563 replies to this topic

[Ron Alan]

^ 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. 

 

This thread and calculations were purely academical to me, but personally, I don't agree with the peaks formula.  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 mycalculations were purely academical.   Sorry for coming too hard. 

Would love if you included your name at the bottom of your posts...I hate replying to a password

 

I find on this site you can come as hard as you like when you have solid facts and data to back up whatever claim you are making or arguing for...this always gains respect and credibility, Generic, accusatory, innuendo, and the like statements get ignored or blasted. Always look forward to posts that have meat in them...and look forward to what knowledge and info you can bring to the table!

[Jim Drago]

^ 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.

I have no problems with your posts or opinions.

No idea how or where original weights/ plates came from, I was not even racing then, let alone on one of the boards.

Current weights and plates came about when Nasa and SCCA rules drifted apart and NASA took what most felt was an approach to help the 1.6 cars. JOhn Mueller and I spoke and thought it would be best for both clubs to be on the same rules. SCCA invited John Mueller on the SMAC call. We all hammered out a rule set for both clubs to be the same. The rules were a small refinement of what NASA started the year before( more similar weights and hp, not just hp/wt ratios)These numbers came from countless dyno sheets of every car, 1000's of hours of experience by some of the sharpest guys in SM, data studies, personal data from SMAC drivers and customers. Dan Tiley used acceleration calculators and simulators and more than I care to remember. A lot of thought and effort was put into this, MOST thought this was going to do the trick and all would be right in the world ( 1.6 cars would start winning all over the place) What happened is what I expected, litle would change. We shifted actual weights and actual HP closer which was certainly a good thing, but the cars already raced closely together before, so I didnt expect much to change in terms of results and they didn't.
Jim

[Jamz14]

These numbers came from countless dyno sheets of every car, 1000's of hours of experience by some of the sharpest guys in SM, data studies, personal data from SMAC drivers and customers. Dan Tiley used acceleration calculators and simulators and more than I care to remember.
Jim

Hey Jim,

Did that include the 96-97? I only ask because  the 94-97 wasn't included in the dyno results you posted earlier. I know it had to include at least some 96-97s in order to set the W&Ps, but do you think the provided sheets were in the same proportion to the 1.6's and 99's? Can I ask your opinion on what a top running 96-97 should be making (not the absolute finest but a good example of top tier performance)?

 

Thanks for your input.

 

James

[Rob Burgoon]

Hey Jim,

Did that include the 96-97? I only ask because  the 94-97 wasn't included in the dyno results you posted earlier. I know it had to include at least some 96-97s in order to set the W&Ps, but do you think the provided sheets were in the same proportion to the 1.6's and 99's? Can I ask your opinion on what a top running 96-97 should be making (not the absolute finest but a good example of top tier performance)?

 

Thanks for your input.

 

James

 

Data from my 95 played into part of that process.

[Michael Colangelo]

 

Data from my 95 played into part of that process.

 

Was that with your Race Engineering motor?

[Rob Burgoon]

   

Was that with your Race Engineering motor?

 

Yep.

[Ron Alan]

Data from my 95 played into part of that process.

See James...its all Burgoons fault!

[Rob Burgoon]

See James...its all Burgoons fault!

 

 

I'm just too good.  My awesome driving and Race Engineering's awesome engine got the 1.8 nerfed to oblivion.   

[mdavis]

As I continue to stir the pot (see ARRC post), this weekend Keith Verges driving a 1.6 set the track record at TWS during the race.  I think Bill Agha was a tick faster in qualifying in a 99 but for some reason those do not count here in Texas.

[James York]

He also gave a good example of the Hoosier "sticker effect".  2:01.7 on Sat Qual, 1:59.2 on stickers Sunday.

 

I was too cheap to bring any sticker tires for this race weekend, and the tires I was using became undrivable (totally not competative) during Sunday's race......on track session 7.  It was a good data point for me as Keith and I battled in Saturday's race nose to tail on our older tires, so when I saw him drive up on stickers for Sunday qual I told him I wanted to see how much his improvement would be.  1.5 seconds, nice.

[AW33COM]

I was too cheap to bring any sticker tires for this race weekend, and the tires I was using became undrivable (totally not competative) during Sunday's race

 

 

Can you elaborate?  How many heat cycles did you start with?

