@vincentyang246 that makes sense on the adjusted wt / hp ratio. Do you know what people are using for average HP on these cars?
HPDE CMP @ NASA-SE
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Seen mostly s2k + last gen twins (possibily k swapped, cus the engine sounds different). Not sure about all just yet, I think my instructor is competing in his 350z there as well.
Joined
·
251 Posts
Agree with CMP is very hard on the brakes. I used SRF brake fluid and PMU club racer advanced pads there (counter space garage has them) and they worked great and had much less wear than Carbotech 10. rotor temps of 700 are what I had there as well. I cut away the top part of the front dust shield (kept bottom to protect ball joints and abs line). I got 10 track days from oem rotors. Bigger/stickier tires will heat your brakes even more. Small amounts of pedal fade are normal. Remember that as the pads get slimmer the pedal get a little lower. My car is set up like yours with similar mods (no exhaust mod) and I recently added the AP racing endurance bbk with ferrodo ds1.11 and this set up did great at VIR but CMP is the big test. I hope to be there in early Dec with THSCC.
AP Racing BBK is def going to hold up for sure.
Loved it at CMP. Really technical track.
Once I'm done with carbotech, I will try out different options.
@vincentyang246 I meant more what 2022 GR86 / BRZ are putting up for average HP following the NASA calc procedure. There are lots of dyno graphs out there but it would be interesting to see what people are actually presenting to NASA.
A quick looks shows NASA average HP at something like 205 if we are being conservative (estimating high). Taking that and running a 10 HP sensitivity either direction, we don’t have a lot of points to spend before we get below the 14.00 lb/hp threshold!
Makes me wonder if TT4 is attainable but then you are competing with some real shit. TT5 probably is a good target. Would be interesting to see if anyone else on here has TT goals or experience with the current gen.
A quick looks shows NASA average HP at something like 205 if we are being conservative (estimating high). Taking that and running a 10 HP sensitivity either direction, we don’t have a lot of points to spend before we get below the 14.00 lb/hp threshold!
Makes me wonder if TT4 is attainable but then you are competing with some real shit. TT5 probably is a good target. Would be interesting to see if anyone else on here has TT goals or experience with the current gen.
I dont think hp is really that much of a difference in tt5. I recog if we shredd some weight and get as close to the 14lb/hp as possible. Then the car can be really competitive, since it has so much torque compared to the s2k.
I’m more talking about what has been presented to NASA by current TT5 GR86 drivers using the NASA calculation methodology. Not really talking about how the GR stacks up to other vehicles. The reason I am interested is that a few HP does make a difference in what other points we might take (mods we might do). I have some questions about what actually “counts” in the 14.00 lb/hp mod factor calculation, but the below still illustrates the point: if people are presenting a 215 average HP from dyno results to NASA, we might have to stop at sticky tires to stay “above 14.00 lb/hp.” If the number is closer to 195 hp for the GR86 average power, we might be able to take those same tires, coil overs, and quality LCAs.
That's a really interesting point. And I have no answers for that. I can ask around to find out.
And it's interesting that it's only to our advantage if our average hp is at 195. It gives a lot more room for modification. We could always add a roll cage in, to make the wt/hp a bit higher. Almost all the competition cars are running areo kit. So if we run BTM areo, we can gain .4 point back, but def in a disadvantage at high speed corners.
And for coilovers, I think they are targeting coilovers with external reservoir. So we can see if we can find some two ways adjustments coilovers without a external reservoir to gain an advantage there without loosing points.
Lastly, if we do run areo, we are in a -1.4 points deficit here. We can also gain an advantage with toyo's slick tires + running below 257mm NASA calculated section width, that's totally of +1.9 points gain, but the drawback is that the slick tires have about 1 or 2 attack laps in them before they over heat.
And personal thinking, if we need the perfect cambers front and rear, we need a pair of rear lower control arms. So that's -.5 gone.
So here's the point gains.
With areo kit + tires combo + rlca + coilover without external reservoir: we broke even without gaining or loosing any points.
