Superlite Eagle @ 25 Hour of Thunderhill 2010
- Thread starter karlo
- Start date
I agree.
Come on guys. Do you really think that $20k+ was spent on computers because it's "cool"?
I agree that a very nice and quick race SLC can be built for around the $100k mark, but if it ends up competing with the SLC-R that was at TH...well I know someone that is gonna be pretty pissed that he "wasted" all that money.
That SLC-R is the "bomb diggity" and will likely set ES track records everywhere it ends up running. It is not in the realm of "normal club" builders. It just isn't.
I agree that a very nice and quick race SLC can be built for around the $100k mark, but if it ends up competing with the SLC-R that was at TH...well I know someone that is gonna be pretty pissed that he "wasted" all that money.
That SLC-R is the "bomb diggity" and will likely set ES track records everywhere it ends up running. It is not in the realm of "normal club" builders. It just isn't.
Yes , eventually when all the electrons hold hands & work together it might just be the 'bee's knee's'... but right now there will be few guys thinking it might have been better to be a bit more conservative with a 'Miss & Kiss' approach on a first outing.
In regard to 'wasting' money...depends on what the 'waster's' end goal is... if its winning ( & Fran stated early on due to the pledge thing it was not ) then everyone who finished ( or DNF'ed) behind the lead car is/was a waster!... you have to lose some to win some
With regard to the S.L.C. thing perhaps it needs a bit of the old flip flop treatment....C.L.S.... a possible new sponsor & theme for the team....time to harden up
In regard to 'wasting' money...depends on what the 'waster's' end goal is... if its winning ( & Fran stated early on due to the pledge thing it was not ) then everyone who finished ( or DNF'ed) behind the lead car is/was a waster!... you have to lose some to win some
With regard to the S.L.C. thing perhaps it needs a bit of the old flip flop treatment....C.L.S.... a possible new sponsor & theme for the team....time to harden up
Come on guys. Do you really think that $20k+ was spent on computers because it's "cool"?
I agree that a very nice and quick race SLC can be built for around the $100k mark, but if it ends up competing with the SLC-R that was at TH...well I know someone that is gonna be pretty pissed that he "wasted" all that money.
That SLC-R is the "bomb diggity" and will likely set ES track records everywhere it ends up running. It is not in the realm of "normal club" builders. It just isn't.
I hear you Crash, however most of the electronic goodies weren't working for the race as I understand it. So the performance you saw there was closer to a "club builder" attainable SL-C than it could have been had everything been working properly.
Again, we are just talking lap per lap capabilities of the car, not the potential of a racing campaign with a high dollar race team.
Yes, I do.
When you can have all the same functionality from a Motech for a fraction of the cost with better support, at least from what I've seen, instead of having the latest-greatest-only-one-in-the-country system, then yeah, I am of the opinion it was because of the "cool" factor.
Admittedly, I am not personally familiar with the Bosch Motorsports ecu, but I can't imagine it will buy you any more time on the track than some alternatives. Remember, I'm a Rotary guy so I may have a biased opinion for the Motech.
The transaxle also had it's own ecu but flat-shifting with paddles can also be done just as effectively on less expensive options. The difference there is really the transaxle itself.
Shock telemetry is another aspect but I don't think was money well spent, at least not in this case. Most people wouldn't even know how to interpret the data without specialized track side support and again, I think was only done because he could.
If money were no object, I'd do a lot of things not because they make sense, but because I could.
Also, the shock settings were not touched from the setting it rolled off the trailer with. I'm not sure, but believe those valving specs are available.
Hi Crash,
Sorry I didn't get there early enough to say hello to you and your team....I made a few efforts to infiltrate the inner sanctum under your towering pit box but couldn't tell one player from the next in that mass of red jacketed humanity!
The truth of the matter at least for this race was that all the trick electronic gadgetry was the downfall of the effort. If the car had been Howard Jones autograph model "stone age" spec in the electronics department ...... the car probably would have run, and as we all were witness - it ran WELL literally right off the trailer when it was running.
So for now .... all the cool - make it - a - FEW - seconds faster electronics were a HINDERANCE to speed (even causing the engine to run rich and soft). Now, in the world of super evenly matched cars a few seconds is worth the cost. In a race like this one where the speed of cars was hugely different, the "stone age" approach would have been much better.
