6. 1993 Toyota MR-2 Turbo with a 5Zigen Fireball exhaust system: this added 11.9whp to the MR2 (http://www.importtuner.com/tech/0109it_ppmrtwo/), resulting an an increase to overall PI of 2% or a value of 2 PIPs.

As you can see, the 300+ hp V8 Camaro gained 1% to its base PI from a cat-back exhaust, as did a 180 hp cylinder Celica. You'll also notice that there's a range from 3.6% to just under 1%, with the naturally aspirated cars hovering around the 1% level regardless of engine displacement or cylinder number and the turbo cars all hovered at the 2-3% level. This is why we're charging more for turbo cars to upgrade their exhaust systems. These are just a few of the examples we used to determine PIP levels for this category of mod.

I'll address the other issue you've raised tomorrow. I've spent too many hours on this stuff already today :)

Sleepy sleepy...
Dave

[Taylor]

James: Damned if you haven't been thinking the same thing I thought of when I first saw the first spreadsheet (and subsequent discussions) that PIP's (at least powertrain) should be reflected as a percentage of power gain and that fractional numbers should not be ignored.

But besides the fact this grossly complicates things, it's also damned near impossible to implement. Where would we get the figures? A KO Racing downpipe could net me 10 more HP than an Greddy Downpipe. Who has the dyno charts to show X car stock, vs X car + KO DP, vs X car with Greddy DP? This too would be subjective and frankly bloody annoying to the classification committee and anyone entering the sport. They'd have to have their car run over with a fine tooth comb and it would probably take 2 man days of research to accurately calculate the corrected power index... and then we'd still be left with a suspension/handling index that increments in 5% blocks...

It's bad enough that AWD cars and RWD cars will be in the same class and when the rain hits, the class will be turned on it's head, but there are just some scenarios we'll have to deal with.

As mentioned earlier, the previous system had a stock class spreads of 15% PI. So bottom feeders were stuck there... basically regardless of driving talent. Now, we have stock class spreads of 5%. Hell even if you just CREEEP into the next class, you're within 10%, and can actually put in a strut tower bar and/or intake to climb your way up a bit within the 5%. In the old system, bottom feeder adds an intake and looks pathetic in the standings in SS.

Personally I think there only needed to be one goal to this new system and that was to bring excitement and fun (back?) into the series. The battles we can have now as a result of this system is unreal and should make for a lot of fun. It also reall welcomes newcomers with open arms. The class structure is so tight right now that almost any car should be able to come into the series and have a fighting chance.

I myself ran my Prelude in 2001 at a couple events. Had and Intake and strut tower bar. Never put them on with the intention of competing in the car. But since they were there and that was the car I had at the time, I ran it.. I also got put into SS2. And I couldn't quite eek out a win over other class mates who had modified their car to the full potential the class allowed. A strut tower bar and intake are basically "RICE 101". It's the first thing any young guy does with his car and Solo 1 was brutally penalizing anyone for that. Here.. they could have those mods and not even jump a class!

The way I see it is this is an improvement, with so much openess that PIP's can be massaged to work out the kinks but should never require a class structure change, and hopefully with any adjustments only a small percentage of people would shift classes. I feel it's the only future proof option.

So I would love a system that was able to accurately calculate a corrected power to weight index and handling index based on mods but there are so many factors, you have to draw the line somewhere. This isn't Formula 1. bottom line, like I said, even if you end up on the short end of the PIP stick, you're talking probably something like 2-3PIP +- which could keep you in the same class or at the bottom of another... So you can either submit a dyno chart, take another driving school, or buy and/or drop a $200 part to reposition yourself if you're competitive. We're only talking 5% classes.. this is where your seat time becomes the deciding factor instead of your wallet.

Hell when it comes to weight, you'd even have to consider WHERE the weight came off. Too complicated.

[ADAM]

i agree with taylor... i look at my class CSP..and basically if you got shoved into the bottom of CSP you were dead meat (i know i played in the bottom of csp for 3 years) then when i turned my car into the absolute top of CSP the bottom cars have no chance..its just to big of a spread...

i like the new system, i think it is fair...and will be tons more fun..and can be massged as time goes on...

[James Mewett]

Dave,

the data you have provided for cat back systems is interesting and it confirms my suspicion that you have done a lot of work, and have the basic data needed to generate power deltas for various modifications.

An observation – the dyno charts give wheel HP. The power increases must be increased by 1/.86 = 16% to allow for the 14% powertrain loss (assumed by you).

Allow me to give you my view of the data you have presented.

1) The Eclipse has the following particulars: 3120 lbs. 200 hp, 15.6 lb/hp, 60% SUSP, 67% WHP and PI = 64.8. Using the PIP system the PI becomes 65.8 for the addition of the cat back. A 7.5 wheel HP increase corresponds to a shaft HP value of 208.7. Putting this value into the spreadsheet gives an actual PI of 66.4, meaning the PIP system underestimates the PI by 0.6. The cat back provides a 4.4% increase in shaft HP.
2) The Camaro has the following particulars: 3120 lbs. 200 hp, 15.6 lb/hp, 60% SUSP, 67% WHP and PI = 74.9. Using the PIP system the PI becomes 75.9 for the addition of the cat back. A 14 wheel HP increase corresponds to a shaft HP value of 321.3. Putting this value into the spreadsheet gives an actual PI of 76.2, meaning the PIP system underestimates the PI by 0.3. The cat back provides a 5.3% increase in shaft HP.
3) The Celica has the following particulars: 2500 lbs. 180 hp, 13.9 lb/hp, 60% SUSP, 73% WHP and PI = 68.9. Using the PIP system the PI becomes 69.9 for the addition of the cat back. A 5.7 wheel HP increase corresponds to a shaft HP value of 186.6. Putting this value into the spreadsheet gives an actual PI of 70.1, meaning the PIP system underestimates the PI by 0.2. The cat back provides a 3.7% increase in shaft HP.
4) The WRX has the following particulars: 3085 lbs. 227 hp, 13.6 lb/hp, 60% SUSP, 74% WHP and PI = 69.7. Using the PIP system the PI becomes 71.7 for the addition of the cat back. A 13.9 wheel HP increase corresponds to a shaft HP value of 243.2. Putting this value into the spreadsheet gives an actual PI of 71.9, meaning the PIP system underestimates the PI by 0.2. The cat back provides a 7.1% increase in shaft HP.
5) The Jetta has the following particulars: 3037 lbs. 180 hp, 16.9 lb/hp, 55% SUSP, 62% WHP and PI = 60.2. Using the PIP system the PI becomes 62.2 for the addition of the cat back. A 14 wheel HP increase corresponds to a shaft HP value of 196.3. Putting this value into the spreadsheet gives an actual PI of 63.6, meaning the PIP system underestimates the PI by 1.4. The cat back provides a 7.8% increase in shaft HP.
6) The MR-2 has the following particulars: 2758 lbs. 200 hp, 13.8 lb/hp, 60% SUSP, 73% WHP and PI = 69.2. Using the PIP system the PI becomes 71.2 for the addition of the cat back. A 11.9 wheel HP increase corresponds to a shaft HP value of 213.8. Putting this value into the spreadsheet gives an actual PI of 71.4, meaning the PIP system underestimates the PI by 0.2. The cat back provides a 6.9% increase in shaft HP.

