46 replies to this topic

[Ryan Wellman]

Here's my video from the mid-pack.  

 

I locked them up in T3 at the start and flat spotted the tires a little bit at the start.  Had a little vibration for the next few laps, but not too bad.  After the safety car, my tires really went off and it was like driving on ice.  Lap times went down by >1sec from that point as I struggled for grip.  This phenomenon happened at Thunderhill last month after the safety car too, but that day was considerably hotter than at Laguna this weekend.  I would think the safety car period would cool the tires and provide better grip afterwards, but for some reason the opposite is happening.  Has anyone else experienced this?  The tires were on their 16th cycle.

 

Overall, a great weekend.  Congrats to Matt and Justin.  It was fun hanging out with you all.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=XlRsJXtoAYA

[Tom Scheifler]

After the safety car, my tires really went off and it was like driving on ice. Lap times went down by >1sec from that point as I struggled for grip. This phenomenon happened at Thunderhill last month after the safety car too, but that day was considerably hotter than at Laguna this weekend. I would think the safety car period would cool the tires and provide better grip afterwards, but for some reason the opposite is happening. Has anyone else experienced this? The tires were on their 16th cycle.

I'm willing to wager that 16 cycle tires is the reason.

[Danny Steyn]

That being said, if you're asking for my personal opinion, I think that things are looking very very good in terms of parity, so thank you to the SMAC for trying to give the 1.6 the little push it needed. Looking forward to more data, at more tracks, with all four different miatas, under different conditions!

 

Matt - thanks for your feedback. I have found your posts to be constructive and have helped us move in the right direction.

 

 

And lastly. Why don't we determine in advance what will indicate parity instead of leaving it ambiguous and making the determination after the fact? Good scientific process dictates that you determine the factors for success ahead of time and then test to them. Not test and then determine how you feel about the results afterwards. Seeing how it races this years makes me think that as long as you are winning then parity is achieved, the moment you are not (if that happens), the car will need more.

 

Jamz - with zero budget there is no way that the SMAC do this scientifically. We will always rely on data, video, and most importantly, drivers opinions. 

 

From what we are observing, the 1.6NA parity is very close. Some think we have gone too far, some think it is just right and others are still asking for more. We will continue to monitor the results and canvas the drivers. 

[davew]

>>>>> From what we are observing, the 1.6NA parity is very close. Some think we have gone too far, some think it is just right and others are still asking for more. We will continue to monitor the results and canvas the drivers. <<<<<<<

 

Sounds like perfection to me

[Ryan Wellman]

I'm willing to wager that 16 cycle tires is the reason.

Could be.  The Thunderhill example was on 10 cycle tires.  But maybe that is too many also... Just strange that the grip was ok before safety car, but after was considerably worse; like night and day different.

[Jamz14]

Jamz - with zero budget there is no way that the SMAC do this scientifically. We will always rely on data, video, and most importantly, drivers opinions. 

 

From what we are observing, the 1.6NA parity is very close. Some think we have gone too far, some think it is just right and others are still asking for more. We will continue to monitor the results and canvas the drivers. 

 

 

Danny,

 

Understood and that is reasonable. In light of that though, SCCA should be more nimble in approving changes ( it took Bench years to build the support to get them considered), and just as swift in removing them if proving to be too much. But with what it took to get the new rules in place, why should we not expect that it would take just as long to rewrite to a different spec?

 

And even if we use a process less than scientific, a reasonable declaration and ballpark assessment of what parity would look like if the changes were effective would seem doable and reasonable to ask. I don't mind that that assessment is less than scientific, but something.

 

Why is it not possible to have each model year taken to the same track on the same day and have a qualified test driver drive all platforms back to back and give an assessment of parity? To double check, have two qualified test drivers running them back to back. Finish off with both test drivers running nose to tail laps back to back. I am sure that the major garages have the ability to offer up a equally prepped version of each car. And even if they don't have one in their fleet, have individuals offer up their car to be prepped ( setup, dyno tuned, engine health verified) by these shops that have the experience on each platform? Then draft a recommendation to SMAC and BOD. This could all be funded independently of SCCA and wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to do.

