S197 and the "unfair advantage"

[wastntim]

Well at least we don't have to hear them explain how the Ford Racing antilock brakes don't matter........

 

If CMC were to get to that level of lunacy, I'd have my car up for sale before the ink dried on the rules.

 

Sorry to say it Dave, but thank god I didn't choose AI.

 

Now let's do whatever we must to ensure that we don't go down that road.

[supermac]

Well at least we don't have to hear them explain how the Ford Racing antilock brakes don't matter........

 

If CMC were to get to that level of lunacy, I'd have my car up for sale before the ink dried on the rules.

 

Sorry to say it Dave, but thank god I didn't choose AI.

 

Now let's do whatever we must to ensure that we don't go down that road.

 

AMEN!

[CF03GT]

Ok. I think I'm done here. This politic'in has worn me out (new respect for the guys running the show!

I'd rather be at the track..

 

Just wanted to clear a few things up.. First, my intention was never to state that anyone is a better driver than any one else. It was just to point out that when using a tiny data base, you could come to all sorts of unfounded conclusions.

I know Bob is probably a better driver than I could ever hope to be, and would kick my ass 8 out of 10 times on track. And I know Anders finished behind these f-body guys a lot as well.

 

I've got a lot to learn myself, and running with these guys could do nothing but better my driving. I've been humbled more than once running with these guys. I really do enjoy ALL the racers company both on and off the track. Great bunch of guys. You guys are really why I put in all this hard work and effort to make it to the race weekends.

 

And I really do love this series! I hope my concerns here were not takin to mean I'm putting down the powers that be running the series.. My intention was to make sure we continue to have a good, established base for future growth. I'm always out there trying to promote the series to up and coming racers. I'm one of it's biggest fans!

 

And again, I really do hope that the changes in the works will be kept to a minimum considering the small data we are working with. And based on the previous "proof in the puddin'" race results (where ALL platforms seem to be finishing equal).

 

Thanks for listenting guys. See you guys at the track!

[Sidney]

My turn: I've raced against Bob longer than anyone on this forum. We got our Comp licenses the same weekend in April of 1999 with Midwestern Council. Bob got his license in a white Pontiac Firebird Formula...the same Firebird that is now painted red and white and ran the 2011 Nationals. It's got to have 150 or more races on it by now.

 

In my opinion he's just as fast (or faster) than any racer mentioned anywhere in this thread. But...you cannot compare his times, in his Firebird to any of the brand new Mustangs. I'm pretty sure he's still on the same worn out Koni's that he put in it the winter of 1998! I'm also guessing the front springs have never been changed out and the rear are only new since we had to remove our old weight jackers to be legal for CMC. He's swapped rear bars a couple times but that's it. He's already mentioned on here the diff is shot and again...been in his car for years.

 

Don't forget that he's on 16 inch GTA's running 255's and not 275/17's. It's also got 12 inch rotors and not 13's and 2 piston ebay LS1 brake calipers and not $2,500 Stoptechs or whatever Ander's has.

 

The Mustangs are brand new...Bob's Firebird is old and worn out. If he had the money or desire to build a new Firebird...you all wouldn't be having this discussion as he would have won Nationals.

 

Sidney Franklin

CMC #64

 

PS. I beat Anders this year in my worn out POS Firebird too!

Edited October 26, 2011 by Guest

[CF03GT]

So, Bob's worn out, under tired, under suspended, under braked, under gripped (worn out limited slip) car was the bases of comparison to the top well prep'd s197's for the data logging?!!

 

Ok, calm down.. I'm supposed to be looking away from all this now..

 

[Sidney]

I forgot...He was also on Hawk Blues since he's too tight for DTC70's! You Mustang guys should be embarrassed you let such a POS car on the podium with you!

 

Sidney

[MHISSTC]

So, Bob's worn out, under tired, under suspended, under braked, under gripped (worn out limited slip) car was the bases of comparison to the top well prep'd s197's for the data logging?!!

 

I'm glad to see it has finally come around to this exact point.

 

There's probably always room for improvement, but I feel there is a pretty good platform parity right now. If there is any such thing as an 'unfair advantage' in this series, I think it shows up in the "freshness" of a persons equipment and their level of preparation. When we competed at Nationals at Miller, we sat around enjoying cold beverages and looking at the cool cars. We pretty much felt like we were doing something wrong by sitting there doing nothing to the car except checking tire pressures, fluid levels, and lug nut torque between sessions as we watched the 'serious teams' with their crews of 6 or more folks pore over their cars and data, swapping tires, and making all kinds of little adjustments after each session. That's the difference I see between the true top finishers and the folks (like us) who fill the field. However, that is a disparity I'm willing to live with since this is a hobby I do for fun.

