63 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

and its that attitude that will never get us a bigger plate 

Oh yeah, im sorry. What I meant to say is that the 97 is a piece of shit and needs a 50 mm plate and 50 lbs less weight in order to be competitive with the 1.6 . will need another 50 lbs drop in order to compete with the 99 and VVT cars for sure. It suffers terrible heat soak and even with those changes, will never win in the SW.

[Rob Burgoon]

I like my 97. And after my first race in it, I don't see why it can't be a winning platform. Maybe I will feel differently once I run it in the heat, but in the cold weather, it seems to be really good. And even in the heat, I think some of the problems can be mitigated. All I know for sure is that the two seconds I was off from a race winning pace had NOTHING to do with the car. There was at least 2 seconds worth of driver improvements, and in the hands of a top driver, probably 3 or more.

 

Let's not use that race as any sort of reference for parity talks.  It's just not a good data point.

[Jamz14]

Let's not use that race as any sort of reference for parity talks.  It's just not a good data point.

Except I am really referencing my car and my specific performance, not parity in general. I feel that there is up to 3 seconds or so in ME before I worried about any parity adjustments. Would you agree that if I am right about being able to get 3 more seconds off a lap time of 1:39:8 , that my car would indeed be competitive against your car and every 99 in the field with the exception of maybe two cars that we both know are outliers and we shouldn't be comparing them against? At a 1:36:8 , I think that would beat your best lap ever set there and may even be the SM track record. If not, very very close. As matter of fact, at 2 seconds improvement the car would be competitive in a race if not in qual.

 

But I understand your comment and why you are making it. But my benchmark right now is actually YOU!!!!! We have basically the same car with probably very similar prep. And I feel like in the hands of a better driver ( you ) , that my 97 could compete heads up with any legal car in the region regardless of year. And if you are driving on a very cold day, my car could best the field with you in it.

[FTodaro]

Except I am really referencing my car and my specific performance, not parity in general. I feel that there is up to 3 seconds or so in ME before I worried about any parity adjustments. Would you agree that if I am right about being able to get 3 more seconds off a lap time of 1:39:8 , that my car would indeed be competitive against your car and every 99 in the field with the exception of maybe two cars that we both know are outliers and we shouldn't be comparing them against? At a 1:36:8 , I think that would beat your best lap ever set there and may even be the SM track record. If not, very very close. As matter of fact, at 2 seconds improvement the car would be competitive in a race if not in qual.

 

But I understand your comment and why you are making it. But my benchmark right now is actually YOU!!!!! We have basically the same car with probably very similar prep. And I feel like in the hands of a better driver ( you ) , that my 97 could compete heads up with any legal car in the region regardless of year. And if you are driving on a very cold day, my car could best the field with you in it.

Your the first person in the parity debate, the millions of miles of words that have been typed, that someone had the audacity to discuss the drivers talent in the parity equation.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

[quote name="FTodaro" post="74788" timestamp="1425516002"]Your the first person in the parity debate, the millions of miles of words that have been typed, that someone had the audacity to discuss the drivers talent in the parity equation.[/quote

Cant we just leave that out of it???? James was also referening to prep first one to actually understand that also. But come on frank I should be able to bring out some car I just threw together at the last minute and run .2 off the track record in matter what car I have

[Rob Burgoon]

Except I am really referencing my car and my specific performance, not parity in general. I feel that there is up to 3 seconds or so in ME before I worried about any parity adjustments. Would you agree that if I am right about being able to get 3 more seconds off a lap time of 1:39:8 , that my car would indeed be competitive against your car and every 99 in the field with the exception of maybe two cars that we both know are outliers and we shouldn't be comparing them against? At a 1:36:8 , I think that would beat your best lap ever set there and may even be the SM track record. If not, very very close. As matter of fact, at 2 seconds improvement the car would be competitive in a race if not in qual.

 

But I understand your comment and why you are making it. But my benchmark right now is actually YOU!!!!! We have basically the same car with probably very similar prep. And I feel like in the hands of a better driver ( you ) , that my 97 could compete heads up with any legal car in the region regardless of year. And if you are driving on a very cold day, my car could best the field with you in it.

