177 replies to this topic

[speedengineer]

First off, Kyle I disagree that it's more difficult or expensive to build a fast 99 SM.  Just take the motor for example.  Compared to a 1.6, all the castings are much more consistent meaning less testing of heads, intakes, headers etc.  No need to mess with the AFM, and keep it running right on each track.  The biggest deal is that it's the most restricted motor, at 38mm.  This means that the flow of individual components, head, it's machining, and bolt-ons matters WAY less than on a 1.6.  It would take considerable development time and money to build a truly top prep 1.6.

 

Steve, I know you guys spend a ton of time developing your cars on the powertrain side.  The cars might not look top prep, but I suspect that the parts and systems that matter for lap time are executed extremely well.  Your efforts no doubt show in your recent success. 

 

That said, Steve/Tom, here is something to consider.  You are just a single 1.6 statistic that we have seen data comparison for.  For example, there are multiple dozens of team/drivers attempting to build "top prep" NB cars around the country.  Some are better than others at achieving success.  Jim is one of those people who has had great success, and Tom was right there with him at Gateway (and based on the data I saw probably in a superior performing car). 

 

So, dozens of people building top prep NBs, what are the odds that this one statistic/car has fully reached the maximum performance attainable from a 1.6?  Maybe you have done it and no one will do better, and I'd say great, the 1.6 is only slightly better but very close to the performance it needs to be at.  But statistically speaking, we need to see a lot more fully prepped 1.6 cars out there before we can make that statement.  I'd argue that it's more likely (and no offense here at all) that there is more to be gained from your 1.6's.  It is after all by far the most difficult SM to build to be fast.  And if there is more performance to be had, then yes, I would absolutely say the 1.6 is currently an overdog for the class, and requires competition adjustment.  We must class cars based on the true performance aptitude of the car.

 

Let me ask you this.  Disregarding being familiar with driving your cars etc, if you could race gateway again and I was paying all costs and gave you the option to drive either Jim's car, or the 1.6 we saw the data for, which would you choose?  Be honest, and don't say "they're too close it doesn't matter". 

[Steve Scheifler]

I would take Jim's car if for no other reason that to try it, and if he were in mine I would expect to loose irrespective of the fact that it takes time to adjust to a different model.

But as for the answer you really want, I will be posting it soon. I've been way too caught up in a pissing match to spit out where I think things really stand. Fact is it's too soon to know, but circumstances seem to require a preliminary assessment.

[Jim Drago]

Fun reading some of this.. 

a few things.. Building the best 99 versus all the other 99 cars.. Not easy.. For all the reasons stated above. Very diminishing returns with that plate.. I think you can find several posts from me saying be careful what you wish for in people asking to pull the plates.. The only thing keeping many in the game 99 v 99 is these dam plates. I for one would love to pull the plates as I think our stuff would really shine and we would leave many in the dust. 

 

But to Jasons point I agree.. and have stated so.. The 1.6 is the hardest to build to the top level... EVERYTHING matters..  You need the best of each and more importantly making sure the sum of all these parts is also the best.

 

For example... If you buy 1.6 donor X and 99 donor X... You build engine and just bolt all the donor parts back on these two cars.. You are likely very close with the 99 and probably 50/50 at best in being close in the 1.6.

[Tom Scheifler]

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.  

 

I appreciate anyone taking time to assess and share their thoughts.  But there is still a disconnect here.  You point to my rate of acceleration out of T1 but there is no acceleration between T1 and T2 (not if you're doing it right).  T1 is ideally flat out and then there is only a short distance to brake before T2.  So again, I guess you must mean T2.

 

I think people will agree that looking at just the fast laps can be informative but not the best way to analyze a particular turn/segment (for the obvious reason that a particular segment in your best lap may not be your best or even typical time for that segment).  So selecting from all the laps but focusing on T2, I chose the best 2 for each of us regardless of the actual lap time.  And I set the segment start to be just after braking finished and the segment end to be just before braking/lift starts for T3.  This should allow me to analyze the rate of acceleration out of T2.

 JimvTomT2.png   39.56KB   0 downloads

Does it look like I have a greater rate of acceleration?  If so, does it look significant?