Without areo kit + tires combo + rlca + coilovers without external reservoir: we gained 1.4 points. This could be huge, if we do end up tunning our cars to 210 average hp. Even with the double a arms rear design (-.7), we are at 14.14. (Not enough points to play with)
We can add a half cage to increase our points for more head room to modification. So it seems like the theme here is to not run areo kits. The s2k guys have it lucky, their suspension componets out off the box is fully adjustable, whereas we have to loose .5 point to get the rear to be adjustable, or slam the car enough to have rear cambers (but induce bumpsteers and increase the body rolls due to the instant center and roll center gap increase). And they also have a mechanical throttle body, unlike our electronic throttle body. Another 0.2 point gain.
But we could always slap a blower on the car and bump the car up to tt4. We are just running the risk of blowing up the engine, and it's hard to find a replacement fa24.
@vincentyang246 yea it definitely is going to be a bit of a game to find the most efficient way to keep the points up. I also suspect that most people going to TT will remove a lot of the interior, add bucket seats, and harnesses. This drives our wt/hp down even further. I wonder if it’s going to be more competitive as a TT4 car since we will be able to really “set it up” with proper alignment, suspension, brakes, etc.
Or maybe a full interior TT5 car is better!? I don’t know, and I have a long way to go to a TT license. That said, I think knowing where I’m trying to land is a good way to keep mods focused and be mindful before just throwing on parts. That’s my logic for thinking about it anyway. Cheers!
Or maybe a full interior TT5 car is better!? I don’t know, and I have a long way to go to a TT license. That said, I think knowing where I’m trying to land is a good way to keep mods focused and be mindful before just throwing on parts. That’s my logic for thinking about it anyway. Cheers!
Yeah, lots of old gen owners complained that -0.5 on control arms replacement is pretty garbage. In order to get a good alignment we need rlca, which is total garbage that nasa forces us to use eccentric bolt that can change under heavy load. Especially when everyone is running Hoosier slick tires pulling more than 1 g.
Second, they also complaint that having multi link rear penalized us .7 point, where we a know that double a arms are better setup at front end over rear end. So people want nasa to change their rule to having penalty on multi-links/double arms to per axle.
Some folks even out the Plainfield by having counter weight at the passenger side to pump up the wt/hp ratio. So they can run areo or bigger tires.
So came across this thread. The camber rules have proposals. Which means us twins boys don't need to take .5 penalties anymore. Depends on the rlca design, we probably still need to take .2 spherical bushing penalty tho. However this opens up at lot more modifications, cus now I wonder if spl front lower control arms are permitted with only .2 spherical bushing penalty. But the upside is that we can slam the car as low as the kit permitted, while having 7 degrees of casters, that's like lowkey race car spec at that point.
ST5/6 Control Arm Rule Proposal for comments
Proposed substitution of the current control arm rules for ST5/6 (replaces 6.1.9.4)---Mod Factor still -0.5 for the additional arms: "One means of aftermarket camber adjustment per wheel by replacement of a single suspension component (in addition to camber plates) is permitted without a Modifica...
community.drivenasa.com
That would be cool if it goes through. I’m pumped for next season. Trying to decide on coilovers as my next big mod. I like the car but I don’t want a $50k gr86 lol.So came across this thread. The camber rules have proposals. Which means us twins boys don't need to take .5 penalties anymore. Depends on the rlca design, we probably still need to take .2 spherical bushing penalty tho. However this opens up at lot more modifications, cus now I wonder if spl front lower control arms are permitted with only .2 spherical bushing penalty. But the upside is that we can slam the car as low as the kit permitted, while having 7 degrees of casters, that's like lowkey race car spec at that point.
ST5/6 Control Arm Rule Proposal for comments
Proposed substitution of the current control arm rules for ST5/6 (replaces 6.1.9.4)---Mod Factor still -0.5 for the additional arms: "One means of aftermarket camber adjustment per wheel by replacement of a single suspension component (in addition to camber plates) is permitted without a Modifica...
