...I do find it a bit interesting that we have the data in the hands of the STAC, many of which are builders and drivers in this class, however we the entrants can't see it because it is classified info??!! Is this not just a bit like letting the inmates run the asylum?
It can be seen that way, and we certainly understand the obvious conflicts of interest. And I assure you that we do the best we can to police each other to eliminate conflicts of interest whenever possible (for example, I asked to not be shown any of my direct competitors' data during the Runoffs week).
And, of course, we have oversight from the CRB and BoD.
Problem is, we are a club, consisting of Club members that basically run the show; we are,
in fact and by design, inmates running the asylum, so in that regard you're completely correct, though I would characterize it differently. We are not a professional organization with a paid staff of data acquisition engineers who have the time and priorities to review collected data and make recommendations to the sub-committees who would then make the recommendations to the Club Racing Board.
However, if you are aware of a data acquisition engineer that is willing to look at these data collections and offer objective opinions to the committee - voluntarily and without compensation, of course - then I bet we'd be willing to work with them.
As for publicizing the data, a premise behind being able to collect that data with minimal resistance from competitors is that we agree to keep that information as private as possible. The only people that have access to that data are the STAC, the CRB, SCCA Technical Staff, and the Board of Directors.
Also, your assertion that boost limits cant be done are pretty much just silly. The solution for that is simple; you wanna run a boosted car, you have to run a logger tied to the manifold. At nation events, if I think your non compliant a simple protest with the subsequent reading of the log by tech(simple to do with most loggers)should solve the issue. Yes it cost a bit for the turbo car entrant, but its a drop in the bucket compared to the money that went into the car build.
We've been there, we've done that, and it failed. I remember having a SCCA-supplied boost measuring device in my Showroom Stock car in 1989, and I seem to recall different ones around 1991/92. I also seem to recall a lot of interesting means to defeat them, including modifications internal to the intake manifolds to reduce the amount of pressure sent to the fitting. I also remember specific fittings that were required to be installed to stop that, and that failed too.
I also remember that these recording devices all failed to produce the results we wanted, for various reasons, and were scrapped. I'm guessing there's several boxes of them sitting in an abandoned U-Store-It garage in Englewood Colorado...
And you want the competitors to supply these boxes instead? Like they won't try to defeat those in some way with them in their possession?
And ECUs? Same problem. That's why ECUs are free in most non-spec categories.
And, even *if* we were able to do that, we're now faced with having to comp adjust every individual car, and we're going to assume that the committee and CRB process first, has the knowledge to do that and second, has the speed to react to failures.
It's a nice thought but nope, sorry, setting boost limits is a Pandora's Box that, from my perspective, the CRB is unwilling to open.
...or they're running a WC engine with a $10,000 1-off custom manifold.
The WC-spec cars get intake restrictors and 5% additional weight. But your point about turbos is noted.
As an aside, Joe McClughan had one of those Mazda 6s with the trick intake manifold. I head he decided to go back to the stock manifold to lose the restrictor and ~300#. Also heard he made more power... - GA