 

Then I did the same thing for T7 with the end of the segment just before the shift point (after which you enter the banking and draft starts to kick in).

 JimvTomT7cropped.gif   32.25KB   0 downloads

Looks like the acceleration of the two cars are very much the same.  Does anyone think differently?

 

This seems to be a better way to assess acceleration (better than looking at fast-lap segments) and I don't see either car having a significant advantage.

[38bfast]

At least one point I think we all can agree on is that the changes allotted the 1.6 have improved the performance of the 1.6.

The question now is was it enough, just right, or over dog status. We have yet to see a 10/10ths build piloted by a known pointy end SM driver. The bait is out there, who's going to bite.

[38bfast]

Tom / Steve it would be interesting to see theoretical best lap blue versus red.

[Steve Scheifler]

Two things: Some people, including Jim and sometimes me depending on conditions, do accelerate between 1 & 2. Jim does his 5-4 shift before turn-in then accelerates through 1 before braking. You have to be really good to make this work, and I'm not sure it can ever be as fast as without the early downshift. But what it does is avoid the slow 5-4-3 or risky 5-3 under very difficult circumstances shutting down for T2.

Don't totally discount the draft at infield speeds. It is far less of course, but given the tiny increments we are looking at it matters. Try standing up in 55-75mph wind and then tell me one car avoiding that doesn't matter!

[Steve Scheifler]

Tom / Steve it would be interesting to see theoretical best lap blue versus red.

He'll get it but from memory red wins by .4. But red consistently had the draft, so knock off maybe .1-.2

[Tom Scheifler]

Some people, including Jim and sometimes me depending on conditions, do accelerate between 1 & 2. Jim does his 5-4 shift before turn-in then accelerates through 1 before braking. You have to be really good to make this work, and I'm not sure it can ever be as fast as without the early downshift. But what it does is avoid the slow 5-4-3 or risky 5-3 under very difficult circumstances shutting down for T2

OK. But even then the acceleration zone after T1 is so short that it is not a good choice for analysis of acceleration, agreed?

[Tom Scheifler]

Tom / Steve it would be interesting to see theoretical best lap blue versus red.

Jim 1:11.425
Tom 1:11.251

Site won't let me post any more pictures. Jim's gonna check that tomorrow.

[Steve Scheifler]

OK. But even then the acceleration zone after T1 is so short that it is not a good choice for analysis of acceleration, agreed?

Absolutely, just clarifying for those looking at the video and data in detail.

[Steve Scheifler]

Jim 1:11.425
Tom 1:11.251

Site won't let me post any more pictures. Jim's gonna check that tomorrow am.

Damn my memory. Maybe it was me you had by .4, which makes sense given that we drive equal over-dogs and I never had a draft.

[Ron Alan]

OK. But even then the acceleration zone after T1 is so short that it is not a good choice for analysis of acceleration, agreed?

Brothers wrestling match!!

[Ron Alan]

 

 

For example... If you buy 1.6 donor X and 99 donor X... You build engine and just bolt all the donor parts back on these two cars.. You are likely very close with the 99 and probably 50/50 at best in being close in the 1.6.

Any newbie, rookie, stalker reading this thread needs to read this a dozen times...and take it as gospel!! Because of the restrictor plate a NB in the right hands should be pretty close right out of the box! Sometimes there may be an inherent flaw that may take a little time to sort out  but for the most part, it will be close on power and run free! In other words...if you are driving an NB and not withing 1.5 sec of the top you have driver work to do!!!

 

Here is my first hand experience...

 

1999 90k donor, SM head, stock bottom end, fuel pressure regulator and all the standard SM stuff we bolt on. Stock rear hubs and repacked front bearings, carbotech brakes.

 

When the car was complete I had one of the best local guys take it out on a Sonoma test day. Granted, this driver could drive this track blindfolded and has many hours in a SM but he would not be on any SM driver list. He put down about 10 laps on 6 cycle Hoosiers. He came into the hot pit and I asked "how does it feel"? His reply...."well, you have to wait for it in 6 a little but pretty neutral". He handed me the Aim solo in the car and said here is my best 3 laps...1:55.1, 1:55.2, 1:55.3. BTW...same driver set the car up the day before!

