Jump to content
chisek

Updated MPV

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Huggy said:

It seems assenine to me to create a league where we place artificial value on model year differences.  I don't want chump to be that league.  I hope Mike and the BOD also feel that way.

 

I'd like to second this.  We don't want to run into situations where we create high-performance low-availability cars because only model year X (or god forbid, only the first half of the year) came in a given configuration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do all e36 years have the same tank capacity?  Are there any other manufacturers that have different tank capacity from year to year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chisek said:

 

And yet, fuel tank size is a factor.  We have heard the Honda guys mention this and their argument has merit.  If we value all BMWs with different size fuel tanks the same, then to be fair we should value all Hondas with different size fuel tanks the same.  In just the past two pages we've seen people spell out that the late E30s are better than the early E30s.  If they are better, shouldn't there be a difference in their base value?

 

Mike, tank size is only a factor if you can't make two hours.  Once you can make 2 hours, more gas is just more weight to haul around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DaveH said:

 

Mike, tank size is only a factor if you can't make two hours.  Once you can make 2 hours, more gas is just more weight to haul around.

 

I would agree with your statement. 

 

It does become a useful tool when people swap bigger engines in their car.  In this regard, valuing the cars as best we can (to include tank size) helps prevent an opportunity to swap bigger engines in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chisek said:

 

And yet, fuel tank size is a factor.  We have heard the Honda guys mention this and their argument has merit.  If we value all BMWs with different size fuel tanks the same, then to be fair we should value all Hondas with different size fuel tanks the same.  In just the past two pages we've seen people spell out that the late E30s are better than the early E30s.  If they are better, shouldn't there be a difference in their base value?

Oh jeez- now you just fired up Bob. 

I can take any year and make it the same from a performance platform- it just takes some sorting out.  But if you want to differentiate the cars by the fuel capacity, then how do you justify not charging when someone adds a +2 gallon fuel cell?  Plus are there other manufacturers that have the same?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chip said:

Do all e36 years have the same tank capacity?  Are there any other manufacturers that have different tank capacity from year to year?

 

Yes, an example is the 79-85 first gen RX-7.  79-80 had a full size spare tire and 14.5 gallons.  81-85 had a space saver tire making room for 16.4 gallons.  People normally just deal with this by claiming an 81-85 car for the larger fuel tank.  The early body is thought to be lighter but otherwise there is really nothing to distinguish the cars except for some minor bodywork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chisek said:

It does become a useful tool when people swap bigger engines in their car.  In this regard, valuing the cars as best we can (to include tank size) helps prevent an opportunity to swap bigger engines in.

 

"These values had nothing to do with swapped cars.

...

The two projects are separate.  ...  The swapped version of anything vs the unswapped version is not what the release of these updated MPVs are about."

 

Which is it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DaveH said:

 

Mike, tank size is only a factor if you can't make two hours.  Once you can make 2 hours, more gas is just more weight to haul around.

 

Early E30s can't make 2 hours when driven on the limit.  Need a fuel cell or conservation driving to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chisek said:

 

I would agree with your statement. 

 

It does become a useful tool when people swap bigger engines in their car.  In this regard, valuing the cars as best we can (to include tank size) helps prevent an opportunity to swap bigger engines in.

 

I would just take a look at your data and see if you can see a statistical difference in the early vs. late 325s.  50 points may not necessarily be warranted based on just tank size.

 

I would argue that doing the small-to-large tank swap should be legal for zero points under the rules.  Its an OEM tank in an OEM location.  But that's just my idiot opinion.

Edited by DaveH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, honest question here and my forum-searching abilities are apparently lacking if it has already been addressed (sorry... I swear I tried).

 

Why is the discussion centered around making swaps harder / costlier and impacting cars throughout the finishing order rather than looking at a weight-penalty based Balance of Performance for the top finishing cars such that everyone hates the solution equally?  I'd think that would address the underlying speed creep and parity issues, and it would also make a team considering a swap think twice about the effort vs getting BoP'd back to parity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chip said:

how do you justify not charging when someone adds a +2 gallon fuel cell?

 

All cars can go +2 per the current rules.  Equal opportunity.

 

If both the early and late E30 go +2 on their cells, they still have different fuel capacities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jip1080 said:

Why is the discussion centered around making swaps harder / costlier and impacting cars throughout the finishing order rather than looking at a weight-penalty based Balance of Performance for the top finishing cars such that everyone hates the solution equally?  I'd think that would address the underlying speed creep and parity issues, and it would also make a team considering a swap think twice about the effort vs getting BoP'd back to parity.

 

This exists already. It is only applied to the winning car and does not solve competitiveness for the other 60 cars running. Due to close running or alleged sandbagging, the difference it makes is further minimized. See rule section 5.6 or search for DOV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chisek said:

 

All cars can go +2 per the current rules.  Equal opportunity.

 

If both the early and late E30 go +2 on their cells, they still have different fuel capacities.

But if they can both go 2 hours on the original stock configuration then this is a moot point.  But this difference in value is solely based on capacity and nothing else.  So I can add a =2 fuel cell for no increase, or swap in a tank for $20.  Makes no sense.  

