| Lococoin |
| looks good to me. Are we still considering different classes or is that still on the back burner? |
|
|
| Z_Fan |
^ We're going to go on that shortly. Just one thing I'd like to introduce first.
I think we should have a displacement cap. I think it should be 3.5L, and I think it should be put into the eligibility list in the same area as the OHC engine line. |
|
|
| Ron@Revolution |
| Sounds good. |
|
|
| DarrylBleau |
quote:
Originally posted by Z_Fan
^ We're going to go on that shortly. Just one thing I'd like to introduce first.
I think we should have a displacement cap. I think it should be 3.5L, and I think it should be put into the eligibility list in the same area as the OHC engine line.
Sounds great to me so far.
I don't think you need a displacement cap as it's inherant in the list of available cars, unless you think there's a motor in that list that someone might bore out past 3.5L. In any event, I wouldn't put a displacement cap for the same reasons as the fuel one, if you can't verify it, don't mandate it.
Oh, and can we add sonota to the list? :) |
|
|
| Z_Fan |
quote:
Originally posted by DarrylBleau
Sounds great to me so far.
I don't think you need a displacement cap as it's inherant in the list of available cars, unless you think there's a motor in that list that someone might bore out past 3.5L. In any event, I wouldn't put a displacement cap for the same reasons as the fuel one, if you can't verify it, don't mandate it.
Oh, and can we add sonota to the list? :)
Yes, I think we can/should at Sonata to the list. I don't know if it is a compact exactly, but it's not like it is a huge car. It should definitely fit in before Mustangs, etc. It comes in 4-cyl and 6-cyl with max. displacement of 3.3L. Any objections from anyone on this?
The reason we are going to have to add something is because there are some ... uhmm ... Mustangs and Camaros that really should be eligible. At some point we are going to either simply take a hardline stance and say "NO". Or, we can institute a displacement rule. A 3.5L displacement rule helps provide some clarity between what domestic engines of questionable cars (Mustang/Camaro) would become eligible if their motors were smaller than the displacement maximum. By default, it would eliminate all the new V6 Mustangs. They have 4.0L V6's in what frankly is a mid-size car and IMO have no business at all competing against 2.0L I4's. However, there are some Mustangs of past that have motors which would fit inside the displacement rule. Those scenarios can only be accomodated for if A) We allow Mustangs, and B) We institute displacement cap. IMO, a displacement cap is necessary irregardless of whether or not we allow Mustangs et al. |
|
|
| SilverZ24 |
| ^ The only problem with your displacement rule is that you would exclude the new Eclipses. They have a 3.8L and I would think most people would agree they should be included in the list/events. |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by Z_Fan
... uhmm ... Mustangs and Camaros that really should be eligible.
We don't need 'em.
quote:
At some point we are going to either simply take a hardline stance and say "NO".
That's my stance.
quote:
what domestic engines of questionable cars (Mustang/Camaro) would become eligible if their motors were smaller than the displacement maximum.
None. They should all be non-eligible.
quote:
By default, it would eliminate all the new V6 Mustangs.
As it should.
quote:
A) We allow Mustangs,
Hell no! |
|
|
| Z_Fan |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverZ24
^ The only problem with your displacement rule is that you would exclude the new Eclipses. They have a 3.8L and I would think most people would agree they should be included in the list/events.
I don't have any problem excluding the V6 version of this car from the list.
At some point, you have to limit displacement.
If the successor to the Nissan 350z is a 4.2L V6, well, it should be excluded as well. Just because it's predecessors fit the class, doesn't mean it should too.
And yeah, I think the 3.8L is too big, so it should be excluded. I don't care what kind of car it is in...3.8L motors shouldn't be considered eligible IMO.
How big are we going to allow? How is allowing 3.6L+ motors fair to the majority of vehicles in this class? Should a 2.0L I4 be up against a 4.0L V6. I'd rather see a 2.0L up against a 3.0L, which is bad enough IMO.
Oh, what are we to do? <smiles>
Nothing? Suggestions?
I'd rather allow all cars, V8Less with a displacement cap of 3.5L. It'd be a lot easier than trying to define what a Sport Compact Car is...plus then there is no debating or arguing. The car would either FIT or NOT FIT. Simple. |
|
|
| SilverZ24 |
I'm not saying whether it is fair or not, I just assumed most people would think the new Eclipse should be allowed.
Although it is funny that it isn't 'fair' to let a 3.8L 35 grand Eclipse compete but it is 'fair' to let a 140 grand Acura compete. :p
In the end I don't care whether or not it is allowed, but in general, every year the average engine size in cars is getting larger so each year you will probably be excluding more and more cars. |
|
|
| Z_Fan |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverZ24
I'm not saying whether it is fair or not, I just assumed most people would think the new Eclipse should be allowed.
I'd agree that most people would think it should be allowed simply based upon that fact that previous models have been allowed. However, simply because previous models were allowed doesn't mean current models should be allowed. Likewise, if the future versions displacement fit within the guidelines, they'd be allowed back in.
We are trying to define something that seems to have very blurry boundaries.
At some point, you've just got to make rules and stick to them. There are always going to be exclusions that some people will not feel is fair.
