Hill / Class Records

[dlascoskie]

Let's play a game, please class the following cars, using group numbers (ie. group 1, group 2, group 3, group 4) :
Car A= 225hp 3350lbs (P/W ratio = .07)
Car B= 215hp 3400lbs (.06)
Car C= 305hp 3565lbs (.09)
Car D= 260hp 3237lbs (.08)
Car E= 315hp 3450lbs (.09)
Car F= 300hp 3500lbs (.09)
Car G= 287hp 3200lbs (.09)
Car H= 300hp 3202lbs (.09)
Car I= 240hp 3220lbs (.07)
Car J= 245hp 3239lbs (.08)
Car K= 205hp 3194lbs (.06)
Car L= 170hp 3490lbs (.05)
Car M= 350hp 3400lbs (.10)

[dspgti]

Sorry Dan, I'm totaly lost here. I have no idea what you are presenting or asking us to respond to. I'm sure it's my feeble mind, but I need some clarrification. I'm not very good at tests.

Dave Y.

[dlascoskie]

I'm just asking you to take the info given and group the cars the way you think is most fair for competition. It's simple. Here, I'll go first:

Group 1:
Car L= 170hp 3490lbs (.05)
Group 2:
Car B= 215hp 3400lbs (.06)
Car K= 205hp 3194lbs (.06)
Group 3:
Car A= 225hp 3350lbs (P/W ratio = .07)
Car I= 240hp 3220lbs (.07)
Group 4:
Car J= 245hp 3239lbs (.08)
Car D= 260hp 3237lbs (.08)
Group 5:
Car C= 305hp 3565lbs (.09)
Car E= 315hp 3450lbs (.09)
Car F= 300hp 3500lbs (.09)
Car G= 287hp 3200lbs (.09)
Car H= 300hp 3202lbs (.09)
Group 6:
Car M= 350hp 3400lbs (.10)

Would you agree that this is a fair distribution of the cars in the field, assuming all suspension, drive train and braking systems being somewhat equal? (I'm trying to keep this semi-simple) Or would you prefer a different grouping? And if so, what is it, and why?

[dspgti]

I'm a simple guy. I'd like to keep it simple but that kind of comparison leaves out all consideration to FWD vs. RWD vs AllWD, Live axle vs Independant, ignors areodynamics, track width, wheel base , wheel and tire sizes...shall I go on? Where do the horse power ratings come from? Sounds like a good grouping if they are all Camaros and Mustangs of approximately the same year/model.

Sorry Dan if Ididn't play along. I'm just being the devils advocate. For the sake of argument, I accept your logical grouping.

Dave Y.

[jerdeitzel]

I'd like to play but I can't log on at home. It keeps booting me back to the log in page.? UGGGH!

Sm less restrictive then GT classes? Well maybe, except for having to have a legal street car. And dot tires. I could lose about 500lbs in race trim. Or more!

[dlascoskie]

I'm a simple guy. I'd like to keep it simple but that kind of comparison leaves out all consideration to FWD vs. RWD vs AllWD, Live axle vs Independant, ignors areodynamics, track width, wheel base , wheel and tire sizes...shall I go on?

That's why I said "assuming all suspension, drive train and braking systems being somewhat equal? (I'm trying to keep this semi-simple)"


The SCCA groups them like this:

Group 1: Cars A B C D E F
Group 2: Cars G H I J K l M

Care to take a guess as to which cars own the majority of the records for each group?



(To answer your questions, all are RWD, Group 1 is Independent rear, Group 2 can be either/or depending on updating/backdating, aero is all over the place even within the groups, as is shock/spring configurations, and wheel and tire sizes. Suffice it to say that in all the categories you mentioned, and adding braking systems, the cars with the higher P/W ratio carry a distinct advantage in most every case.)

[dspgti]

I'm on board now Dan.

Retraction: Dan edited/added alot more stuff to his previus post and lost me again.

[mrevilracing]

Class ESP
Car Weight 3720(with race tires)
Horsepower 295hp to the rear wheels - 100% factory '04 Mach 1 engine w/1/4" intake spacer
Brake system PowerSlot vented rotors, Hawk HPS pads, balance of system - stock
Suspension Springs, CC plates, sway bar, Tokico Illumina 5way adjustable shocks/struts, 2000 Cobra R tierods

With an intake change, headers and a CAI(cold air intake), could pick up 35-45hp easy. I could change to a tubular K memeber and lighten up the front end by 50lbs. But then I'd have to go to coil overs.

[NJ 03Mach1]

[jerdeitzel]

wow those mustangs are pigs!

Class Smod

3100lbs without driver

Brembo stock calipers and rotors, stinless steel brake line, ferrodo pads, Motul fluid

300-350 who (depends on the dyno if you don't kno, LOL)

Works Ohlins DFV coilovers

That's my recipe!

[dspgti]

Okay, I give up. I have no idea what or where we are going with this. You guys are throwing so much stuff in here, I'm not understanding the issue. I read "power to weight ratio has an advantage" duuh.

Please enlighten me here. I'm lost.

Dave Y.

[mrevilracing]

Jeremy, this Mach 1 is an absolute pig. If you'd like to really drive a car, I'll let you take it up the hill. It'll scare the crap out of you. There's no,50/50 balance or anything like that.

Dave, of course power to weight ratio has the advantage. I don't know what the point is. Maybe just a stat post. I'm waiting for others to jump in! Some can't post cause they don't know. Others won't post because..........

[dspgti]

Maybe if I explain why I'm confused and we all use the same terms, I may start to understand.

