View Single Post
Old 07-23-2021, 04:40 PM   #12
rice_classic
Senior Member
 
rice_classic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Drives: Nevermorange FRS
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,171
Thanks: 757
Thanked 4,206 Times in 1,807 Posts
Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
If there's not a specific reason play in that power:weight bracket - I've done enough racing (and endurance racing) over the last 17 years to advise you to try and be competitive in a bracket where you can remain NA. But if you're committed then my only input is to account for these realities:

The development cost curve goes up exponentially with every "allowance" a rule set offers and forced induction is major allowance meaning the cost to be competitive adds several zeros to the expense budget. And all that's AFTER you spend the $$$$ to address the added entropy FI introduces.

You are accelerating a mass faster = more fuel costs (plus you can't run as lean = more fuel costs) ​
You are converting more momentum into heat through friction = more consumable costs (brakes, bearings, tires, ball joints).
You are generating more heat in the engine bay, the transmission and the differential - so you will have to add weight (and cost) to cool it - Oil cooling, trans cooling and definitely diff cooling - and that weight - goes back to the first point.

My concern for you is that this will be more of an engineering endeavor vs a racing endeavor and vast majority of your money will be spent away from the racetrack.
__________________
SCCA T4 - FRS
rice_classic is offline   Reply With Quote