Do you like the 2008 Solosprint tire PIP rule?

[Guillermo]

Solosprint adopted a rule on a "trial basis" for 2008, it was the tire PIP rule.
Basically uber tires like Hoosers and Kumho V710 were considered Premium R-compounds with 0 PIPS.
Toyo RA1 and other "non-premium" R-compounds were -5 PIPS (brings the car down exactly 1 class)
Street tires were -10 PIPs which brings the car down 2 classes.

As the HADA solosprint representative let me know if you liked the current Solosprint tire PIP rule and if you want it to be implemented again for 2009.

[pigeon]

Yes I like it, it makes Solosprint more attainable for people who wish to be competitive but cannot afford a dedicated set of race tires and rims.

[MilesM]

Not convinced ubers are worth 5 PIPs.

[nrg3k]

i like the rule. it made classes more realistic in my opinion. The cars i have been classed against this season made perfect sense vs the 2 events i ran last season.

DJM:>

[SiRJL]

Yes I like it, it makes Solosprint more attainable for people who wish to be competitive but cannot afford a dedicated set of race tires and rims.

Word I feel the same! +1

[engsr]

Yes I like it, it makes Solosprint more attainable for people who wish to be competitive but cannot afford a dedicated set of race tires and rims.

I agree. I'm not hardcore enough to go for that extra second on a set a tires that won't last more than 3 or 4 events. I like the dollar value with RA-1s.

However, since this is (quote someone) "an experiment", I'm curious to know if the Solosprint committee is obtaining any quantifiable data that would either justify this rule for the future or disprove its purpose altogether? And what about the aero rules - has the committee looked into this as well with in depth analysis?

[JohnP]

I like the rule because it allows me to run less expensive tires and still be competitive. If I want to go faster I can always increase my tire budget.

[Matt]

Absolutely completely without a doubt agree that this rule should be in place. Tires were previously the easiest way to spend money to improve your standing without actually being any better.

[Slowpoke]

However, since this is (quote someone) "an experiment", I'm curious to know if the Solosprint committee is obtaining any quantifiable data that would either justify this rule for the future or disprove its purpose altogether? And what about the aero rules - has the committee looked into this as well with in depth analysis?

Chuck Atkins (Ontario SoloSprint Director and National Solo Director) has publically mentioned that he's never been a fan of a rule that biases one tire over another. You should buy what works best for you and use that. But the competitors who showed up for the rules discussion last year before the banquet pushed hard for it with good arguments. However, Chuck is VERY interested in doing what's best for the series and won't let his own biases ruin it for everyone else.

FYI: There's two newer voices on the OSO that are preaching economic budget ability at every meeting. This has not always been the case. I think that focusing on keeping costs low is essential for the sustainability of the series, though.

The problem with the tire rule is that Quebec doesn't like the idea of this rule, and swear that they won't adopt it. Same with aero. Talking to a local tire vendor in the past, they like ubers because they sell 2 to 4 times as many sets per competitor vs. an RA-1 or a V700, so they certainly don't like the idea of the rule. So Quebec's lack of acceptance (or even attempt to try) these new rules may sink it for Ontario in the interest of national rules harmony.

The CCC collects data from all of the events. Ana Maria has specifically been asking every registrant what class of tire that they're on so that the CCC can use that data at the end of the year to analyze it. James Mewett is the chair of the CCC and does most of the number crunching and engineering calculations. He then presents the findings to the rest of the CCC for discussion before the end of year meeting.

I think that certain FWD and AWD cars come alive with front splitters, but it's only the trailered cars that tend to run them. (Two Hondas, Luca, Arek, Paul's yellow WRX.) Especially on tracks with long corners like Mosport and Shannonville Pro. However, it's hard to separate out what makes these people fast unless we ask them to remove it and go back out and lap again. So I think that a full front splitter should also be two PIP's as we discussed some last year, not one. Don't forget that these cars are also stripped, so is it the light weight or the aero? My thinking is a combination of the two, but we may not be putting enough bias on light weight. (Yes, Adam might have been a genius all this time. Who new?)

Anyway, my suggestion to you is that if you LIKE a current rule, tell the director. People who whine in forums are ignored. People who show up to the meeting at the end of the year with good arguments and data are heard.

[Matt]

I would really appreciate if the CCC did not exclude the opinions ("whining") of people who live hundreds of kilometers away from these meetings and can not attend. I'm going to try very hard to leave this a simple question posting and not debate the validity... it looks like HADA is pretty set on "fair" competition, rather than "money wins".

