Jump to content
esr

ST4 SUGGESTED RULE CHANGES FOR 2018

Recommended Posts

NorcalTT
I personally think 6 data points is too many, BUT my only real advice is to figure out a system and lock it down FOREVER. As an racer, instructor, and Dynojet owner, yearly makeovers is doing nothing for the sport. I've still yet to have a competitor come to my dyno that understood the averaging process properly, and I don't think most random Dyno shop are going to do the math for the racer!!

 

Care to elaborate on why it's to many? Why shouldn't we measure all the power being used by a competitor?

 

In my experience people don't understand the rules completely only when they haven't read the rules completely. It's pretty straight forward I can sum it up in a sentence. Find peak power, then find the next 5 highest HP reading's in 500 RPM steps from that point above or below, add up and divide by 6.

 

Now adding torque will certainly increase complexity, you'll potentially have to do that once more with your torque numbers. All of this only takes a few minutes, and it's worth getting it right to keep the class strong for years.

 

ST is still a developing series, data still needs to be gathered. We had great data demonstrated at NASA Champs this last weekend. I was watching the Corvette especially, but also the turbo Miata just kill there competitors out of the corners. What did they have that the smaller displacement NA cars didn't? A butt load of torque. Just look at the lap times of the cars, it tells the tail.

 

 

If you ask why it is too many, you are not reading the rules closely enough to understand how to use them to your advantage.

 

As for corner exit, I have driven everything from motorcycles to 4 bangers to whomping V8s. Heck, I raced a Honda Challenge car for five hours at Sebring two weeks ago in preparation of racing my Corvette there next week. Corner exit has everything to do with mechanical grip and gearing. I can promise you, per the data, that my Vette is ALWAYS at an rpm where my HP is greater than my TQ. If I fall that low in the rpm band, then I am in too high of a gear and I need to downshift for the gearing advantage not the torque advantage.

 

 

 

Kevin

"not a believer that torque is the end-all"

 

While it may not be the end all, you cannot argue that if you had the choice, you would not choose more over less. We are trying to create parity, not create rules for the Smoky Yunick's of the world to exploit. Review this video of the ST4 race start and try to explain how torque doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zigspeed10

The quoted post below was from a few years ago but I wanted to copy it here.

 

HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252

Note that at 5252 RPM, torque and HP are equal. At any RPM below 5252, the value of torque is greater than the value of HP; Above 5252 RPM, the value of torque is less than the value of HP. Here is a website with more info if you still don't understand. http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/power_and_torque.htm

 

 

There is a lot of misunderstanding going on in this discussion about torque and horsepower. I will use your numbers posted above as an illustration to show that horsepower is what matters. I will assume a car traveling at 50 mph with a final drive ratio of 3.42 and a 25.5 inch tall tire.

 

Using your example of 300 HP at 3000 rpm = 525 Tq and using the assumptions above would require a transmission gear ratio of 1.33 to achieve 50 mph.

 

Using your example of 300 HP at 11,000 rpm = 143.2 Tq and using the same assumptions above would require a transmission gear ratio of 4.88 to achieve the same 50 mph.

 

Now lets calculate the torque at the output shaft of the transmission.

525 Tq * 1.33(trans gear ratio) = 698 Tq

143.2 Tq * 4.88(trans gear ratio) = 698 Tq

 

Amazingly they are the same torque at the output shaft of the trans, both of these examples would accelerate the exact same. The reason is because they have the same horsepower even though the torque is vastly different. Horsepower takes into account the torque multiplication you can get through gearing and that is why we use horsepower as the unit of measure in determining a pw/wt class.

 

If the rules were changed to penalize having more torque than horsepower, all we would do is build higher reving engines to get around the penalty. We would achieve the same horsepower but at a higher rpm and this would raise the cost to be competitive.

 

I have to admit that I was once a believer in big torque meaning more acceleration but someone smarter than me properly explained it the right way using science and not beliefs.

 

At the end of the day horsepower is king and is the unit of measure that matters when discussing how a car accelerates.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brkntrxn

 

While it may not be the end all, you cannot argue that if you had the choice, you would not choose more over less. We are trying to create parity, not create rules for the Smoky Yunick's of the world to exploit. Review this video of the ST4 race start and try to explain how torque doesn't matter.