The average wheel HP increase due to installation of the cat back is 4.5% for naturally aspirated cars and 7.7% for turbo cars. For simplicity, call this 4% for NA cars and 8% for turbo cars. Based on these simplifying assumptions, adjusting the base hp by 4% for NA cars and 8% for turbo cars gives PI’s of 66.3 for the Eclipse, 75.9 for the Camaro, 70.2 for the Celica, 72.1 for the WRX, 63.3 for the Jetta, and 71.7 for the MR-2. In all cases this is more accurate than the PIP method (not that the difference is generally significant). What is significant is that the Jetta is correctly placed within .3% vs 1.4% for the PIP method.

Who cares about one PIP? Probably no one. As a turbo car driver, my problem with the handling of engine prep points is that the PIP system will treat turbo cars in particular, and cars with a significant number of engine prep points in general, in a very arbitrary and uneven manner. I challenge you to show that the PIP system works in these cases over a range of car types.

Allow me to demonstrate that the method of dealing with power changes and weight changes that I have suggested is not that complicated. For the Jetta in the above example, assume the following level of preparation:

Engine: Cat back exhaust on a turbo car gains 8 engine points
Weight: No weight change mods for 0 weight points
Suspension: coil overs for 5 suspension points

Engine = 180 x (1 + 8/100) = 194.4 hp
Weight = 3037 + 0 = 3037 lbs
Suspension = 55 *.3 + 5 = 21.5 points

PI = 0.7 x (35 – 3037 / 194.4) / 29 + 21.5 = 68.3%

The formulas can be simplified (I have left them as shown so the relationship to the spreadsheet is more apparent. In particular, arranging things so they appear as points and not percent would make things easier.
The math is straight forward. In any case a spreadsheet can easily be configured to do the math with the input of six numbers (power, power prep points, weight, weight prep points, suspension, and suspension prep points).

[Dave]

James, we used a wheel to crank horsepower correction factor of 14%, we then plugged the increased power into the base horsepower rating in the spreadsheet to see what the overall increase to base PI was for each modification category and then set PIP levels accordingly. In other words, 1 PIP is a 1% increase in overall base PI, not a 1% increase in horsepower. You seem to asking for us to translate PIPs into percentage of horsepower, but we've opted to translate them into percentage change to base PI because this is the index that matters in terms of classification. Setting PIP levels based on the change to overall PI means we can more easily see and control the rate at which cars are moving up the classification ladder.

The larger issue, and I think the one you're concerned with, is how representative our PIP levels are of true performance gain for a wide range of cars. Based on our research of every category of power-producing modifications and our subsequent testing involving a complete rescoring of the 2002 series results we've found the PIP schedule to be very accurate for mild to moderately modified car. For heavily modified cars, as I've pointed out several times earlier in this thread, there is a tendency for too many PIPs to be accumulated for what we'd consider an accurate classification. We're looking at ways of addressing this issue, one of which was to include a full 'authorized mods' or 'zero PIP' (as we've called it) schedule to help keep PIP totals down. And we've also included the dyno option, which we feel is a fair compromise solution to the situation for now.

We have developed the PIP levels based on the assumption that competitors will choose the best mod for their car and will tune it for maximum benefit, but beyond this we've found very consistent power gains across the board for most category of engine mod regardless of displacement, but we also found that turbo cars do react significantly differently to mods like ECU chipping and downpipe and exhaust upgrades. We have several turbo car drivers with a lot of experience modifying turbo set-ups and tuning them on this committee and they helped set the PIP levels for these mods. So I'll let Adam and Andrew defend this part of the PIP schedule.

At the end of the day there has to be a decision made about what kind of classification system we want to run under, and this decision must be informed by the types of cars we see in this series, the number of new competitors we see on a yearly basis, the relative simplicity/complexity we're willing to accept in our rulebook, and so on. We looked very closely at implementing the kind of system you're pushing for, but it was concluded that this was too complicated in that it would require competitors to be doing a lot of math, it would require competitors to be able to accurately report power-gain and weight reduction numbers (which assumes they'll be taking their car to the dyno every time they bolt on a new mod or to the weigh scales every time they change a trim item), and all of this adds up to a very cumbersome system in our opinion. So instead, we've opted for a simplified but easily applied and understood ruleset that represents a middle ground between what we've used in the past and what you're suggesting. We've kept key elements of the previous system in place like the 'authorized mods' schedule so that there's a sense of continuity between the two, we've modified the use of the classification index but the premise remains the same as in the previous system, and we've more or less translated the prep point system to a PIP system which we feel fairly represents the average attainable power gain for most engine mods on most cars. This does mean that for some cars they will save a PIP here and lose a PIP there in comparison to the power gains they actually achieve on their specific vehicle, but averaged out over all cars the PIP schedule is acceptably accurate based on our testing of the system. And of course the ultimate test will be to implement the system and see it in use for a full season of competition, at which point we can fine-tune PIP levels further.

So what we've done is opted for a simpler system that has a strong appeal in our minds from an ease of use standpoint, something we feel will help attract new competitors and grow the series, admittedly at the expense of PIP total precision for heavily modified cars. We've given heavily modified cars what we feel is an viable option to work around this problem and we will continue to look for other and hopefully better ways to address this. For the time being, the more mathematically-based approach you're calling for does not meet our mandate of simplicity of use and understanding, so we're going to have to work within the confines of a PIP system. It may lack the resolution you desire, but it does has the ease of use and sufficient accuracy for most cars such that we feel it best suits the needs and wants of the majority of our "customers".

[James Mewett]

Dave,

My comments have been intended to show the limitations of the PIP system. Clearly you and the committee understand those limitations and have accepted them in the name of simplicity. As long as the limitations are recognized, and those who make the decision on the system are making an informed decision I don't have a problem.

The limitations are - heavily modified cars will probably need a dyno run to be fairly classed, and weight saving mods will be very heavily penalized in high horsepower cars.

I think I am done my rant!

[Dave]

Thanks James, I think you've very fairly and intelligently pointed out the shortcomings of the PIP system. I don't dispute these, in fact we do recognize them and have accepted them (for now) as a sort of "lesser evil" given our goal of simplicity and ease of use. But we will certainly continue to pursue ways to address these problems in a way that allows us to maintain our desire for an easily understood and applied ruleset.

Cheers and looking forward to seeing you at the Open House!

Dave

[Taylor]

I found something to discuss that COULD become a bit of an issue, though I suppose it's all fair in the end, but maybe a little too competitive.. and that is...

PROPOSITIONING

Now that our classes should have many more competitors and less performance gap how are we going to handle propositioning? Is it even going to be allowed (i.e. in the rule book) anymore?

