S197 and the "unfair advantage"

[mattr1548534738]

I'm a (very) novice CMC racer. I hadn't driven on a track before last February. I hadn't driven a race car until last October. I built my mustang to get track time, learn how to race, and have some fun. I've officially finished by second full race weekend and plan on doing many more next year.

 

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I do have lots of experience working with sanctioning bodies. I was the engineer that created parity in Formula F, representing Honda, for SCCA (which was no easy feat). I have contributed again for Honda in developing a gasoline engine to compete against diesels in P1 (pole at Sebring in 2009) and turbo against non turbo for P2 (a few measly points away from team championship in 2011 ILMC) within the ACO rulebook. For my shortcomings as a driver/racer I think I have a pretty good sense of what the racing stuff is all about. If I wanted to be involved with a political battle I would have stuck to my day job. That's not what I'm looking for. A few weeks ago I had a small wreck in my car on track. By the time I got finished filling out my contact report, Adam, Mike, and Don had my car pretty much straightened out. I had racers throwing me parts, advice, and insults . That's why I race. Life isn't fair. Racing isn't fair, but individuals like Adam and the rest of the racers are. I hear arguments from both sides but the amount of support I've received from Adam and the rest of the west coast group getting closer to race pace is what makes this fun for me. Don't ruin it with some rulebook bickering! I will guarantee, without a doubt, unless your name is Michael Schumacher or Simon Pagenaud you can get a few tenths (or even seconds) out of whatever chassis you're comfortable with. Data acquisition can go a long way in identifying performance deficiencies but the level of instrumentation required to get there is incredible. These cars didn't have laser ride height sensors, damper pots, torque shafts, etc. and if they did I would quit. You can make an educated guess on the parity but the proof is in the pudding: race results. I still think the rulebook for CMC is awesome.

[Al F.]

Ummm...wow. So Adam is on vacation right now, which doesnt happen very often. Makes me worry about what'll happen next time he goes on vacation.

 

Chris, since you're pretty new around here, I'll tell you a few things. There are nine regional directors that get a vote. Todd Covini is included as an advisor since he's the AI National Director, but his vote doesnt count (though I do record it). I vote as well (tenth) and ultimately decide. There are precious few times when I state something is happening instead of a simple majority vote. Most often the vote is well more polar than simple majority so its easy. THEN we send the whole thing to NASA HQ and they decide. Sometimes they dont, usually they do. Sometimes they tell us we're doing something regardless! lol Its a business, its not a democracy.

 

As far as keeping things secret, the only thing I've asked our directors regarding secrecy is that they fight in private. I expect them to argue with each other, hell I encourage it. I love a good argument! BUT I expect them to keep the bulk of that off the forum, act professionally, and once a decision is made to toe the line. (yes its toe, not tow...old mariner saying).

 

That data Adam posted is the best time of each of the three labeled cars from the nationals main race. I emailed that to the directors and NASA HQ when I returned from Mid O. Its not the only data, but those traqmate files are 34megs once compiled! too big for email.

[CF03GT]

Ummm...wow. So Adam is on vacation right now, which doesnt happen very often. Makes me worry about what'll happen next time he goes on vacation.

 

Chris, since you're pretty new around here, I'll tell you a few things. There are nine regional directors that get a vote. Todd Covini is included as an advisor since he's the AI National Director, but his vote doesnt count (though I do record it). I vote as well (tenth) and ultimately decide. There are precious few times when I state something is happening instead of a simple majority vote. Most often the vote is well more polar than simple majority so its easy. THEN we send the whole thing to NASA HQ and they decide. Sometimes they dont, usually they do. Sometimes they tell us we're doing something regardless! lol Its a business, its not a democracy.

 

As far as keeping things secret, the only thing I've asked our directors regarding secrecy is that they fight in private. I expect them to argue with each other, hell I encourage it. I love a good argument! BUT I expect them to keep the bulk of that off the forum, act professionally, and once a decision is made to toe the line. (yes its toe, not tow...old mariner saying).

 

That data Adam posted is the best time of each of the three labeled cars from the nationals main race. I emailed that to the directors and NASA HQ when I returned from Mid O. Its not the only data, but those traqmate files are 34megs once compiled! too big for email.

 

Funny your Adam comment

 

Was the SE regional director not included as part of the vote? I saw that he wasent included in any part of the 197 talks.