Obviously we can not accomodate everyone or every scenario. This is admittably very difficult.
Unfortunately, the cost of the vehicle isn't a consideration IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by SilverZ24
In the end I don't care whether or not it is allowed, but in general, every year the average engine size in cars is getting larger so each year you will probably be excluding more and more cars.
Yeah, I don't care about any particular car either. But I just figure we need to draw a line about what to allow. Something that can be applied to the whole, and something that isn't based upon cost, drive format, manufacturer, size, wheelbase, volume, etc. That's why I believe cylinders and displacement should be the defining factor. Ultimately it plays the largest role in levelling the playing field. It's easy to understand too. Thus, there is no feelings of exclusion for particular models elsewise eligible, and some models will have eligible versions and ineligible versions. |
|
|
| DarrylBleau |
I think we're regressing here. Putting a displacement cap means you have to trust the person running the car (maybe he bored his 3.2L out to 3.6L, are you going to be able to tell?), and opens up the can of worms that is being described above. Not to mention, how many 'liters' is a 13B? A 20B?
I think the itemized list of cars you had before fits the situation perfectly without having to add on a displacement cap. It's either on the list, or it isn't. And yeah, I'm ok with going up against a 4.0L v6 with my 2.4L i4, or even the (1.9L/3.9L/5.9L, take your pick) 3 rotor. |
|
|
| Ron@Revolution |
:drama:
Well then simply say nothing more then a stock displacement of 3.5L well be allowed. If you want to go buy a 3.5L and bore it our or even stroke it go ahead. Shit I'm not sure why everything on here has to be such a shit show. NEXT |
|
|
| icydude |
| that sounds good to me:) |
|
|
| Z_Fan |
Update: Mustangs et al NOT eligible.
No matter which decision is made about Mustangs et al, there is going to be a group of people not happy with the choice. The fact is that these cars have not been considered Sport Compacts or Imports, and they still don't fit in with what this list is intended to represent. The focus of the list is the Fastest Sport Compacts and/or Imports, and to protect that purpose is the sole reason for this decision. If this was simply a V8 Less list, you would see a different stance. Unfortunatley the cars simply fall outside of the scope of the list.
Update: Displacement.
I'm a firm believer that engine displacement should play some role in defining a Sport Compact. I think that a factory displacement cap of 3500cc is worthy of pursuit. Successor models exceeding that displacement cap would no longer be eligible. Example, if Nissan makes a 4.0L 400Z in the future, it is not eligible simply because its predecessors were. However, for 2006 we'll not actually put a displacement cap into the list. The eligible list of cars effectively performs the identical function. I believe the largest displacement motor will be a 3.8L found in the new v6 eclipse. And yeah, if we introduce a displacement cap for 2007, that car would become ineligible. The bottom line is that at some point you must limit displacement in an attempt to equalize the overall playing field. There is already a significant variance of displacement and this difference does need to be constrained. The displacement cap would tend to that need. Food for thought.
So, see next post for the current state of the eligibility rules / car list for next year. This was created largely from discussion from the thread on 780tuners.com and beyond.ca. |
|
|
| Z_Fan |
Alberta’s Fastest Sport Compacts / Imports of 2006
General Eligibility Requirements:
1. Vehicle must be owned by an Alberta resident or business. Vehicle must be registered and insured in the province of Alberta.
2. Quarter mile pass must be completed on an Alberta quarter mile track. [Edmonton: Bud Park, Calgary: Race City]
3. A digital photo or scan of your timeslip [JPG format], which clearly indicates the Track, Date and your cars time must be submitted.
4. Video may also be used to submit your time IF a timeslip is not available. [WMV format] Your video must clearly show the entire pass from start to finish and MUST clearly show the tower displaying both the MPH and the ET.
5. When you submit your time, please include your Car Make/Model/Year and the name/screen name you wish to have displayed in the list.
Additional Information:
1. Eligible cars must be streetable with the exception of tires and/or fuel. Use of Race Gasoline, Nitrous Oxide, or Water Injection (or others) as fuel related power adders are permitted.
2. All variations of tire construction are permitted. Bias ply Slicks, Drag Radials or Street Radials.
3. Eligible engines must be of an overhead cam (OHC) configuration [exception: RX-7/8 Etc. Rotary] originating from a vehicle that is a Sport Compact / Import and residing in a vehicle that is a Sport Compact / Import.
4. All formats of drive, be it RWD, FWD or AWD are eligible for the list.
11.99 or quicker Pass Requirements:
1. A back-up pass is required for passes quicker than 11.99 seconds. Your fastest pass needs to be backed up by a secondary pass that is within 0.25 seconds of the fast pass ET. Example, a pass of 11.13 must be backed up with a second pass that is 11.38 or quicker.
10.99 or quicker Pass Requirements [inclusive of above]:
1. 10.99 second or faster times must include BOTH a timeslip and a video.