Especially if you had say Sports 2 with 3 guys who all have low class ranking cars (944 Turbo, Camero, S60, S80's all between 70-71%) and Sports 3 is populated by say.. I dunno 10 competitors and the RSX's and WRX's (69 percentile) manage to beat the low ranking Sports 2 cars. Since these cars are so closely matched and Sports 2... if it actually had some class toppers to protect it, would normally be untouchable.. what do we do?

Do we want to give Sports 2 full points because there just simply arn't any Solo 1 competitors with higher ranking cars? Or should we penalize them because if there were a higher ranking car, they wouldn't get full points anyhow?

Maybe there's really nothing new here as a result of the new system, I guess it's just something I thought about that could be affected by this change and wondered what thought was put into it?

Should Solo 1 still have propositioning in the rules and how does the new classification system reflect the response?

[craig]

I do this (statistical classification) for a living; it is interesting to see how non-professionals do it. I think the results is pretty good.

I could only find one major methodological fault (false accuracy leading to round-off error, of which I've e-mailed Jeff Graves).

I guess some of the debate I'm seeing is rooted in objectives. It appears many want a system to equalize cars. I don't think this is possible. What I think is possible is to have a class structure that will allow the best driver in the best (legally) prepared car win their class on a particular race day.

[Taylor]

Originally posted by craig
What I think is possible is to have a class structure that will allow the best driver in the best (legally) prepared car win their class on a particular race day.

Craig: Well this was the general idea, anyone could go out and purchase the class leading car and if they're the best driver they can win every time. Most of us really don't want this. We want people to be competitive even if they don't have the best car.

No one should expect a Spec Series. Solo 1 is not a spec series. But even in a spec series the best car and driver will prevail (best car being the one best tuned within the rules).

This is racing.

We want to bridge the gap between skill and wallet.

Some of the problems that exists are when you have the 2nd or 3rd (or 4th, 5th) best car in a given class and you're a damned good driver, but people with the best car who arn't necessarily the best driver in a give class are taking the wins.

Now the classes are much more tight, so slightly better drivers in less than class-optimal cars have a chance of beating the best cars w/decent drivers.

As mentioned a couple of times here, one of the BEST things about this new system is if I have a bottom of class car and my driving isn't quite enough to get the guy at the top of the class, I can put a couple of small parts into the car, while remaining in the same class to have a fighting chance against the class ruling vehicles. Problem before was, you have any of those small modifications and you're immediately thrust past the top of your class and basically into the bottom of another class. So you were STUCK with a bottom of the class performing car, while now you can actually do something about it and be competitive with little to no financial impact.

This system also gives us the ability to shift around classes with a little more ease, sort of like a boxer would amungst divisions. Some drivers would be more comfortable with a little more mods or a little less. Before you would have to buy a couple grand worth of mods to move up, or take a couple grand off, or ALL of it off to shift a class.

As it stands for me right now, my car, as prepped is at the bottom of one of the classes, with some minor changes (i.e. turning down the boost on my turbo a couple PSI) I can position my car at the top of the class just below me. And it didnt' cost me anything.

This would NEVER have been possible with the previous system!

I can't wait for this system and the season to start. I really think it's going to add something special to the sport. Just watching highly prepared Civics go against V8's will be a blast just to watch!

Plus now no stock car is safe! You can't just go out and buy the class winning car and expect to walk away with class victories because there's potentially over a hundred competitors below you on the scale who are every bit as good (or better) of a driver who can very well prepare their car to a point where they can compete with you. It's amazing!

I'll be competing with stock NSXes, Lotus Turbo Esprit's, Porsche 911's, E46 M3's!

While no system may not be perfect, I can't think of any other one that could offer these much flexibility and potential for excitement!

BRING IT ON

[Dave]

Taylor, you raise an interesting point about propositioning. I believe that since it's still possible to have a "weak" class under our system, particularly near the top or bottom of the classification 'ladder' where population will likely be thinner, the propositioning and PAX rules continue to make sense IMO. We'll have to adjust the PAX factors so they reflect the new classes, but I don't see any reason why we would want to eliminate either of these useful 'checks & balances' from the system. There is still the "line in the sand" issue where top cars from the class below will have a good chance of propositioning cars from the bottom of the class above, but with the "topping up" of PI being allowed for cars even in their 'Stock' or 'Starting Class' in theory this should minimize the problem you've pointed out.

Craig, I read your e-mail to Jeff and you do have a very good point about the false precision built into the overall PI value by uses a decimal place. We're going to look at dropping the decimal place this weekend.

Cheers,
Dave

[craig]

Um, Taylor, you do know you seem to be contradicting yourself, don't you? :-)

You say there's an issue with people having cars that aren't the best in class - then you say the great thing about the new rules is you can now build a car that is best in class. Soooo, the best thing about the new rules is *your* car can now be at the top of its selected class, so that you have the advantage, and not someone else?

What's the difference between spending money on a better (base) car, and spending money of performance modifications?

:)

(I'm being rhetorical. I do know spending money on (the correct) performance modifications is usually more efficient than buying a "better (base) car" - the main reason modified cars have rarely competed directly with stock cars, and why a modified car that starts out at the bottom of its class is now "the car" under the proposed scheme.)

Anyhow, I'll stop being a semantic idiot, and say that I do agree with your points, as the reverse applies to cars at the top of a class!

Finally, no matter what the rules, money talks. I see no PIP for Hoosier's or Michelin's, even though many published reports show these tires are faster than any other R-compounds (or for that matter, a PIP for R-compounds, not that I'm in favour of that).

I can't afford mods anyways - almost all my money ends up in entry fees, tires, and updating safety equipment ... :D

[turboawd]

Whats being done about fixing the OEM turbo cars PIPs? The benefit of modifying or adding a larger turbo isn't worth 6 pips, thats a full class jump. ECU mod, another class jump, downpipe and exhaust is another class jump....etc. I hope this is being addressed. Seems the turbo people on the board don't have OEM turbo cars but add ons or kits and those pips are significantly lower.

Increasing boost is one thing, adding a larger turbo is only a small improvment, mainly a bit cooler air but not 3 + 6 pips. Thats 2 class jumps right there. Adding a larger turbo is for top end and sacirifices low end power, were not drag racing here and were not on Mosport's back straight.You can only run so much boost, regardless of how big your turbo is.

[Dave]

Nino, we will be taking a look at the balance of PIP for turbo cars and the addition of turbo kits. Here's a few examples of what we found during our researching of upgrading the turbo on a factory turbo car...

Example 1. 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX turbo upgrade by XS Engineering: (http://www.importtuner.com/tech/0203it_ppsubaru/) this simple turbocharger upgrade using XS Engineerings dual-ball bearing turbo raises peak horsepower from 219.7 at the wheels to 261.5 at the wheels, resulting in an overall increase in PI of over 5% or a PIP value of 5. Admitted this is on a car that already has upgraded intake, exhaust and a boost controller, but this example does illustrate how much power can be unleashed by upgraded the stock turbo if you've got the other mods in place to take full advantage of it. The bottom line is, this car gain 48whp by upgrading the stock turbo. Not too shabby.

