83 replies to this topic

[Danny Steyn]

You guys need to give the SMAC a high five

 

This weekend at Watkins Glen, Ralle Rookey, a really talented driver with a well prepared 1.6 proved that a 1.6 could contend for the win. Ralle was there at the front every session. I was around him in my VVT a lot, and his car is as strong as mine in some areas, better in others, and worse in others.

 

This was my experience running with him. Maybe others that were there can chime in on theirs.

• Through the Carousel, Laces, and Toe, his car was blisteringly quick carrying 180lbs less weight. He was flat through the carousel when leading, I was lifting a lot just to keep it under me.
• It has good top end speed, but appears to hit the wall when leading in 5th gear going up the hill to the Bus Stop. 
• If he gets held up in a turn he is hosed, but he knows how to avoid this happening
• It makes a very good pusher when running behind, more than I would have expected (he was surprised too)
• It was a bit skittish through the bus stop, he might have been too low and getting the bump stops
• Do not know if it had any heat soak issues but I never saw it lay down even when running nose to tail in the qually races.

Overall I was pretty impressed at how competitive it was. Unfortunately Ralle was pretty down after the race and said that he made a few bad decisions in the race and said he should have worked better with some of the drivers around him. At the Glen, you cannot move forward without help.

 

 

[-P-]

I agree and If you check the Texas standings 4 out of the top 11 are 1.6's and Gale would be a lot higher had he not taken a break after TWS. Vaughn, Alex, and Gale have all poled, won, or at least podiumed many times this year in their 1.6's at tracks of all types.

[Tom Scheifler]

This is very encouraging! Thanks for sharing.

[Steve Scheifler]

Thanks Danny. Remind us of the weight differences between NASA and SCCA for each car.

The following is not an attempt to argue that you are wrong in the final conclusion, but certainly to question some of the specifics behind that conclusion ang get additional info.

Why do you assume that the weight difference was the major factor in the corners where he was faster? Has anyone yet quantified even the theoretical advantage for the weight difference? (It is not simply proportional)

If his was skittish and twitchy in places because it was on the stops, perhaps being that low also contributed to his better speed through other turns where there was not an abrupt weight transition.

You collect a lot of data, at what RPM is your car where he struggled up the hill?

Being a good draft pusher is not a surprise. The lead car is doing all the work pushing the air out of the way (which is 99.9% of what keeps you from doing Mach 3) so unless hopelessly low on power it should be as good as any.

Assuming that all of your observations and assumptions are correct, if you attended a high-stakes event where equally prepped cars were supplied by a top builder, which would you choose and why? Better yet, you will be given the car for a full season and have lots of pre-season test time, but you must choose in advance.

[SaulSpeedwell]

Well I for one am glad to hear the upped compression, light flywheel, MegaSquirt piggyback, NB suspension, and 1.8 swap, has arguably brought the 1.6 back into an arguable state of arguable parity!

[ECOBRAP]

Agree, parity is looking very good right now, thank you to the SMAC for making it happen.

 

Would love to see Ralle's onboard footage, or some of Danny's onboard to watch the strengths and weaknesses of each car at that track.

[FTodaro]

I also agree that the parity is looking good. Thank you SMAC. We had 20 + cars at the Runoffs within one second. including the 1.6. As a practical matter, I think its going to be difficult to get the class behind any other proposal to give it more at this point. I think there is some discussion about taking a close look at the NA1.8 but beyond that, I wish the SMAC would come out with a statement to Freeze the rules for the next three years like we did before. otherwise the debate never ends.

[Tom Scheifler]

Frank, I agree with a lot of things you say but it makes no sense to "lock the rules for 3 years to end debate". People will debate regardless and I'm willing to trust that the SMAC doesn't need to tie their own hands to avoid making unecessary changes.

[Danny Steyn]

While I cannot talk about specifics we are working on the NA 1.8, hoping to give it a bone.

 

With regard to NASA Watkins Glen video, I will post as soon as I can.

