i am sure this topic has been beaten to death, but even after a long search i couldn't find a topic on it, i guess my keywords weren't matching any of the threads.

The pros and cons of N/A circuit cars vs Turbo circuit cars...

So far i can list a few cons for turbos at the track:
- turbo lag
- oversteer in FWD cars, vice versa for RWD
- heat

This only what i've heard and i am not too confident on how true they are, can you please elaborate on every single one and list all the pros/cons for both n/a and turbo. Or it would be even better if somebody could direct me to some good reading material. Thanks.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by UROD &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> oversteer in FWD cars, vice versa for RWD </TD></TR></TABLE>

Could you possibly mean Understeer or Torquesteer?

I would add a couple to the list:

-reliabilty
-consistency = My turbo'ed Integs performance fluctuated like the weather.
-less parts for NA = Less to go wrong
-less parts for NA = Less $$
-Boost Contol = More Horse on Demand

I prefer NA, but the 300+ to the ground in a Turbo'ed B18 is fun as hell, too.

.02 cents at midnight.

 

I always have trouble with the "track car" question since I can't make ANY sense out of not using something that is either essentially stock or built to SOME set of racing rules.

At the end of the day, modifying any vehicle to play with it on the race track makes almost NO sense in the grand scheme of things so the NA vs. turbo question might be "Dumb and Dumber."

K

 

I agree with Kirk, you need a purpose or a reason before or when you begin. "Random acts of speed" are fun in the short term but generally meaningless if there isn't someone or something to compete or compare against. When there is an opportunity to compete, there will also be rules to follow so early on you need to follow them as they have some levelling to the playing field.

Your question should not be "turbo or not?", it should be "what do I want to do?" and "what is allowed in doing it?". Throw a turbo on a generally N/A car and you have probably eliminated the car from 3/4 or more of the potential classes it could run in. Do you need a turbo to be fast? Not in the least bit, it is just one of many ways but it will exclude you from more than it will include you in.

To comment on your notes:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by UROD &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
- turbo lag
- oversteer in FWD cars, vice versa for RWD
- heat
</TD></TR></TABLE>

-turbo lag?- Minor on an open track in a well developed car so deal adapt your driving style to work with it if you have it.
- oversteer in FWD cars, vice versa for RWD?- Has nothing to do with turbo or N/A and anyone that tells you this proves they don't know what they are talking about. Chassis and suspension are one thing, the way the engine makes power is another. They may have some minor impact on one another but one does not dominate the other. Make your chassis handle the best you can, make the engine make power the best it can all within what is allowed.
-heat? Heat can be dealt with

 

Funny how the thread morphed to comments of how if you are not racing, modding your car for road course work according to "rules nerd" makes NO sense. Was that advice on the question asked? I don't think so. To answer the original question having been a tt supra owner who kept his motor basically stock and knowing quite a few supra owners who modded their cars some significantly I can say as someone else commented that reliability and "issues" are a big factor especially at track events. Cars with turbos generally have more "issues", stutters, engine falls in a hole at some rpms, boost leak, a/f ratio, blowoffs whatever. NA cars while yes they can break down too just have less issues. So my two cents is go NA.

Now as to the comments that it makes NO sense to mod a car for a road course work if you don't race. Well that is pretty elitist in my opinion. I have a track only car and yes I probably will go racing in the next year or two BUT there are reasons to own just a track car and you don't race. Here are mine:

1. If I wad up my track car it is something I accept before hand and it won't break the bank.

2. Because I am turning lap times right up there with "racers" (GASP!!!- blasphemer) I want a full 6 point roll cage, door bars, FIA Sparcos, and 5 points. Funny having a full cage at 100mph+ at turn 12 at Road Atlanta just feels better.

3. I want a car that is less of a compromise for track work because I want fast laps so no A/C, no interior, (well I do have two roll down windows), "race" suspension, etc.

4. I spend about 1400 or so miles on track each year as an instructor for various organizations so I do spend a good bit of seat time on track and want a proper tool for that work.

Having a track car makes all kinds of sense from an economic, safety, and even more important (the most important) from a fun standpoint. That is why I sold my tt supra. I wanted a fast track car that parts were cheaper and I could wad up the chassis god forbid and it not be about impossible to put the car back together. Being an instructor for BMWCCA, NASA, SCCA, and ITRCA I know quite a few folks like me that do track days enough that they have a track car just for that. Even Radical sells a two seater track car these days. What do you think the majority of Lotus Elises will be used for in this country? I bet DEs. I think my car is H1 legal with the buttload of mods it has. I anticipate racing HC or maybe do an ITA CRX, but track events are a legitimate motorsports pastime. So please tilt your noses back down.

Barry H.