Example 2. 1995 Eagle Talon Tsi with a XS Engineering upgraded turbo: similar in design to the one used on the Subaru above, the XS Engineering ball-bearing turbo made an additional 41 peak horsepower on this Talon turbo, resulting in an increase to overall PI of 6% or a PIP value of 6.

Example 3. 1996 Toyota Supra Twin Turbo: a common upgrade on these cars is the use of RPS TS04 turbos in place of the factory originals. This will work with the stock fuel system or any other component on the car. This simple upgrade commonly yields 130 peak horsepower, though it does cause low rpm lag (shucks). The result of this upgrade is an increase in overall PI of 7.8%, meaning upgrading the stock turbos on this car should probably cost 7-8 PIPs.

Example 4. 2001 Volkswagen Beetle GLS 1.8T: Neuspeed makes a very simple turbo upgrade to a K04 turbo which bolts right up to the 1.8L turbo engine that VW uses in so many of its cars (the stock turbo is a K03). This upgrade without a P-chip (common upgraded ECU chip for this engine) makes 35 peak horsepower. With the chip, it makes another 47 horsepower! Nice. Anyway, with a stock ECU the Golf 1.8T’s overall PI increases by 9% or 9 PIPs. That's a lot of bang for the buck.

I'll dig up the links for these last 3 examples if you want to scrutinize them. Anyway, point being that upgrading the stock turbo can make significant horsepower gains, even on an otherwise stock vehicle let alone one that has upgraded other key components like boost control, exhaust flow, etc.

Anyway, like I said will take a look at this section of the rulebook over the weekend.

Cheers,
Dave

[Eric]

Dave and Company,

I have a few questions regarding the new proposal.

1. To quote from your Starting Class Zero PIP Modifications, "The substitution/modification of shock absorbers such that they are no longer ‘OE or equivalent’ in any aspect of their design (ie. adjustable dampening, stiffer dampening, shorter stoke, different build materials, or other) is assessed 2 PIPs".

Please define what is acceptable as being 'equivalent' to an OE shock absorber? It would seem to me that any shock absorber that is not 'OE' is going to have different damping, however slight, and different build materials. In fact, looking specifically at damping, two samples of the same 'OE' shock are going to have slight differences. Based on your criteria above, there is no equivalent to 'OE'.

Some vehicles now come with 'OE' adjustable shocks. If a competitor chooses to replace these with a standard type shock absorber, perhaps because the factory shocks are problem prone, they are going to get nailed with 2 PIPs because their shocks are no longer adjustable. Do you think that is fair?

Also, is a competitor permitted to change the fluid in their 'OE' shock absorber without incurring a penalty? ...you know how dirty that stuff can get!

(PS. I did warn you about this before you went public!)

2. Your proposal hasn't addressed section 5.19 in the 2002 rule book concerning model variants. Currently, an interchange of components within a model variant is permitted within certain limits. How are modifications under this model variant section going to be handled in your proposed system?

3. Another quote from your PIP Schedule:

"Reciprocating Engine Systems:
25. Any change of engine compression ratio, via piston modification/substitution, milling the head, decking the block, using a non-OE thickness head gasket, or other – 2 PIP
26. Cylinder overbore greater than 0.040’’ (or 1.106mm) – 2 PIP
27. Any change to the stroke of the engine, via modification/substitution of the connecting rods and/or crankshaft or other. – 3 PIP"

As you are undoubtedly aware a side consequence of increasing the displacement of an engine, whether by boring it or by stroking it, is increased compression. That's assuming you make no changes to the cylinder head(s). The way the above section is worded, this would mean that if a competitor does a modification under either item 26 or 27 or both they automatically have to take the 2 PIPs for item 25 - change in compression ratio as well. Is this the CCC's intention?

As a double whammy, after a competitor has increased their displacement, if they then have to open up the combustion chambers on their 'OE' cylinder heads to get the compression back down to a level where they can run on pump gas they get hit with another 2 PIPs! Again, the question is, is this the CCC's intention?

4. Related to question 3, if a competitor changes any or all of the crank, the connecting rods and the pistons with stronger pieces without changing the bore, the stroke or the compression ratio they are not assessed any PIPs in your proposal. So does that mean you intend to allow a competitor to beef up the bottom end of their motor, even if their car is stock otherwise, as a freebee?

5. Regarding engine swaps, with the exception of modified classes our existing system only permits engine swaps from the same manufacturer. I have seen no similar restrictions in any of the documents accompanying your proposal. What is the new CCC's position on this?

6. Re: "Reciprocating Engine Systems: 28. Any non-authorized lightening of rotating mass connected to the reciprocating engine, including the flywheel, crankshaft, and crank pulley – 1 PIP"

The crankshaft is part of the reciprocationg engine, how can it be 'connected' to the reciprocating engine? Without a crankshaft, the engine wouldn't be able to reciprocate!

7. Re: "Suspension & Running Gear Modification Schedule: 6. Substitution of a coilover system including shocks/springs, alignment and attachment points - 5 PIP"

For some reason the download of the MS Word file from the Solo Ontario site is not working so I can't verify if the wording of this section has been changed. I am working from version 4 that you emailed to the Solo Comittee members. I assume I have the latest version. Anyway, when I previously asked you about this section your response was that you didn't intend for this to read 'coilover system', but intended for it to refer to all suspension mods other than sway bars (and Dave Barker's new subframe - K member mod). Are you going to change the wording?

Cheers,
Eric Juraschka

[Eric]

Originally posted by Taylor
the previous system had a stock class spreads of 15% PI. So bottom feeders were stuck there... basically regardless of driving talent. Now, we have stock class spreads of 5%.

Taylor,

Lets compare apples to apples. The previous system used 4 different sub-indicies to come up with the PI, not 2 as in this proposed system. Furthermore, the weighting of those sub-indicies was different for each family to recognize the unique attributes of those families. So you simply cannot compare the old system's PI or PI spreads to the new proposed system's PI spreads.

I pulled out one of the old spreadsheets and recalculated the PIs based on the new formula and the results were roughly a 30 PI spread in A family over 3 root classes, a 40 PI spread in B Family over 3 root classes and a 30 PI spread in C family over 3 root classes when you consider the vehicles that actually come out. So on average the previous system had stock class spreads closer to 10 PIs based on the new proposal's formula, not 15 as you suggest.

The new proposal doesn't have a spread of 5 PIs for all classes either. Class L or Touring 5 or whatever you want to call it has a spread of 40 PIs. There's your 'bottomless pit'! You haven't eliminated it, only redefined it.