 

For the benefit of the 'serious teams', I think it would be great for the series to take a reasonably good driver in a freshly-prepped-sorted-to-the-limits-of-the-rules fox Mustang and data log that against a reasonably good driver in a freshly-prepped-sorted-to-the-limits-of-the-rules S197 Mustang, and/or a similarly prepped GM product.

 

Somebody already said were comparing apples to oranges in the series and trying to do the best to base a platform parity on that. I don't disagree. Keep up the good work.

[sjoblom65]

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.

 

You have no idea how many time I have been on Greg's dyno just to be sure I'm making the numbers (under 267HP). That I was under 260 at the nats is news to me. I think I averaged 262ish after the big race if I remebered right and that was on the low side for my car (I'm sure you have the data but I know I had pulls over 260). Anything under 267 is what I was shooting for. To "after the fact" say that I could have been N # lbs lighter because i dynoed low is just wrong. I need to assume it will make the numbers it's intended to do.

 

Also, Glenn is saying that you need to be under the 260HP range to benifit the best. Well, I don't fully agree. The best spot would be 265HP (just looking at the HP side to make the calc easy). Since CMC is running ~12.5lbs per HP, the table only adds 10 per HP (AI is 9.5/HP, right) until the last two. That's where you get penalized adding 25lbs per HP.

[Glenn]

The base weight (3200) before reductions/additions for platforms and such is a 12.3 or so ratio sliding all the way up to a 12.73 ratio. Some are less, some are more. The scale of the increase is the same for all.

So would you add 10lbs for 1 HP? I wouldn't.

It is obvious we would not add 100lbs per 7 HP.

Can one of you engineer types tell me if I'm wrong?

[CF03GT]

Can we get back to the more pressing issue at hand..

 

Am I the only one so shocked to see that the two top 197's (currently) in the nation have been data logged/compared to a worn out, not even close to maximized, old ass F-body?!!

WTF!

 

Your right Sidney. That Bob has to be one hell of a driver to pedal that thing around as well as he does! He puts just a diff in that car and the rest of us are screwed!

Edited October 26, 2011 by Guest

[sjoblom65]

The base weight (3200) before reductions/additions for platforms and such is a 12.3 or so ratio sliding all the way up to a 12.73 ratio. Some are less, some are more. The scale of the increase is the same for all.

So would you add 10lbs for 1 HP? I wouldn't.

It is obvious we would not add 100lbs per 7 HP.

Can one of you engineer types tell me if I'm wrong?

 

The table sure doesn't follow the 12.3-12.5 lbs / HP.

 

Just looking at the first column, this is how it looks (Lbs/HP). The sweetspot is at 265HP and 315:

HP Weight Lbs/HP

260 3200 12.30769231

261 3210 12.29885057

262 3220 12.29007634

263 3230 12.28136882

264 3240 12.27272727

265 3250 12.26415094

266 3275 12.31203008

267 3300 12.35955056

[sjoblom65]

PS. I beat Anders this year in my worn out POS Firebird too!

 

Yes, fair and squared! I couldn't keep up...

[cozog1548534733]

Can one of you engineer types tell me if I'm wrong?

 

Glenn,

Anders is correct.

<260/<310 @ 3200lbs = 12.30769231

261/<310 @ 3210 = 12.29885057

262/<310 @ 3220 = 12.29007634

263/<310 @ 3230 = 12.28136882

264/<310 @ 3240 = 12.27272727

265/<310 @ 3250 = 12.26415094

265/311 @ 3260 = 12.30188679

266/<310 @ 3275 = 12.31203008

267/<310 @ 3300 = 12.35955056

 

All other combinations of HP/TQ/WT are 12.31 or worse.

 

Maybe the dirs should look at the min hp/wt when <310 tq...?

What about jumping from 3200 to 3220 instead of startingf the scale at 3210? I'm just throwing it out there.

[MHISSTC]

I seriously don't know if I could actually tell the difference between 12.273 lbs/HP and 12.360 lbs/HP, or even 260 vs. 267 HP, but I think I might just be able to feel a difference of 100 lbs. I know I can tell the difference in how my stock '83 Mercury Capri handles with 6 cases of pop in the back seat as compared to none.