Barry H.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by apexinghonda &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Funny how the thread morphed to comments of how if you are not racing, modding your car for road course work according to "rules nerd" makes NO sense. Was that advice on the question asked? I don't think so.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Gee, I thought I had commented point by point as he stated even to the point of using his words. Although he did not mention a specific car when asking about N/A vs. turbo, I was thinking that he might be talking about possible adding a turbo to an existing N/A car at which point as I mentioned that you may be limiting your opportunties and places to run it. I don't think it was the wrong interpretation of his statement. I did not say that that all turbo cars are bad, I have enjoyed owning several that were OE turbocharged. It also does not say that he does not own the potential track car and should he buy an N/A or turbo one.

I don't think either Kirk or I said that you must go wheel to wheel racing either, I think it basically says to do your research and decide what you want to do before bolting on popular upgrades like turbos, coil-overs, etc. that may effect your options downstream. Kirk and I have both been racers for a long time so maybe we are more personally focussed that way but that doesn't mean we are elitist racers only. I too have instructed for many lapping and racing organizations including hosting my own lapping day/driver's schools for 11 years so many of us have credentials and points of view.

When helping a person get into on-track events, suggesting that one go in with an open mind and some idea of the big picture is doing him the best justice. As you stated, not all cars are a well suited to it by performance, value and risk so a better judged entry into the sport can carry you farther down stream and get the most fun for the effort, buck, etc. I hate to see someone put a lot of money and effort into a car then have to sell it because he can't do what he wants to do with it. I have known guys to go buy an existing SCCA racecar before attending their first race and finding they made a huge mistake. One guy I know bought a ancient F440 to find that it was too old to race, then boiught a sled ITC Dodge Colt (DOH!) that he promptly destroyed and now well over a decade later is happy racing Formula Vees. Some research could have saved him a lot of time and money.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I always have trouble with the "track car" question since I can't make ANY sense out of not using something that is either essentially stock or built to SOME set of racing rules.

At the end of the day, modifying any vehicle to play with it on the race track makes almost NO sense in the grand scheme of things so the NA vs. turbo question might be "Dumb and Dumber."

K</TD></TR></TABLE><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX Lee &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I agree with Kirk, you need a purpose or a reason before or when you begin. "Random acts of speed" are fun in the short term but generally meaningless if there isn't someone or something to compete or compare against.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well what did you mean that "random acts of speed" are generally "meaningless"? That is the point I am talking about. So what I am doing on track is meaningless? Worthless? Or the "dumb and dumber" comment. As a person that does track event I see those comments as demeaning and snobbish. If one wanted to "deamean" road racers one could say if you are not racing a vehicle capable of a podium finish or lack podium finisher "talent", racing is meaningless. But I don't believe that because if you are running top ten and you know the general group of guys you are racing with for position, beating a guy you have to duke it out with a lot can be very rewarding. If one isn't competing for a trophy, is it all meaningless? No it isn't. Having a good time on the track is a hell of a lot of fun and I don't have to be racing for position for track time to have meaning.

While yes, it is good advice to tell someone if you think you are going racing and you want to build a track car you may want to build one up that will fit the rules of what you want to race. And yes you gave some otherwise good advice. There are a lot more people that do track events than road race. I know some very good drivers who do only track events and have purpose built very fast cars. It does not always have to be a transitory activity heading towards racing. For some it is just what they want to do and there should be nothing wrong with that. The thread starter said NOTHING about wanting to go racing. He said he wanted to build a "circuit" car. What constructive point was there is saying unless you are racing someone it is meaningless? If you put on DE events would your customers want to hear you say that at the driver's meeting? I would not think so. My point is what is the point of cutting down DE people? I don't cut down road racers and in fact was race chair for my region last year, am assistant race chair this year, and am a divisionally licensed corner worker so I support racing. Just chill out on the snobbery.

Barry H.

 

pros
-power

cons
-more heat
-more plumbing to fail
-more heat
-turbo lag
-more heat
-octane requirements
-more heat


heat is the biggest enemy of a racing car in case you didn't notice.

 

Pull the undies out of your crack there, Barry. You may be letting a track-car persecution complex blind you to what I'm trying to say...

Investing $$ in a car that is specialized, by modifications, for on-track duty makes no sense, compared to putting it in the bank, buying a house, or investing it additional education or professional development - "the grand scheme of things." This is particularly the case if the modifications that ARE done are not universally accepted in the broader market of on-track uses of cars - racing, primarily.

Doing this with an NA car is "dumb." Doing it with a turbo car is "dumber" simply because the costs involved go up and as Lee points out, there is almost NOWHERE that a turbo car can run sanctioned races. Very low demand = no chance to sell the car - finished or otherwise - once one is done with the fun.

To be fair, this is no dumber than spenging $10k on a Harley that you only ride three times a year, a $30K bass boat that sits in the driveway, or thousands of dollars worth of model railroad stuff under a sheet in the basement but there are HUNDREDS of times the number of people in the US that play those games: When it comes time to change hobbies, there is a better chance that one won't get dorked.