Granted, a few of the A3 and B3 so called 'bottomless pit' vehicles now have a home a little higher up the ladder, but one of the beefs was that with modifications these cars were just not competative against the 'factory hot rods'. This situation hasn't changed under the new proposed system. Take A3 for example, the popular vehicles are 5.0L Mustangs, 3rd Gen F-bodies and 240Zs. These vehicles all hoover around a PI of 61 to 67. A proper Street Prepared effort in one of these cars is going to cost 35 to 40 PIPs. That's going to put them right around a PI of 100. A stock Z06 comes in at a PI of 91 with room to spare to run against these A3 root cars. So that situation hasn't changed any.

If anything the Z06 'threat' has gotten worse under the new proposal since they are permitted 3 to 4 more PIPs to get to the 95 PI number for their stock class. So the 'stock' Z06s this year should be faster, because they won't be stock!

Cheers,
Eric Juraschka

[Taylor]

Originally posted by Eric
So on average the previous system had stock class spreads closer to 10 PIs based on the new proposal's formula, not 15 as you suggest.
Actually I didn't originaly suggest that. I believe Dave Pratte mentioned that spread earlier on. It seemed to gel with my impresions. Still 5PI is better than 10PI.

Originally posted by Eric
The new proposal doesn't have a spread of 5 PIs for all classes either. Class L or Touring 5 or whatever you want to call it has a spread of 40 PIs. There's your 'bottomless pit'! You haven't eliminated it, only redefined it.

While this is true the PI spread is huge here, I guess there's a few things to say about my feelings on it:

1) I'm not sure we have anyone running any of these cars in stock form. The marjority of those cars are a spread of 10PI with the remaining 11 having a spread of 18... currently there's no cars to fill up the remaining 12PIP's out of your 40. God forbid there ever will be any either.

2) I expect a very small percentage of our potential "market" would ever consider brining such a car to the track in stock form.

3) Anyone currently running these cars are more than likely running them modified anyhow.

4) And last but not least... the beauty of this system says that if you have the FireFly, you can mod it to the nine's and NOT jump classes. So you can actually build a competitive car more cost effectively than in the past with the previous system.

Originally posted by Eric
These vehicles all hoover around a PI of 61 to 67. A proper Street Prepared effort in one of these cars is going to cost 35 to 40 PIPs. That's going to put them right around a PI of 100. A stock Z06 comes in at a PI of 91 with room to spare to run against these A3 root cars. So that situation hasn't changed any.

If anything the Z06 'threat' has gotten worse under the new proposal since they are permitted 3 to 4 more PIPs to get to the 95 PI number for their stock class. So the 'stock' Z06s this year should be faster, because they won't be stock!


How many ASS1 cars have we had in the last two years? ASS2 guys were afraid to go to ASS1 because a Z06 with a sway bar in it would kill them. Stock one would probably kill them too if it could run in that class.

I don't expect the 3 or 4 more PIPs on a Z06 will amount to a heck of alot. The mustang either has a chance or it doesn't. I dunno what you could do to a Z06 to really improve it with a couple PIP's anyhow. I would expect most people would still try to avoid that class alltogether. But at least it gives the 2001 Z06 a shot to level the playing field against the 2002's. Basically we will never see any of the other cars in that class stock. So we now have a Z06 class, which is probably for the best. Anyone modding into that class, well hopefully have just as good of a car. But once again, I think we're talking a pretty small percent of existing competitors and potential competitors.

With the dyno option, if those 35 to 40 PIP's don't actually bring the vehicle within power to weight range of the Z06 (though, how could it not?) then it can still be reclassified. Which I think some really *serious* buildups (the 35 to 40PIP ones) will have to take advantage of that option.

Also just wanted to say something to Craig... which I think he understands but just to make sure...

There's no contradiction here... to start, this system allows you to take your slightly not-class-champion car, and give it a shot against the class champion. This was never possible before in a stock class. Before if you had a stock Z06 or TypeR or E46 M3, you could rule the roost in those classes. As it was, C1 I think only had 3 cars in it because it was getting so unfair.. and one of them was the GSR, which they couldn't move to C2 or you'd end up with another Class dominating car. As I said, as I hope you're aware, you can now take that non-class competitive car and make it one!

Originally posted by craig
What's the difference between spending money on a better (base) car, and spending money of performance modifications?


About $30,000.

Also with the relatively short performance spread in these classes, and the fact there are physically less classes now, even a top of the class percentile car now has to deal with possibly twice the competitors, and possibly ones that drive well enough to bridge the gap between the cars. And again, lower PI'd car can drop an intake, ECU, boost controller or any other low PIP mod to try to improve their chances within their base class.

I do agree slicks should cost PIPs. This was discussed last year. Actually banning slicks was a discussed option too I think.

[ADAM]

hi nino,
replacing a turbo is by far the biggest thing you can do.....why

oem turbos tend to be very small, and build for low boost and quick spool up time, and are small frame turbos....in the garret t25 or smaller series usually..some of the larger turbos were t3's but they are even small.....this is all fine and dandy on the street where driveablity is the key..

...BUT on the race track....big turbos RULE...why..they move more air per min, and move it at a much cooler temperatrure.....case in point.....
here is a turbo for a small T3 turbo..something an OEM would put in a car....
http://www.turboneticsinc.com/comp_maps/Fig1.gif

as you can see it has an effective area of a maximum effieciency of 72% and about 2.2PR which is about 17psi of boost... BUT..and here is the BIG but...it can only move about 16lbs or air per minute....what does that mean...
it means 2 things...firstly if you try to run too much boost..or try to use too much air...it runs outside the compressors efficiency range...in this case around 231cfm..(which is not very much) or around 154hp...so what happens if you need more than 231cfm or air? your are screwed...you hit a brick wall and the turbo will just not boost past that level....

SO.....we have to place a larger turbo in....lets place a mid frame T4 turbo in the car...lets pick a T04B H-3 (since i know it well and its in my car)

http://www.turboneticsinc.com/comp_maps/Fig8.gif

hmmm...so this turbo at the same 72% effieciency can now boost to 2.5pr which is around 22psi...and now.....the BIG now...this compressor can move upwards or 45lbs of air per min...or a whopping 651CFM..which is around 434hp no problem...

SO..if you are building a track car...which turbo are you going to pick....

i know which one i picked

basically the stock turbos are useless...and what we really want is power...and lots of it..since spool up is not an issue since we are near the max RPM all the time....we must have the ability to move air..and to do this..we need larger turbo's

IF a competitor chooses to replace a turbo by clipping a wheel or a slight change in compressor ..then increase will be small....but if they do it right and upograde the turbo to the INTENDED application...while considering boost level and compressor efficency then.... HUGE power gains can be made...

( edit had to correct the lb to cfm conversion)

[turboawd]

Adam, I am aware of that, but you can only run so much boost, regardless of turbo size before you blow up. Unless you have race fuel. But I'm glad you made your post as it reinforces the imbalance of the hit oem turbo cars must take to upgrade vs. a turbo kit or custom turbo on a n/a car.. such as yours. You get to chose any turbo you want, any fuel system you want, exhaust manifold, downpipe...etc for 14 pips. While oem turbos get hit harder to upgrade to what you have.

