Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
From: HP, NC, USA
Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs.
I was discussing Speed Touring with a friend (and former SWC -T competitor) over lunch the other day and we talked about the rising engine costs and shrinking car counts. Now, we have this thing all figured out. One reason SWC Touring is so expensive is engines. A lot of development goes into the 4 cyl engines so they can be competitive against the torque of the BMW 6 cyl. The Mazda motor in particular is one expensive hand grenade. Nissan worked their tails off to get their 4 cyl on par with the Acura & BMW and never got the reliability, so they bailed out. So there's two choices, throw out the BMW 6 and make it a 230 hp 2.0 - 2.5 liter 4 Cyl class with very limited engine mods or.....
Align GT and Touring like this:
GT = pretty much status quo with big honkin V8's, V10s and forced induction 6's with a target output range of 450 - 500 HP and race weight around 3,000. (adjust weight as necessary for 'parity').
Touring becomes a 2.8 - 3.2 liter 6 Cyl class with engine mods strictly limited to exhaust headers, intake tubes and tweaking of stock ECU's with a target output of about 260 hp with stock manual transmissions (final drive changes and LSDs considered for cars that need it). Reliability goodies like oil coolers and oil pan baffling are allowed. 93 octane pump gas! Race weight of about 2,400 for RWD and about 2,300 (or lighter as required) for FWD. Stock motors! Transmissions should live due to near stock engine outputs. The cars should be reliable as hell and could run a whole 8-10 race season on one or two motors! The cars:
Acura TL V6
Mazda 6 V6
BMW 3 series (not M3!)
Honda Accord V6
Benz C class V6
Ford Mustang V6
Nissan Altima or Maxima V6
Chrysler...Sebring V6?? (OK so much for reliability! )
...and other cars with a naturally aspirated V6 at 2.8 - 3.2 liters
Proxes RA 1s, no remote reservoir shocks (bye bye $4,500 Motons) stock suspension pick up points, after market rotors, pads and calipers not more that 4 pistons per corner etc. The rest of car prep similar to Improved Touring.
Carbon fiber hoods and other limited front end lightening allowed to help the FWD'a get to 60%F 40%R (batteries in back and such). "REWARDS" competition weight program stays. Honda powered cars will probably need a 10 - 20% inlet restrictor. SCCA does dyno pulls with a portable unit during post-race impound on the top 5 cars after every race.
Lap time target is 3-5 sec slower than current SWC-T cars. So what if they are a little slower? They are racing door to door, bumper to bumper for 50 minutes.
Manufacturer interest is there because they can showcase cars that are closer to what you can actually buy (well, sort of). There's no huge engine/transmission development costs. The sanctioning body encourages manufactuers to support teams with contingency money, body-in-white programs, engine, transmission and spare parts deals rather than all-out factory efforts. The season operating costs drop at least 40%. Privateers can participate and be competitive. Great car counts at 30 - 40. BP supplies 93 octane fuel free to all competitiors and can market the heck out of that.
That's the basics, and it needs some work. With good planning and manufacturer input at the ground level, this could be a hell of a series in 2006 or 2007, and still survive if (and when) manufacturer support comes and goes.
Opinions?
Modified by Track rat at 7:37 AM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 7:38 AM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 8:04 AM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 8:45 AM 4/22/2005
Align GT and Touring like this:
GT = pretty much status quo with big honkin V8's, V10s and forced induction 6's with a target output range of 450 - 500 HP and race weight around 3,000. (adjust weight as necessary for 'parity').
Touring becomes a 2.8 - 3.2 liter 6 Cyl class with engine mods strictly limited to exhaust headers, intake tubes and tweaking of stock ECU's with a target output of about 260 hp with stock manual transmissions (final drive changes and LSDs considered for cars that need it). Reliability goodies like oil coolers and oil pan baffling are allowed. 93 octane pump gas! Race weight of about 2,400 for RWD and about 2,300 (or lighter as required) for FWD. Stock motors! Transmissions should live due to near stock engine outputs. The cars should be reliable as hell and could run a whole 8-10 race season on one or two motors! The cars:
Acura TL V6
Mazda 6 V6
BMW 3 series (not M3!)
