563 replies to this topic

[davew]

Just for comparison, for fun. I looked at Runoffs 2013

 

Qualifying

SM: 15 cars within 1.013 seconds

SRF: 10 cars within 1.025 seconds

 

SM: 67 cars within 10 seconds of pole.

SRF: 41 cars within 10 seconds of pole

 

Race

SM 57 finishers, 10 DNF, 2 DNS, margin of victroy 0.150

SRF 43 finishers, 8 DNF, 2 DNS, margin of victory 0.878

 

No matter how I looked at it, I can not find a way to justify the statement that SRF has better parity, better racing or tighter fields. And that is with spec chassis, engine, brake pads... Well almost everything except paint !!!!!!

 

Dave

[Rob Burgoon]

Could be that SRFs are harder to drive.  That would spread out the lap times.

[tferranti]

I personally like that we have small differences in the different vintages of cars.  It keeps things interesting.  I've been part of more 5-7 car race-long drafts this year in both Nationals and Regionals than any of my previous years of racing.  At Charlotte this year (one of the perceived "dyno tracks"), we ran a '99, '01, 1.6L and NA1.8L nose to tail  for the entire race, swapping the lead out multiple times.  Each car had slightly different strengths and weaknesses, but any one of those cars had a legitimate shot at the win.

 

I'll take a closely matched 40-50 car field over four 10-15 car fields with exact parity any day.  

 

I agree 100%  

 

The different vintages do keep it interesting and why penalize the guys with older cars who are competitive in them and don't want to/can't change to a newer car?  We had a race here in May at Texas World Speedway (Jim Drago's personal favorite track), and we had numerous lead swaps between (2) 1.6 cars, (1) 1.8-'94 car, and (3) 99's.  Each car has different strengths/weaknesses and it keeps everyone driving their tails off.  For all you 1.6 guys...guess what car won on Saturday....a 1.6.  

 

I do think some minor changes need to be done to the 01+ and the 94-97 cars but overall it is better than it has ever been.

[Johnny D]

. We had a race here in May at Texas World Speedway (Jim Drago's personal favorite track), and we had numerous lead swaps between (2) 1.6 cars, (1) 1.8-'94 car, and (3) 99's.  Each car has different strengths/weaknesses and it keeps everyone driving their tails off.  For all you 1.6 guys...guess what car won on Saturday....a 1.6.  

 

[Bruce Wilson]

I think it's really silly we haven't figure this out when SRF has it down to a well thought out plan and planned it all out while we sit here and bicker for years!!! 

 

Engine swap trial period 2014, two classes 2015, merge 2016  -- and we can't even figure this out? 

 

Come on are we giving up and just saying the SRFers are smarter than us?

 

smarter yes! Enjoy closer racing or better parity? No absolutely not!

Not the point I was trying to make Jim.

 

What we can't figure out is how to allow 1.6 owners to upgrade to the 1.8 engine over several years time.    SRF has a new engine (again).  They have a very well thought out plan on how to have everyone upgrade over several years.   Why is that so hard to do in SM?  (rhetorical question of course)

[Bench Racer]

SRF has a new engine (again).  They have a very well thought out plan on how to have everyone upgrade over several years.   Why is that so hard to do in SM?  (rhetorical question of course)

Bruce, this is quite simple. Enterprises has a President that no longer races and whose sole purpose is PARITY at least car wise for ALL of Enterprises CUSTOMERS.      Yes there are still money talks games going on for which he has no control over.

[LarryKing]

To me the major difference between SM and SRF is the whole point behind a spec class, to have a "driver's class" not a "spender's class".

 

Perceived or real, no one likes to feel that they are getting beat by a wallet.

[Jim Drago]

Bruce, this is quite simple. Enterprises has a President that no longer races and whose sole purpose is PARITY at least car wise for ALL of Enterprises CUSTOMERS.      Yes there are still money talks games going on for which he has no control over.

I had a long post written, they all ended with expletives... So I deleted

[Tom Hampton]

I had a long post written, they all ended with expletives... So I deleted

That is a degree of self control I would have a hard time mustering.

[Bruce Wilson]

Bruce, this is quite simple. Enterprises has a President that no longer races and whose sole purpose is PARITY at least car wise for ALL of Enterprises CUSTOMERS.      Yes there are still money talks games going on for which he has no control over.

 

I understand why.  It is the difference between the way we do things in the club vs. the benefits of a benevolent dictator. 

 

Jim, I know your frustration.  Sorry if I dug up those memories...  god knows you tried!!!

[Bench Racer]

How many of you guys buy into this Power Number that was used for parity?
 
peak Hp + peak Tq / 2 = PN ( power number) 

 

Jim is not alone in this power number, there are other CRB and SMAC members that are equal parts to this power number. Oh, and what makes sense within this formula (if it was a real math fraction) to use only peak torque and horsepower numbers? There are plenty of people on this site that can see through this formula that keep quite for whatever reason.

 

Hey, I'm real, show me the math or engineering book that confirms this formula and I'll STFU about the formula.    

 

Jim is a fun guy, we don't always agree on things. 

 

Bruce, I toned this post down a bunch from my initial response.

[Jim Drago]

To be clear... 

 I never said we used that formula in Sm to come up with the current rules, just that the numbers are close when you look at the peaks.  It is nothing more than a starting point when classing cars in SS and touring. In such classes, we dont have the luxory of countless dyno sheets. So all we average peak Hp and TQ to take both into account and make adjustments from there.