[ADAM]

BUT..and the big BUT about turbo kit cars...is that they were not designed to be forced induction machines...i can think of a few differences...

1=tranny and clutch and drivetrain
2=pistons and rods and crank..
3=compression ratio...
4=cooling system
5=fuel system
6=piston oil squirters
7=engine heat management
8=ignition system
9=ecu control
10=car frame and engine mounts


these things have all been dealt with in a oem turbo system...where as on a kit..they have not..and are really not up to the task...

re: turbo points...
with
5 points for an ecu
3 points for a boost controller
6 points for a turbo
3 points for an intercooler
thats 17 points

you can build up a pretty silly oem turbo car..basically all that is stopping you is the strength of the internals and the fuel you have access to....

i can think of a few cars...that i would expect output's from IF done correctly...and could be fielded reliably

talon 400rwhp
supra 700rwhp
sr20det 400rwhp
wrx 400rwhp
rx7 500rwhp

when we were discussing the points..we had to come to some agreement on what we were going to see come out in solo 1.... IMO the points are too low..because IF someone did the build up correctly...and comes out with a 500-600rwhp talon..it is going to beat everything....

the question is...are we going to see those types of machines? no probably not....since we looked at what was coming out to solo 1.....BUT we have to have some sort of modicom of what is expected....thats why the points are sitting where they are...(in my mind slightly lower than what they should be)

i would say that if you change a turbo in a turbo car..and since this is for racing..i would assume that the person would add a turbo that would add considerable power to the engine....otherwise why bother..if people decide to just clip wheels and possibly upgrade a compressor wheel slightly..or port the turbo....its a waste....you will get taken down against cars that swapped the turbo out for a performance turbo..no doubt in my mind..just go watch some drag races..and it becomes very apparent what mods are good or not.

maybe we need to add a change in the PIP's to state....

modification to a oem turbo with size remaining the same "x" number of pips

and then

substitution from oem size turbo... "x" number of pips?

i don't know that could be looked..at?

problem is..then we "could" see oem size turbos fully clipped with ceramic wheels, ball bearing center housings and using VATN technology....even though now the supposed "oem" turbo is a beast :)

anyway....i am very aware of the "potential" of turbocharged engines..so with that in mind we have to be carefull of those who will come out and utilize the rules to the fullest...and IF those cars come out..they will destroy turbo cars that are not prepared correctly..thats a fact...case in point...you saw my 2 turbo compressor graphs on my above post..there is no comparison..

so....as a last resort..if you think your car is not placed correctly...provide a dyno sheet..and that will determine the real power...

nino.....what have you done to your car? and how many points do you have?

tell me and i will go thru it with more accurate engine math..and then we can compare what the engine is doing....and what it should be doing...

adam

[ADAM]

re: boost....

you can run as much boost as
1=the turbo can provide air
2=the fuel your fuel system can provide
3=the internal strength of the engine
4=the detonation threshold of the fuel you are using....

fuel can and might be a very discerning factor in turbo cars..since you could use fuel to safely boost your motor way past normal boost levels....plus heat management....

IMO the 3 points for an intercooler upgrade is a STEAL...

IF the turbo 4cyl cars are going to run against the v8's...they are going to have to be very well prepared...no doubt.... and that means if they are very high point cars..they have to be taking points that are going to produce power...

[Dave Barker]

Originally posted by Eric
Taylor,

Lets compare apples to apples. The previous system used 4 different sub-indicies to come up with the PI, not 2 as in this proposed system. Furthermore, the weighting of those sub-indicies was different for each family to recognize the unique attributes of those families. So you simply cannot compare the old system's PI or PI spreads to the new proposed system's PI spreads.

I pulled out one of the old spreadsheets and recalculated the PIs based on the new formula and the results were roughly a 30 PI spread in A family over 3 root classes, a 40 PI spread in B Family over 3 root classes and a 30 PI spread in C family over 3 root classes when you consider the vehicles that actually come out. So on average the previous system had stock class spreads closer to 10 PIs based on the new proposal's formula, not 15 as you suggest.

The new proposal doesn't have a spread of 5 PIs for all classes either. Class L or Touring 5 or whatever you want to call it has a spread of 40 PIs. There's your 'bottomless pit'! You haven't eliminated it, only redefined it.

Granted, a few of the A3 and B3 so called 'bottomless pit' vehicles now have a home a little higher up the ladder, but one of the beefs was that with modifications these cars were just not competative against the 'factory hot rods'. This situation hasn't changed under the new proposed system. Take A3 for example, the popular vehicles are 5.0L Mustangs, 3rd Gen F-bodies and 240Zs. These vehicles all hoover around a PI of 61 to 67. A proper Street Prepared effort in one of these cars is going to cost 35 to 40 PIPs. That's going to put them right around a PI of 100. A stock Z06 comes in at a PI of 91 with room to spare to run against these A3 root cars. So that situation hasn't changed any.

If anything the Z06 'threat' has gotten worse under the new proposal since they are permitted 3 to 4 more PIPs to get to the 95 PI number for their stock class. So the 'stock' Z06s this year should be faster, because they won't be stock!

Cheers,
Eric Juraschka

Eric , you are quite correct that comparing last year's family specific PIs to this year's proposed "across the board" PIs is not "apples to apples" but I think you are misleading about " average" PI spreads based on drivers who came out. The 1 level classes had smaller PI spreads than the large spreads in 2 level classes and the enormous spreads in the 3 level classes. By choosing to ignore the fact that many 3 level cars did not appear and only taking the ones that did you skew your calculation to a narrower PI spread than could occur.

That being said , I agree that now the below 40 PI class is a huge ( if not empty) bottomless pit and I ( for one) hope that few if any cars run in this class. Clerking the course with cars doing 100 seconds on Fabi and 2 minutes on the Pro track is not fun and holds up the events.

On the other hand what you don't seem to understand is that the actual PI spread in any class can be O , not 5 PI. By allowing competitors to use some PIPs in stock class they can catch up without paying any penalties.

The old system asked cars with significantly different PI to compete as equals with all the ridiculous inequities involved . Even worse , if you improved a 3 level car in any way you could find yourself against a high 2 level car leaving you with an "all points or none approach" which was both expensive and discouraging.

Interesting that the previous CCC's approach to the Z06 domination of the A1 class in 2001 was just to move lower A1 cars down to A2 and I assume some A2 cars to A 3 thereby increasing the old PI spread in the lower classes and therefore the inequities. Not much of a solution. The linear approach , especially with the dyno rule for very highly prepped cars , means that no car will be asked to compete against a significantly better car without the tools to do so (as Taylor has so eloquently pointed out... again ). Hopefully driving skill will be the better determinant of winners and the competition will be better. I am certainly hoping the overall winner under this system does NOT have a perfect score and we don't see any more lists of perfect scores for the top 3-5 drivers with the winners decided by backup times as has happened for the last few years.

