46 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

+1 on the larger hole for the 94-97 .

[john mueller]

The goal of the changes was to keep all the cars within 100 lbs, the plan is to leave the rules alone for three years less something really blindsides us in next few years. 25 lbs and 1-2 mm is not remotely something that the CRB will even entertain during that time period.

Same goes for NASA... Back in 2011 when NASA went with our own rules getting the weights close was just as important as getting the power right. Last years on-track results showed a minor tweak was necessary and it's in place now. It's good, lets see how the rest of the season unfolds... I'll pow-wow with Jim in early November.

So far this season NASA is very pleased with the on-track results, good racing throughout the field... In my home region, both NASA & CalClub (SCCA) have had all years represented on the podium at each of tracks we run (both a fast & a Technical RC and a roval).

[FTodaro]

I for one am glad that both organizations got together to give us the same wt/plate, I know that does not respond to the parity issue, its to soon to say and your only going to get opinion not data.

I think it would be a good idea if Jim and John , We can call you Jimmyjohns, think about a way to do some data logger testing at the same tracks with same conditions among the different cars and see if you can get some science behind the changes at this point, not to challenge the decision but to support it.

I am just saying racers will never agree but data done right does not lie.

[Jim Drago]

I am just saying racers will never agree but data done right does not lie.

Good point...
If my memory serves us correctly.. We did such a report after the 2009 Runoffs, even had an outside data AIM data engineer compile a detailed report.. What came out of it.. UH, that is all BS and he doesn't know what he is talking about

NASA takes data, John has offered to share with SMAC and CRB. Both organizations will continue to monitor. But the data did not suggest big changes with the old plates and weights, I think we can all agree we are closer now, so even less likely that a change will be warranted or made.

Jim

[Blake Clements]

I am at weight and Blake is in a 1.8

I'd be running at 99 if I still had one. Big plate for the 1.8!

Blake

[Bench Racer]

Limitations

Limitations and error sources can be many in this type of analysis. While I have tried to negate as many as possible, I have no way of knowing or quantifying many of these. Those using this and other reports to help create rules changes/adjustments towards parity should consider these limitations.

Some limitaions and error sources could be:

• Some files are from qualifying sessions and others were from race sessions
• Some files have more laps to analyze and get better averages (race) and other sessions had limited laps (qual) • Different prep level of the cars
• Different driver skills • Weather, fuel load, tire conditions, etc.
• Traffic and the resulting draft effects and hesitations going into and at the apex of corners

[Mike Asselta]

For the record 94-05 MIATAS run the IDENTICAL brakes, so at a lighter weight, same brakes there is little to think about

As far as parity goes.. I think I will take your opinion with a grain of salt? Although add weight to a car other than my own is a very original opinion, especially on this forum

And? Better that we make adjustments to the flux capacitor?

As mentioned previously, parity seems pretty good around the country, and when the run-offs move from RA we'd be chasing our tail again (although I think Todd can do better ).