 

No, I would choose the car that has the gearing advantage with relation to it's horsepower curve and race weight. See David (Ziggy's) reply above.

 

An ST3 Thunder Roadster accelerates at the exact same race as my ST3 Corvette. Huge difference in gearing, torque, and horsepower curves -- but at the same hp:wt ratio. I have the video to prove it:

 

At a longer track, the lower hp, lower weight car will hit an aero wall in the 130mph zone while my higher horsepower, higher weight car will not hit its aero wall until about 165mph or so.

 

 

 

-Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorcalTT

"Using your example of 300 HP at 3000 rpm = 525 Tq and using the assumptions above would require a transmission gear ratio of 1.33 to achieve 50 mph.

 

Using your example of 300 HP at 11,000 rpm = 143.2 Tq and using the same assumptions above would require a transmission gear ratio of 4.88 to achieve the same 50 mph."

 

I think what this example shows is that in order for a car with less torque to accelerate at the same rate as one with more, the car with less is forced to run at almost 4x(RPM) in order to be equal. While the S2000's and other smaller bore cars can run at higher RPMs to get closer, forcing them to do so by not accounting for torque handicaps their reliability at minimum. It cannot be argued that a motor will run/last/not overheat much longer if not forced to run for extended lengths at higher RPMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esr

Here in NORCAL i doubt we go over 130 mph very often in st4.

 

daytona maybe a different story

 

 

 

 

While it may not be the end all, you cannot argue that if you had the choice, you would not choose more over less. We are trying to create parity, not create rules for the Smoky Yunick's of the world to exploit. Review this video of the ST4 race start and try to explain how torque doesn't matter.

 

No, I would choose the car that has the gearing advantage with relation to it's horsepower curve and race weight. See David (Ziggy's) reply above.

 

An ST3 Thunder Roadster accelerates at the exact same race as my ST3 Corvette. Huge difference in gearing, torque, and horsepower curves -- but at the same hp:wt ratio. I have the video to prove it:

 

At a longer track, the lower hp, lower weight car will hit an aero wall in the 130mph zone while my higher horsepower, higher weight car will not hit its aero wall until about 165mph or so.

 

 

 

-Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esr

ok guys should we start a new tread to talk about how we slow down turbo miatas and v8 vettes? is pretty clear they have a visual advantage coming out of corners.

 

this we know so we should get to work on it, otherwise we are gonna spend the whole winter coming up with a magic formula that may not exist!

 

this should be over and above the talk of tire size and power to weight for the rest more normal cars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brkntrxn
ok guys should we start a new tread to talk about how we slow down turbo miatas and v8 vettes? is pretty clear they have a visual advantage coming out of corners.

 

this we know so we should get to work on it, otherwise we are gonna spend the whole winter coming up with a magic formula that may not exist!

 

this should be over and above the talk of tire size and power to weight for the rest more normal cars!

 

 

Are you serious? Or joking?

 

And how is a forced induction Miata or a Corvette not a “normal car”?

 

Two different car platforms SHOULD have areas of the track in which they are better than the other. A low hp, low weight car should brake a shorter distance and corner faster than a heavier, higher hp car. In addition, the low weight car should still have more brake and more tire at the end of the race.

 

Please keep ALL factors of racing involved and do not make knee jerk suggestions based on one corner exit at one track at one event in the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arca_ex
ok guys should we start a new tread to talk about how we slow down turbo miatas and v8 vettes? is pretty clear they have a visual advantage coming out of corners.

 

this we know so we should get to work on it, otherwise we are gonna spend the whole winter coming up with a magic formula that may not exist!

 

this should be over and above the talk of tire size and power to weight for the rest more normal cars!

 

 

Wow not this again... give it a rest dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esr

I am just asking for someone else concern to be dealt with sooner than later, he was convincing, I am sold!

 

 

 

 

ok guys should we start a new tread to talk about how we slow down turbo miatas and v8 vettes? is pretty clear they have a visual advantage coming out of corners.

 

this we know so we should get to work on it, otherwise we are gonna spend the whole winter coming up with a magic formula that may not exist!

 

this should be over and above the talk of tire size and power to weight for the rest more normal cars!