I wanted Ohlins road and track, but the local speed shop that did a lot of development and raced the previous 86 also recommended ST Suspension XTA plus 3 if I get tired of waiting for Ohlins:
Shop - Order products online | ST suspensions
www.stsuspensions.com
Was couched to me as a galvanized KW club sport. Still pretty entry level as far as race suspensions go, but not bank breaking at 3.5k with camber plates.
Also considering just the Raceseng camber plates and LCA all around instead for slightly but not much less total cost. I contacted Raceseng and you can convert the plates from stock suspension to a number of coilover kits so it could be an option?
I don’t want to lower my car but I will if I must.
What are you thinking? I appreciate the thoughts and notes comparison, cheers!
Honestly if I can do it all over again, I wouldn't go with fortune auto 510s. But id look into racecomp's tarmac 2, they basically re-valved kw coilovers with stiffer spring rate.That would be cool if it goes through. I’m pumped for next season. Trying to decide on coilovers as my next big mod. I like the car but I don’t want a $50k gr86 lol.
I wanted Ohlins road and track, but the local speed shop that did a lot of development and raced the previous 86 also recommended ST Suspension XTA plus 3 if I get tired of waiting for Ohlins:
Shop - Order products online | ST suspensions
Was couched to me as a galvanized KW club sport. Still pretty entry level as far as race suspensions go, but not bank breaking at 3.5k with camber plates.
Also considering just the Raceseng camber plates and LCA all around instead for slightly but not much less total cost. I contacted Raceseng and you can convert the plates from stock suspension to a number of coilover kits so it could be an option?
I don’t want to lower my car but I will if I must.
View attachment 17525
What are you thinking? I appreciate the thoughts and notes comparison, cheers!
However, just by thinking about rebound adjustment is a hand full for me on track. Adding compression adjustment seems a bit overwhelming for me. So if I'm just learning coilover set up, I think fortune auto 510 is a good starting point, or any digressive single rebound adjustments coilovers will be good starting point.
And I think the rule change will go into the record book, with further investigation. I think we can only have rlcas and rear toe arms for "proper alignment". So im not sure if front lca can be really modified.
What don’t you like about the fortune 510s? And Ive always thought highly of the tarmac 2s as well but my shop advised against them as very old tech.
Didn't know that tarmac 2 is actually an old tech.
But the 510s are just garbage on street, feel everything on the road 😂. So just personal complaint. They are weapons on track tho, at cmp I was taking curbs left and right, they never unsettled the car.
That’s a very fair complaint! I don’t have to daily this car but I do like to, and that’s a big part of not wanting to lower it. So I appreciate that feedback!
This is where I keep coming back to the Ohlins…. I asked them when parts? But no answer.
Small lower like 15mm to 20 mm can actually unlock some of the hidden handling, but too much would ruin the suspension geometry.
I dropped it for small amount about 15mm ish, the car won't scrape on anything on street at all.
Oh yea for sure there can be benefits. Colorado roads and parking lot transitions and even our driveway curbs are intense though, and I’ve lived the low scraping life before and I’m done with it haha. 15mm is probably do able but that’s prob the max I would go.
That said, come next season as I’m getting the car ready again and my lizard brain is taking over, there is a substantial chance I look like that dumb meme again 😅
Going back to the brakes. Do not cheap out on the rotors or they will crack. If you are really going to be pushing your car, go straight to RBF660 or other similar brake fluid as the RBF600 may be marginal with the heat we will produce in our OE brakes. "MY" experience with Carbotech has not been the best, but everyone has different experiences. I've used Hawk race pads and Cobalt race pads without issue. Aside from that, if you continue using Carbotech, there are more aggressive compounds that you can use which will stand up better to the heat and abuse. Aside from brake temperature, are you experiencing any deficiencies with the braking system?
Not really anything bad. Beside pedal sinking, the carbotechs didn't have any brake fades, but they were just throwing a lot of heat into the system. Personally thinking, since my next cmp track days will be in 2 months, I can try to look into some ferodos ds1.11 next. Maybe even some csg c2 compound.
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
