BADVENM Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 What data does the data logger provide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koserv Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 My 2-cents worth, which is probably worth less.... Ran against a certain new yellow Mustang all season. We spent the year splitting wins, track records, and the occasional mechanical problems, in two regions....something like 12 race weekends. The points in both regions came down to the last race of the year. Really a great season, and we had some spectacular races, most of which included a handful of other MW/GL drivers in 2-3 other platforms damn close to the pointy end of the stick. The difference between us: -In order for the Yellow Flash to pick up a couple of tenths, he needs to spend a Saturday removing the windshield washers, cup holders, heater/climate control, and perhaps some of the mass of other stuff still on the car. I thought it was very cool to get sprayed by the washers sitting on grid at Putnam (yep, fluid in them-there wiper washers), but you gotta admit, there might be a bit of "easy time" left on the table. -In order for me to pick up a few tenths, I'd have to cheat. I've spent 3 seasons developing this chassis, and there really isn't any place left in the rule book for me to pick up any time. I have a couple of winter "wish list" projects (fuel cell, reroute the exhaust), but there's nothing left that will add any lap time...other than the nut behind the wheel getting better. In fact, I'll need to pull off some of my handy work to stay legal for 2012. As driven this year, our two cars were really pretty damn close. The difference in most of the races came down to driver (Anders wins), dumb luck (my wins) or track knowledge (even split, although I'm still pissed that Anders bagged a track record at my "home" track). That being said, I have no idea what we're going to do if that crazy Swede bumps that car up against the edge of the rule book. Hell, I say we make him and Chris chain themselves together back to back and make 'em run that way next year....... I truly hope it turns out so we can have another season that comes down to the last race of the year, hopefully with 3-4 different chassis in the running. The point isn't to penalize any one chassis, the point is to make them all as equal as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68Cobra Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 OK Guys, My turn... I have driven an S197 car at the past two Nationals. I was NOT in the spot light this year. I was NEVER a threat to win either year. Adding additional penalties to my car will make me even less competitive. Last year there was an SN95 on the podium, followed by 3 F-Bodies, then Robin & me in our S197 cars. I made the podium last year by a DQ. This year, there were 2 F-Bodies in the top 4. Seems like we have pretty good parity. The 3-Valve motor is the big equalizer. it doesn't make any torque. I am already going to have to take my air dam off the front end & buy a GT nose to fit the rules next year. I will tell you that I built this car from scratch (body-in-white) and it comes very close to maximizing the rulebook. Chris and Anders were just faster than me! (so were a couple of the F-Bodies) I race Chris all year long. He's got a '99 GT. He's VERY competitive! If he spent a little money on that car, it would likely be faster than my S197 car. So don't change the rules to KILL two VERY good racers! They're GREAT drivers. I know you're going to change the aero rules next year. That will effect me. I'll have to spend some $$ to replace my California Special nose. I've already had to buy new wheels to fit the rules. I hope you let the rest of the rules ride. Change a little at a time. If you see 3 F-Bodies or 3 S197's on the podium next year, then make a more aggressive change. Seems like we're pretty even to me. If you do much to the S197's, you'll see nothing but Bow-Ties on the podium. Ford-GM-Ford, Ford-GM-GM the past two years at Nationals seems like parity to me! In talking to most of the S197 CMC driver in the country (4), if the rules changes are too much, you risk the chance of running us all off & CMC will become a Vintage Class. I don't think anyone wants that. Go slow with the rule changes. Respectfully, James Ray #68 NASA Southeast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 It has been pointed out by a Director of another region that I have offered up info that they feel I shouldnt have w/ regard to the S-197. I'll not respond to this thread anymore since being open and honest is obviously not what the other Directors want. I'll go back to letting you guys be kept in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebandit48 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Every person that I have talked to that made the switch from sn95 to s197 wishes they would have made the change sooner its that much better. Between Cmc drivers and AI drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cozog1548534733 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 OOh, OOh, my turn, my turn!!! It seems to me that the 300lb weight restriction on Anders' car seemed to make things within tenths of the other good drivers in our region (i.e. Kent & Bob). Why not just set/keep the weight for the 197's at 3500? Or maybe 3550 or 3600? That would be a relatively small/no change for them, but still keep parity amongst all the cars. I would really hate to see ANY change that makes the 197 drivers who are of championship caliber suddenly start finishing mid-pack. That's not parity. Does a fully race prepped, 3200lb S197 have an advantage over cars using 20-year old technology? It sure looks that way. Does adding 300lbs to the S197 seem to make them all very close in lap times? That seems logical too. After spending a year talking with Anders/Kent/Bob, and being lapped by all of them, I can tell you they all have incredible car control skills. Watching Anders turn over the hump in Thunder Valley, with both rears spinning, and left foot braking while accelerating, all at the same time, showed me how much talent these guys really have. Anders, Kent, Bob or Chris could have won the championship in any of their cars. As long as they had enough fuel/brakes to win. Oh, and this wasn't the first time at M-O for Chris. He was here in August in the same rental car. BTW, Kent won both GL and MW region championships this year. In his 16-year old Firebird. Over Anders' S97. Is it too late for 2012 to add a CMC rule that states any/all track data shall be made public to help gain parity in driver skill/knowledge? I know I would be a little faster seeing where Kent/Bob/Anders brake/accelerate/turn in. And I can't imagine any of them not wanting to help the rest of us slower drivers catch up. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Shaw Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 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 huh...seriously you are joking right. Anyone with half a brain can look under a S197 and see the improved chassis location and pick up points of both the front and rear suspension. I bet money that my 8 year old daughter could see the difference. kyle NASA tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I couldn't not post any more. It has been pointed out by a Director of another region that I have offered up info that they feel I shouldnt have w/ regard to the S-197. I'll not respond to this thread anymore... That's a damn shame. I've really liked the open discussions without name calling that have evolved over the past year or so. Is it too late for 2012 to add a CMC rule that states any/all track data shall be made public to help gain parity in driver skill/knowledge? I am all for that too...up to a point. Dave (BADVENM) and I discussed this yesterday. We raised a lot more questions beyond this discussion and are happy to discuss with others via other methods if anyone is inclined. So to hit a few of the highlights of our own off-line discussion... 1. Data loggers are cool, we want one to analyze our different driving styles and fine tune our driving techniques, but it's beyond our budget. We feel that going to data loggers to verify performance is going to introduce the perception that the purchase of a data logger is going to be required to be competitive. 2. Are data loggers used for determining power levels going to open the door to power tuning between sessions? Right now we already have a number of variables we can adjust to make our cars perform differently from session to session, like tire pressures, front suspension settings, fuel load contributing to overall weight and f/r weight bias, sway bars, springs, f/r brake bias, etc. For the guys who are to the point of very fine tuning their cars (not us), we feel data loggers are going to encourage the eventual allowance of tweaking variables that are currently static, like restrictor size, fuel pressure and timing in order to fine tune power output according to atmospheric variables. Is that the direction we are headed? That would be cool to have the ability to do that, but we realistically don't have the time, talent, or funds to gather, interpret, and tune based on any data gathered during a session. Therefore, we still favor the idea of keeping it cheap and simple by staying with the dyno method of power certification and all running our numbers on the same dyno on the same day under nearly identical conditions. We all vary up and down from there according to different atmospheric conditions at the different events, but they all remain the same in a relative sense and no one gains an advantage by tweaking power between sessions. 3. We are mostly in favor of sharing all the data. While we personally have no problem sharing any and all data that could ever be gathered on either one of us as drivers, or on the performance of our car, we also understand that some folks might want to keep the data pertaining to their actual driving talent, or lack thereof, a secret. In a drivers' series where the cars are being equalized and the drivers talent is what makes the difference in the finishing order, that makes perfect sense. Following that same line of thinking, it also makes perfect sense to share every bit of the "car only" data like max power level, max braking Gs, max cornering Gs, car weight, car weight bias, etc. Some drivers are more able than others to consistently dance at the edge of the performance envelope, but the max numbers that can generated should be similar for similarly equipped platforms and offer a comparison to determine parity among the platforms and also remove driver talent from the equation. What highlights did I leave out Dave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnett Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 OK careful with the half a brain shit there Kyle. You are talking about the guy that went to 2 Nasa Nationals and walked away with 2 National championships. He know who in this conversation is struggling with half a brain. The question still remains, regardless of how the parts are attached to the car, WHAT WAS IN THE DATA THAT WAS SURPRISING? It would be nice to be part of the process if you are one of the people that will be affected! Thats what the S197 guys are asking. Make the rules lets see what happens, people will race or not those are the only choices. BTW thanks Glenn for you candid input nice to have you involved. (seriously) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlingle Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 3. We are mostly in favor of sharing all the data. While we personally have no problem sharing any and all data that could ever be gathered on either one of us as drivers, or on the performance of our car, we also understand that some folks might want to keep the data pertaining to their actual driving talent, or lack thereof, a secret. In a drivers' series where the cars are being equalized and the drivers talent is what makes the difference in the finishing order, that makes perfect sense. Following that same line of thinking, it also