CRB Letters - Survey

[JRO183]

Hi Guys,


First I would like to thank Jay and the Ad Hoc Committee for their hard work this year. I don't think anyone takes their efforts for granted. No one is attacking anybody here, there are just different opinions.

At the time of the proposed restrictor rules submitted earlier in the year, no one had really any idea how the Kawi would perform over the Suzuki in race conditions, hence no one really knew what to think about the proposed rule. The Runoffs was the FIRST time that there were enough Kawasaki power cars that one could get a true sense of comparison.

Here are the top trap speeds recorded from the Runoffs:

Driver/Position/Engine/Race Speed/Speed Qualifying #3/ SpeedQualifying#2
Osborne/ 1/ Kawasaki/ 111.6/ 111.1/ 114
Cooper/ 5/ Kawasaki/ 113.7/ 113.5/ 112.7
Vollum/ 7/ Kawasaki/ 111.1/ 109.9/ 110.1
Rice/ 10/ Kawasaki/ 114.5/ 111.6/ 112.9
Mayer/ 2/ Suzuki/ 114.3/ 113.2/ 114
Hickman/ 3/ Suzuki/ 114.8/ 113.5/ 113.7
Hill/ 4/ Suzuki/ 114.3/ 115.4/ 111.6
Loshak/ 6/ Suzuki/ 112.7/ 110.4/ 111.1
Chaoonick/ 8/ Suzuki/ 112.9/ 112.7/
Bell/ 9/ Suzuki/ 112.4/ 110.9/ 112.2
Cook/ 11/ Suzuki/ 111.9/ 112.2/ 109.1
LaBrie/ 12/ Suzuki/ 114.3/ 113.7/ 114
Eitel/ 13/ Suzuki/ 109.8/ 109.4/ 109.6
Thielmann/ 15/ Suzuki/ 112.2/ 109.9/ 109.6
Wolf/ DNS/ Suzuki/ 112.2
Gerardo/ 14/ Suzuki/ 108.2/ 108.6/ 110.8


This field represents 8 different car manufacturers, all with different aero setup and total weights. I do not know how any rational person can say that the Kawasaki has an advantage over the Suzuki. The dyno differences did not show up on track at the Runoffs, period.

My true concern is if the cars are this close in performance at the biggest race of the year and the rule makers still want to handicap the Kawasaki more than the Suzuki, how can we fairly move forward with any other engines? How much closer can the engines be? It will turn into a group of guys just arguing about restrictors.

Once we go down this path, I feel it muddies the class. It sounds great to say we will all have equal performance do to restrictors, but if the rule makers are not going to look at on-track data, how is it going to ever work out fairly?

If the BOD wants to slow our class down, I would much rather start another dialogue with them, based on the Runoffs Speed Chart, and revisit their concerns before we implement restrictors.

I have been working with Nicholas Belling on the F1000 survey that was emailed to the current F1000 field. At this point, 2:1 oppose restrictors. If you would like to be included on that survey, please email me your contact info to: c3construction@live.com
This survey will be going to the BOD for consideration. We will post the poll results, once we collect them, for all to see as well.

I also encourage you to write the CRB, www.clubracingboard.com to voice your concerns, for or against.

Thanks for your time,

J.R.O

[Purple Frog]

Trap speeds can be very deceptive. A car with more HP can carry more wing, thus being three mph slower in the traps, but... 3 mph faster in every turn. That was the winning strategy at Topeka for two Runoffs years.

Also, a track like Laguna may show different results than say Road America, or next year's Runoffs venue; Daytona.

That is why the sub-committee stuck to measuring things on dynos where weight, aero, tire pressure, drag, yadda, yadda did not effect the results.

A class with only about 25 active cars is not viable over a long period. So possibly having the opinion of only those 25 is not the answer... reading the minds of the next 25 that might want to build cars would be nice.

Just saying...

As always... YMMV

[JRO183]

Are you implying that the only reason the Kawasaki cars were slower than the Suzukis was because they were all dragged down by huge downforce and weight?

As mentioned in a previous post, I have done back-to-back tests from medium DF to full 3 wing, max DF at High Plains. 131 mph med DF, 128 mph full DF. If I took all the wings off at Laguna, I would not have been over 115. I do not think aero affected the trap speeds substantially. With T11 (corner leading on to front straight) being so slow, I think the trap speeds are very representative of acceleration rates between the 2 engines.

