83 replies to this topic

[Danny Steyn]

Moving this discussion off the Laguna Seca thread

 

This is question was posed to Jamz, but it is a real question that seems to have so many different answers 

Please define what you would want as an assessment of parity? 

• 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. 

And if you feel a particular gen of car is not on parity with the rest of the class, what would you say is the best way to rectify it.

• Do we rely on data from drivers (can be cherry picked)?
• Do we put data boxes on cars?
• Do we test different cars in the same session with the same driver?
• Which cars do we choose for the parity testing?
• Do we swop drivers between cars?

I am really interested what other people feel about this, since as a member of SMAC we are discussing what to do with the 94-97 NA1.8 and whether we have done enough, or too much for the 90-93 NA1.6?

Welcome all opinions!

[Rob Burgoon]

From the other thread:

 

Jamz14, on 19 May 2016 - 3:53 PM, said:

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.

[Danny Steyn]

From the other thread:

 

Jamz14, on 19 May 2016 - 3:53 PM, said:

 

 

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.

 

Rob, what do you think the fallout would be to all the drivers that dont have a '99 in your scenario above?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Danny, the smac in general is doing a good job. I was initially for the 1.6 getting this change with the thought that if it was proved to be to.much that the other models would be sped up or the changes could be backed down a bit to correct them potentially. Be happy to have a conversation with you outside the forum as I am done making comments that drivers feel are personal attacks against them, which my comments are not amd I am genuininly happy for anyone getting great results.

[Danny Steyn]

Kyle, thanks for the props. If you or any other driver that wants to contact me to discuss this or any other issue, my cell number is 954 646 4395. Feel Free to call 

[Tyler Kicera]

I am really interested what other people feel about this, since as a member of SMAC we are discussing what to do with the 94-97 NA1.8 and whether we have done enough, or too much for the 90-93 NA1.6?[/font][/color]
Welcome all opinions!

At the Pitt Majors I drove Brandon Fetch's NA 1.8 and was only 0.35 of the best time in comparable conditions two sessions before in my top flight VVT car. I was on old tires in my car which I believe is quicker when you're on a track with lots of sealer. His car had freshies on it and I felt like the sealer was binding it up too much. If I would have been on some older tires in Brandon's car I'm convinced I could have turned just as fast a lap time as my own VVT car.

Pitt has a bit of everything from decently long straights, fast corners, slow corners, a big hill to climb out of, etc. I was very surprised how quick it was given the perceived lack of parity being discussed on this forum. I had never driven an NA car before and loved the nimbleness of the chassis. I didn't get a chance to overlay data yet but will be interested to see how they compared on paper.

I can tell you this based on my test, should the NA 1.8 receive anything at all, expect to see a lot of NB cars on the market.  Today I feel there is excellent parity between the 99-VVT.  Both have their own set of strengths and weaknesses.  I don't know much about the NA but feel like if the same top driver can jump in any one of the four cars and be within 2 tenths on the same diverse track like Pitt, same conditions, same tire cycle count, then there is true parity.

[Tyler Kicera]

damn iPhone...creating duplicates 

[Ron Alan]

i guess it was worth repeating!

[Rob Burgoon]

Rob, what do you think the fallout would be to all the drivers that dont have a '99 in your scenario above?

 

An effort to build a 99 ASAP if they are doing majors, otherwise a 99 as their next car once they write off the one they have.

 

Folks with other years would be constantly operating at something like a theoretical 20lbs disadvantage compared to the 99.

 

 

But.... it would be a true spec class.  One competitive model.  No parity arguing, no car of the year, no question what car to build, no horses for courses.  No wondering if your car will fall out of favor after you finish building it.  Stability for 10 years.

 

 

Disclaimer:  I do not have a 99 SM at this time, nor am I building one.

[Jim Drago]

At the Pitt Majors I drove Brandon Ferch's NA 1.8 and was only 0.35 off the best time in comparable conditions two sessions before in my top flight VVT car. I was on old tires in my car which I believe is quicker when you're on a track with lots of sealer. His car had freshies on it and I felt like the sealer was binding it up too much. If I would have been on some older tires in Brandon's car I'm convinced I could have turned just as fast a lap time as my own VVT car.

Pitt has a bit of everything from decently long straights, fast corners, slow corners, a big hill to climb out of, etc. I was very surprised how quick it was given the perceived lack of parity being discussed on this forum. I had never driven an NA car before and loved the nimbleness of the chassis. I didn't get a chance to overlay data yet but will be interested to see how they compared on paper.

I can tell you this based on my test, should the NA 1.8 receive anything at all, expect to see a lot of NB cars on the market.  Today I feel there is excellent parity between the 99-VVT.  Both have their own set of strengths and weaknesses.  I don't know much about the NA but feel like if the same driver can jump in any one of the four cars and be within 2 tenths on the same diverse track like Pitt, same conditions, same tire cycle count, then there is true parity.

Also very hard to listen hard to listen to parity arguments when you see facts like this come out.. Similar tests have been made in 1..6 cars..  

