S197 and the "unfair advantage"

[cozog1548534733]

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.

 

For those of you who don't know, this is from the guy who spent the past couple years chasing the fastest S197 around the GL/MW regions. He knows what he's talking about.

[CF03GT]

I can agree with most of your points Glenn, Coz and Kent. Robert, you just dont seem to get some things.

 

But It dosent matter what we "think" something is at this point. Its all just speculation.

 

The next step would be to investigate. You do this with objective data (can you sense my theme here of simple scientific method..)

So, if your going to investigate by only using a single (or few(??) test sessions, on just a single set of subjects, with a specific goal in mind (seeing how 197 compare to other platforms (or singular platform during this data collection) I would think that the single set of subjects would need to be pretty well thought out and chosen.

 

I dont see how, a basically CMC 1 equipped car w/ dated and worn equipment on a basically worn out race car (Bob's even mentioned to me that the chassis is moving in "funny" ways from too much wear and tear (there's some weird looking cracks developing on the body lol), no matter how well the car is being driven, would be a fair subject for this limited/narrow test.

 

Hell, we had Kent there (someone who ran right on par w Anders all year in a fully built cmc2 car) that could have been a better choice. We had two other maxed out (per rules) 197's we could have used as well! Its still a moot point though because it is still NOT ENOUGH OBJECTIVE DATA.

 

How far's that Hallet track from SC coast? I'm down with that idea for some REAL testing! Now were talking!

[sjoblom65]

Like somebody mentioned before, we need some well equipped (max'd out) CMC cars of all the different models and then "Stig". Now we can collect data and make adjustments.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Like somebody mentioned before, we need some well equipped (max'd out) CMC cars of all the different models and then "Stig". Now we can collect data and make adjustments.

 

But that isn't gonna happen. And neither is a regiment of white coats with thick glasses and pocket protectors to investigate.

 

So the process is a "best guess". Been that way since day one and it will continue to be that way. This is CMC.

 

You guys seem to think this is all brand new territory and you are being singled out.

 

You can take every post you've authored and substitute "4th Gen F-Body" where there is "S197" and change the dates of the posts from "2011" to "2004".

 

That's what YOU guys don't seem to get. This is CMC.

 

Eight years ago the 4th gen was a class killer, the directors didn't "get it", half the fields were "gonna quit" and CMC would become "spec 4th gen".

 

Nothing new is happening here. All this drama is futile. Build the cars, let the process work and deal with it.

 

This is CMC.

 

You will not make enough money here to cover your mortgage or send your oldest to even bad a community college.

 

This is CMC.

 

It's not professinal racing, it's not a hot bed of product development, it's not a lucrative venture, it's not a F1 farm system ... this is CMC.

 

If you think it's something different ... you are here for the wrong reasons.

[supermac]

Mitch for president!

 

We are CMC!

[Glenn]

I am CMC.

[koserv]

All this drama is futile.

 

Aww, come on Mitch, we can't race, what the heck else are we gonna do?

 

Not even a tech school??

[Glenn]

You could stand on the corner and hand out $20 bills. It could be cheaper.

[koserv]

Make the rules lets see what happens, people will race or not those are the only choices.

 

 

And Robin once again hits the nail dead center. Hopefully we'll see 2012 rules sooner rather than later.

[Glenn]

Make the rules lets see what happens, people will race or not those are the only choices.

 

 

And Robin once again hits the nail dead center. Hopefully we'll see 2012 rules sooner rather than later.

 

Target is end of the month.

[koserv]

[mitchntx1548534714]

All this drama is futile.

 

Aww, come on Mitch, we can't race, what the heck else are we gonna do?

 

Not even a tech school??

 

Not even an apprentice ...

[AllZWay]

Like somebody mentioned before, we need some well equipped (max'd out) CMC cars of all the different models and then "Stig". Now we can collect data and make adjustments.

 

But that isn't gonna happen. And neither is a regiment of white coats with thick glasses and pocket protectors to investigate.

 

So the process is a "best guess". Been that way since day one and it will continue to be that way. This is CMC.

 

You guys seem to think this is all brand new territory and you are being singled out.

 

You can take every post you've authored and substitute "4th Gen F-Body" where there is "S197" and change the dates of the posts from "2011" to "2004".

 

That's what YOU guys don't seem to get. This is CMC.