[Taylor]

Originally posted by Dave Barker
I am certainly hoping the overall winner under this system does NOT have a perfect score and we don't see any more lists of perfect scores for the top 3-5 drivers with the winners decided by backup times as has happened for the last few years.

Yeah that would be cool.

I love the potential and seemingly unlimited options offered with this system... Dare I say it seems too good to be true? :)

[Triumphracer]

Hi everyone!
Many good points in this lengthy thread; I agree with Dave, Taylor and others that while not perfect the system is a very good solution, and a reasonable compromise we can all live with.

A minor point is that cars like mine from 1965 have hp figures quoted in gross not net, about 10 or15% should be deducted to get equivalent net figure.

I'm surprised most of the discussion has been about power and weight, for the lower powered cars mid-corner speed is so important, and not as easy to get a number for, good thing everyone's happy with their rating!

See you at the track..Simon, 1965 TR4A

[TYSON]

After reading through the points schedule again, I've found I will be able to compete as is, thanks to the lowered PIP assessments for exhaust and intake components when running under the +1 and +4 class rules.:)

How many people will be in the 'Prepared' class?:confused:

[Eric]

This thread has been dead for the past few days. It’s time to get off the fence…

The attached zip file is a MS Word document. My appologies to anyone that does not have MS Word. I was able to convert it to a PDF but it exceed the maximum size permitted on this forum. If you would like me to email you the PDF version, please send me a private email.

Be forewarned, it is a long read, but hopefully you will find it insightful.:D

[roooo]

That better not have any macro virii in it ;)

[Christian Sorensen]

As Solo 1 Director, I have the responsibility for deciding whether to implement the wholehearted recommendation of the new Car Classification Committee that their changes be incorporated into the rules for 2003.

I have read through the lengthy discussions on this thread and Eric's treatise on Relevant Ranges, as well as taken part in a couple of the CCC's meetings and been privy to alot of their private email traffic.

I will respond in future posts to specific points that have been raised here and not yet dealt with sufficiently. This dialogue will be ongoing.

Nevertheless, I am absolutely convinced that the CCC has devised a workable solution to the problem of classifying stock and modified cars that is light years ahead of anything we have done in the past or anything any other sanctioning bodies are doing.

No, the system isn't perfect, but such flaws that exist are the result of details concerning individual car suspension ratings and the PIP amounts assigned for particular mods. I believe that the essential design of this system is brilliant. It has several revolutionary elements that, over time, will change the way Solo competitors think about modifications to their cars. That said, by fairly classifying existing cars (modified or not) it puts no particular group at a systemic disadvantage.

Given the amount and quality of the work put into this system I think it would be a crying shame not to put it into effect for 2003.

Therefore, I wish to announce to the Solo community that the new system will be in the 2003 rulebook. The rulebook will be available in PDF form on the Soloontario website in the next week or so and printed copies will be available at the Open House April 6.

[Bubblecar]

Good call Chris.

While I'm sure there will be criticism (some well founded) - it's probably best to proceed with the new Classifications.

That said - one of my concerns and an area that I think should be looked into - is the Dynoing of cars. During the past 3 years I have spent countless hours at different dynos and am very well aware of the inconsistant results that can be had.

I would be willing to volunteer to the Classification committee to serve the role of "Dyno Co-ordinator" and would do my best to ensure fair and accurate results. (Note - I have a very good relationship with Dyno Power Services in Scarborough.)

If the committee would like to explore my offer - send me an email.

Nick

[Taylor]

YeeeeHaw!

[ADAM]

awesome..... i am glad the ccc's hard work is going to bear fruit...


it should make for a awesome and very fun and different solo 2003 racing season...

[ctenche]

Excellent!

[Chris P]

Thanks Christian

[Christian Sorensen]

As promised, I have prepared a reply to Eric's post last week concerning 'Relevant Ranges'. Eric set out at the beginning of his paper three criteria:

"1. Every vehicle, in stock trim, will have to be ranked in a logical linear fashion."

Agreed. This is the entire point of a Performance Index. That said, it has to be recognized that no single index can be valid for every track configuration. Compromises have to be made. Furthermore, since the base indices reflect the CCC's appreciation of how cars in stock trim will perform relative to each other it does not address that car's responsiveness to further modifications.

Rules for the change in class that apply to modifications to cars can attempt to take into account certain gross characteristics (ie: is the car using forced induction or not) but generally speaking, it is up to the competitor to find a car that responds appropriately to the modifications they wish to make.

It is not a sufficient indictment of the system to point out that car 'X', ranked close to car 'Y', is in fact much faster than car 'Y'. If true, the suspension rating for car 'Y' is incorrect.

The suspension rating has to account for ALL variables not directly related to power/weight. It is a bit of a misnomer to call it 'Suspension Rating', 'handling rating' would be better. Consider that factors such as the amount and ratio of the transmission gears, the torque characteristics of the engine, the aerodynamic effects of the body, the kind and quality of the differential, and the car's inherent torsional stiffness all impinge on this factor as well as the design and characteristics of the suspension.

The original CCC attempted to create additional sub-indices for some of these factors but arguably with less success. After all, the weighting and ranges picked for additional indices have to be determined in the same subjective manner as the 'handling index' itself does.

"2. PI values need to be arrived at such that a given incremental increase in performance is consistent throughout the linear scale .... the 5% difference between A and B must be equivalent to the 5% difference between C and D in terms of lap times..."

Whoa. There is no designed-for equivalence between the Performance Index and lap times. There is a relationship, but that relationship is not 'one to one'. The new schedule of PAX factors will show this.

"3. The PIP schedule needs to be set such that incremental increases in performance (again, in terms of improvements in lap times) from doing modifications correspond exactly to the change in PI attributable to the modification, and of course that change must be the same throughout the linear scale."

Since assumption "2." above is wrong it should be realized that incremental improvements in performance from different base PI cars will not necessarily correspond to equivalent lap time decreases. Furthermore, because different cars respond differently to modifications (especially with respect to suspension improvements) it is not possible to say that a given PI mod results in an X improvement (percentage or otherwise) across the entire system for all cars.

Nor should we have to.

The PI amounts chosen for engine modifications are indeed meant to be translatable into a change in base PI. Dave Pratte has shown quite convincingly that this is reasonably true for a wide range of cars and engine types. Nevertheless, for highly modified engines the system may 'break down' since competitors may be practically unable to achieve the horsepower increases implied to be available from the amount of points charged. One good reason for this is that few are willing (and able) to spend the megabucks required for professional race engine development. This is why the dyno option makes so much sense!

The PI amounts chosen for weight reductions (in the body and trim section) will not result in an accurate re-assessment of the PI for two reasons. Firstly, as a matter of policy Solo encourages the use of roll-over protection and other safety measures by allowing competitors to count 'negative PIs' for these additions. Secondly, the amount of weight reduction available for the 2-PIP 'interior removal' varies dramatically between cars and can greatly exceed the amount of extra weight the rollover protection adds. In any event properly designed rollover protection can go a long way to improving the handling characteristics of a racecar.