That is why I am many others have ALWAYS stated the importance of basing parity decisions only on top level cars driven by top level drivers.  

[Danny Steyn]

At the Pitt Majors I drove Brandon Fetch's NA 1.8 and was only 0.35 of the best time in comparable conditions two sessions before in my top flight VVT car. I was on old tires in my car which I believe is quicker when you're on a track with lots of sealer. His car had freshies on it and I felt like the sealer was binding it up too much. If I would have been on some older tires in Brandon's car I'm convinced I could have turned just as fast a lap time as my own VVT car.

Pitt has a bit of everything from decently long straights, fast corners, slow corners, a big hill to climb out of, etc. I was very surprised how quick it was given the perceived lack of parity being discussed on this forum. I had never driven an NA car before and loved the nimbleness of the chassis. I didn't get a chance to overlay data yet but will be interested to see how they compared on paper.

I can tell you this based on my test, should the NA 1.8 receive anything at all, expect to see a lot of NB cars on the market.  Today I feel there is excellent parity between the 99-VVT.  Both have their own set of strengths and weaknesses.  I don't know much about the NA but feel like if the same top driver can jump in any one of the four cars and be within 2 tenths on the same diverse track like Pitt, same conditions, same tire cycle count, then there is true parity.

 

Tyler - thanks for posting this - I had heard directly from Brandon and it really opened his eyes as well. Very important to get this type of feedback. I personally think that this is the way to do the testing. Same driver, same session, different cars. Of course similar tires would be preferable, but we could also argue that the driver needs to setup both cars to his personal driving style. As far as I know you just got out of yours and directly into Brandon's with no setup changes at all, no familiarization sessions, and was immediately running similar times. Hoping that means that Brandon's car was very close in setup to yours, otherwise with some setup tweaks, who knows what times you would have run with time in the car 

[Danny Steyn]

An effort to build a 99 ASAP if they are doing majors, otherwise a 99 as their next car once they write off the one they have.

Folks with other years would be constantly operating at something like a theoretical 20lbs disadvantage compared to the 99.

But.... it would be a true spec class.  One competitive model.  No parity arguing, no car of the year, no question what car to build, no horses for courses.  No wondering if your car will fall out of favor after you finish building it.  Stability for 10 years.

Disclaimer:  I do not have a 99 SM at this time, nor am I building one.

 

Rob I understand what you are suggesting. What I am asking is what do you think happens in the short term, and in the long term, to the class as a whole if you make the non '99's uncompetitive

[Jim Drago]

Rob I understand what you are suggesting. What I am asking is what do you think happens in the short term, and in the long term, to the class as a whole if you make the non '99's uncompetitive

Why are you entertaining this? You know it is NOT a possibility whatsoever? Neither SCCA or NASA will allow this? Why not move on to something productive? 

 

The only prayer of something like this working ( and it won't) is saying something like effective..  1/1/18 or 1/1/19  Sm will consist of 90-2015(update back allowed 06/15) cars spec the best ECU flash on 6/15 cars, all parity adjustments will be made ONLY for 06/15 cars. 90/05 can run with no guarantee of being competitive.   Everyone starts from zero..

 

A bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater imo...  

[Tyler Kicera]

Tyler - thanks for posting this - I had heard directly from Brandon and it really opened his eyes as well. Very important to get this type of feedback. I personally think that this is the way to do the testing. Same driver, same session, different cars. Of course similar tires would be preferable, but we could also argue that the driver needs to setup both cars to his personal driving style. As far as I know you just got out of yours and directly into Brandon's with no setup changes at all, no familiarization sessions, and was immediately running similar times. Hoping that means that Brandon's car was very close in setup to yours, otherwise with some setup tweaks, who knows what times you would have run with time in the car 

 

Correct - I literally jumped out of my car and into his.  I didn't check setup, tire pressures, etc but his car felt pretty close on setup.  Like I said, I had never driven an NA before and they do feel different which took a few corners to figure out.  I only did about five laps in total before bringing the car back in - didn't want to smoke his freshies too bad.  Like I said before, believe it or not, the car was too hooked up on the sealer and I know it was slowing me down.  Who knows...all variables equalized and I'm just speculating, it may have been faster than my VVT.

 

I think its important to note that a comprehensive parity test would need to be done on the right track.  The track needs a good mix (like Pitt, Watkins Glen) of high speed corner, slow speed corners, elevation change, etc.  It's got to be carried out by a top level driver in cars that are all top level as well.  

[Danny Steyn]

Correct - I literally jumped out of my car and into his.  I didn't check setup, tire pressures, etc but his car felt pretty close on setup.  Like I said, I had never driven an NA before and they do feel different which took a few corners to figure out.  I only did about five laps in total before bringing the car back in - didn't want to smoke his freshies too bad.  Like I said before, believe it or not, the car was too hooked up on the sealer and I know it was slowing me down.  Who knows...all variables equalized and I'm just speculating, it may have been faster than my VVT.

