Mark Schue is exactly on point. The proposal's intent is clear and well understood. A request for input should be made prior to the on-track testing
phase, not after. What is the point of exhaustively developing the final product without knowing if it will be approved by the membership? I don't think
the CRB/FSRAC appreciates how many people are on "standby" waiting to see what happens with this whole deal. If the proposal's implementation is
delayed until 2011 (which, in agreement with the previous posters, I feel is a huge mistake), OK. However, we need a request for member input made now, not
next year. The request can clearly indicate that implementation will not occur until 2011. The point here is that everyone involved needs to know whether
this is actually going to happen. All the talk of on-track testing is moot if the membership votes down the proposal. I'd rather know that NOW, rather
than after we've spent time and money testing it to death.
.jpg)
S2 Proposal
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Matthew DiRenzo |
#261 | |||
|
Posts: 95 06/23/09 13:53:43 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Bruce Allison 87 |
#262 | |||
|
Posts: 226 06/23/09 13:59:16 |
+1 Bruce
+1 Kathy Dave....they're correct....there are current racers & potential new S2 racers holding their breath about this. Closure, one way or the other, is better than the current situation. BA |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Lola Bruce |
#263 | |||
|
Posts: 36 06/23/09 16:39:42 |
I have strongly resiting comments on this topic. I have followed the evolution from about two years ago and now I am confused. What is or where can I read the
proposed S2000 future? I have been waiting for this to find to find it's mojo. If it is a modern spec motor ( 175-200hp), five speed (no $$$ trick
goodies), Flat bottom no wings, metal chassis ( repairable by advanced racers, not gurus), and about $60k max kit all goodies in the box, no more than about
8's and 10's for tires ( current supported production bias) I would put one on my want and saving for list. I hope I am wrong but if this is all secret
#^*^^&(*$%^#$ until it is approved and it is expensive it is dooooooooomed. Man will race lawn mowers in large numbers if their is a large yuk factor for
the buck. If the price is too high then the number of racers will fall off.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
mbrandt1402 |
#264 | |||
|
Posts: 312 06/23/09 16:59:34 |
Agreed - Mark Schue is right on point, but anyone that knows him would expect nothing less.
I still have the odd fantasy about converting to the MZR, but 2011 really dampens my enthusiasm. And running the MZR at 150 hp or whatever is deemed appropriate vs. the Pinto kills the rest of it. This is beginning to sound like a 4 to 6 yr deal before S2 can become a 175 - 185 hp class. Not at all what I was hoping for. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
mbrandt1402 |
#265 | |||
|
Posts: 313 06/23/09 17:04:06 |
Lola Bruce, here is the link to the proposal (copied from the first post of this thread).
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Lola Bruce |
#266 | |||
|
Posts: 37 06/23/09 17:43:36 |
Thank's for the quick response. The proposal looks great. For all of us that are sitting on the fence all I can say is thank-you to all of the people
trying to grunt out a realistic spec. When I (can't speak for others) pipe up I do not wish to hurt feelings or inject negativity. I just have a bad
feeling that not basing the new spec on affordable, fast, limited aero, durable cars will kill the future of S2.
I gave up on Forlmula Atlantic because the load on me on a race weekend to keep up with the aero setups on-top of everythng else was just to mutch. Also I love racing door to door and a well exicuted slide job. I can tell you that when the car is too aero dependent very close, safe racing is dead. Or if you think hitting the wall when your wing gets washed is fun let me know what you race so I can pick a different group to play with. May-be lawn mowers? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Jim Colombotos |
10 days eh | #267 | ||
|
Posts: 592 06/24/09 00:36:42 |
So motor is ready....... Converting a Carbir to duratec only requires a couple of new mounts if i recall....... Would need new headers and rear deck mod, all
which Brian most likely has and could ship out next day air..... No custom fab, just bolt on items right? Just like the UK Carbirs'. Money.....everyone
interested in this project Im sure would chip in. Manpower....Tell us where the car is and where the nearest hotel and strip club are, people would show....
Convert a car and get on track in 240 hours........will be a trash but sounds kinda fun. Is a track available for this little show on Sat July 4th? Im so not
joking here.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Colin Feyerabend |
#268 | |||
|
Posts: 219 06/24/09 04:40:20 |
Lola Bruce you sound like my mother when colour television first came out "don't want one of those the colours are terrible...." Did you have a wing problem in ACRL? You just have to look at our race videos and you can see our Duratecs with their wings are running nose to tail at speeds in excess of 160mph. True we have no diffusers and flat floors but no problem with the wing.
