I had second thoughts about selling my car after last years runoffs. Now I know I did the right thing. I was planning on coming back in a few years after my work commitments were done. Right now I would say no.
Kris Larsen
restrictors
I had second thoughts about selling my car after last years runoffs. Now I know I did the right thing. I was planning on coming back in a few years after my work commitments were done. Right now I would say no.
Kris Larsen
Personal attacks
Quote J. Weida from another forum:J. Weida - The personnel attacks against a respected competitor should not be allowed on this site.
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:21 pm
The mc cars are faster in a straight line. There problem is they don't handle as well yet. To make things even the restrictor needs to be 28 mm. There is going to be video of the gingerman race posted soon you will see there advantage. I like many of you have known for years Jay is full of ****.
Yes you are correct they should not be allowed on this or any other forum. Practice what you preach!
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
If I were to go by the 1-2 seconds example that you so graciously supplied, It would have put you within 1 sec of the track record and Tim .3 to 1.3 sec under the track record (depending on if you used the 1 or the 2 sec selection). Now, since you supplied the example lets use it. If your saying that you and Tim were 1-2 sec off of your "normal" pace, I assume your "normal" pace is the track record. That means Mike was 3.9 sec off of his "normal" pace on the same "crappy" track that you were on that same day and since you've stated that it was the same all weekend long "except for that hour on sat morning" I would say that he was off of his "normal" pace by double.
http://junesprints.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-Group_4_Final_Qualifying_Results.pdf
http://junesprints.com/wp-content/up...ng_Results.pdf
http://www.cendiv-scca.org/03racing/...ckrecords.html
"If your argument is so weak that you have to jump right to the conspiracy theory, your cause is D.O.A."
No conspiracy here, just using the logic you supplied.
TED I am very sorry if you took my statement as a personnel attack because it was not meet to be .I just don't agree about the two engines being equal.
I just raced this weekend at Gingerman against the MC powered cars. I had my engine guy with me and we threw everything at it to go fast and we're lucky to win on Saturday. But Sunday was a different story I was a 4th place car. In my perspective the MC cars just toyed with me and stayed out in front just enough to make it look close.
Just for reference sake, what is the F5 track record at Gingerman?
Jim
Been messing with these cars since 1982
My point was to address the way you (and others) attack, and have attacked, a fellow competitor, not to get into a debate with you nor your incorrect numbers above. Having a debate with someone who takes that path is not a debate, it's a pissing match.If I were to go by the 1-2 seconds example that you so graciously supplied, It would have put you within 1 sec of the track record and Tim .3 to 1.3 sec under the track record (depending on if you used the 1 or the 2 sec selection). Now, since you supplied the example lets use it. If your saying that you and Tim were 1-2 sec off of your "normal" pace, I assume your "normal" pace is the track record. That means Mike was 3.9 sec off of his "normal" pace on the same "crappy" track that you were on that same day and since you've stated that it was the same all weekend long "except for that hour on sat morning" I would say that he was off of his "normal" pace by double.
http://junesprints.com/wp-content/uploads/2014-Group_4_Final_Qualifying_Results.pdf
http://junesprints.com/wp-content/up...ng_Results.pdf
http://www.cendiv-scca.org/03racing/...ckrecords.html
"If your argument is so weak that you have to jump right to the conspiracy theory, your cause is D.O.A."
No conspiracy here, just using the logic you supplied.
I was most definitely NOT toying. I was driving that car as hard as I could. Unfortunately I never drafted with you to get a really good impression as to which car was the best but it seemed you could get off the corner better and I was close to equal in a straight line.
This comparison is what we have seen, over and over again, since early 2013. So, saying that the F600's were toying with Weida has little to no merit. Only hard facts from the SCCA data loggers are what will stand up.
