166 replies to this topic

[fotostars]

Am I reading this right from 2017.1 version...? 

I have a 97 NA 1.8L , I have to run no restrictor plate and carry 2400lbs minimum?

[Rob Burgoon]

eeyuup

[luvin_the_rings]

what was it before?

[Diller]

47mm and 2350#

 

 

My first race with the new rules is this weekend at CMP with NASA so it should be interesting to see the difference of 50 pounds and a little more power.

[DCP]

Am I reading this right from 2017.1 version...? 

I have a 97 NA 1.8L , I have to run no restrictor plate and carry 2400lbs minimum?

Does anyone have a sense of how much hp this will add?

[chris haldeman]

3-5hp
Start flowbench testing complete intake system. Biggest gains will be from the intake manifold itself

[Jamz14]

3-5hp
Start flowbench testing complete intake system. Biggest gains will be from the intake manifold itself

Any idea on expected lap time gain on average with a 3-5 HP increase?

[chris haldeman]

Track dependant best guess about .3 on an average track

[Diller]

I am optimistic for the changes at tracks like Road Atlanta, VIR, and NCM (guessing Sebring and Daytona would be similar) however tracks like CMP and Barber may not like the extra weight. At Barber last year I was able to keep pace with the top NBs and I think a lot of that was the lighter weight. It will be interesting to see the effect of the changes.

[Jamz14]

Tying in a couple of concepts here:

 

If the RP is worth .3 at the average track

If as Dave Wheeler mentioned every 20lbs is worth .1

 

Was the intention of removing the plate and adding the weight to give on average a half a tenth to the NA 1.8 ? Was that what was trying to be corrected with these adjustments?

[davew]

Go out on a test day or an event where you are not really trying to be legal. Do one session with the plate. Change nothing except pull the plate. Then repeat. I expect you will find a small increase in performance, but not a big drop in lap times. Maybe a couple tenths.

[Jamz14]

Go out on a test day or an event where you are not really trying to be legal. Do one session with the plate. Change nothing except pull the plate. Then repeat. I expect you will find a small increase in performance, but not a big drop in lap times. Maybe a couple tenths.

Dave, that about what matches what chris said right? But lets say the RP is worth - .2 like you just mentioned. The weight is worth + .25 like you mentioned in another thread. So based on your view and info, the mods that SMAC came up with is worth an added half tenth to my time.

 

So was SMAC trying to slow down the 94-97? Rhetorical. But now we have two respected opinions. One yields a -.05 decrease in time, the other +.05 increase in time. Lets split the middle and call it no gain and no degradation. Was that the goal?

[chris haldeman]

The unseen gains are....
Decreased drop off after peak hp
Ability to push on straights rather than just hang in the draft. All of this is yet to be seen

[Jamz14]

The unseen gains are....
Decreased drop off after peak hp
Ability to push on straights rather than just hang in the draft. All of this is yet to be seen

Chris,

 

TY. All this might be true but a lap time is a lap time regardless of how it is gained or lost. This seems like quite a nuisances thing SMAC was trying to fix. No wonder it was impossible for them to set any pre determined metric to compared the changes to. But they will have equally a difficult time in determining whether it made an over all improvement for the very same reasons. Which means we will be indefinitely saddled with the weight because it will be impossible for them to see the granularity you mentioned above.

[chris haldeman]

It is my opinion only that the cars will race slightly better than before. Maybe on an open track the lap times will be all but identical. That said lowering the weight to 2375 wouldn't upset or surprise me.

[Jim Drago]

Chris,
 
TY. All this might be true but a lap time is a lap time

 

That may be true. But the issue is not one of only lap time.. I would take a car that is .2 slower in outright pace if it was able to pass on straights. It may race better or worse with identical lap times

And you know what they say about opinions.. ( Mine included) We are splitting hairs as the cars were already very close. I firmly believe the car with no plate and extra weight will be a better race car. Time will tell.

Example.. if you can turn a lap .5 faster than car X, but X can stay close enough to drive by on the straight? Do you really care about ultimate lap time? And FWIW, 50 lbs is probably . 25-. 3 IMO, that's on a perfect lap and perfect driver. i have added weight in an out of many cars and many times the drivers were oblivious

[davew]

Tom Sagar did some testing last fall with back to back analysis of this combination and felt the no-plate/extra weight was a better car. he showed me his data and I agreed, but it is a small improvement. Brings the NA1.8 closer in driving style to the NB and farther from the 1.6

[Jamz14]

Jim,

 

There are two ways to be faster on the straight. There is the corvette way. And there is the 1.6 way.

 

IMO, making the NA1.8 handle more like the 99 is the wrong way. I'd rather build skill in the corner exits than motoring someone on a straight.

 

But my biggest problem with this is that no one has said anything about how they are going to determine whether it improved or not. No one has said how they are going to measure it. No one has said when they are going to look at the performance. No one has said who they are going to look at for the feedback.