 

All I know is I was running on my oldest RRs that weekend at a track that likes stickers, so I don't think we should read too deeply into the results for parity data.  My car still seemed to take a nap 6 laps in, but old tires are easy to blame.

[Steve Scheifler]

I like my 97. And after my first race in it, I don't see why it can't be a winning platform. Maybe I will feel differently once I run it in the heat, but in the cold weather, it seems to be really good. And even in the heat, I think some of the problems can be mitigated. All I know for sure is that the two seconds I was off from a race winning pace had NOTHING to do with the car. There was at least 2 seconds worth of driver improvements, and in the hands of a top driver, probably 3 or more.

Glad you are satisfied. But when it comes to parity we are debating changes that amount to a couple tenths per minute absolute max, so the perspective from two seconds back but sure better driving is worth three, really isn't even marginally relevant data. Hopefully you and everyone knows that and are just trying to lighten things up. Get back to us when you are running with the lead pack at a majors event. But meanwhile, enjoy racing!

[Rob Burgoon]

Oy, haha.

[john mueller]

I like my 97. And after my first race in it, I don't see why it can't be a winning platform. Maybe I will feel differently once I run it in the heat, but in the cold weather, it seems to be really good. And even in the heat, I think some of the problems can be mitigated. All I know for sure is that the two seconds I was off from a race winning pace had NOTHING to do with the car. There was at least 2 seconds worth of driver improvements, and in the hands of a top driver, probably 3 or more.

 

James, you kicked ass this past weekend.  I know said that you're "just a mechanic" and that may be true but that mechanic wheeled a racer pretty damn well too.  Smiles from above no doubt.

 

Next time paddock with us so we can see what you're up to.  

[Michael Novak]

James, you kicked ass this past weekend.  I know said that you're "just a mechanic" and that may be true but that mechanic wheeled a racer pretty damn well too.  Smiles from above no doubt.

 

Next time paddock with us so we can see what you're up to.  

 

This is why we race.....

 

[Jamz14]

John, Michael, Kyle,

 

Thank you. This mechanic is thrilled and honored to be able to drive a car on the same pavement with you guys.

 

Steve, I wrote a very long missive to your post. I deleted it. In short though, by all means please continue the minutia debating on parity for a couple of tenths (1/300th to 1/600th improvement over a lap). Personally I feel that difference can be found with drivers, setup, tires, and their management. But knock yourself out and I'll take whatever you give me. I will never be on the losing end of a parity adjustment because no one you deem as qualified to weigh in on the argument drives a 97. So the worse it will ever be for me is status quo. With status quo and a lot of practice and attention to my setup, one day I BELIEVE I can be at that front end of the field and I will get no more out of racing than what I am already getting today. I doubt that I will ever be at the front of the field at a majors but that has nothing to do with my driving and everything to do with what guys are willing to do to be there.

 

Rob, you are still the bench mark for me and many of us in Socal with or without stickers. Why you decided to run your worse tires on a track you just said liked stickers I do not know.

[Steve Scheifler]

James, I know that came out wrong, sorry. My history has been all about keeping in mind that rules are for everyone, not just the lead pack at big events or those going to the Runoffs.

We each do this for our own reasons. Some just for the fun of it, some as a personal challenge, some to measure our car and/or driving against the (supposed) best. If you find yourself being among those who are more motivated by catching the next car in front than by the "fun of racing", your tune may change. No matter where we are in the field, if our arch rival gets an extra 1mm plate tomorrow and we can't quite keep up anymore, the minutia suddenly matters. If it I didn't matter to me, I wouldn't be racing, simple as that. This isn't just an E-ticket ride for many of us. (Dating myself with that one)

Of course you are correct that mutilple other factors make a bigger difference, in fact, that was EXACTLY my point. But as you get to the pointy end of the field those differences shrink, and the confidence/egos grow. No doubt that anyone still in the lead pack on the last lap of a club race could have been the winner if only they had driven a bit better, setup a bit different, whatever. No doubt, even the best aren't nearly perfect. But, when you are that close the minutia isn't so minor anymore because a couple HP or extra weight really can be the difference in completing a pass or avoiding one, or opening/closing a gap by just 0.1 per lap for 25 laps (adds up!) We all want to acheive the best setup and drive the best race and keep getting better, and we don't want all that to be undone by the rules.