 

From an energy dissipation and dynamics standpoint, I prefer to operate at the lowest weight possible, but I believe the series history has proven the heavy cars have done well.

[CMC#11]

For the benefit of the 'serious teams', I think it would be great for the series to take a reasonably good driver in a freshly-prepped-sorted-to-the-limits-of-the-rules fox Mustang and data log that against a reasonably good driver in a freshly-prepped-sorted-to-the-limits-of-the-rules S197 Mustang, and/or a similarly prepped GM product.

 

Sounds like Hallett 2012 is a good time for this. Bring on the S197's.

[koserv]

I still say we chain them together and make 'em run like that....Anders in the front to make up for Chris's brakes taking an early vacation, and Chris in the back to push that YB down the straights.

 

Also, because I'm getting old and slow and drive a POS LT-1, I should get a 17 pound weight allowance....retroactive to September 10, 2011.

[sjoblom65]

I seriously don't know if I could actually tell the difference between 12.273 lbs/HP and 12.360 lbs/HP, or even 260 vs. 267 HP, but I think I might just be able to feel a difference of 100 lbs. I know I can tell the difference in how my stock '83 Mercury Capri handles with 6 cases of pop in the back seat as compared to none.

 

From an energy dissipation and dynamics standpoint, I prefer to operate at the lowest weight possible, but I believe the series history has proven the heavy cars have done well.

 

I agree, we are splitting hears comparing 12.36 to 12.27!

The table might have been made this way to make it read well (no odd number sequencing) and not worry too much about the ~12.5 lbs / hp ratio we have in CMC.

 

While we are on the topic, why do we even have torque in the table (Kent was DQ for being over on torque and not HP with to me doesn't matter at all).

 

(I'm throwing some theoretical number out here)

A car having a engine producing 400lbs of torque @ 3000 rpm (230hp) will no out accelerate a car with 300lbs of torque @ 4500 rpm (260hp), right? Torque alone is no measurement of energy (will not make the car accelerate) unless you have RPM. HP is a direct measurement of energy (33000 lb-ft / min = 1 HP) and is this the only important thing to worry about.

 

Can some expert that came up with the torque numbers explain this to me since we seem to have some direct corresponding torque values to weight?

[Glenn]

I just used 3200 @ 260/310 and 3400 @ 267/317 and assumed the scale was an even slope up to 265/315 and ramped up above that.

My bad.

 

Still wouldn't add 10lbs for 1 hp or 1 tq, much less 7 for 100lbs.

[wastntim]

Can we get back to the more pressing issue at hand..

 

Am I the only one so shocked to see that the two top 197's (currently) in the nation have been data logged/compared to a worn out, not even close to maximized, old ass F-body?!!

WTF!

 

Your right Sidney. That Bob has to be one hell of a driver to pedal that thing around as well as he does! He puts just a diff in that car and the rest of us are screwed!

 

I think Sidney's comments were aimed more to testify to Bob's abilities as a driver than to really and truly testify about Bob's car. I've driven Bob's car and I can tell you it is not old and worn out. That car handles. Since my car was built 2 years ago, I have been trying to get my car to handle half as well Bob's does. Bob spends countless hours continually working on his car. Over this last winter, he stripped that car down to almost nothiing and rebuilt it. I would not consider it old and worn out to say the least.

 

To further this point, when Bob was driving Sidney's car which was ill handling, I was able to pass Bob. This is the ONLY time I have ever passed Bob on the track. So even as great as a driver as he is, he cannot overcome equipment which does not provide him an equal chance of winning.

[CF03GT]

Oh, it was quite obvious what Sidneys post was about (cudo's to him for sticking up for Bob).

 

It is also now quite obvious that Bob's car (one that is being used as reference data for a rule change in comparison to the two top 197's) is no where near maxed out rules wise. Most of the performance stuff on it is decade old! And heck, it's basically a CMC 1 car (other than power)! Dont care how good the car "turns".

 

Are you (or anybody) trying to say that this is a fair comparison for a rule change?

 

Not only are we going with ONE set of data. Now that data is obviously flawed!!

 

Are we just trying to kid ourselves here? WTF?

[wastntim]

Oh, it was quite obvious what Sidneys post was about (cudo's to him for sticking up for Bob).