With so much blood sweat and tears gone into this Duratec project to get such a negative response from the CRB I wonder if there is a hidden agenda somewhere?
If as some have suggested, in the future the Duratecs can run at full power in standard trim then they would instantly become virtually as fast as CSR/DSR and spec formula but would cost a fraction to run compared to these other formula.
As a result you would get quite a lot of migration from other formula to S2 now that could upset a few carts. Money talks who knows who's lobbying who.
If the powers to be are hell bent on keeping the Duratec car strangled so it can never release its full potential then I think their hand is played as we all know a Duratec car going that slow will not be a threat to other formula.
Don't mind me guys I'm just a cynical old bugger who's time in motorsport has shown it is full of megalomaniacs, egotistic devious individuals who are either feathering their own nest or someone else's.
But not in this instance I'm sure the CRB is acting in the interest of the S2 formula and any decision reached is done to ensure S2 survives into the future….Right??
You already have a US manufacturer building Duratec S2's so we are not splitting the atom here! |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Dave Gomberg |
#269 | |||
|
Posts: 126 06/24/09 07:34:12 |
I am going to try to address some of the points brought up here. If possible
 , these will be my last words on this topic at this time.
Matthew and Tony (and others) have made serious efforts to make a Duratec/MZR proposal workable for 2010. But, both of them have been aware of the CRB/FSRAC insistence on data (dyno and on track) for quite some time. When the agreement between the BoD and the CRB to return to a true Rules Year was reached, I made it clear to them that we needed the information before the May CRB meeting if we were to meet all the schedule requirements. At their May meeting, the BoD made a change in their own meeting schedule that gave everybody involved and extra two months. For reasons that Tony can explain, even the extra two months wasn't enough time to provide what was requested. As for putting the proposal out for member comment, as soon as we have the requested information, including all part numbers and specifications so that a complete GCR-ready rule set can be published, we can do that. If the information provided to the FSRAC meets their expectations, they will recommend to the CRB that the entire rule set be put out for member comment. The FRSAC meets the third Wednesday of each month; they make their recommendations to the CRB which are considered on the first Tuesday of the following month. The proposal then would go in the next Fastrack which is published on the 20th of that month. This can happen at any time of the year. The sooner we have the information, the sooner the proposal can go out to the membership for official comment. I will say the following only once: neither the CRB nor the FSRAC have dictated restricting the MZR to current Pinto levels. That was done by those who submitted the proposal. They did not think they could get everything put through at one time. If the proposal had been for 170 hp (including Pinto upgrades or not), it would have received the same consideration. If the MZR at current Pinto performance is a deal breaker for you, that should be addressed to those who made the proposal. Their choice to get to higher levels in steps is viable, if that is what competitors want. Dave |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Matthew DiRenzo |
#270 | |||
|
Posts: 96 06/24/09 08:16:33 |
Well, clearly there was some misunderstanding. I wasn't informed of the need for on-track testing until after the FSRAC reviewed the proposal on May 20;
they're the ones who asked for it. Prior to that, all we knew was that the written proposal had to be submitted by May 1 in order to be considered by the
FSRAC on May 20. Afterwards, we expected dyno data would be required and had planned to provide that information by the later milestones Dave mentions
(basically July 4). Dyno data would've been no problem, but on-track testing couldn't be carried out until August due to various people needing to
finish qualifying for the Runoffs before installing the MZR. That's what Marc was talking about in the letter he copied here. It should also be said that
there were some issues w/respect to parts suppliers that required some adjustment to the proposal's language (easily done).
