Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday September 17, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > Motorsports > Autocross

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2013, 11:14 PM   #1
Storm
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 5218
Join Date: Mar 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: SAUL'S Motorsports
Vehicle:
96L Most Over-
Developed Beater

Default November 2013 Fastrack

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...k-nov-solo.pdf

Of particular note is my proposal to combine all Imprezas on the same line in F Prepared. Naturally, weights would change so a GC running a WRX or STi swap would have to weigh as much as those cars would. It will bring some parity to the class since a NA powered AWD car gets the same "rallycar" weight penalty regardless of being force induced or not.

This will give swapped guys somewhere else to play legally besides E Mod and XP if they changed their subframe or cut their bumper support to fit a FMIC. The biggest caveat to that would be the 42mm restrictor required for AWD turbo cars.

I urge you all to write in support for this proposal not only for my personal agenda, but for the good of the class and swapped Subie drivers as well.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Street tire discussion!

Jay Storm
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Storm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2013, 11:20 PM   #2
Splash
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 55936
Join Date: Feb 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Columbus, OH
Vehicle:
04 WRX STi
PSM

Default

Think that's enough to catch a 1900lb mid-engined RWD car with a 3.2L flat-6?
Splash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 09:18 AM   #3
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

What's the weight difference between the 914/6 and a turbo impreza in FP?
subydude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 01:51 PM   #4
mccanixx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 60566
Join Date: Apr 2004
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Vehicle:
2002 WRX Unicorn
2001 Legacy L 2005 XT 5sp

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subydude View Post
What's the weight difference between the 914/6 and a turbo impreza in FP?
Isn't it going to be 2700/2800 lbs for awd turbo cars, in FP? You're immediately over the maximum just on calculations? So ~800/900lbs if the 914/6 is 1900

Edit I was basing on 2.5

Last edited by mccanixx; 10-22-2013 at 01:59 PM.
mccanixx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 01:55 PM   #5
Splash
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 55936
Join Date: Feb 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Columbus, OH
Vehicle:
04 WRX STi
PSM

Default

Assuming the wheels are 10" wide or less, 2600lbs for a 2.0L turbo AWD Impreza.
A 2.5L would only be 100lbs more due to the max weight in FP.

Add 100 for >10" wide wheels (over and above the max FP weight)

FP works like this:

0.75 x displacement in cc

F.I. adds 0.45 to the 0.75 (and a 46mm inlet restrictor)

AWD adds 0.1 to the 0.75

No FP car can weigh less than 1900 or more than 2700 (before weight penalties).

The 914 could be anywhere from 1900 to 2100lbs. (apparently, the 3.2L isn't on the menu, 2.8L is the max)

Last edited by Splash; 10-22-2013 at 02:02 PM.
Splash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 05:54 PM   #6
Storm
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 5218
Join Date: Mar 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: SAUL'S Motorsports
Vehicle:
96L Most Over-
Developed Beater

Default

My reasoning has nothing to do with the 914-6 actually. It's more about being included in "rallycar" penalty weight despite not being one of the intended recipients. The AWD weight penalty increased in 2013 as a compromise when the turbo inlet restrictor sizing was being hashed out. They got a slightly larger restrictor than originally proposed, along with a weight bump. The weight bump included all AWD cars, and my previous letter to exclude non-turbo AWD cars from the new multiplier was rejected with the shrug of a shoulder and weak condolences of being "collateral damage". In discussing the issues with the PAC and SEB, it was suggested that I write in for this proposal instead (after I told them I would be fine with the weight penalties if I had the same drivetrain).

Minimum weight is 2700lbs or class max for a 2.5 turbo AWD car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash View Post
Assuming the wheels are 10" wide or less, 2600lbs for a 2.0L turbo AWD Impreza.
A 2.5L would only be 100lbs more due to the max weight in FP.

