IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

A place to chat about the state of the IPRA nation, ask (non-technical) questions about IPRA, etc.
Public Read and Write

Moderator: Moderators

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#781  Postby TwinTurbo » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:16 am

mikrace wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote:
mikrace wrote:I would also put u2L back with o2L everywhere and have one massive class again.

That's just not the case mik, combined grids means that the U2L cars will simply not turn up. Evidence, plenty of it, look at the States that run combined grids, do any of them have similar numbers of U2L cars as O2L cars like NSW does? Look at the numbers when the grids were combined last year, U2L entries dropped noticeably and went back up again for separate grids. When we kicked off separate U2L grids some 20 years ago less than 20% of the field was U2L, since then it's pretty much been 50% and occasionally higher. The short and long term history suggests that within 1 year we would lose 50% of our U2L competitors and then 50% of what's left within 3 years. Simply put, not "one massive class" just one slightly larger grid with even more cars in garages not being used.

You have taken this out of context Gary. I refuse to discuss things with you when you continually do this.... Good luck getting the new car ready and I hope NSW has big and fast u2L fields for you.

I apologise if I have taken it out of context mik, please tell me what you intended the context to be? Because honestly it looked pretty straight forward to me.

Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#782  Postby willing4 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:22 am

Whilst acknowledging there are some holes that need filling, IPRA has plenty of diversity both in cars and levels of professionalism, with many at the historical reference to club level. If we can tidy up LMT cars it pretty much will provide something for everyone. Whilst the front of the field is very sophisticated, there are a lot of ipra cars running that are very 'standard' and they have a lot of fun!
Scott

Keep Smiling!!!
willing4
one foot in the grave
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:25 pm
Location:

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#783  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:47 am

TwinTurbo wrote:
mikrace wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote:
mikrace wrote:I would also put u2L back with o2L everywhere and have one massive class again.

That's just not the case mik, combined grids means that the U2L cars will simply not turn up. Evidence, plenty of it, look at the States that run combined grids, do any of them have similar numbers of U2L cars as O2L cars like NSW does? Look at the numbers when the grids were combined last year, U2L entries dropped noticeably and went back up again for separate grids. When we kicked off separate U2L grids some 20 years ago less than 20% of the field was U2L, since then it's pretty much been 50% and occasionally higher. The short and long term history suggests that within 1 year we would lose 50% of our U2L competitors and then 50% of what's left within 3 years. Simply put, not "one massive class" just one slightly larger grid with even more cars in garages not being used.

You have taken this out of context Gary. I refuse to discuss things with you when you continually do this.... Good luck getting the new car ready and I hope NSW has big and fast u2L fields for you.

I apologise if I have taken it out of context mik, please tell me what you intended the context to be? Because honestly it looked pretty straight forward to me.

Cheers
Gary


We both know i prefer joined grids, so it is easy to read it so. But you also know i try not to put my biased views into discussions about bettering the whole of IP.

Specifically, in that point I said we could join the overs and unders again IF we reduced the advantage to the more powerful cars.
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#784  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:50 am

willing4 wrote:Whilst acknowledging there are some holes that need filling, IPRA has plenty of diversity both in cars and levels of professionalism, with many at the historical reference to club level. If we can tidy up LMT cars it pretty much will provide something for everyone. Whilst the front of the field is very sophisticated, there are a lot of ipra cars running that are very 'standard' and they have a lot of fun!


In Vic there is an amazing spread and diverse field of high end race cars and "modern club cars". It is very much different in NSW. no one is 10 sec a lap off the leaders in NSW. We had a couple of new / returnees to our grids last year that would have got a good race in Vic, but were all alone and long way behind. They did not return.
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#785  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:05 am

TwinTurbo wrote:
Spac wrote:1. I know everyone likes the A050 a whole lot more than its predecessors, and for good reason.
The less obvious downside is that its allowed the big HP cars to really strut their stuff, and changed the equation away from smaller/lighter cars.

mikrace wrote:1. I agree, as do many. I would keep the A050 but remove the amount of tyre width options and narrow them all up a bit. It would even out the cars again, but at the cost of potentially using more of the tyres up per event which would increase running costs. In my view, it is worth it to have closer competition and reducing the advantages of spending more money on horsepower and other exotic parts.