Honda Accord V6
Benz C class V6
Ford Mustang V6
Nissan Altima or Maxima V6
Chrysler...Sebring V6?? (OK so much for reliability! )
...and other cars with a naturally aspirated V6 at 2.8 - 3.2 liters
Proxes RA 1s, no remote reservoir shocks (bye bye $4,500 Motons) stock suspension pick up points, after market rotors, pads and calipers not more that 4 pistons per corner etc. The rest of car prep similar to Improved Touring.
Carbon fiber hoods and other limited front end lightening allowed to help the FWD'a get to 60%F 40%R (batteries in back and such). "REWARDS" competition weight program stays. Honda powered cars will probably need a 10 - 20% inlet restrictor. SCCA does dyno pulls with a portable unit during post-race impound on the top 5 cars after every race.
Lap time target is 3-5 sec slower than current SWC-T cars. So what if they are a little slower? They are racing door to door, bumper to bumper for 50 minutes.
Manufacturer interest is there because they can showcase cars that are closer to what you can actually buy (well, sort of). There's no huge engine/transmission development costs. The sanctioning body encourages manufactuers to support teams with contingency money, body-in-white programs, engine, transmission and spare parts deals rather than all-out factory efforts. The season operating costs drop at least 40%. Privateers can participate and be competitive. Great car counts at 30 - 40. BP supplies 93 octane fuel free to all competitiors and can market the heck out of that.
That's the basics, and it needs some work. With good planning and manufacturer input at the ground level, this could be a hell of a series in 2006 or 2007, and still survive if (and when) manufacturer support comes and goes.
Opinions?
Modified by Track rat at 7:37 AM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 7:38 AM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 8:04 AM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 8:45 AM 4/22/2005
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,360
Likes: 0
From: Arlington // Madison Motorsports, VA, USA
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (Track rat)
Instead of destroying the entire class structure because of one car (the BMW 325) why don't they just slow that car and all of the other cars down. The M54 BMW engines are not cheap either (running around $30k from Rebello I believe) so its not just the cars trying to keep up with the BMW that are spending big bucks on engine development. I say cut the engine mods way back and that will stop a lot of the grenading.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Track rat »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Proxes RA 1s, no remote reservoir shocks (bye bye $4,500 Motons) stock suspension pick up points, after market rotors, pads and calipers not more that 4 pistons per corner etc. The rest of car prep similar to Improved Touring.
Carbon fiber hoods and other limited front end lightening allowed to help the FWD'a get to 60%F 40%R (batteries in back and such). "REWARDS" competition weight program stays. Honda powered cars will probably need a 10 - 20% inlet restrictor. SCCA does dyno pulls with a portable unit during post-race impound on the top 5 cars after every race.
Lap time target is 3-5 sec slower than current SWC-T cars.
Manufacturer interest is there because they can showcase cars that are closer to what you can actually buy (well, sort of). There's no huge engine/transmission development costs. The sanctioning body encourages manufactuers to support teams with contingency money, body-in-white programs, engine, transmission and spare parts deals rather than all-out factory efforts. The season operating costs drop at least 40%. Privateers can participate and be competitive. Great car counts at 30 - 40. BP supplies 93 octane fuel free to all competitiors and can market the heck out of that.
That's the basics, and it needs some work. With good planning and manufacturer input at the ground level, this could be a hell of a series in 2006 or 2007.
Opinions?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Dyno pulls for the top 5 won't work because teams will just put their car in limp mode or some other such trickery once they leave the track .
I like the idea of encouraging manufacturers to provide bodies in white and "kits" instead of starting full-on factory teams. In motorcycle racing HRC is actively trying to develop and sell an HRC kit for the CBR1000RR that privateers could purchase and use as a strong platform to compete. I think Dodge is doing something similar for the SRT4. I wish I had asked the Dodge guys about that last weekend.
On brakes maybe they should go to spec brakes the way BTCC did. I don't have much of a problem with the Motons because a single tube shock could end up costing just as much. Perhaps they could get rid of MoTEC too?
Good ideas though. If WC does decide to make a major restructuring move they need to announce it well in advance. At least one season if not two.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Track rat »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Proxes RA 1s, no remote reservoir shocks (bye bye $4,500 Motons) stock suspension pick up points, after market rotors, pads and calipers not more that 4 pistons per corner etc. The rest of car prep similar to Improved Touring.