Jim
Clint did not get this assessment from you after the Saturday race as posted on www.formula500.org/forum smaller restrictors, page 2:
"My short lived time out on the track with James Weida and Brian Novak today was great! I can personally say that James was pushing the car for everything he had while I was running with him. I can't speak for what happened after my spin, but up to that point his car and Brian's were on the edge. The cars were dead equal just about everywhere with the exception of the very tip end of the top end mph. I can't say if it was something as simple as the final drive gear selection between the two powerplants or if it was the difference in power. The two stroke would pull the MC motor off of the corner by about 1 1/2 car lengths and the MC motor would pull the two stroke by about 2 car lengths on top end. It was very close overall and it was a blast to run with guys that were pushing the limits of the car on every corner. I thanked James after the race for running his car to what I felt was the limits and I also told him that I had made a commitment to another two stroke team early on that if I ever got a chance to see a strong two stroke run full all out and was beating them in a straight line that I would be the first one to write in for a competition adjustment. After running James today and talking with him after the race about his performance, I told him that I would be writing that letter. I will say that I don't think the restrictors should go down to a 30mm but rather a 31mm. The cars were very close and I don't think it would take much at all to even them out dead on. The 31mm restrictor in my opinion would be the choice. I look forward to tomorrow." (Edited for typos)
BTW, did anyone get close to the Gingerman F5 track record this past weekend?
Jim
Jim,
Why did you not make this same point when Clint was ranting about Mueller sandbagging at the Sprints?
Cory
Because there's more evidence pointing towards sandbagging than there is data. After racing with James this weekend and watching him go through turns, there's little chance I will withdraw my statements about the sprints. James was barely keeping the car on the track and was very tough to stick with. There's places where I had him and places that he had me. Bottom line, he ran the car hard and it showed. The tech guy took data off of James car and mine after the race. This was done VOLUNTARILY with James and I as it was taken off of our personal data systems. He watched me download mine and I watched him download his. There's good data to look at from this race. The two cars are identical with the exception the motors. This was a straight up comparison. I would put more confidence in the data from this weekend than I would from the sprints by far. I will be putting a letter in to the CRB for a competition adjustment based upon what I experienced this weekend.
I'm sure Jim is capable of answering for himself. Also, Jim is specifically referring to data collected from the "SCCA data loggers", so you're not even really answering my question.
It doesn't work
above cartoon is meant to lighten the tone of our discussion.
I SAY LETS RACE.
BTW, perhaps some corner workers could comment on the comparison of the 4 stroke and 2 stroke motors at Gingerman. Any corner workers following this thread?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Yea - a 4-stroke always sounds better than a 2-stroke.
If my number are incorrect I appoligize, can you point out to me exactly where my numbers are wrong? Actuatually,I thought all I posted was direct links to official results page just as you did and then took your reasoning and applied it the same exact way you did. Were these results wrong? If so, we need to contact SCCA and let them know you discovered a.mistake with their timimg system.
I think that Clint answered it quite well as the data loggers can provide only part of the answer but must be included in the decision for any change. How hard each driver takes a corner can be seen in on-board videos so videos should also be included. We now have six components that should make up the evidence for a decision to make an adjustment:
1. Data loggers - either personal or SCCA
2. on-board video showing each car being compared on track
3. personal observations of the drivers (like Clint's) being compared.
4. lap times compared to the track record
5. dyno data for all drivetrains with different IIR sizes (TX, Daryl)
6. Corner worker observation of the drivers being compared (TX, Jay)
If anybody else can think of relevant information that should be included then please add it here. Leaving out any of these components invalidates any conclusion derived. And the need to publish this evidence still stands as we are NOT the SECRET Car Club of America.
Jim
Last edited by jim murphy; 07.15.14 at 5:10 PM.
Dyno.
There is no way a better CVT tuner should be penalized.
No way a better driver should be penalized.
No way a better engine tune should be penalized.
No way newer tires should be penalized.
No way a better tuned chassis should be penalized.
No way a better aero packaged should be penalized.
We are trying to achieve parity between engine/trans combinations when all else is equal. All that other stuff is just superfluous data used to support or reject data the dyno gives us.
?????????????
As I thought about it after you questioned the post, I realized that there is much more than just the data logger input that must be considered as I came to realize that this is no way a simple process. Thus my second post showing more components that must be included in the evidence to be evaluated. All of it critical to arriving at a sound decision. But I realize that I may have missed something in my old age so my request for anyone to add more relevant components.