 

 

Wow not this again... give it a rest dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esr

[

I am just asking for someone else concern to be dealt with sooner than later, he was convincing, I am sold!

 

quote=brkntrxn]

ok guys should we start a new tread to talk about how we slow down turbo miatas and v8 vettes? is pretty clear they have a visual advantage coming out of corners.

 

this we know so we should get to work on it, otherwise we are gonna spend the whole winter coming up with a magic formula that may not exist!

 

this should be over and above the talk of tire size and power to weight for the rest more normal cars!

 

 

Are you serious? Or joking?

 

And how is a forced induction Miata or a Corvette not a “normal car”?

 

Two different car platforms SHOULD have areas of the track in which they are better than the other. A low hp, low weight car should brake a shorter distance and corner faster than a heavier, higher hp car. In addition, the low weight car should still have more brake and more tire at the end of the race.

 

Please keep ALL factors of racing involved and do not make knee jerk suggestions based on one corner exit at one track at one event in the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorcalTT

"Please keep ALL factors of racing involved and do not make knee jerk suggestions based on one corner exit at one track at one event in the nation."

 

It's not about corner exit. If the data was showing that the cars were coming off the corners faster, then a higher speed down the straights could be attributed to driver or setup. In these cases, the data shows an outright acceleration advantage irrespective of corner exit. If torque doesn't matter, why so adamant about not including it in a calculation similar to what is done in GTS?

 

"The following table shall be used to determine each car’s base minimum weight when multiplied

by the engine’s average horsepower or Peak TQ multiplied by .9, whichever is higher - in case

Peak TQ is even or higher than Average HP - the Minimum Weight will be determined by Peak

TQ ratios"

 

https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/document/document/4372/2017GTSRulesFINAL.pdf

 

While this one was only one event, it contained a great sampling of different cars, drivers and data from across the western states. As there was also a dyno, compliance checks, and AIM boxes installed in certain cars, it should provide a fair representation of what is really happening. Perhaps after the Eastern States, there will be further data with which a fair decision can be made. It was very clear to anyone watching those races, that irrespective of how great a driver the Corvette had piloting it, there was a clear advantage given to it by the current set of rules. Not faulting him for taking advantage of that, but it should be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Schotz

 

https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/document/document/4372/2017GTSRulesFINAL.pdf

 

While this one was only one event, it contained a great sampling of different cars, drivers and data from across the western states. As there was also a dyno, compliance checks, and AIM boxes installed in certain cars, it should provide a fair representation of what is really happening. Perhaps after the Eastern States, there will be further data with which a fair decision can be made. It was very clear to anyone watching those races, that irrespective of how great a driver the Corvette had piloting it, there was a clear advantage given to it by the current set of rules. Not faulting him for taking advantage of that, but it should be addressed.

 

I was glad to see the data in all the cars, I'm a huge fan of this... and think it also helps eliminate the 'dyno discrepancy'... as you can very clearly control 'car exit speed and trap speeds' from point a to point b and see if the difference is 'hp' or if it's 'mechanical grip'.

 

I'm happy to drive another car, and show the difference a driver can make. I think it's comical chasing 'hp' and 'tq' ratings as the reason a car wins. I took a TTC/PTC car, and brought it 'up' to TT4/ST4... and I was getting beat locally, consistently by Austin (who brought a TTB/PTB car, down to TT4/ST4)... Aero was/is the Difference in ST. Period.

 

You saw two cars, prepped to the national level, racing other cars that (in my opinion) were not. ST4 is a new class, and Austin & I have been duking it out locally every month since January, evolving our cars, and fighting for hundredths against one another each weekend. And I could not beat him locally with all that aero. I tried everything, lexan rear window, carbon fiber hood, didn't matter... no aero, no additional grip. It's that simple. Austin and I were on stickered tires almost every session, at the championships (including the race) I didn't notice that on the other cars.

 

Austin's Miata, and my Corvette had considerably more Aero than any of the other cars... we didn't make passes with straight line speeds... if you watch the race, most of our passes were on the inside and outside of corners. Due to our cars having considerably more mechanical grip. Not TQ, not HP... we all dyno'd within the HP to weight ratio... his car a turbo 4, mine a N/A v8.