[Bench Racer]

To continue being a pain in the a$$, before you graciously posted your dyno sheets, OEM type dyno sheets were viewed that showed the same trend.        

[pat slattery]

I know Jim has some input, but who are the others that make decisions and recommendations to the SCCA about SM parity?

[AW33COM]

 I never said we used that formula in Sm to come up with the current rules

 

So why are weights reflecting the formula plus 2lbs for the 1.6 car?    Just to be clear the formula is wrong.

 

 

There are plenty of people on this site that can see through this formula that keep quite for whatever reason.

At this point I have most of the numbers except 94-97 cars.   SM has no parity because 0.5 power to weight difference is not possible to make up if both drivers have the same skill set.  The biggest shock to me was that the best parity is between 99 and 1.6 cars   

 

Bench Racer ( I believe David), you can get the numbers to be exact if you do what I did in the other thread, but instead of using 500 rpm intervals, use 50 and the results will be to the penny.  Then all you need is RPM of a specific car across one clean lap per racetrack.  Once you have that you need to assign "weight" to the RPM based on how much time is spend at each interval.  Then you calculate the power to weight.  Not only will you see how close the cars are, you will be able to figure out different shift points per racetrack, or even per racetrack section.  Very cool data.  

 

The above data will give you which car works for each racetrack.  I also found out the racing below 5500 RPM does not matter for the 1.6 car, because that's not what happens on the race track if you shift correctly.   Plus the 1.6 car is 100 lbs less, so the difference is there, but only for some race tracks.  And to top it all off,  long straights do not have to favor the 99 cars at all.  It all depends on what the shifting is on the entire race track for the car.  Lime Rock park is what the 1.6 car needs.  Everything can be calculated.  Very fun.

 

There was also something else I found out which was a shocker, but that one I'll keep to my advantage as long as SCCA does not realize it and change it.

 

This was my last parity thread I believe. 

Happy data mining.  

[Jim Drago]

I know Jim has some input, but who are the others that make decisions and recommendations to the SCCA about SM parity?

Pat
 
The SMAC makes the recommendations on changes to the CRB. The CRB takes that information and recommendations and makes the rules and changes.
All names are listed on SCCA site.

Furthermore, I guess I should repeat this again as well..NOTHING SAID HERE MATTERS!! The way the system works, whether you like it it or not is to send in a letter. Please don't give teh standard reply that it doesnt matter or we don't listen. Teh SMac reads EVERY letter and discusses EVER letter.

I just went and checked, ZERO letters were received in all of 2012 and 2013 regarding parity changes to the 1.6. There are multiple letters on changing the plates/weights on 01+ cars, multiple letters for changing the plate to 47 mm on 94-97 cars. Also no letters asking for changes in the 99/00 miata.

So clearly, there is a disconnect somewhere, whatwe see on SMAC and CRB is that there is some concern with 01+ cars becoming the new COTY and the 94/97 guys want the larger plate back. So that is what will be discussed.


What will happen on the SMAC conference call, is each of these letters will be addressed.

[Brandon]

Jim,

For those who haven't done it before, can you briefly supply the steps/process for submitting a letter to the CRB?

I have one I want to submit but am failing at figuring it out (e-mail address, online form submission...)

 

Oh, and is there anything that should be included with the letter?  Is it important to note any identification details (SM 1.6L for example) or tenure/history of racing with the club?

 

Thanks,

Brandon

[Ron Alan]

There was also something else I found out which was a shocker, but that one I'll keep to my advantage as long as SCCA does not realize it and change it.

 

For $100 donation to this site last year, Mike Collins was giving out this info!

 

Curious on another difference in these cars that really cant be equaled...can someone speak to aero drag with confidence at speeds from 90-120mph? And hopefully this is with data....

[Jim Drago]

Jim,
For those who haven't done it before, can you briefly supply the steps/process for submitting a letter to the CRB?
I have one I want to submit but am failing at figuring it out (e-mail address, online form submission...)
 
Oh, and is there anything that should be included with the letter?  Is it important to note any identification details (SM 1.6L for example) or tenure/history of racing with the club?
 
Thanks,
Brandon

Brandon
It is pretty simple and pretty self explanatory. Click on the link below and fill out the form. In the request portion, just ask for want you want. SHort, Simple and factual works best, include any pertient info. If you need any further info, let me know. If that doesnt work, just send all to Mike Collins

Jim

http://crbscca.com

[AW33COM]

^ When  I made the post above I was not blaming anyone, neither was I complaining.  As a matter of a fact I think I was more wrong than right all along.  I want to thank Jim for posting the information regarding the SM calculations, and showing how everything sort of works.  Looks like I was too hard on him and I should not be, because he is only using the peaks formula as an example, even though I still do not know how the parity is calculated.

 

This thread and calculations were purely academical to me, but personally, I don't agree with the peaks formula to be shown as an example there is parity.  It is very close to parity among our cars and it provides close racing, but after recalculating I realized it's not close enough to render consistent results each time.   You guys always say: "the same guys will be up front".  True, but I say: "the order of them will be different".  

 

Just to be clear.  I have a 1.6 car, but I don't request any changes, neither do I want any "help" for my car.  My car has about 96 horse power on a good day, and I run Hoosiers with 40 cycles on them.  I use SM as a ticket to drive better, I am very happy that way.   I am not on either side of the fence, and my calculations are purely for fun.   I stand by my point of view, but sorry for coming too hard.