SCCAForums.com

leepic:

Marshall Grice:

 Well which evo or sti have you driven?

Pretty much everything from AS->SM

specifically, who owned the bsp/esp AWD car that you drove to form your logical opinion from?

I'm not trying to bust your balls here or anything.  I'm trying to find out what makes your opinion better then mine.  Meaning, how do you know how much of the cars performance is based on the driver.

Marshall Grice:

I'm not trying to bust your balls here or anything.  I'm trying to find out what makes your opinion better then mine.  Meaning, how do you know how much of the cars performance is based on the driver.

19 years of autox and 14 trips to Nationals, not to mention ProSolo series since '94.  I have a pretty good idea on who can drive what.  Plus I ran BSP from '02-'06 and I'm familiar w/ the class. 

Never said my opinion was better than yours. 

---

Lee
FStock '08 Shelby GT-C

Marshall Grice:

The evo is VERY similar to a C4 vette.  It is not similar to a C5 vette. 

BTW, e36m3=small low powered sports car.

An Evo is similar to a C4? What?  

By that logic, a C4 Corvette is not similar to a C5?  Uh, okay.

BTW, an M3 is not a sports car.
 

---

www.teamWTF.org
WDCR
AS C4 z51
ASP e46m3 "slower than an Evo" ;)

Marshall Grice:

the evo is currently the fastest of the 4th slowest.  just because it's at the top of bsp doesn't mean it gets a free ticket to asp.  The evo is VERY similar to a C4 vette.  It is not similar to a C5 vette. 

My understanding was they classes were designed to foster competition among cars of similar potential, not spec classes.  BTW, e36m3=small low powered sports car.

BMW M3 is not a small low powered sports car.   Look at the other cars in CSP.

We cannot define BSP as the right class for the Evo because that's where it currently sits.  It _just_ moved there from ESP, and unlimited boost is a brand new rule.  It should move where it's competitive on equal footing, which in the current structure would be ASP.  I'm not at all against a re-org with the creation of another SP class.

And for history's sake, this happened with the M3 too.  It went through both CSP and ESP until BSP, where it was a good fit.  Again, there's no ordering of fastest and slowest.  By that token Stock would have to be completely rewritten.  And the notion of fastest and slowest does NOT depend on one event, the notion is verging on the absurd.

 Lastly, I'm dying to hear your argument on why an all wheel drive (with at least 2 limited slips) 4 cylinder turbo, McStrut front suspension, narrow 4 door _is_ similar to a medium-high powered rear wheel drive, double a-arm, sports car and _is not_ similar to a slightly higher powered, wider, rear wheel drive double a-arm sports car.

---

-Greg
WDCR

Marshall Grice:

so you're argument is to make BSP the 4th fastest SP class?

How would taking out the rally cars make BSP the 4th fastest class?  Slower than ASP, maybe slower than CSP in some cases, but it would still be faster than ESP, DSP and FSP.  Gee, just like it was before the rally cars showed up.

Marshall Grice:

for nostalgic reasons?  Nobody is going to build a 'new' c4 bsp car.  nobody is going to build a new e36 bsp car.  the class is destined to shrink if it doesn't adapt.  cars were already dropping out before the rally cars showed up.

So nobody is going to build an S2000 or 350Z or RX8 or MazdaSpeed Miata?

Pat

---

'92 Sentra SE-R, daily driver and track car
'82 Camaro Z28, ESP, 65% prepared, 50% ownership

Upset about Stock class proposals? Get PISST!

bren:

Marshall Grice:

The evo is VERY similar to a C4 vette.  It is not similar to a C5 vette. 

BTW, e36m3=small low powered sports car.

An Evo is similar to a C4? What?  

By that logic, a C4 Corvette is not similar to a C5?  Uh, okay.

BTW, an M3 is not a sports car.
 

Assuming Marshall is referring to times, the Evo (Tom) was 1.480 faster than the C4 (Harold), but only 0.067 slower than a C5 (Junior)...Hhmmm, sounds like the Evo is VERY similar to a C5, and not similar to a C4...

---

Lee
FStock '08 Shelby GT-C

Mhyrr:

unlimited boost is a brand new rule.

 
Yup sure is and you better do your research on how that effects the STi/EVO before you go banging on that drum.

i'd be willing to trade data files with any competitive ASP, BSP, CSP cars from any national level event.

perhaps i'm just way out to lunch on this (I don't think so).  Data doesn't lie.

You're not going to pull the whole "unlimited boost means building a hand grenade engine that lasts 3 runs" thing are you?  Something tells me Tom/Marshall and the Miller's were putting down quite a lot of power with a lot of boost and were not running that kind of motor.  Come on, more boost means more power.  The 4G63 and EJ25 are both extremely stout motors.

And isn't data sort of irrelevant compared to results?

 

---

-Greg
WDCR

Marshall Grice:

leepic:

Marshall Grice:

things change.  At the rate we're going DSP and CSP are going to be faster then BSP.  Harold (the fastest car that 'should' be in the class) infact did get beat by CSP.  You have to recognize the fact that all of the classes are getting faster. 

