Sports Sedan Forum

After bombing in on Ricey's weight thread, i thought i would start my own. Ricey's linear weight scale is a simple idea with the seemingly real chance of becoming a hard rule. Although I don't know the origins of the idea, it sounds like it was a great idea thought up by a competitor.

I have lots of ideas. I thrive on them. They are probably easily dismissable, but i believe all ideas should be heard and then carefully deliberated on before action is taken. I am going to share my ideas that I believe would help SS grow as a category. Here they are in no specific order.

1. change the rotary multiplyer to 1.74 so 12A can slot into u2L without change to the 13B and 20B
2. loose the multivalve penalty completely
3. clear class definitions across state and national competition - S1 is 4001cc - 6000cc / S2 is 2001 - 4000cc / S3 us u2000cc
4. all unrestricted turbo cars are S1 retaining the 1.7 multiplyer
5. 36mm restrictor mandatory for S2 and S3 reataining the 1.7 multiplyer with measuring and sealing of restrictor
6. apply Ricey's linear weights
7. rev limit all S1 cars to 7800rpm
8. reduce S2 and S3 max tyre width to 280mm
9. engine measuring and sealing
10. name change to SX cars to fit in with the S1/2/3 theme.

There is probably more at the back of my head, but that will do.

Any other ideas??

you need to baoden your rev limit for s1. you cant have a turbo car rev limited like a v8. they just dont work like that

get rid of max tyre width thing, mainly becuas it will cost alot of people to change wheels AND it means they cant buy second hand tyres from front cars anymore

maybe your class definitions need tweeking, i.e 2L turbos and 20b's would wipe the floor of the 2001cc to 4000cc class...


like the rest

20B's are all ready wiping the floor in u3500NA... a 36mm restricted 2.3L Turbo would be a close match... as would a 4L toyota v8 or a 4L Ford Barra...

Are your two turbo cars revving higher than 7800 with the boost your running? The idea was to limit the advantage of going multivalve. Maybe a linear scale like Ricey's weight, but applied to capacity. ie: 6L-7800, 5L-8300, 4L-8800??

It doesn't matter really, i don't think the rules will actually change...

How will a 2.3L restricted turbo car keep up with a 500hp 20b?

On e85 and a well designed restrictor (it is rocket science) you will make 400hp and a heap of torque (~500NM) , but will run out of breath at about 6000rpm. (all going by what i've seen in IPRA)

How will a 2.3L restricted turbo car keep up with a 500hp 20b?

On e85 and a well designed restrictor (it is rocket science) you will make 400hp and a heap of torque (~500NM) , but will run out of breath at about 6000rpm. (all going by what i've seen in IPRA)

A 2.3L 36mm restricted turbo probably wont keep up with a A grade 20B (most are not 500hp because is costs around 40K to make one, but they are around) but it will be similar to most. At the moment NOTHING can beat the 20B's in u3500NA for speed.

Don't yout think atleast ehancing the competition is a good starting point? I have not proclaimed that my suggestions are the ultimate answer, but I do believe they are in the ball park.

If the restrictor needs to be 40mm to make it fair then that is the best rule for the class? I takes time to build a good set of rules, like IPRA did.

The issue with SS is the rules have be evolved around the 6L and Transam Cars (no disrespect, it is what the class needed) now the whole class needs to move forward to suit the available modern engines and competitors.

PS: I seems Phil has repeated some of the ideas in Ricey's post... maybe something might be picked up in the rules?? Keep suggesting what you want!

Also my original 270mm tyre rule was to take some advantage off the more powerful cars in S2, and so the rules were the same for S2 and S3. I believe the jump to S1 is too big (expensive) for most state level competitors, so that is why I thought it would be fairer to have a smaller tyre. Motorsport history has seen favourtism to bigger engines as tyres have got bigger. Remember Mini's and Cortina's used to keep up with, and beat, Falcons when they were on a 6in rim!

But it seems most SS competitors do not want a smaller tyre.

Whooo whooo whooo settle down, everyone is pushing their barrows, as you would expect. Engines are heat pumps. The harder you turn an aspirated engine the more power they make, evidenced by the output of a Nascar engine. They make 900 to 915 hp at 9300rpm they struggle to make 750 at the mandated 7800rpm. A 2jz Toyota at 2bar boost on e85 will make over 825 bhp at 7800. During the f1 turbo era they revved the tiny 1500cc engines far lower than aspirated old school Cosworth Dfv/y engines cause they ran BOOOOOST. A turbo engine can make enourmous power at low revs by managing , turbo boost curves, ignition timing, compressor sizing, static compression fuel density etc. Look at Diesel Lemans cars they have comparitively low revs, narrow power bands, yet dominate. I truly believe that a good 3.5 turbo engine should smack a aspirated 7800 limited engine like a red headed step child!!!! Why no one has built a 2j package in a supra platform is beyond me. They are robust and not that hard to package. I'm a firm believer in cost minimization via sensible rules but self interest can't come into it. As evidenced by the weekend, a well prepared and driven 20b aspirated dominated the results at Baskerville. Please discuss!!!!

