166 replies to this topic

[Jamz14]

Food for thought:

 

If the weight penalty for overbore is fair. Then the 50 lbs increase to our weight is worth not the 1st overbore, not the second overbore, not the third over bore, but about a 1/3 more than the 3rd overbore for the 1.8 . Again, this is not my opinion. Just using stuff the people in the know have put out there.

 

50 lbs sucks. 50 lbs is worth about 7 gallons of fuel. But it doesn't burn off and aint over the rear wheels.

[Tom Sager]

Food for thought:

 

If the weight penalty for overbore is fair. Then the 50 lbs increase to our weight is worth not the 1st overbore, not the second overbore, not the third over bore, but about a 1/3 more than the 3rd overbore for the 1.8 . Again, this is not my opinion. Just using stuff the people in the know have put out there.

 

50 lbs sucks. 50 lbs is worth about 7 gallons of fuel. But it doesn't burn off and aint over the rear wheels.

If the NA1.8 had been allowed to run with no plate and stay at 2350 pounds, it would be an overdog.  No way that was gonna happen.  With the added power came some weight.  I think those that race these cars (includes you and me) have to give it a go for a couple events and see what kind of results we get at the new rules.  Until then, we really can't come to a conclusion. 

[Jamz14]

Tom,

 

I have great great respect for you. With all of this I am not pushing back on you. Pushing back on the process by which things are done. With that calibration:

 

How do we know it would be an overdog with just removing the plate? From what some say, it would have only yielded a .2 to .3 decrease in lap times. What was the gap that was trying to be closed down when people said the NA 1.8 needed help? What are the dyno numbers before and after the plate removal? There were other things that could have been done that wouldn't have added any weight. We could have worked on the heat soak problems and given it the marker delete like the 1.6 . But the one advantage we did have over the 99 IMO was a very good handling car that in the right hands , handled almost as good as the 1.6 . And by good I mean good handling as I would define it, not how others have defined it in the past as a car that masked mistakes or didn't induce driver mistakes. A good handling car IMO is one where in the hands of a very good driver can be made to dance in the brake zones and out of the corner exits. Granted it may take more skill in keeping that dancing car underneath you, but that is a good handling car IMO. If true, why do we as NA 1.8 owners want to change this? And maybe a few months as an overdog is fair for the amount of time the car has been an underdog per the pros that know. I mean how much of an overdog could it have been really? Not much. And then once that was proven to be true, we could have added on 15 to 25 lbs.

 

That seems fair. But without a predetermined time and a predetermined idea of what success looks like, we very well could be saddled with a heavy under performing car for a year or more.

 

Id still rather pass people on the straights by having an amazing exit.

[Johnny D]

Are you requesting a Arbitrary period of time until it come into full effect ?

(Not to put words into your mouth.)

 

J~

[Jim Drago]

look on the bright side.. by the time we finish debating the merits of a change within the noise basically.. the actual data on the changes may be available

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Maybe if we now add 50 more pounds to all other models those guys with the 1.8s that are all sitting on mothballs somewhere will all get them back out and go racing again?

[Jamz14]

Are you requesting a Arbitrary period of time until it come into full effect ?

(Not to put words into your mouth.)

 

J~

No, I am asking for small incremental improvements when something is thought to be deficient instead of a complex multi dimensional solutions that have some negative knock on affects to it.

 

IE, a 2mm reduction in RP size. See how it goes..... adjust. At least in lieu of using sound scientific processes.

[Jamz14]

look on the bright side.. by the time we finish debating the merits of a change within the noise basically.. the actual data on the changes may be available

If it is in the noise ( which I agree with ) , you won't see it in the data (an opinion that my current profession allows me to comment on with a modicum of expertise). All of this is anecdotal in the implementation, and will be anecdotal in any pull back. There will be no empirical data that proves it either way. If there was, people wouldn't be pushing back so hard on what it was we were trying to fix and how we will know that it is. All of that would be easily had if the initial change was based on solid data points.