The really trick PART of the chassis was the gearbox, then the brakes, a little less so, the engine. Even so one could easily build an LS that made the same HP. It had a real nice roll cage in it, but nothing the GTM crew couldn't make with a few coat hangers and some items from Walmart The suspension pieces were nice, using rod ends instead of some of the ball joints of the stock chassis. But these didn't make the car faster over stock spec, maybe more reliable and/or easier to work on, but faster ....?
As mentioned before, (from my MC racing days) all the trick bits are just shiny EXPENSIVE bling until they are sorted, even then these things only make the vehicle slightly faster than a stock chassis. The basic chassis has to be right or all the lipstick in the world aint gunna make it a beauty queen.
Sorry I didn't get there early enough to say hello to you and your team....I made a few efforts to infiltrate the inner sanctum under your towering pit box but couldn't tell one player from the next in that mass of red jacketed humanity!
The truth of the matter at least for this race was that all the trick electronic gadgetry was the downfall of the effort. If the car had been Howard Jones autograph model "stone age" spec in the electronics department ...... the car probably would have run, and as we all were witness - it ran WELL literally right off the trailer when it was running.
So for now .... all the cool - make it - a - FEW - seconds faster electronics were a HINDERANCE to speed (even causing the engine to run rich and soft). Now, in the world of super evenly matched cars a few seconds is worth the cost. In a race like this one where the speed of cars was hugely different, the "stone age" approach would have been much better.
The really trick PART of the chassis was the gearbox, then the brakes, a little less so, the engine. Even so one could easily build an LS that made the same HP. It had a real nice roll cage in it, but nothing the GTM crew couldn't make with a few coat hangers and some items from Walmart
The suspension pieces were nice, using rod ends instead of some of the ball joints of the stock chassis. But these didn't make the car faster over stock spec, maybe more reliable and/or easier to work on, but faster ....?As mentioned before, (from my MC racing days) all the trick bits are just shiny EXPENSIVE bling until they are sorted, even then these things only make the vehicle slightly faster than a stock chassis. The basic chassis has to be right or all the lipstick in the world aint gunna make it a beauty queen.
Last edited:
Howard Jones
Supporter
Barney Rubble here. The car I was watching wasn't THAT far off. I just hasn't completed a comprehensive R&D program. I would say that a proper test session in dry weather after a day on a DYNO to get to the 90% mark on the engine management electronics and a couple of days at a track to work through the other electronics and I think it would be working well enough to complete a 2 hour race at the front against all of the cars in this race. They might just smoke up if the car proved reliable. The speed in the rain was what opened my eyes. It was just much faster than the rest of the field as I saw it. This means that the chassis is very close.
Now the matter of running a car for 25 hours, maintaining reliability, and wining is a different order of magnitude as I see it. It is much more of a team effort to win a long race like. Working out the team part of the contest like driver changes, tire changes, fueling, organizing the tool parts complement, and practicing changing some key body parts for example require running it enough to work out the things that ALWAYS go wrong with a new car and team. I can't see a new team unfamiliar with endurance racing doing very well over 25 hours for at least the first three or four outings. There are just too many moving parts in a effort like that.
The car speed and driver sprint speed almost isn't a factor unless you are racing in the final couple of hours. It's things like replacing a half shaft in less that 20 mins (the lead Porsche team did) or just not hitting anything (a LOT of cars went off or got banged up in this race) that will win the race for a team.
Remember the winner was more than 20 laps ahead at the end. They were the pole car, but completing the race without loosing hours in the pits is what won the race for them not outright speed.
The owner seamed like he was committed, and a very pleasant man by the way considering that he HAD to be pumped up all night long, to follow through with the car. I think there was some talk about running shorter races before next year even. I do believe that if a week of testing was completed and the car was wrung out in a couple of 4-6 hour races then BOYS...............LOOK OUT!
Now the matter of running a car for 25 hours, maintaining reliability, and wining is a different order of magnitude as I see it. It is much more of a team effort to win a long race like. Working out the team part of the contest like driver changes, tire changes, fueling, organizing the tool parts complement, and practicing changing some key body parts for example require running it enough to work out the things that ALWAYS go wrong with a new car and team. I can't see a new team unfamiliar with endurance racing doing very well over 25 hours for at least the first three or four outings. There are just too many moving parts in a effort like that.
The car speed and driver sprint speed almost isn't a factor unless you are racing in the final couple of hours. It's things like replacing a half shaft in less that 20 mins (the lead Porsche team did) or just not hitting anything (a LOT of cars went off or got banged up in this race) that will win the race for a team.
