Ok, fair johnny. Just don't say you are just asking when you are not just asking.
So, on the top, I may or may not run a top this year. I believe so much on the impact of weight on the car that I am still thinking that having the weight represented by the top down very low in the car may be very beneficial in the corners where aero drag is not much of a problem. And as you pointed out, out west we have some tight technical tracks we run at. Take a track like buttonwillow, these changes we are discussing to make the car better at the end of a straight isn't as big an issue as having a fantastic handling car in tricky corners. In spite of what Jim has said, I feel I can defend the inside at most of the configs we run out west quite effectively in the car right now. I also said awhile ago when discussing the top that I like running without a top. But just because I may hinder myself just because I might like something, doesn't mean that I don't care about everything else. I am a believer in the give and take of things. Dave Wheeler can be right and I can be right at the same time.
Maybe at the big tracks he is driving, the aero affect is a bigger concern than weight distribution and he sees a 2 second difference in running the top. Maybe at buttonwillow having a great handling car is worth more than an aero clean car. I am also exploring ideas where I recover some of the aero advantage of the top without running the top. For instance, can I run some of my gauges, warning lights, and switches on a panel that is overhead and mounted to the rollcage? 
I haven't done a deep dive into the rules about ancillary aero advantages of things like this but at least I am thinking like my muse Mike Collins thinks on stuff like this. I can't wait for Bench to get hold of that one.
Here is my experience so far with the top. Running with Becker at the Championship in his NA 1.8 , I did not notice what would be a 2 second disadvantage to Brett at the end of the long 5th gear back straight. If I was behind him I could pop out and contest the inside. If I was leading, he could pop out and contest the inside at aprox the same location as I could. Why is that? I think that I am aero disadvantage so we should see a difference in when we each could contest the inside. However, I am suggesting that with my weight low in the car, I could come out of phil hill in much better shape than he could and be on the gas sooner. Going over phil hill puts the car in all kinds of orientation changes. A low CG car is going to handle that better. And at the end of the day, his aero advantage nullified my handling advantage and we were equal........but not the same. This isn't scientific. just my feelings, thoughts, and anecdotal experience. The difference though is , that I am not imposing my view on others. I am not affecting peoples chances to win by my behavior. I am affecting me and therefore I can be less than scientific in my analysis if I want. Not only that, I am of the belief that limited testing done on the same day at the same track on the same tires , ETC, can be very suspect. You know as well as I do as well as Drago knows as well as Wheeler knows that the track can significantly move away from you during the course of a day ( or come to you). I can go out and lay down some reference laps, come in, make a change, and just the changing track conditions will impact the results. Limited anecdotal testing is not adequate to judge the very fine problems being discussed with the deficiencies of a car that is thought only to need a little benefit. It takes long term tracking of the issue and specific data collection to look at something so fine. And because it takes a long term to do that, I oppose a complex solution to the problem that contains a definite negative affect on the car of adding weight. I am in favor of a guaranteed but moderate improvement of opening the RP up a little bit. No one has disagreed that we couldn't have done that and no one has pushed back on the suggestion that we didn't do it because of $45. Of course I could work this long term data tracking and testing program and then return with all of that to you guys if I wanted to. But I don't. It is expensive and time consuming to do so. And I shouldn't have to. The responsibility to do so should have been on the ones requesting the change in the first place. But even in lieu of that I have made the same suggestion many many times now: open the plate and give a guaranteed improvement and I would be happy to accept that and sit back for a year or more and see how it goes with anecdotal observations from self interested drivers that only fight to improve their own situation, and that have notoriously bad recollection of their personal performance on the track. I actually agree with Rob. We should have been working on the heat soak issue. We could have applied a lot of the processes Bench used in proving it. We could have solved that without taking away from the car or without a goal of making it a NB. Equal does not mean the same and nor do I ever want it to be. Equal just means that we can be competitive, even though how we achieve that competitiveness may be different. IE HP vs handling . Women are equal but I propose that most of the men here on this site do not want them to be the same as a man.
As far as Xav goes. No , I haven't spoken to him. Nor will it matter. It is my belief he adopted this because the SMAC adopted it and he will get rid of it when and if the SMAC gets rid of it. If SCCA reduces to 2375, so will he. Xav isn't waiting around for data from me.......or rob, IMO. He is waiting for SCCA drivers to provide the data. And , if Xav found any value in my arguments about process, he could reach out to me or comment here. Me by myself...... I can't change anything. In conjunction with you guys, we could change this. My goal is to convince you guys that weight is not a good thing and that the cars don't have to be identical in order for them to be competitive. I also would like to have considered that maybe the 99 NB isn't the gold standard in handling and performance. Ive seen some wicked fast NA 1.6 on our tracks. They punish you big time for making a mistake, but so what. I still suggest that Rob will miss his NA 1.8 once he stops trying to make it like a 99 and just goes and builds his 99. It took me all of one day in the 99 to want to jump back in my 97. I love my car the way it is guys. And I feel I am going to miss it when I have to load all that ballast into the car. That is the source of my "hysteria". I just like my car the way it is and have never felt that the car was what was keeping it off the podium. It was me. Just like you guys have said all along. When it comes to weight: pick a weight where an average guy can build an average car and set that as your weight, then stay away from looking at weight if you need to make improvements and only use weight to reign in over performing cars. Weight is a punishment, a performance de-enhancer. There are a plethora of items that can be looked at to improve a car where you wouldn't have to then look at rebalancing the weight to compensate for going to far. Small things that can be done in small incremental ways where this discussion would not need to be taking place. Where a guy doesn't have to be hamstrung for an entire year while we "just drive it and see". Removing the engine mount cups for example. Again lowering that CG just a bit and making the car handle just a tad bit better. Better handling equals speed everywhere, just like Chapman said. Chapmans philosophies translate to all platforms regardless of Jims comment of Chapman never running SM. If Chapman were looking at improving one of our cars he would be looking at what to throw away, not what to bolt on. His engineering prowess matches all here I would suggest. Maybe he took it all too far though and his judgement wasn't as good as his engineering.
Yes Johnny I have gone outside of the concern of process and commented on other things. But there is still a hierarchy of concerns. At the top is process. Next, in lieu of process, do no harm and only add known enhancers. Below that, well just wing it I guess. Hey I got an idea. To improve the 1.6 and the NA 1.8 all in one foul swoop, why don't we add 50 lbs to the 99? That is absolutely just as valid a way to do it but you guys would be "hysterical" over that.
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
Report
