Rules for 2013

[C5toSM]

Please visit the link below to view the current schedule for development of the 2013 rules package. Your board has added an additional board meeting this Tuesday night that will focus on the proposed touring classes and safety. When the job is finished we will hold a member vote by E Ballot to allow members to ratify the package should they so choose. As always: member feedback is encouraged. See schedule for details:

http://comscc.org/rules/2013-proposal/

John Spain, COM President for
The COM Board of Directors

[horizenjob]

I went thru the Super worksheet. It looks like an improvement for my Formula Ford with it's fearsome 90 wheel horsepower. I don't know the torque, so maybe it's off a bit. Adding some bodywork would be a big help for it, how big do the doors have to be? Can I put them all on one side so they are not in the way of the driver getting in and out?

Is it right that the weight correction table jumps over a zero correction at 3000 lbs.?

[horizenjob]

I meant to bring up the issue of using both horsepower and torque in the Super calculations. Like anything it favors some setups over others and I would like to hear from the rules writers what the thought behind this is?

Horsepower is a measure of work, and work is an appropriate unit to evaluate a car's performance. You can put a torque wrench on a lug nut and read 50 lbs.-ft., you can do that all day and it doesn't mean anything is happening...

[dradernh]

I meant to bring up the issue of using both horsepower and torque in the Super calculations. Like anything it favors some setups over others and I would like to hear from the rules writers what the thought behind this is?

Horsepower is a measure of work, and work is an appropriate unit to evaluate a car's performance. You can put a torque wrench on a lug nut and read 50 lbs.-ft., you can do that all day and it doesn't mean anything is happening...

If you had to choose between two cars at, say, an arrive & drive three-lap TT, and the cars were identical in all respects except one - Car 1 had a 285 HP / 275 TQ motor & Car 2 had a 285 HP / 215 TQ motor - which one would you choose? And why? Or would it not make any difference?

[jlaugh]

Assuming the gearing was finely spaced close ratio where you were able to stay close to the peak HP on each car then they would be identical. That's why we have gears and why we measure in HP. However, if there were turns where it was really problematic to shift or the gear ratio was not available and you had to pull out of a turn well below the HP peak then the car with more Torque will be faster.

[horizenjob]

JLough is right, that's what I'm getting at. On the face it may not seem unreasonable, but what it is addressing is not a completely simple issue, which turns out to not really be such an engine issue after all.

Then once this is in place it changes the playing field. People have no need now to manipulate their engine development to address this, but once there is even a small reward for doing so - it will happen. So applying existing cars and lap times does not really address the evolution the cars will experience once these new laws of nature exist. Nature is harsh that way.

I don't have a lot of data on lap times and car specs. Can the rule writers work backwards from this suggested piece of the rule and say how big a point correction this adds up to compared to the range between Super classes so that we can have an idea how significant this portion is?

[dradernh]

Assuming the gearing was finely spaced close ratio where you were able to stay close to the peak HP on each car then they would be identical. That's why we have gears and why we measure in HP. However, if there were turns where it was really problematic to shift or the gear ratio was not available and you had to pull out of a turn well below the HP peak then the car with more Torque will be faster.

Okay, this makes sense.

JLough is right, that's what I'm getting at. On the face it may not seem unreasonable, but what it is addressing is not a completely simple issue, which turns out to not really be such an engine issue after all.

Then once this is in place it changes the playing field. People have no need now to manipulate their engine development to address this, but once there is even a small reward for doing so - it will happen. So applying existing cars and lap times does not really address the evolution the cars will experience once these new laws of nature exist. Nature is harsh that way.

I don't have a lot of data on lap times and car specs. Can the rule writers work backwards from this suggested piece of the rule and say how big a point correction this adds up to compared to the range between Super classes so that we can have an idea how significant this portion is?

All this isn't completely clear to me. How would an owner manipulate his engine development to address...what, exactly? What evolution in cars' development do you foresee if the present Super class rule calculating "wheel power" is left in place?