Do you have another component to offer?
Jim
Jim, in a perfect world all of that info would be very useful. However IMO the requirements to get and analyze that much information is simply beyond the capabilities of an organization such as the SCCA. if we were able to get that much information no one could ever analyze and use it to make a good decision.
The system in place will eventually produce a very good level of competition. Look at the situation in FF For instance. The club used dyno data from a single source to determine the starting power curve for the Honda Fit engine for FF, but that was just a starting point and it still required much time and further adjustments to get it where it is today.
This is a more complex situation because we have different engines and different drive systems so we simply cannot compare the 2 systems on a dyno. It will take some fine tuning to make it right. All of my original calculations indicated that 32mm was my best estimate for parity. I think it is pretty close when comparing the best against the best. Does this mean that that is the answer? Absolutely not. It will take an adjustment or 2 to make it happen but I am confident that the SCCA will be able to get it right.
I do think that 30mm is too small at the 875lb min weight and it also may be that 32mm is too large at 875lbs. The answer, I am sure, is somewhere in between or some combination of restrictor and weight. My hope is that we can all have some patience and let this process happen. I just want to race. I actually have my license back and hope to find the time to hit the track this season and then have at it next season. I hope to see all of you at the track.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
I am genuinely curious as to why you think it's not possible. We aren't talking about just matching peak HP numbers at the crank are we? Of course that wouldn't work, but may get us closer than a WAG.
Your 32mm was probably very close to right on the mark, problem is other uncontrolled variables get tossed into the mix and your calculations get "massaged". It wasn't your numbers that were off by more than 12% (that's the area reduction with the new restrictor), it was all the subjective stuff that got tossed into the mix making it look like the only device without an opinion was wrong.
Jim,
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I've mostly stayed out of this round of the Rotax vs MC debate, because I don't have anything constructive to add. I still feel that true parity is impossible due to the differences in the 2 drive trains. Way beyond Kent vs Fit.
Cory
They should just get them very close based on rear wheel HP area under the curve throughout their perspective rpm ranges used on the track.
From there, you pick your poison. They both will have their share of advantages and disadvantages.
A first order approximation is close enough, heck you are going to have 3-4 new engines introduced every single year and you want to put the same size restrictor on all of the new and old engines just because they came out of a motorcycle? Despite their differences in cams, compression ratios and intake tract designs?
IMO the logistics of the analysis are the problem. All the SCCA committees are staffed by volunteers that have day jobs or more so the amount of time that must be spent analyzing all the variable is difficult to manage. I do not think it will be that difficult to create parity by adjusting the weights and restrictors.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
I personally believe its very possible. If this past weekend was any indication at all, the two are very close right now. I did acknowledge James when he said that we are a hair faster on the tip end of the top end mph. I also gave him my word that I would write the crb and ask for a competition adjustment and I did so already. I would like to say that I have no doubt James was up to par on power that day. He brought his tuning guy along which is one of the top two tuners in the country in my opinion. In my opinion this is what it takes to get the cvt/two stroke combination up to full power every weekend. He gave us a straight up run and we gave him one as well. Data was taken off of both cars and im sure the crb will have some good data to look at. The two are very close right now provided youre able to properly tune the cvt and two stroke portion. I do look foward to running with James again once the competition adjustments are made. Until then, the adjustment has already been made and theres not anything that anyone can do about it. As much as I believe it was a knee jerk reaction to insufficent data, I do support the adjustment after running James. I dont agree with it, but I do support it. My personel opinion is the adjustment shouldve been a 31mm not a 30mm. I hope the data provided from this past weekend will be considerd when the next competition adjustment is being made as I believe its a much better indication of how close the cars are right now rather than the competition that was at the sprints. Afterall, James broke his own track record by .955 sec on a track that was far from ideal conditions.
Daryl,
The goal and method you are suggesting make sense. Unfortunately, tuning of the CVT is necessary to measure RW HP on the Rotax/CVT cars. There is no standard or baseline set-up that can repeatably produce max HP on the dyno, so any RW HP numbers could be questioned by one side or the other.