 

While I don't think I have to defend my experience and track record, I also have multiple 25 hour races at Thunderhill, the track is much faster than people realize (from a cornering speed perspective).

 

IMO, The E36 is probably one of the best cars for the class, it's chassis is a proven one and I've been beaten by them before, I'm confident they will continue to get quicker.

 

Regardless, rules are meant to evolve, but I agree with many of the other people on here... if you go after torque... than everyone builds 7K RPM motors and gear the cars. You have Porsches/BMW's/Corvettes in ST1-ST3 all battling it out with significant different power bands.

 

Best Regards,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davidfarmer

HP is just torque x speed, they are, and forever will be, connected at the hip. If you have the same HP at twice the rpm, yes you have half the torque at that point, BUT you at doing half as much work twice as fast. It's the power curve over the usable range that matters.

 

I did this over the winter, it's an ST3 spec Corvette, Mustang, and Thunder Roadster. The weight, RPM, and power are all over the place.

 

This is corrected for actual DYNOJET acceleration corrected for weight and wheel speed. THis is an exact representation of their relative acceleration.

 

If you think 700 ft-lb corvettes, vipers, whatever, are lugging their cars around at 2500rpm, you are wrong. We are wringing them to redline just like everyone else, as the torque (acceleration) at the WHEEL is higher in a lower gear/higher rpm.

 

UWvdOHzl_KkII8Z7CiMHAy_0zKqxuNuNCtnZrwFvb2g?dl=0&size=2048x1536&size_mode=3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorcalTT

 

https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/document/document/4372/2017GTSRulesFINAL.pdf

 

While this one was only one event, it contained a great sampling of different cars, drivers and data from across the western states. As there was also a dyno, compliance checks, and AIM boxes installed in certain cars, it should provide a fair representation of what is really happening. Perhaps after the Eastern States, there will be further data with which a fair decision can be made. It was very clear to anyone watching those races, that irrespective of how great a driver the Corvette had piloting it, there was a clear advantage given to it by the current set of rules. Not faulting him for taking advantage of that, but it should be addressed.

 

I was glad to see the data in all the cars, I'm a huge fan of this... and think it also helps eliminate the 'dyno discrepancy'... as you can very clearly control 'car exit speed and trap speeds' from point a to point b and see if the difference is 'hp' or if it's 'mechanical grip'.

 

I'm happy to drive another car, and show the difference a driver can make. I think it's comical chasing 'hp' and 'tq' ratings as the reason a car wins. I took a TTC/PTC car, and brought it 'up' to TT4/ST4... and I was getting beat locally, consistently by Austin (who brought a TTB/PTB car, down to TT4/ST4)... Aero was/is the Difference in ST. Period.

 

You saw two cars, prepped to the national level, racing other cars that (in my opinion) were not. ST4 is a new class, and Austin & I have been duking it out locally every month since January, evolving our cars, and fighting for hundredths against one another each weekend. And I could not beat him locally with all that aero. I tried everything, lexan rear window, carbon fiber hood, didn't matter... no aero, no additional grip. It's that simple. Austin and I were on stickered tires almost every session, at the championships (including the race) I didn't notice that on the other cars.

 

Austin's Miata, and my Corvette had considerably more Aero than any of the other cars... we didn't make passes with straight line speeds... if you watch the race, most of our passes were on the inside and outside of corners. Due to our cars having considerably more mechanical grip. Not TQ, not HP... we all dyno'd within the HP to weight ratio... his car a turbo 4, mine a N/A v8.

 

While I don't think I have to defend my experience and track record, I also have multiple 25 hour races at Thunderhill, the track is much faster than people realize (from a cornering speed perspective).

 

IMO, The E36 is probably one of the best cars for the class, it's chassis is a proven one and I've been beaten by them before, I'm confident they will continue to get quicker.

 

Regardless, rules are meant to evolve, but I agree with many of the other people on here... if you go after torque... than everyone builds 7K RPM motors and gear the cars. You have Porsches/BMW's/Corvettes in ST1-ST3 all battling it out with significant different power bands.