 

Eight years ago the 4th gen was a class killer, the directors didn't "get it", half the fields were "gonna quit" and CMC would become "spec 4th gen".

 

Nothing new is happening here. All this drama is futile. Build the cars, let the process work and deal with it.

 

This is CMC.

 

You will not make enough money here to cover your mortgage or send your oldest to even bad a community college.

 

This is CMC.

 

It's not professinal racing, it's not a hot bed of product development, it's not a lucrative venture, it's not a F1 farm system ... this is CMC.

 

If you think it's something different ... you are here for the wrong reasons.

 

Can I get an AMEN for my Brother Mitch?

[CF03GT]

Like somebody mentioned before, we need some well equipped (max'd out) CMC cars of all the different models and then "Stig". Now we can collect data and make adjustments.

 

But that isn't gonna happen. And neither is a regiment of white coats with thick glasses and pocket protectors to investigate.

 

So the process is a "best guess". Been that way since day one and it will continue to be that way. This is CMC.

 

You guys seem to think this is all brand new territory and you are being singled out.

 

You can take every post you've authored and substitute "4th Gen F-Body" where there is "S197" and change the dates of the posts from "2011" to "2004".

 

That's what YOU guys don't seem to get. This is CMC.

 

Eight years ago the 4th gen was a class killer, the directors didn't "get it", half the fields were "gonna quit" and CMC would become "spec 4th gen".

 

Nothing new is happening here. All this drama is futile. Build the cars, let the process work and deal with it.

 

This is CMC.

 

You will not make enough money here to cover your mortgage or send your oldest to even bad a community college.

 

This is CMC.

 

It's not professinal racing, it's not a hot bed of product development, it's not a lucrative venture, it's not a F1 farm system ... this is CMC.

 

If you think it's something different ... you are here for the wrong reasons.

 

"Best guess"

Based on one race weekend results..

Where else have the FOUR 197s shown they are "class killers"? Are we throwing out all the past finishing positions (some actual PROOF) where all the platforms seem to be finishing pretty equal? Thats where I'd get the best "guessing" from, not from one weekend.

 

How were the 4th gen's proving back then that they were class killers? How many were running em? Did they just show up ONE weekend and dominate (dominate used questionalble here), then the hammer was immediatly thrown down?

 

Its not rocket science and its not a lot of testing (the Directors brought in the high tech data logging stuff, not me).

Just plain results. That is CMC. Yhea, I'm new to racing the series, but I have followed it for some time, and get what we're all about.

 

Making rule changes based on perception, in any form of a rule based series (esp. a spec series) just makes it look bad.

 

No, no aspirations of F1 driving and big payouts for me.

Just a lot of time, money and effort doing something I love that I'm passionate about. Maybe stuff more important to me than glamor and money.

So yhea, I do get my panties in a wad when things are being done that I feel are going against common sense.

[mitchntx1548534714]

Like somebody mentioned before, we need some well equipped (max'd out) CMC cars of all the different models and then "Stig". Now we can collect data and make adjustments.

 

But that isn't gonna happen. And neither is a regiment of white coats with thick glasses and pocket protectors to investigate.

 

So the process is a "best guess". Been that way since day one and it will continue to be that way. This is CMC.

 

You guys seem to think this is all brand new territory and you are being singled out.

 

You can take every post you've authored and substitute "4th Gen F-Body" where there is "S197" and change the dates of the posts from "2011" to "2004".

 

That's what YOU guys don't seem to get. This is CMC.

 

Eight years ago the 4th gen was a class killer, the directors didn't "get it", half the fields were "gonna quit" and CMC would become "spec 4th gen".

 

Nothing new is happening here. All this drama is futile. Build the cars, let the process work and deal with it.

 

This is CMC.

 

You will not make enough money here to cover your mortgage or send your oldest to even bad a community college.

 

This is CMC.

 

It's not professinal racing, it's not a hot bed of product development, it's not a lucrative venture, it's not a F1 farm system ... this is CMC.

 

If you think it's something different ... you are here for the wrong reasons.

 

"Best guess"

Based on one race weekend results..

Where else have the FOUR 197s shown they are "class killers"? Are we throwing out all the past finishing positions (some actual PROOF) where all the platforms seem to be finishing pretty equal? Thats where I'd get the best "guessing" from, not from one weekend.