 

See my post above concerning my thoughts on that data sent to HQ

Whats the other data??

[Al F.]

Ok sorry guys but I had to delete Adam's long post. First of all, it included a link to some lap data and we do not have permission to post that. I've emailed Chris, Anders, and Bob about it and appologize for that slip. NASA officials know they are not to share driver data with non-officials. Drivers can share their own if they want to, officials sharing with other drivers is not ok. Second of all, it was just not the right direction to take this thread nor in the right tone. This is about S197s, not about Adam and Glenn disagreeing. As I've said, I encourage the directors to speak their minds and argue with each other, but politely and in private. Sharing the decision basis is not the same as airing your dirty laundry.

 

And for the record, officials being open and honest IS exactly what I expect. That post a bit back that started the back and forth between Gleen and Adam was completely wrong for Glenn to state that way. I know Glenn was just venting, but it comes off wrong.

 

Chris, Ed was included in all of those emails, I dont know why he wrote that he wasnt. I'll call him tomorrow. I thought the data just showed the driver is the variable, so it doesnt matter? KIDDING!

Edited October 25, 2011 by Guest

[CF03GT]

I'm a (very) novice CMC racer. I hadn't driven on a track before last February. I hadn't driven a race car until last October. I built my mustang to get track time, learn how to race, and have some fun. I've officially finished by second full race weekend and plan on doing many more next year.

 

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I do have lots of experience working with sanctioning bodies. I was the engineer that created parity in Formula F, representing Honda, for SCCA (which was no easy feat). I have contributed again for Honda in developing a gasoline engine to compete against diesels in P1 (pole at Sebring in 2009) and turbo against non turbo for P2 (a few measly points away from team championship in 2011 ILMC) within the ACO rulebook. For my shortcomings as a driver/racer I think I have a pretty good sense of what the racing stuff is all about. If I wanted to be involved with a political battle I would have stuck to my day job. That's not what I'm looking for. A few weeks ago I had a small wreck in my car on track. By the time I got finished filling out my contact report, Adam, Mike, and Don had my car pretty much straightened out. I had racers throwing me parts, advice, and insults . That's why I race. Life isn't fair. Racing isn't fair, but individuals like Adam and the rest of the racers are. I hear arguments from both sides but the amount of support I've received from Adam and the rest of the west coast group getting closer to race pace is what makes this fun for me. Don't ruin it with some rulebook bickering! I will guarantee, without a doubt, unless your name is Michael Schumacher or Simon Pagenaud you can get a few tenths (or even seconds) out of whatever chassis you're comfortable with. Data acquisition can go a long way in identifying performance deficiencies but the level of instrumentation required to get there is incredible. These cars didn't have laser ride height sensors, damper pots, torque shafts, etc. and if they did I would quit. You can make an educated guess on the parity but the proof is in the pudding: race results. I still think the rulebook for CMC is awesome.

 

Its all good Mattr. We're all bro's when it comes down to it.

This is just another way to rouse each other in competition when we cant be at the track

 

Thanks for the reinforcement on explanation on data collection depth involved. I'm with you on the proof in the pudding.

[wastntim]

Chris:

 

What was your best lap time on Saturday at Road America ? I don't know if you saw my earlier post. I know Kent was having car problems, but I'm wondering how your time compared with Bob's. I know Anders set the track record, however, I'm not sure if there was a good cmc2 time posted, as we did not run RA last year.

 

On Saturday I believe Anders ran a 2'38.802 and Bob ran a fast lap of 2'40.065. I know that Bob has been to the track many times before and Anders had never been to the track before that Saturday.

 

Again Anders is a great driver, and so is Bob, but Anders is carrying an extra 300 pounds and Bob is right on his limit.

 

Considering the weight difference between the cars and the fact that Bob has a good amount of experience at that track, it could be concluded that that the S197 may have an advantage.

 

Maybe Chris' best lap time would help with this discussion.

[CF03GT]

Chris:

 

What was your best lap time on Saturday at Road America ? I don't know if you saw my earlier post. I know Kent was having problems, but I'm wondering how your time compared with Bob. I know Anders set the track record, however, I'm not sure if there was a good cmc2 time posted as we did not run RA last year.

 

Not sure what your looking for here Robert, other than the adaptability of drivers to a new track.. (Think it's been already proven that Anders and myself are quick to adapt). I know your a lawyer and are anti s197, so hope I'm not getting bamboozeled into a trap here..