 

But you are right, in the years it will take debating it, we MIGHT get back "data" that would be accepted by this group. I listened to Bench debate the 1.6 for how long? And that was only probably half as long as you listened to him. Not sure this is the bright side.

[Jamz14]

Colin Chapman Quotes:

 

"To add speed, add lightness"

"adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere."

"You won't catch me driving a race car that I have built."

"The secret to a successful marriage is to not be home too much"

[Jim Drago]

jamz

I am swimming upstream here.. You have formed your opinion which is fine.  My opinion is still give it a try.. 

 

Has Colin Chapman run SM  

 

The NA ( imo mosts opinions) would die mid to end of the straight and get passed easily there. That is the worst place ( IMO) to lose as you can nothing about it. 

The changes, whether you agree with the reasoning, are happy with data and testing aside will DEFINITELY help that weak spot. The car will race better, in my mind there is no doubt. 

Again, give it a try and do the testing as you feel it should be done and submit your data and perhaps ask for a weight deduction if it is warranted. But this seems silly to debate until you have at least tried it as none of us con definitively state it will be worse or better.. 

 

I'll page speed engineer to put it is in calculator.. stand tight

[Jamz14]

I have only formed my opinion on good process and that weight (taken by itself) is not a good thing. You would agree on point two I hope.

 

It should not be in any doubt that the car with extra weight will perform worse in the braking zone and corners, with a GOAL (removing of the RP) of making it better on the straight.

 

The only open question is am I better able to defend mid straight into the brake zone. Again, my ability to defend in this situation can be addressed in two ways: One, give it more HP. Two, make it handle better and carry more speed off the corner. You have pointed out many times that a small increase in exit speed translate to a bunch of straight line speed.

 

Do any of the above statements seem wrong or naive based on no experience or that I am not qualified to have these opinions? Exactly what in the above comments makes me crazy?

[Jim Drago]

I have only formed my opinion on good process and that weight (taken by itself) is not a good thing. You would agree on point two I hope.

 

It should not be in any doubt that the car with extra weight will perform worse in the braking zone and corners, with a GOAL (removing of the RP) of making it better on the straight.

 

The only open question is am I better able to defend mid straight into the brake zone. Again, my ability to defend in this situation can be addressed in two ways: One, give it more HP. Two, make it handle better and carry more speed off the corner. You have pointed out many times that a small increase in exit speed translate to a bunch of straight line speed.

 

Do any of the above statements seem wrong or naive based on no experience or that I am not qualified to have these opinions? Exactly what in the above comments makes me crazy?

 

I never used naive I'll use passionate

 

I think perhaps using worse and better can be part of the problem.. Try substituting more similar and less similar?

1.8 cars use same brakes 94-05.. will stop the same 

1.8 uses bigger brakes than 1.6 but weighs more.. Your braking will be similar to 1.6 and identical to NB. No issue IMO

 

if the car performs more like an NB car now with added power and weight, you should NOT lose to NB cars out of the corner either. You were accelerating less weight with less power before.   Again.. give it a chance..

 

 

Your statements below I agree and are accurate...

I have only formed my opinion on good process and that weight (taken by itself) is not a good thing. You would agree on point two I hope.

 

It should not be in any doubt that the car with extra weight will perform worse in the braking zone and corners, with a GOAL (removing of the RP) of making it better on the straight.

[Bench Racer]

I listened to Bench debate the 1.6 for how long? And that was only probably half as long as you listened to him. Not sure this is the bright side.

And guess what, the ambient air and snorkel wrap gave all the 1.6er's (except Pat ) a gain way over the shuffling 25 pounds back and forth. We were to dumb at the get-go asking for more power with no data/backup support. You don't hear us grumbling anymore, correct. Some with driving talent even win a race or two. Shucks, speed engineer brought a 1.6 to the Runoffs after he built his competitive 99 car.

[Rob Burgoon]

I never used naive I'll use passionate

 

I think perhaps using worse and better can be part of the problem.. Try substituting more similar and less similar?