So I'm sorry I came off like a prick, but we really do need to constantly separate the wheat from the chaff and parity data from the mid-pack on back (both car prep and driver) is all chaff. That's no reflection on you, apparently you kicked butt for a beginner, by all means enjoy it.

[Jamz14]

Steve,

 

I didn't think you sounded like a prick at all. You are calling it like it is. But once the driver hits the wall in talent, I think it is a natural tendency to focus on the car more than to be self critical of our own talent. And by minutia, let me provide an example. So Danny posts a video that is supposed to show how a car is outside the bounds of normal prep. However, at the end of 25 minutes or so of racing, it is only Danny and this other car nose to tail at the end of the race. But somehow the other car is a crazy outlier but Dannys car is perfectly normal. Now either the other guy is great at modulating and disguising his advantage, or Danny is making a very minutia assessment and calling it a large performance gap. This was supposed to be an example of cheating so I kind of think that the performance gap would be greater than what is represented by parity. If that is true, then the gaps from parity are even tighter than two cars running nose to tail for 25 minutes and that seems to be minutia. And after 25 minutes, even if there are parity differences, I think circumstances will be a greater differentiator than parity.

 

If a driver is unable to setup a pass, or apply pressure to force a mistake with the racing as close as nose to tail even if the cars are not PERFECTLY equal, then even with a small parity adjustment I suggest he still wouldn't be able to make the pass in SM, let alone in a different race series like Continental where the car differences are much greater than what we are dealing with.

 

I respect everything I have ever seen you write Steve. I did not take offense at all to what you wrote and appreciate your insights. I want a bigger plate because I do believe the 97 is a bit disadvantage and so do others. However I don't think that plate change is keeping a 97 off the podium at a Majors or the runoffs and that with more attention to details such as setup, a guy could more than make up for the parity differences we currently see in all of the car years. This includes a 1.6 in the right hands. This is strictly an opinion from a guy that hasn't driven all the years and is multiple seconds off the pace. And with that being said, your comments are 100% appropriate and not prickish in the least.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

James,not trying to argue but at the start of your post you said you don't think the cars need any parity adjustments but mid way in you said and I quot " I want a bigger plate because I do believe the 97 is a bit disadvantage and so do others. " so if your not a front running Nat.level driver and believe it needs a parity adjustment just imagine what it's like at the front !

So are you a front running guy or a mid back guy,at a Nat. Or Reg. Level ?
Trust me there is a big diff.between the two !

Trust me when you get to the front at a Nat.level a couple of tenths a lap or a huge diff.and add up by the end of the race. We all go out there to have fun but we also want to improve every time as well. If you are close enough to the guy in front of you and can't pull him in with a draft you could never set up a good pass with out dive bombing him and putting both guys at risk of crashing. Trust me there is nothing more frustrating then knowing you hit a corner perfect and better then the guy in front of you only to watch him pull away out of that same corner.
Now remember this is at a Nat. Level with top prepped cars with a good setup and good drivers !

[Steve Scheifler]

James, I'm betting that as you move up through the field your perspective, both literally and figuratively, will change. How you perceive Danny's video is an example. Stay close enough to hold a draft and a few HP and lb/ft won't let the lead car get away, but it will make it easier for him to hold off your pass attempts, retake the lead, or recover from mistakes. The better and closer the drivers, the more it matters. Both could compensate with better setup and driving, but that just isn't the point.

[Steve Scheifler]

Or, maybe it is exactly the point. I want to know that if I do a better job with setup and driving, the results show it. Very much the same as I feel about any number of cheats, blatant and tech-shed grey areas. Sure, if I drive better I'll overcome those tiny advantages, but I shouldn't have to. In terms of parity rules, isn't that exactly what makes this class bigger and more attractive than most?