Carbon fiber hoods and other limited front end lightening allowed to help the FWD'a get to 60%F 40%R (batteries in back and such). "REWARDS" competition weight program stays. Honda powered cars will probably need a 10 - 20% inlet restrictor. SCCA does dyno pulls with a portable unit during post-race impound on the top 5 cars after every race.
Lap time target is 3-5 sec slower than current SWC-T cars.
Manufacturer interest is there because they can showcase cars that are closer to what you can actually buy (well, sort of). There's no huge engine/transmission development costs. The sanctioning body encourages manufactuers to support teams with contingency money, body-in-white programs, engine, transmission and spare parts deals rather than all-out factory efforts. The season operating costs drop at least 40%. Privateers can participate and be competitive. Great car counts at 30 - 40. BP supplies 93 octane fuel free to all competitiors and can market the heck out of that.
That's the basics, and it needs some work. With good planning and manufacturer input at the ground level, this could be a hell of a series in 2006 or 2007.
Opinions?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Dyno pulls for the top 5 won't work because teams will just put their car in limp mode or some other such trickery once they leave the track .
I like the idea of encouraging manufacturers to provide bodies in white and "kits" instead of starting full-on factory teams. In motorcycle racing HRC is actively trying to develop and sell an HRC kit for the CBR1000RR that privateers could purchase and use as a strong platform to compete. I think Dodge is doing something similar for the SRT4. I wish I had asked the Dodge guys about that last weekend.
On brakes maybe they should go to spec brakes the way BTCC did. I don't have much of a problem with the Motons because a single tube shock could end up costing just as much. Perhaps they could get rid of MoTEC too?
Good ideas though. If WC does decide to make a major restructuring move they need to announce it well in advance. At least one season if not two.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
From: HP, NC, USA
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (JMU R1)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JMU R1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The M54 BMW engines are not cheap either (running around $30k from Rebello I believe) </TD></TR></TABLE>
OEM crate motors! Manufacturers support a core and swap program. Maybe $5,000 - 7,000 for engine & tranny package? If the motors exceed the pre-determined HP or torque limit (260 hp?) thet get inlet restrictors, so why bother with Rebello and Sunbelt magic?
As for the dynos, close inspection with a diagonstic tool would identify if the engine was in "Limp" mode. Cockpit switches for that function could be traced and identified. Any switch that leads to the ECU main harness would be suspect.
OEM crate motors! Manufacturers support a core and swap program. Maybe $5,000 - 7,000 for engine & tranny package? If the motors exceed the pre-determined HP or torque limit (260 hp?) thet get inlet restrictors, so why bother with Rebello and Sunbelt magic?
As for the dynos, close inspection with a diagonstic tool would identify if the engine was in "Limp" mode. Cockpit switches for that function could be traced and identified. Any switch that leads to the ECU main harness would be suspect.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,748
Likes: 0
From: Concord, CA, USA
The most expensive engine out there I believe is the BMW by Sunbelt.
Sunbelt lost out to Comptech for the Mazda motor. The tripoint car is using comptech built engine and look where they are this year.
And I know for a fact, that the cost is not more than the BMWs.
Modified by Andrie at 9:22 AM 4/22/2005
Sunbelt lost out to Comptech for the Mazda motor. The tripoint car is using comptech built engine and look where they are this year.
And I know for a fact, that the cost is not more than the BMWs.
Modified by Andrie at 9:22 AM 4/22/2005
a/k/a Jomo
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,275
Likes: 0
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (JMU R1)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JMU R1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think Dodge is doing something similar for the SRT4. I wish I had asked the Dodge guys about that last weekend.</TD></TR></TABLE>
$2,500.00 Bare Shells
$9,000.00 Crate Engines
$2,500.00 Bare Shells
$9,000.00 Crate Engines
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 4,049
Likes: 2
From: Snowwhitepillowformybigfathead
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (Track rat)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Track rat »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">... no remote reservoir shocks (bye bye $4,500 Motons) stock suspension pick up points...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Opinions?
The shock rule won't save any money. It'll cost the same or more. Teams "with more money" will just end up using something like the Koni 2822, or a big bin full of those Penske or Ohlins cheater shocks with the foot valve in the bottom of the body above the gas piston. Plus the extra team labor.