makes perfect sense to share every bit of the "car only" data like max power level, max braking Gs, max cornering Gs, car weight, car weight bias, etc. Some drivers are more able than others to consistently dance at the edge of the performance envelope, but the max numbers that can generated should be similar for similarly equipped platforms and offer a comparison to determine parity among the platforms and also remove driver talent from the equation. I think that data outside of what would be used to verify engine performance, rules legality, etc should be the "property" of the owner. And this is coming from someone who could use some data for comparison as I have only raced twice in this my rookie season and am running in the back. That said though since the cars are pretty equal performance wise I dont think its right to force a driver to give up what may be causing them to excel. I know most guys dont mind (everyone Ive met in the Texas region will tell you practically anything you want to know) and would give any info they have to anyone but it should still be their choice to do so. My 2cents.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Den341548534727 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I have to agree with Robin on few points. 1, I too have enjoyed Glenns candid responses. It is enlightening and gives us much needed perspective of the directors and why some of the decisions are made. Lack of this comunucation only leads to speculation within the CMC community as to why things are the way they are. 2 We need to be a little more considerate of others opinions keep the attacks to a minimium. The debate and discussion is healthy for the series and is a part of making the sausage. Lets make sure it does not get out of hand like the AI board. 3 Anders is a terrific guy that you cant help but like when you meet him, and a fantastic competator, and even a better driver. He deserves all of his success and feel fortunate to have him in our region. Now if I can talk him into going to Hallett this summer. I know I am planing on it this year. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Thanks for the support guys. I'm gonna set back for a bit and see if those Directors who are disapproving of my actions will step-up and participate more than they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koserv Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 And to clarify, in case it didn't come through in my post..... My points were aimed at the car, not the drivers. I'm pretty sure Anders would be faster than me in my own car. Chris too, if he could reach the pedals. Any changes should be to bring parody to the chassis, not to penalize any current, or future (any AI guys lurking who might be thinking about coming down to play??) S197 drivers. We're not the only class wringing hands over the new 'Stang. The nice thing is, we'll get it figured out and fixed...if fixing is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjoblom65 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Now isn't Bob and Kent just the best guys!?! Not to mention all the CMC and fellow racers out there. This is really hard to try and bash something out in a forum or email thread. It's so easy to become personal. Someone interpret a word wrong or missread and something bad starts. I just hope we take it easy with any adjustment so the S197 doesn't become the new chassi nobody wants to drive in CMC. The S197 is really good for NASA I think (this is my personal opinion, so no attack please). It makes the class look modern and Ford has stepped up and throwing some money at it. Just that should make it help grow the class. If the chassi is pennalized to great, maybe we have the risk of turning people away instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllZWay Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I agree with others that information relating to rules changes should be more public, so that everyone can at least understand the reasoning behind the changes. We might not always agree with the reasong, but at least we can understand it. Hiding the information only leads to conspiracy theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 Glenn- I'm sorry to hear you're getting slack from the directors for this. Why do they feel that the racers themselves should be blindsided to any rule changes and kept in the dark? Thank you for sticking your neck out for us. Cudo's to you for it. Do hope you made the directors realize they should step up and participate more. And not fault you for your actions. You have our support. -Chris CMC#14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastntim Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Now isn't Bob and Kent just the best guys!?! Not to mention all the CMC and fellow racers out there. This is really hard to try and bash something out in a forum or email thread. It's so easy to become personal. Someone interpret a word wrong or missread and something bad starts. I just hope we take it easy with any adjustment so the S197 doesn't become the new chassi nobody wants to drive in CMC. The S197 is really good for NASA I think (this is my personal opinion, so no attack please). It makes the class look modern and Ford has stepped up and throwing some money at it. Just that should make it help grow the class. If the chassi is pennalized to great, maybe we have the risk of turning people away instead. All great points Anders. I think its great that Ford has come in with some contigency money. It only draws more attention to the class. Maybe we could petition the bankruptcy court for our Pontiac contingency program! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Glenn- I'm sorry to hear you're getting slack from the directors for this. Why do they feel that the racers themselves should be blindsided to any rule changes and kept in the dark? Thank you for sticking your neck out for us. Cudo's to you for it. Do hope you made the directors realize they should step up and participate more. And not fault you for your actions. You have our support. -Chris CMC#14 I completely agree!! I don't understand how your posts can be taken in anything but a positive way. The discussions can get tense (we are all racers and have a great amount of passion) but it has remained informative and YOU are keeping everyone in the loop. Thanks again!