Basically, we have a large contingent here that disagrees with the FSRAC's recommendation that the proposal be postponed until 2011 based on the lack of on-track testing. Most of us seem to be comfortable with dyno data acting as the basis for the MZR's initial configuration. As Tony said, we could easily develop an adjustment schedule running through 2010. I've a bit of a problem with the FSRAC, where S2 has zero representation, overriding what could potentially be a majority opinion from people actually racing the class. The whole problem here is that we're being artificially restricted from holding a vote. Saying that the proposal can be put out for member input only after meeting the FSRAC's requirements is a bit disingenuous, since on-track testing is one of their requirements. We'd sure like an official opinion from S2 itself before going to the trouble of on-track testing. If all the specifications are established, and all we're talking about is map tuning, then I don't see why on-track testing should be an obstacle to a request for member input. Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Charles Warner |
#271 | |||
|
Posts: 760 06/24/09 09:17:08 |
Matthew DiRenzo wrote:Have any S2 racers made application to be on the FSRAC? To blame the Committee for the membership when the membership is voluntary is a bit spurious. And, to imply the S2 group is somehow being disenfranchised might also be OTT. As far as the requirements placed on your group by the FSRAC it would seem it is their sandbox and the requirements are thus. There are many sides to this issue and I guess they just want to have as many ducks in a row as they can before putting it out there. IMO all they could do now is ask for member comment but with the caveat that on-track testing could require revision of everything. Wouldn't it make more sense to have that testing done before the cat is set among the pigeons?
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing |
|||
|
|
||||
|
rajaracer |
testing.... | #272 | ||
|
Posts: 300 06/24/09 09:44:03 |
testing is being done on the dyno. the data is available (i'm sure), and i can't imagine there will be significant performance differences between the
dyno and the track. additionally, since i'm no engineer (or anything closely resembling one), it's my understanding any sort of engine mapping can be
accomplished on the dyno as well, putting the engine at a particular spec before it even goes in the car. have the engine builder map it to whatever level
we're looking for (i vote for 165hp) and adjust it if needed. the main point of this aspect of the discussion is the "powers that be" appear to
be requiring an inordinate amount of information before making a decision that many of the people affected by the decision seem to be looking for.
marc |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Matthew DiRenzo |
#273 | |||
|
Posts: 97 06/24/09 10:52:52 |
Charles Warner wrote: Ignoratio elenchi, Charles. The rules making bodies are by definition class agnostic. I'm not implying that the CRB/FSRAC are actively working against us. My point is that the rules making bodies exist to consider their constituents interests; in this case, a scenario has developed where their decision conflicts with (possibly) the majority opinion of their constituents. The lack of an S2 representative on both sides of the equation only implies a need for further dialogue, nothing more. That's precisely why we need a request for member input -- to find out what the people in the class want. The CRB should consider member input as much as advice from a committee. SCCA is collectively "our" sandbox, after all. And no, having to exhaustively develop the package with no guarantee of it even passing a member vote is unreasonable. We're not a drug company, and Tony has already pointed out why this requirement is of dubious value w/such a small sample space (1-2 cars!). Legitimate dyno data is a entirely reasonable foundation for the engine's base configuration; Pinto vs. MZR curves could be published along with the member input request. It's obvious that a larger sample space will be necessary to make things "perfect," but there's no question of having to change "everything." We're talking about fine tuning the engine map (a computer download) to account for differences at speed on a race track, as opposed to stationary on a dyno. Every physical component, along with dyno data, can be precisely specified by July 4. Delaying until 2011 only makes the transition take longer, increases uncertainty, robs S2 entries by forcing cars to run as CSRs next season, etc. The S2 class should be able to decide its fate in this regard. IMHO, based on a rose-colored interpretation of this year's participation numbers, they are failing to realize our situation is radically different from the FC Zetec scenario. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Fred Michael |
#274 | |||
|
Posts: 288 06/24/09 11:40:49 |
Yes S2 racers have applied to be on the FSRAC
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
vlamanna |
No surprise... | #275 | ||
|
Posts: 308 06/24/09 15:32:59 |
All of this is no surprise to me... after attempting something as simple as the Aluminum Caliper Rule... (something we still don't have)
Were these same guide lines/requirements followed for the Alum Hd.? Seems that was pushed/rushed thru rather quickly with no on track testing and there is still debate going on... point is, no matter what you do up front, you're not going to get it right, so lay out a plan that incoporates milestones/measures to allow change/correction. And btw, what are we living in the stone ages? With the availability of electronic media (pdf GCR) why all these hard, early deadlines? are we trying to get to the "printers" Isn't that what Fastrack is for? an ongoing rules evolution... On another note, as I have just joined the unemployment ranks; if there is anything I can do to help things along, I have a design/engineering background, CAD design software and could do some machining/fabrication, let me know if I can help... I certainly can't help with the numbers this year... "In the Spirit of the Sport" Vince |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Charles Warner |
#276 | |||
|
Posts: 761 06/25/09 12:32:30 |
Matthew DiRenzo wrote:Matthew, I disgaree that it is an irrelevant conclusion. And, it appears some are confusing the roles played by the FSRAC and the CRB. You seem to lump both the CRB and the FSRAC into the same entity. The FSRAC is not a rules making body. The FSRAC merely advises the CRB (the CRB has gone against the recommendations of its committees at times) after listening to the input from the members and coming to some sort of consensus based on that input. Vince still believes that his alloy caliper issue was scotched by the committee. In fact, Vince, the member input was against it (I was on the FSRAC at that time.) Remember, only a small percentage of those voicing an opinion voice that opinion publicly. I understand the frustration of not getting member input at the present time. I can't say I am privvy to the reasoning behind the CRB's decision. However, when you say the CRB should listen as much to the membership as the committee you are saying virtually the same thing. Sure, the FSRAC members will have their own agendae and points of view but every communication from the members is distributed to the committee and all are given a fair hearing. I agree that member input based on the dyno data would seem reasonable . . . but the black helicopters were parked about the time the Wall came down.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Lola Bruce |
#277 | |||
|
Posts: 38 06/25/09 19:39:26 |
Simple question. If the dyno results can be controled buy the mapping of the ECU what is the goal? If the mapping controls the results what are the targets?