Make/Models eligible for competition:
Acura: Integra, Legend, Vigor, CL, TL, NSX, RSX, TSX
Audi: A4, TT
BMW: 3 Series, Z3, Z4, MINI
Chevrolet/Pontiac: Cavalier, Grand Am, Sunfire, Fiero, Cobalt, Pursuit
Chrysler/Plymouth: Avenger/Sebring, Cirrus/Stratus, Laser, Neon, Omni/Horizon, Stealth, Daytona
Datsun/Nissan: 200sx, 240sx, 210/510/610/710, Z-Car (240/260/280/300), 350z, Skyline, Altima, Sentra, Silvia, Pulsar, NX
Eagle: Talon
Ford/Mercury: Contour, Cougar [99-up], Focus, Escort, Probe, Lynx, Mystique, Tracer
Geo: Metro, Storm, Prizm
Honda: Accord, Civic, CRX, Del Sol, Insight, Prelude, S2000
Hyundai: Accent, Elantra, Excel, Tiburon
Infiniti: G Series
Isuzu: I-Mark, Impulse, Stylus
Mazda: Cosmo, 323, 626, RX-3, RX-4, RX-7, RX-8, R100, Protege, Mazda 6, Miata, MP3, MX6
Mercedes: C-class, SLK, CLK
Mitsubishi: Evolution, 3000GT, Lancer, Eclipse, Mirage
Oldsmobile: Achieva, Alero
Saturn: Ion, SC, SL, SW
Subaru: Legacy, Impreza, WRX
Toyota: Aristo, Altezza, Camry, Celica, Corolla, Echo, Supra, Matrix, MR2, Prius, Solara, Starlet, Tercel
Volkswagon: Beetle, Cabriolet, Corrado, Golf/GTi, Jetta, Passat, Rabbit, Scirocco
Volvo: S40, S70, S80, C70 |
|
|
| chris f |
| Looks good, will there be a diffrent back up time figure for cars sub 10.99? |
|
|
| Z_Fan |
quote:
Originally posted by chris f
Looks good, will there be a diffrent back up time figure for cars sub 10.99?
No. The requirements are inclusive of the 11.99 time cars. So, they have to back times up by 0.25 as well. |
|
|
| DarrylBleau |
Good stuff. Happy to have some sort of description for the list. Thanks for wading through the BS Z.
Are you going to keep sub-lists? (ala top10, top10rwd, top10fwd, top10awd).
quote:
Originally posted by Z_Fan
Volvo: S40, S70, S80, C70
S60? |
|
|
| ae1969 |
No Porsches........ ?
Not that I would be dragging..... I like my axles too much for this.... hehehe |
|
|
| Ron@Revolution |
| You might want to add Galant/2000GTX I heard some crazy guy up north with nothing better to do is doing one up to drag race!:thumbup: |
|
|
| Z_Fan |
All about sub-lists.
I would like to encourage as much participation in a Fastest Times list as possible. I would like to attract interest more broadly than in previous years. The unfortunate thing with a Top 10 that needs a 12.6 second time slip simply to appear on the list means that many people can not participate. With such a narrow audience, the list becomes elitist or appealing to only the fastest, and I'm sure it doesn't have to be that way. I believe sub-lists is the solution to expand the audience, increase participation, and grant recognition to specific drive types all the while maintaining the originally expressed intent of portraying the Top 10 Fastest SCC / Imports of Alberta.
Here's what I would propose.
We would keep one list throughout the year. The list we collect over the year would be broke down both periodically, and afterwards [when tracks close]. In other words, we will keep a database of ALL submitted time slips for the year. By doing this, we really open up the doors for ANYONE to submit. I believe we can broaden the participation, that is, increase the number of people who submit, by allowing all times quicker than a pre-determined time to be submitted. A pre-determined maximum ET of say 14.99 just to institute some limit on the number of eligible vehicles. But there are hundreds of cars in the SCC / import class faster than that in Alberta, thus we've successfully expanded the audience and hopefully spurred a little more interest.
This would work a lot better then continually reducing the required ET in order to get onto the Top 10 list. Example, the Top 10 list started with a cut-off of 13.5 last year, just to simply submit. There are still a good 25-30 cars which run quicker than that, probably more. But by increasingly making it harder to get onto the list, less and less people can participate.
The database would record FWD, AWD, RWD, TIRES, ET, MPH and TRACK. Once that information is collected, we could sort it any way we wish. We could even track 1/8 ET and 1/8 MPH from submitted slips if we wanted. Hell, even 60 ft times, etc. It's all there on the slip. We could compile each sub-list and publish it monthly, just so people know where they stand.
The published list on beyond.ca and 780tuners.com would show perhaps the fastest 50 submissions. The Top 10 would still be the ultimate focus. However, the list would continue onwards up as high as necessary to accommodate submissions. If we have 90 people submit times, we'd have 90 people in the database, 50 people on the regularly updated balls out ET list, and a clearly defined Top 10. Occasionally we'd post up ALL submissions if the list did grow to over 50.
Ok, so, that's my plan - what are thoughts and opinions on this. |
|
|
| Z_Fan |
| Note: If we do this, we could also track Outlaw / cars not eligible for SCC / Import and compile them as a sub-list. They would NOT appear in the main list or any further sub-list. It would simply be "Outlaw Top 10". |
|
|
|
