Ideal Rules For A Modern Racing Series.

[predator]

I wonder if it will be ever possible to crack a formula for the newer vehicles, to create a more spectator friendly event, which has a bit of groundswell support, and potential for advertising / tv coverage? I think the younger generation is possibly losing interest in the v8's and a newer generation might welcome something different? or is that my imagination?

if holden is left stranded if GM goes up the crapper, maybe the environment will change for motorsport.. who knows.

[GTRgeoff]

Possibly wishful thinking Gordon. Every d*ckhead seems to just want the BIG event so they can claim fame to being there. I like things smaller with more friendliness too.

Anyway, I disagree Duncan on the electronics. A porka driver crashed badly a couple of years ago and passed away due to ABS not stopping him in a sand trap. It is subsequently banned I believe, but could be wrong. CAMS made a big deal of it at the time.

And high powered under aero'd and tyred cars means a driver has to handle it or the tyres go off and his race is over. That's my definition of real driving anyway.

Keep the thoughts rolling. Just because we might disagree on something doesn't mean any one of us is right.

Maybe we could discuss what defines a "family" of cars and what the limit of mods/exchange of parts should be.

[Sydneykid]

There are some great things in the Improved Production regs. I like;

1. Control tyres, otherwise you spend $thousands at every race meeting, new qualifying tyres, new race tyres, wet weather tyres. At Bathurst we used to spend $20K for 2 cars over the weekend on tyres alone.

2. Standard body work, it looks like what it is, it's instantly recogniseable. I was looking at a sports sedan Calibra the other day, took me a long time to work out exactly what it was.

3. No spherical bearings, the wear rate is huge. On the sports sedan we used to change ALL of the shericals twice per year. That was $5K that I wouldn't have to spend on polyurethane bushes that last many seasons.

4. Standard engine configuration and original manufacturer. If it comes with a Nissan I6 then you can use any Nissan I6 you want.

5. Very limited aerodynamics. After 1/2 a season with the F3, I can tell you it dominates everything, all the settings revolve around the aero.

6. Standard chassis, no cutting out stuff, removing the floor, cutting up the inner guards to fit bigger tyres. It's expensive and compicates a whole pile of other stuff like roll cage location, fuel tank isolation, fire barriers etc etc.

to be continued............

[Roy]

Can it include gravel stuff? Justv back from servicing for a rally car and the PRC rules have a guy now running a Silvia

[GTRgeoff]

No. Gravel rallies are already covered.

Now you have to get your co-drivers license and navigate a rally, or are you weak sauce??

[Roy]

Mate..im watered down weak sauce!

No way you would be able to get me naigating through the bush...NO WAY.Drivers stuffs sup, oh well. LOL it seems a navigator making a mistake is in unforgivable...though being a navigator is cheap motorsport

Edited June 4, 2006 by Roy

[GTRgeoff]

Try it at least once.

[Roy]

I will be shot by the driver after the first time...i can see it now.

3, 2, 1 GO.

Me: " Left 5"

3 seconds later

Me: " Off notes"

Driver :"What"?!?!?!!

Bang, straight into a tree, then awkward quiet as i get out to put out triangles and wait in the middle of the bush at 1am in the freezing cold...

Endeth of a never so promising motorsport career

[hrd-hr30]

agree with most of what SK said, except the sperical bearings. I've been involved with rallying for years, and almost all cars are using sperical bearins in lower control arms and the like. This isn't a load bearing joint and wear rates are almost non-existant. They last years of pounding around in the forest, and I have never seen one fail in competition here in QLD. Sport sedans on their massive slicks with free suspension systems, good aero, and low centre of gravity probably generate alot mor lateral loads than a new production based class with no/very limited areo, factory suspension pickup points and semi slicks can ever hope to. They are also relatively cheap (if you kniow where to get them). I wouldn't say you have to use them - if you prefer poly, go for it. And I would also impose some restrictions to limit a total redesign of the suspension, such as having to retain factory lower arms for double wishbone systems (without rose joints or adjustability), and factory pivot points. Just looking for a way to include the wealth of affordable adjustable aftermarket equipment available today for modern cars, and allowing a useful increase in geometry settings for modern vehicles without macpherson struts. Cusco front upper arms can be had for about $600 and good quality rear upper arms for about $200 for Skylines/Silvias and presumably alot of other modern Japanese things. I cannot see this costing $5000/yr on a production based car with limited places where they can be used. On this note, make bushing materials for rear cradles free.

there are arguments for/against control tyres:

-the big budget teams will still have advantages with control tyres - ie they will come out with a brand new (scrubbed in) buffed set for each race if they feel that is a competitive advantage, and have full depth sets for wet conditions. Alot of semi slicks are now also available in wet compounds - as hillclimbers are finding out...