Stock suspension pick up points? As opposed to the relatively minor relocation currently allowed? First - it isn't that expensive. And if somebody wants to disagree with that, then lets's say that this is "pro racing" and it's not that expensive in that context (supposedly such people already have the "expensively acquired knowledge"). Further, some modern production chassis' have passive steering characteristics that are extremely unhelpful in racing use. Denying correction of such could be a serious disincentive for a racer or manufacturer to campaign an otherwise suitable current production model.
Scott, who has always been completely disinterested in World Challenge and hasn't thought about this stuff much...
Opinions?
The shock rule won't save any money. It'll cost the same or more. Teams "with more money" will just end up using something like the Koni 2822, or a big bin full of those Penske or Ohlins cheater shocks with the foot valve in the bottom of the body above the gas piston. Plus the extra team labor.
Stock suspension pick up points? As opposed to the relatively minor relocation currently allowed? First - it isn't that expensive. And if somebody wants to disagree with that, then lets's say that this is "pro racing" and it's not that expensive in that context (supposedly such people already have the "expensively acquired knowledge"). Further, some modern production chassis' have passive steering characteristics that are extremely unhelpful in racing use. Denying correction of such could be a serious disincentive for a racer or manufacturer to campaign an otherwise suitable current production model.
Scott, who has always been completely disinterested in World Challenge and hasn't thought about this stuff much...
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,748
Likes: 0
From: Concord, CA, USA
I agree with Rinde.
Suspension pick up point is not a big deal either. The allowance of 25mm is not much. For most McPherson strut car is only about enough to obtain the camber they needed.
Suspension pick up point is not a big deal either. The allowance of 25mm is not much. For most McPherson strut car is only about enough to obtain the camber they needed.
Trending Topics
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
From: Woodstock, GA, USA
Re: (Andrie)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Andrie »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Sunbelt lost out to Comptech for the Mazda motor. The tripoint car is using comptech built engine and look where they are this year.</TD></TR></TABLE>
For the Tri-Point team, yes. Sunbelt provides engines for Protomotive and Tindol Motorsports.
For the Tri-Point team, yes. Sunbelt provides engines for Protomotive and Tindol Motorsports.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 2
From: Kings Mt., NC
Re: (itsprelude)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And I know for a fact, that the cost is not more than the BMWs.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Except BMW engines are *supposed* to last 1 season. Might get 2-3 races with the Mazda engine. If you're lucky.
I thought Nissans problem was transmissions???
Except BMW engines are *supposed* to last 1 season. Might get 2-3 races with the Mazda engine. If you're lucky.
I thought Nissans problem was transmissions???
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,748
Likes: 0
From: Concord, CA, USA
Re: (itsprelude)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by itsprelude »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
For the Tri-Point team, yes. Sunbelt provides engines for Protomotive and Tindol Motorsports.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Thanks for the clarification. I know Comptech built motor is slapped with 30% restrictor, the last time I talked to those guys. Wondering if the same thing happened for other Mazda or not.
For the Tri-Point team, yes. Sunbelt provides engines for Protomotive and Tindol Motorsports.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Thanks for the clarification. I know Comptech built motor is slapped with 30% restrictor, the last time I talked to those guys. Wondering if the same thing happened for other Mazda or not.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,516
Likes: 1
From: Okie in training, usa
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (Track rat)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Track rat »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Acura TL V6
Mazda 6 V6
BMW 3 series (not M3!)
Honda Accord V6
Benz C class V6
Ford Mustang V6
Nissan Altima or Maxima V6
Chrysler...Sebring V6?? (OK so much for reliability! )
...and other cars with a naturally aspirated V6 at 2.8 - 3.2 liters
[/i]</TD></TR></TABLE>
IMO, this misses the target demographic (tunerZ yO..) that makes SWC touring cars appealing. I'd rather see the other direction and ban anything with more than 4 cylinders or 2.5L displacement.
Acura TL V6
Mazda 6 V6
BMW 3 series (not M3!)
Honda Accord V6
Benz C class V6
Ford Mustang V6
Nissan Altima or Maxima V6
Chrysler...Sebring V6?? (OK so much for reliability! )
...and other cars with a naturally aspirated V6 at 2.8 - 3.2 liters
[/i]</TD></TR></TABLE>
IMO, this misses the target demographic (tunerZ yO..) that makes SWC touring cars appealing. I'd rather see the other direction and ban anything with more than 4 cylinders or 2.5L displacement.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
From: HP, NC, USA
Re: (MaddMatt)
OK, I'm sold on allowing minor susp pick up point adjustments, and Scott makes a good point about Motons.