 

Anyone who knows SM at this track and what has been run there on Hoosiers or Toyo's knows these times win any SM race Mark Drennan is not at and will give Mark a run for his money at any race he is in!

 

My point? This was a budget build...under $15k easily...and it is a podium car regionally all day long with a driver behind the wheel! 

 

And to Jim's comment(I agree 100%) about NB cars and no plates...be careful what you wish for

 

 

Steve&Tom....thanks for the effort and time you put in. Dont get side tracked or sucked into the minutia...you are giving hope to a lot of guys that will keep this class going! And Dave...I can see you smiling through my computer!

 

No idea how long the 1.6 will stick around in SM or if SM will remain SM but with the ND in full swing eventually things will change. We had 25 1.6 SM's in their own class at a recent vintage weekend 

[Tom Scheifler]

Steve, I know you guys spend a ton of time developing your cars on the powertrain side. The cars might not look top prep, but I suspect that the parts and systems that matter for lap time are executed extremely well. Your efforts no doubt show in your recent success.

That said, Steve/Tom, here is something to consider. You are just a single 1.6 statistic that we have seen data comparison for. For example, there are multiple dozens of team/drivers attempting to build "top prep" NB cars around the country. Some are better than others at achieving success. Jim is one of those people who has had great success, and Tom was right there with him at Gateway (and based on the data I saw probably in a superior performing car).

So, dozens of people building top prep NBs, what are the odds that this one statistic/car has fully reached the maximum performance attainable from a 1.6? Maybe you have done it and no one will do better, and I'd say great, the 1.6 is only slightly better but very close to the performance it needs to be at. But statistically speaking, we need to see a lot more fully prepped 1.6 cars out there before we can make that statement. I'd argue that it's more likely (and no offense here at all) that there is more to be gained from your 1.6's. It is after all by far the most difficult SM to build to be fast. And if there is more performance to be had, then yes, I would absolutely say the 1.6 is currently an overdog for the class, and requires competition adjustment. We must class cars based on the true performance aptitude of the car.

Let me ask you this. Disregarding being familiar with driving your cars etc, if you could race gateway again and I was paying all costs and gave you the option to drive either Jim's car, or the 1.6 we saw the data for, which would you choose? Be honest, and don't say "they're too close it doesn't matter".

Having never driven a 99, I'd choose Jim's car. Don't know what I'd choose after.

Despite their well-used appearance, yes, the cars do have the best of parts and maintenance under the skin. So I doubt there are any better prepped 1.6s still running.

If Jim had run stickers and run 2 or 3 tenths faster a lap, there would be no controversy. But he didn't and his times suffered and he still finished first.

The real test is not Steve or I running a 99. The real test is a proven top driver driving a top prep 1.6 for more than a 15 min practice session.

[Steve Scheifler]

Tonight I was looking at my data from the same race. Since I ran most of the race alone most each lap is "pure" and then I loose ground on the final segment due to lack of draft. In terms of average lap times, filtering out a couple traffic issues my first 20 laps (at which time I backed off a bit with no hope of catching anyone) averaged very close to Tom & Jim, despite not having the draft. So for the combined infield I was actually significantly faster. How? The lighter weight of the 1.6, or could it be something else?

As discussed already, Jim has a different technique for T1, and as I suspected it costs him time. This has little or nothing to do with power, brakes or cornering limits, it is a matter of being comfortable with a risky corner. The difference was nearly 0.2 per lap average, in a 6.3 second segment. Had I been racing close enough to have a chance I could have turned it up a bit more, but no point at such a high risk corner when 10+ seconds back from the next position and zero hope of catching the leaders. I've been in those tires once, and my car has been there twice, that's enough! (Radio from Dave driving to Steve in pits: "I think we can do it flat." Two laps later "...I WRECKED YOUR CAR... I Wrecked Your Car... sorry".