-IPRA's new control tyre doesn't seem at all popular, and the larger sizes are only available in harder compounds, which is a disadvantage for many of the short races run at state level. It exaggerates the handling advantages of the smaller, ligther EM vehicles by giving them softer rubber.

-It can also end up costing the competitors more by removing the chance of securing tyre sponsorship.

maybe a limit on the number of tyres available per race meeting is the answer to the cost problem there?

I'm against aero - the group A and C cars were much better to watch because they had no real aero. cars moved around and had to be driven. areo also gets in the way of racing IMHO.

I'm also against electronic aids. no aftermarket traction control, launch control, or ABS. factory systems can be retained unmodified or removed.

those are my thoughts...

[Duncan]

Well I totally agree on both bearings and control tyres.

But still, even with those downsides control tyres are far cheaper overall than a free for all. Its just that IRPA and 3E have both gone back to Yoko again because of the fact that those tyres are made in more sizes than other tyes....there are better and cheaper semi slicks.

Anyway, my point still stands, Production Cars have all the advantages Gary raised for Improved Production but even cheaper still. The only real problem is that they are slow.

If this ever turned from a thread into a real proposal, the most important thing is that it is fair to a wide range of models, doesn't just look after Skylines Afterall the cars are already pretty good, but if someone wanted to bring a lambo it should be able to win too

[hrd-hr30]

If this ever turned from a thread into a real proposal, the most important thing is that it is fair to a wide range of models, doesn't just look after Skylines Afterall the cars are already pretty good, but if someone wanted to bring a lambo it should be able to win too

fairness to all cars was the purpose of the restrictor based on factory weight, and applied to all cars, turboed or not. actually, i think that was the purpose of starting this thread... Lambo wouldn't be able to run in a Production car category anyway.

as for 3E, I don't want my race car to have a standard exhaust or be slower than my road car... If you want to create a race category for the younger generation as an alternative to drifting, or for those who want to race something made in the last 20 years on a level playing feild, it has to allow freedoms to tune the cars to a reasonable level.

as for the "family of vehicles" thing, that problem is created by the wording of the IPRA regs. this theoretical modern racing series could simply do away with that wording and the problem dissapears. Just reword the eligibility rules to also include used/imported cars available to the public under the DOTARS import scheme (or whatever it is) where at least 200 are registered in Aus - same as what they have for new cars.

Edited June 5, 2006 by hrd-hr30

[Beer Baron]

can anyone say success balast? lol

but it has worked well in JGTC.

[Abo Bob]

Isn't 3E dominated by R32 GTR's atm?

[gtstcruiser67]

My two bob on for parity.

Original engine spec's

Instead of using restictors limit boost.

Tyre width based on drivetrain. Diameter free

Power to weight ballast.

Eg: GTST- 1.5bar, 10"/12", 1200kg

GTR- 1.0bar, 9"/9", 1320kg

WRX-1.1bar, 8"/8", 1280kg

RX-7-0.8bar, 5"/5",1500kg!!! just kidding .you get the picture.

Control ecu

Exhaust ; low mounts only, free exhaust after turbo. Exit from under the sill perfect.

Internal wastegate only

Plenum free

Intercooler free

Fuel pump and reg free

Injectors: increase of 30% over stock.

Cam and lifters free

Gearbox: no sequential or dog boxes

Diff: free

Brakes: free

Suspension: free.must use std link points

Bushes free

Control Tyres. still out on this

Wings ok but with restrictions so aero is not a major point.

Carbon,fibreglass,kevlar panels ok

Plexiglass,persex ok except windscreen

Metal removal ok with restrictions

Widen by 50mm overall ok

I have taken 2b marque sports regs with some variation to suit what everyone whats to see on this site. Imports, 4wd and turbo's having a fair go.

cheers

Steve

[GTRgeoff]

By family of vehicles I was attempting to create the option for engine changes across the family eg rb26 in gtst etc, also for any commodore/falcon to run their production V8/SC6/T6. And yes, the cars have to have the opportunity for decent power so restrictor plates are the only successful way to control that. Boost restrictions were a complete failure in GT Production/Nations Cup.

What you have listed above Steve is a bit of a chequebook class for turbo cars. What about others?

Maybe we just need to look at Production Class with some improvements in the power and suspension area. Who wants to post up the class regs and we can tear them apart with assistance from those that race in that class?

[Beer Baron]

Isn't 3E dominated by R32 GTR's atm?

not in nsw.

a 32GTR won last year, but i wouldnt go as far to say dominated it was a 4 point win (213v209). there are a few makes pretty close together. I think towards the end of last year the white WRX was looking pretty hot.

but i think we are more talking about a freerer class than 3E.