OK guys, you both believe respectively that the current A050 and wheel/tyre size regulations needs changing, the obvious question is to what? What exactly are your suggestions?
Another control tyre/brand, which one?
No control tyre i.e. open tyres?
What sizes of wheel/tyre are you suggesting for each engine size/Class or is it weight based?
Are those wheel/tyre sizes readily available?
Have you factored in the cost to change if everyone (there are ~450 IP cars Nationally) has to buy new wheels, or give up the stock of tyres that they already have?
If you are changing wheel/tyre diameter have you considered the impact on brakes and suspension?
Drive train stuff like diff ratios?
Changing wheel/tyre sizes is a huge change, it would have a lot of direct as well as flow on effects, what haven't we considered?


I hear, see and read it a lot, "what's wrong with IP", but I hardly ever see any alternatives, what exactly do we do to fix it. Keeping in mind that hundreds of people have built cars to the current regulations and we have to very carefully consider what effect that regs change would have on them. As someone pointed out, IP regs haven't changed much in the last 30 years, a competitor who built a car in the 80's can basically still race it in IP today with very minimal changes. That's what builds confidence, we can take a time out from racing in IP and come back with the same car years later or we can sell it with the buyer confident that the regs aren''t going to change dramatically next week, next month or next year.


Cheers
Gary



Same tyre, same rules in essence but may be a bit more strict on tyre size.
IP tyres.xlsx
My tyre size concept
(10.62 KiB) Downloaded 26 times


IP tyres.pdf
PDF version
(16.62 KiB) Downloaded 32 times
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#786  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:13 am

TwinTurbo wrote:As someone pointed out, IP regs haven't changed much in the last 30 years, a competitor who built a car in the 80's can basically still race it in IP today with very minimal changes. That's what builds confidence, we can take a time out from racing in IP and come back with the same car years later or we can sell it with the buyer confident that the regs aren''t going to change dramatically next week, next month or next year.


Cheers
Gary


That is a good point Gary. It is a very strong and convincing point to retain many of the rules.

But where are the cars "built back in the 80's" in NSW? The ones that were built back in the naughties are a few seconds, or more, too slow (without being upgraded obviously..) and since there are few others in that same time range they don't want to race. Is that true, or am i missing something?

The older built cars that have been developed to their limits are very fast still, but also volatile racing machines... isn't that why Justin and yourself have built a simpler "eBay-able" more modern and common car?
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#787  Postby willing4 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:09 am

mikrace wrote:
willing4 wrote:Whilst acknowledging there are some holes that need filling, IPRA has plenty of diversity both in cars and levels of professionalism, with many at the historical reference to club level. If we can tidy up LMT cars it pretty much will provide something for everyone. Whilst the front of the field is very sophisticated, there are a lot of ipra cars running that are very 'standard' and they have a lot of fun!


In Vic there is an amazing spread and diverse field of high end race cars and "modern club cars". It is very much different in NSW. no one is 10 sec a lap off the leaders in NSW. We had a couple of new / returnees to our grids last year that would have got a good race in Vic, but were all alone and long way behind. They did not return.


Ok, we will have to disagree then. Vic also have a lot of average speed club level cars - and we welcome them with open arms.
I looked at two rounds in nsw from last year and either knowing those cars or having viewed the cars at PI nationals I consider them not far removed to what was running at club level in the 90s, nor are they inconsistent with Vic cars at the same level running now. Obviously just different perspectives.
willing4
one foot in the grave
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:25 pm
Location:

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#788  Postby full_noise » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:19 am

willing4 wrote:Whilst acknowledging there are some holes that need filling, IPRA has plenty of diversity both in cars and levels of professionalism, with many at the historical reference to club level. If we can tidy up LMT cars it pretty much will provide something for everyone. Whilst the front of the field is very sophisticated, there are a lot of ipra cars running that are very 'standard' and they have a lot of fun!


Agreed
User avatar
full_noise
old timer
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 6:44 pm
Location:

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#789  Postby TwinTurbo » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:26 pm

mikrace wrote:Same tyre, same rules in essence but may be a bit more strict on tyre size. My tyre size concept......