 

But I think my fastest times were in the 38.9 range.

 

It could also be concluded that Bob isnt as fast as Anders.

 

Also, as a side note. I just returned back from a race weekend at our home track here in the SE (CMP) with the new car. My fast times in the new car were 48.5. Fast time in the old car was 48.7.

[aschroeder]

I'm a (very) novice CMC racer. I hadn't driven on a track before last February. I hadn't driven a race car until last October. I built my mustang to get track time, learn how to race, and have some fun. I've officially finished by second full race weekend and plan on doing many more next year.

 

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I do have lots of experience working with sanctioning bodies. I was the engineer that created parity in Formula F, representing Honda, for SCCA (which was no easy feat). I have contributed again for Honda in developing a gasoline engine to compete against diesels in P1 (pole at Sebring in 2009) and turbo against non turbo for P2 (a few measly points away from team championship in 2011 ILMC) within the ACO rulebook. For my shortcomings as a driver/racer I think I have a pretty good sense of what the racing stuff is all about. If I wanted to be involved with a political battle I would have stuck to my day job. That's not what I'm looking for. A few weeks ago I had a small wreck in my car on track. By the time I got finished filling out my contact report, Adam, Mike, and Don had my car pretty much straightened out. I had racers throwing me parts, advice, and insults . That's why I race. Life isn't fair. Racing isn't fair, but individuals like Adam and the rest of the racers are. I hear arguments from both sides but the amount of support I've received from Adam and the rest of the west coast group getting closer to race pace is what makes this fun for me. Don't ruin it with some rulebook bickering! I will guarantee, without a doubt, unless your name is Michael Schumacher or Simon Pagenaud you can get a few tenths (or even seconds) out of whatever chassis you're comfortable with. Data acquisition can go a long way in identifying performance deficiencies but the level of instrumentation required to get there is incredible. These cars didn't have laser ride height sensors, damper pots, torque shafts, etc. and if they did I would quit. You can make an educated guess on the parity but the proof is in the pudding: race results. I still think the rulebook for CMC is awesome.

 

That's a polite way of saying another rookie driver hit you...

 

As another rookie driver who built a car to a rule set that looks like it will change for 2012 (front aero) I hope that this year's rule "silly season" is the exception, not the rule.

[FBody383]

Ok sorry guys but I had to delete Adam's long post.

And short one... I'm solidly in the "more info is better" camp.

 

Too cheap to drop the 4th gen for anything else; I just want a ruleset that keeps the racing "close enough." How close is that?

 

Close enough that any of the fast guys can win on any given day, in any condition, at any track.

 

This is CMC, institute rewards beverages and BBQ for the weekend's group, supplied by the winner.

 

And those big sumo suits so the Directors can battle it out.

[cozog1548534733]

And those big sumo suits so the Directors can battle it out.

 

+1 for Adam and Glenn in Sumo suits!

[MHISSTC]

...it could be concluded that that the S197 may have an advantage.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

I saw that deleted data. I would say the peak numbers generated may indicate an advantage based strictly on the performance of the equipment. Notice I said equipment and not platform.

 

However, in my opinion, with an admittedly extremely small data set, there was a much more clear indication that driver familiarity with his own equipment capabilities and limitations paired with the ability of the driver to consistently exercise that equipment at the outer limitis of those capabilities without exceeding them played a much bigger part in overall performance.

[CF03GT]

...it could be concluded that that the S197 may have an advantage.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

I saw that deleted data. I would say the peak numbers generated may indicate an advantage based strictly on the performance of the equipment. Notice I said equipment and not platform.

 

However, in my opinion, with an admittedly extremely small data set, there was a much more clear indication that driver familiarity with his own equipment capabilities and limitations paired with the ability of the driver to consistently exercise that equipment at the outer limitis of those capabilities without exceeding them played a much bigger part in overall performance.

 

Where's that celebratory "he gets it" "thats what I'm talking about" emoticon!

I wish I could connect my thoughts and put words down as well as some of you guys can. Damn burnt up brain cells of mine catching up..

 

Thanks for your input Scott

[wastntim]

Chris:

 

What was your best lap time on Saturday at Road America ? I don't know if you saw my earlier post. I know Kent was having problems, but I'm wondering how your time compared with Bob. I know Anders set the track record, however, I'm not sure if there was a good cmc2 time posted as we did not run RA last year.

