107 replies to this topic

[Rob Burgoon]

Video of my NA8 at the new weight with a 99 behind it and pushing.

 

[Jamz14]

IMO opinion the video from the trailing car is more demonstrative as you can see the differences in the way the two cars are behaving. I'd post it, but it is a car I built with a driver that hasn't won a national level race yet so no reason to. Robs video shows him beating a 99 car at a highspeed 5th gear track. So I guess based on that.......good job SMAC??????

 

I will pose this challenge on every message concerning the NA 1.8 parity. I challenge the SMAC and Xav at NASA to state in advance how they will know they succeeded from a quantitative and empirical perspective? Tell us all how you are going to judge whether the weight is appropriate or not? So far all we have from a person not on SMAC is that if a NA 1.8 appears on the podium at a majors race one time in roughly 5-6 weekends, then they succeeded. Any body else with something different? If not, can we agree if the car doesn't appear on the podium that we will remove 25lbs  , and if it doesn't appear in another 5-6 showings, we can remove another 25 lbs until we are back to our old weight?

[Bench Racer]

In the video, the NA1.8 and the following 99 walked the field. What is telling about that?

 

Let the deal sleep until several races are complete.

[Jamz14]

In the video, the NA1.8 and the following 99 walked the field. What is telling about that?
 
Let the deal sleep until several races are complete.

Tell me what we are looking for specifically during our long deep sleep and I will. But you aren't/haven't, so I won't. You were plenty specific on what needed to be improved on the 1.6 to get you be happy. I know the 1.8 isn't your concern, but I'd still be interested in specifics as to what you want to see to support whether the weight is correct or not.

[Bench Racer]

Could those same two cars walk or be at the pointy end of an SCCA race??? If Tom Sager can play at the pointy end of an SCCA field around here I'll be impressed with the change. After the 1.6 changes someone other than me drove my car at a Midwestern Council race at the Farm and walked the field (started DFL) on SM6's with a gazillion heat cycles and was only .5 slower in my car than same day his 1990 ITA car with Hoosier auto cross A's. Could my car with a young gun play at the pointy end of an SCCA field, who knows. I'd like to see the 1.8 with pointy end driver play at the pointy end with several pointy end drivers in 99 plus cars.

[Jim Drago]

I will pose this challenge on every message concerning the NA 1.8 parity. I challenge the SMAC and Xav at NASA to state in advance how they will know they succeeded from a quantitative and empirical perspective? Tell us all how you are going to judge whether the weight is appropriate or not? So far all we have from a person not on SMAC is that if a NA 1.8 appears on the podium at a majors race one time in roughly 5-6 weekends, then they succeeded. Any body else with something different? If not, can we agree if the car doesn't appear on the podium that we will remove 25lbs  , and if it doesn't appear in another 5-6 showings, we can remove another 25 lbs until we are back to our old weight?

 

James 

Whatever data or methodology you want to use to provide to prove the 25lbs is/was not warranted.. Someone else can provide you with data proving the added 25 was neccessary.  25 lbs is well within the noise.   Not what you want to hear, but I can assure you it is true.

Jim 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Im just glad to see that the Factory supported driver Of Bobby T and Race Engeneering can still get to the front and get the win with that big power from back in 2013!!!!  Hell yeah boy, big power...

[Caveman-kwebb99]

and those danny thumbs were priceless!!!!!

[Jamz14]

James 

Whatever data or methodology you want to use to provide to prove the 25lbs is/was not warranted.. Someone else can provide you with data proving the added 25 was neccessary.  25 lbs is well within the noise.   Not what you want to hear, but I can assure you it is true.

Jim 

Actually Jim that is exactly what I wanted to hear. That the weight add was arbitrary and that no one has any clue on whether it was appropriate or not. And if 25lbs is in the noise, then there is no way that removing the plate and leaving the weight alone made the car an overdog. And even if it did, if no one is driving the overdog, it would never demonstrate to be an overdog and never would be on the podium as an overdog. This adjustment without defining success was just a bone thrown to barking dogs.

 

You are confirming that no one will be able to present data to show whether it worked or not. Everyone was just hoping that everyone would be happy and shut up at the bone.

 

Again I predict, 25 lbs will be taken back and it will be set there and expected that everyone should stop complaining.

 

How could it have been done different to accomplish the same goal and to stop complaining on at least that what was done wasn't a net negative? Only add known positive improvements instead of trying to balance a known improvement (removal of the plate) with an unknown negative (adding weight). There is a plethora of known only positive improvements that could have been done in an incremental fashion until such a time the car goes overdog and then dial back one stage. That is in lieu of someone being able to tell me quantitatively what success looks like. Pick one , I don't care which of the two. But the logic is sound. You are basically confirming that no one knows how to gauge this with the current set of circumstances.