 

How were the 4th gen's proving back then that they were class killers? How many were running em? Did they just show up ONE weekend and dominate (dominate used questionalble here), then the hammer was immediatly thrown down?

 

Its not rocket science and its not a lot of testing (the Directors brought in the high tech data logging stuff, not me).

Just plain results. That is CMC. Yhea, I'm new to racing the series, but I have followed it for some time, and get what we're all about.

 

Making rule changes based on perception, in any form of a rule based series (esp. a spec series) just makes it look bad.

 

No, no aspirations of F1 driving and big payouts for me.

Just a lot of time, money and effort doing something I love that I'm passionate about. Maybe stuff more important to me than glamor and money.

So yhea, I do get my panties in a wad when things are being done that I feel are going against common sense.

 

 

I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize to Tony G, Al F, Adam G, Todd C (reluctantly), Eric V, Nick S, Brad S, Julie W, and those whose names now escape me for the endless, needless and worthless rants I posted on this and other forums over the years.

[cozog1548534733]

"Best guess"

Based on one race weekend results..

Where else have the FOUR 197s shown they are "class killers"? Are we throwing out all the past finishing positions (some actual PROOF) where all the platforms seem to be finishing pretty equal? Thats where I'd get the best "guessing" from, not from one weekend.

 

How were the 4th gen's proving back then that they were class killers? How many were running em? Did they just show up ONE weekend and dominate (dominate used questionalble here), then the hammer was immediatly thrown down?

 

Its not rocket science and its not a lot of testing (the Directors brought in the high tech data logging stuff, not me).

Just plain results. That is CMC. Yhea, I'm new to racing the series, but I have followed it for some time, and get what we're all about.

 

Making rule changes based on perception, in any form of a rule based series (esp. a spec series) just makes it look bad.

 

No, no aspirations of F1 driving and big payouts for me.

Just a lot of time, money and effort doing something I love that I'm passionate about. Maybe stuff more important to me than glamor and money.

So yhea, I do get my panties in a wad when things are being done that I feel are going against common sense.

 

Chris,

There *IS* data showing that equally prepped (tires, fuel, etc.) S197 and f-body cars are close in parity, but only when the S197 is carrying almost 300lbs more weight. Go back and look at the lap times and race results for the entire year of GL/MW. The racing was very close, and got even closer as the season went on. But the entire time, the S197 was 300lbs heavier.

 

To me, that is proof that the S197 has an advantage over the other CMC chassis.

 

Those are the laws of physics, not a "best guess". A car weighing 8%-10% more than all the other cars with equal hp/tq should not be posting equal or faster lap times. If you explain how that is possible, I'm all ears. I bet some F1 teams would like to know that trick as well.

[CF03GT]

 

Oh, I realize my posts are going no where. Just got my foot in the bucket now, and having a tuff time getting it out.

 

But thanks for making me feel like I'm not alone in the pointless, needless, worthless rants posting.

[CF03GT]

"Best guess"

Based on one race weekend results..

Where else have the FOUR 197s shown they are "class killers"? Are we throwing out all the past finishing positions (some actual PROOF) where all the platforms seem to be finishing pretty equal? Thats where I'd get the best "guessing" from, not from one weekend.

 

How were the 4th gen's proving back then that they were class killers? How many were running em? Did they just show up ONE weekend and dominate (dominate used questionalble here), then the hammer was immediatly thrown down?

 

Its not rocket science and its not a lot of testing (the Directors brought in the high tech data logging stuff, not me).

Just plain results. That is CMC. Yhea, I'm new to racing the series, but I have followed it for some time, and get what we're all about.

 

Making rule changes based on perception, in any form of a rule based series (esp. a spec series) just makes it look bad.

 

No, no aspirations of F1 driving and big payouts for me.

Just a lot of time, money and effort doing something I love that I'm passionate about. Maybe stuff more important to me than glamor and money.

So yhea, I do get my panties in a wad when things are being done that I feel are going against common sense.

 

Chris,

There *IS* data showing that equally prepped (tires, fuel, etc.) S197 and f-body cars are close in parity, but only when the S197 is carrying almost 300lbs more weight. Go back and look at the lap times and race results for the entire year of GL/MW. The racing was very close, and got even closer as the season went on. But the entire time, the S197 was 300lbs heavier.