Add 100 for >10" wide wheels (over and above the max FP weight)

FP works like this:

0.75 x displacement in cc

F.I. adds 0.45 to the 0.75 (and a 46mm inlet restrictor)

AWD adds 0.1 to the 0.75

No FP car can weigh less than 1900 or more than 2700 (before weight penalties).

The 914 could be anywhere from 1900 to 2100lbs. (apparently, the 3.2L isn't on the menu, 2.8L is the max)
I bolded that fairly interesting point, because it has not gone unnoticed. There is at least some question to how and why the 3.2 was used when it's not specifically listed as an optional motor. I won't take anything away from the alien driving talents......We have ALL been racing for 2nd this season. I don't expect the streak to continue. Knowing a ballpark of the number it took to build (and buy) that car, I only wonder what I could do with a similar investment in my own car.

Jay
Storm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 07:20 PM   #7
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

From my standpoint, I really don't see any incentive to switch my car. Less power, about the same weight (2770 vs 2700), Avons. That's it. If it was 2,400 or so for weight, then I'd be a lot more tempted.

I really dislike how AWD cars get blasted with weight penalties. We can overcome some physics, but really, they're not that good.
subydude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 08:04 PM   #8
Splash
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 55936
Join Date: Feb 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Columbus, OH
Vehicle:
04 WRX STi
PSM

Default

That's where I've been going with a lot of things... Specifically, the inclusion of the base C5 in STU. If those do what they normally do, especially at national events on bigger courses on concrete, IMO, the STI's are officially dead in AutoX.

Neither the STI nor the EVO is competitive in Stock (or Street presumably).

ASP is owned by EVOs by virtue of a larger turbo and better gearing.

STU can go either way STI or EVO. Unless the C5 gets in, then it will cease to matter, except when it rains or you're on low-grip asphalt.

SM has too much AWD weight penalty

FP has too much AWD weight penalty

XP and EM use weights and sizes no Impreza can match.
Splash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 08:31 PM   #9
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

We can always write letters for lower weights in SM/FP, but it just seems that the AC's are afraid of allowing a boost buggy a fighting chance (save ASP).
subydude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2013, 09:27 PM   #10
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

So, I wrote two more letters asking for lower weights in both SM and FP. Not expecting any changes, but hey, never hurts to dream.
subydude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 12:52 AM   #11
Storm
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 5218
Join Date: Mar 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: SAUL'S Motorsports
Vehicle:
96L Most Over-
Developed Beater

Default

I can only speak from an FP persective, but the weight thing isn't as terrible as it seems. With the allowances available, there is quite a bit to be gained performance wise. Nobody's really gone and done it yet.....lord knows I can't afford to build what is possible and have been driving like a hack lately. I wouldn't mind seeing what an alien could do in my car as it sits (well, maybe with working dampers). I'd venture to guess the gap ain't all that big.

If money were no object, my 2015 drivetrain would be very close to a tarmac spec WRC setup with the larger restrictor, putting 400+ awhp and 500+ awtq down through a sequential dogbox with custom ratios. True WRC-spec antilag and those pimp low rolling resistance uprights at all 4 corners. Probably incorparate a double A arm conversion up front and a redesign of the rear suspension. Possibly just the new multilink setup from a newer chassis.

I know that I need to talk with Micah about some ideas I have motorwise, before 2015.


My .02 anyway......
Jay
Storm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 09:32 AM   #12
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

The double A arm would be nice, but I don't think you'd get that much power out of a restricted EJ. Even the WRC guys are only in the 350 range. They do make TONS of torque down low, but usually shift at 6k or so since the restrictor kills the power up top. The anti-lag isn't hard to get considering the haltech in my car can run it (and I use it for the launches). If the car holds together like it should you may even hear it at nationals next year .