[mr2sc]

this may be premature, but I'm curious...in the past, I was in SPB. Now, I 'think" I'd end up in Super B..
So, previously, I didn't require a window net, but am I correct in my understanding that now I would require one (like Prepared classes used to?)?

Makes it a bit awkward for a street car with full interior, a roll bar and not a real cage...

Just wondering...

thanks

[horizenjob]

All this isn't completely clear to me. How would an owner manipulate his engine development to address...what, exactly? What evolution in cars' development do you foresee if the present Super class rule calculating "wheel power" is left in place?

Ideally you would want a motor that doesn't have horsepower but lots of torque and can still get you around the race track. That just doesn't seem likely. So the other thing to look at is how to make horsepower without using torque. That's hard too, but closer to practical. Your looking at high RPM engines and using valve timing, ignition timing and boost control to avoid making any torque below their minimum track RPM. Turbines would be really ideal for this, nothing like 80,000 rpm to drop the torque down to a nice level.

I'm thinking a Formula Ford with a sidecar and 4 doors. Use a Kawasaki motorcycle engine with a 17,000 RPM redline to avoid torque, thankfully they have very close ratio gears... Maybe the sidecar carries it's wheel a couple inches above the pavement and you could argue it's a spare tire?

I don't know maybe none of this works, I don't look at dyno sheets. Well I did but the last time my Formula Ford was run on a dyno was around 1988.

That's why I was trying to ask how significant a correction this adds up to....

[dradernh]

That's why I was trying to ask how significant a correction this adds up to....

Well, one example, using the numbers from before:

2850#/((285HP*.667)+(215TQ*.333)) + 0.8 Net Correction Factors = 11.69 Corrected Weight-to-Power; and,
2850#/((285HP*.667)+(275TQ*.333)) + 0.8 Net Correction Factors = 10.92 Corrected Weight-to-Power.

I used these HP & TQ values because I've got a 285/215 car. It weights 2850# on-track, and it has 0.8 NCF. With a Super B limit of 8.5:1, the extra torque is irrelevant in this case. Not that I wouldn't kill to have it in a few turn exits that come immediately to mind. Of course, someone closer to a class limit could find that changing the calculation to use only HP resulted in them being placed in a higher class. I haven't the foggiest idea if my 4:3 HP-to-TQ ratio is common, uncommon, or something in between; my FI & V8 cars were always close to 1:1.

[horizenjob]

So that's almost 0.8 correction for two engines with the same power. It's probably not the most extreme example. If you turbo a Honda with a 9000 RPM redline maybe you would find a bigger difference. Then a quick change transmission or differential and you're talking exiting corners near your redline every where on the track.

If you ry to convert that 0.8 into other things using these rules like currency or something it looks like it would buy you 800 lbs. of weight reduction. So you could use your low torque engine and remove 800 lbs. from the car.

[dradernh]

So that's almost 0.8 correction for two engines with the same power. It's probably not the most extreme example. If you turbo a Honda with a 9000 RPM redline maybe you would find a bigger difference. Then a quick change transmission or differential and you're talking exiting corners near your redline every where on the track.

If you ry to convert that 0.8 into other things using these rules like currency or something it looks like it would buy you 800 lbs. of weight reduction. So you could use your low torque engine and remove 800 lbs. from the car.

Sadly, there are no realistic ways to take 10% of that out of this car. It's an old race car - they gain weight, they don't lose weight.

