Jump to content

Good Bad and Ugly Discussion.


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Snorman said:

It has probably $10k just in the dash (Motec, electronics). The heads are $2200 a pair. The Holley EFI setup and intake is ~$1500. A $500 trans? 🤣

add at least another 5k-ish to the electronics cost if they had someone not in their race shop build a real pro level wiring harness

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 652
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My story.  I'm not one for protesting.  Have never done it. I also understand that post race tech, whether protested by a team or discovered by tech, illegal is illegal.  When I am asked to withdraw m

Good morning folks.  I had a great discussion with Mike Chisek and Bill Riley yesterday.  I knew that the TAC was working on about 5 or 6 additional cars that need revalued on the VPI list so for 2021

Just to be clear.  Nobody is upset with GBU for building the car or how the team is or drives.  We are upset with how the series handled teching and point association with this car, both pre and post

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Snorman said:

It has probably $10k just in the dash (Motec, electronics). The heads are $2200 a pair. The Holley EFI setup and intake is ~$1500. A $500 trans? 🤣

I realize that the electronics are part of the build, but they could be in any car (and totally legal)

 

I guess I'm wondering why people think this can't be recreated and 99% as fast and reliable for considerably less than 50k?  (That was a number thrown around a few times).

 

I think some people on here don't realize how cheap you can build a nice car.  (Not directed at anybody in particular).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, atxe30 said:

 

 

The consensus seems to be GBU was well north of 300hp, and while the oem curb weight for C3 is 3500 pounds, i'm also guessing based on some other things here that it's highly likely this car weighs in at ~25-2700 lbs. So let's use 325hp and 2700 lbs. In that scenario the P/W is 8.30.

 

 

I didn't see the engine, however if you show up w/ a 325hp 350 after all that work you should be embarrassed. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TiredBirds said:

I didn't see the engine, however if you show up w/ a 325hp 350 after all that work you should be embarrassed. 

ya sure, i was just throwing that out there. a built (for real) 350 is way more than that. and that only serves to further the point of my post :). let's say its 425 (prob not far off actual...). then you are at a P/W of 6.35 at a weight of 2700. and really looking at the closing speeds in the various videos this is probably close to what was going on.

 

So in this scenario you'd think the 996 should be closer to like 425 points (comparatively)....heh....

Edited by atxe30
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that a valve cover comes off at the next tech as building a motor for endurance my guess it won't have the stamped rockers. I would look for rollers and with those high dollar heads not sure anyone would put stock rockers

in place. Are roller's no points? 

 

As for a small block built, my local circle track builder makes north of 500hp and runs a two barrel carb. A quick dyno run would be fun as well.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 55mini said:

I would suggest that a valve cover comes off at the next tech as building a motor for endurance my guess it won't have the stamped rockers. I would look for rollers and with those high dollar heads not sure anyone would put stock rockers

in place. Are roller's no points? 

 

As for a small block built, my local circle track builder makes north of 500hp and runs a two barrel carb. A quick dyno run would be fun as well.

One of our team mates has a similar 350 sitting in his basement, it needs 2 pistons. It is only around 450, with iron heads.  Are heads 100 points?  I think rollers are points. We have a set of 1.6 rollers but haven't put them on.  Not sure on the point hit. 25? 50? 

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

One of our team mates has a similar 350 sitting in his basement, it needs 2 pistons. It is only around 450, with iron heads.  Are heads 100 points?  I think rollers are points. We have a set of 1.6 rollers but haven't put them on.  Not sure on the point hit. 25? 50? 

 

Cam and lifters: 50

Valve train (pushrods, springs, retainers, rockers, valves?): 50

Heads: 100 and you get valves for free with the heads

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 55mini said:

I would suggest that a valve cover comes off at the next tech as building a motor for endurance my guess it won't have the stamped rockers. I would look for rollers and with those high dollar heads not sure anyone would put stock rockers

in place. Are roller's no points? 

 

As for a small block built, my local circle track builder makes north of 500hp and runs a two barrel carb. A quick dyno run would be fun as well.

Unless the new generation of tech changed things, non-OE rockers are 50 points. I think it was 2017.... I was considering a 50 point high lift camshaft for the m20b25 BMW, I asked if rockers came with the cam and was told that they would be an additional 50, so I did not make this change since the already infamous rockers would see even more stress from a high lift cam. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the series needs to recognize that at this point it's critical that they properly handle this sh*t show or teams are going to walk. And it sure seems to me that based on recent issues that teams leaving the series sure isn't something the series would want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Snorman said:

I think the series needs to recognize that at this point it's critical that they properly handle this sh*t show or teams are going to walk. And it sure seems to me that based on recent issues that teams leaving the series sure isn't something the series would want. 

with the new points structure we could have an easy 400hp motor, but only one of us could handle that (and that is not me).  But I'm sure some teams here have a full staff that can. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, atxe30 said:

ya sure, i was just throwing that out there. a built (for real) 350 is way more than that. and that only serves to further the point of my post :). let's say its 425 (prob not far off actual...). then you are at a P/W of 6.35 at a weight of 2700. and really looking at the closing speeds in the various videos this is probably close to what was going on.

 

So in this scenario you'd think the 996 should be closer to like 425 points (comparatively)....heh....