 

I would like to hear from some of the others who raced around Ralle at the Glen

[Ron Alan]

Though I'm a firm believer there was not a huge difference (miniscule at best)prior to the latests round of "bones" , where it helped the most was between the ears of a lot of 1.6 drivers! On the west coast a lot of 1.6 drivers hung on to their cars and have continued to improve the rest of their game! Hands down some of the fastest laps in a 1.6( in recent years)have been set down at the west coast tracks this year. It has been an equal weapon given equal driving talent!

Parity will never be achieved at any track that requires 5 gear for any length of time. The lower rpm power and aero of the NB(by itself not taking drafting into consideration)is difficult to overcome. But I like what has been done and anyone who can drive, setup a car, pick the best tires and has a solid motor has ZERO excuses at most tracks in a 1.6!!!!!!

I will take a 1.8 bone if you're offering Danny Hint...weight!

[MPR22]

I am a little baffled why everyone forgets the 1.6 NA has a SUPERIOR differential. That diff helps it rotate through the corners and drive off much better. Even though it has less torque it delivers what it has much more efficiently. Spent a few laps around Ralle, first of all I consider him a great driver to use as a benchmark for the car. He knows how to keep that car rolling even when slightly held up in traffic. The biggest weakness I saw in the car and driver all week was that he didn't have a team mate to work with. When he had a tow or push he could absolutely compete as could all the cars at the front.

The SMAC has gone a long way to making the 1.6 better. IMHO they have the car as good as it should be any better and it will be the CTH and we don't want to start that crap again. Let's face it MAZDA, the major sponsor of our class doesn't want it's 25 year old cars winning. The NC is coming and it will destroy the 1.6 for good as it is almost at its peak of development. Maybe the class splits at that point but enjoy what has been accomplished today.

Scheiflers,

If you want to be competitive in a 1.6 build new ones from scratch, yours have been raced too much and need to be retired. There is a reason the top dogs build new cars every 1-2 years and it's not because they like pissing away money. They like winning.

[Tom Scheifler]

Scheiflers,

If you want to be competitive in a 1.6 build new ones from scratch, yours have been raced too much and need to be retired. There is a reason the top dogs build new cars every 1-2 years and it's not because they like pissing away money. They like winning.

 

We've been discussing that very topic for several weeks.  It's tempting to blame the cars. Very tempting.  But it seems a lot more likely to be the drivers.  We ran with the leaders at the 2 tracks we know best but we were off the pace at tracks we have far less time at.  Most people seem to agree that the 1.6 is more difficult to drive consistently at 10/10ths.  If that's a major factor at tracks where we struggle then building a new 1.6 probably won't help much and we just need more time at those tracks.  On the other hand, building a new NB might get better results (better consistency at 10/10ths) even if our talent does not improve quickly at those same tracks.  Not sure what yet, but we're going to try something.

[Jim Drago]

You guys need to give the SMAC a high five

 

This weekend at Watkins Glen, Ralle Rookey, a really talented driver with a well prepared 1.6 proved that a 1.6 could contend for the win. Ralle was there at the front every session. I was around him in my VVT a lot, and his car is as strong as mine in some areas, better in others, and worse in others.

 

This was my experience running with him. Maybe others that were there can chime in on theirs.

• Through the Carousel, Laces, and Toe, his car was blisteringly quick carrying 180lbs less weight. He was flat through the carousel when leading, I was lifting a lot just to keep it under me.
• It has good top end speed, but appears to hit the wall when leading in 5th gear going up the hill to the Bus Stop. 
• If he gets held up in a turn he is hosed, but he knows how to avoid this happening
• It makes a very good pusher when running behind, more than I would have expected (he was surprised too)
• It was a bit skittish through the bus stop, he might have been too low and getting the bump stops
• Do not know if it had any heat soak issues but I never saw it lay down even when running nose to tail in the qually races.

Overall I was pretty impressed at how competitive it was. Unfortunately Ralle was pretty down after the race and said that he made a few bad decisions in the race and said he should have worked better with some of the drivers around him. At the Glen, you cannot move forward without help.