 

It is also now quite obvious that Bob's car (one that is being used as reference data for a rule change in comparison to the two top 197's) is no where near maxed out rules wise. Most of the performance stuff on it is decade old! And heck, it's basically a CMC 1 car (other than power)! Dont care how good the car "turns".

 

Are you (or anybody) trying to say that this is a fair comparison for a rule change?

 

Not only are we going with ONE set of data. Now that data is obviously flawed!!

 

Are we just trying to kid ourselves here? WTF?

 

Chris, What are all of these wonderful modifications that you are alledging Bob could do to max out the rules exactly? Because other than going to 17's and going to 13 inch four piston calipers, I'm not sure what magical things you think he can do to take a car with a suspension which was designed 30-40 years ago to make it match the suspension of your car which was designed 6 years ago.

 

Do you honestly believe that Ford took the last thirty years and spent most likely billions of dollars on R & D and they coudln't come up with a better suspension than was put in place by GM in 1982? Do you think they are really that incompetant?

 

The simple fact is that the CMC rules were modified to allow a brand new car in to run against cars that are 20-30 years old. I'm guessing the goal was to bring in more cars, not to alienate the majority the field by allowing the new cars to show off their new technology by dominating the series.

[wastntim]

double post.

[Glenn]

The brakes really are a cost saving measure. I wouldn't put alot of worth in them for dropping lap times. The tires are the limiting factor.

The diff, sure. Much better corner exit.

[cozog1548534733]

It is also now quite obvious that Bob's car (one that is being used as reference data for a rule change in comparison to the two top 197's) is no where near maxed out rules wise. Most of the performance stuff on it is decade old! And heck, it's basically a CMC 1 car (other than power)! Dont care how good the car "turns".

 

Was that statement missing a ?

 

Besides the busted rear diff, I can't image Bob driving a car that isn't fully maxed out per the rules allowances. But I'll defer to Bob for comments on the state of his vehicle.

 

And since everyone is talking about Bob, let's not forget who almost took 2nd place... Kent Owens. He's the ONLY non-S197 to break into 1:39.xx all year at Mid-O. His car is certainly not "old and tired", nor are his driving skills. He set track records and took wins from Anders and Bob. And then just happened to win the championship in GL & MW.

 

Listening to the after-action reports of KO and Anders this year, they were pretty close on car performance, but that is when the f-body *IS* maxed out (weight, HP, susp, etc.) and the YB is 280+ overweight. How close would the racing have been if Anders dropped another 250+ lbs??

 

Let's take the intangible variables out of the equation for a moment. I think it would be safe to assume that Kent and Anders are at the highest skill levels in CMC. Close enough to finish <1 sec. apart a couple times this year. Both prepped their cars very similarly for nats (min fuel, good tires, good brakes, etc.) Let's take all those factors out and just compare the 2 cars... S197 is using 6 year old technology/design. F-body is using 18-year old technology/design. They are both running similar lap times, but the S197 is up 280+ lbs. Put Kent/Anders/Bob/Chris/(Insert Name) behind the S197 wheel with full power (260+/310+) and min weight and they would be untouchable, even by the fastest f-body/SN99/Fox around. That is not my opinion, that is a conclusion made from looking at lap times and the laws of physics.

[koserv]

How and where are the cars different? Which is better and why? We can set HP/TQ to be equal. We can set weight to be equal. Does that mean any advantage seen on track is driver only? In car prep only? Are there really no engeneering advantages between the chassis? If that's the case, should we take away the weight breaks from the pre 1998 Fords? Should we get rid of the weight penalty for the LS and post 05 Fords?

 

I don't disagree that there might not be enough data. However, my opinion is that the chassis is superior, and when developed to the full extent of the rules, it will be untouchable. I think it has to do with it's ability to get power down at the rear through the 3-link, and the ability of the front geometry to allow enough static camber for cornering without the dynamic camber killing the braking when under load.

 

My hope is that I don't need to build a S197 to keep up. I also hope that any adjustment made is one that's easily reversed or modified. A weight adjustment or restrictor plate is something that can be quickly and cheaply dialed in or reversed.

 

I also don't want to race in a vintage class, so I'm glad to see the new Ford, and hope more show up. If we could figure a way around the IRS issue, a new Camaro or two in the show would also be great. Ditto the Challenger, but I guess then we'd all need new windshield banners.