Jump to content

Photo

Where I think we are with parity (the long version)

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1
Steve Scheifler

Steve Scheifler

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts
I'm not sure anyone here has actually asked me this question directly, but given recent events and discussion both online and especially offline, I'm going to try and answer this the best that I can even though I still don't feel adequately qualified to judge. I just don't have enough data. I am not looking for responses to this, or to debate any of the opinions I express. If you think I'm off base with something that's fine, this is all just an attempt to clarify how we got here and what I've taken from it so far. I've defended our level of "prep" elsewhere, and I'll let Tom speak for himself in terms of any conclusions he has reached so far. But a lot of people seem to have entirely the wrong idea of where we stand and what we want, so I intend to make it very clear.

First a little background because many of you don't know me from our original stint in the class and few of you have actually spoken with us since we returned. I'll spare you most of the bio for now, though since our experience has been questioned repeatedly I may get to that another time. For now I will say that in the years leading up to 2009 there were plenty of parity discussions but we were never among those complaining that the 1.6 needed help. My beef back then was that I felt we might very well be competitive on a level playing field, but we could never find out because we were not willing to do all the things which in my opinion were obviously against the rules. Whatever advantages or disadvantages the rules may have provided were masked by the widespread acceptance of things that today are not tolerated and/or have since been explicitly allowed for various reasons. Rules enforcement was all I ever asked for. Enough on that.

Last year I posted multiple times that I didn't know whether under the then current rules the 1.6 was entirely competitive but believed that it was probably close. After all, we did decide to reinvest heavily in ours. At the time several people made encouraging comments about us helping to bring the 1.6 back to real competition. Prophetically I responded...

... In fact, the worst thing I could do for the 1.6 is look competitive because a lot of people would use that as proof that it already has an advantage. No respect!

Gotta love that, huh? Turns out Tom was the one to grab the limelight, but close enough.

We didn't do well in our few outings last year and got caught up in some nasty crashes, but there were a few encouraging signs so we stuck with the 1.6. At a Blackhawk regional there was a pack of pretty decent cars and drivers who race there together a lot. It was our second event as I recall and we had just started to get tire pressures right, running about as fast as the old days which had scored me a (soft) National win, but still not fast enough for today. Still, I managed to lead two races for awhile, once by a big margin, but was eventually run down by the pack both days. Best I could determine, partly the old heat soak issue, partly traffic, and the rest my inconsistency. Our second ever trip to Ohio was a total disaster from every angle. We had a great race with Max at Gateway but we were all off the pace so nothing certain from that. Conclusion after season 1, though never against the best of the best: Cars are close, at least early in a session, but we need work.

Through the season and the off season I participated in every parity discussion, but again never asked for any model-to-model parity adjustments, still not convinced they were needed. I did ask for help solving whatever the heat soak issue was and proposed the turn indicator delete as possibly the best attempt at a cheap fix. I saw it as something to at least partly overcome the widely held belief that the 1.6 was a qualifying queen but not a race winner. I also submitted, for the second time, pictures of a new as-delivered header with countless conspicuous grinding marks that wouldn't get past a blind tech inspector. I asked that we be allowed to grind on the welds and make repairs because there really was no longer any reasonable alternative short of an aftermarket header, and because of certain knowledge that many people had long since been running very carefully optimized headers. I still wasn't willing to go there. Other than that, my letter to the CRB stated that I didn't know whether the 1.6 need help, but if it was deemed so then please don't make it something nearly useless like taking a few pounds off the flywheel, which at best wouldn't address the most talked about shortcomings. I asked for no actual parity adjustments because I still didn't know if they were justified.

Having done no majors last year, we started early this year with a trip back to Atlanta. At the Major we failed to run even a few laps with any of the best cars, our plans for doing that in Q2 having been unintentionally thwarted. As you may have read, our first ever trip there last summer was cut short, early on the test day for me and after Saturday for Tom. So with very little experience or data our expectations were low. We ran the races where we belonged, mid-pack. Driving what can honestly be described as top prep cars we found that we could easily pass a lot of the mid-pack NBs between 7 and 10, and outbrake others approaching 10. With a good run out of 7 we could make it look like we were in another class. When we placed our data up against some given to us by a couple guys with very good NBs we found that we were very close in almost every sector and getting more consistent than I would have guessed, but collectively still too far off to run at the front for any length of time. What we did not see is any evidence that our apparent power advantage was real when compared to truly top NBs. The good news was that unlike what data we did capture from the prior year, we also didn't see evidence that we were at a big power disadvantage. The cool spring air gave us the power and the turn indicator delete allowed us to maintain it throughout a session. Despite a poor showing, things were looking up.