 

You never conduct an experiment without first stating how you measured your baseline, what you are expecting to find or solve with the experiment , and how you are going to measure whether the experiment was successful or not. Without these things, you do not have a valid experiment. And then it all needs to be repeated with a different driver than just Tom. I would be all for trying this if someone would just say in advance how it is going to work.

 

I would be all for this if someone was willing to step up and say how all of it was going to be determined, measured, reviewed, and decided in advance.

 

It comes done to : What does success look like? And in answering that it has to meet the criteria of a "SMART" goal. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, with a Time Table. This program has met only two of those and they are the two redundant ones at that.

 

I could be less rigid than the process above if someone stepped up and said it is going to be me watching and it is going to be subjective but these are the events and people that I am going to watch, and I will report back what I saw going on on this date.

 

Does this seem unreasonable to ask? Would you ask for the same thing if they were thinking about making significant changes to your cars?

[MPR22]

Jim,

 

There are two ways to be faster on the straight. There is the corvette way. And there is the 1.6 way.

 

IMO, making the NA1.8 handle more like the 99 is the wrong way. I'd rather build skill in the corner exits than motoring someone on a straight.

 

But my biggest problem with this is that no one has said anything about how they are going to determine whether it improved or not. No one has said how they are going to measure it. No one has said when they are going to look at the performance. No one has said who they are going to look at for the feedback.

 

You never conduct an experiment without first stating how you measured your baseline, what you are expecting to find or solve with the experiment , and how you are going to measure whether the experiment was successful or not. Without these things, you do not have a valid experiment. And then it all needs to be repeated with a different driver than just Tom. I would be all for trying this if someone would just say in advance how it is going to work.

 

I would be all for this if someone was willing to step up and say how all of it was going to be determined, measured, reviewed, and decided in advance.

 

It comes done to : What does success look like? And in answering that it has to meet the criteria of a "SMART" goal. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, with a Time Table. This program has met only two of those and they are the two redundant ones at that.

 

I could be less rigid than the process above if someone stepped up and said it is going to be me watching and it is going to be subjective but these are the events and people that I am going to watch, and I will report back what I saw going on on this date.

 

Does this seem unreasonable to ask? Would you ask for the same thing if they were thinking about making significant changes to your cars?

My guess is they are going to use you (or similar facsimile)  as a measuring stick.  If you start finishing 3 places higher than it worked.  If you start finishing 3 place lower it didn't work. If you stay the same, then they may consider taking out some of the weight.  

 

The only real way to measure this is results in competition.  How does the car race, not how fast of a lap does it turn. 

[Jim Drago]

Jim,
 
There are two ways to be faster on the straight. There is the corvette way. And there is the 1.6 way.
 
IMO, making the NA1.8 handle more like the 99 is the wrong way. I'd rather build skill in the corner exits than motoring someone on a straight.
 
But my biggest problem with this is that no one has said anything about how they are going to determine whether it improved or not. No one has said how they are going to measure it. No one has said when they are going to look at the performance. No one has said who they are going to look at for the feedback.
 
You never conduct an experiment without first stating how you measured your baseline, what you are expecting to find or solve with the experiment , and how you are going to measure whether the experiment was successful or not. Without these things, you do not have a valid experiment. And then it all needs to be repeated with a different driver than just Tom. I would be all for trying this if someone would just say in advance how it is going to work.
 
I would be all for this if someone was willing to step up and say how all of it was going to be determined, measured, reviewed, and decided in advance.
 
It comes done to : What does success look like? And in answering that it has to meet the criteria of a "SMART" goal. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, with a Time Table. This program has met only two of those and they are the two redundant ones at that.
 
I could be less rigid than the process above if someone stepped up and said it is going to be me watching and it is going to be subjective but these are the events and people that I am going to watch, and I will report back what I saw going on on this date.
 
Does this seem unreasonable to ask? Would you ask for the same thing if they were thinking about making significant changes to your cars?

See my above post on opinions

This is a club. The reality is there will not be the study like you are looking for and it will never be as scientific as you like. But people who have a pretty good pulse on the class feel this is a good way to go and I happen to agree. As I said only time will tell. Quite frankly leaving the car as it was or with the changes, the car will still perform VERY similarly.. Nothing substantial.
 

As a club, the SMAC is expecting feedback from NA1.8 drivers. Run the car in both configurations and report back with data. I dont think it is really fair or productive to second guess etc at this point as the decision has been made and you havent run in the new configuration? The best thing to do would be give it a chance. If it is not better, send data and your reasoning to Smac. Despite some opinions out there, the guys on SMAc and CRB really want to get all cars as close as humanly possible. If I were a NA 1.8 driver, I would be looking at proving why I felt the car should run 2375. That is the most likely change coming , if any.