[James York]

Can you elaborate?  How many heat cycles did you start with?

 

Total loss of grip at the rear (99s work the rears hard), hanging on with opposite lock everywhere.  It was on its 7th track sesssion from when it was new.  (zero cycles)

[trimless]

He also gave a good example of the Hoosier "sticker effect".  2:01.7 on Sat Qual, 1:59.2 on stickers Sunday.

 

I was too cheap to bring any sticker tires for this race weekend, and the tires I was using became undrivable (totally not competative) during Sunday's race......on track session 7.  It was a good data point for me as Keith and I battled in Saturday's race nose to tail on our older tires, so when I saw him drive up on stickers for Sunday qual I told him I wanted to see how much his improvement would be.  1.5 seconds, nice.

James, I was on 4 session tires for Sundays race and ran nose to tail with Keith the entire race until last lap when I dropped back after blowing a turn trying to pass.  There is some point that the tires drop off and seems to be track dependent. Stickers are fastest, but sessions 2 - 4 seem to be consistently close at TWS.  Toyo RR's are consistently fast for me at TWS from stickers to 12+ cycles.

[svvs]

James:

 

Did you heat cycle those tires, or just go out on them as stickers?

 

I usually see that "un competitive compared to stickers" fall off on heat cycle 6 or 7 as well.

[James York]

James:

 

Did you heat cycle those tires, or just go out on them as stickers?

 

I usually see that "un competitive compared to stickers" fall off on heat cycle 6 or 7 as well.

Do you mean the 5 or 6 lap gentle warm up per Hoosier?  No.

 

Heat cycle 1 was about a month ago, 1 getting up to speed out lap and then going for fast time.

[James York]

James, I was on 4 session tires for Sundays race and ran nose to tail with Keith the entire race until last lap when I dropped back after blowing a turn trying to pass.  There is some point that the tires drop off and seems to be track dependent. Stickers are fastest, but sessions 2 - 4 seem to be consistently close at TWS.  Toyo RR's are consistently fast for me at TWS from stickers to 12+ cycles.

That seems to align with my experience, with the exception of the RR as I have none on that tire.

 

I hope the SM7 compound tire is not so picky.

[Lee Thomas]

My understanding is the SM6 and SM7 use the same rubber, difference being the SM7's have a stiffer sidewall.  I assume this means the SM7 will share the same issues/features of the SM6 related to heat cycles and overall tire life.

 

My experience is I get solid performance all the way down to the threads with the Toyo RR's while the Hoosiers heatcycle out after 4 - 5 sessions...even when you follow the Hoosier recommendations related to the initial break-in heatcycle.  I have lots of Hoosiers with lots of rubber left but they just aren't competitive anymore.

[Craig Berry]

its nice to talk tires on the parity thread, kinda breaks up the same old arguments.
For what little its worth, we have done a good bit of testing on the SM6 and the main thing we noticed was it is impossible say that tire was always slower after cycled....obviously, Sticker or Cycled depended on various factors....most important was the track surface, and believe it or not track temp was one of the surprising factors. We found that some tracks demanded stickers and others not so much (Example, Sebring track record held on 8 or 9 cycled tires), also one particular track was fastest below 70 degrees with stickers and above 70 with cycled.
Lets hope the SM7 is less sensitive. From what I know the rubber and construction is different.......more like the current Grand Am tire. I have a feeling that like Toyos, and SM6's some tracks will still require stickers, not to go fast, but to go the fastest, and some tracks will not.

[Jim Drago]

Just to clarify so the correct information gets out...

 

The SM6 and SM7 are not the same compound. They are definitely different compounds, that is the primary difference.  There is no change in sidewall stiffness or construction to speak of. The only change in the construction is that a lighter, stronger steel now makes up the two steel bands in the tire. But that will not be something that will be felt. It will amount to a few ounces  per tire of weight savings, if any.  So in short, we have the same basic tire with a new compound. Hopefully some of our concerns will be addressed with the new compound, only time will tell. 

[Lee Thomas]

OK... I gotta stop recycling stuff I read here!  My bad.  New compound and new steel...  Sounds good.  Looking forward to trying them next year at NOLA.