Thanks mik, I am confused, I thought the concept was to reduce the perceived tyre advantage of the 3J(b) V8's and give a hand up to those perceived to be currently as a disadvantage;

At a quick glance;
1. 3J(b) V8's would run the same sized tyre as they do now (i.e. 255 and 265)?
2. Limiting 3J(a) U2L cars to 205's would just about eliminate them and hand U2L to the 3J(b) cars.
3. RX2's, RX3's, RX4's and RX7's on 205's and RX8's on 225's, that would make about 50 current rotaries uncompetitive.
4. No change for 3J(a) V8's?

Am I reading it wrong?

Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#790  Postby TwinTurbo » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:15 pm

mikrace wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote:As someone pointed out, IP regs haven't changed much in the last 30 years, a competitor who built a car in the 80's can basically still race it in IP today with very minimal changes. That's what builds confidence, we can take a time out from racing in IP and come back with the same car years later or we can sell it with the buyer confident that the regs aren''t going to change dramatically next week, next month or next year.
That is a good point Gary. It is a very strong and convincing point to retain many of the rules.
It's something that is at the very core of IP racing and often gets overlooked. Not saying that we don't ever need to make changes, just that they need to be considered in the overall context of IP racing.

But where are the cars "built back in the 80's" in NSW? The ones that were built back in the naughties are a few seconds, or more, too slow (without being upgraded obviously..) and since there are few others in that same time range they don't want to race. Is that true, or am i missing something?
Examples..........going down the Bathurst entry list..........from memory (always risky)........ Leigh Forest's Celica, Michael Naqib's 1600, Scott Hunter's Corolla, Gary McKay's Torana, Tony Norris's 1200 and probably a couple more that I have missed. In NSW, most of the RX7's are from the 90's, the Rainbow warrior of course (winner of the 2015 O2L Championship), Peter McCallum's Escort, Ryan Jagger's Corrolla, Peter Bellet's Audi, Graeme's Shea's RX2, probably missed a couple there as well.

I'm confident that none of the above are in exactly the same configuration as they were in the 80's or 90's but motor racing even at amateur level still has strong elements of ongoing, consistent, affordable development. What was expensive unobtainium in the 80's is now common place and relatively inexpensive (in motorsport terms). It's great that IP competitors can take advantage of that. They can have spent, say, a $1K a year in development and in the 30+ years from the 80's to now still be having fun and not getting blown away. Obviously if they stand still it's a different story, but there are quite a few guys who just like their car the way it always was and are happy for it to stay that way.

The older built cars that have been developed to their limits are very fast still, but also volatile racing machines... isn't that why Justin and yourself have built a simpler "eBay-able" more modern and common car?
Hell yes, everything was pretty much re engineered, fabricated, bespoke and one off. It required a lot of servicing and had a very small window that it performed well in, hence a lot of tuning required for different tracks and conditions. We'd be working on it continuously from Friday morning till Sunday afternoon, just to get some speed out of it and keep in going. There is no doubt that starting from a vehicle with basic, superior engineering in built is an advantage. Not always in the results but in the cost in time, money and effort of building and maintaining. I'll be quite happy if the new car is only as fast as the old one but requires a lot less of our time.

IP accommodates all levels, which was my point. Although I accept Scott's point that LMT's are not all that well accommodated.

Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#791  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:22 pm

TwinTurbo wrote:
mikrace wrote:Same tyre, same rules in essence but may be a bit more strict on tyre size. My tyre size concept......

Thanks mik, I am confused, I thought the concept was to reduce the perceived tyre advantage of the 3J(b) V8's and give a hand up to those perceived to be currently as a disadvantage;

At a quick glance;
1. 3J(b) V8's would run the same sized tyre as they do now (i.e. 255 and 265)?
2. Limiting 3J(a) U2L cars to 205's would just about eliminate them and hand U2L to the 3J(b) cars.
3. RX2's, RX3's, RX4's and RX7's on 205's and RX8's on 225's, that would make about 50 current rotaries uncompetitive.
4. No change for 3J(a) V8's?

Am I reading it wrong?

Cheers
Gary


You did not read my example wrong. It was purely to 'paint a picture' and I threw it together as a concept in 2 minutes out of the tyres sizes i knew of. It was to indicate that the same rims and tyre tpre could remain, but the tyres allowed could be an addition to the current splits in capacity / cylinders / class we have in the rules.

