83 replies to this topic

[Jim Creighton]

Jesse Prather, 28th and 7 laps at 1.42 and the rest above.  I'm sure he brought a poorly prepared 1.6 to the show.

 

Bench Racer and all. I was being sarcastic when I said Jesse Prather brought an under prepared 1.6. I don't believe that for one minute. Sure, he hasn't raced SM for a while but he's a wheel man.

 

As I said, wow, one car turns 4 laps almost a second slower than the leaders and you think your done.

 

And to say that a 1.6 needs a better driver than a 1.8 or it better not get held up both just prove that the job is not finished. Parity means the state or condition of being equal, And they are a good pusher. That got Trevor Bayne nothing until Jeff Gordon crashed out and Trevor got shoved to a win at the Daytona 500. Which of you will be two laps down like Kyle Busch was and give a 1.6 the push to the win?

 

Back to the job, SMAC.  Hint--2 tenths compression ratio increase easy to get. I saw what 4 tenths did at Daytona during whistlegate weekend so I have a good idea what is now needed to finish real parity.

[FTodaro]

Jim the car Jesse was driving was not his, I met the owner at the track. You might ask him what he though about the level of that car.

[Danny Steyn]

Here are some videos that will show the relative performance differences between the the NA1.6, and NB 99 and VVT cars from this recent weekend

 

 

[Steve Scheifler]

Remind of of the rules differences at NASA? Weight/plates identical? Tires are not, and many have said that NA & NB responded differently to the SM7. I don't know, we weren't racing then.

[Danny Steyn]

Remind of of the rules differences at NASA? Weight/plates identical? Tires are not, and many have said that NA & NB responded differently to the SM7. I don't know, we weren't racing then.

Steve - NASA rules in terms of weights and plates are the same

 

Rules differences are  

• tires
• how you get you camber 

[Jesse Prather]

Hi Guys,

 

First I want to say how much fun I've had racing SM this year.  It has really juiced me back up to building this new car for EP next year.  

 

Second, I did bring an excellent car to the runoffs.  Good power and torque from what I hear from other builders.  Where I am lacking with these cars is knowledge on setup and tires.  I'm used to a car with adjustable shocks and being able to change spring rates etc.  A friend told me yesterday that because your limited in SM your in a "box" that you have to adjust inside of.  I turned my fastest lap of the week on Monday, the first day of qualifying.  I got back there in the race by pushing stupidly hard but that's all the car had with me in the seat.  I'd LOVE to see a front runners data and overlay it with mine if anyone has traqmate data in the low 41's.  I'll keep it to myself.  It was funny to be 1.2 seconds off pole and be 28th though! 

I could run 112 ish mph in the draft or when pushed.  Felt I could drive the car as good as anyone could.  I'm sure with working with one of the hot shoes in this class I could have gone faster with setup changes though.

Tried all sorts of tires during the week.  New ones were the worst but I figured they would be.  All in all, great racing and tons of fun.  

 

Thanks to everyone I raced with this year.  I won't be running SM anymore but will see you all at the track.  Building an E Prod RX7 that will hopefully blow everyone's mind!  Have a great winter!

[Jim Drago]

Hi Guys,

 

First I want to say how much fun I've had racing SM this year.  It has really juiced me back up to building this new car for EP next year.  

 

Second, I did bring an excellent car to the runoffs.  Good power and torque from what I hear from other builders.  Where I am lacking with these cars is knowledge on setup and tires.  I'm used to a car with adjustable shocks and being able to change spring rates etc.  A friend told me yesterday that because your limited in SM your in a "box" that you have to adjust inside of.  I turned my fastest lap of the week on Monday, the first day of qualifying.  I got back there in the race by pushing stupidly hard but that's all the car had with me in the seat.  I'd LOVE to see a front runners data and overlay it with mine if anyone has traqmate data in the low 41's.  I'll keep it to myself.  It was funny to be 1.2 seconds off pole and be 28th though! 

