cozog1548534733 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 For those wanting some data made public, here's the season race results for Anders, Kent, Bob and Chris from GL/MW regions off the mylaps website: http://www.donateliferacing.com/2011-GL-MW-Season.xls Hope this helps add some data so good decisions can be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 For those wanting some data made public, here's the season race results for Anders, Kent, Bob and Chris from GL/MW regions off the mylaps website:http://www.donateliferacing.com/2011-GL-MW-Season.xls Hope this helps add some data so good decisions can be made. In years past (before I was made local King), season points results and number of wins was a big factor in figuring out if parity was alive and well. Since I have been around and largely due to AL F, data logging devices are now the answer. This helps remove the "tallent" from the equation. It does not do it 100%. It is a far better way than just laptimes and just race results (1st -whatever). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I wanted to explain a comment I made earlier. I said I would go back to letting you guys be kept in the dark. I see now (pointed out to me) that it implied that this was the goal of all the Directors. It is in fact not the goal of all the Directors. I talked w/ Al F today and he admitted we should be (as a group) more open about what the Directors are doing behind closed doors. But the info should be more unified. My comment was more about the lack of active participation from other Directors here on the site. I felt as though if I didn't respond, then no one would respond. When other Directors do respond, the timeline between Q&A is too large for my liking. There is not a hidden adjenda to keep you guys mis-informed/un-informed. We all do this for fun and we all have real lives that often do and should take priority. One of the reasons I became a Director was to help repair and give back where I had taken away. I did cause alot of problems in years past, way more than as of late. I also wanted in behind those closed doors to expose the "hidden adjenda's". I quickly learned there was no such thing, and this job required alot of personal time away from the track and alot more at the track. I was baffled w/ how Adam and Todd (local Directors up to 2007) could function during a race weekend. To say I was humbled is an understatement. The work load is huge at times. Rest easy that if anyone would expose devious plots w/in the CMC leadeship, it would be me (and others I'm sure). That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cozog1548534733 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 For those wanting some data made public, here's the season race results for Anders, Kent, Bob and Chris from GL/MW regions off the mylaps website:http://www.donateliferacing.com/2011-GL-MW-Season.xls Hope this helps add some data so good decisions can be made. In years past (before I was made local King), season points results and number of wins was a big factor in figuring out if parity was alive and well. Since I have been around and largely due to AL F, data logging devices are now the answer. This helps remove the "tallent" from the equation. It does not do it 100%. It is a far better way than just laptimes and just race results (1st -whatever). I know... just adding more data in case anyone wanted to know. Just trying to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 ...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. Whereis the "Like this post" button? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 For those wanting some data made public, here's the season race results for Anders, Kent, Bob and Chris from GL/MW regions off the mylaps website:http://www.donateliferacing.com/2011-GL-MW-Season.xls Hope this helps add some data so good decisions can be made. In years past (before I was made local King), season points results and number of wins was a big factor in figuring out if parity was alive and well. Since I have been around and largely due to AL F, data logging devices are now the answer. This helps remove the "tallent" from the equation. It does not do it 100%. It is a far better way than just laptimes and just race results (1st -whatever). I know... just adding more data in case anyone wanted to know. Just trying to help. I took it as such - you trying to help. Help = good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjoblom65 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Since Chris is really at minimum weight, he can only have 260HP or less. If he is at 255, anything more would be scary close of busting. Since I'm high on HP, my minimum weight is 3350lbs. I'm rolling over the scales around 3500lbs and that makes it only 150lbs over. Since you also need some fudge factor in there. I'm reall just over 100-130lbs to be safe, not 300lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Since Chris is really at minimum weight, he can only have 260HP or less. If he is at 255, anything more would be scary close of busting. Since I'm high on HP, my minimum weight is 3350lbs. I'm rolling over the scales around 3500lbs and that makes it only 150lbs over. Since you also need some fudge factor in there. I'm reall just over 100-130lbs to be safe, not 300lbs. Good points. Useful data. Just an FYI - the HP to weight chart is set to where you are at a disadvantage to run w/ more than 260hp/310tq. If you notice, it is a non-linear scale. 10lbs per HP and per TQ from 1-5 extra HP/TQ and 25lbs at 6 HP/TQ extra and 100lbs at 7 HP/TQ. 7hp ain't worth 100lbs no matter how you look at it. The performance increase due to power is more than offset by the weight you carry. So if you think the extra weight is offset by your power, your wrong. Your numbers must be between 265-267 HP and 315-317 TQ. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor571548534737 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 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? I own a race car, I tell chicks at the bar I am a race car driver, I play xbox with a steering wheel, but the thing that most makes me a racer is my ability to bitch and moan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 25, 2011 Author Share Posted October 25, 2011 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? I own a race car, I tell chicks at the bar I am a race car driver, I play xbox with a steering wheel, but the thing that most makes me a racer is my ability to bitch and moan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ls168camaro Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Wow, you guys are much more civilized then those rough-neck AI guys Since we are all under the pony car race umbrella, I hope some outside comments are welcome. If not then I will have succeeded in pissing off guys in both forums. Personly, I think the S197 biggest CMC advantage over the rest of the other platforms is as previously mentioned, the suspension geometry. Per the CMC rules nothing can be altered, which are similiar suspension rules for Grand Am, which is argueably the main reason Ford designed and developed the new suspension. It simply out performs other stock pony car suspensions. I'm not an engineer (and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express) but the 3 link rear end is a quality design, and likely a good reason for the braking and corner entry speed differences. No other legal CMC car has been developed by the factory with the intention of performing on a road course. In AI we have the freedom to make suspension changes to improve our cars , but thats not the case in CMC. Other factors are the wheel base and width. It is a very well built, and capable track car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Sorry double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 