I contend however that I am STILL offering valuable advice to someone who is starting out in on-track sport, however. (I am assuming this to be the case given the apparent grounding of the question.) Look at the number of not-legal-for-any-class track cars that get sold at huge losses or parted out. Look at all of the unfinished projects that get given away. There have been some here in the last week, selling for pennies on the dollar, if they sell at all.

Look also at the number of guys/gals you see out there who have hardware investments that are way out of proportion to their driving skill. Wouldn't you agree that a person can - and probably should - develop driving skills before poking another hundred horsepower under the hood?

How about the DE people out there who don't have your sense of safety? Aren't you counseling the use of race-quality safety gear? Isn't that snobbery? No - it's good advice. I WILL argue - and have done so here for years - that the instant someone times a lap, he/she is no longer participating in "driver education" but is instead "racing." That is the point in my book where the safety equipment should go in and the real fun can start.

I think it's only the right thing to do to help educate newbies so they can avoid common mistakes - spending gross amounts of money that they can't recoup - or less common ones like getting hurt on the track.

K

 

personally, i dont think its "elitist" to point out to someone asking a dumbass question to get a clue. but that maybe just me. at least kirk and lee have both tried to lead him into the right direction.

ill back up the fact that the original question is stupid.

1st: pros and cons??? of what? for what? there has to be a purpose, a goal for there to be pros and cons. if his purpose is to go "racing" then this is a pointless question as there are rules to each class that needs to be decided upon. if his desire is to just get on the track, wtf does it matter of "pros and cons" other than the obvious different in mechanicals and extra care and money that comes with the extra power. but when theres no competition, there really isnt an issue is there? so whats there to discuss?

2nd: "oversteer in FWD cars, vice versa for RWD" vice versa?? quid pro quo, alea iacta est! since when do FWD oversteer and RWD i presume he means understeer? i guess he's got the other way around. but maybe someone should introduce to him that the DRIVER controls the throttle pedal (ERGO understeer vs. oversteer), unlike in drag racing when any monkey can push the pedal to the floor.

see its so hard to answer questions to newbies when they post stuff that they show they have no clue in. i commend kirk and lee for trying to get him on the right track of introducing concepts of rules and racing and otherwise wasting your money if you just want to get on the track and have fun. HPDE is not about power, but if thats your thing, then thats fine but theres no extra unobvious "cons" related to being on the track, except the ones kirk and lee mentioned.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by apexinghonda &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Well what did you mean that "random acts of speed" are generally "meaningless"? That is the point I am talking about. So what I am doing on track is meaningless? .
</TD></TR></TABLE>

The rest of my sentence was "if there isn't someone or something to compete or compare against". Ever hear of taking a lap time to see how your performance is or against other folks. Gee, that is a comparison and I'll bet that you have done it as well. Do I compare my Mid-Ohio lap times in my CRX against Paul Tracy's Lola lap times? No, I will compare them against other cars of similar capability and maybe they might even be able compete with (again, "compete" does not mean only wheel to wheel).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by apexinghonda &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
If one isn't competing for a trophy, is it all meaningless? No it isn't.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
If you are simply racing for a trophy, take a look at the trophy that you may get and you will likely feel that it is meaningless. Spending that kind of money, time, effort, etc. really should be more important that the $10 plaque that is the material reward in amateur racing. If you are to do this for long, there needs to be more than the cheap trophy as a goal. Once I got a $10 umbrella for doing well, at least it had some minor function. The biggest reward is internal for all of this.

By no means did I say "DEs are bad" or "wheel to wheel is the only way". I know lots of people who only do lapping and there can be lots of reasons to do only that and I have driven many myself. By the "random acts of speed" comment, I was meaning that being blazing fast in short spurts but without a real plan to make it all work as a lap or a number of laps is "meaningless". I was thinking about folks like one guy who for years has come to my event with 911s, turbo RX7s and this year a highly built big single turbo Supra that sounded like all the pressure in the world blowing out an exhaust big enough to be a sewer pipe. The guy presents himself as a king driver because he can be really fast down the straights but if you were to time him or put a well driven lesser car behind him, you would find that he isn't much at turning the wheel or pushing the brake. So what if it is really fast on the straight, on a roadcourse we tie lots of things together to make a lap, not just who hits the highest terminal speed.

I don't know if some racer has stepped on your toes and I know that "road racers as snobs" is a popular and sometimes not undeserved stereotype (and guess what- formula car guys often do it to fendered car guys and probably winged formula car guys might do it to non-winged formula car guys), but don't blame me and repeatedly call me a snob when I neither meant nor sometimes typed what you are reading into it. This has drifted too far from the original poster's request for advice so I am dropping it there.