Remember the winner was more than 20 laps ahead at the end. They were the pole car, but completing the race without loosing hours in the pits is what won the race for them not outright speed.
The owner seamed like he was committed, and a very pleasant man by the way considering that he HAD to be pumped up all night long, to follow through with the car. I think there was some talk about running shorter races before next year even. I do believe that if a week of testing was completed and the car was wrung out in a couple of 4-6 hour races then BOYS...............LOOK OUT!
Last edited:
It was really great to see the SLC in person, what a great car, nice to meet Fran, Bob & some of the crew. Sorry didn't get to meet more of you guys, but hopefully soon.
The SLC showed good speed, right out of the box. The team should be commended for their effort, & tenacity throughout. As has been discussed here, & over at the GTM forum, the SLC has created a lot of interest, but some people seem to overreact a bit. It definitely raised the bar, but it is not a typical build.
Howard, I agree with you, there are extreme differences between sprint racing, & endurance races.
I am sure that a quality SLC, or GTM race car can be built competitively for under $100k, & be just as quick, & probably more reliable. The problem with all the high end pieces, (electronics, LMP engines, gearbox etc.) are the added complexity, cost, & unreliability. At some point, seeing as this is amateur racing, the added expense does not equal added enjoyment of the racing experience. At some point it becomes unjustifiable.
The PDG approach is to maximize the available resources, & involve as many supporters as possible. The GTM-R may not be flashy, but underneath it is a well developed endurance racer. It is a polar opposite of Bob's SLC.
I believe that somewhere in between the 2 lies a potential for some really fast, & competitve race cars. Hopefully there will be more cars built, that don't have to break the bank, and we can all enjoy some bitchin racing!
I sure enjoy the competition, as that's what makes it interesting, & enjoyable.
Ted
The SLC showed good speed, right out of the box. The team should be commended for their effort, & tenacity throughout. As has been discussed here, & over at the GTM forum, the SLC has created a lot of interest, but some people seem to overreact a bit. It definitely raised the bar, but it is not a typical build.
Howard, I agree with you, there are extreme differences between sprint racing, & endurance races.
I am sure that a quality SLC, or GTM race car can be built competitively for under $100k, & be just as quick, & probably more reliable. The problem with all the high end pieces, (electronics, LMP engines, gearbox etc.) are the added complexity, cost, & unreliability. At some point, seeing as this is amateur racing, the added expense does not equal added enjoyment of the racing experience. At some point it becomes unjustifiable.
The PDG approach is to maximize the available resources, & involve as many supporters as possible. The GTM-R may not be flashy, but underneath it is a well developed endurance racer. It is a polar opposite of Bob's SLC.
I believe that somewhere in between the 2 lies a potential for some really fast, & competitve race cars. Hopefully there will be more cars built, that don't have to break the bank, and we can all enjoy some bitchin racing!
I sure enjoy the competition, as that's what makes it interesting, & enjoyable.
Ted
Welcome Ted,
There will probably be as much variety in SL-C builds as you see with the GTM builds, maybe more so with the diverse engine choices available. I'm not sure we can even say what the "typical" build looks like! But, there will be SL-C's to hit the track with a smaller budget, hopefully mine included. I'm a race team of one though, so it's taking some time to build!
There will probably be as much variety in SL-C builds as you see with the GTM builds, maybe more so with the diverse engine choices available. I'm not sure we can even say what the "typical" build looks like! But, there will be SL-C's to hit the track with a smaller budget, hopefully mine included. I'm a race team of one though, so it's taking some time to build!
Hi Ted, welcome to the forum!
Doc nailed it! So far I don't believe any two SL-C's will be alike. The closest would be those with the LS7 and Ricardo gearbox as well as the LS3/396 and Ricardo. The primary difference are the options selected. I'm the odd-ball with a modified LS1 and Porsche 930 LSD gearbox. I do firmly believe that with the right choices, a race only version of the SL-C can be built for much less than $100K.
Have fun!
Doc nailed it! So far I don't believe any two SL-C's will be alike. The closest would be those with the LS7 and Ricardo gearbox as well as the LS3/396 and Ricardo. The primary difference are the options selected. I'm the odd-ball with a modified LS1 and Porsche 930 LSD gearbox. I do firmly believe that with the right choices, a race only version of the SL-C can be built for much less than $100K.
Have fun!
