Summer SoundOff at Lynn's in Logan

Vmann wrote:Mel and Cam, I think AQ and DD rate their woofers by "suspension travel", something like 65mm for the 1500 series. In reality the Xmax is quite a bit lower. I know 65mm of travel on those drivers is about the limits of the tipple joint.

vmann wrote:I really want to thank you guy's at Lynn's for hosting the competition. I'm definitely thrilled and will try my hardest to be there and to participate.

vmann wrote:To be honest though, I don't like the class's broken down by displacement, unless frequency is also factored in. As higher displacement woofers may be considered "super woofers", watt for watt they are a LOT less efficient in terms of actual sound pressure compared to lower displacement drivers.

I personally think the only way to truly level the playing field is to go by: Number of drivers + size + modifications + power, in about that order.

Risk wrote:

Thanks a ton. I hope we can do this a couple times this year, and make it a yearly thing. We used to get some good attendance at Car Wars when I ran those, but once I left they quit doing it. It's time we got back at it!

Vmann wrote:
You ran car wars? That is awesome and we owe you a ton of thanks! I was there in 2008, with the black Acura that broke down due to electrical problems. Ha ha, I've come a ways since then thank goodness...

summersoundoff.blogspot wrote:This competition is intended for the fun and entertainment of the amateur car audio enthusiast.

kahoproductionz wrote:hey Risk? how many you got "pre-registered" already? if you dont mind me asking.

summersoundoff.blogspot wrote:Modified Class: Modified class vehicles generally exhibit exstensive charging system upgrades, extensive use of sound reinforcement and custom built or purpose designed enclosures. These vehicles also employ greater than 500 watts RMS system power.

M1: up to and including 40 cubic inches of displacement
M2: 40.1 up to and including 75 cubic inches of displacement
M3: 75.1 up to and including 130 cubic inches of displacement
MX: anything greater than 130.1 cubic inches of displacement

RE_XXX wrote:your in my class josh

kahoproductionz wrote:Team Rarefaction all in the same Class

Vmann wrote:Here are numbers for my car, based on amplifier power and DIY enclosure, I already know I am in MOD class.

So Fi Q15, SD = 125.55 square" X 1.1" Peak to Peak xmax = 138.105? cubic inches of displacement potential. Mod X?

For My RE10's, SD = 48.05 X 2 = 96.1 X 0.71 xmax = 68.231? Mod 2?

Vmann wrote:

kahoproductionz wrote:Team Rarefaction all in the same Class

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Vmann wrote:Here are numbers for my car, based on amplifier power and DIY enclosure, I already know I am in MOD class.

So Fi Q15, SD = 125.55 square" X 1.1" Peak to Peak xmax = 138.105? cubic inches of displacement potential. Mod X?

For My RE10's, SD = 48.05 X 2 = 96.1 X 0.71 xmax = 68.231? Mod 2?

Risk wrote:
You are correct sir. I'll assume you are also correct about being in modified (you probably have a pretty well-designed enclosure, a big amp and maybe more). Admittedly you make the cutoff for ModX by a very small margin so with your 15 you'll have an uphill battle. Your 10's though are pretty comfortably in the mix of ModII so that will be quite a bit more interesting, I think. In either case, your application and enclosure design will probably be the difference.

The immediate, and most obvious question, is does that seem accurate and resonable? I struggled about adding one more class before street/mod X for exactly this reason. Guys who barely make the cutoff are going against guys with unlimited amounts of woofers. That cutoff has to happen somewhere, but I still wonder if 130.1 cu.in. is too low. What about a street/mod IV? 130.1 to 160 (or there about)? I'd love some feedback about this one. It's the one real concern I had about displacement based divisions.

Risk

xseveredveganx wrote:This is what I've been saying the whole time. Since you're trying to make it 'fair' for everyone, you're really going to have a hard time doing so. Some people, not unlike ourselves, have a much stronger knowledge of this sport. We have an advantage because we take it upon ourselves to learn about this, not just pay Best Buy or another random shop. If you omit the xmax x sd rule and go exclusively off of sd, it'll be a much more level playing field. California Audio did this and had a great competition. Most SPL drivers have low xmax but a tall top plate on the motor. However, having 4-10's with 1-15 was kind of whack in my opinion.
Also maybe instead of taking the enclosure into account, maybe consider the charging system. We have guys running 2-7+ batteries on the team.

Josh, Tank, myself, and probably others will be up against guys with 2 18's and 4 15's.

Also, there isn't a wall class. Walls have an obvious advantage over a no wall setup.

xseveredveganx wrote:This is what I've been saying the whole time. Since you're trying to make it 'fair' for everyone, you're really going to have a hard time doing so. Some people, not unlike ourselves, have a much stronger knowledge of this sport. We have an advantage because we take it upon ourselves to learn about this, not just pay Best Buy or another random shop.

xseveredveganx wrote:If you omit the xmax x sd rule and go exclusively off of sd, it'll be a much more level playing field. California Audio did this and had a great competition. Most SPL drivers have low xmax but a tall top plate on the motor.

xseveredveganx wrote:However, having 4-10's with 1-15 was kind of whack in my opinion.

Josh, Tank, myself, and probably others will be up against guys with 2 18's and 4 15's.

xseveredveganx wrote:Also maybe instead of taking the enclosure into account, maybe consider the charging system. We have guys running 2-7+ batteries on the team.

xseveredveganx wrote:Also, there isn't a wall class. Walls have an obvious advantage over a no wall setup.

vmann wrote:I think if one more class where to be added, a "wall" type class might be the most appropriate. I'd personally like to see a window line rule.

Vmann wrote:After crunching a few number, I think the III/X cutoff should maybe be 160-170, this would keep all of the single 15" users with the people running 12's in pairs.

I derived the number from a pair of 12's with a larger SD and slightly lower xmax, or a slightly lower SD and higher xmax.

Example: 2x MTX 9500 12's would be 167.78. A pair of 12's being probably the most common "big" system can fit right in, before pushing it to MX class with the 18's and multi 15 installs.

Risk wrote:

Vmann wrote:After crunching a few number, I think the III/X cutoff should maybe be 160-170, this would keep all of the single 15" users with the people running 12's in pairs.

I derived the number from a pair of 12's with a larger SD and slightly lower xmax, or a slightly lower SD and higher xmax.

Example: 2x MTX 9500 12's would be 167.78. A pair of 12's being probably the most common "big" system can fit right in, before pushing it to MX class with the 18's and multi 15 installs.

So leave the number of classes alone, but change the 130.1 to 170.1? Or add a IV class from 130.1 to 170, then X class from 170.1 and up?

vmann wrote:I think the number of class's would be fine, I don't really have any concerns there. Changing the 130.1 to 170 I feel would work great in keeping the bigger, but still more common installs from going MX. My feelings on the window line are; anything over the horizontal plain = MX

vmann wrote:My brain isn't functioning tonight, lol

After a second read, maybe adding the 130.1-170 may be really beneficial.