 

I think its important to note that a comprehensive parity test would need to be done on the right track.  The track needs a good mix (like Pitt, Watkins Glen) of high speed corner, slow speed corners, elevation change, etc.  It's got to be carried out by a top level driver in cars that are all top level as well.  

 

Agreed

[Ron Alan]

Rob I understand what you are suggesting. What I am asking is what do you think happens in the short term, and in the long term, to the class as a whole if you make the non '99's uncompetitive

Ironically...the long term has occurred IMO? Hands down the 99 was the car to have 5 years at RA(then Laguna, then Daytona)...and was winning a large percentage of big races. I'm not saying this was done intentionally...but those with the means and time had it figured out a long time ago. And though in the hands of the same driver any other year is very very close...those with the ability to get to the front and stay there weren't/aren't about to take a chance by giving up the slightest advantage. Now that slightest advantage may have gotten very very very close...maybe even tipped? But my gut tells me people would be silly to switch back and start development over...sticking with what you know is the advantage. That said, good chance some new comers(and some who want to stop making excuses) who have started in a NA car will develop them and really figure out how to keep them up front. They have always been there...just very few and far between to be as noticed. 

 

75% of our class are are guys who are happy with were they end up...especially if they beat their buddy who beat them the day before! Their cars may very well be extremely competitive and even win in the top hands(Tylers non-scientific findings up above!)...but it makes for good paddock rambling if that last 1-4 seconds can be blamed on perception and what they read! If in fact the 1.6 changes have gone to far...it will soon become deafening here The NA 1.8 got there last year IMO...in the right hands a driver should have no excuses. 

 

100%...every track will make or break a particular year car. We cant change this. We cant change the inherent difference that the different cars have. Make them similar...which is what has been done! The majority of the best DRIVERS in our class have chosen one particular year car(and for so many reasons other than it can be quick!)...when that trend shifts we will have a whole new discussion!

[Jamz14]

Guys, I am not qualified to state emphatically what constitutes parity. I took a stab at it and it sounds like my suggestion wasn't too far off. What I am qualified on is understanding systems and procedures. And giving parity adjustments without first determining how you are going to evaluate the result of those adjustments to see if they were effective or too effective is bad form. It will lead to endless back and forth that will ultimately delay the retraction of those adjustments if they went too far. You will be faced with exactly what has been going on for years in getting those adjustments. Aren't you guys tired of this?

 

I suggest one of two things;

 

1. Define the process and result evaluation procedure in advance so that you have a basis to push back on whiners that will never be satisfied until they are winning.

 

2. Get comfortable with in season BOP changes like seen in other types of racing. Be nimble in giving them and nimble in retracting them. I personally like this method as we would be able to keep all the cars running indefinitely and we don't have to spend endless time taxing our collective analytical thinking with defining a process. It will also save on time and cost in putting in place a process such as annual back to back testing at predetermined tracks that represent a good mix of conditions.

 

 

My personal opinion only: you guys went too far with the 1.6 and will be too long in coming up with adjustments for the NA 1.8 to make up for it. If you were more nimble you could have given them a single modification and see what the result was. Now you are going to be in the hard position of deciding which of them to pull back if at some point you agree that it was a bridge too far.

[Tom Scheifler]

My personal opinion only: you guys went too far with the 1.6 

 

Can you provide specifics about on what you have based this opinion?

[Rob Burgoon]

Ironically...the long term has occurred IMO? Hands down the 99 was the car to have 5 years at RA(then Laguna, then Daytona)...and was winning a large percentage of big races. I'm not saying this was done intentionally...but those with the means and time had it figured out a long time ago. And though in the hands of the same driver any other year is very very close...those with the ability to get to the front and stay there weren't/aren't about to take a chance by giving up the slightest advantage.

 

The majority of the best DRIVERS in our class have chosen one particular year car(and for so many reasons other than it can be quick!)...when that trend shifts we will have a whole new discussion!

 

 

That's my point.  The experiment has already been run.  I just want to lock down what car is the car to have for the future.  If the trend shifts, I see that as a bad thing.  However, to prove that the 1.6 is competitive, many want to see the trend shift as evidence.  I don't like either option and would rather say "hey, for your regional racing, what you've got is just fine, but if you get serious, build the 99 and it will be the car for sure for 10 years."

 

 

Spec. Miata.

[Jamz14]

Can you provide specifics about on what you have based this opinion?

Tom,

 

Yes I could. Please know that I am not trying to be purposefully evasive when I say that I would prefer not to say.The reason I prefer not to say is that I truly am not qualified to determine the parity without me actually driving the cars back to back. Ok, I guess that does constitute trying to be purposefully evasive. But for good reasons. I also think that watching others is very very subjective and only a handful of people in the country would be qualified to make that assessment based on watching others drive. I know many FEEL they are qualified to do that, but they are wrong (including me). There is just too much not known about how the driver is performing to make that judgement.

 

What I do know is that a few were very vocal last year that there was an issue. And now they want to be all quiet and don't have opinions any more and need more time to know. Bullshit. I suspect they know exactly what the deal is and don't want to say shit for fear of having their advantage removed.