We had a mechanical issue in Atlanta that required a welder. I was surprised that none of the big SM teams had one. We used to carry one ourselves (and will again if you are ever looking) but didn't have it with us. Fortunately after much searching I found a very generous man in a huge transporter who immediately grasped what I needed and insisted that I bring the car to them so his partner could take care of it in time for us to go back out. In the midst of that someone I didn't know was walking around and asked how the 1.6s were doing. Busy I quipped something to the effect of "OK,... for 1.6s". As I was about to continue I sensed a snort but went on to say "actually they're fine, they just need better drivers". And I was being honest, that was my impression from how they were performing, not that we had nearly enough data to know for certain. Then I heard "Todd Lamb, by the way" and finally looked up to see him entering a toter or the like. We had never met but it was too late to say "Oh, sorry, you just look so much taller online". ;-) I'm pretty sure he was headed into a super secret meeting to watch video of us blowing by NBs and plot against the 1.6 threat.

At the Blackhawk Major I had a long and interesting discussion with SM tech John Bauer on a range of topics. At one point he asked how I thought the 1.6 was doing and said "... I guess this isn't really a good 1.6 track". To his very obvious surprise I responded "on the contrary, this has always been a good track for the 1.6 and we should probably be" and I'm sure he will recall that I started to say "dominat..." then backed up and said "should be winning this weekend if we were up to speed and consistent". And yes, I believed that even though it was before Tom's nice run on Sunday. The cars were very good, the air was cool, the tune was holding and we were running perfect tires. BTW, was it an overdog 1.6 that made an old hack qualify P2 in wet-damp conditions on Saturday, and would have been an EASY P2 in damp conditions again Sunday if not for getting balked in T5? Never mind, that's another topic.

Gateway. We did an extra test day a few weeks before the race weekend. It was cut short by rain and we were on our Atlanta setup but while scrubbing three sets of tires each we could tell the cars were good. Interestingly, we still were not needing 5th as soon as we sometimes did in the past but I attributed that to the Hoosiers. We felt pretty good about our chances to at least qualify well and have a chance to run near the front so long as we didn't knock ourselves out. Unfortunately there were signs that it might end up just us and Max, and that's not at all what we wanted on our home turf. Regardless, we were running lap record times (though slightly slower than each had qualified on toyos in the past) and looked forward to the race. As Jim has said, Gateway hates old tires and we proved that again on Friday, chasing setup doing more harm than good. Anyway, by Sunday we had corrected most of that, the cars were good again and we were starting on absolutely perfect tires while Jim's were, in Hoosier's terminology, surely "shocked" from being raced hard for 25 minutes from stickers then turned around in barely a day and raced again. Meanwhile Max was on even older tires and chasing setup issues of his own. Following some less than stellar advice (though warned it might be too much even by the person giving it) Max found that one problem had been solved but another created. Sorry Max, too much for you to overcome, you never had a chance on Sunday. Advantage, old farts in ugly old 1.6s. The rest is being picked apart elsewhere but suffice to say that things looked pretty good for the 1.6 at Gateway. I know that some people are underestimating the impact of tires in this one example, but that's not to say our cars were incapable of winning even if we had all been on identical rubber. I posted at least once and said many times that if Jesse had been in my car with his setup, he could have won. Does that sound like I think the 1.6 is at a big disadvantage?

The cars are different and need to be driven differently. I have seen more evidence that the NBs have a small power advantage than evidence of the opposite. Naturally Tom and I have driven Blackhawk and Gateway together a LOT, and always in essentially identical cars, so we know exactly what to expect in terms of draft with equal power. Of course corner exit matters so I pay attention to cases where both cars are beyond track-out going straight and at equal speed. From that point the rate of gain by the trailing car is a great indicator. If Tom and I easily roll up on each other but under the same conditions gain little or nothing on someone else, then it is reasonable to conclude a power difference. Keep in mind that because aero drag goes up with the square of your speed, a small power difference that is barely noticeable side-by-side at 90 mph is magnified in tandem when the trailing car doesn't have to cut through the air alone. Of course the lead car benefits also, but not as much, hence the frequency of the draft-pass. Bottom line, if you are on the straight and within a few car lengths but unable to close the gap in 4th gear on up, you are either down on power or throwing it away somehow.