 

To me, that is proof that the S197 has an advantage over the other CMC chassis.

 

Those are the laws of physics, not a "best guess". A car weighing 8%-10% more than all the other cars with equal hp/tq should not be posting equal or faster lap times. If you explain how that is possible, I'm all ears. I bet some F1 teams would like to know that trick as well.

 

Your basing this off of ONE car in ONE region! Talk about a narrow data base...

[mitchntx1548534714]

 

Oh, I realize my posts are going no where. Just got my foot in the bucket now, and having a tuff time getting it out.

 

But thanks for making me feel like I'm not alone in the pointless, needless, worthless rants posting.

 

Here are the steps you will undergo ...

 

Step 1 Don Quixote in Man from LaMancha

Step 2 Oskar Schindler from Schindler's list

Step 3 McMurphy from One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (early in the movie)

Step 4 Reverend Jim from Taxi (the TV series)

Step 5 McMurphy from One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (after his electro-shock therapy)

Step 6 A Dale Jr. fan

 

See how the progression is from a man on a self annointed mission to hiding your head in the sand, to rebellion, to oblivious ambling, to the beat-up and down and finally just following because its trendy?

 

Right now, you are neck deep in step one ... consider this an intervention.

 

Edited October 27, 2011 by Guest

[wastntim]

I think Chris would just be comfortable with more data. Maybe we should evaluate the cars in two or three more years after the S197 has dominated three or four more Nationals before we can be really sure they have an adavantage.

[Adam Ginsberg]

Mitch came close to explaining (a bit tongue-in-cheek) what is difficult for some to fully grasp.

 

NASA is an amateur racing organization. We don't have the kinds of tools that Pro sanction bodies have at their disposal - sealed engines with transponders, serious data acquisition systems, scores of tech officials. Another thing we don't have that the Pro sanction bodies do - high entry fees to pay for those things.

 

That means we do the best we can with the tools we have at our disposal. We do our best to "get it right" when it comes to platform parity. There are times we overshoot the mark. There are times we undershoot the mark. CMC overshot the mark for a few years with the 4th Gens. We also undershot the mark for a few years on the Fox platform. Changes were made, to both platforms.

 

Is it always right? No. Is it always wrong? No. Is it perfect? Hardly.

 

I can tell you, the directors, regardless of how good or bad we get along (publicly or privately) has the best interest of the racers, and series at the forefront of their thinking. We spend a considerable amount of time, at the track, at home, at work, while on vacation, while traveling.....working together to hash out various rules and potential issues in an effort to improve the series, help the drivers, and make sure that we all have fun doing this.

 

So, relax. They sky isn't falling. We'll get this sorted out. Put some faith in the same group of people that caught your interest in the series to begin with. We'll get there.

 

That said, I'm going back to being on vacation.

[Glenn]

Mitch came close to explaining (a bit tongue-in-cheek) what is difficult for some to fully grasp.

 

NASA is an amateur racing organization. We don't have the kinds of tools that Pro sanction bodies have at their disposal - sealed engines with transponders, serious data acquisition systems, scores of tech officials. Another thing we don't have that the Pro sanction bodies do - high entry fees to pay for those things.

 

That means we do the best we can with the tools we have at our disposal. We do our best to "get it right" when it comes to platform parity. There are times we overshoot the mark. There are times we undershoot the mark. CMC overshot the mark for a few years with the 4th Gens. We also undershot the mark for a few years on the Fox platform. Changes were made, to both platforms.

 

Is it always right? No. Is it always wrong? No. Is it perfect? Hardly.

 

I can tell you, the directors, regardless of how good or bad we get along (publicly or privately) has the best interest of the racers, and series at the forefront of their thinking. We spend a considerable amount of time, at the track, at home, at work, while on vacation, while traveling.....working together to hash out various rules and potential issues in an effort to improve the series, help the drivers, and make sure that we all have fun doing this.

 

So, relax. They sky isn't falling. We'll get this sorted out. Put some faith in the same group of people that caught your interest in the series to begin with. We'll get there.

 

That said, I'm going back to being on vacation.

 

This is a great post. This should be required reading on page 1 of the CMC rules.

[Glenn]

 

Oh, I realize my posts are going no where. Just got my foot in the bucket now, and having a tuff time getting it out.