[AdamH]

I think the tires rules are 100% great and have helped level the cars much better IMO

who cares about what Quebec thinks..and about the "nationals"

re: aero...Pips are ok at this point..unless cars we see coming out are getting out of hand and we start seeing hill climb aero crazy stuff

re: light weight..I think its is undervalued..as we only account for it in acceleration..however not for braking and cornering

re:AWD systems..must be accounted for...as the cars are getting the benifit of the extra weight..however not paying the pips for the benifit AWD conveys

thats my take

otherwise the rules are pretty good to date

[Wes]

How can I make no equal ten characters.



Nnnnnnoooooooo!

Get rid of the stupid rule. You show up and run and if you run on streets, all the power to you. If you took advantage of the Toyo Racer's discount, good for you. If you bought 710s or Hoosiers, have fun!

[HBomb]

re: light weight..I think its is undervalued..as we only account for it in acceleration..however not for braking and cornering


When will we start to account for torque? You can't tell me it's not important...

[1999_ITR]

Tire rule is good to be honest....If you look at most racing series they try to make things as even as possible and TRY to make it about the driver. I feel the tire rule is a step in the right direction.

My Concerns

As Hanif said Torque...It should be accounted for as it is HUGE even more so than horsepower as it is directly related.

Dyno plots...I feel that they are being misused as well as the difference between the number produced with the dyno's being used. I say find an all wheel drive dyno, speak to the owner to get a discounted rate(he's still gonna make alot) and make that the dyno that must be used in order for it to be recognized by the CCC. I know there are still factors such as weather and what not but SAE should take care of most of that.

[AdamH]

"When will we start to account for torque? You can't tell me it's not important..."

we looked at this very carefully and it was not worth the extra complexity to the system, as it hardly had any effect on classing

[1999_ITR]

Adam how did you guys figure that?? 2 cars similar weight and similar horsepower but 1 makes like 100ftlbs of torque more that the other and they should be in the same class based on that? Come on man....You know that 1 with more torque will have an advantage. I know there are other factors but what I mean if the deciding factor on which class both cars were in was based on torque then I think it makes a difference.

[AdamH]

one of the factors is that we are racing..and not stump pulling or grinding grain

work over time my friend...

the extra torque at low RPM does you no good when we are not at low RPM racing..the engines are already buzzing...we are not starting from a standing stop

in any case we looked at that issue very indepth..and concluded thats its not a big enough factor to even bother including into the formula..

now if we were a tractor hauling series we would have to look at it again :)

[pigeon]

I think Marks asking what did "looking very indepth" consist of. Torque increase doesn't necessarily mean "low end torque". There is such a thing as torque increase in the higher RPM range, which would make a difference in acceleration - and ultimately make a difference in your lap time.

[Matt]

I'm sure I'd like to have some torque, too... but find me a dyno plot of two engines that have the same HP and 100ft-lb difference. HP is Tq*RPM, so they are not un-related items. I believe that as long as two cars are putting the same HP to the wheels during a given condition, they will be accelerating at the same rate... Start a new thread if you want some "proofs" either way on torque, this one is for the wonderful field-levelling tire rule :)

[AdamH]

indepth means we actually plotted various cars and used some sort of standard deviation chart to plot thier performance vs hp and torque/times..we actually do this every year to see if any cars are outperforming what they should be..to try and catch cars that are out of norm..and then correct it

"There is such a thing as torque increase in the higher RPM range, which would make a difference in acceleration - and ultimately make a difference in your lap time. "

yes true..but HP is calculated from torque..so high torque motors also have high HP in the upper range :) so it would be reflected in that cars HP value


now if we see some Diesel racing cars coming out..we may have to revise the rules...so far we have not

[pigeon]

Another rule (maybe not a rule, but a Solosprint inconsistency) is the PAX factors. They definitely need to be updated to reflect Calabogie and Mosport, it is ridiculous to believe that at Calabogie a T3 car should be running 1:55

Thats 8 seconds faster than the track record, that is ridiculous.

[AdamH]

yes its WORK over TIME

[1999_ITR]

Watch the Audi's in an ALMS race and tell me that Torque means nothing... Torque makes horsepower...Torque helps with acceleration then horsepower takes over. It has nothing to do with going from a stop. Ask anyone who has a B-series motor who's been in my car what their first comment is...Always something along the lines of the extra torque really helps coming out of the corner.

