166 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

I gave a reasonable replacement of exact scientific process that only involved a commitment by people that did this to look at it at a predetermined time. That seems well within a clubs ability to do. Especially as rigid a club as SCCA that has no problem with procedures.

 

But I agree, it is done and no complaining about it now will change that.

[Ron Alan]

Dejavu from the thread when this was first announced! It will be fine...wont slow the lap time down imo...but maybe will race a little better?

As always it will come down to the guy behind the wheel everything else being equal! If nothing changes then we lose a little weight in 6 months! 

[Danica Davison]

Jim,
 
I'd rather build skill in the corner exits than motoring someone on a straight.

 

Pssssssh. To each their own I guess.  I would much rather motor by someone on the straight.  It is way easier

[av8tor]

Pssssssh. To each their own I guess.  I would much rather motor by someone on the straight.  It is way easier

No kidding.

[Johnny D]

Keep in mind, Jamz runs with no top. I believe was quoted "just out for fun" but don't quote me.

 

J~

[MPR22]

Dejavu from the thread when this was first announced! It will be fine...wont slow the lap time down imo...but maybe will race a little better?

As always it will come down to the guy behind the wheel everything else being equal! If nothing changes then we lose a little weight in 6 months! 

As always, you are too practical for your surroundings. 

[Tom Sager]

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

Let me expand on this...

 

I did a very careful test on a good day keeping every variable as close to the same as possible except for the weight and plate changes.  At Blackhawk, the average of 3 best laps in back to back sessions was 1/10th of second faster at heavier weight and no plate.  That's a tight track with 2 100MPH straights and a lot of 3rd gear stuff.  Beyond the test day I raced the car at 2400 and no plate the day following the test and wasn't impressed running with the heavier fuel load necessary to finish the race above 2400.  At a longer track I believe (no data to back this up yet) the car will benefit a bit more from the extra HP under 2017 rules.  We'll see.

 

I have had the luxury of having 2 cars (a '95 and '01 with the '01 preceeded by an '00)  and am probably one of the few that has driven both an NA 1.8 and and NB in the same season for each of the past 8 years and on 2 occasions have driven both cars on the same weekend.  In my case the NB cars have been overall faster at every track I've been to.  The results I got from the previously mentioned test will not convince me to enter the '95 more often as I believe the '01 is still the faster car.  The flaw in the new rules IMO is adding too much weight to a car that has the older front suspension geometry.  The weight will likely make the car weaker than other cars on some tracks or portions of tracks and the extra power won't be enough to overcome that IMO.  NA1.8 at 2400 pounds is likely the worst handling car among all the SM variants but again it's too early to say for sure.

 

When our season starts up here in May at Blackhawk I'll be in the '01 for sure, although I'll probably enter the '95 at the June Sprints at Road America as that track provides a better opportunity for the extra power to matter. 

[Jamz14]

Lovely. The worse handling car. We took a very fine handling car and made it the worse handling car, a big track car only.

 

Sad.

[Johnny D]

Lovely. The worse handling car. We took a very fine handling car and made it the worse handling car, a big track car only.

 

Sad.

 

Why don't you go cry on Xav's shoulder and see if you can get it changed to 2375.

 

J~

[Tom Sager]

Lovely. The worse handling car. We took a very fine handling car and made it the worse handling car, a big track car only.

 

Sad.

I think I mentioned a couple times in my post "we'll see" and "too early to say for sure". 

[davew]

Maybe we should allow the NB subframes on the NA cars to make them handle better.

 

Did I say that out loud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MPR22]

Maybe we should allow the NB subframes on the NA cars to make them handle better.

 

Did I say that out loud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How would I know, I am in Houston and you are in Beloit.  

[MPR22]

Let me expand on this...

 

I did a very careful test on a good day keeping every variable as close to the same as possible except for the weight and plate changes.  At Blackhawk, the average of 3 best laps in back to back sessions was 1/10th of second faster at heavier weight and no plate.  That's a tight track with 2 100MPH straights and a lot of 3rd gear stuff.  Beyond the test day I raced the car at 2400 and no plate the day following the test and wasn't impressed running with the heavier fuel load necessary to finish the race above 2400.  At a longer track I believe (no data to back this up yet) the car will benefit a bit more from the extra HP under 2017 rules.  We'll see.