OK, done beating this horse, bury it.

[Jamz14]

My views have changed every step of my time racing so I wouldn't doubt at all that they will continue to change as my perspective changes. That is exactly why I respect your guys positions even if I might not agree from my current experience.

 

Kuch, You have correctly expressed what I said. The point was that even if a tweak does bring it closer to being EXACTLY equal, I think with some work on MY part, I can overcome any minor parity difference that MAY exists.

 

So lets get back to parity and off of my current position that I am ok with the car...........

 

So Steve, is the 97 now on par with all the other platforms with the SCCA increase in plate size? Or is there more that needs to be given to the 97 to make it even? If not on par, what are you suggesting for a change? If data is needed, what data can I help you provide to achieve it? Give me a proportional piece of the data load and I am happy to help.

[Ron Alan]

My views have changed every step of my time racing so I wouldn't doubt at all that they will continue to change as my perspective changes. That is exactly why I respect your guys positions even if I might not agree from my current experience.

 

Kuch, You have correctly expressed what I said. The point was that even if a tweak does bring it closer to being EXACTLY equal, I think with some work on MY part, I can overcome any minor parity difference that MAY exists.

 

So lets get back to parity and off of my current position that I am ok with the car...........

 

So Steve, is the 97 now on par with all the other platforms with the SCCA increase in plate size? Or is there more that needs to be given to the 97 to make it even? If not on par, what are you suggesting for a change? If data is needed, what data can I help you provide to achieve it? Give me a proportional piece of the data load and I am happy to help.

I can attest James has changed his ways! As of now, the NA 1.8 is 94-97, and all 4 years are looked at identical. Maybe the question should be, is the ECU(OBD1) of the 94-95 the same as the ECU(OBD2)of the 96-97? Baby steps! At the least we have the lowest compression and the lowest rev-limiter. Is the power under the curve different on these cars given FP is open? 

 

BTW...this is for my NASA partners in crime...I'm good with SCCA for now!

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Sorry James but you won't understand until you get to the front of a Nat. (Majors) level.

Example,you are in two of the exact same cars with the exact same setup (yours) and one of those cars are down 2-4hp and 2-4tq and your driving them to the max. How will you make up time ?

Just asking and am I in no way trying to start any arguments with you just a simple question,just trying to make a point !

Now back to the parity at hand !

[Jamz14]

Kuch,

 

Fair question and a fair comment that I can't understand till I get to the front. So with that being the case, is your question rhetorical because whatever answer I give is naive and unrealistic?

 

Assuming that your question isn't rhetorical......

 

1. I dont believe that setups are ever "the exact same".

2. I don't believe that 2 cars even being the same year are ever "the exact same".

3. I don't believe tires are ever exactly the same

4. I don't believe that drivers are ever exactly the same.

5. I don't believe that 2 drivers ever manage tires exactly the same

6. I believe that a car down a couple HP trailing another car has options to overcome a couple of HP. Doesn't the fact that some mid pack cars have higher HP and TQ than some winning cars make this case?

7. Stay behind the leading better car and preserve your tires for a run out of the last few corners (lets not split hairs by discussing specific tracks where this may not be valid).

8. Apply constant pressure from behind in order to force a mistake.

9. Work with another car to overcome a very very minor difference between you and the better car ( unless of course you are suggesting that we are not even close today on parity).

 

And finally Kuch, the same questions I posed to Steve I pose to you too. Please tell me what the 97 needs in your opinion? Is it on par or is it not? What data are you suggesting needs to be gathered and how do you plan on gathering it? And what part of the data gathering would you like to assign to me to handle? What is the current delta in your opinion between the 97 and the top car year?

 

Without those questions being answered, this is all very interesting but a jerk off session. You guys are at the pointy end of the field and per your own words, the only ones qualified to make this assessment so I am asking your help. So please help this naive mid packer help you become more successful and on par with the cars that are beating you because your car is not on par. For my part I gain the benefits when and if I am ever able to run at the front with you.

 

But I see now that you run a 91. So are you just talking about parity in general or really trying to make the case for the 1.6?