Transmission reliability shouldn't be an issue if it is mated to a motor making near-stock power.
My point in all of this, the fans don't care if your making 280 hp with a highly built I-4 and shifting sequential, or a 260hp with a near stock V6 and shifting the stock tranny with gates! They don't care if you swapped an engine between race weekends or ran the same motor all season. We want full fields and close racing with cars we can relate to.
Imagine the Cunningham/Pobst/Espenlaub stuff that we saw at Road Atlanta
taking place throughout the entire top 15.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by itsprelude »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">For the Tri-Point team, yes. Sunbelt provides engines for Protomotive and Tindol Motorsports.</TD></TR></TABLE>
"Provides" implies some kind of "deal". No,they pay dearly...and often.
I heard that Tripoint was no longer getting motors from Comptech in 2005. You sure?
Transmission reliability shouldn't be an issue if it is mated to a motor making near-stock power.
My point in all of this, the fans don't care if your making 280 hp with a highly built I-4 and shifting sequential, or a 260hp with a near stock V6 and shifting the stock tranny with gates! They don't care if you swapped an engine between race weekends or ran the same motor all season. We want full fields and close racing with cars we can relate to.
Imagine the Cunningham/Pobst/Espenlaub stuff that we saw at Road Atlanta
taking place throughout the entire top 15.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by itsprelude »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">For the Tri-Point team, yes. Sunbelt provides engines for Protomotive and Tindol Motorsports.</TD></TR></TABLE>
"Provides" implies some kind of "deal". No,they pay dearly...and often.
I heard that Tripoint was no longer getting motors from Comptech in 2005. You sure?
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,748
Likes: 0
From: Concord, CA, USA
Re: (Track rat)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Track rat »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I heard that Tripoint was no longer getting motors from Comptech in 2005. You sure?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm 100% sure they are using Comptech motors this year. I just talked to them last week!
I heard that Tripoint was no longer getting motors from Comptech in 2005. You sure?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm 100% sure they are using Comptech motors this year. I just talked to them last week!
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
From: HP, NC, USA
Re: (Andrie)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Andrie »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm 100% sure they are using Comptech motors this year. I just talked to them last week!</TD></TR></TABLE>
Thanks for clarifying!
Thanks for clarifying!
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 4,049
Likes: 2
From: Snowwhitepillowformybigfathead
Re: (Track rat)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Track rat »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">... We want full fields and close racing with cars we can relate to.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
See - there's the problem.
Scott, who relates to the Type-RRRRRRR..."sure I know you COULD race something else...but WHY?"
</TD></TR></TABLE>
See - there's the problem.
Scott, who relates to the Type-RRRRRRR..."sure I know you COULD race something else...but WHY?"
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 13,483
Likes: 0
From: cali
Re: (RR98ITR)
maybe i have just lost hope, but i feel that pro racing, one way or another WILL be expensive. No matter the limit you but on things people (competitive people) will streach and streach to to find an edge and what this means is spending more money.
You try and slow down every one, evently people will perfect what they have and become faster. NHRA, F1 and others have done it and NHRA has already seen the records broken and i think F1 cars will get fast they have only had 3 races under the new rules, by the start of the next year they will be just as fast, but spending 3 times the amount of money to do it.
there is going to be fast guys and there is going to be slow guys no mater what. give they the same car and that slow guy will STILL not be able to bet the fast guy, those fast guys in WC are talented guys.
You try and slow down every one, evently people will perfect what they have and become faster. NHRA, F1 and others have done it and NHRA has already seen the records broken and i think F1 cars will get fast they have only had 3 races under the new rules, by the start of the next year they will be just as fast, but spending 3 times the amount of money to do it.
there is going to be fast guys and there is going to be slow guys no mater what. give they the same car and that slow guy will STILL not be able to bet the fast guy, those fast guys in WC are talented guys.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,035
Likes: 0
From: Greensboro, NC, USA
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (JMU R1)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JMU R1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">... I like the idea of encouraging manufacturers to provide bodies in white and "kits" instead of starting full-on factory teams. ...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Change the manufacturer points system to award them to the top 5 (or whatever) finishers running each make, rather than just to the top finishers overall. If Daewoo walks away with more points from having 5 cars in the top 15, than Acura does for winning with one car, Acura would find a way to get more cars to more entrants.