Cory
The dyno runs would have to be taken off the PTO's of each motor.
Jim
Then how would you account for the difference in efficiencies of the transmissions?
Build it, they will come
additionally, pretty much every CVT system will have a different setup and as a result will also have a different efficiency curve. very tough to keep on top of this and remember we won the Runoffs in 2007 and we pretty much made clutch and carb adjustments EVERY SESSION.
I truly love the 2 stroke package but there are only so many hours on a race weekend.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
This is my personal opinion and nothing more . I see F500 as a class possibly growing with the EXOTIC sound of the MC engine . I see F500 as a class disapearing if it only had the sound of a lawnmower. New people dont know how fantastic the two stroke is to drive but they do know what it sounds like. when I was running my Rotax I never once had someone come up to me and say that car sounds fantastic, I did have many people tell me to turn off that smoky lawnmower so we can breath. I also dont think there needs to parity, if the MC sounds better and was to be faster I think that would be a plus for growing the class. No one needs to comment on my comments as they are only mine. Onward fellow racers, there will always be a newer and faster car out there.
I am a 2stroke fan too. TZ500's or a BRC250 would be cool with me.
Guys,
Let's get the history right. We are all passionate, but are forgetting where this came from.
Facts- Historic:
-The basis of the 28mm-26mm was utilizing a rounded edge restrictor, not a flat plate like we are currently using. The round edge restrictors flow more than the flat plate variety, make sure this is understood before the recommendation is made for something below a 30mm restrictor. The dyno work and flow bench on these early restrictors was just prior to the CRB implementing a Flat Plate Inlet Restrictor (FPIR.)
-The 30mm FPIR @ 875lbs was originally proposed when the cars were to be merged with the 2 stroke cars. This size was specifically selected based on dyno, flowbench, analysis and then on track testing. For completeness, 28mm was on-track tested and deemed to be too small.
-When the initial response to the F600 committee was that the classes would not be combined due to the strong resistance of the encumbant 2stroke community, and that they should run in Regionals to see if they made it or not (sink or swim); the FSRAC chose the 32mm as it was felt based on dyno, flow bench, analysis and on track testing this would be the right equivalence point (between the 2 and 4 stroke engines) to start with, even though the two powertrains would not be run together (based on the populous direction at the time.) Therefore as the cars began to run, the on track data would be accumulating.
-Momentum built for a longer wheel base, slightly wider car with MC power, the club work to stop the division that was occurring in the class which would form a classic CART/IRL split (at our level anyway.)
-The restricted 593 2stroke engine was approved for competition. It was stated that the target was to restrict this engine to performance levels equivalent to the 493 2stroke/CVT combination. This was done with dyno work and NO on-track testing prior to approval.
-The decision was made to merge the MC with the 2stroke cars, F600's were the merging entry into the class and it was felt that the 32mm FPIR was adequate based on the on track information that was emerging. However the plan was to monitor the results and apply competition adjustments as necessary.
Facts - Current:
-Data is available for the rules making committees to review from the June Sprints and will continue to be collected.
-If you look at the results based on the June Sprints, the reality is that McMahan's times were fast for the day, however they were not out of family with F500 2stroke performance at that track. There was a 1.635 sec gap between Mueller and McMahan best race times over the two days, but they did not bust Mueller's lap record, and McMahan would have only qualified 3rd with a 0.399 sec gap from the leader for the 2013 Runoffs with that time. Comparing the 2012 Runoffs data Mueller's fast race lap was 2:21.171, which is 0.745 under Clint's time. Below is a collection of lap times, temperatures and barometric pressures from the hour of the event (all information retrieved from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association - NOAA - historic records for Elkhart Lake, WI):
a. McMahon’s fastest lap time of 2:21:915 (T=60F / Baro=29.95 in-Hg) was not
outside the performance envelope of an F500 at Road America
b. James Weida (2 stroke/same Scorpion Car with Aero bodywork as McMahon’s)
2013 Runoffs Q1 ran 2:21:517 (T=62F / Baro=30.30 in-Hg)
c. Mike Mueller 2013 Runoffs Q1 ran 2:21:715 (T=62F / Baro=30.30 in-Hg)
d. Lap Record at Road America – Mike Mueller at the CAT Nationals 2013
2:20:882 (T=57F / Baro=29.86 in-Hg)
e. Laps b & c were during qualifying and both racers’ lap times during the race
were consistent with the fastest laps by Mueller on both days at the 2014
Sprints (2:23:195 for Wieda and 2:23:433 for Mueller @ 2013 Runoffs.)
