Rules Proposal 2009-01

Moderators: Mike Simanyi, Rick Brown, Michael Palero

User avatar
Jeff Cawthorne
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 196

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby Jeff Cawthorne » Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:28 pm

What I am starting in SD:

Here is my idea:

All, not classed in ST, stock classed cars may compete (stock excluded cars are excluded). Only for not classed in ST cars, no other ST cars can cherry pick in this class.

Cars that would be classed in ASP, BSP and ESP will use STU rules.

Cars that would be classed in CSP, DSP and FSP will use STS/2 rules, except they may use the limited slip rule from STU and can run 8" wide wheels with 245 tires.

All cars will compete in one class and use their respective Street Prepared PAX index to determine the class rankings.

No need to add the street tire reducing pax, just use the Street Prepared index for the class rankings
Jeff Cawthorne
2016 Miata STR
2015 Mini Cooper S

User avatar
Jayson Woodruff
Posts: 1745
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 51

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby Jayson Woodruff » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:01 pm

Jeff Cawthorne wrote:No need to add the street tire reducing pax, just use the Street Prepared index for the class rankings

We use overall event Pax placings for a team competition, so handicapping for street tires is important in LA. I don't know if they use the overall Pax in S.D. at all except for braging rights in the results.

Jay W

User avatar
Aaron Goldsmith
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:22 pm
Club: CASOC
Car#: 32
Location: HB, CA
Contact:

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby Aaron Goldsmith » Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:29 pm

Marshall Grice wrote:
Sebastian Rios wrote:I think the SST index should be only slightly higher than STU until we figure out what's doing. I propose .838, it follows the progression of .002 increments shared by ST, STS, and STX.

I'd think something like scaling SST's index referenced to ASP by the same percentage as STU is to BSP. So something like .840 for SST.

for reference STU is about 97.3% of BSP's index.


Now that makes sense. Though with the 09 index's I get 0.84281.. for %97.322.. of ASP's .866.

User avatar
Sebastian Rios
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 397
Location: Out to lunch

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby Sebastian Rios » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:10 pm

.840 or .842 is fine, just makes it easier for me ;) . I was thinking of just a simple .002 over until we figure out what the class can do.

If we are talking about comparing to *sp does that mean STS(2) should be .838? :lol: (97.322% of CSP .862).

User avatar
Sebastian Rios
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 397
Location: Out to lunch

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby Sebastian Rios » Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:52 am

Any more discussion on this? .842 is fine with me, I'm not going to run the class. :D

User avatar
Mike Simanyi
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No$
Car#: 6

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby Mike Simanyi » Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:07 pm

Let's discuss this some more. First, cars should be Stock class eligible. I don't know if that was part of the local class foundation or not, but Stock eligibility is required for ST cars.

The car that will wipe out this class is a nice, little SS car we know as the Elise. Other cars will be competitive, but the Elise will be the car to have.

Here are some '09 PAX factors to consider:

SS .856
AS .843
STU .836
STX .822

I suggest .845 for SST. It's far lower than SS - from which the cars will be eligible - and while it's a tiny bit higher than AS it's also only .09 higher than STU, which itself is .14 higher than STX.

Let me demonstrate the number another way. STU cars compare favorably with BSP cars. They are STIs, Evos and M3s.

BSP .859
STU .836

STU is 97.32% of BSP. Compare that to our 98% Street Tire factor and it looks reasonable. A BSP car is allowed unlimited boost, an aftermarket steering wheel (no airbag), no stereo, no heat shields, no catalytic convertors, no smog equipment, etc. Certainly the latter items account for far more than just .68% improvement, so I think the 98% factor *just for tires* is reasonable.

Now look at ASP's .866 PAX. Adjust for 98% and we hit .849 for an ASP car on Street Tires. .845 looks quite reasonable by that standard.

If it weren't for the Elise I'd say .845 may be a little tough, but that little car is the Poster Child of ST cars. Ridiculously light, strong power / weight ratio, and with power that won't overwhelm street tires. A Z06 or GT3 won't stand a chance, and a well-prepped and well-driven S2000 will be facing a tough battle.

And if I'm wildly wrong... we just won't be rocking the Indexed results due to some foolishly easy local PAX. No harm there. If you're fighting to be at the top of the Indexed Times, stick with a conventional class that receives a carefully determined PAX.

Anyone care to comment?

Mike

User avatar
Sebastian Rios
King of Fastrack!
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 397
Location: Out to lunch

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby Sebastian Rios » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:34 am

I'm not an informed source by any means, but how much would speed can an ST prepped Elise gain?

Stiffer springs. :D
Rear Bar. :roll: Needed?
Lighter seats/exhaust :roll: Do Elise seats weigh more than 25lbs? Exhaust path is already short, no huge weight loss.
Power mods :roll: how much 10-12hp?
SLOWER TIRES :roll:

I think it is a net loss.

Then again I won't be running the class, and I bet Ken could go faster in his S2K anyway so yeah, make it too hard. }:)

User avatar
KJ Christopher
Executive Board Member
Posts: 2817
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:29 am
Club: No$
Car#: 11
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby KJ Christopher » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:08 pm

Mike Simanyi wrote:
I suggest .845 for SST.

<snip>

Anyone care to comment?

Mike


Sounds like a good case to me.
kj
Use the email link. I don't read nor get notified of PMs.
No$ Club Rep | SCCA Area 11 Director | CSCC Solo Chair Emeritus
Caged Z Motorsports - automotive consultation
The ACME Special Now with Super Speed Vitamins

User avatar
Rick Brown
Club Representative
Posts: 4499
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 240
Location: Lake Elsinore, CA

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby Rick Brown » Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:30 pm

KJ Christopher wrote:
Mike Simanyi wrote:
I suggest .845 for SST.

<snip>

Anyone care to comment?

Mike


Sounds like a good case to me.

That's what's currently plugged into the timing computer and online in ORM.
Since light is faster than sound...many people look bright until they speak...

User avatar
Marshall Grice
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 21

Re: Rules Proposal 2009-01

Postby Marshall Grice » Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:18 pm

.845 sounds like an resonable place to start.


Return to “Public Rules Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests