Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

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

Moderator: Moderators

Born Again Racer
one foot in the grave
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:01 pm
Location: Wimmera Vic
Location: Wimmera Vic

Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by Born Again Racer » Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:40 pm

Last year we were asked by CAMS to alter our rules so as to allow transition of cars from Production Cars to Improved Production.

I was not keen on the idea of IP being forced to become a dumping ground for old PC (that's how I perceived it, anyway)

I'm now looking at it from the other perspective. Its a great place for cars that are no longer eligible for PC to retire to or at least a good starting point for someone to build a IP car. Caged, shocked, seated, harnessed and fuel systemed. All the expensive safety stuff already done in a car obsoleted and therefore fairly cheap.

Only one flaw in my theory. There appears to be no age limit on PC. Not a great look for the Australian Auto market when you have cars running around in the Australian Championship that are older some of the drivers.
Is it time we ask for CAMS to return the back scratching from last year, and enforce an reasonable age limit on Cars in the top level of PC? Even the commentators on the weekend mentioned the class had a Red Book limit of 150K and some had Red Book value of 1% of that.

Just my 3 cents worth

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10485
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by TwinTurbo » Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:49 pm

Whilst your point is valid Bruce, for IPRANSW the issue isn't "cars running around in the Australian Championship", it's the large number of IP aged cars running around in the State Championship. I see that as being caused by 3 factors;
* Turbo cars, we know the problem
* Over 6 litre V8's, where our regs are too restrictive to be attractive.
* More recent model U2L cars that weigh 100 to 200 kgs more than the equivalents IP cars (eg; DC5 Integra versus DC2 Integra) and as a result have proven to be noncompetitive.

Banning cars over a certain age from the Australian Championship would achieve next to nothing, they would just go to the State Championship not to IP.

If you should chose to pursue this, you might want to ask CAMS how is it that vehicle over 5 years old (from last manufacture) are allowed to run;

2018 Australian Production Car Series Sporting Regulations
2. ELIGIBILITY
2.1 ELIGIBLE MODEL

(d) an automobile that is currently being manufactured or has ceased manufacturer no longer than 5 years, ago.


(e) Any automobile that has existing CAMS Recognition for Group 3E which shall remain in compliance with all other aspects of these Group 3E regulations

2.2 CAMS GROUP 3E RECOGNITION DOCUMENT
(f) Once an automobile has been recognised by CAMS, and its recognition form issued, that make and specific model of vehicle shall remain eligible during its production series


My understanding is that competitors are claiming exemption (from the age limit) based on 2.1 (e) above, but in my view 2.2 (f) overrules that via the expiring recognition document.


Good luck and if I can help in any way just ask.
Cheers
Gary

Born Again Racer
one foot in the grave
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:01 pm
Location: Wimmera Vic
Location: Wimmera Vic

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by Born Again Racer » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:01 pm

Gary,

I would also envisage a similar but extended life span for state level, maybe similar to the harness ages.

5 for national and 5 more for state

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10485
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by TwinTurbo » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:59 pm

Born Again Racer wrote:Gary,
I would also envisage a similar but extended life span for state level, maybe similar to the harness ages.
5 for national and 5 more for state
Nice idea Bruce, but it’s run under State Championship regs so CAMS has no real say in it. Production Cars isn’t going to agree to it, they get so many “old” cars running. Using the 5+5 cut off a DC5 Integra wouldn’t be allowed to run, along with maybe half their field. They would kick up a huge stink, not to mention the promoters. Even then I don’t think we would get that many changing to IP, especially the heavy U2L cars (all of them) and the turbo cars. We might get a couple of U6L V8’s but that’s all I can see.

Cheers
Gary

User avatar
FatBoy
I spend too much time in front of a keyboard
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:17 pm
Location:
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by FatBoy » Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:38 pm

A couple of APRA Pulsar guys are also running Production Cars to get extra laps in. And winning Class E - they are N15 SSS Pulsars last built in 2000, so hardly new cars. Can't blame the Proddy guys though, this helps sustain the great grids they get here in NSW... :-k

gmontrack
old timer
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 4:48 pm
Location:

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by gmontrack » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:36 pm

Bruce.... you are actually on the right track as far asking CAMS some question as to the direction they see IP, and a few other state based category's, are heading over the foreseeable future. Your point on Prod cars is valid but there are also some other reason why IP seems to be struggling for numbers of late in most states..
You only have to look at the Excel series to see where a lot of new motor heads are running and good on them as they have found a very effective formula that is working very well for them( I tip my hat to the organizers).
From an IP point of view we need to have a look at what we are doing, or not doing, and try to turn some new people around and get them running in IP... First though we need to understand we have a problem and in saying that, I'm not implying that IP is broken, but what state wouldn't like to have say half a dozen more cars running in there state???
GC has put a couple of possible reasons up and I'm sure everyone could give there views as well. Once we can all agree that we have some issues then we need to work out what we can all do to help bring people into IP. I do talk to all state delegates on a regular basis and I think most agree all could do with a boost in numbers.. that is why at the up coming IP National board meeting in a couple of weeks we will be dedicating a considerable amount of time discussing ways that we can improve our numbers. We will also be having a video call into CAMS on the Saturday and hopefully we will get some answers to a few questions on a number of topics which will help us get a better understanding of the landscape currently.
The National board is very proactive, and yes I know some may think otherwise, and for most IP members they look to their committees or state delegates/ national board for some direction.
We try our best to gauge what is the general feeling out there, take on board as much information as we can so we can hopefully make some progress for the benefit of all that are involved in IP.
If anyone has something they would like to discuss please call your state delegate or myself, we are all happy to hear what people think... including you Bruce...lol

GM

User avatar
Steve thomas
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 4622
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: Perth WA
Location: Perth WA

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by Steve thomas » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:19 pm

Remove the "R" word from IP, Get all those cars running in other classes and events into IP with a Boost limit.
Tyre costs are also out of control, Yes I know this is a tough one.
Back to the Past for the Future.

cortina mk1
one foot in the grave
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 8:46 am
Location: South Australia
Location: South Australia

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by cortina mk1 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:29 pm

Simple. Why are people not joining IP **COST**
Why are so many IP cars in sheds and current people leaving IP **COST**

Electro
old timer
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:12 am
Location:

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by Electro » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:49 am

Steve thomas wrote:Remove the "R" word from IP, Get all those cars running in other classes and events into IP with a Boost limit.
Tyre costs are also out of control, Yes I know this is a tough one.
I agree with Steve. Boost limits will give more reliability to turbo cars.
Tyre's - AO50 is a great tyre, and has stopped a lot of discussion of how to make tyres last - but, especially for the big cars, price is out of hand. Let's try another cheaper tyre, go a bit slower, and see how we go for a couple of years.

User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by mikrace » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:20 am

Electro wrote:
Steve thomas wrote:Remove the "R" word from IP, Get all those cars running in other classes and events into IP with a Boost limit.
Tyre costs are also out of control, Yes I know this is a tough one.
I agree with Steve. Boost limits will give more reliability to turbo cars.
Tyre's - AO50 is a great tyre, and has stopped a lot of discussion of how to make tyres last - but, especially for the big cars, price is out of hand. Let's try another cheaper tyre, go a bit slower, and see how we go for a couple of years.

I am glad others have said something... Lets go to the Toyo but open up the rim rules. No profile limit for any cars, EM a max of 32 inch and LM 36 inch for all 4 rims. Less grip but more freedom to suit your particular car.

Who cares if our lap times will be slower compared to other classes, we all race on the same tyre. If it is better for IP then (Y) . I believe the Toyo to be around half the price as the Yokohama?

Less grip also means less advantage to having more horsepower, which is a complaint that many have with the LMv8 cars. EMv8 can have the same power but with less grip they are not dominating. A wet track is also known as a good equaliser. Soft tyres kill classes over time. Karting is on soft tyres across all classes and it is suffering badly.

If we can reduce the advantage of big power cars by reducing the grip, then we can also relax the turbo rules to allow more power (doesn't matter how if it is bigger restrictors, boost monitors or both).

Looking closely at IPRA, the 3J(a) cars all seem to even out on average across different tracks around the country. Why is that? I think it is because of the less grip. But, EMv8 have rim issues with the profile restrictions, so let them have more selection.

The LMu2L cars will most likely be the fastest cars on track with the above tyre and rim changes...
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926
TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10485
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by TwinTurbo » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:40 am

mikrace wrote:Lets go to the Toyo.
Toyo didn't tender Mik, they weren't interested in supplying IP.

Cheers
Gary

User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by mikrace » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:51 am

TwinTurbo wrote:
mikrace wrote:Lets go to the Toyo.
Toyo didn't tender Mik, they weren't interested in supplying IP.

Cheers
Gary
I can only assume this was Tender compliance issue, because why would they not want to sell more tyres? I don't know the exact words in the RFT documentation so I really have no idea.

I know IP have recently voted in the A050 again and i can see why. It is a great tyre.

My point is around what would make IP a better class. Maybe an alternative more popular, solution is to give all cars in IP the same rim and tyres as LM > 3L does.. or include the total rim width rule i suggested, so we all have 36 inches of rim the stagger as we please. The 4wd will remain un-affected. The LMv8 will not want to lose front rim or rear rim width to gain width at either end either, but all the rest should gain much lap time and be closer to the current fastest cars? This is not my preferred way to do it, but it will certainly even up the field... and fix some of the current issues around tyre/rim sizes some cars have.
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926
TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.

pete-rx7
old timer
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:24 am
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by pete-rx7 » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:11 am

The other added advantage of less grip is less breakages to the drive train.
Pete Ingram
NSW #32 Rx7

Born Again Racer
one foot in the grave
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:01 pm
Location: Wimmera Vic
Location: Wimmera Vic

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by Born Again Racer » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:26 am

Will less grip help bridge the gap between a commodore and a Mazda?
The Mazda will also have less grip in corners and braking, where they currently have an advantage. The commu will still have the same straight line handling.

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10485
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by TwinTurbo » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:35 am

mikrace wrote:No profile limit for any cars, EM a max of 32 inch and LM 36 inch for all 4 rims. Less grip but more freedom to suit your particular car.
Are you refering to tyre width? If so at 32" total width ( 4 x 8") and EM V8 wouldn't be able to run the current 225/45/16 in the the Toyo as they are 8.9" wide (ie; 8.9 x 4 = 35.6"). The most common tyre in IP is the 225/50/15 which is 9.2" wide, so none of them for EM cars either, in fact at 36.8" total not for LM either.

If you are referring to rim width, then I'm not so sure about allowing, say, a VB Commodore to run, say, 235/35/19's. :shock:

The other obvious issue with total rim width width is it expenses competitors to having different wheel/tyre sizes front to rear. Which cancels out any ability to rotate tyres around to maximise their life. If I remember correctly (it's been a while since we tested them) the R888R has an asymmetrical tread pattern but they aren't left and right. Which doesn't make a lot of difference in the dry but in the wet the water drains differently (inside to out, outside to in) from left to right. So they react differently in left hand corners compared to right hand corners.

Being a 100 treadwear rating (A050's are 60) getting enough heat into them on the rear of a FWD is going to be very difficult, even at the best of times and next to impossible at Wakefield in winter.

The R888R seems to have a distinct "green tyre" advantage, of course we would have to test it on a range of IP cars. But I would hate to go back to the situation that we had with A048's where guys were buying new tyres every race meeting because they dropped off the cliff after a few heat cycles.

Any decision to allow wheel and tyre changes in IP at the same time is hellishly expensive, sure the tyres may be a bit cheaper but buying 4, 6, 8, 10 lightweight wheels makes that saving irrelevant for the competitors.


Cheers
Gary

User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by mikrace » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:42 am

Born Again Racer wrote:Will less grip help bridge the gap between a commodore and a Mazda?
The Mazda will also have less grip in corners and braking, where they currently have an advantage. The commu will still have the same straight line handling.
Yes.

The less inertia a vehicle has (ie: a 1000kg rx7 compared to a 1600kg commodore) will require less energy to slow, change direction or to accelerate.

This means the higher inertia cars will be slower through turns, take longer to accelerate and need to start slowing down earlier for the next corner. Their top speeds will be reduced by a greater margin than the less inertia cars... which is a solution to a noted problem in IP racing at the moment.

However, only reducing the tyre grip will probably mean an increase in relative performance to the 4wd cars. So that is why i also suggested a 4 wheel maximum rim width rather than individual so the 2wd vehicles may be able to bridge that gap.
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926
TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.

User avatar
mikrace
forum freak
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:09 pm
Location: Queanbeyan

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by mikrace » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:44 am

TwinTurbo wrote:
mikrace wrote:No profile limit for any cars, EM a max of 32 inch and LM 36 inch for all 4 rims. Less grip but more freedom to suit your particular car.
Are you refering to tyre width? If so at 32" total width ( 4 x 8") and EM V8 wouldn't be able to run the current 225/45/16 in the the Toyo as they are 8.9" wide (ie; 8.9 x 4 = 35.6"). The most common tyre in IP is the 225/50/15 which is 9.2" wide, so none of them for EM cars either, in fact at 36.8" total not for LM either.

If you are referring to rim width, then I'm not so sure about allowing, say, a VB Commodore to run, say, 235/35/19's. :shock:

The other obvious issue with total rim width width is it expenses competitors to having different wheel/tyre sizes front to rear. Which cancels out any ability to rotate tyres around to maximise their life. If I remember correctly (it's been a while since we tested them) the R888R has an asymmetrical tread pattern but they aren't left and right. Which doesn't make a lot of difference in the dry but in the wet the water drains differently (inside to out, outside to in) from left to right. So they react differently in left hand corners compared to right hand corners.

Being a 100 treadwear rating (A050's are 60) getting enough heat into them on the rear of a FWD is going to be very difficult, even at the best of times and next to impossible at Wakefield in winter.

The R888R seems to have a distinct "green tyre" advantage, of course we would have to test it on a range of IP cars. But I would hate to go back to the situation that we had with A048's where guys were buying new tyres every race meeting because they dropped off the cliff after a few heat cycles.

Any decision to allow wheel and tyre changes in IP at the same time is hellishly expensive, sure the tyres may be a bit cheaper but buying 4, 6, 8, 10 lightweight wheels makes that saving irrelevant for the competitors.


Cheers
Gary
The Toyo was an example. Maybe there are other tyres out there that suit better.

If more expense of rims means 30 cars on a grid in each state instead of 10 then is it not worth it? Is this thread not about what can help IP overall?

What is the issue with 19's on a VB if the owner can have the choice?
Michael Hazelton
0404 051 926
TwinTurbo wrote:posting on here about it will achieve exactly nothing.

green95
racer
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:51 am
Location:

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by green95 » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:47 am

Agreed tyres are a sticking point.

I run in the Excels, our control tyre is available to competitors for under $100 per corner. I got 5 meetings out of a set of fronts, no rotating them on the rim.
If you allow other competitors to run with any tyre in schedule e, without points, you get them in.

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10485
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by TwinTurbo » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:47 am

mikrace wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote:
mikrace wrote:Lets go to the Toyo.
Toyo didn't tender Mik, they weren't interested in supplying IP.
I can only assume this was Tender compliance issue, because why would they not want to sell more tyres? I don't know the exact words in the RFT documentation so I really have no idea.
I don't know why Toyo didn't tender, but I do know that they were specifically asked to. It could be service, maybe they can't provide track side service in all States. It could be that stock carrying was an issue for them. There are lot of sizes in R888R's but maybe they only carry a few sizes in Australia. It could be that they weren't interested in the sponsorship that enables us to run the Nationals at a more reasonable cost, which also provides a rebate to each State that reduces membership fees.

Without Toyo tendering it would be extremely risky to move to them as the contract carries with it some obligations, such as availability. I recall a big stink a few years back when Yokohama couldn't supply one or two non common sizes for a month or so. What would it be like if half the field couldn't get their tyre size?

There is far more to a control tyre contract than simply the tyre's cost.

Cheers
Gary

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10485
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Production Cars and IP in the CAMS Scheme

Post by TwinTurbo » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:55 am

mikrace wrote:What is the issue with 19's on a VB if the owner can have the choice?
Aside from being "out of era" (a 70's car with 19" wheels, IP isn't Summernats) have you really thought through how a, say, 1250 kgs VB commodore would go with, say, a 600 bhp LS and 235/35/19's. Compared to your RX7? I don't see a lot of evening up in the field, or attraction to get all of those rotaries out of the shed and onto the track.

Cheers
Gary

Post Reply