1.8 cars use same brakes 94-05.. will stop the same 

1.8 uses bigger brakes than 1.6 but weighs more.. Your braking will be similar to 1.6 and identical to NB. No issue IMO

 

if the car performs more like an NB car now with added power and weight, you should NOT lose to NB cars out of the corner either. You were accelerating less weight with less power before.   Again.. give it a chance..

 

 

Your statements below I agree and are accurate...

I have only formed my opinion on good process and that weight (taken by itself) is not a good thing. You would agree on point two I hope.

 

It should not be in any doubt that the car with extra weight will perform worse in the braking zone and corners, with a GOAL (removing of the RP) of making it better on the straight.

 

Hmm... I'd expect smaller brakes to have slightly shorter braking distances since the rotors weigh less.  Maybe they will degrade after a few laps, but I'd expect the 1.6 to brake a smidge harder than a 1.8, even if curb weights were equal.

 

I agree, I love the idea of making the NA8 more NB like in performance.

 

While I think James has been nearly hysterical about the weight increase, I think he has a good point about wanting more science and defining up front how to measure success.

 

I think giving 2375 a try for a year or two would be an interesting and worthwhile experiment.  If we have to do 2400 for a little while to convince folks the 1.8 isn't a monster without a plate, so be it.

 

How best to go about affordably measuring successful parity, I don't have any great ideas on that.

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Ok,ok,ok I have the solution.

We just have Justin race the NA1.8 at Mid O before you change anything so he can win and set another track record in it and then it will show that all three gens are equal and the only problem is the nut behind the wheel.

Problem solved !

[38bfast]

Justin loves to drive anyone's car. Might be able to make that experiment happen. My old 1.8 NA is getting a new Stewart power this year. I am sure the new owner would love to have Justin data on his car.

[Jim Drago]

Hmm... I'd expect smaller brakes to have slightly shorter braking distances since the rotors weigh less.  Maybe they will degrade after a few laps, but I'd expect the 1.6 to brake a smidge harder than a 1.8, even if curb weights were equal.

 

 

I think giving 2375 a try for a year or two would be an interesting and worthwhile experiment.  

 

 

1.6 brakes smaller diameter.  But the relationship between NB VS 1.6 is unchanged and has been a non issue.. It will also be a non issue in NA1.8VS 1.6, which was my only point.

 

 

I am thinking many other spec lines would find itinteresting to run there car 25lbs lighter for a year as well as a worthwhile experiment

It is what it is, Time to race the cars.

[Jamz14]

I've driven both. I prefer a na over a Nb and think making an na more like an Nb is bad.

Weight bad.

I proposed this heresy to Matt Cresci once. Ask him his thoughts after being put in the position to find out. In my naive, passionate, opinion, in the right TYPE of drivers hands, it is a better car to drive. On the right TYPE of track it is a better car to drive. The world doesn't revolve around RA. Especially for younger drivers the NA is a better car. The NA makes for better drivers. I like the fact that they can be blistering fast on a lap but it may all come undone if the driver loses patience.

These things make the car fun. You want to give it more power? Fine. But do so without changing it into an nb. I still suggest we could have simply spec a bigger plate. Who here thinks that wouldn't have worked? And it wouldn't have changed how the car handled everywhere else on the track. But the $45 was just too much for all of us.

[Rob Burgoon]

1.6 brakes smaller diameter.  

 

Sure, how does that change stopping distance?  Isn't stopping distance tire vs weight?

[Jamz14]

Jim is right though. Time to race. Me..... I'll never be a National Champion. So it won't really matter in the end.

 

Prediction...... the new weight will be 2375. At that weight and no RP, Rob will like his NA over a NB. Hell, at that weight and no RP, maybe Ill like it. And I might even save $10.00 by not having to buy a new plate and only having to buy 25lbs of weight.

 

Hysteria quieting........... The words "weight bad" softly fading into the distance.................