 

I have said more than once that we should all be willing to make month to month BOP plate and weight changes to flush this stuff out. But like as stated in my previous statement, I feel individual drivers consider the cars at parity as long as they are winning. The second they are not, it is a parity issue. If that statement is true, you will never get accurate anecdotal feedback on parity. And that is why it is so important to make a statement on what you are trying to achieve and what success looks like ahead of time even if that declaration is less than scientific. It will help you guys a lot with drivers complaining that it isn't enough or is too much if you force the people asking for an adjustment to make a declaratory statement of success before giving them the change. It will force them to think more about why they are asking for it.

[Danny Steyn]

 

Danny,

Understood and that is reasonable. In light of that though, SCCA should be more nimble in approving changes ( it took Bench years to build the support to get them considered), and just as swift in removing them if proving to be too much. But with what it took to get the new rules in place, why should we not expect that it would take just as long to rewrite to a different spec?

 

Jamz, lets tackle each of these points separately - remember these are purely my opinions, not that of SMAC

Actually I believe that while Bench's motives were good, the fact that he was the MOST vocal, while at the same time NOT campaigning the car, actually hurt the NA 1.6 consideration and actually held back the class introspection.    

[Danny Steyn]

 

And even if we use a process less than scientific, a reasonable declaration and ballpark assessment of what parity would look like if the changes were effective would seem doable and reasonable to ask. I don't mind that that assessment is less than scientific, but something.

 

Please define what you would want as an assessment of parity? Because I have heard so many different views on this.

Capable of running same lap times?

Capable of passing and being passed?

Capable of winning?

What else? 

Personally I believe that this is totally subjective, and for me it is when the front runners would consider building that year of car to campaign. 

[Jamz14]

Jamz, lets tackle each of these points separately - remember these are purely my opinions, not that of SMAC

Actually I believe that while Bench's motives were good, the fact that he was the MOST vocal, while at the same time NOT campaigning the car, actually hurt the NA 1.6 consideration and actually held back the class introspection.    

I dont disagree. However that doesn't mean that the SCCA is nimble and quick in making adjustments. So I still submit that they will be as equally slow in pulling them back should they prove to be too much.

[Rob Burgoon]

Please define what you would want as an assessment of parity? Because I have heard so many different views on this.

Capable of running same lap times?

Capable of passing and being passed?

Capable of winning?

What else? 

Personally I believe that this is totally subjective, and for me it is when the front runners would consider building that year of car to campaign. 

 

Just declare a car to be "the car" in the class mission statement for the next 10 years and be done with it.  Better that than owning a 1.6 for small tracks and a 99 for big tracks.

[Jamz14]

Please define what you would want as an assessment of parity? Because I have heard so many different views on this.

Capable of running same lap times?

Capable of passing and being passed?

Capable of winning?

What else? 

Personally I believe that this is totally subjective, and for me it is when the front runners would consider building that year of car to campaign. 

 

Well lets be clear, I am not the one saying the cars are unequal. I didn't have a problem with parity before and I still don't. So the responsibility of defining that for a requested parity adjustments doesn't belong to me but belongs to the people requesting the adjustment. that is the point.

 

But since you asked me; I proposed a possible parity test. All cars at the track on the same day prepped by the same shop and evaluated to be of equal representation of build level. A selected test driver or drivers to evaluate them on this same day. Now because the cars are deemed to be proper representations of the model year, and because the tests are happening back to back by the same driver/drivers; lap times are a good factor in determining parity. Yes they may produce the lap time in different ways but that will always be the case when dealing with different geometries ETC. At that point it is up to the driver to select his platform that best suits his style. We could also potentially leave some input to the test driver as to driveability or some other less tangible aspect of each year that he is able to define and provide justification that it be considered.

 

The above would be for general class consideration by the SCCA. If a driver of a car wants to write a letter suggesting that this process didn't achieve the desired parity result, then that driver would also need to submit some sort of idea on how his recommendation for change is to be evaluated and what constitutes a successful testing of that evaluation to warrant a change.

[Jamz14]

Just declare a car to be "the car" in the class mission statement for the next 10 years and be done with it.  Better that than owning a 1.6 for small tracks and a 99 for big tracks.

