177 replies to this topic

[Steve Scheifler]

Fair enough Kyle, but when you have time please elaborate with specific examples that represent your conclusions. You know of course that I will try to poke holes in them, not out of bias, out of balance.

BTW, at this track and Blackhawk I might agree with you, though our idea of the details and degree may differ significantly.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I am really not feeling up for a debate on this topic, everyone can and will draw their own conclusions from the vid and data that has already been posted.  I have already stated early on in this thread that I feel the changes have gone to far, but not complaining I supported the changes.

 

IMO there needs to be some more changes made at this point, I would be completely happy If I could honestly say I would pic the 1.6 3-4 out of 10 times for a race track, the 99 for 3 tracks and 02 for 3 race tracks, and before anyone gets out of shape the 97 1.8 which I drove in a race once would be a hell of choice and alot of tracks just not many are racing them so we tend not to talk to much abotu them here.

 

Everyone have a safe and happy holiday this weekend!!!! Looking forward to some more racing in two weekends!

[Rob Burgoon]

While that is true, it's not what I took from his post. But then I'm not always on the same wavelength as others. To me it suggests that the race results had people making assumptions that we don't *entirely* agree with, the video supports them and the data and my analysis of it adds another nail to the coffin.
Is that about right Erik?

 

Many people respond better to politicians than scientists.

[Steve Scheifler]

With the mixed metaphors my response was not much clearer than posting the cartoon, which was simply saying that when you are already in a hole it's generally best to stop digging. But we dig for the truth, wherever that takes us. Unfortunately some people are far more eager to latch onto surface indicators which support preconceived opinions so they can make a pronouncement, and are then unwilling to dig into the actual facts with an open mind. I think that was taught at the Trump Academy of Misrepresentation and Obfuscation.

[Jim Drago]

Many people respond better to politicians than scientists.

Really?  Have  you seen the disapproval ratings on our two candidates?

[Jim Drago]

With the mixed metaphors my response was not much clearer than posting the cartoon, which was simply saying that when you are already in a hole it's generally best to stop digging. But we dig for the truth, wherever that takes us. Unfortunately some people are far more eager to latch onto surface indicators which support preconceived opinions so they can make a pronouncement, and are then unwilling to dig into the actual facts with an open mind. I think that was taught at the Trump Academy of Misrepresentation and Obfuscation.

Perhaps spelling out your opinion on parity and exactly what your conclusions were after looking at all the data and video would be more productive than debating a tid bit here and there? I have to say I got a chuckle out of a text this morning that said you would try to convince a corpse that he really wasn't dead

[Steve Scheifler]

I'm still working on it as time allows, but surely I have already made extremely clear the fact that I don't believe either model has a big advantage. I wouldn't have bothered with debating any of this so soon if there hadn't been a flood of nonsense ever since Atlanta. I like to gather facts first and challenge my initial impressions. My only regret is that so many seem to think that exhaustive analysis is a weakness.

[MPR22]

 As the video and simple lap times show, Jim was more consistent even though he struggled to control tires that were not as fresh as Tom's. No surprise, Jim has been racing every year and many more events per year. But beyond that you really need to dig into all the details to understand why any one segment looks better than another. Anyone jumping to easy conclusions from these few images probably hasn't considered all that is involved.

This ^^^^^^

 

In a race scenario with two cars that are similar but not the same it is very hard to interpret the data as they have to get around the track differently.  It would be better on an open lap in qualifying with no push or draft but getting that data would be nearly impossible given the limited to time we have on the track at a race weekend.  

 

 

The main reason Jim won was evident in the data, it wasn't HP, it wasn't brakes...... it was consistency.  That is what wins races in SM.  It is not hero driving, not the fastest car by 2 hp, it is who is the most consistent over the race.  Most of us are very good at getting the most out of the little chick cars, it is a matter of who can do it the longest.  That is where I have lacked this year and will continue to focus my efforts.  I could spend the rest of my life chasing 2 hp and I would still lose if I don't become more consistent.  And I am talking .1 to .2 per lap over 30-40 minute race.  

[Steve Scheifler]

This ^^^^^ is what I've been saying about my own driving even compared to Tom, and it is exactly why I have said again and again that I am not yet in a position to have a firm and well informed opinion on parity, so I keep looking, asking, challenging.

[Tom Scheifler]

I would expect Jim to be the most consistent lap after lap which is blue...you dont get to where Jim is with out this! 

 

 It's impressive to watch first-hand (and frustrating)  

[Jim Drago]

I'm still working on it as time allows, but surely I have already made extremely clear the fact that I don't believe either model has a big advantage. I wouldn't have bothered with debating any of this so soon if there hadn't been a flood of nonsense ever since Atlanta. I like to gather facts first and challenge my initial impressions. My only regret is that so many seem to think that exhaustive analysis is a weakness.

