jeffburch Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 To me, laps can be too subjective to many variables. Would skid pad data be better? jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 Good point Jeff. When RP did his testing, he took all of his driver's laps and cut them into segments. Then he took the absolute best segments and added them up to get a best theoretical lap if the driver was perfect. I think that's one way to omit some of the variables that total laptimes don't account for. Glenn's also got a good point that some cars are better in some segments than others but the difference here is that we're compairing turds to turds. Since we'll be using the daq, the skidpad would be another good addition to the testing. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 putting together "theoretical best laps" is not a good way to do it. in order to run a best "segment time" the preceeding or following segment will likely be compromised for the best segment time of the segment your looking at. if you cant run a string of laps w/in .25 to .5 of each other, work on that first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 Agreed. I intend to use 2 drivers to perform the testing and they are at this time undertermined who. I'll also be requesting input from you and others as to what drivers we use. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 i really would like to drive your car....... just not in a race enviroment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 You may remember some time ago, I offered it to you as a full time ride for '08. But you're welcome to it at anytime. I'll let you know when I set a track day to test the new set-up that's on it. It's a wholesale change but it's the set-up that's been under dicussion since last year and is believed to be harder to drive but ultimately faster than the soft set-up that was under it before. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacovini Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Sooooo....just asking...if the stiff setup determines that it's .5 seconds faster for 4 consecutive laps, but due to it's characteristics, causes a spin on lap 5 BUT the softer setup is .5 seconds slower and completes all 5 test laps... What is your conclusion? Hard or Soft Setup? (From the anaylsis thus far, the softer setup would be king because it finished ahead of the stiffer setup, no?) Not trying to stir...just trying to understand. -=- T PS- You need to establish you hypothesis and conclusions ahead of time such as "if x occurs then y is the answer....and then go out and prove or disprove it". No foregone conclusions. PS-PS- I'll throw my name in the hat for Testcar A- Soft (Been here/done this ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 I admire your intentions RB... Even with a couple of drivers, this will be tough. Tons of variables, tons of driver preference/comfort levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllZWay Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 I admire your intentions RB... Even with a couple of drivers, this will be tough. Tons of variables, tons of driver preference/comfort levels. I agree... it sounds like a fun experiment, but I am not sure you really find a conclusive answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 Todd: The testing will be done with a respectably prepped CMC SN-95 Musturd to allow us to run a with and without spacers. It will also be tested with the 900/200 baseline that most of the cars in CMC use. The stiff set-up that I'm seperately testing in my car is my choice and can't be used to build a baseline for the other 95% of the cars. Brad: We can not remove every variable, it's just impossible. However, rules changes are a necessary evil as any series progresses. I may be in the minority, but as they are necessary, I feel that making a rules change based on a well executed test that limits as many variables as possible is far better than allowing a rules change based on a pretty good hunch. For example, 50lbs gets tossed around like it means something... Does anyone know exactly what 50lbs does to a CMC Fox? I even venture to say that 50lbs might do something different in a Fox than in a 4th gen. James: I agree. Nothing conclusive could come of it. But at least we'll have evidence to put it to bed for no further discussion then. And BTW, I'm OK with that too. All I want is to find out if it's measurable and make a CORRECT change if warranted. Lord knows we don't want to make a change and look back at it as an over correction or a mistake. (oops, can I say Lord in here?) More often than not, rules are made from discussion, experience, debate, gut feeling, testing, and some believe good politic'n .... The system works great, it's gotten us to the greatest series around today. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 I too admire what you are attempting to do. But as Brad says, chassis setup is more about driver comfort (subjective) and less about a magic potion. Robert, there is a very strong possibility (and likelihood) that for every second YOU gain in a given lap, Todd, Michael, Matt, etc. will lose time with the same configuration. There are significant differences in spring/shock/sway/alignment combinations of my car, Glenn's car, James' car, Nick's car, Brady's car ... and you see how scattered we all are in a platform that is otherwise deemed near "perfect" by many here. If it's so bad ass, we should all be running up front ... but we aren't. The variable is the driver ... And that is a resounding point that many just can't seem to grasp ... wider stance for Robert might help him and 50#s might be key for Matt. And the rest are supposed to do what? Lobbying for a rules change that helps you and possibly ONLY you is not smart business. Embrace the platform you've chosen, honestly identify the short-comings of both car AND driver and work through the issues. In an ego driven environment, one is easier to come to terms with than the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 Mitch, you are absolutely correct. Well, mostly. I agree with you exept for the part where you bring in every car and every driver and every setup. Let's dumb it down from there for an example, then you tell me what you think. Take a car, any reasonably prepped CMC car. By reasonably prepped, I mean to the level of reliable and capable of reasonably consistant laps with reasonably consistant driver input. Ok, so that's 1 single car and any given car that fits the template for that matter. Now take a driver, any driver who's skill has progressed to the point where he has a chance of winning to begin with. Not a rookie that can't keep laps within a second because he doesn't posses the skill to win in any car anyway. A driver that can be fairly consistant in a reasonably prepped car should do. Now take your driver and give him a session or two to get warmed up and get enough feel for the car to drive it. Remember, he's an average driver so a couple sessions will give him a feel for the ole' girl. The next 2 sessions are full out, give it what she's got. Now repeat all sessions with 1" spacers all the way around. Compare your session sets. Are you telling me that you believe there are drivers among us that will run slower with the spacers? I'll assume NO because it defies logic and contradicts every suspension book you've read. I'll assume you're telling me that using weight to compensate for the width may not be the best answer. Then I say, OK maybe not. Do you have something in mind? I'm open. For what it's worth, I'm not dilusioned. My driving skill is average so I can't crawl into any car and turn my best lap like some of you guys can. For this reason, I don't mind not winning. I may get there one day. If you out prep me, fine, you won. If you out drive me, fine, you won. When I believe the cars are evenly matched as the statement says and I never win a race, I'll say I had fun trying. My car has never yet to this date kept me from winning a race. I also give you that. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Are you telling me that you believe there are drivers among us that will run slower with the spacers? I'll assume NO because it defies logic and contradicts every suspension book you've read. I'm saying that there are OTHER ways of achieving what a 2" wider stance or 50#s will give. I know your argument will be that those avenues are more work and/or more expensive. They were definitely both for me. But I read somewhere ... Cinch it up, brother ... Some look at tuning a chassis as a science ... others, an art. Both will get you to your goal, but down different paths. There is no right method, just methods available to us and those that aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 OK, I agree 100% with that post. However, you still didn't address the basic issue at hand. The 2 cars are otherwise the same exept that one's fenders allow more track. No tuning can be done to 1 that can't be done to the other so the end result is that the car with the narrower fenders does not fit this statement - "NASA's CMC series gives its members a place to race V-8 powered Camaros, Firebirds, and Mustangs that are evenly matched in both power and handling." Now, please stop impling that my ego is the issue here or that I want an easy fix because I'm lazy or a tight wad or that I need to grow a pair. That way, this stays civilized. Thank you. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 OK, I agree 100% with that post. However, you still didn't address the basic issue at hand. The 2 cars are otherwise the same exept that one's fenders allow more track. No tuning can be done to 1 that can't be done to the other so the end result is that the car with the narrower fenders does not fit this statement - In theory, on paper and buried inside the interweb, it sounds logical. But recall a post I made about spring rates ... stiff vs soft? I still believe the stiff rates will yield a faster lap time given a clear track. A softer rate is much more forgiving in a racing environment. One will yield a faster lap time the other will put you on the podium. Don't surprised if that axiom holds true in your scenario. Also, I don't know if track width is proportionate to wheel base. I'd have to do some research on that theory. Remember the goal ... winning races, not necessarily faster lap times. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. As far as implications go ... there are many hurdles a racer has to overcome before reaching his/her goals. Coming to terms with one's own abilities is usually the most overlooked or discounted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Robert, you realize that increasing front track width, in effect, lowers effect front spring rate. Turn in grip will increase, but it will significantly loosen the rear mid corner out. You sure that's what you are after? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Mitch, don't think he is talking about using a Fox to do the testing... and you have to admit, to only test the track width, which is the problem at hand, is a brilliant idea for gathering data... There are other problems with fox's but thats not what Boudy is talking about testing... Stay focused... Boudy, I would offer you my car to do your testing but I don't think it will be a "reasonably prepared CMC car" by the time you are ready! If it is, it's yours... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 OK, now that we're good with RB going to do some testing, here's my concern - fast guys will be fast, and slow guys will be slow, no matter the platform. BUT let me get this out of the way, there's a good chance that extra track width adds stability. Now, who do we reward/punish? All 4 major platforms (fox, 95, 3g, 4g) have different dimensions, yes? If "we" get to alter dimensions from factory spec, what's to keep someone from complaining that a 95 is longer than a fox, and that the 95 should be able to shorten to add lightness? Or wheelbase? Silly and extreme, sure, but the argument is identical - "That car has something I don't, so I want it to be competitive, since he beats me". In an unofficial comparison of lap times, Brett's Mustang and my 4th gen were within 10ths of each other at Buttonwillow. However, 1/2 the track would get me a 3 car length lead, and the tighter 1/2 brought him right back. I don't know anyone that would argue that in the tight twisty stuff that the Mustang excels. Nor that the big open tracks favor the 4gs. So if we "compensate" one limitation for one platform in one environment, can't we also then "compensate" the other platform in the opposite environment? I want my piggy GM to understeer less, but my sway bar options are limited. I'm sure 2" of additional track would help! BUT, since Nick was the champion last year, I don't have a platform to complain from. OR, I could get all the 4g guys to sandbag all year. We drive 1-2 seconds a lap slower, and get a weight allowance just before Nationals! That's be sweet! Well, actually it would be more like SCCA. The point is, the rules can't legislate talent. And some platforms will always be more equal than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudy1548534717 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 there are many hurdles a racer has to overcome before reaching his/her goals. Coming to terms with one's own abilities is usually the most overlooked or discounted. Dude, I'm there. For what it's worth, I'm not dilusioned. My driving skill is average so I can't crawl into any car and turn my best lap like some of you guys can. For this reason, I don't mind not winning. I may get there one day. If you out prep me, fine, you won. If you out drive me, fine, you won. When I believe the cars are evenly matched as the statement says and I never win a race, I'll say I had fun trying. My car has never yet to this date kept me from winning a race. I also give you that. It doesn't matter how much work or expense I or any other Fox owner dells out... No matter how fine tuned we get a setup or how good his skills may become... He will always be able to be a little faster if he had the same starting point as the SN-95 guy had. It doesn't matter what track width does to spring rate on my car because my fenders won't allow that. rb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Mitch, There are other problems with fox's but thats not what Boudy is talking about testing... Stay focused... Is there something in the ALR water that causes a total loss of comprehension? Boudreaux Cool-aid ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 It doesn't matter what track width does to spring rate on my car because my fenders won't allow that. rb Now you're just talking in circles ... Track width will fix everything ... I'm gonna test it and prove it ... calling all drivers to validate the data ... can't add spacers because the fenders won't allow it ... track width will fix everything .... You boys need to put the bong pipe down for a while ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBolt Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 rb You boys need to put the bong pipe down for a while ... Or pass it for goodness sake! JJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Yup. Have a hit of this; "Guido" has a hard setup on one end, and a soft on the other. jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 But recall a post I made about spring rates ... stiff vs soft? Who is having trouble staying focused? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacovini Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 The irony in all this is that the "stiff guys" think the "soft guys" have got it all wrong, whilst the "soft guys" will come back to racing and pass all the "stiff guys"....go figure. I guess sometimes you just have to experience some things yourself and not take the word of someone who's been there. I'm available for test car, test driver and test data if you'd like. -=- Todd "over & out" Covini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.