Rob, you will never stop people with unlimited funds from owning track specific cars. Nor will you stop those that want to run stickers every session from doing so if the rules allow it. So why try? The best we can do is to select a medium track for comparing and then understand as drivers that some days at some tracks we will have a small advantage and that will be equalized over the course of a season by running at tracks that are not advantageous to that year.

[Jamz14]

Danny, as far as using the criteria of what the big boy shops choose to build.

 

Yes that isn't a bad indication. But I think that there are more considerations to why someone is building a particular year than just parity. Big boy shops may have additional business considerations that motivate them to build later model years. And if the parity is close but off just a little, they may feel that these other factors are more important than a small gap in parity and can be overcome by other factors as well. Including creative engineering for later model years where the rules are less clear and haven't been vetted overtime like early model years. Who knows. This idea isn't fully baked. I in general agree with you but there is something nagging at me that this idea might not fully address the problem and could be exploited by those very smart shops.

[Danny Steyn]

Jamz - Rob - I suggest we start another thread on parity and not hijack this thread any further

[Rob Burgoon]

Rob, you will never stop people with unlimited funds from owning track specific cars. 

 

 

Oh yes I can.  If the 99 is declared "the car", you adjust the "anti-parity" so that you still want the 99 even on the small tracks.  The other cars can still run, but they are "deprecated".  

 

And presto!  We have a spec class.  Then maybe in 2026 the ND becomes "the car" for 10 years.

[Bench Racer]

Actually I believe that while Bench's motives were good, the fact that he was the MOST vocal, while at the same time NOT campaigning the car, actually hurt the NA 1.6 consideration and actually held back the class introspection.    

Ya know what Danny, I didn't require the parking light air intake bone from the SMAC because I had legal ambient air intake from day one with my car, temp at AFM never above 95* F per a letter sent to the CRB. I finally got off center and took pictures and Tom Hampton posted the pictures in an attempt to show other 1.6er's how to legally get an ambient air intake well before the parking light lens and wrap was allowed. Of course, after I sent info via a letter to the CRB referencing the air temp gain within the snorkel and the temps after testing the wrapped snorkel including a request to allow the 1.6 to wrap the snorkel the CRB allowed the snorkel to be wrapped. I know of a couple other folks who also sent in temp data. Golly, if I didn't campaign the car where did I get the data from to send to the CRB for intake temps and snorkel temp gains.

 

 If I used the parity word since the CRB threw the 1.6 bones like you and your friends are doing within this thread I'd have been crucified. As I told Kyle the other day, don't hurt yourself when you fall off the pedestal.  

[Jamz14]

Ya know what Danny, I didn't require the parking light air intake bone from the SMAC because I had legal ambient air intake from day one with my car, temp at AFM never above 95* F. I would have been crucified had I used the parity word since the bones had been thrown to the 1.6 like you and your friends within this thread are doing. The remainder of your bull shit doesn't deserve a response. Like I told Kyle the other day, hope you don't hurt yourself when you fall off your pedestal.  

Wow, that is a bit harsh. Danny seemed to be complimentary of your motives.

[Jamz14]

Jamz - Rob - I suggest we start another thread on parity and not hijack this thread any further

Agreed.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Ya know what Danny, I didn't require the parking light air intake bone from the SMAC because I had legal ambient air intake from day one with my car, temp at AFM never above 95* F. I would have been crucified had I used the parity word since the bones had been thrown to the 1.6 like you and your friends within this thread are doing. The remainder of your bull shit doesn't deserve a response. Like I told Kyle the other day, hope you don't hurt yourself when you fall off your pedestal.  

 

 

Its probably like that high throne your seting on in your ivory tower, calling out character flaws of somone who makes on track mistakes, while you keep you mouth shut after seeing a bonehead move by one of the guys thatwas spun at the runnoffs by the character flaw guy taking out a very nice car at gateway.  love how you pick and choose who the flawed ones are... this is one time im glad im grouped with danny even if i dont agree with his take on parity!

[Jamz14]

Danny,

 

I don't know how to move a thread. Not sure if the specific parity comments can be moved to another thread. I'd like to keep all the comments in the new thread if possible to keep the continuity.

 

Please feel free to move all my comments if possible and you know how to do that.