The targets are isofacto the results. Tell us the targets and this may live on or die now.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
vlamanna |
Scotched by the committee?? | #278 | ||
|
Posts: 309 06/25/09 21:24:13 |
Charles,
I don't know how the Alum. Calipers went down, but what I do know is there is something flawed with our comp bd/rules approach. The final attempt, I had every National competitor at the Run-Offs sign a petition, everyone I talked to whether it be Nationals, Regionals or Vintage agreed with it, as people still do today... I said it before, I don't feel people that are not in the class should be making the decisions for the class, each class should have at least one representative to have input, oversee and have a finger on the pulse of the actual competitors. Actual vote numbers should be shared as well as the actual names. How do we know that people may be voting on topics whom maybe never turn a wheel on the track? vs signed petitions by actual leg work and actual comptitors... Again system needs to be improved... $300-600 Calipers, 3 years NO... $4500 Aluminum head, 1 year, YES... Long and short of it... decisions made by the Comp Bd can make or break a class! We are on life support, how about pulling out all the stops! Sorry if I seem a bit bitter, until one goes thru the process of trying to get involved and be proactive and experiences the frustrations you can't understand or appreciate... Vince |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Charles Warner |
#279 | |||
|
Posts: 762 06/26/09 04:34:03 |
vlamanna wrote:Vince, I can accept your points. However, the workings of the FSRAC are just that - advisory in nature. We did not simply tally the results of the comments - they were not considered "votes" but comments and opinions. We received and considered every one; even the ones that were poorly written, illogical and sometimes plain belligerent. These comments were not taken merely at face value but the content and presentation were considerd. It was our job to colate these comments and come up with a perceived consensus of how we felt the membership felt and to present the cogent arguments as we saw them. Is it perfect? Of course not. Might we have put more credence in a comment that was well written, logically presented with data points to back up the point than given to a comment of "Aluminum calipers - YES!"? Probably. The FSRAC members did their own research as to availability and pricings and, along with more S2 driver comments that reflected a reluctance to have to swap, we recommended that the rules not be changed. As far as weighing comments from those not in the class, I can not speak for other members, but I rarely gave those much weight unless there was a reasonable connection that could be established. And, we always had to sift through comments from manufacturers and suppliers where the motive may have been other than "for the good of the sport." Another point: you would be surprised at how many racers will say they have/will write the CRB but just never get around to it.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing |
|||
|
|
||||
|
DART78 |
Not what the competitors want ? | #280 | ||
|
Posts: 118 06/26/09 06:36:31 |
Charles, As one who has written to the comp board in favor of alloy caliper, this process is anything but transparent. Like Vince I lobbied for the change to
newer cheaper safer parts only to hear "it"s not what the competitors want". Well enough of the mysterious forces in SCCA headquarters acting as
the competitors interpreters. How about an on-line survey? Right here with everyone who owns and races an s-2 voting and putting their name to it?
|
|||
|
|
||||
Quick Reply
Sports Racer Technology
UK SRCC Sports 2000
Sports Toyota Forum
Formula Mazda Forum