Wow, you guys are much more civilized then those rough-neck AI guys Since we are all under the pony car race umbrella, I hope some outside comments are welcome. If not then I will have succeeded in pissing off guys in both forums.Personly, I think the S197 biggest CMC advantage over the rest of the other platforms is as previously mentioned, the suspension geometry. Per the CMC rules nothing can be altered, which are similiar suspension rules for Grand Am, which is argueably the main reason Ford designed and developed the new suspension. It simply out performs other stock pony car suspensions. I'm not an engineer (and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express) but the 3 link rear end is a quality design, and likely a good reason for the braking and corner entry speed differences. No other legal CMC car has been developed by the factory with the intention of performing on a road course. In AI we have the freedom to make suspension changes to improve our cars , but thats not the case in CMC. Other factors are the wheel base and width. It is a very well built, and capable track car. Actually, there can be changes suspension wise on all platforms per the rules, that even the playing field out. It is one benefit of the 197's though, that we really dont have to upgrade much of the suspension from stock (saves on having to do upgrades, where as the other platforms will have to pay for those upgrades). Any competitively set-up platform running in CMC will be a very well built, capable track car. It was good to meet you at RA Dave. Nice to see those camaro's still out there running in AI. Now please move along... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Before w/ require any CMC car to buy suspension mods to be able to keep up w/ a single platform, the single platform will be removed from the legal platforms list (my guess only). We have already asked the CMC community to spend money on power mods to allow the newer cars into the field (since they could not mod down to the 230hp limits). This change in the CMC rules almost caused its demise. The required split of the class to buy time to sort thru all this resulted in a very trying time for all racers, and Directors. The two fields caused a split in the overall car count. This resulted in some guys staying home since the #'s were so light. Some guys left the series over the power changes. At this point, it makes no sence to ask 100's of cars to modify so we can keep 5-6 cars. So you can forget that idea. At this point, I have not seen an increase in the car count as a result of the newer cars that were allowed in. So far all we have done is offset the cars we lost from the change. Tread lightly here. A very sore subject for many folks. I've lost a couple good friends along the way as a result of the rules changes to CMC2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 Before w/ require any CMC car to buy suspension mods to be able to keep up w/ a single platform, the single platform will be removed from the legal platforms list (my guess only). We have already asked the CMC community to spend money on power mods to allow the newer cars into the field (since they could not mod down to the 230hp limits). This change in the CMC rules almost caused its demise. The required split of the class to buy time to sort thru all this resulted in a very trying time for all racers, and Directors. The two fields caused a split in the overall car count. This resulted in some guys staying home since the #'s were so light. Some guys left the series over the power changes. At this point, it makes no sence to ask 100's of cars to modify so we can keep 5-6 cars.So you can forget that idea. At this point, I have not seen an increase in the car count as a result of the newer cars that were allowed in. So far all we have done is offset the cars we lost from the change. Tread lightly here. A very sore subject for many folks. I've lost a couple good friends along the way as a result of the rules changes to CMC2. Huh? I'm talking about the current rule set. Who said anything about modifying other platforms and changing the rules? The current rules even the field out suspension wise. Each of the platforms has its pluses and minuses. I just dont have to go pay extra for mine. Give it a year or two. Its going to take the new guys at least that long to show up with 197's (car prep, comp licences, ect). And I'm sure there will be more current guys wearing 197 flags before too long as well. Didnt you see all that good coverage and attention the front running 197's got at the Nats?! Who wouldent want one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 So we could/should require OEM shocks and springs for the S-197. Is that what your talking about? Otherwise, I'm confused? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 You are confused I'm saying, for example.. we dont have to add and set up a 3 link system, its already there (where as the older ford platforms for example, would need to upgrade to that. All allowed per the current rules). On 197's we need to JUST change springs and shocks. Get me now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yep, and still am. I'll let someone who knows what your trying to say comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 Really? Ok, let me put it this way. On my old car (03 GT) to make it competitive, I'd need to upgrade to better lower rear control arms, better bushings all around, add a pan hard bar, add chassis stiffing/sub frame connectors, add springs and shocks, modify my rear upper control arms (to complete the pan hard bar set up), what else am I missing?, ect. All w/in the current rule set. On the new car, I can put springs and shocks on it and go. There really is no performance gain in changing anything else out or adding anything additional. I'm still not seeing proof that one chassis handles better than the rest under our current rule set? The only proof I'm seeing has been the pretty good parity in finishing positions between the platforms (which proves that not one platform has stood out from the rest). Well, except for that one race at Nats... but then here we go, getting right back to my original peeve.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 So those same parts that make the older platforms better, don't do squat for the S-197? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CF03GT Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 Those same parts that make the older platforms better are ALREADY ON the 197's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted October 26, 2011 Members Share Posted October 26, 2011 Anders, to be fair, 300lbs isnt something that was just tossed out. Your car dynoed after the main at nationals under 260 and under 310 average, and weighed 3532. So you were 282lbs over. Thats closer to 300 than 130 but not by a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houstonnw Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 It seems to me that the S197 drivers are trying to justify their competitive advantage, and this is from someone who drives the former "class killer" LS1 Camaro which does have a weight penalty. "The data doesn't show a difference" "It's not the car, it's the driver" "The S197 doesn't have any suspension advantage" Well at least we don't have to hear them explain how the Ford Racing antilock brakes don't matter........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 It was good to meet you at RA Dave. Nice to see those camaro's still out there running in AI. Now please move along... The pleasure was all mine. Thanks for the warm welcome. By the way, the parts list is nice for the old cars, but it doesn't change there inherent poor suspension geometry, but it does help. 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.