Once a car has been effectively converted into a racecar, with extensive engine and suspension mods, the addition of rollover protection (and allowable stripping out of the interior) is a good idea!

Consequently, starting in 2004, Solo will be mandating the use of rollover protection for cars which jump 5 classes due to modifications.

Therefore, Eric's third assumption is also wrong and does not provide valid criteria against which to judge the performance of the flat indexing system.

What was done in practice to check the validity of the PIP schedules was that cars which had competed in the last few years were 'assessed' and run through the system to see whether the resulting classes appeared to be competitive.

Naturally that sort of exercise is subjective but any competitor is able to do the same thing on a smaller scale with the information available to them.

Okay, so much for the assumptions, what about the argument itself?

Eric's main point is that the ranges chosen for Weight to HP ought to be adjusted to exactly cover the range of expected cars competing.

As Eric is well aware, the range chosen will have a dramatic effect on the PI spreads between cars. IT IS PRECISELY WITH THIS IN MIND that the CCC chose the ranges it did. Furthermore, the actual values and weighting chosen for the Suspension rating was developed when working with Weight to HP using a '6-35' spread.

There is nothing inherently better about a '6-25' spread. Eric makes no positive case for it being an improvement except that it would appear to give many cars more 'PIPs' with which to challenge the 'big dog' cars. That, of course, is assuming that the CCC wouldn't re-value the whole Prep Point schedule to compensate.

For what it is worth, I think that Prep Points based on a '6-25' scale are less likely to result in incremental changes to a car's hp being applied evenly across the PI range than with the '6-35' scale.

My point is, the ranges chosen and the weightings applied that make up the PI scale are matters of judgement, not pre-determinable fact. The criteria for success should be on the outcome, not on whether the system's details conform to mistaken or inapplicable underlying assumptions.

As I have stated earlier, I am convinced that the new system is a workable solution to the problem of classifying stock and modified cars.

I am looking forward to an exciting year of close Solo competition!

[Chris91GT]

Nick,

As per my post in this forum about a Solo 1 dyno day, I think we should arrange something for everyone planning to use the system this year.

[Dave Barker]

Christian , in Dave Pratte's abscence , I'm sure that I can offer the thanks of the entire CCC in accepting out proposal for this year. We feel that this system is fair enough to not disadvantage anyone and will provide closer competition across the board and improve the sport.

For those of you not aware, Dave Pratte as chair of the CCC deserves a huge thanks for all his efforts and serious research in various fields including base PI calculation and engine PIP schedules. The mountains of data that he sorted through was huge . The amount of effort put in here was phenomenal , and , we think, produced excellant results.

[ctenche]

Chris91GT,

I wonder how many people are going to take advantage of that dyno clause. Seems to me it only makes sense to use it for those people who have invested a lot of points into an engine swap but not really getting the "on paper" benefits.

[Dave Barker]

Caius , remember the Dyno clause only applys to cars with 12 or more engine PIPs and not to someone who just put on a header. It is possible that for certain cars the dyno plot may be higher than suspected by the PIPs taken in which case the driver will not want to submit the Dyno run. OTOH we are confident that the PIP schedule is quite accurate for most engines and this has been confirmed with a number of more highly modified cars that have engines that will respond well to modification. It is agreed that factory hi output or race engines , such as the S 2000 , ITR and BMW E 46 M3 will not respond well to engine mods but if someone wants to make major changes to a high output engine then we will still protect them with the Dyno rule ( although their pocket book may be emptied trying to improve on the factory engineers).

[Taylor]

I have some mild concerns with DPS as the "spec" dynomometer. I've heard numerous tims that Jeff's dyno is a little more optimistic than others. Not sure how true that is, but maybe others can chime in if they have that impression as well.

Also last time I was there he did not have a Wideband O2. So I'm not personally likely to use his dyno unless I *have* to.

He's also on the other side of town (my problem I guess), something more central like DPE would be better I think.

Having said all that, if we can get a (very) special rate for this sort of run, then that would be welcome.

Ultimately I guess the dyno setup needs to be standardized for turbo cars too. What do we add for drivetrain loss based on what the dyno shows? Obviously most turbos make a bit more power with real airflow. Also cooling is more of an issue too, so a specific amount of time to wait in between runs would be good too. I'd rather not be too anal about this, but since I will be taking advantage of this feature of the new rule book, I want to make sure it's done as fairly as possible.

One last thing in the case of my car, I have the intake on one side of the car, and the intercooler on another. Last time I was at DPS they only had 2 small fans beside the HUGE front roller.

Anyone know if that's changed?

[Bubblecar]

Taylor,

Regarding your questions.

1. Yes, every dyno I have been to reports a different HP than the next. That said, I have found the consistentcy of DPS to be more accurate that DPE.

2. The set-up at DPE can be difficult - and they do not want "high" horse power cars in their shop. Last I heard they were thinking of implementing some sort of cap on hp.

3. This reflects both in availability and cost. If you book an hour at DPE - when time is up - you are done. In Scarborough, the dyno can ofen be made available on short notice and in off-hours.

(BTW - I would agree that I sometimes question Jeff's professionalism - but he is very easy to work with.)

4. I wouldn't tune my car without an wideband (I use an ad-on) but the purpose here is not to adjust/tune the car - but to confirm output in the existing trim.

Anyway - I'll give a call to John at DPE and see what he has to say.

Nick

[Taylor]

Actually yes, I do recall that DPE had an issue with loud cars running on their dyno due to their concern for their neighbours.. I think basically they cater to Bikes, but I dunno. I went there because they had Wideband O2.

Also their location of the 2 wheel dyno is a little awkward and does require a little "3-4 point parking".

And yes, there's always the off-hour thing with Jeff... It's been my experience that's the only way to get on his dyno though. Basically doesn't he not run it during the day right?

[ADAM]

i used to go to DPE, but now use a dyno right around the corner from me in brampton....called speedzone

they are all very close..as long as they correct to SAE power

[Taylor]

Adam: Theres' one in Brampton?

Location?

I presume they have a Wideband... yes?

[ADAM]

yep...... they have o2 bung sensor as well....you need a second bung on your downpipe/exhaust


p#905-495-0896 ask for gord

they have good rates...

[Bubblecar]

Just reviewed some dyno charts from October. Hmmm - shows fuel / air ratios.

Absolutely forgot - Dyno Power Services in Scarborugh upgraded his software and got the same air/fule option aas DPE has (with the bung in the exhaust).

Then again - they are way out of the way for Adam / Taylor, etc.

Nick

[Taylor]

Well I'm hardly the end of the world. If Jeff has an air/fuel sensor now though that changes my personal opinion about the situation a bit more.

A central location would be preferred. Though we could still setup 3 dyno nights (DPS, DPE and this Brampton one) or something as long as it's overlooked by some "authority" from Solo it should be all good. Corrected numbers should be pretty close I would hope.

Whichever...it is a bit of a drive though... a mobile dyno would work! :) Are there any in the GTA?