 

But thanks for making me feel like I'm not alone in the pointless, needless, worthless rants posting.

 

Here are the steps you will undergo ...

 

Step 1 Don Quixote in Man from LaMancha

Step 2 Oskar Schindler from Schindler's list

Step 3 McMurphy from One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (early in the movie)

Step 4 Reverend Jim from Taxi (the TV series)

Step 5 McMurphy from One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (after his electro-shock therapy)

Step 6 A Dale Jr. fan

 

See how the progression is from a man on a self annointed mission to hiding your head in the sand, to rebellion, to oblivious ambling, to the beat-up and down and finally just following because its trendy?

 

Right now, you are neck deep in step one ... consider this an intervention.

 

 

Do we need a power point on the life cycle of the Road Racer?

If we do, I vote Mitch as the one who develops it.

[CF03GT]

 

Oh, I realize my posts are going no where. Just got my foot in the bucket now, and having a tuff time getting it out.

 

But thanks for making me feel like I'm not alone in the pointless, needless, worthless rants posting.

 

Here are the steps you will undergo ...

 

Step 1 Don Quixote in Man from LaMancha

Step 2 Oskar Schindler from Schindler's list

Step 3 McMurphy from One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (early in the movie)

Step 4 Reverend Jim from Taxi (the TV series)

Step 5 McMurphy from One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (after his electro-shock therapy)

Step 6 A Dale Jr. fan

 

See how the progression is from a man on a self annointed mission to hiding your head in the sand, to rebellion, to oblivious ambling, to the beat-up and down and finally just following because its trendy?

 

Right now, you are neck deep in step one ... consider this an intervention.

 

 

Holy cow! This is good! Should be a sticky for all message forums!

 

Thanks for the intervention.

 

I will now heed the good advice from you Mitch (you seem to "get it" most of the time), and shut up and let the 'powers that be' do their thing. I think they have enough of my input

 

I will now make my way to the back of the lemming line.. (see, I've already progressed to the last step! Fast learner... Lol

[Dillon]

Wow...quite the thread. I was bored so I just read through all of it. If you'll have it, let me offer my opinion as a relative outsider, albeit one who's watched the CMC class for the last few years (if only in the RM region). This is my opinion only...I haven't even driven any of these cars...just basing this off lots of reading and educated guesses.

 

If you ask me, allowing the S197 to race in CMC in the first place was a mistake. It doesn't take a scientist to realize that a newer car is usually a better car. When you allow a car into a spec class that's potentially 20+ years newer than other cars in the field, you no longer have a spec class. You can't allow newer (and much better designed) technology into a spec class, and expect it to NOT be a ringer. Ford put serious effort into building a brand new car, and a lot of that effort was focused on improving the suspension. It's ridiculous to think that all suspensions are created equal, when the point was made that the S197 needs nothing but shocks and springs to be competitive. I'm told 4th gen F bodies are much the same way, but they have a weight penalty. Add in the fact that most S197s have probably seen far less abuse, and have newer (and stiffer) chassis, it's easy to see it has an inherent advantage.

 

On the other hand, what's done is done. If I were racing an S197 right now, I'd be very afraid. I wouldn't like being told that something will change, potentially resulting in slower lap times, yet having no idea what that change will be, and having seemingly little input. I'd be feeling completely left in the dark. The fact that two S197s took podium at Nationals doesn't mean anything to me...there are too many other factors. When it comes to rules changes, racers need to know what data is being evaluated, and they need to know exactly what factors lead to any decisions. And, if necessary, more testing needs to be done to determine an outcome. Problem is, that's not going to happen, for reasons that Glenn, Al, and others have already stated. Not immediately, anyway.

 

For me, the bottom line on this matter is that NASA, on a national level, is a business. And you can't go about sharing business secrets...not even to investors (racers). I don't necessarily like the way things are being handled behind the scenes, but I do think I understand. I'd like to believe that the directors are going to do their best to keep things as equal as possible. Aside from the fact that they are racers themselves, and therefore hopefully have some respect for competition, it's just good business...you want to attract new racers, not turn them away. But NASA has been known to do funny things, as have all sanctioning bodies. Sometimes what makes sense from a racer's perspective doesn't make sense from a business perspective. IMO, they dug their own heads in the sand by allowing the S197 to run in the first place...and I think it's a good thing that they're trying to dig out.