 

Best Regards,

Dave

 

Thanks for chiming in Dave. You are right, you don't have to defend your experience and track record and my posts by no means were intended to take anything away from your awesome record and accomplishments over the weekend. More importantly, you are a really nice/humble guy and it's super cool that you and your Dad do this together and make such a killer team. I also have no doubt that you could take any car out there and win in it. I also agree that you can't just point your finger at HP/TQ and say that's the reason a car is winning. Perhaps I just don't understand why there is such hesitation to factor it in - if for nothing else than to appease those who think more creates an unfair advantage. I'd also be curious to hear more about the aero changes that you thought made the biggest improvement or rather what you saw or didn't see on the other cars. I'm tapping out on this thread at least about TQ! Congratulations again to you Dave. DavidF - thanks for the information and calm dialog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esr

Lets face it!

With an unlimited budget you could probably make any car dominant in this type of racing with open rpm, open gearing, open shocks, etc. but since the rest of us are fairly normal planet earth residents!

Question is were the miata and the vette 1 million dollars into their development, and is Dave (whose name shall remain nameless) really that much faster?

Looks like we are gonna have to be somewhat objective to what type of budgets the majority have when setting up the rules and be ok with a close encounter of the third kind every now and then and maybe even have the nats in Area 51 every so often!

 

 

https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/document/document/4372/2017GTSRulesFINAL.pdf

 

While this one was only one event, it contained a great sampling of different cars, drivers and data from across the western states. As there was also a dyno, compliance checks, and AIM boxes installed in certain cars, it should provide a fair representation of what is really happening. Perhaps after the Eastern States, there will be further data with which a fair decision can be made. It was very clear to anyone watching those races, that irrespective of how great a driver the Corvette had piloting it, there was a clear advantage given to it by the current set of rules. Not faulting him for taking advantage of that, but it should be addressed.

 

I was glad to see the data in all the cars, I'm a huge fan of this... and think it also helps eliminate the 'dyno discrepancy'... as you can very clearly control 'car exit speed and trap speeds' from point a to point b and see if the difference is 'hp' or if it's 'mechanical grip'.

 

I'm happy to drive another car, and show the difference a driver can make. I think it's comical chasing 'hp' and 'tq' ratings as the reason a car wins. I took a TTC/PTC car, and brought it 'up' to TT4/ST4... and I was getting beat locally, consistently by Austin (who brought a TTB/PTB car, down to TT4/ST4)... Aero was/is the Difference in ST. Period.

 

You saw two cars, prepped to the national level, racing other cars that (in my opinion) were not. ST4 is a new class, and Austin & I have been duking it out locally every month since January, evolving our cars, and fighting for hundredths against one another each weekend. And I could not beat him locally with all that aero. I tried everything, lexan rear window, carbon fiber hood, didn't matter... no aero, no additional grip. It's that simple. Austin and I were on stickered tires almost every session, at the championships (including the race) I didn't notice that on the other cars.

 

Austin's Miata, and my Corvette had considerably more Aero than any of the other cars... we didn't make passes with straight line speeds... if you watch the race, most of our passes were on the inside and outside of corners. Due to our cars having considerably more mechanical grip. Not TQ, not HP... we all dyno'd within the HP to weight ratio... his car a turbo 4, mine a N/A v8.

 

While I don't think I have to defend my experience and track record, I also have multiple 25 hour races at Thunderhill, the track is much faster than people realize (from a cornering speed perspective).

 

IMO, The E36 is probably one of the best cars for the class, it's chassis is a proven one and I've been beaten by them before, I'm confident they will continue to get quicker.

 

Regardless, rules are meant to evolve, but I agree with many of the other people on here... if you go after torque... than everyone builds 7K RPM motors and gear the cars. You have Porsches/BMW's/Corvettes in ST1-ST3 all battling it out with significant different power bands.

 

Best Regards,

Dave

 

Thanks for chiming in Dave. You are right, you don't have to defend your experience and track record and my posts by no means were intended to take anything away from your awesome record and accomplishments over the weekend. More importantly, you are a really nice/humble guy and it's super cool that you and your Dad do this together and make such a killer team. I also have no doubt that you could take any car out there and win in it. I also agree that you can't just point your finger at HP/TQ and say that's the reason a car is winning. Perhaps I just don't understand why there is such hesitation to factor it in - if for nothing else than to appease those who think more creates an unfair advantage. I'd also be curious to hear more about the aero changes that you thought made the biggest improvement or rather what you saw or didn't see on the other cars. I'm tapping out on this thread at least about TQ! Congratulations again to you Dave. DavidF - thanks for the information and calm dialog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clock

Not a classy response from a Champion, Dave. I don't know you from Adam, but you just gave the oldest, most patronizing racing response in the book to people who are simply talking about class balance and nothing else. No one attacked your championship, but you felt compelled to tell the rest of your competitors that you somehow have more experience, and know Thunderhill better than anyone, and that is why you were running ST3 times.