I could run 112 ish mph in the draft or when pushed.  Felt I could drive the car as good as anyone could.  I'm sure with working with one of the hot shoes in this class I could have gone faster with setup changes though.

Tried all sorts of tires during the week.  New ones were the worst but I figured they would be.  All in all, great racing and tons of fun.  

 

Thanks to everyone I raced with this year.  I won't be running SM anymore but will see you all at the track.  Building an E Prod RX7 that will hopefully blow everyone's mind!  Have a great winter!

 

Good to have you Jesse. I really thought you would be a threat. What data do you use? I have Traqmate if you like it and I know several that have aim that I could get you if you like.

Jim

[MPR22]

I'm not clear on what you are asking so I hesitate to try and answer. I believe that reality probably follows logical expectations in this case, meaning that the compromises of slightly inferior suspension geometry and slightly less flexible power make it more difficult to drive with precision and more difficult to recover from mistakes. Those seem to be consistent with comments from many who have experience in both. Personally, I don't think you have true parity when both are capable of the same perfect lap time if one is more difficult to drive or has a disadvantage at critical points. If the perfect laps are the same I'll take the one with a bit more power over slightly higher grip every time. It takes very little talent or finess to benefit from a little extra power in a momentum car, lap after lap after lap.
Does that answer your question?

It answers my question of what you understand.

On average the NA is harder to race because you have to drive it very hard to make time in the car. With that said at the very pointy end of a stacked major field every driver is driving their car, regardless of model year at the very edge. The cars are similar but not the same and once you give the 1.6 that extra little bit in power it will dominate. It won't dominate in the hands of Joe Rookie or even Walter Vetter. It will be Hille, Balanos, Haldeman, Buras, Kicera, Rolan, Drennan........, maybe even Drago.

Your first statement hinted that it required less talent to win in an NB.

We haven't proven parity and never will because the cars make time in different ways. We are not a true spec series. I have raced enough 1.6s this year and absolutely believe we have gone far enough and quite possibly too far. I have lost 1 race at TWS, while still running at the end in the last 2 years. Wins in 99 and VVT. The only car to beat me in 2 years was a 1.6. My car at the time was strong and I drove well enough to win and I had nothing for the 1.6.

[38bfast]

I looked at Maytoys data. There was no doubt that if Hille was driving his car it would be faster than his winning 99.

[38bfast]

Hi Guys,
 
First I want to say how much fun I've had racing SM this year.  It has really juiced me back up to building this new car for EP next year.  
 
Second, I did bring an excellent car to the runoffs.  Good power and torque from what I hear from other builders.  Where I am lacking with these cars is knowledge on setup and tires.  I'm used to a car with adjustable shocks and being able to change spring rates etc.  A friend told me yesterday that because your limited in SM your in a "box" that you have to adjust inside of.  I turned my fastest lap of the week on Monday, the first day of qualifying.  I got back there in the race by pushing stupidly hard but that's all the car had with me in the seat.  I'd LOVE to see a front runners data and overlay it with mine if anyone has traqmate data in the low 41's.  I'll keep it to myself.  It was funny to be 1.2 seconds off pole and be 28th though! 
I could run 112 ish mph in the draft or when pushed.  Felt I could drive the car as good as anyone could.  I'm sure with working with one of the hot shoes in this class I could have gone faster with setup changes though.
Tried all sorts of tires during the week.  New ones were the worst but I figured they would be.  All in all, great racing and tons of fun.  
 
Thanks to everyone I raced with this year.  I won't be running SM anymore but will see you all at the track.  Building an E Prod RX7 that will hopefully blow everyone's mind!  Have a great winter!

Jesse I feel bad. We missed the opertuninty to put a solo on your car to compare to the top cars

[MPR22]

One thing I would encourage is the use of data collection at all big events.  Not sure how hard it would be to throw black boxes into these cars on a moments notice and pull after the race/qual.  Data should be kept confidential but collected for analysis.  Now that would be the hard part.  

[Jim Drago]

One thing I would encourage is the use of data collection at all big events.  Not sure how hard it would be to throw black boxes into these cars on a moments notice and pull after the race/qual.  Data should be kept confidential but collected for analysis.  Now that would be the hard part.  