There's a reason CSP got faster...275-15 Hoosiers!   

...your point?  Those tires aren't going anywhere in the forseeable future.  Those tires are also the reason DSP and FSP nearly fixed themselfs.  One could have a rather strong argument that your M3 wouldn't be competitive in CSP either.  Same with the S2k.  Does that mean we keep them in BSP and kick the fastest cars out of BSP to make your car competitive again?

 DSP is certainly not fixed due to the 275 Hoosiers.  The top 7 finishers in DSP were BMWs and none of them were on the 275s.  The 8th place car was, I believe on the 275s and they were almost 4 seconds off first place.  How does that fix anything???

---

Dudley M.
'06 MCS JCW --E36'SP, opps I mean DSP--
Oregon Region

Mhyrr:

You're not going to pull the whole "unlimited boost means building a hand grenade engine that lasts 3 runs" thing are you?  Something tells me Tom/Marshall and the Miller's were putting down quite a lot of power with a lot of boost and were not running that kind of motor.  Come on, more boost means more power.  The 4G63 and EJ25 are both extremely stout motors.

And isn't data sort of irrelevant compared to results?

 

the turbo physically limits the upper range of the boost.  It is not "unlimited boost" as you say.  at the top of the rev band turbo cars will make nearly the same boost as a stock version would (with in a couple psi).  The boost controls only change how much boost is run in the mid range.  The power band from a 4g63 is well documented and you should be able to find exactly what the power potential of that motor is in SP trim.  Same for the EJ25.

 

Data will show what the car is capable of, regardless of who's driving it.

Mhyrr:

You're not going to pull the whole "unlimited boost means building a hand grenade engine that lasts 3 runs" thing are you?  Something tells me Tom/Marshall and the Miller's were putting down quite a lot of power with a lot of boost and were not running that kind of motor.  Come on, more boost means more power.  The 4G63 and EJ25 are both extremely stout motors.

And isn't data sort of irrelevant compared to results?

 

I believe the point about unlimited boost is that it does not equate to as much horsepower as some might think. The more boost pressure that is run at a given mass flow rate the lower the efficiency of the compressor. The absolute max that an Sti will put down is probably around 330whp and that is usually achieved in fourth gear on a dyno. In second gear the boost curve will be much lower and therefore the power will definitely be lower. I don't know the specifics about the evo's max power. I do know that the 16g turbo on the evo's flows slightly more and more efficiently than the vf39 that is on the Sti. I know that I drive one of the rally cars so therefore I'm biased but this is fact and I think that the best way to look at performance would obviously be datalogs of acceleration zones b/w two similar cars.

Also, one important thing to think about would be the conditions in which Mr. Berry's evo has dominated the C4 and others in. Both years it has won, BSP has run in the 1st heat in very cold temps. That combined with the slick asphalt surface at HPT has to be some of the most favorable conditions for a rally car. That has to play into the equation that is the results that have occured. I wonder if it would have played out the same either later in the day w/ warmer temps or on a different surface.

Marshall Grice:

Mhyrr:

You're not going to pull the whole "unlimited boost means building a hand grenade engine that lasts 3 runs" thing are you?  Something tells me Tom/Marshall and the Miller's were putting down quite a lot of power with a lot of boost and were not running that kind of motor.  Come on, more boost means more power.  The 4G63 and EJ25 are both extremely stout motors.

And isn't data sort of irrelevant compared to results?

 

the turbo physically limits the upper range of the boost.  It is not "unlimited boost" as you say.  at the top of the rev band turbo cars will make nearly the same boost as a stock version would (with in a couple psi).  The boost controls only change how much boost is run in the mid range.  The power band from a 4g63 is well documented and you should be able to find exactly what the power potential of that motor is in SP trim.  Same for the EJ25.

 

Data will show what the car is capable of, regardless of who's driving it.

 

My point is exactly the same as yours.  It's not unlimited boost, but it is more power, and it's more power where it's most needed, in the midrange, where AWD has the most dramatic advantage of being able to put it down compared to 2WD. 

---

-Greg
WDCR

Marshall Grice:

Data will show what the car is capable of, regardless of who's driving it.

 Disagree, to some extent.  I can build a car that pulls lots of Gs in all sorts of directions but is impossible to drive (read: lotsa FSAE cars for example).  Drivability is one of those factors you can't compute.  In the end, the results will dictate what the car is capable of, and it is in general a very hard thing to figure out, for any class.

---

-Greg
WDCR

Mhyrr:

Marshall Grice:

Mhyrr:

You're not going to pull the whole "unlimited boost means building a hand grenade engine that lasts 3 runs" thing are you?  Something tells me Tom/Marshall and the Miller's were putting down quite a lot of power with a lot of boost and were not running that kind of motor.  Come on, more boost means more power.  The 4G63 and EJ25 are both extremely stout motors.

And isn't data sort of irrelevant compared to results?

 

the turbo physically limits the upper range of the boost.  It is not "unlimited boost" as you say.  at the top of the rev band turbo cars will make nearly the same boost as a stock version would (with in a couple psi).  The boost controls only change how much boost is run in the mid range.  The power band from a 4g63 is well documented and you should be able to find exactly what the power potential of that motor is in SP trim.  Same for the EJ25.