 

Not sure what your looking for here Robert, other than the adaptability of drivers to a new track.. (Think it's been already proven that Anders and myself are quick to adapt). I know your a lawyer and are anti s197, so hope I'm not getting bamboozeled into a trap here..

 

But I think my fastest times were in the 38.9 range.

 

It could also be concluded that Bob isnt as fast as Anders.

 

Also, as a side note. I just returned back from a race weekend at our home track here in the SE (CMP) with the new car. My fast times in the new car were 48.5. Fast time in the old car was 48.7.

 

All I'm looking for is more "data". Being a grassroots series, we do not have the priveledge of having NASA sponsored test days. Nor is there a real opportunity to have a standard driver jump in a bunch of different cars to lay down a "baseline" standard. Therefore, in order to evaluate the different platforms, we must look to our next best alternative to discern if parity exists. What options do we have?

 

We have a limited amount of data from loggers and we have lap times which were performed by like-kind drivers on the same day at the same time. We then must evaluate variables that should have an effect on the data. i.e. driver capability, driver experience at the track, the car and how closely the car maximizes its potential under the current rules.

 

To me, although I'm addmitedly a novice, I look at the Road America situation like this.

 

On one hand, we have Bob Denton, a competitive racer for 10+ years all in the same car, who is undoubtedly well adept in setting up his car at a track that he has raced at many times before, in a car that most likely is utilizing all that the rules will allow.

 

On the other hand, I have Anders and you, Chris. Anders has been racing for a couple of years, I am not sure about you, but it is clear you are both great drivers, however, neither of you had been to the track before. Anders has been driving his car for one year and you have driven yours a few weekends. Anders car is substantially overweight and, as I understand it, your car is underpowered per the rules.

 

In a matter of four sessions, two of which were 20 minutes, both Anders and you, Chris were able to manage laps which were a more than a full second quicker than Bob was able to manage.

 

IMHO, this "data" could lead one to conclude that the S197's might be faster, however, this does presume that Bob would be an equal driver as either you and Anders. Now if you want to say that Bob is not as good as a driver, then you also will have to say that Bob, utilizing a car that better maximizes its potential under the rules, is still a second slower than both you and Anders.

 

I hope this explains my frame of mind.

 

P.S I am not against the S197. In fact after nationals, I seriously talked to Anders about what it would take to build one. What I am against is having unequal cars competing against one another in a spec series. Please note, however, I am not affirmatively stating the S197 is better, what I am saying is that some of the things I have seen with my own eyes would make me believe that there could be advantage.

 

P.S.S. Yes, I am an attorney and this means that I can't easily walk away from a "fight".

[sjoblom65]

...it could be concluded that that the S197 may have an advantage.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

I saw that deleted data. I would say the peak numbers generated may indicate an advantage based strictly on the performance of the equipment. Notice I said equipment and not platform.

 

However, in my opinion, with an admittedly extremely small data set, there was a much more clear indication that driver familiarity with his own equipment capabilities and limitations paired with the ability of the driver to consistently exercise that equipment at the outer limitis of those capabilities without exceeding them played a much bigger part in overall performance.

 

Where's that celebratory "he gets it" "thats what I'm talking about" emoticon!

I wish I could connect my thoughts and put words down as well as some of you guys can. Damn burnt up brain cells of mine catching up..

 

Thanks for your input Scott

 

I'm also with Scott here. He absolutly hit the nail I think.

[mitchntx1548534714]

...it could be concluded that that the S197 may have an advantage.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

I saw that deleted data. I would say the peak numbers generated may indicate an advantage based strictly on the performance of the equipment. Notice I said equipment and not platform.

 

However, in my opinion, with an admittedly extremely small data set, there was a much more clear indication that driver familiarity with his own equipment capabilities and limitations paired with the ability of the driver to consistently exercise that equipment at the outer limitis of those capabilities without exceeding them played a much bigger part in overall performance.

 

This is a true statement.

 

But if that assumption is made, then the same assumption must be allowed for the persons driving the Fox, 3rd Gen, 4th Gen, SN95, etc. platforms.

 

It's not comparing apples to apples when the assumption is driver A in Platform 1 is driving at X and everyone else is driving at X-10.

 

The problem with "parity" is that you just can't remove all the variables. CMC doesn't have a Stig to get behind the wheel of each platform to base changes to a specific platform in the name of parity.