I should have specifically done an example to suit the hypothetical scenario I was explaining. I assumed it would be obvious that I would not want to do the complete opposite of what i suggested....

Since it was just a concept on how it could be done without a change in rims or the A050 tyre, can take the concept on its face value and not as an exact rule submission and see that a change to tyre size could be done with the current rules?
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#792  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:47 pm

If i had to create the rules on tyres I would do this (attached) to open up choices in rim and rolling diameter, but restrict the widths. I don't think the advantages of a larger diameter rim can be seen in lap times on most 3J(a) cars, other than the EMv8's (which should gain in braking and rim choices available, which i believe they need), and reduce the advantage the LMv8's have. The aim would be to peg back the LMv8's with less tyre, keep the "middle" speed cars at the same pace, speed up the lower powered EM cars (u2L, e30's & rotaries for example), also speed up the EMv8's with bigger rims and brakes.

IP tyres 2.pdf
stranger than aliens?
(16.59 KiB) Downloaded 24 times


There are still cars i can think of that will be left out of gaining out of this and still be too slow. These will be the heavier cars without the ability to make power, ie: LMT 4wd's, LM NA o2L-u5L and LMT FWD's and the RX8. That is why i have previously suggested removing the turbo restrictors and allowing turbo to any LM car will support the less tyre theory. These cars would then have the grunt they need to pull their fat butts around, but will be hamstrung to the same narrow tyre like the LMv8's would be.

That is my view. Others, like yourself Gary have different views. I believe this is a better solution than the proposed NSW 3J(c) variable restrictor to weight rules and would be way more fun to own, drive and watch. I believe IP would be a far more attractive class for existing and new supporters. It would cross the bridge from Super Sprints, Time Attack, Tarmac Rally and street hoons into the awesome IP category.... But everyone is different.
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#793  Postby Barney » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:04 pm

You are also restricting the LM V8's that aren't on the pace. Imagine a 1600kg commo that is already 4 seconds off Hislop being given an even smaller tyre.

Another concern for me would be doing 300kph down Conrod on a 235 or 245 then tipping the fat car into the chase on a skinny tyre.

This years Nationals proved there is not much wrong with IP at the moment. All the different types of overs cars were battling at the front except for the 1 that cleared off. KL has proved you can make a LMT fast and win a nationals a few times.

However I do agree the heavy LMT cars need a leg up

Motorsport is not cheap especially so if you want to win a national title. IP is no different to saloons or sports sedans, there will always be those who spend more than others and will be faster. Also there are different levels of driving ability this makes a big difference as well.
User avatar
Barney
forum freak
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Perth

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#794  Postby Barney » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:07 pm

If people spent half their budget on driver taining most would find more time than if they spent it on their car
User avatar
Barney
forum freak
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Perth

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#795  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:16 pm

Barney wrote:If people spent half their budget on driver taining most would find more time than if they spent it on their car


I agree... Could easily add in that equation a good chassis engineer, as the cars which are very fast usually have many adjustments on the chassis and all are easy to get wrong ;)
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#796  Postby TwinTurbo » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:07 pm

mikrace wrote:If i had to create the rules on tyres I would do this (attached) to open up choices in rim and rolling diameter, but restrict the widths. I don't think the advantages of a larger diameter rim can be seen in lap times on most 3J(a) cars, other than the EMv8's (which should gain in braking and rim choices available, which i believe they need), and reduce the advantage the LMv8's have. The aim would be to peg back the LMv8's with less tyre, keep the "middle" speed cars at the same pace, speed up the lower powered EM cars (u2L, e30's & rotaries for example), also speed up the EMv8's with bigger rims and brakes.

IP tyres 2.pdf


There are still cars i can think of that will be left out of gaining out of this and still be too slow. These will be the heavier cars without the ability to make power, ie: LMT 4wd's, LM NA o2L-u5L and LMT FWD's and the RX8. That is why i have previously suggested removing the turbo restrictors and allowing turbo to any LM car will support the less tyre theory. These cars would then have the grunt they need to pull their fat butts around, but will be hamstrung to the same narrow tyre like the LMv8's would be.

