New BRZ No longer in 0-2000cc class!

[Purist]

In Australia many competitions use 2L as a class cutoff point. This puts the twins in a class with Lotus Elises, MR2s, MX5s and depending on the category, other NA hot hatches. The new 2.4 will see us potentially pitted against turbo 4s (FI multiplier is 1.7) and sixes.

Interested in the US take on this where the Auto X scene seems to feature a lot of twins.



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[e1_griego]

Cars here are classed on a car-by-car basis, at least for the SCCA.

[Purist]

Originally Posted by e1_griego

Cars here are classed on a car-by-car basis, at least for the SCCA.

Do you mean tghat they ignore capacity to an extent and group by performace and weight etc.?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[e1_griego]

Yeah, there are 6 'buckets' of classes for the SCCA -- Street, Street Touring, Street Prepared, Street Modified, Prepared, and Modified. And then within those 6 buckets have different strata in there (A, B, C, D, etc). Modifications to cars are specifically constrained within each bucket, and then cars are assigned to classes within the buckets.

Basically it's a big matrix.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Purist

Do you mean tghat they ignore capacity to an extent and group by performace and weight etc.?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Vaguely yes. Right now the 86 gets classed with other light-ish RWD/FWD low horsepower coupes like the RX8 and Civic Si, sometimes the NC Miata, E36/E46 non-M BMW's, etc. It really depends on the organization, how they structure things, and what type of events they compete in.

Problem is that the new car is quick enough to obsolete the old car if they're classed together (most US orgs have set modification rules that apply to all chassis in the class, so if the old car is allowed an aftermarket tune, so is the new one, and on and on) but not probably not quite quick enough to challenge the next subset of popular grassroots cars. Best case scenario is it can hang with the Miata and get classed alongside the ND so most orgs can keep the old chassis alive, it's cheap and plentiful which builds good participation. Not sure if that'll shake out though.

[rice_classic]

For big track racing theres always weight and restrictor plates to balance the performance of vehicles.

[Purist]

So I've been in comps grouped by body shape against Exiges as well as MX5s, MR2s etc, and also in Production cars (any car with more than two seats)

I'm curious to know peoples thoughts on the ultimate fair grouping parameters to provide the best (fairest) competition. Shape? Seats? Weight? Power? Age? Capacity?

Since cars seem to always be compared to others in their price bracket, how about 'Price when new x capacity)

Anyone looking for a motorsport PhD topic??




Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[prandelia]

Gimme that 184 lb-ft please!!!

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by Purist

I'm curious to know peoples thoughts on the ultimate fair grouping parameters to provide the best (fairest) competition. Shape? Seats? Weight? Power? Age? Capacity?

My local autocross group classes are based a points system where the primary points contributors are weight and power, with suspension, tires and other modifications contributing a certain number of points and you'd be dumped into classes based on points. I won series championship for my class despite only being like 1/3rd of the allowed points although full disclosure, it had less to do with being the fastest guy than it had to do with being the fastest guy who always showed up.

[Purist]

Originally Posted by Lynxis

... although full disclosure, it had less to do with being the fastest guy than it had to do with being the fastest guy who always showed up.

Don't sell yourself short. Thats part of racing. I've been in the same situation.

The points system sounds brilliant.


Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Icecreamtruk]

Power to weight ratio with clearly defined aero rules (what is and isnt allowed) is what I think works best. Some chassis are better than others, there's no way around that. You could add restrictor or ballast to some chassis as well, but more often than not, fast drivers make cars look faster than they are.

[Goingnowherefast]

I can't speak much for the autoX side of things, but in the time attack/time trials scene most sanctions in the US do not class cars based on engine size. The reason for this is simple, you can't compare two engines based on size only.

For instance,

F20C - 1,997 cc - Output: 234 HP/155 ft lbs
2.0 L SkyActiv-G - 1,998 cc - Output: 155 HP/148 ft lbs

One engine literally makes 79 more horsepower yet they are classed the same. I think really any sanction using displacement to class cars might want to get with the times haha.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

I can't speak much for the autoX side of things, but in the time attack/time trials scene most sanctions in the US do not class cars based on engine size. The reason for this is simple, you can't compare two engines based on size only.

For instance,

F20C - 1,997 cc - Output: 234 HP/155 ft lbs
2.0 L SkyActiv-G - 1,998 cc - Output: 155 HP/148 ft lbs

One engine literally makes 79 more horsepower yet they are classed the same. I think really any sanction using displacement to class cars might want to get with the times haha.

They should, but not by simply looking at only peak numbers.

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

They should, but not by simply looking at only peak numbers.

AKA what NASA does. They look at average HP. SCCA does a good job (IMHO) in TT without that by predicting how fast car X will be, but obviously it takes a year to really know.