LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently May 26, 2020, 12:08 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: April 7, 2020, 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 15, 2006, 11:15 am
Posts: 933
Christian Kunkel, his proposing the following updated to the SCCA Solo 2 modfied rules, they was a nice constructive discussion on the Facebook Modified group

DM/EM Proposal for MAC
Minimum Wheelbase for both classes 80”
Minimum width measured outside tire wall to outside tire wall 65”
Weight Penalty under 89” wheelbase both classes 10lbs per inch
Modified tub rule would be eliminated
No lift shift on any transmission not designed to use a torque convertor would be banned.
Current rules for TCS/ABS and SCS would be retained
Minimum weight for EM would be 1850 lbs with driver regardless of displacement.
Minimum weights for DM would be as follows with driver
1600cc and under 1220 lbs
1601-1800 cc 1320 pds
1801-2000 cc 1420 pds
All forced induction cars eligible using 1.4 multiplier will weigh 1420 pds and use a 33mm restrictor. Compound turbos/superchargers not allowed. Anti-lag may not be installed between exhaust port and turbo housing.
Rotary engines must be naturally aspirated and are otherwise unrestricted. Only 12A and 13B allowed. Minimum weight for Rotaries will be 1420 pds
Aero rules would be clarified as follows
Rear spoiler would be measured at the midpoint by placing a straight edge along the top edge halfway between endplates. If spoiler deviates either frontwards or rearwards at the midpoint the measurement will take place in the same plane as if it was a continuous piece with no deviation. Measurement will not exceed 10 inches.
Any duct on the car with an entrance and exit that are tied together is a tunnel and forbidden. Using a radiator or intercooler as a wall in a duct is considered a tunnel. Ducting air to these devices is fine as long as they don’t tie into an exit duct. Hoods may be vented for heat as long as they are not tied into a duct


What do you guys think about this ?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 7, 2020, 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 15, 2006, 11:15 am
Posts: 933
I'm happy that the Turbo's get one weight for Dmod, I think that the 1.4 multiplier is obsolete, and yes the 33mm restrictor is a good way to limit Horsepower, but someone with plenty of money could build a sleeved 1285cc turbo engine to fit under the 1.8 liter weight break or even a smaller engine for the propose 1.6 liter weight break.

I'm happy to see a weight break for the 1.6 liters.. this can make for some interesting bench racing
1600cc and under 1220 lbs
1601-1800 cc 1320 pds
1801-2000 cc 1420 pd

Now, could you build a 1000-1050lbs locost ? I think for sure if it's dedicated for Solo 2 and using Dwarf Cars or Micro Sprints components, You could use a lotus 7 chassis for even a smaller size, but the 65 inches width it's not necessary.

Will it stimulate more people getting to the class and more precisely going to the Nationals, that's a good question.

Fred


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 7, 2020, 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 3058
Location: Under the weather. (Seattle)
Got a 'for dummies' synopsis of what is being changed with each, and why?

_________________
-Justin

Also follow my build on blogspot, tumblr, or instagram and twitter (GarageOdyssey)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 7, 2020, 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 1, 2012, 12:44 pm
Posts: 447
Location: Boise, Idaho
The prohibition of "tunnels" was originally intended to apply to undertray downforce generating shapes. It appears to me that calling an intercooler duct that's efficient from a heat transfer perspective an illegal "tunnel" when it has no effect on aerodynamic downforce is wrong. In order for a downforce tunnel to work, the air velocity has to be high. A duct with a heat exchanger in it does not allow a high velocity.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 8, 2020, 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 15, 2006, 11:15 am
Posts: 933
Driven5 wrote:
Got a 'for dummies' synopsis of what is being changed with each, and why?


Sorry Justin I haven't written one :wink:

one quick one and unfair one, that it is maybe a response against Jeff Kiesel car,
https://youtu.be/lquGC8LsSMk Jeff, built himself a great car, within the rules, plus he is an amazing driver for it. The combination has dominated the Emod Nationals for years now, I don't even think the Mercedes F1 and Lewis Hamilton dominates that much :lol: Seriously I find it a bit unfair that many proposal would impact several aspect of the car.

Weights, no more penalty for tube frame cars, All Turbo cars in Dmod get a minimum weight of 1420, new min weight for 1600cc cars, Emod new higher min weight

Wheelbase, min is still 80 inch but anything less than 89 gets a 10lbs penalty for every inch

Transmission, no lift shift made illegal

Aerodynamic, simplified, spoilers will be max 10 tall. right now there a wording that allows you to get a little higher...

no ducting of any sort in the car.

This is a proposal... it was submitted to the MAC and this proposal will be open for comments, they are not a sure thing.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 8, 2020, 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 15, 2006, 11:15 am
Posts: 933
seven13bt wrote:
The prohibition of "tunnels" was originally intended to apply to undertray downforce generating shapes. It appears to me that calling an intercooler duct that's efficient from a heat transfer perspective an illegal "tunnel" when it has no effect on aerodynamic downforce is wrong. In order for a downforce tunnel to work, the air velocity has to be high. A duct with a heat exchanger in it does not allow a high velocity.


Ron, I posted here because maybe some Dmod or Emod Locost builder would have missed this proposal. Christian has made it an open discussion and it was a concensus of multiple inputs. I like the fact that he posted it for everyone to see from day one. I do not agree with everything, it close the door on some interesting possibilities and kind oversimplify what a Mod car is.

I agree with you about the duct rules, I think someone remembered a Nissan GT500 race car where the duct for the radiator had the opening in the floor and exit at the top of the trunk it with the aid of fans, yes their own version of a fan car.