 

We have all run the 25 hours of Thunderhill multiple times dude.

 

Austin had consistent times through the weekend, and I know that those cars should be able to do that because I know good drivers who run 55s in e36s and s2000s. We also had many national level drivers in ST3 this weekend, and you were driving times in TT that should would have had you on a ST3 podium. So are you saying the entire field of ST3 drivers also doesn't know Thunderhill as well as you? Doubtful.

 

The lap charts from TT show you had more car that you were showing. I had AIM data in my car every session, mostly because I RAN every session in ST4. Where were you? Hopefully at some point there was an AIM system in YOUR car, which means NASA will have the data and get to make the right decision.

 

Most of us were under no illusion that our cars are not nationally prepped. That's why no one was talking about or contesting your championship. You car was simply being used as a data point in the overall parity discussion. You just made it about your competitors and your championship.

 

A real Champion knows to lift up the people he has bested, it makes his accomplishment even more meaningful. I know 4 people at the track who would have gone 2 seconds faster than you in your own car(and I am not being conceited and counting myself among them), based the technique I saw when you drove by me.

 

I look forward to when ST4 rulesets develops and we get more nationally prepped cars out there. I will enjoy what you will say when you are on the other side of this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpreston

A torque number by itself is totally useless when calculating a car’s acceleration potential. Torque only matters once you factor in rpm. Remember the formula for horsepower? HP = torque*RPM/5252. Horsepower is what matters, and average HP is the correct way to measure a car’s acceleration potential.

 

The old saying “HP sells cars, torque wins race” is just an oversimplification of saying that “average HP” wins races. Cars with low torque and high horsepower (say an S2000) have very peaky horsepower curves, which equates to low avg. HP compared to the peak number. Cars with high peak torque (say a Corvette) usually end up having a much more flat horsepower curve, which equates to high avg. HP compared to the peak number, and lots of “area under the curve.”

 

GTS came up with hp+tq/2 as a very simple way of estimating the avg. horsepower. It was easy for people to use, but it isn’t/wasn’t the most accurate. The current method of actually measuring average horsepower on the dyno graph (and ignoring torque altogether) is the correct way to calculate acceleration potential. We might still need to make some tweaks to the number of data points used and the rpm points, but there’s zero reason to bring torque back into the calculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erik911

I don't have anything in this fight as I am an ST3 competitior. But I would ask the basic question of what do you think the lap time delta should be between ST3 and ST4? 2 secs/3 secs...or should it be 7-8 secs? I don't know.

 

Usually between ST3 and ST2 comparing past results of similarly skilled and prepped competitors one could argue about 2 seconds between the best of the best is average (tracks, Laguna Seca, Sonoma, Buttonwillow, Thunderhill....drivers, Bill Brinkop ST2, Tony Colliccio, Tristan Littlehale, Brett Strom ST3 examples). I am usually 1.5-2 secs/lap slower than TC and Tristan on ultimate lap time as an in class ST3 competitor with basically the same car, same tires, and I have a TT3 Championship from Buttonwillow last year (Tony and Tristan didn't run in TT3 thankfully!!). So I might be 4-5 seconds slower than the next class up. But the real difference is only 2-3 seconds in relative terms. The driver's are the biggest difference.

 

If 3 seconds were the target lap time delta number between classes ST3/ST4, looking at the times below, seems like it may be about right? But maybe your argument is it should be 6-8 or more seconds?

 

Here are some of the fastest lap times at Thunderhill by class at Champs and from a prior event, all on fresh tires obviously and setup for ultimate lap time:

TT4 - Dave Schotz - 1:53.344 1991 corvette

ST3 - Brett Strom - 1:50.367 qualifying session for champs (factory Audi RS3 LM race car)

ST3 - Tony Colliccio - 1:50.895 qualifying session (8/15/16) and he believes he could go faster (e36 chassis 250hp running 10.5 lb/hp I think)

 

And I am not defending anyone, but I'm pretty sure neither Dave nor Austin have millions in their cars. If they have more than $25k in them I would be surprised.

 

Flame on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clock

I think its weird that anyone disputes the corvette has a straight line advantage. There is a video of the car passing 4 cars before the start/finish line from the back. He was the only car to change his position before start finish. That means his car is an outlier in the field, hence the parity discussion.

 

This has nothing to do with the skill of the driver, familiarity with the course, setup, braking. Those things were not in play. The skinny pedal moved the car 4 spots. It's ok if people ask why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esr

so you are basically saying that with another few grand over and above the 25k already invested in the vette and finding a pro driver or one of those guys 2 sec faster that someone mentioned, the st4 vette would be doing st3 factory audi times?

 

how much is tony coliccios car? or the audi? are they legal for st3?

what tires are they on?

 

 

I don't have anything in this fight as I am an ST3 competitior. But I would ask the basic question of what do you think the lap time delta should be between ST3 and ST4? 2 secs/3 secs...or should it be 7-8 secs? I don't know.

 

Usually between ST3 and ST2 comparing past results of similarly skilled and prepped competitors one could argue about 2 seconds between the best of the best is average (tracks, Laguna Seca, Sonoma, Buttonwillow, Thunderhill....drivers, Bill Brinkop ST2, Tony Colliccio, Tristan Littlehale, Brett Strom ST3 examples). I am usually 1.5-2 secs/lap slower than TC and Tristan on ultimate lap time as an in class ST3 competitor with basically the same car, same tires, and I have a TT3 Championship from Buttonwillow last year (Tony and Tristan didn't run in TT3 thankfully!!). So I might be 4-5 seconds slower than the next class up. But the real difference is only 2-3 seconds in relative terms. The driver's are the biggest difference.

 

If 3 seconds were the target lap time delta number between classes ST3/ST4, looking at the times below, seems like it may be about right? But maybe your argument is it should be 6-8 or more seconds?

 

Here are some of the fastest lap times at Thunderhill by class at Champs and from a prior event, all on fresh tires obviously and setup for ultimate lap time:

TT4 - Dave Schotz - 1:53.344 1991 corvette

ST3 - Brett Strom - 1:50.367 qualifying session for champs (factory Audi RS3 LM race car)

ST3 - Tony Colliccio - 1:50.895 qualifying session (8/15/16) and he believes he could go faster (e36 chassis 250hp running 10.5 lb/hp I think)

 

And I am not defending anyone, but I'm pretty sure neither Dave nor Austin have millions in their cars. If they have more than $25k in them I would be surprised.

 

Flame on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erik911
I think its weird that anyone disputes the corvette has a straight line advantage. There is a video of the car passing 4 cars before the start/finish line from the back. He was the only car to change his position before start finish. That means his car is an outlier in the field, hence the parity discussion.

 

 

I'm not disputing anything and not defending or supporting anyone. And I can appreciate the analysis to determine why one or two cars were faster than the rest of the group to try to figure out why. All I was trying to say is if you actually took those 2 cars out of the mix, are the other cars actually running as fast as the highest prepped and best driven ST4 cars possible?

 

It doesn't matter what I think, and you won't care, but I did just watch the video again out of curiousity and what I see is from an acceleration standpoint that he hung back at the beginning, anticipated (I would guess he had a spotter for the green) and used space and good timing to accelerate on the start. Maybe I am missing something, but to me he really only passes one car before T1 which was the mustang that didn't seem to get a good start, then he got even with the 944 that started one row ahead of him, he was on the inside line at that point and then closed up a lot of ground under braking into T1.

 

At the exit of T1, it looks to me as if the S2000, the Acura, the Z and the Mini all seem to actually pull away from him slightly? Maybe he didn't give full throttle? Then he brakes later and makes some tight passes on the inside of T2 and the outside of T3 due to better cornering grip/speed and positioning.

 

When he catches you guys at the front of the field going back onto the S/F straight, his speed does not appear tremendously different when you look at it. Looks like he may get a bit of a tow from the black BMW at the end, and out brakes it before T1.

 

Again, only an opinion, and we know what those are like. Maybe as someone else mentioned there will data that will be relevant to the discussion. And, for your guys sake, further the development of a a rule set that makes sense and you will feel good about. Win or Lose.

 

For ESR's benefit pretty much everyone in ST2/3 in those sessions would have run on A7s in qualifying and race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clock

so he "drafted" 6 car lengths to pass the 944 on the back straight a few turns later right? even though he slipped the rear tires and the 944 got a way better exit? Right...

 

Also, if the draft at thunderhill is worth 6 car lengths, than why didn't Jon pass me on the front straight? He was as close to me as Dave was to him. The answer is because the 100mph draft at Thunderhill is not worth that much. There was no outbraking going on, he was alongside at the start finish line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Schotz
so he "drafted" 6 car lengths to pass the 944 on the back straight a few turns later right? even though he slipped the rear tires and the 944 got a way better exit? Right...

 

Also, if the draft at thunderhill is worth 6 car lengths, than why didn't Jon pass me on the front straight? He was as close to me as Dave was to him. The answer is because the 100mph draft at Thunderhill is not worth that much. There was no outbraking going on, he was alongside at the start finish line.

 

Chris, I posted my incar of the start... We timed the green... and I made two passes from momentum... Percy's car was having challenges that day, and the other car was a very down on HP CMC mustang. Coming out of Turn 1... I got pulled by the Civic, S2000 and Mini... Interesting to thing how close Percy's car and Austin's were on Friday... when the E36 was running fine with Tony driving.

 

The 944, it's funny you think he got a better run, he went WAY wide... on the entrance of that and forced him to lift to move back over to get around the tires, giving me an easy run. I didn't gain anything on the Yellow & Black M3's on the front straight... gap stayed the same and I out broke the M3 into the corner...

 

Since you're the expert here, can you explain how all that HP & TQ in the heavier car, passed you around the outside of turn 3?

 

You can believe what you like... Austin's car beat mine all year... and I had to choose to spend money to bring my car up to his car's level... and it was by adding aero and reducing weight. I'm sorry that you feel differently, we haven't met... and I respect all competitors. Some of those towards the back of the field, also communicated with me in advance, they would give me the line at the start to help me get back to the front. It was a rough weekend, chasing down an ignition issue... and wish we could have run with everyone the entire weekend.

 

Best Regards,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esr

Hi Dave,

What is the weight of the vett with driver?

 

so he "drafted" 6 car lengths to pass the 944 on the back straight a few turns later right? even though he slipped the rear tires and the 944 got a way better exit? Right...

 

Also, if the draft at thunderhill is worth 6 car lengths, than why didn't Jon pass me on the front straight? He was as close to me as Dave was to him. The answer is because the 100mph draft at Thunderhill is not worth that much. There was no outbraking going on, he was alongside at the start finish line.

 

Chris, I posted my incar of the start... We timed the green... and I made two passes from momentum... Percy's car was having challenges that day, and the other car was a very down on HP CMC mustang. Coming out of Turn 1... I got pulled by the Civic, S2000 and Mini... Interesting to thing how close Percy's car and Austin's were on Friday... when the E36 was running fine with Tony driving.

 

The 944, it's funny you think he got a better run, he went WAY wide... on the entrance of that and forced him to lift to move back over to get around the tires, giving me an easy run. I didn't gain anything on the Yellow & Black M3's on the front straight... gap stayed the same and I out broke the M3 into the corner...

 

Since you're the expert here, can you explain how all that HP & TQ in the heavier car, passed you around the outside of turn 3?

 

You can believe what you like... Austin's car beat mine all year... and I had to choose to spend money to bring my car up to his car's level... and it was by adding aero and reducing weight. I'm sorry that you feel differently, we haven't met... and I respect all competitors. Some of those towards the back of the field, also communicated with me in advance, they would give me the line at the start to help me get back to the front. It was a rough weekend, chasing down an ignition issue... and wish we could have run with everyone the entire weekend.

 

Best Regards,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Schotz
Hi Dave,

What is the weight of the vett with driver?

 

I ended the race at 3,105.

 

Best Regards,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...