K
Change the manufacturer points system to award them to the top 5 (or whatever) finishers running each make, rather than just to the top finishers overall. If Daewoo walks away with more points from having 5 cars in the top 15, than Acura does for winning with one car, Acura would find a way to get more cars to more entrants.
K
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,198
Likes: 0
From: CA, U.S.A
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (Knestis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Change the manufacturer points system to award them to the top 5 (or whatever) finishers running each make, rather than just to the top finishers overall. If Daewoo walks away with more points from having 5 cars in the top 15, than Acura does for winning with one car, Acura would find a way to get more cars to more entrants.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
Then that would lead to a spec series lead by whichever manufacture could afford to, or offer a competative enough package, to sway the majority of the entrants.
Change the manufacturer points system to award them to the top 5 (or whatever) finishers running each make, rather than just to the top finishers overall. If Daewoo walks away with more points from having 5 cars in the top 15, than Acura does for winning with one car, Acura would find a way to get more cars to more entrants.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
Then that would lead to a spec series lead by whichever manufacture could afford to, or offer a competative enough package, to sway the majority of the entrants.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,200
Likes: 0
From: One by one, the penguins steal my sanity.
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (Knestis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Change the manufacturer points system to award them to the top 5 (or whatever) finishers running each make, rather than just to the top finishers overall. If Daewoo walks away with more points from having 5 cars in the top 15, than Acura does for winning with one car, Acura would find a way to get more cars to more entrants.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
Give this guy a PhD!
That might actually work.
K</TD></TR></TABLE>
Give this guy a PhD!
That might actually work.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
From: HP, NC, USA
Re: (RR98ITR)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RR98ITR »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Scott, who relates to the Type-RRRRRRR..."sure I know you COULD race something else...but WHY?"</TD></TR></TABLE>
I know how corny this is gonna sound...but I remember when Realtime was still runnin' the RRRs and I was still driving mine on the street. I thought that was really cool. I could relate (I needed a life). Those cars were A LOT closer to the R street car than the TSX is today!
On cost, Yes.... I understand that racing at the pro level is expensive and always will be. Cash strapped, unsponsored, no talent old farts like me belong in NASA and SCCA club racing!
My SWC-T spec re-engineeering plan won't change that. But the $400,000 budget could be cut to $250,000 and the fields would grow and the quality of the racing could improve and the fan base could grow, TV coverage could improve, and teams have a better chance to get sponsored by Burger King... and Acura showrooms could be full of dudes standing in line to order TL A spec "RealTime Edition" sedans.....so why not?
It's a grand vision.
I know how corny this is gonna sound...but I remember when Realtime was still runnin' the RRRs and I was still driving mine on the street. I thought that was really cool. I could relate (I needed a life). Those cars were A LOT closer to the R street car than the TSX is today!
On cost, Yes.... I understand that racing at the pro level is expensive and always will be. Cash strapped, unsponsored, no talent old farts like me belong in NASA and SCCA club racing!
My SWC-T spec re-engineeering plan won't change that. But the $400,000 budget could be cut to $250,000 and the fields would grow and the quality of the racing could improve and the fan base could grow, TV coverage could improve, and teams have a better chance to get sponsored by Burger King... and Acura showrooms could be full of dudes standing in line to order TL A spec "RealTime Edition" sedans.....so why not?
It's a grand vision.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,360
Likes: 0
From: Arlington // Madison Motorsports, VA, USA
Re: (slammed_93_hatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">maybe i have just lost hope, but i feel that pro racing, one way or another WILL be expensive. No matter the limit you but on things people (competitive people) will streach and streach to to find an edge and what this means is spending more money.</TD></TR></TABLE>
You are right that people are always going to spend more money trying to find the competitive advantage. But this doesn't mean cost control is a futile endeavor. By reducing key areas where competitors can spend money (iow develop the car) you reduce the returns on spending more money. So in Spec Miata you could spend $80,000 building a Spec Miata but you wouldn't end up with a car much faster than the $30,000 car. So in pro racing cost control is really just moving the point of insignificant returns to a lower price point.