This probably wont go over well ... but I have kept pretty quiet on this so far..

 

While I agree with having parity, I read this as a VERY arrogant statement.  Mostly because if we are using this instance as "parity" but we chose to ignore this in 2012 when Todd won majors races and the Sprints in 2012.. But then we didnt have parity?   Now we have a good but less accomplished driver that runs relatively well, but doesnt even finish on the podium and we have parity? This is a NEVER ending debate and we will never have "parity" to those who felt we didnt have it before.

 

Here are some facts to throw out there... 

 

Tom and Steve have raced a long time and I consider them unbiased, smart and friends... they started back when I did and then took a break for several years.  I never stopped racing.. During the first stint, I dont ever remember Tom or Steve finishing on my bumper at any track. This year, Tom did finish on my bumper and all who saw that video could see I drove my ass off to stay ahead and there was no monkey business. Did they get better? I get worse? Tires?

or did Blue printed spindles, shock hats and Str make that much difference in their first stint in SM? Could be some of all combined, IDK

 

Ralle ran his 99 at watkins in 14 or 15,  I believe and did pretty well, but seems like he was more competitive in his 1.6 than he was in his 99.  Why? no idea.. You tell me. 

 

Kohler spent a full year building his 99 and documented it well on the site.. yet he decided he would be more competitive in a 1.6 with a stock motor and a Stewart head at the Runoffs so he refreshed an old 1.6 a few weeks before the runoffs. It appeared to at least me that he was more competitive in his 1.6. By data, the 1.6 should be .4 faster at Mid Ohio according to Jason and why he chose it.  .4 is a tremendous amount when you consider the qualifying times. Yes I know the 1.6 falls off ( which it doesnt any longer) and harder to drive arguments. Those arguments are fading with a much better diff at a track where we are all fighting tremendous wheelspin and the 1.6 is not. 

 

I wasn't convinced that we had a problem before, I am certain we don't now... the cars will never be the same but they are all very close. Pull the plate and go to 2400 already on the 1.8 and call it good for awhile.  Its time to just drive the dam cars!

[Erik Hardy]

One Scheifler build a 1.6, other Scheifler build a 99. Discuss parity with eachother. Compare data with eachother. Whoever uses CAPITAL letters the most on the internet, has the slower car hahaha.   

 

My parity state space equations:

[1.6 / Dog]

NB = Dog

[Dog / 1.8na]

 

This theory was confirmed for me when Tom? posted the entire race data from St. Louis Majors, comparing Toms vs Drago speed data traces. On Average! for the longest straight, The red line starts slower, and on average, ends faster. For me, the beneficiary goes to the red one curve. As seen here:

 

[Steve Scheifler]

Eric, that is a very convenient interpretation, but physics are against it. If a car spends the entire race following an equal or faster car, and enters a long straight a bit slower and with a gap, the speed trace will look EXACTLY like the one you have offered up as proof. It's called a draft, and it always benefits the following/closing car far more than the lead car.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes someone trying to be open minded and objective nuts.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

bahhhh.....

[Tom Sager]

This probably wont go over well ... but I have kept pretty quiet on this so far..

 

While I agree with having parity, I read this as a VERY arrogant statement.  Mostly because if we are using this instance as "parity" but we chose to ignore this in 2012 when Todd won majors races and the Sprints in 2012.. But then we didnt have parity?   Now we have a good but less accomplished driver that runs relatively well, but doesnt even finish on the podium and we have parity? This is a NEVER ending debate and we will never have "parity" to those who felt we didnt have it before.

 

Here are some facts to throw out there... 