 

I have had the luxury of having 2 cars (a '95 and '01 with the '01 preceeded by an '00)  and am probably one of the few that has driven both an NA 1.8 and and NB in the same season for each of the past 8 years and on 2 occasions have driven both cars on the same weekend.  In my case the NB cars have been overall faster at every track I've been to.  The results I got from the previously mentioned test will not convince me to enter the '95 more often as I believe the '01 is still the faster car.  The flaw in the new rules IMO is adding too much weight to a car that has the older front suspension geometry.  The weight will likely make the car weaker than other cars on some tracks or portions of tracks and the extra power won't be enough to overcome that IMO.  NA1.8 at 2400 pounds is likely the worst handling car among all the SM variants but again it's too early to say for sure.

 

When our season starts up here in May at Blackhawk I'll be in the '01 for sure, although I'll probably enter the '95 at the June Sprints at Road America as that track provides a better opportunity for the extra power to matter. 

Great report.  Thanks for putting it up, that is what it will take to get some more love for the NA 1.8.  Real world testing.  

[Jim Drago]

Mines 2440.. often 2450+, it's not the end of the world

 I dont lose in many corners to 99 cars at 2400. Mid Ohio is a bad track for the weight,  but most tracks like Road Atlanta, it doesnt effect you much.  Sebring wasnt that bad either

[Jamz14]

Why don't you go cry on Xav's shoulder and see if you can get it changed to 2375.

 

J~

Why doesn't Xav reach out to the members of his organization and ask how they feel about it before doing it? We don't have to follow the SCCA. I get why we would but......

 

Xav is obviously reading this thread. He could easily respond back by saying, a predetermined review period is a good idea James, lets do that. Would you be willing to provide data? "Why yes Xav, I would be willing to do that assuming you are willing to show the exact data that was used to agree with these changes. I would be happy to provide new data along those points."

[Johnny D]

Why doesn't Xav reach out to the members of his organization and ask how they feel about it before doing it? We don't have to follow the SCCA. I get why we would but......

 

Xav is obviously reading this thread. He could easily respond back by saying, a predetermined review period is a good idea James, lets do that. Would you be willing to provide data? "Why yes Xav, I would be willing to do that assuming you are willing to show the exact data that was used to agree with these changes. I would be happy to provide new data along those points."

 

I'd have Rob do it. He's won a few. I'm not sure about your little hoopdy, just to be fair.

 

J~

[Jamz14]

Just to be fair? You don't have to cloak insults under the guise of fairness. Have the courage to say that you don't give a shit about my opinion because I haven't won a few. There are some people around that have never won a few that I more than respect their opinion of what is going on with a car. Some of them right up there in your own region. Using me as a data point was far from the point I was trying to make.

 

But sure Johnny, if you see that as the point of my posts; Xav, how about a predetermined time to review these changes with Rob?

[Bench Racer]

Maybe we should allow the NB subframes on the NA cars to make them handle better.

 

Did I say that out loud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SURE, then Michael and his Texas buddy (the one that's been real quite lately) would start howling. Their as fast as an NB, note I didn't say faster than an NB, hang an anchor on the em.

 

Now to the real point of my post. With all the in folks talking tenths of a second, how many of you can consistently with clear track run consistently within plus or minus one tenth lap after lap?

[Johnny D]

Your right I don't really give a shit about your comment. I am concerned that Rob and others that have already won without the change and may get even better.

But it's always difficult, out here it's 4 speed tracks, back east it's 5 speeds so YMMV.

And some will still complain without even knowing weather it's better or worse.

 

J~

[Jamz14]

Your right I don't really give a shit about your comment. I am concerned that Rob and others that have already won without the change and may get even better.

But it's always difficult, out here it's 4 speed tracks, back east it's 5 speeds so YMMV.

And some will still complain without even knowing weather it's better or worse.

 

J~

Apologies.