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Didn't read the last 3 months of conversation and really don't care to. But ... the last couple pages have made it clear that you guys just don't get it, do you? If the rules process was transparent, then there would be a level of accountability of where the series is headed and who is responsible. With everything behind the scenes no one is accountable. Look up plausible deniability ... It's not unlike our current system of politics or the SCCA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted October 24, 2011 Members Share Posted October 24, 2011 I wouldnt read too much into Glenn's comments about getting bashed. He and Adam dont see eye to eye often, and not just because Adam is short. Glenn posted here that the data he and "others" had seen was "shocking" (his choice of words to describe his reaction). Adam got mad thinking Glenn might have seen data that he himself hadnt seen and that Glenn's choice of words would be interpreted to mean non-NASA officials had seen something they shouldnt have, so he sent him an email stating as much with some rougher words. Surprisingly (not!) he and Adam got into each other a bit. I shared all of the data from Nationals with the CMC officials and NASA HQ (and nobody else). Glenn apparently was shocked. Others were pretty unsurprised. The data shows that those particular S197s in that particular weekend were able to maintain greater decel rates and cornering speeds than the cars closest to them in lap times. Both suffered in acceleration rate but made it up coming into and going through the corners. I'm not shocked. Ford Racing wasnt shocked when I commented about this to them. Anyone that has spent any time looking at race suspension design shouldnt be surprised either. Of course nothing in the rules is done with the intent of penalizing an individual! Its all about trying to ensure platform A's potential is as close as possible to platform B. Yes, there are lots of engineers out there. An I would be shocked if any of them would drop an incremental 10k on a car just for looks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 Down with Ginsberg!! Maybe we need to start an "occupy NASA" to get some results/answers!! -Chris CMC #14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 Quote from Al.. "were able to maintain greater decel rates and cornering speeds than the cars closest to them in lap times. Both suffered in acceleration rate but made it up coming into and going through the corners". Sounds more like a driver variable than a car variable. After all, isnt that where roadracing skill is made or broke (coming into corners and carrying speed through)? Thats the biggest part of the equation that seperates the good/bad/great roadracers. Where the same things noted on the other s197's? -Chris CMC #14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 I know each of you guys (directors) are doing your best to please a lot of racers. Appreciate your efforts. Really. But what I'm getting from Adams post (and other writing on the wall) is that some of the directors want to keep things to themselves.. "What the racers dont know, wont hurt them..". And "dont inform until decisions have already been made". And that some directors want to act on the "complaints" of others instead of acting on hard facts/data. And that only a select few directors really are in on the decision making. -No accountability. Dictatorship. With the buddy system thrown in. And I hope this is not the only data we are making rule changes from(?)! Also hoping my original thoughts/concerns have not all just been confirmed.. Concerns MitchnTx seems to have dialed in on some time ago.. -Chris CMC #14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Quote from Al.. "were able to maintain greater decel rates and cornering speeds than the cars closest to them in lap times. Both suffered in acceleration rate but made it up coming into and going through the corners". ............ -Chris CMC #14 W/ 300lbs removed from one of the 3 cars (or added to the 3rd gen), the data would have shown much different results such as greater acceleration and deceleration rates. Also 1 of the 3 cars was underpowered. It would have shown greater acceleration rates. Only one of the 3 was pretty much maxed out rules wise. Tire grip is the limiting factor. The variable is mechanical grip generated from the suspension design/geometry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 25, 2011 Author Share Posted October 25, 2011 Quote from Al.. "were able to maintain greater decel rates and cornering speeds than the cars closest to them in lap times. Both suffered in acceleration rate but made it up coming into and going through the corners". ............ -Chris CMC #14 W/ 300lbs removed from one of the 3 cars (or added to the 3rd gen), the data would have shown much different results such as greater acceleration and deceleration rates. Also 1 of the 3 cars was underpowered. It would have shown greater acceleration rates. Only one of the 3 was pretty much maxed out rules wise. Tire grip is the limiting factor. The variable is mechanical grip generated from the suspension design/geometry. There would have to be a Lot more variables being checked/data logged concurrent with those g rates there to rule out driver input as one of the variables (steering angle input, throttle and brake position, active corner weighting, ect.). Tire grip is the limiter as well. Were the tire temps, pressures, age of tires, depth of tread, ect. logged also during this data? Just sayin.. if your only going to use one/few test bed sessions, all variables need to be addressed (the driver is certainly one of em). -Chris CMC #14 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.