What we haven't done yet is run in the heat of summer, preferably at a track we know, or run at any number of tracks where the balance between models may be different. Allowing for that and based only on what we think we know so far, I think that overall, specific race craft against an opponent's strengths and weaknesses aside and all else and in particular tires being equal, a well driven 1.6 probably has the edge at Gateway and Blackhawk. Less than a quick glance at just the results or data might make it appear, but an edge. As front runners are so fond of pointing out in parity discussions, not an advantage on the scale to move a mid-packer from 2 seconds off, to the front of the pack, but probably enough that I would choose the 1.6 driver IF I thought their driving skills were good enough to fully capitalize on its advantages. A smart NB driver might still find ways to be in front at the line, but I think the 1.6 would lap faster and at least be there to make them work for it. But, keep in mind that I have very little experience in an NB and none in a truly well prepared one, so I might well change my mind based on the oft mentioned easier to drive and recover from mistakes. This really should not surprise anyone, I've talked about the car's strengths and my own weaknesses repeatedly. Yet somehow the perception that we are arguing that it is an *overall* underdog persists. Never said that.

It will be interesting to see who else campaigns a 1.6 and how Jesse does with some power. If it becomes clear that they are at a significant advantage more often than not, I will be among those asking for appropriate adjustments. People who really know us will tell you without hesitation that we have never wanted an advantage, that it completely misses the point of why were are even racing and why we picked this class. And contrary to what is frequently implied and sometimes stated, we aren't looking for excuses for losing so we can feel good about it or win with the odds tipped in our favor to boost our egos. We aren't even trying to convince anyone of anything specific, but we do pick things apart trying to separate the rare bit of wheat from the abundance of chaff. It isn't about arguing the color of the sky or beating the proverbial dead horse just to get the last word, it's about convincing ourselves that enough information has been considered with an open mind so the conclusions are solid. You can join us or you can hate us, one of those is more productive.

But when the time comes to make adjustments I will also remind people how they were so insistent on the need for hard data to support claims that the 1.6 needed help. It's certainly not good enough to just point to a couple old guys back from a long layoff and claim they can't possibly be competitive without an obvious overdog. That dog don't hunt. Funny, but not really surprising, how a young man who just got started at the same time we came back could do even better in an NB and nobody questions it. Back on topic, we need what I don't think the club has ever done, calculations and data to quantify the actual impact of small increments of weight (~5%) on cornering speeds. It is WAY too easy to say that the 1.6 should corner faster than the NB due to the weight difference (despite a more compromised suspension geometry), it needs to be quantified and then factored in with the other differences. I'm working on it. Meanwhile I think things are in a pretty good place. On our own turf we are better than Kyle and some others think, but we aren't likely to take any large event trophies or tires away from more deserving drivers anytime soon. And if someone else does it wouldn't be the first time such a thing happened in this class and for far worse reasons. I would not like to see a runoffs tainted by widespread belief that a 1.6 won only because it was at a big advantage, but it will take a lot more than a slightly better car to win in that chaos. So let's see how things go and try to keep in mind that this is supposed to be fun (I actually hate that phrase as a way to end discourse so of course I had to use it!).

Thanks for reading!

p.s. as soon as I post this I will start remembering things I meant to say but lost track of as I typed. I'll try to resist making it any longer.
  • Ron Alan, Jim Drago, wreckerboy and 2 others like this
Instigator - Made a topic or post that inspired other Broken record - You are starting to sound like a broken record.

#2
Rob Burgoon

Rob Burgoon

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,465 posts
  • Location:San Diego
  • Car Year:1995
  • Car Number:91

Skidpad testing for cornering speeds vs weight?


Bona fide - A bonafide Spec Miata driver Survive the 25, NASA Thunderhill - Survive the 25, NASA Thunderhill We have a Winnah! - Won their 1st race... Congratulations!

#3
Steve Scheifler

Steve Scheifler

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts
Funny you should mention that, already in the works.
Instigator - Made a topic or post that inspired other Broken record - You are starting to sound like a broken record.

#4
Rob Burgoon

Rob Burgoon

    Veteran Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,465 posts
  • Location:San Diego
  • Car Year:1995
  • Car Number:91

Only gotcha I can think of is bad suspension geometry probably won't show up on a skidpad.


Bona fide - A bonafide Spec Miata driver Survive the 25, NASA Thunderhill - Survive the 25, NASA Thunderhill We have a Winnah! - Won their 1st race... Congratulations!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users