 

Tom and Steve have raced a long time and I consider them unbiased, smart and friends... they started back when I did and then took a break for several years.  I never stopped racing.. During the first stint, I dont ever remember Tom or Steve finishing on my bumper at any track. This year, Tom did finish on my bumper and all who saw that video could see I drove my ass off to stay ahead and there was no monkey business. Did they get better? I get worse? Tires?

or did Blue printed spindles, shock hats and Str make that much difference in their first stint in SM? Could be some of all combined, IDK

 

Ralle ran his 99 at watkins in 14 or 15,  I believe and did pretty well, but seems like he was more competitive in his 1.6 than he was in his 99.  Why? no idea.. You tell me. 

 

Kohler spent a full year building his 99 and documented it well on the site.. yet he decided he would be more competitive in a 1.6 with a stock motor and a Stewart head at the Runoffs so he refreshed an old 1.6 a few weeks before the runoffs. It appeared to at least me that he was more competitive in his 1.6. By data, the 1.6 should be .4 faster at Mid Ohio according to Jason and why he chose it.  .4 is a tremendous amount when you consider the qualifying times. Yes I know the 1.6 falls off ( which it doesnt any longer) and harder to drive arguments. Those arguments are fading with a much better diff at a track where we are all fighting tremendous wheelspin and the 1.6 is not. 

 

I wasn't convinced that we had a problem before, I am certain we don't now... the cars will never be the same but they are all very close. Pull the plate and go to 2400 already on the 1.8 and call it good for awhile.  Its time to just drive the dam cars!

 

I think it is safe to say that as of now we've officially entered the off-season, parity season.  

[Steve Scheifler]

Jim, I won't bother to quote your post. What I will post after this was written before I saw yours or Eric's and is not in any way a response to those. I know where you are coming from and we have discussed it before. You can confirm that I've never said to you that the 1.6 needs a lot of help, back in the day or since we returned. However, let me correct you in a few things you said relative to us since you brought it up, then I will post separately what's waiting in my clipboard.

We actually raced very, very little with you in the old days and only here and Road America where we both had much prior experience.

My first ever National event was here, I qualified P2 next to you and ahead of Stearns, Coello, Charlie, Henry, and some others who were a bit surprised. I was punted off the track squarely from behind in T1 and came back on DFL.

My first June Sprints I was P2 next to you after Q1, ahead of a lighter field than many years but ahead of some decent drivers in better cars. I was helped off in that session and patched together a bent suspension. Having lost our tow vehicle shortly before we mooched a ride to the race but without spares. In Q2 I struggled with handling while many people improved, and you gave Mark a draft tow to pull him into P2. My Q1 lap still held up for P4. For the race I made a huge tuning mistake in a gamble to compensate somewhat for handling, and by T1 I was 10th. Thanks to attrition I think I ended up there.

Our latest time together at Gateway back then was also a poor turnout but we had Rich to run with and I have video of him leading, you second, me third. I ran with you guys lap after lap until we caught a pair of STU cars in the esses. You and Rich got through and they closed the door 2-wide on me. Game over, but not before catching lapped cars or I would have finished behind you just like Tom did this year.

Seems to me that I qualified on the Saturday pole at a regional/national event my first and only time at Hallett, ahead of you, Daniels and a lot of local talent. It was raining and I had just learned the track on Friday which was also wet. I'm sure not everyone planning to run the National was on their best rain setup and tires, but surely somebody else was actually trying? I think I had pole by a margin. No respect anymore for someone who can race in the rain let alone first time at the track? The race was to be my first dry laps ever there so I litterally waved the field by so I could try and get some laps in without getting run over.

Other than those times we rarely had occasion to run head to head with you at a track we knew well. And for sure back then we had inferior cars, largely because we adhered to a much stricter interpretation of the rules. And yet we had our moments and were typically dominant at regionals and Council events.

Point is, we WERE at least somewhat better than your impression and memory of us suggests. Tom didn't have a National licence back then, and frankly he was never inclined to push ten 10ths in those days particularly in traffic. He is better and faster today, and if anything I am slower and less consistent. At the moment I am unquestionably farther off the pace most places than I have ever been. I attribute that primarily to the fact that the field has gotten faster and much deeper. I certainly have not vaulted forward due to parity adjustments!