[McMahonRacing]

Just went thru the new rules once again to see what changed for our cars, using the link supplied by John in his e-mail this w/e:

Cobra - w/ little motor is SB & big motor is SA, still don't think this makes any sense for those that will have to run w/ me, unless FF is in my group

Austin Healy - here is where logic really goes totally out the window, the worksheet shows this car to be SU ( don't see this being correct ):

PRELIMINARY CONCEPT v1.1

Homepage

Super Class Worksheet Super Class Safety Requirements
Select the drop downs and enter information in the yellow cells… Refer to Official Rules Document for full description

Wheel Horsepower 352.75 ● 5+ point safety harness (SFI or FIA approved and not expired)
Wheel Torque 340 ● Minimum of single layer full length fire suit, gloves and footwear
Wheel "Power" 348.5 ● Roll bar or roll cage
Competition Weight 2300 ● Window nets or arm restraints
Weight-to-Power Ratio 6.60

Item Choose Adjustment
Overall Weight Correction N/A -0.8
Tire Type
DOT 0.5
Non-DOT
Tire Size (mm) 275 0
Drivetrain Classification
AWD
FWD
RWD 0
Body Style Type
Closed Fender 1-3 Doors 0
Closed Fender 4+ Doors
Open Wheel Single Seater
Open Wheel 2+ Seater

Corrected Power-to-Weight Ratio 6.30
Super Class Classification Super Unlimited

Doesn't seem to me that this is remotely practical & certinaly does not reflect the reality ( Reality is it is a 2-3rd place SPA car on a good day ) ...... seems, I said this way back in the very begining when the car was classed as SA, don't see how logic says it is now SU it has to be a error in the system ....... reality vs theory stricks once again just wait till we hit an aero friendly track and really see the numbers go south ......

These are just two examples that don't seem practical and indication to me that there are others ........ think very hard before going down this road as rule changes are a very very serious matter ...... have seen first hand very well intentioned changes have some very detrimental effects on competators ......

i do understand I really don't have a car in this disucssion as my mind is made up, we are going to NASA ..... AND YES the rules don't work any better there either .....

[Stynger]

this may be premature, but I'm curious...in the past, I was in SPB. Now, I 'think" I'd end up in Super B..
So, previously, I didn't require a window net, but am I correct in my understanding that now I would require one (like Prepared classes used to?)?

Makes it a bit awkward for a street car with full interior, a roll bar and not a real cage...

Just wondering...

thanks

You can wear arm restraints instead of a window net.

[Stynger]

These are just two examples that don't seem practical and indication to me that there are others ........ think very hard before going down this road as rule changes are a very very serious matter ...... have seen first hand very well intentioned changes have some very detrimental effects on competators ......

i do understand I really don't have a car in this disucssion as my mind is made up, we are going to NASA ..... AND YES the rules don't work any better there either .....

Patrick, the Tuesday meeting will be tackling among others, two big questions.
Do we require Touring to have running gear (headlights, wipers) and keep interior parts like dashboards?

Should we keep SP and P for another year and give us another year to work on Super?

The general feeling in touring is it seems to work. We can place just about any newcomer to the club and give them a competitive place to run.
Running a car with close to maxed out points (mostly fully prepped race cars and kit cars) leans them towards Super but not necessarily.

Do we require running gear, lights and wipers, to cut down on the more fully prepped race cars in Touring, or let Touring "have at it" and allow exterior mods like in P today and let those race cars under 110 points delagated to P run in Touring, for that matter, any race car coming from NASA, Lemons etc run in Touring?

Do we go with Super A B C, or some other transitional class like PS and P, just P, Super A B C D ?

We are running out of time. We are squeezing in additional meetings to try to sort this out.

I'm just not sure (or comfortable) that we have enough time to get everything right. I hate to feel rushed into decisions that will effect the club in the future.

The club, as it is running today, is probably doing as well as it has in any past years. We're selling out again in NH. I hate to screw it up.

I'm just one board member with one vote. Other members have other views, which is what makes our board so great and diversified.

There is a lot going on behind the scenes, I have faith the board has it's members best interest at heart and will come up with a good compromise to these questions.

I personally have not made up my mind. I would like to know where COM is heading? Is it good where it is? Do we want to compete with NASA? Is it competition over all else in the club?

Unfortunately, no one seems to have that answer.