The nature of competition is that there is always going to be someone with more expertise and money than the rest. You just don't want this effect to get out of control.
You are right that people are always going to spend more money trying to find the competitive advantage. But this doesn't mean cost control is a futile endeavor. By reducing key areas where competitors can spend money (iow develop the car) you reduce the returns on spending more money. So in Spec Miata you could spend $80,000 building a Spec Miata but you wouldn't end up with a car much faster than the $30,000 car. So in pro racing cost control is really just moving the point of insignificant returns to a lower price point.
The nature of competition is that there is always going to be someone with more expertise and money than the rest. You just don't want this effect to get out of control.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 13,483
Likes: 0
From: cali
Re: (Track rat)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Track rat »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
My SWC-T spec re-engineeering plan won't change that. But the $400,000 budget could be cut to $250,000 and the fields would grow and the quality of the racing could improve and the fan base could grow, TV coverage could improve, and teams have a better chance to get sponsored by Burger King... and Acura showrooms could be full of dudes standing in line to order TL A spec "RealTime Edition" sedans.....so why not?
It's a grand vision. </TD></TR></TABLE>
the cost would be cut to 250,000 for how long... one season?
the teams with the money will spend it, and make it spent well.
They could spend 100 of hours on the stock motor trying to exploit EVERYTHING possibly they can, yes they would only yeild a small amount but if they win then it would be enough for them.
I don't disagree with you but i guess im just trying to say that becuase you cut cost and such it doesn't mean they wont find another palce to spend it.
My SWC-T spec re-engineeering plan won't change that. But the $400,000 budget could be cut to $250,000 and the fields would grow and the quality of the racing could improve and the fan base could grow, TV coverage could improve, and teams have a better chance to get sponsored by Burger King... and Acura showrooms could be full of dudes standing in line to order TL A spec "RealTime Edition" sedans.....so why not?
It's a grand vision.
</TD></TR></TABLE>the cost would be cut to 250,000 for how long... one season?
the teams with the money will spend it, and make it spent well.
They could spend 100 of hours on the stock motor trying to exploit EVERYTHING possibly they can, yes they would only yeild a small amount but if they win then it would be enough for them.
I don't disagree with you but i guess im just trying to say that becuase you cut cost and such it doesn't mean they wont find another palce to spend it.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
From: HP, NC, USA
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (fsp31)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by fsp31 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">IMO, this misses the target demographic (tunerZ yO..) that makes SWC touring cars appealing. I'd rather see the other direction and ban anything with more than 4 cylinders or 2.5L displacement.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I've been thinkin' on this one. The 'tunerZ yO' crowd seems to be going drifting and drag racing. The road racers are a different bunch don't ya think?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the teams with the money will spend it, and make it spent well.
They could spend 100 of hours on the stock motor trying to exploit EVERYTHING possibly they can, yes they would only yeild a small amount but if they win then it would be enough for them.
I don't disagree with you but i guess im just trying to say that becuase you cut cost and such it doesn't mean they wont find another palce to spend it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
You make excellent points...but when they turn 266 whp on the dyno and get another 5% added to their restrictor, they may be more inclined to spend that money on new crew uniforms, a new pit cart or something else.
Another effect of lower operating costs...rental rates could come down from the 20K per race range to less than 1/2 that. This could lure more young talent and increase the number of rental cars.
I like the SWC-T series! I want to see it succeed and get exposure to new fans. There are strong rumors that manufacturers are looking hard at the millions they throw at NASCRAP. A little of that fortune would go a long way in SWC.
The car specs in SWC are very similar to NASCAR's in the late 60's & early 70's, before they went tube frame. This street similarity lured manufacturers to NASCAR in the first place. Time for manufacturers to go back to their roots - SWC!
Good thought provoking comments guys...keep them coming.
Modified by Track rat at 12:22 PM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 12:23 PM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 12:59 PM 4/22/2005
I've been thinkin' on this one. The 'tunerZ yO' crowd seems to be going drifting and drag racing. The road racers are a different bunch don't ya think?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the teams with the money will spend it, and make it spent well.