 

Crap...should have built a 996 instead. I am at 425 pts with a header on my Miata :)

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

 

Nah... @ Harris Hill a Miata is probably faster than a 996. (especially if you can run coil overs in the Miata).. and no IMS to worry about.

 

 

that's less of thing now that the track is crazy smooth and wider, but ya still a bit of a thing :).

 

most of the donor cars you'd pick up very likely have already had the IMS done though.

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

 

Nah... @ Harris Hill a Miata is probably faster than a 996. (especially if you can run coil overs in the Miata).. and no IMS to worry about.

 

 

 

https://www.trackjunkies.org/topic/3134-official-h2r-lap-times/?do=findComment&comment=59789

 

That's a 1.23 with the 1999 996, I think you need a big turbo on the Miata to beat that. IMS is easy to fix, money shift will make your engine explode. (And then you ls swap)

Still should be 425pts

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

Apparently Chumpcar has moved to an alternate universe in the last few years.

 

From $50 cars in the backyard to 996s...

 

If you are having < 250whp, < 20 gallons and < 275 tires in 2020 you are out.

 

Edited by turbogrill
  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 2:54 PM, turbogrill said:

 

If you are having < 250whp, < 20 gallons and < 275 tires in 2020 you are out.

 

Let's adjust that for comparing to a 2700 lb car, and remember to use actual race weight and not swap calculator "weight". 

 

If your car is more than about 11:1 PWR, 135 lb/gallon, and less than 10lb/mm tire width you may have to drive harder. :) 

 

If you are within about 10% of these numbers, you are most likely at the pointy end.

Edited by mender
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mender said:

Apparently Chumpcar has moved to an alternate universe in the last few years.

 

From $50 cars in the backyard to 996s...

ok, come on now....its a bit more than "a few years", first chump car race was 2009 i think?

 

all handicapping systems have to evolve or die....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, atxe30 said:

ok, come on now....its a bit more than "a few years", first chump car race was 2009 i think?

 

all handicapping systems have to evolve or die....

In 2015, the car that I bought in 2011 from someone else's backyard for $50 was at 497 points; haven't added things up this year but last year with no changes it was at 318 points.

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

In 2015, the car that I bought in 2011 from someone else's backyard for $50 was at 497 points; haven't added things up this year but last year with no changes it was at 318 points.

ya, mechanical evolution is a beyotch!

 

seriously though, it's not practical for the rule to evolve based on subjective evolution instead of objective evolution.

 

it's also not practical to expect that a handicapping system can be built such that mechanical design evolution over a period greater than say 3-4 years can be accommodated. that's just a thing.

 

that explicitly means that you end up with a sunk cost reality, but there's no way around it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, atxe30 said:

ya, mechanical evolution is a beyotch!

 

seriously though, it's not practical for the rule to evolve based on subjective evolution instead of objective evolution.

 

it's also not practical to expect that a handicapping system can be built such that mechanical design evolution over a period greater than say 3-4 years can be accommodated. that's just a thing.

 

that explicitly means that you end up with a sunk cost reality, but there's no way around it.

Stable rules = stable series and car count.

 

Rule evolution has been the issue, not mechanical.  Having newer cars added on a predictable basis keeps things relatively current without obsoleting the teams that started the series.

 

The supply of cars that fit the original parameters of the rules is far from exhausted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mender said:

Stable rules = stable series and car count.

 

Rule evolution has been the issue, not mechanical.  Having newer cars added on a predictable basis keeps things relatively current without obsoleting the teams that started the series.

 

The supply of cars that fit the original parameters of the rules is far from exhausted. 

you cant decouple rule and mechanical evolution imho. they are unavoidably intertwined. the market ultimately drives the available pool of vehicles from which to build, and over time the market has pushed higher performance further down the product teiring.

 

moreover, the series has absolutely moved on from the early years. the questions the board needs to answer that ultimately need to be reflected in the rules are those i posed earlier the thread, and a few others:

 

1) what is the target capex outlay to build a car

2) what is the useful lifetime of the car

3) what is the target opex for a season (prob in a couple of scenarios, lotsa travel, some national, only regional, etc

4) what is the target P/W range

 

solve for those then a lot of the ticky-tack points b.s. goes away, as does tire topic, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, atxe30 said:

you cant decouple rule and mechanical evolution imho. they are unavoidably intertwined. the market ultimately drives the available pool of vehicles from which to build, and over time the market has pushed higher performance further down the product teiring.

 

moreover, the series has absolutely moved on from the early years. the questions the board needs to answer that ultimately need to be reflected in the rules are those i posed earlier the thread, and a few others:

 

1) what is the target capex outlay to build a car

2) what is the useful lifetime of the car

3) what is the target opex for a season (prob in a couple of scenarios, lotsa travel, some national, only regional, etc

4) what is the target P/W range

 

solve for those then a lot of the ticky-tack points b.s. goes away, as does tire topic, etc.

Champcar doesn't need to (and IMHO shouldn't) be driven by OEM marketing and development. The pool of available cars is already vast and varied; forcing the entire series/field to move "forward" and incurring development costs to keep up takes that amount away from attending races. 

 

I think a more important consideration in order for Champcar to retain field strength is to reduce those development costs so teams can afford to go to more races. 

Edited by mender
  • Like 3
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...