At 08:51 AM 6/23/99 , Mohler, Jeff wrote:
>I disagree with this logic. SP modifications allow you to open up intake
>congestion such that the engine can pull in all the air it can. The
>potential gains there are just not too big -- the max is limited by the
>engine vacuum and is rarely much higher than the stock intake. That is
>easy to class properly.
>---
>
>BUT, you dont think turbo cars have the same, if not more airflow issues
>than an N/A? Of course they do.
Sure. And turbo cars should be able to replace air filters and such that
precede the turbo/engine, just like you can with N/A cars. But being able
to change the turbo is more like being able to change the intake valves on
a N/A car (which is not allowed).
I do not think changing turbo components should be considered comparable
to changing intake components on a N/A car -- the gains are not in the
same class. N/A cars are predominately limited by their displacement and
their intake valves -- parts of the engine that are not changeable in SP.
Turbo cars are predominately limited by the turbo boost and the displacement.
Thus, I think those parts should similarly not be changeable in SP.
>
>The rules would just be so much simpler if they read the same for turbo and
>N/A alike..to basically mod to the limits of the stock design airflow
>limits. *shrug* Sounds pretty easy to me.
I agree, where we are talking about the intake components before the
turbo/engine and exhaust components after the turbo/engine.
I disagree that you should extend the intake rules to apply to the turbo.
The _engine_ rules should be applied to the turbo -- treat them as a unit.
In fact, if you want to really simplify the rules, simply treat the
turbo as part of the engine in all rules. Any allowances beyond that
are complications to the rules that cater to the turbo guys.
>That's completely different than allowing you to force in air. The
>potential there is huge. And since you can get widely varying gains
>with relatively small mods of turbo systems, the potential for grossly
>unfair classing is nontrivial.
>---
>
>Ok..grossly unfair classing. Lesse. One solution would be "changing
>classing" and the other would be "middle management tactics". Which do you
>think would be fair, which do you think will take the next 10 years to
>decide the other way would have been right the first time.
Yes, one solution is to change classing -- which I think would be disliked
by all, including the turbo owners. (Turbo owners get the cars set up
competitive, then someone figures out a much better performing setup
(perhaps updating to the newest model year turbo), which causes the car
to be re-classed... forcing all the other turbo owners to re-setup the
cars the new way to be competitive. Ick!)
I have no idea what "middle management tactics" are -- some sort of
Dilbert'ism? The other solution is to set up the rules to prevent
the classing problems in the first place. Which is an important
driver of many of the SP rules. Simply don't allow modifications that
can have large and unpredictable impacts on performance. Allowing
such makes classing much more difficult, much more dynamic, and much
more costly for all involved.
>Im not saying you dont understand turbocharging, or the things involved, but
>at most events I go to, Ive been able to suprise a few people by clearing up
>a number of misconceptions, and that I belive is the heart of the whole
>problem.
I don't think I misunderstand turbocharging; but I might misunderstand how
exactly you want the rules to be written. Sometimes it sounds like you
want turbos to be treated like an air cleaner box... essentially free.
But surely that's not right?
Brian
|