First, Dan states "majority of records" and indicates "RWD". By my count, Mike Ancas has the greatest number of records and I'm second. Neither of us have stepped into a RWD race car. (I lie, my vintage TR4 is RWD). I think you need to be very specific about what classes you are refering to.

Second, you bring up 2 groups and use the alphabet in natural order. Unofficially, SCCA uses three basic groups, small bore, big bore and Formula/sports racer. While some classes start out in order, letters get mixed up like fruit salad. If you have a hard time following Street Prepared, try understanding Improved Touring (IT). Starts out ok, ITA, B, C, but then no D, E is believed to be the fastest but now we have ITR and S not to mention IT7.

So please Dan, don't start your own grouping or classing identifications. Try to use the current, not always most logical, class identifications and be specific. I want to understand what everyone is trying to say.

Dave Y.

[dlascoskie]

Ok class, here we go, pay attention now..................

I was using a small sampling of two SCCA classes to show a larger problem within the SCCA as it relates to hillclimbs. Steve's the winner (we all know how much you love to win, cause you tell us every chance you get ) as he said "of course power to weight ratio has the advantage." What I am trying to show you is that logic wouldn't group cars with .05-.10 p/w ratios together, but the SCCA would. It might not be as big a deal on road courses, which is probably how they got grouped together to begin with (maybe, who knows), but in hillclimbing you have this little thing called gravity, which has a tremendous effect on underpowered cars.
I know you want details Dave, but I'm trying to get you to look at something in ABC, 123 terms, so you don't have any bias going in, and just look at the numbers and react. Instead you brought up Mustangs, suggested other differences like FWD, RWD, track width, etc. and now you've brought Mike Ancas into it. And you think I'm confusing the issue??
Here's the point as it relates to this, your post on Records:
They would be more meaningful in some classes if the classes themselves were more balanced.

Believe me, I have major respect for anyone and everyone who has ever taken a car up a hill. The courage, dedication and skill required to do what we do is immense. I also have respect for the SCCA for all they have done to make racing great and accessible at so many levels. I just think that there are some things that could be tweaked to promote competition. I was trying to show that here. I understand updating and backdating within the model years and I think you have some room to make a compelling case with it; but that does get rather expensive and doesn't always level the playing field, especially when you are dealing with 30+ years of technology all lumped into the same class.
As for Steve and Jeremy's posts...........I was using curb wieght (street tires, without driver) and flywheel horsepower as stated by the manufacturer, not rear wheel horsepower. If you convert to that, you will then get a P/W ratio that will fit better with the cars I was showing. (Brembo brakes stock.... Love that!)
The SCCA has to look at a car as it comes off the factory floor and determine what class it should fall into. Not an easy job, by any means. But I suggest that power to weight ratios should play a bigger part in it for hillclimbing at least.
Anyway, I hope this clears it up for you.

[dspgti]

Wow, Dan. You and Itook the long route on this one and our concusions are exactly the same, I think. At least as I understand your point about classes being level, (they are not), records being more significant if they were level, (meaning some classes are easier to set class records).

Tell me if you think we are not talking about the same thing. I'll give you some more opinions about the class configurations if we are in agreement here.

Dave Y

[dlascoskie]

yup, we're in agreement. How did you miss that?

[dspgti]

yup, we're in agreement. How did you miss that?

I was confused by the fact that I thought you were arguing against me. Go figure, some young guy on my side?

There are three race groups that I would never want to run in. 1st is ESP. Any class that has a Ferrari in it isn't for me. How about those Shelby GT350's and 500's. It's good they are too valuble to race anymore. My opinion about SCCA is they get annal about putting similar cars together and then they give up and dump what ever is left over in one class or another. You hit the jack pot in your class.

Now here is where I'm going to ruffle some feathers. You touched on a pet peave that I have. Street Prepared classes usually ignore maximum performace potential and actual horse power gains made from acceptable modifications available to all SP cars. Read how easy it is for Steve to add 35 to 45 HP. SP is an autocross class. SOLO II officials believe tight autocross courses level out the field. You hit it right on the head when you say gravity takes over here. In hillclimbs, power is everything. Even more so than road racing. That is why, last year, we instituted the rule that all Forced Induction cars will automatically be classed in S/MOD, except those that qualifying in SHOWROOM STOCK, because the power potential ignored in SOLO is an unfair advantage in a hillclimb. That is why Jeremy could not run in BSP.

So, what is the solution? Pick a road racing class (I'll leave out all jabs about real race cars). That is except ITE. The second class I would never run in.

More later,
Dave Y.

[mrevilracing]

Is the direction of the conversation to say that the ESP class should be broken down into sub-groups?

[dspgti]

NO! IT'S AN AUTOCROSS CLASS. GO AUTOCROSS!

I'm sorry I have this affliction. I tend to shout out my responses without thinking it through.

Let me be a little more diplomatic. The Time Trials Program would like to be attractive to new members. If TT allows a cross over of properly prepared competetors from a similar but (dare I use the term) "inferior series", should we accept eveyone of thier preparation standards?

NO! NOT! NADA, NEGATIVE, NINE(is that how the Germans spell it?)

Next thing would be "can I still use my NOS button?

DISCLAIMER: you do know I'm just joking around here?

Dave Y

[mrevilracing]

Who said anything about autocrossing???? And yeah, I wanna add nitrous, THEN what ya gonna do?

And since you want to yell, scream and whatever....yell, scream and whatever a link to the rules ya'd like to use.