So here is my point, if you want to try and use us as proof that parity has dramatically improved, you've got it all wrong. I totally concede that parity is better, though more due to rules enforcement than actual parity adjustments. But you are unintentionally distorting the impact of those on our relative performance, which was better than you imply and even better than it is now.

[Steve Scheifler]

And here's what I had planned to post...

It's always funny how people see what they want or expect to see. I am not immune but I take considerable pride in making an effort to overcome the temptation, clear the fog of bias, separate facts from conjecture, and then be honest about what I see. That becomes a bit confusing because I'm often not on a particular "side" and maybe come off negative if the only thing I'm really confident of is that I haven't much confidence in the conclusions of others. So please try to keep that in mind if you bother to read on.

For sure the 1.6 is not a huge underdog, I've never said it was. In fact, I don't think I've ever said that overall it was even a significant underdog at all because too many other factors muddied the evidence. And of course short of identical platforms there will always be pros and cons, give and take. But you guys sound like partisans in the spin room after a debate, declaring success with upbeat interpretations of very scarce facts.

As with the SCCA race, I do not personally know the top 1.6 driver or car from the NASA Champs. Most people reading this don't. From what results and discussions I've followed to this point I gather that Ralle is an excellent driver and his car can't be too bad. But again as with the Runnoffs when it came down to a full race he appeared to struggle. How much is car vs driver none of us can know for certain, but he was very close at the end due only to a yellow. Perhaps Ralle would be willing to give us his assessment following an impressive season and finale. But what we have for now is that he started on row 2 and moved up briefly, but throughout the race he was giving up a second per lap or more despite running with the fastest guys. Meanwhile Mr. Ross finished behind him and it's tempting to assume that when a car finishes ahead of us it must be equal if not better, but Michael had the misfortune of starting MUCH farther back, and despite having to drive with and through a mass of slower cars his times were nearly as fast (very nice drive by the way).

Some other excellent NB cars and drivers were behind him as well and I assume not all had specific problems that limited their success, so clearly the 1.6 is very close. It has always been close to very close if everyone stuck to the rules, and the latest updates have made it more consistent on power without resorting to cheats. At a minimum I hope we all agree on that and appreciate the efforts.

So I too celebrate the relative success of those two drivers, but I can't get over how quickly people have always scoffed derisively at ANY data or stats offered to suggest that the 1.6 needed help, yet how easily they declare case-closed when one gets within a second per lap. How malleable the burden of proof.

If any of you top drivers can't climb into an equally well prepared 1.6 and turn a fast lap within one second during a race while starting/running/drafting with the leaders then something is VERY wrong.

I have no doubt that you CAN do that, absolutely. If you are with a pack the draft alone is a great equalizer for matching lap times, and not just at tracks like Road America and Atlanta. But read that statement three more times because suddenly THAT's the benchmark for done deal, case closed, definitive proof, freeze the rules for three years. To a truly objective outsider (once he gets past the fact that this class works on a different scale than most), that might seem ludicrous. The known facts of these races are no more proof of optimal parity than they are proof of the lack of it.

You guys have parity debate fatigue, I recognize it though I've never really understood it. But you can't stop the discussions, and by playing spin doctor then locking the door you will only frustrate those with an open mind and active interest in actual facts.

I would encourage everyone to contemplate a scenario such as I posed earlier. Let's say Mazda prepped 40 cars, mostly the NB variants and a few each of the NAs, all to equal prep relative to the rules. You get to drive the car of your choice at no cost all year including plenty of pre-season testing. The race series visits a good mix of tracks to bring out the strengths and weaknesses of both car and driver, and the prize payout is substantial. You get first dibs on a car, but you must make your choice now.

Perhaps I should start a poll like that and hope that everyone is thoughtful and honest. How many would join me in selecting a version I haven't actually raced simply because I really don't know, but hope it's better in a way that works for me?

[Steve Scheifler]

bahhhh.....

Care to elaborate? If not then we can only guess at what you mean.