In the case of a radiator, this will be a open invitation to protest on several cars, if the radiator exit is surrounded by frame tubes is that a duct ? how long is a duct to be considered a duct ?

The goal is to increase participation to the class, there needs to be a discussion on this yes. trying to open the class for the prep cars to be able to simply jump in is not the best approach in my eye, yes there should be a natural progression, but it must require more than just changing class on the entry form, they car needs to be modified more. The problem is that XP cars are stock tub, and have more aero than MOD. there is no way to make an XP car competitive in Emod without major surgery and without major aero change.

Dmod is a different animal, I doubt very much that the progression is possible, but I do think the Locost can be a great source of new recruits. The biggest issue is that the car must be built to the rules and not simply build it then read the rules, and also we both know that a dual purpose car will never be competitive at the nationals, so it needs be build as a dedicated Solo car from day one.
Heck my build log should be titled How not to build a Dmod :BH:

I think we need a sticky on Dmod building 101, I, sure Yourself, Paul and Mark have a lot to say on this :D

Cheers,
Fred


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 8, 2020, 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2008, 6:06 pm
Posts: 3058
Location: Under the weather. (Seattle)
I used to be quite familiar with this rule set, as I had a lot of thoughts about building a more dedicated car for the class years ago. Unfortunately, I've forgotten most of the details and intricacies since then. So without a problem statement, my ability to understand the intention of this proposal is very limited. I can't form a true opinion without answers to many questions...However, my gut feeling is that I find myself rather unimpressed by what I see here. It largely seems like change for change's sake, solutions to things that are not problems, and/or trying to win through regulation.

Ok, so "Modified tub rule would be eliminated" means that the 'stock tub rule' will also be eliminated and all will be considered equivalent...Not that the modified tubs would be outlawed. I'm glad of that modified tubs are still allowed, but don't see what problem the proposal is fixing...Unless the Stock tub cars have proven so effective even with their other constraints, that they have an unfair advantage over modified tub cars...But if that were the case, nobody would be running tube frame cars. So if I'm understanding this right, all this rule is doing is ensuring that no future cars will be built with stock tubs, as they'll be purely at a disadvantage. So I guess I don't see what this does to improve the class. Are stock tub cars so rare in DM/EM already that there is no participation advantage to them, and its a move to reduce the rulebook size?

A little weight penalty for starting with a tiny car...Seems ok to me, but by extension, should starting with a large car (like if starting the build from a CP car) not also get a weight advantage, assuming such would even possible to achieve.

The addition of a 1600cc N/A weight break is completely contradictory to putting all turbo engines at the same weight. One is expanding potential competitive engine options, the other is constricting them. Displacement alters overall F/I performance potential too. At the same weight and restrictor size, a 1.0T Ecoboost will still be at a competitive disadvantage to a 1.4T Ecotec. I honestly don't care which direction the rules go, but I would definitely want to see them at least see the demonstrated proposal intent be consistent between N/A and F/I applications.

At first blush, the no-lift-shift rule seems somewhere in the realm of ill conceived, misguided, poorly worded, or some combination there of. I can't run a bone stock Porsche DSG, but can replace a powerglide torque converter with a clutch/flywheel (as has been done in Mod class before) and no-lift-shift to my hearts content. If no-lift-shifting is considered a problem by a majority of the class, and I'm not sure that I agree that it is to me, then at the very least the "designed to use' loophole needs to be removed so that torque converter use is required for no lift shifting, and it's opened up to dual-clutch transmissions as well. Why not simplify things greatly, and eliminate the opening of loopholes, by just opening up no-lift-shifting to all? I've heard of at least drag racers no-lift-shifting H-pattern transmissions like the T56, but I'd even be ok with no-lift-shifting being excluded only from H-pattern shifters and giving them a weight break instead.

Is the weight reduction currently considered as giving smaller displacement (lower powered) EM cars an unfair advantage over larger displacement (more powerful) EM cars? Would many/any larger displacement EM cars be able to take advantage of the lowered weight requirement? Again, at first blush this too seems to be consolidating they possible (or at least perceived) competitive engine options...Which seems counterproductive to me if the intent is growing the class.

Spoiler rule seems like if anything it might be closing a loopholes, which is fine to me.

As written, the 'tunnel' proposal looks completely asinine to me, far worse than the no-lift-shift one. This seems to be forgoing the shotgun approach and going straight to carpet bombing (nuking?) the rules to preventing tunnels, and is considering such things as properly ducted radiators and intercoolers as nothing but collateral damage. If there is a loophole being used to provide meaningful downforce via some manor of tunnel/ducting, then close it. But this type of approach to the rules would do more to dissuade me when selecting a class to build a car for than anything on one dominating car could. What exactly did Kiesel do that was so bad as to warrant someone even proposing this type of approach?

If the desire is to make changes that will specifically improve class participation, a far more scientific/methodical approach should be taken than appears to have been done here.

_________________
-Justin

Also follow my build on blogspot, tumblr, or instagram and twitter (GarageOdyssey)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: April 9, 2020, 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 15, 2006, 11:15 am
Posts: 933
You have a valid point on the Weight break and Turbo engines, I was surprise nobody went with 1280 turbo engine to get the 1800 weight break.

The big question will the propose rules increase participation to the Nationals ?
Will the increase offset the possible loss or cars made illegal by these new rules ?

or it's a bigger problem ?

Let's face it to win the nationals you need a healthy budget to start with, no amount of rule changes will change that. You need a great car and be a driver able to maximize the car potential.
The other problem is mirroring that everyone can win, that's simply not true.

How do you incites Locost guys building dedicated Solo 2 D or Emod and going to the Nationals without doing it at the expense of the current cars ?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY