S197 and the "unfair advantage"

[Al F.]

Chris, as I said via email, you might want to give the benefit of the doubt to NASA. This isnt NASA's first rodeo. Platform parity is and has been the name of the game in most of NASA's classes for two decades.

 

Now, I will agree with you Chris that the S197s at nationals (more than two!) were very well prepped, but only to the extent of the quality of the work. None of the cars were anywhere near the maximum of the rules IMHO. Additionally, all of them are "new". New to being track cars, or new to their drivers, or both. Anders has almost a year in his car. This was your first weekend in that car, and its first race weekend. There are drivers that have been "fine tuning" their CMC cars for ten years.

 

Even within our relatively narrow band of allowable modifications there is a lot to car development, and adjustment to tune the car to what the driver wants instead of having the driver adjust to what the car does. That takes time. In other words, the expectation is all of those S197s will continue to get faster as their owners gain the track time and experience they need.

 

To answer one question directly, yes we will make adjustments to the S197s capability for 2012. We are on track to publish the rules by the 31st of October.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Guest

[Trevor571548534737]

Does anybody actually think that NASA would just arbitrarily throw rules at this car with no data or reasoning? Even if they did, it would immediately become apparent if they went too far, and the rules would be changed accordingly. If you are going to be an early adopter, you should EXPECT that you are going to have to deal with some rule changes, ups downs, and growing pains. If you don't like it, there are decades of cars available.

[CF03GT]

Al, as I mentioned via email, we also need to give some benefit of the doubt to the drivers of these cars. This isnt my first rodeo either (I've been racing one form or the other in motorsports most of my life). And have encountered this unfair advantage thing a lot.

 

I dont agree with "well prepped" just meaning good looking cars w/ quality work. Rays car has two years of diligent testing. I know Anders has worked closely w/ Rehagan, and dont think there's much more to be had on that car either (other than him cutting some of the roll bar tubing out of his cage to make wt.). Not familiar w/ Capaldi's, but I'm assume him and his bro didnt show up with an unsorted car.

And since you brought it up (not for bragging purposes) I have shown up to new tracks (to me) in new cars (to me, none of which have been s197's) and have broke track records and won races against others with "10 years of developement". Point being.. MORE data collection needed on these cars w/ some other drivers (maybe mid to back packers or fast guys in other platforms..) behind the wheel.

 

Also, none of these (s197) cars CAN get to the extent of the current rules! Can only take out so much weight from these cars (we had to limit the amount of roll bars for the cage because of wt. issue). And No way were going to see even close to 300ft lbs of torque on these cars w/in rules.

 

Thanks for the direct answer on the rules change coming.

I wish I had a direct answer on where all this other s197 data has come from.

 

I know now that I'm just shooting in the breeze, so I'll get off my soap box now, and wait on the changes.

 

-Chris

CMC #14

[CF03GT]

double post

[CF03GT]

Does anybody actually think that NASA would just arbitrarily throw rules at this car with no data or reasoning? Even if they did, it would immediately become apparent if they went too far, and the rules would be changed accordingly. If you are going to be an early adopter, you should EXPECT that you are going to have to deal with some rule changes, ups downs, and growing pains. If you don't like it, there are decades of cars available.

 

Thats my point Trevor! Why make changes to make changes w/out enough data collection? Yes, I'm a little bit skeptical right now on NASA's reasoning.

I havent got any word on where all this testing/data has come from other than Nats.

I accept and ups, downs, changes.. As long as there is thorough testing/data/proof to do so!

 

-Chris

CMC #14

[sjoblom65]

I have seen the data from Mid Ohio, and I was somewhat shocked by what I saw. Several folks were showed the data and each was allowed to respond not knowing the responce of others. I am pretty sure the responce was the same across the board. Once again pointing to the need for an adjustment.

Nothing is finalized yet and the details will be released as soon as we work on the details. There were several ideas and I do not know what path will be taken.

 

So here is this data? What is so shocking about it?

 

We are still talking about 3 Toyo 275/40R17 hugging the road in a turn with a V8 pushing it forward right? How can the S197 be so different?

 

Since we have no aero, what else is different. Weight distibution is one of them. I know the S197 is a lot better balanced than the older chassis. Front suspension geometry is probably a little better compared to the SN95 (it better be, it's 10 year newer).

 

I'd like to see and comment on the data taken. Can't we make something available to us so we can see what you are talking about?

 

I can tell you this much, it was the tire choise at the camp race that made all the difference for me. That's my story and I'm sticking to it

[CMC#11]

Since we have no aero, what else is different. Weight distibution is one of them. I know the S197 is a lot better balanced than the older chassis. Front suspension geometry is probably a little better compared to the SN95 (it better be, it's 10 year newer).

 

I'd like to see and comment on the data taken. Can't we make something available to us so we can see what you are talking about?

 

The entire front and rear suspension is WAY better than the previous model. It is actually 25 years newer considering the comparison to the 79 Fairmont / Mustang. There were tiny changes made from the 79 - 04 Mustangs but 95% of it is the same.

 

I'd also like to see the data. If this data is what is creating changes then I think it should be public.

 

The fact is a 3500 lb car beat a bunch of 3200 lb cars, and not by a small amount. That raises quite a few eyebrows and if the data backs it up then I see it pretty hard to complain.

[CMC#11]

double post

Edited October 20, 2011 by Guest

[Glenn]

Since we have no aero, what else is different. Weight distibution is one of them. I know the S197 is a lot better balanced than the older chassis. Front suspension geometry is probably a little better compared to the SN95 (it better be, it's 10 year newer).

 

I'd like to see and comment on the data taken. Can't we make something available to us so we can see what you are talking about?

 

The entire front and rear suspension is WAY better than the previous model. It is actually 25 years newer considering the comparison to the 79 Fairmont / Mustang. There were tiny changes made from the 79 - 04 Mustangs but 95% of it is the same.

 

I'd also like to see the data. If this data is what is creating changes then I think it should be public.

 

The fact is a 3500 lb car beat a bunch of 3200 lb cars, and not by a small amount. That raises quite a few eyebrows and if the data backs it up then I see it pretty hard to complain.

 

We can't make other folks data public. We had way too many folks in a complete uproar over this a couple years ago when we said we wanted to do just that as well as post everyones dyno graph for all to see. Can't have it both ways.

Sorry.

[sjoblom65]

We can't make other folks data public. We had way too many folks in a complete uproar over this a couple years ago when we said we wanted to do just that as well as post everyones dyno graph for all to see. Can't have it both ways.

Sorry.

 

If I'm not allowed to see the data because it would be a competitive advantage, then I sure hope that no one else has seen it that is racing in the class. Glenn, are you still racing CMC, if so, you should not have seen it. If Nasa officials are activaly racing in the class and can see the data, we need to make this available to all of us. Othervise, I want to be an official for a day or two to see it.

[wastntim]

I have seen the data from Mid Ohio, and I was somewhat shocked by what I saw. Several folks were showed the data and each was allowed to respond not knowing the responce of others. I am pretty sure the responce was the same across the board. Once again pointing to the need for an adjustment.

Nothing is finalized yet and the details will be released as soon as we work on the details. There were several ideas and I do not know what path will be taken.

 

So here is this data? What is so shocking about it?

 

We are still talking about 3 Toyo 275/40R17 hugging the road in a turn with a V8 pushing it forward right? How can the S197 be so different?

 

Since we have no aero, what else is different. Weight distibution is one of them. I know the S197 is a lot better balanced than the older chassis. Front suspension geometry is probably a little better compared to the SN95 (it better be, it's 10 year newer).

 

I'd like to see and comment on the data taken. Can't we make something available to us so we can see what you are talking about?

 

I can tell you this much, it was the tire choise at the camp race that made all the difference for me. That's my story and I'm sticking to it

 

From the man who had the entire rest of the field chasing him from Day 1 of the season till the last race of the year.

[sjoblom65]

I have seen the data from Mid Ohio, and I was somewhat shocked by what I saw.

 

So what so "shocking"? You can share that much at least!

 

Is it the awesome cornering speed? That's 90% the tires used.

Is it the abiliy to slow down? That's bacause of Rehagen Racing big brake kit.

Is it accelleration? Well it's a 10K mile Ford powertrain born to race...

 

What else can it be? I don't see how the S197 can be such a superor chassi other than weight balance. It's still only the Toyo's hitting the road and the rest is setup.

 

I know braking should be really good looking at the data because it one of my best thing on my car. I think I could add another 300lbs and stop just as good. They just never fade, smell or act unreliable. I still can lock the up though (anyone see my car at RA? Now that was a lockup) so they are not perfect, but that's the limitation we have in CMC.

[Burnett]

We can't make other folks data public. We had way too many folks in a complete uproar over this a couple years ago when we said we wanted to do just that as well as post everyones dyno graph for all to see. Can't have it both ways.

Sorry.

 

I think a show of hand is in order, who wants to see ALL of the data collected? And the dyno sheets?

 

I know there is more than one engineer in the crowd.

[wastntim]

We can't make other folks data public. We had way too many folks in a complete uproar over this a couple years ago when we said we wanted to do just that as well as post everyones dyno graph for all to see. Can't have it both ways.

Sorry.

 

I think a show of hand is in order, who wants to see ALL of the data collected? And the dyno sheets?

 

I know there is more than one engineer in the crowd.

 

I think it would have to be up to the driver's of the cars whose data was collected on whether it is distributed, not the rest of us.

[BADVENM]

Rocky Mountain region has an annual dyno day for CMC/AI a few weeks before the beginning of the season.

 

We all see each others dyno numbers, graphs, charts, area under the curve, etc.

 

We even share our numbers on our NASA Rocky Mountain forum.

 

Do you want to see my dyno chart? Let me know, I'll share it with you.

[Glenn]

If I'm not allowed to see the data because it would be a competitive advantage, then I sure hope that no one else has seen it that is racing in the class. Glenn, are you still racing CMC, if so, you should not have seen it. If Nasa officials are activaly racing in the class and can see the data, we need to make this available to all of us. Othervise, I want to be an official for a day or two to see it.

 

I said nothing of a "competitive advantage". Those were your words, not mine. I only said we offered to make everything available to everyone, and some folks flipped out. So many in fact that we decided to keep all data collected between directors. This is to include any data of yours that we collect w/ our data loggers.

I am a Director and have been for a few years now. When I raced at Nat's and was selected for a post race inspection on the dyno, I was not allowed to see the dyno screen or any printouts of the dyno results. They belonged to NASA.

 

Now, I'm gonna be a little frank w/ you. Your really making this a bigger deal than it is. It has been this way for years. It will likely always be this way. For NASA to be able to have Series Officials that are anything other than racers who volunteer thier time to run the series would require NASA to charge about 3-4 times the current entry fee's. The best folks to have running the series is those who love the series, race in the series and want to see the series continue to grow - in short, folks who give a shit.

So the Directors who are also racers is just the way it is w/ NASA. I do not know of a single series w/in NASA that operates any other way. We are the ones who do the tech for series complaince. That means I see what shocks you use, the numbers on your springs, the place you fall on the power charts. I get to check your ride hieght and all that jazz. If you think I'm dong this to make me faster, your dead wrong.

Take it from someone who has traveled the path your starting to take - turn around. Don't be "that guy". I was "that guy" once (could still be) and I caused alot of problems back in the day (2005-2006).

We have done this before. It works. We will do it again one day.

[Glenn]

I have seen the data from Mid Ohio, and I was somewhat shocked by what I saw.

 

So what so "shocking"? You can share that much at least!

 

Is it the awesome cornering speed? That's 90% the tires used.

Is it the abiliy to slow down? That's bacause of Rehagen Racing big brake kit.

Is it accelleration? Well it's a 10K mile Ford powertrain born to race...

 

What else can it be? I don't see how the S197 can be such a superor chassi other than weight balance. It's still only the Toyo's hitting the road and the rest is setup.

 

I know braking should be really good looking at the data because it one of my best thing on my car. I think I could add another 300lbs and stop just as good. They just never fade, smell or act unreliable. I still can lock the up though (anyone see my car at RA? Now that was a lockup) so they are not perfect, but that's the limitation we have in CMC.

 

So your telling me that all cars legal for CMC should be on the same tire/wheel sizes, same weight, same power charts (the 3rd gen is not if you didn't know) - same everything. So w/ your line of thinking the Fox should be at 3200lbs, the SN-95 should be at 3200lbs, the SN-99 (iron or aluminum motor) should be at 3200lbs, the 4th gen LS1 should be at 3200lbs (w/ the 75lb lighter motor than the LT1 4th gen), the 3rd gen should be 3200lbs. Once there we all will be running the same lap times - right? Wait... what was that? You said no? Thats right, no. We had to make adjustments to some platforms based on data that was collected thru various means and differnt type tools to even the field. Fox has a 100lb drop. SN-95 got a 50lb drop. Cars w/ OEM aluminum engines (better F/R%'s) got a weight penalty. If LS1 4th gen ran at the same weight as LT1 4th gens, I would drop an LS1 in my CMC car in a second! Lord knows I've been looking to drop weight offmy CMC car for many years. 75lbs off would be a dream come true. But not just 75lbs, 75lbs off the nose! Boy that goes a long ways towards 50/50 F/R %'s. But we didn't slap it w/ a 75lb penalty, we gave it a 50lb penalty. Seems more than fair. I'm a GM guy and I was the one pushing for that penalty the hardest of all the Directors. Why? Because I want the platforms to be equal, even if it means I saddle my brand w/a penalty due to a motor I like 100 times more than the one I have. It is called being un-biased.

 

Now, your telling me we could add 300lbs to your car that is already 300lbs heavy and nothing will change? Then why are we having this conversation? What are you worried about?

I came to this series to test my driving ability (or lack there of). I couldn't very well do that if I was allowed to drive a TT911 w/ everyone else running Miatas could I? So if your here in CMC for the right reasons, you should be standing behind the series and its efforts to keep the platforms even w/ regards to on track performance. You may get delt a short hand for a while. As was said earlier above by another CMC'er, did you really think that you would show up w/ the first car of a newly made legal platform and not have to face adjustments as the series manages to get that cars performance in line w/ the rest of the field? Really?

[Glenn]

We can't make other folks data public. We had way too many folks in a complete uproar over this a couple years ago when we said we wanted to do just that as well as post everyones dyno graph for all to see. Can't have it both ways.

Sorry.

 

I think a show of hand is in order, who wants to see ALL of the data collected? And the dyno sheets?

 

I know there is more than one engineer in the crowd.

 

We tried this before. Everyone is either on board w/ all data being public, or it stays private. And understand my perspective..... I want all data to be public for the very reasons you guys pointed out - so it isn't only the Directors (who are racers) getting to see it. But, if anyone wants any of my data I have (and I have a good amout), just ask me and I'll email it to you. I have nothing to hide.

 

FYI - as technology improves and becomes cheaper, expect a SPEC data logger to replace the dyno. Under this idea you will be required to carry a certain brand logger at all times and present the data w/in a defined timeline post qual/race. We already have several data loggers at NASA/CMC's disposal to slap on cars at random anytime we feel there is a need. I (as a Director) have been targeted on many occation.

[Glenn]

Rocky Mountain region has an annual dyno day for CMC/AI a few weeks before the beginning of the season.

 

We all see each others dyno numbers, graphs, charts, area under the curve, etc.

 

We even share our numbers on our NASA Rocky Mountain forum.

 

Do you want to see my dyno chart? Let me know, I'll share it with you.

We also do dyno days here w/ nobody hiding any results. I also collect everyone's dyno sheets (a copy) to keep in my records. If your dyno numbers change, I need to know. The official dyno is the one on file w/ me and the numbers on your decal on your car. If they don't match - you could get a DQ.

[Glenn]

And here is public permission given to Al Fernandez (National CMC Director) to release any and all data logger/ dyno files he has on me to anyone who wants it.

[CMC#11]

What else can it be? I don't see how the S197 can be such a superor chassi other than weight balance. It's still only the Toyo's hitting the road and the rest is setup.

 

Seriously?

Are you saying that where your suspension points attach to your car (relative to the other platforms) doesn't matter? To me, that is the biggest difference b/w platforms.

 

You make it sound like the tires that touch the ground and your personal setup is what makes the difference. How about the technology that went into designing the car.

If you put your big brake kit on your SN95 from last year, do you think you would have won Nationals this year?

[CF03GT]

Our concerns are not with keeping the series equal (thats why we came CMC racing).

 

Jumping to make change is ok because we can make more changes to make up for it?? Huh?!

Why would we want to add stress and cost to the series (thats what a jump to conclusion/rule change will do for the racers).

 

Our concern, once again, is the probability of not enough data!!

 

If you cant provide the data (I'd be happy to share mine if ya got it), at least be up front and let us know when/where you got all this data from?

 

There's no s197's in Texas right? How many other s197's are out there in the nation? When/whom did you data log? Was their data as "shocking" as Anders and mine?? How about the other two s197's at Nats? Were they data logged as well? Where they shocking?

 

And yes Robert (wastntim).. with a driver as talented as Anders, you could be sure that a lot more than just your region will be chasing him around. No matter what he's driving.

No mention of Kent or Bob, also in your region? I think most will find themselves trying to chase them down as well.

 

 

 

-Chris

CMC #14

[CF03GT]

What else can it be? I don't see how the S197 can be such a superor chassi other than weight balance. It's still only the Toyo's hitting the road and the rest is setup.

 

Seriously?

Are you saying that where your suspension points attach to your car (relative to the other platforms) doesn't matter? To me, that is the biggest difference b/w platforms.

 

You make it sound like the tires that touch the ground and your personal setup is what makes the difference. How about the technology that went into designing the car.

If you put your big brake kit on your SN95 from last year, do you think you would have won Nationals this year?

 

I think so.

 

ps. I'm heading away for the weekend. Wont be back until Sun. night to respond and check on the post count

 

-Chris

CMC #14

[Trevor571548534737]

If you didn't think the sn197 was a better car why would you spend $10k to build a race car out of one?

[wastntim]

Chris:

 

I know you kept out of CMC at Road America and simply did time trials so as to not screw up year end points, which was a very considerate action I might add.

 

I am curious how were your lap times at Road America? What was your best lap? Had you been to RA before?

 

I'm interested to know what your lap times were as compared to the rest of the group. I think Anders had the fastest lap time in both races.

 

If more data logs are not available, this might be the next best data source.