It just becomes very tricky for everyone involved in determining the value for the e30 at a race- this can/will make impound even more frustrating- different years, different motors, now different capacities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, takjak2 said:

 

This exists already. It is only applied to the winning car and does not solve competitiveness for the other 60 cars running. Due to close running or alleged sandbagging, the difference it makes is further minimized. See rule section 5.6 or search for DOV

 

I read 5.6 all the way though.  What exists is penalty laps/time.  Not weight.  I'm specifically asking about a weight-based BoP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jip1080 said:

 

I read 5.6 all the way though.  What exists is penalty laps/time.  Not weight.  I'm specifically asking about a weight-based BoP.

 

Weight in chumpcar is open. Buying scales does not seem to be on the table. "Impossible to enforce"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, takjak2 said:

 

"These values had nothing to do with swapped cars.

...

The two projects are separate.  ...  The swapped version of anything vs the unswapped version is not what the release of these updated MPVs are about."

 

Which is it?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking.  Both of my quoted statements are the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill Strong said:

The only difference now is that I can now add a big (read HUGE) wing to my front hood. 

 

win.

 

Other than that I might repaint it with new yellow paint. And remove 400 pounds of weight. 

Yay! That means that Fiero MPVs will also be coming down! Finally, some aero for me!:)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jip1080 said:

OK, honest question here and my forum-searching abilities are apparently lacking if it has already been addressed (sorry... I swear I tried).

 

Why is the discussion centered around making swaps harder / costlier and impacting cars throughout the finishing order rather than looking at a weight-penalty based Balance of Performance for the top finishing cars such that everyone hates the solution equally?  I'd think that would address the underlying speed creep and parity issues, and it would also make a team considering a swap think twice about the effort vs getting BoP'd back to parity.

 

 

Because Chumpcar. 

 

Take the hardest route possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chip said:

It just becomes very tricky for everyone involved in determining the value for the e30 at a race- this can/will make impound even more frustrating- different years, different motors, now different capacities.

 

This I agree with.  Perhaps trying to be too detailed doesn't work.

 

So fuel matters and values are different or it's not important and all of a generation is valued the same regardless of the changes in tank size from year to year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hi_Im_Will said:

 

"9.9.1. Stock fuel tanks in stock locations OR approved fuel cells are the only fuel sources allowed for competition.

9.9.2. NON-OEM REPLACEMENT OR SWAPPED FUEL TANKS ARE NOT ALLOWED. It‟s either stock, in the stock location, or an approved fuel cell with the proper installation." 

That's what I remember reading...and why we did not switch our tank.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better quoting:

32 minutes ago, chisek said:

 

In valuing the cars listed on the table, we first decided on what our standard car was going to be.  We settled on the E36 as 500 points.  Next was to study lots of cars, the ones we see most often, and look up their stats and race performance.  Values were calculated, we debated them and settled on the listed numbers.  These values had nothing to do with swapped cars.

...

 

The two projects are separate.  Whether a 1984 MR2 with the n/a engine is about on equal footing with a 1980 Nissan Stanza is an item for discussion here.  The swapped version of anything vs the unswapped version is not what the release of these updated MPVs are about.

 

20 minutes ago, chisek said:

It does become a useful tool when people swap bigger engines in their car.  In this regard, valuing the cars as best we can (to include tank size) helps prevent an opportunity to swap bigger engines in.

 

12 minutes apart you said

1) MPV not based on Swaps

2) MPV affected by Swaps

Edited by takjak2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in the least the most proficient person when it comes to cars and there benefits or lack there of. But I am curious to know why all of the newer Miata's with a 1.8L engine had a reduction in points and yet the older and less powered 90-94 year versions with a 1.6L engine did not get any reduction at all? Thank you for all your work into the series and I'm looking forward to finally getting our car out on the track with you guys and seeing how we stack up! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, takjak2 said:

 

Weight in chumpcar is open. Buying scales does not seem to be on the table. "Impossible to enforce"

 

Set the minimum weight for the specific car in their log book at the time of the penalty.  If buying a couple sets of scales at ~$700/set is off the table, then that's the end of it I guess.  With scales it wouldn't be impossible to enforce, without scales it's definitely impossible to enforce.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDFyfe123 said:

I'm not in the least the most proficient person when it comes to cars and there benefits or lack there of. But I am curious to know why all of the newer Miata's with a 1.8L engine had a reduction in points and yet the older and less powered 90-94 year versions with a 1.6L engine did not get any reduction at all? Thank you for all your work into the series and I'm looking forward to finally getting our car out on the track with you guys and seeing how we stack up! 

 

Because I showed that the newer NB 1.8 was not a significant performance advantage over the NA Miata. They took lots of input on specific models to reduce a bunch of values, but did not do it in any sort of holistic way to balance the field any better. If BMW are the fastest/winningest cars on average and their points go down, you would expect the entire field to go down at least a similar amount or more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this regard, valuing the cars as best we can (to include tank size) helps prevent an opportunity to swap bigger engines in.

 

This statement was from today as a result of the current discussion on why look at fuel tank size.  As I stated before, when we went through the updates we looked at the specs for cars independent of the potential swaps out there.  I was unaware before today that the early and late E30s had different tank sizes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...