f. Mueller’s fast lap during the 2012 Runoffs was 2:21.171 (T=55F / Baro=30.19
in-Hg)
-Gingerman showed that the cars were within 0.364 sec gap and this time it was Novak versus Weida (Sat) and Stewart versus Weida (Sun) at a 0.424 gap. MC engine's were again on top. This time at a short track.
-Letters written in to the CRB are reviewed and discussed.. First at the FSRAC level and then at the CRB level as appropriate. Jay and I can attest to this.
-We are reviewing what the proper criteria are for comparison. As was mentioned enough already, the variability of the 2stroke/CVT combination is something that makes this particularly challenging. The fact that the predominant regions for the 2stroke cars are in the northern and mid-central states and the bulk of MC powered cars are in the SE and Michigan, running the same races seems to present some challenges. To aero-body or not to aero-body. The committee members are working their tails off to bound this problem and put forth a valid solution.
-As both sides acknowledged, parity is the goal, I can comfortably say that this situation is and will be actively monitored by the FSRAC and CRB members with the goal being to assure that neither powertrain has an advantage. REMEMBER -the Club is not in the business of protecting advantages - for either camp, it is here to provide a venue for great, close racing.
Opinion - Mine:
-July 4th weekend, the F600 Challenge ran at Mid Ohio with 11 entries, and the other primary race was a Majors at Watkins Glen with 14 entries. Quite frankly I would like to race with a field of 25 cars. Getting the groups to play together should be everyone's interest.
My position is that I like the people in this class and I would like to have more friends running these cars.
Last edited by chris huskamp; 07.18.14 at 1:03 PM. Reason: Clarification of 2013 Runoffs Comment, Committee clarification in paragraph 3, and inclusion of lap time/atmos conditions
Just a little note. A while back we were approached by a small group of potential club racers. They were universally keen on F600. Since getting more involved in forums like this they have all decided against it, and bought CF and FC cars. I mention this just to give perspective to those heavily involved in F500/600 who have perhaps become a little myopic. The inordinate amount of negative chatter on both sides is pushing people away. This is just an observation.
It is a very rare occasion when that isn't the case anywhere competition adjustments are on the table. The desired goal is admirable, the process in getting there blows even without new variables being thrown into the mix every season or two.
Chris,
Thank you for the excellent recap of the history of the MC vs 2 stroke. I do appreciate the transparency of the evidence that is being considered for this adjustment. My new position is a compromise one - a 31mm IIR - as the performances are very close and a smaller change means a lower probability of having to go back to a 31mm later down the road.
And any future changes in weight should take into account the weight differences in the two drivetrains including the MC clutch pedal and shifter assemblies.
I do have one update request to make:
"The restricted 593 2stroke engine was approved for competition. It was stated that the target was to restrict this engine to performance levels equivalent to the 493 2stroke/CVT combination. This was done with dyno work and NO on-track testing prior to approval."
When the dyno work was done and the IIR size was selected a 493 pipe was used as there were no 593 tuned pipes yet built. Now that the 593's have tuned pipes it is time to do another dyno run with the 593 pipes to see if there are any differences. If a difference is found then a competition adjustment is called for. I know what this adjustment might do to the MC adjustment but it is best for our class that this be done.
Jim
Starting Aug 1st the 600 MC engines will be racing with 30mm restrictors. Let's go racing.
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...g%20finals.pdf
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
If one has the budget, resources and mind set to field a competitive FC car they would never be happy in F500/F600 no matter the chatter - good/bad/indifferent. F500/F600 is not for the high dollar racer that expects to buy speed. F500/F600 is a fiberglass budget - not Carbon Fiber.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote