maybe 20 secs?

hahah... things are moving a bit slow right now, which is okay b/c I'm waiting on a part from Nissan and the car won't start without it... In the meantime, a few announcements:

- I want to highlight some great service... Lou Fusz Nissan has been tremendous in helping me locate and obtain the main wiring harness for my car... it was buried deep in some production facility in Nissan Japan, and it is now on the way to my house... so, THANKS

- Forged Performance is the first to run the Aeromotion R2 on its 370z racecar build and I'm going to be following in their footsteps... read more here: AEROMOTIONS R Series and here: Aeromotions R2 Dynamic Wing - The Tuners Group

- Car is with Junior and I understand he is making good progress on some smaller projects... he may jump in with an update, otherwise, I will update again in a few days

Rgds

Active Aero, I love it!

That wing looks pretty cool. They have wanted to use that type of thing in F1 forever, but can't because of regulations. So the question has to be asked....how long before they ban or outlaw it in TA series racing?

They usually only allow it in certain classes. For example RTA allows it in Modified and Super Modified but not in Street or Stock. In other TT events like those by NASA, they have a point based system, but the current rules make no mention of "Active Aero", so you simply take the point penalty for replacing the rear wing (+4). I'm sure that will change over time.

Travis are you ever going to add cannards to the front ???

I'm aiming to eventually be competitive in modified RTA... currently also in NASA TT but classed as TTS which is beyond the points group and for TTS aero is unrestricted so long as you do not violate a "tech rule"... in fact, we're discussing it here now as it pertains to windows: Are these legal - NASA AZ I dont' recall hearing about any current exclusions for active aero in NASA TTS, but that may change in the future, as was stated

and just to clarify, I'm initially ordering the "static" r2 model, and may at some point in the future add active computer controlled actuation... I suspect the 370z racecar Sharif is building will be full active - he can confirm

already on... same as you can see on the robispec car... these are more about creating vortex to avoid drag in a high speed turn is my understanding but others can comment that know more... regardless, they look cool! :icon17:

My understanding of canards is that, unless you have a really powerful car, they will hurt more than help. They create a lot of drag and only cars with a lot of power can muscle through that drag enough for the added down force to be beneficial.

This is how it was explained to me when I brought up the idea of canards on my 05 STi to some time attack folks.

you may be right - figured I'd give them a shot... at some point, I'll try running with and without and will make some observations on car feel and lap time... if you're right, then I'll put them up for sale

some articles on aero and canards in case you're interested... also, racecar engineering magazine has some great back articles on this topic if you subscribe or can get copies... if you read nothing else, check the third one below!

great article... Composite wing key to high-speed stability: COMPOSITESWORLD.COM
debate... Your Thoughts on Front Bumper Canards... - evolutionm.net
great article... Automotive Aerodynamics - Sport Compact Car Magazine
debate... Astonishingly strange features on a car
wiki... Bumper canards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you've probably all seen it, but I like this car so much I had to post here... sure wish this was going into production... at least they will make a track-only version!

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/wp-...car_nsx_12.jpg

What is the bylaw they found to get it into the races? The rule state the car must be in production to race, but this car will never see production (supposedly).

you have a point what I say is travis take off the cannards until you upgrade your engine or have a low speed turny track

Super GT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For GT500, I found some mention of corresponding road-going variants, but no idea how many are required nor whether that is strictly managed... I do know that Honda says they will compete in this category, however!

The loophole is that they can state that the car is a continuation of an existing or previous road going model, doesn't seem to matter how different the car is.

I thought about that later, but then in my mind it is a completely different vehicle from the ground up. If they kept the engine placement (mid-engine) or something I could see the argument, but this car is nothing like the original NSX.

No V10 in the end...turned out to be a 3.4l V8 instead...with something like 280tq and 460hp.

Yeah - they just re-used their existing racing V8, which works within the series rules in any case.

It's such a bummer Honda didn't go forward with production, especially seeing how much better it looks than the renders. I assume they were worried about unfavorable performance comparisons to the GT-R on top of what is already a money-losing proposition. Thing is, some of us care less about absolute performance than driving fun, and I would have definitely gone for an NSX in the $90K range over the GT-R any day.

Oh well - my post-IPO dream car will have to remain the Exige S260. And who knows - if my stock does well enough, I've got my fingers crossed that the new Esprit will be on target. Hopefully it will carry the torch for the sub-3K lbs. mid-engine exotic with impeccable handling and great looks...

The above is one of the most effective means by which to quantify mods. Viva #140!

In for the drama.

Of course you are, Frost! voyeur! :)

Hey, how about those Arizona Cardinals? lol

Heart-breaking SOBs! Cinderella story is over; I dont believe they will have it in them next year.

so frustrating... you're probably right, they may have run out of mojo

Well, it sounds like kurt is done. He was talking about how he hopes god removes his desire to play football from him, lol.

Discussion needed... I need to set an objective for weight and whp, and it hinges on my decision to keep this car NA or add SC. Currently, I am in the TTS time trial class and NASA requires that I maintain a lbs/hp ratio of 8.7 or higher. NASA also give me the option to run larger tires or limit to 275 series tires or less, in which case I get a 0.4 bonus - so ratio becomes 8.3. Make sense? So, given all that - which one of these should I target ?