[gtstcruiser67]

By family of vehicles I was attempting to create the option for engine changes across the family eg rb26 in gtst etc, also for any commodore/falcon to run their production V8/SC6/T6. And yes, the cars have to have the opportunity for decent power so restrictor plates are the only successful way to control that. Boost restrictions were a complete failure in GT Production/Nations Cup.

Regarding family of engines I dont think you need to change a RB25 to an RB26 as they are a excellent base to work from. As for changing Holden engines over I'm not that interested in their plight. They have more than enough series to race in at the moment with plenty of room to move.

Boost control concept is I based the idea on what was and is used in CART racing. It is a set and controlled BOV mounted on the plenum, implimented by the governing body. It seem's to work for the series. I don't think GT and Nation's cup had this system inplace so it may have been difficult to police. If restrictors are to be used it would have to be no where near the asmatic reg's that are inplace at the moment. In my opinion they deter people from racing,but this is my opinion that's all.

You can control power in other ways this being one of them. Restricting fuel delivery and ECU's is another. I am just looking at parity from a different angle.

What you have listed above Steve is a bit of a chequebook class for turbo cars. What about others?

Yes it is and I will not deny that. The others will just have to try and keep up! I'm sure an AC Cobra, C5-r corvette, Ferrari, Audi quattro, NSX or the likes would keep any turbo car honest. I'm sure a 6.0 monaro may give it a shot or even the new Astra for that matter but lets face it , is this really about helping holden? I watch GTP throughout the Procar era with the turbo car's out front and the holdens and ford where they are meant to be..at the back. Since they have tied in with the 'super doupa cars' the holdens have miraculasly crept throughthe field. So no I'm not intersted in supporting H&F look good in another series when they simply are not and don't get me started on that bloody monaro farce.

Maybe we just need to look at Production Class with some improvements in the power and suspension area. Who wants to post up the class regs and we can tear them apart with assistance from those that race in that class?

OK here are some links which may help.These are from the production car championship.

http://www.pcaa.com.au/modules.php?name=Do..._op=getit&lid=3

http://www.pcaa.com.au/modules.php?name=Do..._op=getit&lid=1

http://www.pcaa.com.au/modules.php?name=Do..._op=getit&lid=2

This is http://www.marquesports.com/ which is import friendly. I talked to the president last year who was open to running GTST's in the series. This could be a good platform.

Cheers

[hrd-hr30]

I'm with GTRgeoff. that would be very expensive racing and has some controls that are very difficult to police. I'd vote for all panels to be of original material, all glass must remain. No flares or wide bodies. no metal removal except unused brackets. If you want a silhouette series with spaceframe chassis, free suspension, composite widebodies, wings and perspex there is already a category for you - 3D Sport Sedans.

here's the IPRA regs. a couple of years old, but you get the general idea

http://www.ipravic.com.au/other_content/IP...203J%202004.pdf

[Sydneykid]

Lot’s to say but no time to say it, so I’ll keep this post to one point, power limiting.

In Sports Sedans there is no power limit placed on the engine, as long as it is 6 litres (or under) including turbo and rotary multiplication, it doesn’t matter. Quite a few guys have built 1000 + bhp Sports Sedan turbos, but they don’t win many races compared to the N/A 6 litre V8’s. Why? Because the lag gets too great and the handling drops off as a result. Fast lap times are mostly about going round corners faster. A long as there is a tyre width limit there is effectively a power limit as a result. If it’s also a control tyre limit, then that’s even more of a power equaliser.

So personally I don’t see why we need something (restrictor, boost limit etc) to limit the power output.

cheers

PS; Indy/Champ cars did very well with a boost limit via a control blow off valve. A far superior solution to a restrictor, which simply limits the top speed and hence works very well for rally cars belting through the forest, But not on a circuit race car please. Restrictors make places like Bathurst and Philip Island ball less.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Sydneykid

[hrd-hr30]

good points, but without some measures to limit power (other than tyre width) nothing apart from awd turbos would be in the running.

The reason I am against a rim or tyre width limit as IPRA currently has, is that the heaviest cars (which need the most power) would be hardest hit, and it hurts their cornering performance too much - which is already their weakness. And also hurts more the longer the races go for, or in warmer climates - and I live in Brisbane...

boost limits are harder to enforce, and encourage expensive engine development to get more power from the same boost level. But I was thinking of free engine internals/porting anyway... So you might be right - it might be a better way than restrictors. The more i think about it, the more I'm starting to come around on that one.