How do you acct for Rod Rice? His car is very light and trimmed out. No crazy speeds for him.

I understand you cannot get true 100% comparison between different cars, but you can definitely see a trend. If the Kawasaki's claimed 15hp dyno advantage translated to faster acceleration, we should be able to see that with trap speeds.

There is sufficient discrepancy between the dyno and on-track performance to delay restrictors until more data is collected and analyzed.

As far as the survey, at this point I would much rather follow the direction of 25 guys who will race and build cars today than to 25 others who may just be thinking about it.

[Thomas Copeland]

--Deleted-

[JerryH]

JR,

I must first say to those reading this that we talked today.....and that we both want what is best for the class.

Mostly for the other readers, I will attempt to summerize some of things we discussed:

Niether of us wants to play with engines....we just want a level playing field....and readily availble, reliable engines.

I got the impression that your main concern was that on track data was never going to be used to determine or adjust restrictor sizes. I believe I addressed that to your satisfaction.

Both the ad hoc committee and the crb know adjustments to restrictor sizes may be needed. It was never intended to be locked in stone.....but good data is needed to make an informed dicision.

We will have the opportunity to compare both the Kaw and Gsxr in the SAME CHASSIS next year. There will be at least one Phoenix and probably a JDR with Kaw engines running. Both can be at min weight with a kaw on board.

If we look at acceleration from a slow roll to a high speed.....say 50 to 140 or so.....in the same chassis......with the same wing settings, and near the same wt.....then we will have good data to make decisions on adjustments.

We just can't compare data from two different chassis.....with totally different drag and weight. Also.....we can't just look at top speed.....nor acceleration to something less than top speed (like laguna). We have to look at acceleration over the entire speed range.

It will probably take a full season to gather enough data....unless we are way off.....but it is imperative we do so.

Until we have that data, the restrictor sizes reccommended by the ad hoc committee are a very good starting point.....they are based on very good analysis of lots of dyno data, gear ratios in the different engines, rpm operating range, etc.

If I understood you correctly, you said you would stop opposing the restrictor implimentation......and address any on track performance inequities you feel exist during the coming season. That is a good approach. Hopefully you will give us plenty of feedback.....so we can (collectively) look at the data in a targeted way.

Jerry

[JerryH]

JR,

Having designed and done a few surveys in my day job....and in the political arena.....I learned a bit about them.

A very well designed survey (without any bias or sales pitch built in) can give reliable data....but only if a large percentage of those recieving the survey respond. Usually only those with very strong opinions respond. I hope you get responses from a large percentage of those surveyed.....otherwise the data is not very useful.

As we discussed, it would be helpful if scca had an email list of drivers in each class....so surveys such as this could go out to everyone in the class......as well as notifications of rule changes (rather than forcing everyone to check fastrack every month to see if their rules are changing). We should all write letters asking for that.

I understand the reasoning behind sending the survey only to those who actually attended a USF1000 race......BUT......If we want to attract more entries, we need consider the opinions of every car owner out there while making decisions about the future. An email list of drivers in scca calsses would make that a lot easier. As weird as it seems, not everyone reads ApexSpeed!

Of course we need to be marketing to those outside scca....karters, and other series as well.

Jerry

[JRO183]

As promised, here is the summary of the survey. This went out to all active FB participants and was open to those who have interest in the class.

[jerry freeman]

This didn't go out to all people with cars. Maybe I missed it or something. Very possible but I just wanted you to know that not everyone saw this until now.

Jerry

[JRO183]

We do not have the email of all car owners. That is why on my original post I gave you the opportunity to send me your information so I could send it to you.

Not sure what else I could do to help make this available.

[ghickman]

This survey went exactly like I expected it to. The majority is against making changes to the rules and feel the restrictors will hurt the class.

I also see the overwhelming majority doesn't want to go slower....I'd like to meet the few that said yep I'd like to go slower...that's puzzling.

[RobLav]

The results come out about as I expected too. The survey could have been done a little better but will most certainly suffice for the issues.

[Thomas Copeland]

I'm working on something for 2016 where we can race our cars unmolested for those of you that might be interested. Cash payouts at every race and no restrictors.

Cheer up everyone!

[Jasonrmbell]

Sounds good !