Mopar, we are talking restricted turbo engines against the 20B's. And more horsepower does not equal better lap times all the time. Turbo engines are hard to get the power down efficiently without burning up the tyres too quickly. Turbo cars also produce enormous amount of heat, which can see power loss throughout the race and bad aerodynamics trying to cool them down. So there are many complex physical limitations to race cars to make them go fast around a track for a whole weekend!

If you are talking about the silver bullet ( centerline rx7 - 20B ) then it, and the driver, are level 1 outright competitors. My 280 tyre rule for S2 would mean that 370 tyred 20B's would be outright competitors in S1, whilst any 280 tyred 20B would be in S2. Same goes for the 4L toyota V8's and ford 6's. If they want to be in S1 they can use a 370 tyre. If they want to run in S2 they can with a 280 tyre.

A 2J turbo makes monsterous horsepower, but the engines are heavy, tall and long. Not desirable for making a good space frame car. Before anyone says "2J are in spaceframe drag cars" - those space frames are not good circuit chassis.

1. change the rotary multiplyer to 1.74 so 12A can slot into u2L without change to the 13B and 20B
2. loose the multivalve penalty completely
3. clear class definitions across state and national competition - S1 is 4001cc - 6000cc / S2 is 2001 - 4000cc / S3 us u2000cc
4. all unrestricted turbo cars are S1 retaining the 1.7 multiplyer
5. 36mm restrictor mandatory for S2 and S3 reataining the 1.7 multiplyer with measuring and sealing of restrictor
6. apply Ricey's linear weights
7. rev limit all S1 cars to 7800rpm
8. reduce S2 and S3 max tyre width to 280mm
9. engine measuring and sealing
10. name change to SX cars to fit in with the S1/2/3 theme.

There is probably more at the back of my head, but that will do.

Any other ideas??

Thanks for kicking off this thread Toyzda. I admit to not wanting much change to the rules we have, as I have spent four years building a car to suit those rules. I want to comment on a couple of your points though, since they are up here now.

I don't know the first thing about rotaries, so point 1 is lost on me. I agree with point 2, however there is some question raised in Ricey's thread about turbo multivalves - maybe drop it for NA cars but keep in place for turbos?

Point 3 re classes: In NSW we have adopted 3 divisions based on laptimes. Therefore it doesn't matter what engine, spaceframe/floor pan or turbo/non-turbo, your division allocation is determined by how fast you can go. That way the people you are racing next to on the track are the ones you are competing with for points. Having run with this system this year, the feedback from competitors has been positive. We will be fine tuning the actual lap times for next year to even up the numbers of competitors in each division, but essentially it works. I'm not saying such a system would work in other States or the Nationals, it just seems to work for us. So in NSW we would be against your idea of everyone running the same classes - it is not a bad idea and overall conformity is good, but we are achieving success with the system we currently have.

Points 4 & 5 are up there with point 1 for me. Having never run a turbo I can't add anything to that discussion.

6. I too like Ricey's linear weights model. I stand to gain weight (well, my car does) from it, but with a floor pan Soarer there's no chance I was going to be near the minimum anyway. Go with Ricey's model and eliminate the multivalve penalty gets my vote.

7. Can't comment, don't know enough about it, although I take on board Mopar's comments elsewhere in this thread.

8. I don't agree with this one. Under your system mine would be an S2 car and there's no way it could survive on narrower tyres. Not so much a power-to-the-ground issue as a lateral grip issue. If I was still running the Corolla I'd no doubt see it differently though...

9. I concur. Doesn't really affect me either way I guess, but there are people out there that may have their minds eased by everyone running measured and sealed engines. Seems to make people in the Victorian U2L category happy.

10. SX cars? I like Sports Sedans.

Just one other thought. In a couple of other threads there has been a bit of talk about control chassis and achieving parity and that sort of stuff. In my opinion it flies in the face of what Sports Sedans are about and what they have always been about, so I don't like the idea. The freedoms we enjoy in this wonderful category need to be maintained - where would we be without the engineering masterpieces such as Torana-man's Folden, the Audi or the Saab (just to name a couple)? Sports Sedans are about freedom of design, performance and vehicle choice. Let's keep it that way.