Tom does that turn the same as I do and generally about the same speed. You can tell even from the video that when he's well back from Jim it is a place where he picks up time, but when he's close he is forced to check up a bit more and just follow, giving up one of his advantages.

So, just right there we have .2/lap advantage to the guys with home field advantage, not because they are in overdog 1.6s. And as I mentioned earlier, a friend shared our cars on a test day a year ago and driving the VVT at full weight he was consistently faster in that sector than we were, so I think any of the cars can do it.

It takes a lot of time and effort to draw accurate conclusions with this stuff. A quick look at laps video and high level data just doesn't cut it. We'll pick apart more of it as time allows.

[Steve Scheifler]

...

Steve, I know you guys spend a ton of time developing your cars on the powertrain side. The cars might not look top prep, but I suspect that the parts and systems that matter for lap time are executed extremely well. Your efforts no doubt show in your recent success.

That said, Steve/Tom, here is something to consider. You are just a single 1.6 statistic that we have seen data comparison for. For example, there are multiple dozens of team/drivers attempting to build "top prep" NB cars around the country. Some are better than others at achieving success. Jim is one of those people who has had great success, and Tom was right there with him at Gateway (and based on the data I saw probably in a superior performing car).

So, dozens of people building top prep NBs, what are the odds that this one statistic/car has fully reached the maximum performance attainable from a 1.6? Maybe you have done it and no one will do better, and I'd say great, the 1.6 is only slightly better but very close to the performance it needs to be at. But statistically speaking, we need to see a lot more fully prepped 1.6 cars out there before we can make that statement. I'd argue that it's more likely (and no offense here at all) that there is more to be gained from your 1.6's. It is after all by far the most difficult SM to build to be fast. And if there is more performance to be had, then yes, I would absolutely say the 1.6 is currently an overdog for the class, and requires competition adjustment. We must class cars based on the true performance aptitude of the car.

...

Good and reasonable questions, I've been thinking about it.

First I'll go against conventional thinking a bit and say that in my opinion "top prep" is often misunderstood or over rated for purposes such as analyzing a single event like this. Meaning that, barring any equipment failures or degradation of things like brake fluid, pads, etc. there isn't a lot that will have a big impact on lap times. The biggest difference is often tires, both age and to a lesser extent pressures. The next is probably setup if you miss by very much. Then there are things like Jim finding that the center bar bushings were dry and binding a bit but even that is part of routine checks and maintenance like brake fluid.

Once you have the right big parts and get them set up and tuned, the rest of top prep is ensuring that the little things don't cost you a bit here and there or fail and cost you a race. If we're talking about max prep for a big or must-win event then there are a few other things someone might try, compromising some longevity to optimize for the short term, but we aren't doing that for these races. And keep in mind, we aren't exactly new to this.

So do I think it's possible that for Gateway we fielded truly top prep 1.6 cars? Mine certainly was not on Saturday, I had setup wrong. Other than that, I would say yes, we did, at least close enough that other than maybe an even better setup you wouldn't be able to see a difference in the data. The truth is, it's not all that complicated or difficult and the difference between what we had and "the best" would be little more than noise in the data compared to the drivers. Again, except maybe setup. Despite being perhaps the simplest track around it still requires compromises in setup and I don't claim to have figured them out, especially on the new Hoosiers. The fact that my best time that weekend, actually on the test day, was less than 0.1 better than I qualified on Toyo RA1s some years back makes me pretty confident that we can do better with the overall balance. Other than that I think it is reasonable to assume they were fair benchmarks. And I'll go so far as to say, given that we had an obvious edge in tires and know the track better than most, the results were reasonable. But, I'll add an asterisk while still looking at data.

[MPR22]

Figured out how to edit my video.. This is from Sunday. Didn't have video from Saturday. A few have asked if I was "managing a gap" or if I was driving hard..  You be the judge

 

That infield is bumpy/slick?   That is the most i have ever seen Jim move his hands in a race video.  

[Jim Drago]

That infield is bumpy/slick?   That is the most i have ever seen Jim move his hands in a race video.  

Mostly slick, but both. 

[Tom Scheifler]

^^^ Bumps on both transitions between oval and infield (T1 and T7).