We did that in the past.. Even had Roger Cadell do a full data analysis report.. When the data and facts didnt meet the agenda of a few.. they didnt believe it and it was biased . Imagine that

[38bfast]

SCCA is trying to put togeater a data team.

[Ron Alan]

Sorry Ron, I have to believe that you completely misunderstand my intended point. These cars have so little power and so little forward acceleration relative to grip/traction that as drivers we do not require a lot of talent or finess in terms of power delivery. Good drivers may be on the gas earlier, harder and longer than poor ones, but we don't have to constantly modulate a delicate balance to "spend" the available grip on a combination of lateral cornering, and longitudinal acceleration that alone is sufficient to break the tires loose. Not a lot of power slides in SM unless it's raining.

So here's what I was getting at. Give a slightly higher lateral G potential to a novice driver, or just a mid-pack driver who's limit is largely the ability to maximize cornering speed, and they will have a difficult time benefitting from that gift every lap and with consistency. But give them a little more torque and they will benefit from it every lap. They may not use it quite as much per lap as someone better, but pretty close, and where they are exiting corners below the torque curve it could benefit them even more by partially masking that issue. Does that make sense?

Then let's look at two otherwise equal cars and divers. Or use Jim & Justin last weekend as an example and assume for a moment that they were pretty much dead even far a bunch of laps. If you were Jim following Justin and someone offered to give your car a small edge in either power OR handling but equal in potential lap time improvement, which would you take?

In this class, and all the more at a track known for limited passing opportunities particularly for cars that are too slow even to need brakes where faster classes do, I would absolutely take the power advantage. Just like the other example, I know that I'll benefit from the power every straight, every lap. Slightly better cornering may help me catch him a bit better in the corners but even for a good driver it takes more skill to get the most out of that *every* lap than the added power. And when a race against such equal cars comes down to a pass attempt on a relatively short straight or following the slightest mistake by the other guy, a little extra power is probably a better bet than slightly better cornering.

Sorry Jim, another long one, but you see what happens if I don't fully explain something? There seems to be a pre-disposition to assume everything I post has some negative aspect to it so when I try to be concise someone often takes it the wrong way. I'm just not doing it very well I guess.

Thanks for clarifying...I did understand but when it takes 5 paragraphs to explain one sentence maybe a little better explanation or choice of words the first time? Besides i'm just busting your balls! Bench is appreciating your efforts. You use the word power but his choice was torque...and trust me, we all get it.

 

Teasing aside and to put this all back into perspective...you cant cherry pick when it comes to parity! To somehow equal every advantage and disadvantage of each Miata version is impossible. It's a game of give and take...not equalizing. Sorry I'm preaching but this is for the newbie/casual observer. 

 

I dont think your negative...like Bench I have tons of respect for your knowledge and you guys always bring your A game of info. But we are splitting hairs to often.

 

Curious on this statement you made "I'll take the one with a bit more power over slightly higher grip every time.". 

Does the better geometry you have mentioned(NBvsNA)somewhat negate the difference in weight? Or do you believe the NA has far superior grip?

[MPR22]

Sorry Ron, I have to believe that you completely misunderstand my intended point. These cars have so little power and so little forward acceleration relative to grip/traction that as drivers we do not require a lot of talent or finess in terms of power delivery. Good drivers may be on the gas earlier, harder and longer than poor ones, but we don't have to constantly modulate a delicate balance to "spend" the available grip on a combination of lateral cornering, and longitudinal acceleration that alone is sufficient to break the tires loose. Not a lot of power slides in SM unless it's raining.

So here's what I was getting at. Give a slightly higher lateral G potential to a novice driver, or just a mid-pack driver who's limit is largely the ability to maximize cornering speed, and they will have a difficult time benefitting from that gift every lap and with consistency. But give them a little more torque and they will benefit from it every lap. They may not use it quite as much per lap as someone better, but pretty close, and where they are exiting corners below the torque curve it could benefit them even more by partially masking that issue. Does that make sense?