That is my view. Others, like yourself Gary have different views. I believe this is a better solution than the proposed NSW 3J(c) variable restrictor to weight rules and would be way more fun to own, drive and watch. I believe IP would be a far more attractive class for existing and new supporters. It would cross the bridge from Super Sprints, Time Attack, Tarmac Rally and street hoons into the awesome IP category.... But everyone is different.


That version is more in line with your thinking mik, but it doesn't really address the issue of cars getting heavier with each model. In fact it pushes the exact reverse, lighter cars get advantages, which simply means more people will choose older cars (that are inevitably lighter) and give up on newer cars (that are inevitably heavier). A regs change that goes in the total opposite direction to where the car industry is heading.

Playing with wheel diameters is very expensive for the category as a whole. On it's own allowing every single 3J(a) car the option of 17" wheels could cost the category over $1M. Then, due to the total increased diameter (225/45/17 is 631 mm OD), they would also be looking at new diff ratios. By the time competitors buy a couple of sets of wheels and tyres and a couple of diff ratios they would be looking at $4k to $5k, multiple that by the number of cars. Then there are the brakes and suspension changes that will inevitably occur. Sure not everyone will choose the upgrades, but the ones that don't will fall even further behind. Without doubt it will widen the gap between the haves and the have nots, which is surely not your intention.

Without doubt the very last reg I would ever consider changing is wheel diameter, it's a category killer.

"Crossing the line from Supersprints", seriously how many people are going to look favourably at IP then they will be forced to run smaller tyres than their car comes with standard. Just another reason for potential competitors to mock the Improved Production name, where even more cars than we already discriminate against will consider it Impaired Production.

I understand what you are trying to achieve mik and whilst I don't agree with the objective itself, the big problems here are the unwanted side effects.

For clarity, "3J(c)" and "variable restrictor sizes to weight" are totally separate issues and not in any way related, not that I am aware of anyway. Have a look in you IPRANSW Magazine (hard copy or on the web site IPRANSW.org.au) , it has the 3J(c) proposal.


Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#797  Postby mikrace » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:47 pm

You think you could get the ride height and geometry desired to go faster on a 17 in rim (630mm diameter) than on the 15's with Justin's Sprinter? Wouldn't have much lock on the front available either.... My point is that I do not believe anyone would be quicker with 17's in 3J(a) but the bigger v8's.

I just do not agree with you on the costs when put in practice. A good theoretic equation though. But hey, opinions are always different in some way.

Anyway it's a null argument and all just hypothetical nonsense.
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926

TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.
User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#798  Postby Spac » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:07 pm

TwinTurbo wrote:OK guys, you both believe respectively that the current A050 and wheel/tyre size regulations needs changing, the obvious question is to what? What exactly are your suggestions?
Another control tyre/brand, which one?
No control tyre i.e. open tyres?
What sizes of wheel/tyre are you suggesting for each engine size/Class or is it weight based?
Are those wheel/tyre sizes readily available?
Have you factored in the cost to change if everyone (there are ~450 IP cars Nationally) has to buy new wheels, or give up the stock of tyres that they already have?
If you are changing wheel/tyre diameter have you considered the impact on brakes and suspension?
Drive train stuff like diff ratios?
Changing wheel/tyre sizes is a huge change, it would have a lot of direct as well as flow on effects, what haven't we considered?
....


I had typed out "but the genie is already out of the bottle" in the first post in this thread. There is no good way to undo what it has done to the class (and not everyone will agree that it should be undone). I'm blithely unaware of the process of selecting a control tyre, but it seems that everyone was so keen to be rid of the A048 that the A050 was jumped on...

Personally, I see the whole idea of a control tyre is to keep costs down and ensure parity. I don't see the point in making one of the best performing and most expensive semis on the market the control tyre - you're basically mandating that people spend the maximum possible amount, which seems entirely against the purpose of a control tyre.

The way forward from here is to keep the A050 until it goes out of production, and then to take a good, hard look at what other options are available. There will be winners and losers every time a new tyre is introduced (as there were when the A050 replaced the A048) - maybe next time special attention should be paid to whether the latest and greatest is what best serves the class?
Maybe something like the AD08R* would have been a good successor to the A048? Cheaper, apparently the same range of sizes, keeps the Yokohama business connection active, blah blah.

