Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
If we didn't put any faith in stuff you didn't fully understand, we would never leave the house.
STL engine builds?
- Thread starter coreyehcx
- Start date
If we didn't put any faith in stuff you didn't fully understand, we would never leave the house.
There was a World Challenge tema that did that. They kept collecting concessions throughout the season and installed them all near the end. They started cleaning up, and they got in big trouble with SCCA Pro for it.
If we didn't put any faith in stuff you didn't fully understand, we would never leave the house.
...particularly if you knew how much engineering gets done with systems very much like LapSim. You don't have to knock a skyscraper down to have a pretty damned good idea what kind of forces would be required to do so.
K
JeffYoung
New member
There's actually a pretty decent amount of disagreement over whether FWD is a hinderance in race applications especially at varying power levels. It would have been nice to know -- well I'd say imperative -- what assumptions, etc. this program used in making the calculations it did. We had no idea.
This was less like saying "the engineering behind that skyscraper must be sound since it is standing" and more like "Yaweh kicks Allah's ass."
But I digress. Water under the bridge. Back to the STL discussion.
This was less like saying "the engineering behind that skyscraper must be sound since it is standing" and more like "Yaweh kicks Allah's ass."
But I digress. Water under the bridge. Back to the STL discussion.
red986s
New member
Would it be too complicated to treat STL like World Challenge as far as parity is concerned? If a particular car begins to dominate the class ballast is added to that car for the next race. Removed when the car falls back, etc, etc throughout the season. Just thinking out loud.
WC adds weight to individual driver/car combinations, which makes SOME sense if it's the same people meeting weekend after weekend.
K
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
'Whether'? How many 'real' racecars do you know of that are FWD? I wonder why...hmmm.
red986s
New member
I understand what you're saying but don't we all usually see the same drivers in our reg/div race after race? Sure you'll have an out of division driver here and there but IIRC that wouldn't effect divisional championship points, right?
Maybe it doesn't have to be weight, it could be win a race lose a couple positions the next race. I figured why penalize all cars across the board (i.e. Honda Civic) because one owner dominates. Impose it on that particular driver/car. In moderation of course (10#, then 20#, etc).
JeffYoung
New member
Agreed. And when the only other alternative is "rewards weight" based on performance at a single straightaway at Road America that's looking like a hell of a Hobson's Choice.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Nope, the process actually accounts for mid-rear.
We will agree to disagree that the LapSim was a bad move simply because we don't understand fully the algorithms. It supported a hypothesis, we were close with our SWAG and we made a small adjustment. I still think it was 100% the right thing to do.
JeffYoung
New member
Still thinking about it too narrowly.
Put FWD/RWD/mid engine aside. Do you agree that having the motor over the drive wheels can be an advantage in some instances (and I'm not just talking about in the wet)?
And let's at least be clear before we agree to disagree. It's not that we didn't fully understand the LapSim algorithms. We had no clue -- zero -- what the program was doing or not doing. And we still used it to set weights.
NOW we can agree to disagree.
Put FWD/RWD/mid engine aside. Do you agree that having the motor over the drive wheels can be an advantage in some instances (and I'm not just talking about in the wet)?
And let's at least be clear before we agree to disagree. It's not that we didn't fully understand the LapSim algorithms. We had no clue -- zero -- what the program was doing or not doing. And we still used it to set weights.
NOW we can agree to disagree.
red986s
New member
To keep the competition close and not have one car/driver dominate a class.
Don't get me wrong these penalties wouldn't be permanent (all season) just a race or two. Like I said think WC. Just throwing ideas out there for the folks who are worried one car/engine/layout will dominate STL.
JeffYoung
New member
Honestly, ugh.
So I tow to Nashville to get some points, and run against 3-4 cars that are not very competitive. I get slapped with 100 lbs. I come back to CMP and face a 15 car field with 8 cars that are top notch, and I have 100 lbs on the car because of Nashville?
Appreciate the thoughts but just don't see how this will work.
So I tow to Nashville to get some points, and run against 3-4 cars that are not very competitive. I get slapped with 100 lbs. I come back to CMP and face a 15 car field with 8 cars that are top notch, and I have 100 lbs on the car because of Nashville?
Appreciate the thoughts but just don't see how this will work.
To keep the competition close and not have one car/driver dominate a class.
Don't get me wrong these penalties wouldn't be permanent (all season) just a race or two. Like I said think WC. Just throwing ideas out there for the folks who are worried one car/engine/layout will dominate STL.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Still thinking about it too narrowly.
Put FWD/RWD/mid engine aside. Do you agree that having the motor over the drive wheels can be an advantage in some instances (and I'm not just talking about in the wet)?
And let's at least be clear before we agree to disagree. It's not that we didn't fully understand the LapSim algorithms. We had no clue -- zero -- what the program was doing or not doing. And we still used it to set weights.
NOW we can agree to disagree.
If by 'some instances' you mean things like 'initial turn-in response' or 'more stable under power' and the like, sure. But I'm not sure your point. Overall, FWD is NOT optimal for a racing application. I am not sure how that is debatable.
We used the Sim to validate where we were and a hypothesis that it might not be enough. Coincidentally(?) it independently supported those thoughts.
JeffYoung
New member
My point is pretty simple. In situations where we have sub 200 whp cars on what are basically racing slicks. the advantage of having the weight over the drive wheels can overcome the disadvantage of having the drive wheels doing both steering and "driving." It can provide significantly more off the corner grip than a front engine/RWD car especially when conditions are slick -- heat, oil, damp, etc.
I was too ill informed at the time the big push was on to put the FWD deduct in place. There is a lot of debate over this and the old mantra about "all real race cars are RWD" as proof of the advantage of RWD is disingenous. IN REALITY, when given a clean slate, designers do not go with a front engine/rear drive concept. They go with a rear engine design which combines the advantages of both RWD/front engine and FWD/front engine.
In my opinion, we blew it. There really isn't an advantage/disadvantage to FWD (I think the pluses and minuses cancel each other out) at these power/grip levels.
I'm still at a loss as to what we validated with LapSim or what our hypothesis was. We basically just accepted what the program had to say without any question. Yes, I'm obsessed with this...lol....
I was too ill informed at the time the big push was on to put the FWD deduct in place. There is a lot of debate over this and the old mantra about "all real race cars are RWD" as proof of the advantage of RWD is disingenous. IN REALITY, when given a clean slate, designers do not go with a front engine/rear drive concept. They go with a rear engine design which combines the advantages of both RWD/front engine and FWD/front engine.
In my opinion, we blew it. There really isn't an advantage/disadvantage to FWD (I think the pluses and minuses cancel each other out) at these power/grip levels.
I'm still at a loss as to what we validated with LapSim or what our hypothesis was. We basically just accepted what the program had to say without any question. Yes, I'm obsessed with this...lol....
Ron Earp
Administrator
Reading through these various threads on STL (ST) over the last few months leads me to believe that much about the class is uncertain. There seem to be more than a few inconsistencies in the philosophy of the ST as well as the technical details surrounding the classing of certain cars.
I do believe the class is well-intentioned, but as a perspective participant it seems to me it is too narrowly defined. I'm more than a bit apprehensive about how the competition adjustments, or whatever they'll be termed, will be implemented. I'll be watching from the sidelines but I'm nowhere near as excited as I was months ago when I first learned about it.
I do believe the class is well-intentioned, but as a perspective participant it seems to me it is too narrowly defined. I'm more than a bit apprehensive about how the competition adjustments, or whatever they'll be termed, will be implemented. I'll be watching from the sidelines but I'm nowhere near as excited as I was months ago when I first learned about it.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
What are you citing as data to support this?
A tire only has 100% grip. If the fronts are using all of that to corner, then shift weight OFF of them to try and accelerate, it's not optimal. Slower corner speeds (less than 100% of the tires ability) are needed to then apply another force at once WHILE also increasing weight transfer to the opposite end.
Wait, now I get it...you don't like the SIM output because you don't BELIEVE it!
That Lucas smoke is damaging. LOL. Cheers bro. VIR in March again. Beers and debate!
JeffYoung
New member
Dave, sorry, missed this post.
It seems to me to be a "trigger level" difference. Somewhere in the posts above, I did acknowledge that we are seeing with Greg and Chris here is, I think, the realization that you have to have the ability to deal with the overdog.
For us on the ITAC, my personal opinion is that the "evidentiary standard" required to adjust a car away from 25% is much higher than it was in the past and I think that is a good thing.
More importantly, it's done on a national basis with the stated goal of having at least five data points before we can make a change. There are problems with that, but the "good" of it is we avoid the "he pulled me down the backstraight at Road Schmugalugifucus" weight adjustments.
Like Ron's post above, I was initially interested in this class. The narrow displacement limit and the even more narrow group of cars and chassis that appear competitive have made me less interested. Weight adjustments based on data from one straightaway at Road America pretty much seals the deal for me.
I wish ST well. It is a cool rule set and I'm not upset or anything about the direction it's taken -- I'm just one guy with a creaky old IT car...lol.....but like Andy said above, for folks used to IT and the very strong institutional bias against making weight adjustments based on on track performance, a lot of what was discussed above is contrary to a core fundamental for car classing that we are used to.
Again, best wishes to Greg and Chris and I hope ST is successful. They've done good work with it.
It seems to me to be a "trigger level" difference. Somewhere in the posts above, I did acknowledge that we are seeing with Greg and Chris here is, I think, the realization that you have to have the ability to deal with the overdog.
For us on the ITAC, my personal opinion is that the "evidentiary standard" required to adjust a car away from 25% is much higher than it was in the past and I think that is a good thing.
More importantly, it's done on a national basis with the stated goal of having at least five data points before we can make a change. There are problems with that, but the "good" of it is we avoid the "he pulled me down the backstraight at Road Schmugalugifucus" weight adjustments.
Like Ron's post above, I was initially interested in this class. The narrow displacement limit and the even more narrow group of cars and chassis that appear competitive have made me less interested. Weight adjustments based on data from one straightaway at Road America pretty much seals the deal for me.
I wish ST well. It is a cool rule set and I'm not upset or anything about the direction it's taken -- I'm just one guy with a creaky old IT car...lol.....but like Andy said above, for folks used to IT and the very strong institutional bias against making weight adjustments based on on track performance, a lot of what was discussed above is contrary to a core fundamental for car classing that we are used to.
Again, best wishes to Greg and Chris and I hope ST is successful. They've done good work with it.