 

We have two suggested criteria now:

 

1. A driver makes it to the podium at a majors race within 5-6 weekends - Proposed by Jim

2. Tom makes it to the pointy end of the field - Proposed by Bench.

 

I guess all the rest of us driving these cars will stand by .

[Jim Drago]

Actually Jim that is exactly what I wanted to hear. That the weight add was arbitrary and that no one has any clue on whether it was appropriate or not. And if 25lbs is in the noise, then there is no way that removing the plate and leaving the weight alone made the car an overdog. And even if it did, if no one is driving the overdog, it would never demonstrate to be an overdog and never would be on the podium as an overdog. This adjustment without defining success was just a bone thrown to barking dogs.

 

You are confirming that no one will be able to present data to show whether it worked or not. Everyone was just hoping that everyone would be happy and shut up at the bone.

 

Again I predict, 25 lbs will be taken back and it will be set there and expected that everyone should stop complaining.

 

How could it have been done different to accomplish the same goal and to stop complaining on at least that what was done wasn't a net negative? Only add known positive improvements instead of trying to balance a known improvement (removal of the plate) with an unknown negative (adding weight). There is a plethora of known only positive improvements that could have been done in an incremental fashion until such a time the car goes overdog and then dial back one stage. That is in lieu of someone being able to tell me quantitatively what success looks like. Pick one , I don't care which of the two. But the logic is sound. You are basically confirming that no one knows how to gauge this with the current set of circumstances.

 

We have two suggested criteria now:

 

1. A driver makes it to the podium at a majors race within 5-6 weekends - Proposed by Jim

2. Tom makes it to the pointy end of the field - Proposed by Bench.

 

I guess all the rest of us driving these cars will stand by .

James

With all due respect you are one of the VERY few complaining... You are talking about this like someone had a vendetta against you and the NA 1.8? The same can be said for the 25 lbs that was put on the VVT car a few years ago( my car). There was no data that justified this weight was needed. That is what they SMAC felt was right. It is fine and had little to no effect, just like this 25 lbs on the Na1.8 will have little to no effect.  

If you, Rob or ANYONE in this class can tell me they are getting beat bc of 25 lbs, I would be the first to tell you to your face that you are full of #$%!  

 

This is what the people who put in the time and volunteer to help the class feel was the best they could come up, again.. I am inclined to see what happens. I am not going to be cornered into your box of if A happens it was right and if B happens it was wrong.. It is not just that easy.

 

Will you ever get the answer you want or the explanation as to how or why? ABSOLUTELY NOT!  It just is not near as scientific as you would like . It is people who know the cars, throwing out ideas and opinions based on what the know or have seen and making a decsion and voting on it with majortity ruling. Thats is, thats how it works.  And with all due respect, it works REALLY good in our class, depsite the parity complaints.

 

This is my last comment on the 25 lbs or the adjustment. You can have the last word as far as I am concerned in regard to this. I will comment again mid year

[Jamz14]

Could those same two cars walk or be at the pointy end of an SCCA race??? If Tom Sager can play at the pointy end of an SCCA field around here I'll be impressed with the change. After the 1.6 changes someone other than me drove my car at a Midwestern Council race at the Farm and walked the field (started DFL) on SM6's with a gazillion heat cycles and was only .5 slower in my car than same day his 1990 ITA car with Hoosier auto cross A's. Could my car with a young gun play at the pointy end of an SCCA field, who knows. I'd like to see the 1.8 with pointy end driver play at the pointy end with several pointy end drivers in 99 plus cars.

Bench, Then maybe SMAC went too far with your car if they were able to start DFL and make their way to the front. But no one that I know of is looking at whether they went too far and you can't be trusted because of your bias to tell anyone that they went too far. That is why knowing what we are looking for in advance is so important before a performance change is made that might affect someones career. You and I might be only concerned about local club racing, but there are those out there that want to do well in their championships in order to improve their chances at a career. Don't dick with things unless you are prepared to judge success or failure!!!!! WHY is that such an  unreasonable request?

[Jamz14]

Jim, the responsibility to prove whether it was positive or negative are on the ones making the change!!!! Not me!!! If you recall I said the car was fine before!!! I didn't ask the SMAC to do anything!!! But since they did, I am asking for the proof that it was needed and that it was successful. The burden is on them not me. I was plenty happy with my POS underpowered and underweight car.

[Jamz14]

Jim it works well in the class for the late model cars that are being driven by all the top teams and drivers. It does not work well for early cars that are being driven by drivers other than the top drivers. Basically you are saying that there is no way to judge correctly because we don't have the drivers to judge. And you won't get the proper drivers to judge, because no one will risk taking the track with them against you drivers in the late model cars. So catch 22. In that case, DONT MESS WITH THINGS. I am complaining about what was done. I was happy with it left alone.