Look at Kirk's final sentence: "I think it's only the right thing to do to help educate newbies so they can avoid common mistakes - spending gross amounts of money that they can't recoup - or less common ones like getting hurt on the track." I think that is what we are all trying to do.

 

OK last shot at this for me. No one has "stepped on my toes". I work really stupid hours and the three guys I talk to the most every week are all club racers either IT or GT2. I read your comment and "rules nerd" comments as derogatory and I don't think that was an unreasonable interpretation. But if you say you didn't mean to take a backhanded stab at people that do DEs then that is fine with me. I don't come here to be a flame warrior but I am inclined to comment if I think somebody is cutting down an activity I enjoy and engage in on a frequent basis. Most of my buddies or people I interact with are in motorsports with a mix of Solo 2, DE, and road racers.

Some of those folks you talk about who have the big single turbo supras, heck I probably know the guy. Believe me going from a tt supra to a ratty looking but modded B18c breathing under the hood is in part to mess with the heads of people that have fast cars and think they are M. Schumi but get all freaked out when a "slower" car comes up the rear view mirror and then shows them the exhaust. Nothing is more satisfying than running down a higher hp car with a combination of a good handling car and a modicum of skill. My Honda CRX is a perfect car for that.

I believe in education. That is why I come here. I want to know more about my car, more about a car's performance trackside in general (brake pads, suspension, alingment, etc), and meet on occasion some fellow Honda enthusiasts trackside. I made some great friend in the supra "world" hanging out on the internet and later meeting for track events. Including running down a supra buddy driving a T78 (too big for road course work) single supra (600hp) in the new Honda and blowing right by him on the track. That opened his eyes.

If you are trying to help people prevent making mistakes, I think that is great. As you well know what you spend building up a car is never recouped (which is why I bought already built up car but needing a few things). If you have been racing for years I am sure you could teach me a thing or two.

Barry H.

 

I"ll tell you this much... of all the years I've been tracking my car, I see at least one turbo car get towed home. Just yesterday, 3 turbo cars were towed home. Then again, last month, a built n/a car blew its ring lands. So, what's the lesson to be learned? LEAVE YOUR MOTOR STOCK!
If you want years of reliability, leave your motor stock.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your general sentiment,and have seen what you describe at every track event; namely, overly prepped cars, that don't allow the driver to develop their craft (as the car's performance envelope is far above the driver's skill), and due to the extent of modification, the car is useless in any sanctioned class/spec club-racing.
That said, I would only add this to your point: When preparing a car, always err as a conservative. Start with modifications that can be used in a future class, or a future race series even if that's not your intention. Easiest way to do this? Look up the most fielded series, in your area, that caters to your make and model, and go from there.
I'd say that a safe way to hedge your bets, in this hobby, is to make modifications that will translate into racing; coilovers, a good seat and a steering wheel.
After that, it's all about seat time.
Lastly, and to disagree, to a point: to say that modifying a car for track use, other than racing, is dumb is a little extreme; however, if people understand that they should develop themselves, before their cars, then we wouldn't be having this talk.

 

Don't be too hard on Barry. Your first two posts, Kirk and Lee, gave me the same impression that Barry got. As you know, its easy to misinterpret intent in an internet forum post.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by apexinghonda &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> But if you say you didn't mean to take a backhanded stab at people that do DEs then that is fine with me. </TD></TR></TABLE>

In total honesty, it did not even cross my mind and I apologize that my words misled from my intent. I think we have gotten our message and even a few wrong messages across here and maybe we ran the original poster off as well.

Hopefully he can see that these activities take a lot of effort and investment but offer a lot of mostly personal reward so the more he investigates and gives consideration then the better off he will be.

 

All i really wanted to know is which form of power is best at the track and why? I am not building any race car,i have no plans to build one, i simply wanted to know the PROS/CONS of each at the track.

If you are going to get on my case about stupid bullshit like how i phrased the question or defining every single word of every sentence then you are probably better off not posting. Thanks for the help honda-tech.

 

Sorry, man - really not trying to be a dick but you are asking a question that doesn't have a simple answer. Generally speaking, if you ask a question in the "Road Racing/Autocross" forum, the answers are going to be influenced by the fact that most of the populace here are racers, and road races and autocrosses are dictated by rules that don't generally give us a choice of "turbo or not turbo."

It used to be that turbo equivalence formulas allowed blown and NA cars to run in the same series - a la F1 during the early 1.5 liter turbo days. Early on, the turbo cars had tons more power but were massively unreliable. Later, there was no way that the 3-liter NA cars could compete. Sports car racing wrestles with the same thing but there aren't many classes in professional or amateur racing now where both are legal.

In stock form - if talking about street cars - there is little to choose really, since the state of the art is now that turbos are pretty much as reliable as NA engines. I don't know what else to tell you.

K