 

It boils down to "best guesses". What the racing community HAS to do is place trust and faith in those running the show that there isn't bias.

 

And by hiding behind closed doors while discussing potential changes, it fosters an environment of mistrust.

 

Most of us are smart enough to spot a sincere attempt at keeping the rank and file informed as well as spotting a used car salesman. And there are both running this show.

[CMC#11]

Chris:

 

What was your best lap time on Saturday at Road America ? I don't know if you saw my earlier post. I know Kent was having problems, but I'm wondering how your time compared with Bob. I know Anders set the track record, however, I'm not sure if there was a good cmc2 time posted as we did not run RA last year.

 

Not sure what your looking for here Robert, other than the adaptability of drivers to a new track.. (Think it's been already proven that Anders and myself are quick to adapt). I know your a lawyer and are anti s197, so hope I'm not getting bamboozeled into a trap here..

 

But I think my fastest times were in the 38.9 range.

 

It could also be concluded that Bob isnt as fast as Anders.

 

Also, as a side note. I just returned back from a race weekend at our home track here in the SE (CMP) with the new car. My fast times in the new car were 48.5. Fast time in the old car was 48.7.

 

All I'm looking for is more "data". Being a grassroots series, we do not have the priveledge of having NASA sponsored test days. Nor is there a real opportunity to have a standard driver jump in a bunch of different cars to lay down a "baseline" standard. Therefore, in order to evaluate the different platforms, we must look to our next best alternative to discern if parity exists. What options do we have?

 

We have a limited amount of data from loggers and we have lap times which were performed by like-kind drivers on the same day at the same time. We then must evaluate variables that should have an effect on the data. i.e. driver capability, driver experience at the track, the car and how closely the car maximizes its potential under the current rules.

 

To me, although I'm addmitedly a novice, I look at the Road America situation like this.

 

On one hand, we have Bob Denton, a competitive racer for 10+ years all in the same car, who is undoubtedly well adept in setting up his car at a track that he has raced at many times before, in a car that most likely is utilizing all that the rules will allow.

 

On the other hand, I have Anders and you, Chris. Anders has been racing for a couple of years, I am not sure about you, but it is clear you are both great drivers, however, neither of you had been to the track before. Anders has been driving his car for one year and you have driven yours a few weekends. Anders car is substantially overweight and, as I understand it, your car is underpowered per the rules.

 

In a matter of four sessions, two of which were 20 minutes, both Anders and you, Chris were able to manage laps which were a more than a full second quicker than Bob was able to manage.

 

IMHO, this "data" could lead one to conclude that the S197's might be faster, however, this does presume that Bob would be an equal driver as either you and Anders. Now if you want to say that Bob is not as good as a driver, then you also will have to say that Bob, utilizing a car that better maximizes its potential under the rules, is still a second slower than both you and Anders.

 

I hope this explains my frame of mind.

 

P.S I am not against the S197. In fact after nationals, I seriously talked to Anders about what it would take to build one. What I am against is having unequal cars competing against one another in a spec series. Please note, however, I am not affirmatively stating the S197 is better, what I am saying is that some of the things I have seen with my own eyes would make me believe that there could be advantage.

 

P.S.S. Yes, I am an attorney and this means that I can't easily walk away from a "fight".

I completely agree with everything you said Robert.

 

The main thing that I look at is that 3rd gen, 4th gen, fox, and SN95 cars have been racing against each other for 10+ years and over those years adjustments have been made to each platform to make things equal. I feel the comparison b/w these 4 platforms has never been closer than it is today.

 

The S197 has only been around for a short time and there are a small handfull of vehicles across the US. The data showing an underdeveloped car (from either being heavy or underpowered) that is clearly much faster than an extremely seasoned driver in a very well prepared car has to raise a few eyebrows.

[AllZWay]

And those big sumo suits so the Directors can battle it out.

 

+1 for Adam and Glenn in Sumo suits!

 

+2... I already have my popcorn ready.

[CF03GT]

Chris:

 

What was your best lap time on Saturday at Road America ? I don't know if you saw my earlier post. I know Kent was having problems, but I'm wondering how your time compared with Bob. I know Anders set the track record, however, I'm not sure if there was a good cmc2 time posted as we did not run RA last year.