[Jim Drago]

Jim, the responsibility to prove whether it was positive or negative are on the ones making the change!!!! Not me!!! If you recall I said the car was fine before!!! I didn't ask the SMAC to do anything!!! But since they did, I am asking for the proof that it was needed and that it was successful. The burden is on them not me. I was plenty happy with my POS underpowered and underweight car.

Unfortunately they are looking out for teh entire class.. not just james.. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few It seems like 85%  or more are happy with the change.. I think we can agree that we are never getting even 95%, so I think they did a pretty fair job regardless of any single opinion  

[Jamz14]

And Im not the only one complaining. I am the only one you know that is complaining. But I agree that the complaining on actual results is too early. I am complaining on process not performance.

 

But as you have confirmed. The process is completely arbitrary with no predetermined idea of success. With that admission, my fight is over. I trust completely your perspective of the process and everyone thinks it is good so to continue to fight something that is admittedly unscientific and will never be scientific is useless if everyone is happy with that.

[Jim Drago]

Jim it works well in the class for the late model cars that are being driven by all the top teams and drivers. It does not work well for early cars that are being driven by drivers other than the top drivers. Basically you are saying that there is no way to judge correctly because we don't have the drivers to judge. And you won't get the proper drivers to judge, because no one will risk taking the track with them against you drivers in the late model cars. So catch 22. In that case, DONT MESS WITH THINGS. I am complaining about what was done. I was happy with it left alone.

There is a way.. 

You pay for track rental, three top NA 1.8 cars, Three top NB cars, three top drivers ( they will likely donate their time0  get a really good data guy and we knock this out for you. We still wont be accurate within 25 lbs and that would only be representative of that one track... but it will be scientific and backed by data.. the club isnt paying for this.. I dont want my club dollars to be spent on this.. So if it is something you desire, there is a way to do it.

 

at some point james.. reality and common sense need to enter this process. I dont say you are wrong, just unrealistic.

 

Jim

[Jamz14]

Unfortunately they are looking out for teh entire class.. not just james.. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few It seems like 85%  or more are happy with the change.. I think we can agree that we are never getting even 95%, so I think they did a pretty fair job regardless of any single opinion

Oh, I didn't know that the rest of the NA 1.8 class is digging the new changes. My bad. I understand appealing to the majority. So case over, everyone is happy. So I change my prediction. With 90% of the class happy, I am ok with the NA 1.8 staying at 2400. SMAC, Xav,,,,, leave the weight at 2400 for the 90% of drivers that are digging it. I am satisfied.

[Jamz14]

There is a way.. 

You pay for track rental, three top NA 1.8 cars, Three top NB cars, three top drivers ( they will likely donate their time0  get a really good data guy and we knock this out for you. We still wont be accurate within 25 lbs and that would only be representative of that one track... but it will be scientific and backed by data.. the club isnt paying for this.. I dont want my club dollars to be spent on this.. So if it is something you desire, there is a way to do it.

 

Jim

Did the people that wanted it change do this and submit that with a proposal to SMAC that they remove the plate and add 50 meaningless lbs? If not, why should I have to do that in order to prove that it was wrong?

[Rob Burgoon]

 It seems like 85%  or more are happy with the change..

 

85% of the class would benefit from the NA8 having a min weight of 2 tons, haha

[Bench Racer]

James, you totally missed my point, but then you don't have a clue what Midwestern Council racing is. My guy starting DFL at Midwestern Council race and walking the field is equal to Rob and your guy walking the NASA field in the video. Can some young buck drive my car at the pointy end of a SCCA Super Tour race??? Can Rob and or your guy race at the pointy end of a SCCA Super Tour race???

 

No the SCCA didn't go to far with the 1.6, at least until someone proves it on track. With the bone, it's in the game which it was not previously. IIRC, the SMAC stated at the time if the bone was to big, they'd chop a piece off/add weight.  I can live with that and I'd hope others could also. There have been some 1.6 equal times during qualifying to 99 plus cars, but from my viewing some driver errors clouded the race results. I do not know of anyone on this side of the country in 1.6 that has handed anyone their ass (ability to pass any other car, including 2012) when all year cars are in the race group driven by pointy end drivers. How about out your way? Previous to the last bone they threw, they kept friking around with 25 pounds up and down and up. I was wearing out bolt threads because of all the changing weights.

 

The SMAC asked for 1.6 data and they were given data. Same deal with the 1.8, many know Tom did a test day exclusively for with and without plate and weight collecting data. Maybe others did also, I don't know. The SMAC made a decision and here we are.

 

From my perspective, any of these folks with Pro careers on their mind had better bring a gun rather than a knife (1.6) to the fight.

 

My local bench mark is Tom Sager. And I will not comment on his results until he has raced the Farm 2 mile and Road America 4 mile.