Ghsharp@aol.com wrote:
> The key phrases here are "prepared to the limits of the rulebook" and
> "driven by National Championship-caliber drivers". These two things
> are the foundation of nearly every classification decision we make, and
> many of our rules changes. This method is not perfect, but it's the
> best one we have; the best-prepared cars driven by the best drivers on
> the same courses under the same conditions.
So far, so good. Nothing to disagree with here.
> Yes, there is no evidence that the DSM cars are dominant in ESP. Neither have
> we seen at Topeka an example as noted above which
> would_establish_their_competitiveness_ (or lack thereof) against a John Ames,
> Ken Mitchell, or Gary Thomason in a well-prepared Mustang or F-body.
Again, agreed.
If you take recent National Tour and ProSolo results into account things are a
_little_ better for the DSMs, in that DSMs have turned times that would have won
NationalSeries ESP on that day (against lightweight competion for the most part)
or would have been "on the pace" in P3. Then we have Fedja's recent 2cnd place,
but being brutally honest, it was a 3 car race. One of the "shoes" involved had
cone trouble, and the other appears to have had an off day the first day when
you compare his times to other place markers in other classes.
It appears that DSMs are _becoming_ competitive, if nothing else.
And as for "National Championship-caliber drivers", you're dead on correct.
There are currently 4 National level ESP DSMs generating data points, and none
of them are (yet) Championship material. Upper mid-pack at best, the lot of us.
For "prepared to the limits of the rulebook" I can speak authoritaritively for
one car, and I've got a pretty good grip on what the other cars are like. I'd
say the best of us is maybe 80% there, and my car is maybe 75% there (in terms
of having stuff done, but not necessarily tuned right. ie I have the springs,
but not necesarily the "right" springs.
> Until this happens, you're right....
> the SEB doesn't know, and neither does anyone else, and no amount of
> arguing over HP and quarter-mile times is going to change that.
True, but HP numbers and 1/4 mile times give indicators to potential. It's worth
noting that we're not discussing little differences here (if F-Bodies made 300HP
and DSMs made 295HP, or F-Bodies turned 13.0@100 and DSMs turned 12.9@99, all
this arguing would be silly) but BIG ones. 100+ HP, nearly 200+ft-lbs.
> So the SEB is left with trying to make two dissimilar cars equally
competitive, > one of which is pretty much at the end of its development curve
SP-wise, and
> the other one that is still being developed. And we have no meaningful
> National results on which to base any of our decisions.
OK. No argument, we all agree that it sucks to be in the SEB. However, there is
NO evidence of a problem either way. For all our whining about "underdog-ness"
DSMs don't need explicit help from the SEB, as we're early in the development
curve and none of us can drive. But we REALLY don't need explicit punishment
either.
> The DSM guys go off in a huff because they feel they're being treated
unfairly,
Well, because we ARE. How is it fair that I did a legal mod, even asked
permission from Denver, and told the world about it so that there'd be no
secrets, and now I have to spend LARGE amounts of money to REMAIN legal?
> and the ponycar contingent in ESP is afraid that if the DSM cars are allowed
> too much freedom under the rules that a National-caliber driver will seize the
> opportunity to build one and dominate a popular class.
But the difference here is that there is NO EVIDENCE that there is a danger of
this happening. Until (if) it does, there is NO NEED for the SEB to act.
And it's not enough that a DSM has to win, it has to DOMINATE. Given that an ESP
DSM has never ever won a National level race, how can the SEB feel that a
correction is needed?
> As for the turbo update/backdate issue, the SEB discussed the current
> popular notion that turbochargers are a part of the intake or exhaust
> system (or both) for the purposes of the SP rules, an issue that to my
> knowledge has never been officially ruled upon by any previous SEB,
> and decided that if this interpretation was followed to its logical
> conclusion, there was absolutely nothing to prevent someone with a Camaro,
> M3,or whatever in SP to add a turbo to their car.
Then, to be blunt, the SEB's conclusion (and logic) is erronious.
But even if it isn't, there's no reason why the rule could not be written to
allow turbocharger update/backdate where appropriate (and where it has already
happened, at least one DSM has had this done for over 2 years, and at Nationals
too) but to prevent the problem you state.
"1. Turbochargers may be updated/backdated, provided that:
a) The target and donor motors are the same displacement, have the same
number of cylinders, and the same layout (V, inline, flat, etc.)
b) The target motor was available with a turbocharger in Stock form
c) The number and configuration of turbochargers is not changed, unless the
different configuration was available in Stock form (twin turbos cannot be
converted to single turbos or vice versa)
d) Twin turbo units must be updated/backdated as a pair; single elements
cannot be interchanged or separated.
2. Turbochargers must be updated/backdated as whole units; component parts
(compressor wheels, wategate actuators, etc.) may not be exchanged separately"
There. Everybody wins.
DG
|