[pigeon]

I'm sure I'd like to have some torque, too... but find me a dyno plot of two engines that have the same HP and 100ft-lb difference. HP is Tq*RPM, so they are not un-related items. I believe that as long as two cars are putting the same HP to the wheels during a given condition, they will be accelerating at the same rate...

yes true..but HP is calculated from torque..so high torque motors also have high HP in the upper range :) so it would be reflected in that cars HP value

OK I understand, it makes a lot more sense now :)

[1999_ITR]

I'm sure I'd like to have some torque, too... but find me a dyno plot of two engines that have the same HP and 100ft-lb difference. HP is Tq*RPM, so they are not un-related items. I believe that as long as two cars are putting the same HP to the wheels during a given condition, they will be accelerating at the same rate... Start a new thread if you want some "proofs" either way on torque, this one is for the wonderful field-levelling tire rule :)

Matt my motor the K20 and a K24 motor, with same mods the horsepower difference is about 50ftlbs yet in the same car, same weight acceleration woul be much better with the K24 motor.

[AdamH]

"Watch the Audi's in an ALMS race and tell me that Torque means nothing... Torque makes horsepower...Torque helps with acceleration then horsepower takes over. It has nothing to do with going from a stop. Ask anyone who has a B-series motor who's been in my car what their first comment is...Always something along the lines of the extra torque really helps coming out of the corner."


umm those are diesel engines no? I already said that we would have to modify our rules if those came racing..


as for standard engines IMO the ruleset is working fine..and torque is not a factor since we are racing..and not bogging motors out in traffic and street driving..


anyway..if its a concern..bring it up at the solosprint rules meeting before the banquet...we look at and discuss all things brought up

(even though we have really looked at that issue indepth over several years)

[pigeon]

Watch the Audi's in an ALMS race and tell me that Torque means nothing... Torque makes horsepower...Torque helps with acceleration then horsepower takes over. It has nothing to do with going from a stop. Ask anyone who has a B-series motor who's been in my car what their first comment is...Always something along the lines of the extra torque really helps coming out of the corner.
According to Matt: Torque x RPM = Horsepower

So if a car had an increase in torque at any given RPM, that is going to be reflected in the horsepower number that is shown on the dyno. So your scenario of a car with 100ft lb more torque but equal horsepower, isn't actually likely unless it was a different configuration of engine - or gearing related.

Like if for example we took your engine and tried to increase its torque by 100ft lb without significantly increasing its HP, it wouldn't be possible.

[HBomb]

A B18 makes 140HP and 121 lbs-ft of torque.

A B20B makes 126HP and 133 lbs-ft of torque. Which do you think would go faster in a Civic Hatch?

I know which I'd choose based on the current ruleset :)

Hanif

[pigeon]

Mark, do you happen to have a dyno plot of a stock K20 and stock K24?

[AdamH]

exactly...

the honda engines overcome this by revving more...

vs a big v8 like mine that does not rev..well 6000rpm anyway..

anyway....its not a big issue.....

weight is a far greater issue..and so is AWD IMO

(now that the tire rule has been fixed :) )

[AdamH]

I would pick the

B18 makes 140HP and 121 lbs-ft of torque

either way both look gutluss :)

not sure either would make much difference :)

[AdamH]

here go have fun...


http://autospeed.com/cms/A_108704/article.html

[1999_ITR]

Mark, do you happen to have a dyno plot of a stock K20 and stock K24?


Chris I don't personally but if you go on K20A.org you will see numerous dynos of K20's and K24's making the exact same horsepower numbers but the k24's making 50-60ftlbs more torque. All other things being equal since both fit in the exact same cars....how could you argue that the one with more toque doesn't have an advantage??

[Matt]

If both cars of equal HP used gearing such that the "used" portion of the power band displayed the same HP output, both cars would go exactly the same speed.

The difference comes in non-optimised gearing (ie, stock) where a higher-torque car actually has higher HP in the lower range of "used" rpms.

So yeah, the 140hp B18 will actually be accelerating faster *when the motor is making 140hp* (short range of rpm) than the 126hp motor when that engine is at its peak hp. Give them both a CVT and you'll get more accel out of the higher hp car.

The horsepower-usage formula (kinda complicated, i can fish it up if this continues) directly relates HP to Acceleration, i believe.

[nrg3k]

i think the idea of a k24 and a k20a making the same power depends on many other issues. Assuming the k24 has an advantage that isn't accounted for is short sighted as you won't see that advantage if the rest of the car isn't actually optimised to make use of the torque.

The car that has the k24 will also have a less-optimised transmission, or else they will take extra PIPs for gears and LSD. Also, the extra weight of those 400ccs are gonna eliminate most of the advantage for most drivers. Finally, the k24 doesn't rev as high as the k20a does, and therefore have a limited top speed and possibly more shifting to keep the car in the power band. If the k24 is modified to allow higher revs, it would be reflected in the power output. THis is obviously the case with 'built' k24s such as Kermit which has 20-40hp more than your k20a.

I'm all for torque, but if you don't have skills, who really cares?