1. 3,175 lbs SC 380 rwhp little tires (275 series all around)
2. 3,300 lbs SC 380 rwhp big tires (285/315)
3. 3,050 lbs NA 345 rwhp big tires (285/315)
4. 2,975 lbs NA 335 rwhp big tires (285/315)

Right now, the goal is #3. I think the weight target is achievable, and once tuning software for this engine matures, I'm hopeful the hp target will work out. Alternatively, if I SC this car, I may have to ballast some weight to stay above the ratio. That may turn out to be a good thing, b/c I can load the weight low and to the rear and get on/near 50-50 weight distribution. I can see scenario #2 working out for that reason. And then a third choice would be to take a bit of weight off scenario #2 and limit myself to smaller tires. Picking between #1 and #2 is trivial - and something that I could figure out down the road if I decide to SC. I realize the hp estimate for this car with a SC is probably low, but I'm going to have to run it that way to stay in my current class, otherwise I'll be carrying too much weight, I believe. One factor favoring the SC route... Adding the SC will give me the opportunity to run RTA in the 'modified' class and have a better shot at being competitive. So, I'm looking for thoughtful input from those with a bit of TT experience or track experience with an aftermarket SC... for my NASA TTS class limits, what will turn better times, #1, #2, or #3 ??? Let's assume we are primarily talking about my 1.6 mile home track that is about half nascar oval and half infield. Thanks!

.

While I have never driven your home track, I vote #4 actually. A car with high mid-corner speed is usually faster on most tracks and although your home track is a "ROVAL" at 1.6 miles, its got to be a fairly small one. Lighter is always better. Having to have 200 more lbs. on board will offset the extra 50whp on the straights and lower your mid-corner speed. In addition, NA horsepower is always more useable power than FI power. The SC will also generate a lot of heat and add probably 60-100 lbs. to the front end of your car which is no bueno, plus you have the possibility of more components to break. And probably the best part, is sticking with NA will save you a bunch of money.

I would also say that at 2975 lbs., you wont need such big tires. I would probably run 275/285 tires max, especially if they are R-Compounds. Thats the size I run on my car with street tires at ~3400 lbs. w/driver and they do fine.

My goal would be to get the car as light weight as possible and add ballast in ideal places if you need to add weight at the end of the day. Then you can remove the ballasts for RTA events. I feel pretty confident your car would be very competitive in Mod RWD at Buttonwillow, Spring Mountain, and some other twisty tracks. Look at Street RWD results from last year. Manly Kao's 165whp Lotus dominated at Buttonwillow and Spring Mountain, did pretty good at AAA Speedway, and did ok at Willow Springs, but also took away the championship.

Great feedback as always, thanks Mike! I've been leaning that direction. It is going to take a lot of effort to get to that weight, I suspect... it is competition weight, so includes driver, which doesn't help at all :) but based on your feedback I should probably add another scenario

#5 2,900 lbs NA 340 rwhp little tires (275 series all around)

That creates an even more ridiculous weight target, but based on Mike's input might be optimal.

Others?

FYI PIR layout:
http://www.stubpass.com/data/maps/2266.jpg

Basic rule of thumb is to get as light as possible. If you are under-weight, compensate with ballasts. If you can't get down light enough, compensate with horsepower.

depends on the ratio, I'm sure you'd agree... I'd take 1hp for 1lb all day long... in this case, 1hp=8.7lbs... considering this car is a pig to begin with, and considering that reliability is important to me, I'm sure you're right, need to keep pulling weight off

issue is closed unless someone wants to plead the case for SC.................

I have a question travis, how do they measure the HP of car, specific shop you get your car dyno at?

yeah, anytime the classes are set using HP, you'll find that there are controls over how the HP is measured. in the case of nasa arizona region, there are two dyno's that are specifically recognized to be equally calibrated and usable for the TT'ers and racers in establishing their class. there is trust and some degree of error involved, but process seems to work well

I would agree when it comes to accelleration, however horsepower doesn't help you at all under braking or cornering. :)

In my previous post, I didn't mean that horsepower was a substitute for weight loss. What I was saying is to get your car as light as possible. If you are under the weight limit allowed by your class, place ballasts in ideal positions. If you cannot possibly get your car light enough to be at the limit allowed by your class, then you add as much horsepower as you can. Like I said though, horsepower only helps your acceleration while weight reduction helps acceleration, braking, and handling.

hard to argue with that logic, thanks

damn, more pics!!

not for canadins!

a couple random posts

I found a really great article on brake compound selection for those of you that might be interested... Essex - Learning Center - How to Choose the Best Street and Track Brake Pads

also, here's an interesting debate on another forum I occasionally post on about whether the accumulation of tires on a track have a positive or negative effect on traction... Drifter Rubber--Help or Hurt? - NASA AZ

Good stuff.

The rubber debate is a pretty easy one. Take NASCAR for example... If the track is clear Friday and Saturday and gets rubbered in, but a rainstorm swings by Sunday morning before the race, the track is going to have lost a ton of grip.

In F1... think of how Monaco gets faster as the weekend progresses.

regarding the rubber on track debate... i'm not convinced it is that easy... a certain amount of rubber buildup is good but if there is enough that it fills the aggregate, then you lose 'microtexture'... that is a common cause of long landings and problems on airport runways - where crews have to go out and clean out the rubber from landing zones... the same argument is being made (on the thread I linked) from the excessive deposits left by drifters, just before a TT run or whatever...

A lot of it depends on the surface.

On concrete tracks the rubber can build up moreso than on asphalt tracks and develop grooves that screw things up.

But for the most part once the track has fully "rubbered in" the excess rubber just marbles up at the top of the track outside of the groove.

So, I'm going with Ferrodo DS3000 front and rear... going to try these out and see how they perform at an event coming up soon

Stillen is also providing me with temp sensing paint... three compounds that change color at different temps, should indicate temp thresholds at different parts of the braking mechanism... should help us trace down where the heat problems are too! I look forward to getting the results... will make an effort to document with pics between runs

http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/u...649-1Large.jpg

good point! at my usual local track, we have concrete mixed with asphalt... the effects and timing of buildup are very different depending on which part you hit