I just hate having to add weight back in. It hurts all performance aspects. It's my axe to grind regarding the perceived fear of AWD setups.
subydude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 04:22 PM   #13
Storm
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 5218
Join Date: Mar 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: SAUL'S Motorsports
Vehicle:
96L Most Over-
Developed Beater

Default

Even my current Link ECU has ALS along with flat foot shift and a system of true launch control (instead of a simple 2 step revlimit). I dont want the hassle of the popping and bang-bang type ALS that it is. I'm more interested in the recirculating type that really spools the turbo. I do plan on building the motor with a compression ratio in the double digits, thats a given. I don't have a problem going against the grain of typical setups for this purpose. I'm okay shifting at 6k too. Geared appropriately, of course! Garrett is already working on a turbo with this restrictor built in, test mule? Maybe (fingers crossed). WRC motors are EJ20's, I'm going EJ25x. WRC restrictor is 32 or 3mm, I'll be over 10mm larger. Will it hit 400/500 at the wheels? Who knows, but it'll be fun to find out. At this point, even if the extra weight is too much, there are other classes to play in.

I hope to see your car back out there soon. Its far too beautiful to keep hidden away!!!

Jay
Storm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2013, 05:20 PM   #14
subydude
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 80649
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Columbia, SC
Vehicle:
2000 2.5 Auto-X RSTi
What's A Head Gasket?

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm View Post
Even my current Link ECU has ALS along with flat foot shift and a system of true launch control (instead of a simple 2 step revlimit). I dont want the hassle of the popping and bang-bang type ALS that it is. I'm more interested in the recirculating type that really spools the turbo. I do plan on building the motor with a compression ratio in the double digits, thats a given. I don't have a problem going against the grain of typical setups for this purpose. I'm okay shifting at 6k too. Geared appropriately, of course! Garrett is already working on a turbo with this restrictor built in, test mule? Maybe (fingers crossed). WRC motors are EJ20's, I'm going EJ25x. WRC restrictor is 32 or 3mm, I'll be over 10mm larger. Will it hit 400/500 at the wheels? Who knows, but it'll be fun to find out. At this point, even if the extra weight is too much, there are other classes to play in.

I hope to see your car back out there soon. Its far too beautiful to keep hidden away!!!

Jay
So you're really doing the turbo route then? Should be fun to watch! Here's a thread I saw a while back that sparked some interest in an FP build: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...highlight=scca I think that power band with the advertised 2,400 lbs would be enough to beat ToG....maybe

I'm tempted by the Prepared route, but just can't bring myself to do it since I like driving the car to work now and then. Plus, I could never sell it later if I took a cutting wheel to it.

It won't be quite as pretty when you see it again as I'm going to be cutting the current flares off and riveting on some bigger plastic pieces (painted) so I can REALLY dump the car. With a 295 not fitting I KNOW a 315 will cause even more trouble
subydude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2013, 11:44 PM   #15
Storm
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 5218
Join Date: Mar 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: SAUL'S Motorsports
Vehicle:
96L Most Over-
Developed Beater

Default

Thanks for the link. I will have to study up on FI stuff now.... *IF* this proposal goes through, I am going the turbo motor route. That said, I will reconfigure the current setup for the DOHC heads and cams I have sitting on the shelf to truly take the final step in NA prep. The cams and intake manifold are from Irish Mike's world challenge program, reportedly making north of 300@9000 rpm. I don't remember if that was crank or wheel though. I do remember that they were bombs. RPM related IIRC and I don't have any intention of spinning that high. We shall see how that shakes out.

My damper situation needs some attention too.....so it's going to be busy.

Jay
Storm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2013, 12:57 AM   #16
speedyHAM
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 48377
Join Date: Nov 2003
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: "They eat fish soaked in lye"
Vehicle:
1996 Gutted, built
XP class Impreza L

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash View Post
XP and EM use weights and sizes no Impreza can match.
I disagree. My XP impreza (down for 2013) is at 2006 lbs and can loose a fair bit of weight in XP trim with an EJ20 and a 16G turbo. I thin EM trim weights could even be done given enough $$$. We will see next year when I get my engine built.

Sean
speedyHAM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.