 

I am not sure that is as clear as you think.. Remember this is Sm... You drive a 1.6.. so in our world you must be biased and you must be tainting facts and opinions in your favor.  ( unfortunately it is just the way it is here, whenever I post anything other than speed the 1.6 up.. I am biased bc I drive an NB )  I believe you to be genuine, but i think a well thought out and written post as to what your opinions are would be received better as now it is constant point/counter point.  Just my opinion.. and you know what that is worth

[Tom Scheifler]

What i see from my amatuer eyes on data, is that the 1.6 on best lap vs best lap, even on turn 1 where the 1.6 over slows the corner it accelerated at a faster rate out of the corner, as well as i see the same thing coming onto to oval, I see this on both of those slides...

 

 Help me understand why you say I over slow in T1 (segment 1) on the 2 fast-lap slides?  

 

In the first slide we brake at the same time and I clearly have a higher minimum speed to the end of segment 1.  In the second slide, Jim had a huge draft that gave him a high max speed before braking but after the lines cross I again have a higher minimum speed to the end of segment 1.

 

Did you maybe mean T2 (segment 2)?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

 Help me understand why you say I over slow in T1 (segment 1) on the 2 fast-lap slides?  

 

In the first slide we brake at the same time and I clearly have a higher minimum speed to the end of segment 1.  In the second slide, Jim had a huge draft that gave him a high max speed before braking but after the lines cross I again have a higher minimum speed to the end of segment 1.

 

Did you maybe mean T2 (segment 2)?

 

 

Sorry i flashed between the two slides and then wrote what i wrote,  what i should have said is your rate of acceleration out of t1 even when you go through corner faster then jim is still a greater rate of acceleration.  does that clear it up.  IMO the data shows on both the slides that the 1.6 accelerates fastest, even when the corner is over slowed.  I have been hearing for so long that the 1.6 cant accelerate like the 1.8... in fact it now seems to better, again just my opinion.  

 

if it accelerates faster, can brake later and less time can corner better, faster at the end of the straight what is there really left to say?  it must be that the 1.6 cant do all of this around other cars, and i did not witness that in any video of either bhf or gw... 

 

You guys are sure spending alot of time trying to convince me and many others that the 1.6 has no real advantage...

[Tom Scheifler]

You guys are sure spending alot of time trying to convince me and many others that the 1.6 has no real advantage...

Well, we are spending a lot of time discussing it but I don't see how that equates to "trying to convince". I posted data and video for people to assess without claiming anything about what I thought it meant regarding parity. We've always agreed the 1.6 has an advantage in braking and cornering (the significance of those vary by track). For now, I'm digesting the posts on how people "read" the data and asking questions when I don't understand the post. After that I can determine if I agree or disagree with what people say.

[Steve Scheifler]

Well, we are spending a lot of time discussing it but I don't see how that equates to "trying to convince". I posted data and video for people to assess without claiming anything about what I thought it meant regarding parity. We've always agreed the 1.6 has an advantage in braking and cornering (the significance of those vary by track). For now, I'm digesting the posts on how people "read" the data and asking questions when I don't understand the post. After that I can determine if I agree or disagree with what people say.

As someone at work, where I am paid to evaluate, design and create things that actually function, once said to me, "don't be so analytical".

[Rob Burgoon]

I am not sure that is as clear as you think.. Remember this is Sm... You drive a 1.6.. so in our world you must be biased and you must be tainting facts and opinions in your favor.  ( unfortunately it is just the way it is here, whenever I post anything other than speed the 1.6 up.. I am biased bc I drive an NB )  I believe you to be genuine, but i think a well thought out and written post as to what your opinions are would be received better as now it is constant point/counter point.  Just my opinion.. and you know what that is worth

 

Not everyone wants to play politics or push an agenda, Jim.  The impression I get is that Steve and Tom are offering up real data so that the topic can have a little less hot air and a little more substance.

 

I don't really care much about the 1.6 vs 99 topic, but if I smell BS, I'm more than happy to call someone on it regardless of what side it comes from (like my lift post earlier).

[Jim Drago]

Not everyone wants to play politics or push an agenda, Jim.  The impression I get is that Steve and Tom are offering up real data so that the topic can have a little less hot air and a little more substance.

Thats the same impression I get... Which is why I posted what I did. But thank you for your input

[Rob Burgoon]

Thats the same impression I get... Which is why I posted what I did. But thank you for your input

 

My point is just that you might be discouraging useful unbiased data if you want opinions to come with it.

[Jim Drago]

My point is just that you might be discouraging useful unbiased data if you want opinions to come with it.

I dont see it that way at all.. or I would not have posted what I did.

[Rob Burgoon]

I dont see it that way at all.. or I would not have posted what I did.

 

I might have misread.  

 

 

Back to the topic...