 

Not sure what your looking for here Robert, other than the adaptability of drivers to a new track.. (Think it's been already proven that Anders and myself are quick to adapt). I know your a lawyer and are anti s197, so hope I'm not getting bamboozeled into a trap here..

 

But I think my fastest times were in the 38.9 range.

 

It could also be concluded that Bob isnt as fast as Anders.

 

Also, as a side note. I just returned back from a race weekend at our home track here in the SE (CMP) with the new car. My fast times in the new car were 48.5. Fast time in the old car was 48.7.

 

All I'm looking for is more "data". Being a grassroots series, we do not have the priveledge of having NASA sponsored test days. Nor is there a real opportunity to have a standard driver jump in a bunch of different cars to lay down a "baseline" standard. Therefore, in order to evaluate the different platforms, we must look to our next best alternative to discern if parity exists. What options do we have?

 

We have a limited amount of data from loggers and we have lap times which were performed by like-kind drivers on the same day at the same time. We then must evaluate variables that should have an effect on the data. i.e. driver capability, driver experience at the track, the car and how closely the car maximizes its potential under the current rules.

 

To me, although I'm addmitedly a novice, I look at the Road America situation like this.

 

On one hand, we have Bob Denton, a competitive racer for 10+ years all in the same car, who is undoubtedly well adept in setting up his car at a track that he has raced at many times before, in a car that most likely is utilizing all that the rules will allow.

 

On the other hand, I have Anders and you, Chris. Anders has been racing for a couple of years, I am not sure about you, but it is clear you are both great drivers, however, neither of you had been to the track before. Anders has been driving his car for one year and you have driven yours a few weekends. Anders car is substantially overweight and, as I understand it, your car is underpowered per the rules.

 

In a matter of four sessions, two of which were 20 minutes, both Anders and you, Chris were able to manage laps which were a more than a full second quicker than Bob was able to manage.

 

IMHO, this "data" could lead one to conclude that the S197's might be faster, however, this does presume that Bob would be an equal driver as either you and Anders. Now if you want to say that Bob is not as good as a driver, then you also will have to say that Bob, utilizing a car that better maximizes its potential under the rules, is still a second slower than both you and Anders.

 

I hope this explains my frame of mind.

 

P.S I am not against the S197. In fact after nationals, I seriously talked to Anders about what it would take to build one. What I am against is having unequal cars competing against one another in a spec series. Please note, however, I am not affirmatively stating the S197 is better, what I am saying is that some of the things I have seen with my own eyes would make me believe that there could be advantage.

 

P.S.S. Yes, I am an attorney and this means that I can't easily walk away from a "fight".

 

You failed to mention that Anders' set up on his car has a lot more input than just him showing up that weekend and testing/tuning. He relies on Robin's (vast) input and experience for car set up as well as Rehagans input I'm sure.

And dont forget that I am working with Steve Poe, who has a deep well of knowledge on the s197 car set-up and experience at this track. And my car is not that far from power. I'm making 255-257hp/278-280ft lbs. My post race weight ranges from 3261 (with an empty tank) to 3280.

 

This kind of "shot in the dark" data just leads to more speculation as opposed to more facts.

 

So, then based on your thought process here, I'm going to conclude that Bob is at least one second a lap slower driver than Anders, KENT and myself (based on times from two differnt tracks on three seperate weekends).

 

I am in complete agreement with you concerning unequal cars in a spec class. You do have to realize there WILL be unequal drivers in a spec class as well.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Guest

[wastntim]

You do have to realize there WILL be unequal drivers in a spec class as well.

 

Sadly, this is exactly why you don't see me referencing my own times at all during this conversation.

[cozog1548534733]

You do have to realize there WILL be unequal drivers in a spec class as well.

 

Sadly, this is exactly why you don't see me referencing my own times at all during this conversation.

 

+1

[Trevor571548534737]

You failed to mention that Anders' set up on his car has a lot more input than just him showing up that weekend and testing/tuning. He relies on Robin's (vast) input and experience for car set up as well as Rehagans input I'm sure.

And dont forget that I am working with Steve Poe, who has a deep well of knowledge on the s197 car set-up and experience at this track. And my car is not that far from power. I'm making 255-257hp/278-280ft lbs. My post race weight ranges from 3261 (with an empty tank) to 3280.

 

This kind of "shot in the dark" data just leads to more speculation as opposed to more facts.

 

So, then based on your thought process here, I'm going to conclude that Bob is at least one second a lap slower driver than Anders and myself (based on times from two differnt tracks on three seperate weekends).