 

Data will show what the car is capable of, regardless of who's driving it.

 

My point is exactly the same as yours.  It's not unlimited boost, but it is more power, and it's more power where it's most needed, in the midrange, where AWD has the most dramatic advantage of being able to put it down compared to 2WD. 

i think that needs some more description.  AWD puts power down great in a straight line.  Putting power down while cornering is a continuous compromise between better handling performance and putting down power.  Even with 3 limited slip diffs, when both inside tires are (or almost) in the air, no power comes out.

Mhyrr:

Marshall Grice:

Data will show what the car is capable of, regardless of who's driving it.

 Disagree, to some extent.  I can build a car that pulls lots of Gs in all sorts of directions but is impossible to drive (read: lotsa FSAE cars for example).  Drivability is one of those factors you can't compute.  In the end, the results will dictate what the car is capable of, and it is in general a very hard thing to figure out, for any class.

Having built many FSAE cars I know exactly what you're talking about.  But the classing system isn't (and shouldn't) be designed to account for drivablity.  The skill of driving the cars is where the competition comes from.  Cars shouldn't be penalized or rewarded for their drivablity.  Once you learn how to drive a car, regardless of how hard it is to drive, it still comes down to the performance of the car.  power to weight ratio, tire to weight ratio, track/wheelbase is really all it's about.

I'm so damned tired of hearing "open boost doesn't mean unlimited boost, and we can't run everything we might be able to get without blowing up or losing efficiency".  And especially where the Evo 9 (and 10 I'm sure) are concerned, they have bigger, more efficient turbo's than the Evo 8's to start with and can CERTAINLY make use of more boost. 

And don't tell me about not breathing on top.  I know of STi's making 400 ft/lbs. of torque in SP.  So short shift!  And FWIW, that's way more wiggle room in making power than you get from a Normally Aspirated car considering turbo cars can still also do all the same things NA cars as well.  Hence the "reclass as necessary" line in the proposal, the proposal that passed.

 As for Data not lying.  Right.  First off, the drivers effect the data.  I have data of slower drivers pulling more G's in a corner than I have.  I have data of slower drivers pulling more mid-corner speed than I do.  Does that make them faster?  No, it makes them faster or able to pull more G's at a given point, and doesn't reference why or how it's happening. 

 Times don't lie, because you can manipulate data.  You can interpret data.  We don't class cars on data, but on performance.  Can you stipulate that if a person has won an Open class @ Nationals at least once that his driving might not be in question?  If so, then clearly the arguments based on Tom, Sam, Harold, Mike Sheilds, etc. are moot because they are proven commodities regardless of what any "data" might say. 

 And as for the "time and place" that BSP has run the last two years.  Sorry.  Doesn't fly, and here's why:  ESP ran days 1 and 2 last year in the cold and slime.  FS ran Days 3 and 4 this year, also first heat.  Basically I have 1st heat the last two years as well, the very same times BSP ran, but I did it in RWD cars with V-8's.  I paxed 11th overall in '06, and 1st overall in '07.  Even if you think FS's pax was weak this year (and that's fine if you do, I didn't make it up), I would have have still been high up there somewhere.  While conditions might not have been the BEST for a RWD car, they certainly didn't suck as you guys are making them out to have been.  It wasn't raining.  It wasn't 34 degrees.  And BSP ran this year with rubber down which is a HELP to cars with limited traction, not a hurt.   

---

Sam Strano
Owner--Strano Performance Parts
800-729-1831

400 ft-lbs (in an Sti) is in 4th or 5th gear on a dyno. won't happen the same way in 2nd gear around a course. At the ATL region DoubleX my car was trapping ~60 mph at the end of the straight and Juniors vette was trapping over 70mph. That is a good example of the difference in power b/w a fast stock turbo car and a fast n/a vette. (I know that Juniors car is a C5 and therefore this is apples to oranges but you have done the same in your own arguments). I know you don't think that a turbo is magical but some of your arguments make it sound like you do.

how much n/a torque does the best c4 motor make? I'm sure it is more than 350 ft-lbs. Correct me if I'm wrong but, admittedly I don't know exactly.

In regards to the conditions that BSP runs in: Are you saying that the cold temps and the asphalt are not advantages for the evo/sti? If you are saying this, I believe it is relatively easy to see that you are not looking at this perfectly logically. Mr. Olsen was launching and spinning his tires at the start quite furiously in an attempt to put some heat in them. The evos and sti's were simply launching, no drama, just acceleration. This is definitely an advantage on this surface (even in solo2). If you wish to argue that the evos and sti's should be in asp because of the surface at HPT, I might agree with you on that. Otherwise I think you're points are not the best ones as different temps and surfaces would definitely reduce some of the advantage that awd possesses. Oh, and obviously you are a very skilled driver and did extremely well this year (and other years too) but you're results mean little to this argument. Especially the pax results. This is said with all due respect and no intent of making anything but a logical point so please don't take any personal offense to this point. Just trying to make some good points as you and others have already done.