They could spend 100 of hours on the stock motor trying to exploit EVERYTHING possibly they can, yes they would only yeild a small amount but if they win then it would be enough for them.
I don't disagree with you but i guess im just trying to say that becuase you cut cost and such it doesn't mean they wont find another palce to spend it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
You make excellent points...but when they turn 266 whp on the dyno and get another 5% added to their restrictor, they may be more inclined to spend that money on new crew uniforms, a new pit cart or something else.
Another effect of lower operating costs...rental rates could come down from the 20K per race range to less than 1/2 that. This could lure more young talent and increase the number of rental cars.
I like the SWC-T series! I want to see it succeed and get exposure to new fans. There are strong rumors that manufacturers are looking hard at the millions they throw at NASCRAP. A little of that fortune would go a long way in SWC.
The car specs in SWC are very similar to NASCAR's in the late 60's & early 70's, before they went tube frame. This street similarity lured manufacturers to NASCAR in the first place. Time for manufacturers to go back to their roots - SWC!
Good thought provoking comments guys...keep them coming.
Modified by Track rat at 12:22 PM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 12:23 PM 4/22/2005
Modified by Track rat at 12:59 PM 4/22/2005
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,200
Likes: 0
From: One by one, the penguins steal my sanity.
Re: (slammed_93_hatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the cost would be cut to 250,000 for how long... one season?
the teams with the money will spend it, and make it spent well.
They could spend 100 of hours on the stock motor trying to exploit EVERYTHING possibly they can, yes they would only yeild a small amount but if they win then it would be enough for them.
I don't disagree with you but i guess im just trying to say that becuase you cut cost and such it doesn't mean they wont find another palce to spend it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes, the wealthiest racers (in this case, those with manufacturer backing) will always spend more and very often go faster for it.
But, you can keep the cost of entry low enough that privateers still want to race. And if you set the rules right, they might even be able to make the occasional run for the checker.
Foo's run a few years ago is a pretty good example - it's unlikely he ever would have been able to run day-in, day-out against well funded teams like RealTime, but he sure stirred the pot and made everybody notice. I can even credit that season as enticing me to follow WC races.
the teams with the money will spend it, and make it spent well.
They could spend 100 of hours on the stock motor trying to exploit EVERYTHING possibly they can, yes they would only yeild a small amount but if they win then it would be enough for them.
I don't disagree with you but i guess im just trying to say that becuase you cut cost and such it doesn't mean they wont find another palce to spend it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes, the wealthiest racers (in this case, those with manufacturer backing) will always spend more and very often go faster for it.
But, you can keep the cost of entry low enough that privateers still want to race. And if you set the rules right, they might even be able to make the occasional run for the checker.
Foo's run a few years ago is a pretty good example - it's unlikely he ever would have been able to run day-in, day-out against well funded teams like RealTime, but he sure stirred the pot and made everybody notice. I can even credit that season as enticing me to follow WC races.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,360
Likes: 0
From: Arlington // Madison Motorsports, VA, USA
Re: Re thinking Speed World Challenge Touring specs. (bb6h22a)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bb6h22a »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Then that would lead to a spec series lead by whichever manufacture could afford to, or offer a competative enough package, to sway the majority of the entrants.</TD></TR></TABLE>
It would sway teams to whatever is the most competitive package but that's no different than now, except that its more expensive. A kit car or a comp car (see: Viper Competition Coupe) would still need some develop in the hands of privateers anyway. The teams with the best development program would still win, they just wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Change the manufacturer points system to award them to the top 5 (or whatever) finishers running each make, rather than just to the top finishers overall. If Daewoo walks away with more points from having 5 cars in the top 15, than Acura does for winning with one car, Acura would find a way to get more cars to more entrants.</TD></TR></TABLE>
That is an awesome idea! Best idea yet
It would sway teams to whatever is the most competitive package but that's no different than now, except that its more expensive. A kit car or a comp car (see: Viper Competition Coupe) would still need some develop in the hands of privateers anyway. The teams with the best development program would still win, they just wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Change the manufacturer points system to award them to the top 5 (or whatever) finishers running each make, rather than just to the top finishers overall. If Daewoo walks away with more points from having 5 cars in the top 15, than Acura does for winning with one car, Acura would find a way to get more cars to more entrants.</TD></TR></TABLE>
That is an awesome idea! Best idea yet