 

I am in complete agreement with you concerning unequal cars in a spec class. You do have to realize there WILL be unequal drivers in a spec class as well.

 

So are you really trying to say that it is purely driver skill, and that the s197 isn't a better platform? If that is the case why spend more money on the s197?

[CF03GT]

And to edit my post more from above (I included Kent there as well as being faster than Bob in my "conclusion").. But the assumption that Anders' car is 300lb overweight is just a internet exaggeration that seemed to have stuck. I think he is close to only being 150lbs max overweight.

[CF03GT]

You failed to mention that Anders' set up on his car has a lot more input than just him showing up that weekend and testing/tuning. He relies on Robin's (vast) input and experience for car set up as well as Rehagans input I'm sure.

And dont forget that I am working with Steve Poe, who has a deep well of knowledge on the s197 car set-up and experience at this track. And my car is not that far from power. I'm making 255-257hp/278-280ft lbs. My post race weight ranges from 3261 (with an empty tank) to 3280.

 

This kind of "shot in the dark" data just leads to more speculation as opposed to more facts.

 

So, then based on your thought process here, I'm going to conclude that Bob is at least one second a lap slower driver than Anders and myself (based on times from two differnt tracks on three seperate weekends).

 

I am in complete agreement with you concerning unequal cars in a spec class. You do have to realize there WILL be unequal drivers in a spec class as well.

 

So are you really trying to say that it is purely driver skill, and that the s197 isn't a better platform? If that is the case why spend more money on the s197?

 

So what I've really been trying to say (if you've actually been paying attention here) is that it hasent been PROVEN either way! And that there is a strong possibility that might be the case (that there are actually better drivers out there!).

 

And again, I havent really spent more money on a new car (by the time I invest in my old car, the sale of teh old car, the $ from Ford for the new car, ect.) I'm really not spending more at all! I've got a new, reliable, well built car now for a few bucks more than having to update/upgrade the old pos I was running. Pretty simple stuff Trevor.

Are you a racer?

[Glenn]

The law of averages says good drivers will end up in all platforms equally, and not just in the S-197.

 

I'll quantify Bob Denton some.

I have won 2 National Championships, competed in 4 and never finished below 3rd. I've won a single Regional Championship and never finished below 5th excluding last year where I sat out 2.5 weekends and this year where I only raced 2 weekends. My enduro team has finished 3 for 3 in Class wins in a CMC 4th gen and 2 of those were overall wins w/ the likes of MER racing present (MX5 Cup and Koni). I have been very fortunate to have such a great record.

I have raced Bob many times on his home tracks and locally here in Texas. He is a force to be respected for sure. He flat out beat me in a qual race at Mid Ohio one year and I was just sure he would win the whole thing. He is a great driver. I would surely put him on my top 10 list of CMC drivers. I have raced alot of folks from various regions over the years, so I feel my perception of him is acurrate. Take nothing away from this but Bob Denton is as able as anyone in CMC.

[CF03GT]

The law of averages says good drivers will end up in all platforms equally, and not just in the S-197.

 

I'll quantify Bob Denton some.

I have won 2 National Championships, competed in 4 and never finished below 3rd. I've won a single Regional Championship and never finished below 5th excluding last year where I sat out 2.5 weekends and this year where I only raced 2 weekends. My enduro team has finished 3 for 3 in Class wins in a CMC 4th gen and 2 of those were overall wins w/ the likes of MER racing present (MX5 Cup and Koni). I have been very fortunate to have such a great record.

I have raced Bob many times on his home tracks and locally here in Texas. He is a force to be respected for sure. He flat out beat me in a qual race at Mid Ohio one year and I was just sure he would win the whole thing. He is a great driver. I would surely put him on my top 10 list of CMC drivers. I have raced alot of folks from various regions over the years, so I feel my perception of him is acurrate. Take nothing away from this but Bob Denton is as able as anyone in CMC.

 

There's no doubt that Bob can drive. He did however finish behind two other drivers in his region this year (one s197 and an f-body. And not just in points, but race results as well).

 

Have you raced against the top CURRENT finishers?

 

I think if the real fast guys showed this year at Nats (you Glenn, Steele, Kellum, to name a few), I dont think we would be here now discussing the new chassis and the "changes that need to be made" for parity.

Or, maybe not