But its not just about tyres. Its about the vibe of IP being (and continuing to become) more about big money and hassle for the average punter. The A050 as a control tyre is just one piece in that particular puzzle.



*I know sod-all about the AD08R as a tyre. I'm using it as an example because it is a Yokohama and seems to be the next step down in their range.
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be": PC Hodgell.
Spac
racer
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:45 pm
Location:

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#799  Postby TwinTurbo » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:09 pm

mikrace wrote:You think you could get the ride height and geometry desired to go faster on a 17 in rim (630mm diameter) than on the 15's with Justin's Sprinter? Wouldn't have much lock on the front available either.... My point is that I do not believe anyone would be quicker with 17's in 3J(a) but the bigger v8's.

On the sprinter I'd go with 16's (not 17's), 45 series tyres, slight advantage there and no increae in tyre rolling diameter. I could also fit larger front rotors and callipers which it needs. By far the biggest gain would be getting the front roll centre where I want it. I already have the inner pivot as high as I can get it within the subframe and the outer ball joint can't go anywhere because of rim ID limitations. An extra 1" of rim ID would enable me to fix that. It would also mean I don't have to compromise on the rear roll centre. I'd guess a minimum 0.5 second gain at Wakefiled Park and a bit over a second at Eastern Creek. That would be 8 new rims at $400 each, 4 new brake rotors (we always have a spare set) at $220 each, 2 new callipers at $500 each and 2 sets of brake pads at $320 a set. That's around $5K plus tyres and machining a new pair of calliper adaptors with no engineering or fitting cost as Justin and I could do it ourselves. For someone who had to pay a workshop to do it, add a couple of K's.

Would I do it? Well I can't think of a way to get the Sprinter to go a second faster at Eastern Creek, that wouldn't cost multiples of that. A number of RX7's would benefit much the same, so far from a unique example.


Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: IPRA The future in Australian Motorsport

Post Number:#800  Postby TwinTurbo » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:35 pm

Spac wrote:I had typed out "but the genie is already out of the bottle" in the first post in this thread. There is no good way to undo what it has done to the class (and not everyone will agree that it should be undone). I'm blithely unaware of the process of selecting a control tyre, but it seems that everyone was so keen to be rid of the A048 that the A050 was jumped on...

Personally, I see the whole idea of a control tyre is to keep costs down and ensure parity. I don't see the point in making one of the best performing and most expensive semis on the market the control tyre - you're basically mandating that people spend the maximum possible amount, which seems entirely against the purpose of a control tyre.

The way forward from here is to keep the A050 until it goes out of production, and then to take a good, hard look at what other options are available. There will be winners and losers every time a new tyre is introduced (as there were when the A050 replaced the A048) - maybe next time special attention should be paid to whether the latest and greatest is what best serves the class?
Maybe something like the AD08R* would have been a good successor to the A048? Cheaper, apparently the same range of sizes, keeps the Yokohama business connection active, blah blah.

But its not just about tyres. Its about the vibe of IP being (and continuing to become) more about big money and hassle for the average punter. The A050 as a control tyre is just one piece in that particular puzzle.

*I know sod-all about the AD08R as a tyre. I'm using it as an example because it is a Yokohama and seems to be the next step down in their range.


The control tyre selection process is an open tender, sent out to every tyre company and advertised in relevant magazines. That occurs some time in the year preceding the expiration of the current contract. Once the tyre company tenders are received back they are reviewed by each State and a vote is taken by the Delegates. There are matters considered other than the tyre itself, such as availability, Australia wide coverage, sizes, prices, track side support, loadings, speed ratings, sponsorship, rebates etc. My understanding is that the Improved Production control tyre tender is easily the largest in Australia aside from V8 Supercars. Yokohama tendered the A050 and they substantially met all the criteria, the other tenders were a long way behind in almost every area.

In summary, the change to the A050 wasn't done to get rid of the A048, it was simply the best tender and was voted on (unanimously as I recall) accordingly. Personally seeing the end of the horrid, expensive and discriminatory A048 was the best result of a vote I have seen in almost 30 years of Street Cars, Club Cars and Improved Production. =D> =D> =D>

Cheers
Gary
User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests