"Stevens, Kevin" <kstevens@ventritex.com> wrote:
>> After all, a bone stock LS1 Camaro only makes 290+hp at
>> the wheels and can only run a 105mph quarter mile, while an ESP-preped LS1
>> might make a measly 111mph trap in the quarter! They obviously can't
>> compete with a 2.0L turbo that might trap 100mph on a cold day!
> ...and those LS1s lose 1 1/2 car lengths to the AWD cars coming out of every
> slow turn (about .3 - .4 sec. at the finish line). Take a snapshot of any
> Pro Solo start if you don't believe it.
Not "out of every slow turn" because we have LAG to deal with. The start, yes -
because I've got the motor wound up to 7000 RPM and dumping the clutch - but
once the car is moving, how fast you make power coming out of the turn is
entirely dependant on how early you can get back on the throttle. On a long,
decreasing-radius turn (like the turnaround at the Peru Pro) you're screwed.
Yes, IRS and AWD is nice - we get to put pretty well all the power we make to
the ground. But we also make, on average, a whole lot less power and massively
less torque, especially on the low end.
Karl Witt <kwitt@shore.net> wrote:
> Lets not try to make it sound like the DSM in it's current state is some
> sort of underdog.
In it's current state, with the backdated 14b, it is an underdog, but not by
much. In the hands of a good driver, on the right day, a DSM could win ESP at a
National level course competing against National level drivers. If the course is
right (a little slick, lots of fast-exit increasing-radius sweepers, and a
straight-shot start) one might even go so far as to say the DSM would be the
preferred car of the day. In it's current state, I don't feel inclined to
complain about the horsepower disparity - it's "fair enough".
But with the T25... you've lopped 2000 RPM off my rev range. Lag is pretty well
gone, but the car runs out of steam as soon as any sort of straight section
shows up. Now I have to hope for tight, short courses where I can squirt from
turn to turn and get the run over with before the high HP cars can catch up.
Might work well on the typical small-lot local event, but at Nationals? Right.
Robert Glover <rob@f-body.org> wrote:
> The rules state that powertrain update/backdates must
> be done as a whole unit. The turbo is part of the motor, therefore if you
> want to backdate, do the whole motor.
The turbo is no more part of the motor than the intake manifold or the exhaust
manifold.
Lemme put it this way: under SP rules, I could _completely legally_ mount the
turbo on the end of the muffler at _the other end of the car_. There's no
advantage to doing so, but it could be done if I really wanted to.
Can you mount a camshaft, or a cylinder head, or a piston like that? Never mind
legality for a sec, could it be done _at all_? Of course not, camshafts, and
heads, and pistons are all part of the motor; you can't move them around
independantly like that. Parts that are "part of the motor" must maintain their
spacial relationship to each other, or the motor won't run. The turbo is not one
of these parts.
Updating/backdating turbos is entirely within the spirit of the SP rules. I'd
even argue that replacing turbos with aftermarket models is in the spirit of SP
rules, but I agree that it opens up a too-large can of worms.
I don't think the SEB is crusading against DSMs. I _know_ that certain F-Body
people are crusading against DSMs, but I trust the SEB to sort out the
difference between real problems and small-minded, fearful little people. I
think what the SEB is worried about is someone figuring out a
legal-as-currently-written way to get a turbocharger onto a non-turbo,
large-displacement engine, like an LT1.
This is a legit concern, IMHO. By all means, legislate against this. But do it
this way:
"1. Turbochargers may be updated/backdated, provided that:
a) The target and donor motors are the same displacement, have the same
number of cylinders, and the same layout (V, inline, flat, etc.)
b) The target motor was available with a turbocharger in Stock form
c) The number and configuration of turbochargers is not changed, unless the
different configuration was available in Stock form (twin turbos cannot be
converted to single turbos or vice versa)
d) Twin turbo units must be updated/backdated as a pair; single elements
cannot be interchanged or separated.
2. Turbochargers must be updated/backdated as whole units; component parts
(compressor wheels, wategate actuators, etc.) may not be exchanged separately"
That solves the problem without screwing anybody, which is what we all want,
right?
DG
|