DJM:>

[ShaneG]

Back to the 2008 Solosprint tire PIP rule question.

I only completed 1 event so my observations are obviously limited. However, I did hear many people comment on the feeling of being on a more level field.

I kinda agree with Miles, in saying I don't know if 5 is the correct # of Pips. To be honest I don't have any feeling for what an accurate # would be, suffice to say there has to some sort of leveling of the field, or Solosprint runs the risk of driving some people off.

I might be kinda' neat to see ubers being 4 or 6 points allowing them to be used strategically... but that is purely a "hmmmmm", thought with 0 scientific analysis.

I am very happy with the deal we were able to get though Toyo and for my purposes it was the perfect solution. I believe that the Victoracers were a little faster, but not a night and day difference as I have experienced in Solo 2 between the V710 and the RA-1

I would say 100% keep the tire pips please.

and them's that want to, and can afford to, can buy a set of Ubers for the nationals
my $0.02

[1999_ITR]

i think the idea of a k24 and a k20a making the same power depends on many other issues. Assuming the k24 has an advantage that isn't accounted for is short sighted as you won't see that advantage if the rest of the car isn't actually optimised to make use of the torque.

The car that has the k24 will also have a less-optimised transmission, or else they will take extra PIPs for gears and LSD. Also, the extra weight of those 400ccs are gonna eliminate most of the advantage for most drivers. Finally, the k24 doesn't rev as high as the k20a does, and therefore have a limited top speed and possibly more shifting to keep the car in the power band. If the k24 is modified to allow higher revs, it would be reflected in the power output. THis is obviously the case with 'built' k24s such as Kermit which has 20-40hp more than your k20a.

I'm all for torque, but if you don't have skills, who really cares?

DJM:>

David I'm talking if both cars are prepped the same exactly which is very easy as both motors fit in all the same cars. They will both have the same transmission as you cannot run a K24 tranny so it'll have to be a Type S or Type R tranny. Both motors if they are running the same tranny will have to take the same pips. Weight? The K24 motor weighs exactly 11lbs more than the K20. In all honesty it's actually already been proven on K20A.org with 4 different shop cars including Hasport. Swithing from a K20 making 220hp and 155ftlbs to a K24 making 220hp and 195ftlbs and changing nothing else on the car not only made for a faster 1/4 mile time but also faster overall laps around different roadcourses.

[Matt]

Well that's the issue right there, Mark... they put the same gears in two different motors. In solosprints we keep harping "optimized upgrades". Why would the same tranny be optimal for two different motors with different powerbands? If you used a set of gears for each car such that the same HP were being put to the ground, they would accelerate the same. Instead, you've got a car with more torque and a flatter powerband having the same gearing as a car with a peakier power band and wondering why the peakier band isn't accelerating the same.

1/4 mile is the perfect proving grounds for the bad gearing... off the launch, the high-revver is f'd from the get-go.

[1999_ITR]

Don't get me wrong here I agree with your points Matt. My issue is that torque is not accounted for. I mean in a perfect world you could have 2 cars set up exactly the same, weighing exactly the same, 1 with a k20 motor and one with a k24 motor and both having trannys with custom gears that are made specifically for each vehicles powerbands and the k24 with more torque will still be faster, gearing makes up for alot i know but 50ftlbs of torque with all otehr things being equal?? I doubt that.

[TomL]

I think you need rewards weight.

[ShaneG]

I been campaigning for pips for the winning drivers for a few years.....at least until I win!:D

[BBQMAN]

I think the tires rules are 100% great and have helped level the cars much better IMO

who cares about what Quebec thinks..and about the "nationals"




be careful Adam, I read these forums and speak english too!!!

BTW, RA1s are all but discontinued and the consensus on the R888 is ot good.
many drivers have said that they wear faster than RA1s and are ot as sticky.
Besides, shaved R888s wear out faster than a set of R6s...ask mark!!!

In any case, not matter which tire you choose, it is expensive to stay competitive. streets cost more initially than Rs, Rs wear out faster when shaved to be competitive, and ubers need to be replaced more often..... its all the same.

I vote ditch the tire rule.....no matter what Quebec thinks...lol

[BBQMAN]

oh yeah, I am also thinking of showing up to Mosport last event with the ITR on Rt615s in GT4...... so who is the guy to beat in GT4?

[Matt]

Mohammad was kicking my ass in gt4 and propping gt3 every time, so i added some upgrades to go to gt3 where i'm competing against him anyway. You won't prove anything by beating him, you'll have to completely embarrass him to make the CCC think it is out of whack... good luck

[AdamH]

he he ...love to torture you Carl...


thats anglophones for you :)