Then let's look at two otherwise equal cars and divers. Or use Jim & Justin last weekend as an example and assume for a moment that they were pretty much dead even far a bunch of laps. If you were Jim following Justin and someone offered to give your car a small edge in either power OR handling but equal in potential lap time improvement, which would you take?

In this class, and all the more at a track known for limited passing opportunities particularly for cars that are too slow even to need brakes where faster classes do, I would absolutely take the power advantage. Just like the other example, I know that I'll benefit from the power every straight, every lap. Slightly better cornering may help me catch him a bit better in the corners but even for a good driver it takes more skill to get the most out of that *every* lap than the added power. And when a race against such equal cars comes down to a pass attempt on a relatively short straight or following the slightest mistake by the other guy, a little extra power is probably a better bet than slightly better cornering.

Sorry Jim, another long one, but you see what happens if I don't fully explain something? There seems to be a pre-disposition to assume everything I post has some negative aspect to it so when I try to be concise someone often takes it the wrong way. I'm just not doing it very well I guess.

 

Watch this video and tell me how much more power Tyler has than the entire field at a race where the guns were out?  

 

Was it power or grip?  If its power, how much more does he have?  If its grip does that change your assertion above?   

[JRHille]

The biggest mistake at the beginning of this discussion was trying to draw conclusions based on individual lap times during a session, as if the driver wasn't a part of the equation. If the lap times throughout a session vary more than a couple tenths of a second, that data is even more useless.

We have looked at data...the cars are close if anything the 1.6 has a slight advantage at some tracks. This debate is a waste of time.

Yes they are less race-able, and yes I would rather have the torque advantage.

Edit*** sorry I was thinking of the posts made on the runoffs thread about Jason and Jesse

[Bench Racer]

We did that in the past.. Even had Roger Cadell do a full data analysis report.. When the data and facts didnt meet the agenda of a few.. they didnt believe it and it was biased . Imagine that

WOW, this is really using historical info, 2009 IRC. If my math is correct, that's 7 years ago.

 

I for one am not gong to get into this again. BUT if yer going to post the positive for the 1.6, to be transparent you should post the negative of the 1.6............................

 

Other than:

 

How much engine development has been advanced with the 1.6 since that date n 2009? And how much development has been advanced for the iterations of the 1.8 engine. 

[Jim Drago]

How much engine development has been advanced with the 1.6 since that date n 2009? And how much development has been advanced for the iterations of the 1.8 engine. 

What is this F1? The engines are the same POS 4 bangers they were 15 and 25 years ago 

[Bench Racer]

I for one am not gong to get into this again. BUT if yer going to post the positive for the 1.6, to be transparent you should post the negative of the 1.6............................

 

Come on, play nice, how about being transparent ^.

 

Being were into historical stuff, remember when you suggested my friend would be hard pressed to do well in SM. He's in 4th in TA2, minus 26 points after VIR.

[Erik Hardy]

I looked at Maytoys data. There was no doubt that if Hille was driving his car it would be faster than his winning 99.

 

This is mixed class racing, except we all have the same tire. If the speed traces on straights are equal for the 1.6 vs NB, the advantage is the 1.6... we still have to stop and turn as well. 

 

The higher the normal force, the lower the mu.....this is important as Danny hinted at...

 

The 1.6 should have a slightly lower top speed, because the weight difference is supposed to be made up in the brake zones and the corners. Our theoretical lap times would then remain the same. However, its impossible to tell these minute differences in cornering abilities via data, so we can only stare at the straight line speed data traces, arguing to death over and over...

 

Unfortunately, if the 1.6's can't hang down the straights, and late passes made deep in the brake zone must be made, the 1.6 is harder to race..But now that the 1.6 has matched the straight line speed...1.6's be Eatin Cake

 

Its uber close, but I think it went too far, one bomber driver in a 1.6 might change the mindset of many. Do it Jim

 

Anybody think the 1.8na is an overdog? Didn't think so. Insert Bones here <x>