Keith, although I did not address you by name, I did answer your question. To reiterate...the Club bought about a dozen loggers last year and used them at the Runoffs. We own them...lock, stock and barrel, and AFAIK do not plan to buy more, so your dues will not increase on that account. Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
This sounds like the first step towards NASCAR style equalization of cars. Once the motor situation is resolved I suspect someone in topeka will get the idea that competitiors costs can be reduced by "adjusting" different chassis so that all are "equal". I can see it now:
Hey guys, we've got all these boxes sitting here, why don't we make the competition closer by making weight adjustments to different chassis so that all are equal!
This is more intrusive than I think is necessary.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Tim you hit it dead on. Weight for different DRIVER/chassis combination. It helped TransAm oooH they are gone now?
Ted
Dave W.
That was cold man. You could have said Citation vs. VD vs. Piper vs. Swift
Originally Posted by jim morgan
OOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, it's my old age showing! I edited that post.
We (us old-car guys) got to stick together!
Dave Weitzenhof
Hi Stan: Does the CRB make a pool every month to see how many points y'all can raise the collective blood pressure?
If so, who won with this one?
I cant believe that anyone would allow their "speed secrets" to be recorded/reviewed by any third party, unless they planned to _____________________(insert your favorite).
Statistically indefensible.
Probabilities?
Does the bad statistics (I agree that it is ridiculous) mean that the probabilities are that SCCA won't do it? Do you want to bet on it?
It is absurd that SCCA, which certainly has members who make their living doing engineering/manufacturing statistics, can have such a program ready to spring on us without any intelligent input.
- Frank C
I have thought about this for three days trying to see the point.
The rule was passed to cover all classes. FC being only one of them should not feel singled out. I don't think the black helicopters are picking on FC.
Even if the equipment doesn't interfer with anything, the results would be statistically too weak to base any decision. And even though there is a promise of secrecy, tidbits will probably leak out. But even that won't matter, because the competitors usually already know the 'personalities' of various car/driver combinations. Nicki/Avons/VD/Elite/lots of wings = FAST, Mike/used Hoosiers/Reynard = Slow
If there is no action to equalize zetecs and pintos by mid-summer, then no one will bring a zetec to the runoffs. Then what would be the point? To measure different pintos in different chassis, on different tires(tyres)?
But... ah ha... there may be aluminum heads by the Runoffs (maybe by the Sprints). So we could measure the differences between AL and iron heads... The difference being that Al heads will weigh less and put out up to 10 more hp. But if we already know that, why measure?
I think the futility of the project might be what irritates some. Why waste the time to gather trivia? Time maybe better spent improving the public address system at Topeka.
Speaking of which, this will be just one more item designed to attract competitors to Topeka... not.
For years there has been almost constant 'competition adjustments' in almost every GT and prod class. All that time the formula classes have been able to maintain fairly stable rule configurations. It looks like that is about to change.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Perhaps the DA is a reasonable attempt to appear like they are looking at real information in order to make a decision.
I feel that no matter how much data they have and where it comes from, the people who don't like the outcome will poke holes in the study. Too many variables to make this study scientific, so you make a reasonable effort to make sure you are least headed the right direction. If you are too far off, there are already tools in place to fix it without much delay.
And how would these same people like the powers that be to know when they are too far off. How much data do they need, how many variables are acceptable?
All of the FC competitors entered into the class aware that competition adjustments could be made. Not many were too upset when the bike engined car was getting screwed/adjusted.
Over the nearly 40 years I have been involved with SCCA I have watched and participated in many "Class Rules Thrashes". I can almost tell you who and what issue produced the rules we have in FV, FF, and FC.
The one thing I can say for certain is the the CRB is not capable of doing this job properly without a lot of input from the class participants. The CRB should supervise the process but the participants have to do the heavy lifting.
In 1984 we had a FF meeting in Denver to thrash out the FF rules. Those rules are largely unchanges since that meeting. About the same time FV went through a similar process. I think these 2 classes show that we can get good rules through this process.
We had a committe that worked up the Zetec proposal. Now we need to reform a committe to thrash out the engine rules mess. The committe needs to be made up of those who have a real stake in the final out come -- the producers and racers of those products. The vendors can tell you what you can do and how much it will cost, and the racers can tell you what is reasonable and what they really want. The CRB and the BoD supervise and impliment.
Before we had the aluminum head Pinto engine come on the sceen, we had a relatively simple situation and a plan that was in place. Now with the alum. head Pinto, we have a real can of worms. All I can think is that some one has made assurances that the investment in new products for Pinto engines would be rewarding.
At the same time those of us who read the published materials from official sources and made equal investments in new products around the Zetec engine might question whether we got the message correct.
I suggest that we continue this season as we have started it. But prior to the start of 2008 we (1) repeat the track test that was done last fall. (2) We get the engine builders to think through various rules ideas. (3) Finally we convene a face to face meeting with a committe of drivers, FC vendors, CRB representatives and at least one BOD member. At the meeting we thrash out the rules that will be in effect for the 2008, without any competition adjustment allowed.
If it is decided to accumulate data from the run offs then that data should be available to the committe but the committe should supervise the collection and and use of the data.
FV has been a very successful class. One of the characteristics of that class is that the participants have had been very involved in the rule making process. At times the CRB has not wanted to get invloved in FV rules changes because of the storm that would decend on their heads from angry FV participants.
I think it is time that the people who really have their money on the table for this class take charge of the rules.
Last edited by S Lathrop; 02.14.07 at 12:08 PM.
I sure like this idea (looking at all the laps from cars with the DL1 installed) vs. using a random sampling of speed-trap times (either using the loop on a short section of straight), or the previous radar gun.
I like the idea that decision makers have real data instead of opinions, guesses or well meaning, but often self-serving competitor input.
They measure the lap time, I have no problem with measuring how they achieve the lap time. I'm not worried about competitors finding out about my performance, they can find that out by trying to follow me.
I wrote this yesterday and forgot to hit the submit button....
A few other questions:
If I'm told to install one of these recorders will it be for the entire runoffs, one session (possibly qualifying), just the race or some other combination? Competitors will try to find a way to play this to their advantage. Can you say "sandbagging".
When will the data be made available to the driver and other competitors (after the session, end of day, race weekend, months later)?
What other variables will be factored that aren't measured by the system but have substantial impact on speed and acceleration such as tire make, # of sessions on the tires, tire compound and construction, down force configuration, total car weight/fuel load, gearing, etc...? How do you know the data given by the competitors is accurate?
If the unit is damaged or destroyed in an accident who is liable? Perhaps the G meter and GPS can be used to determine fault in an accident, won't that be fun!
If the unit comes loose after being installed by SCCA tech, gets caught up in my peddles (because the best place to install it is under my legs) and causes a severe accident is SCCA prepared for the lawsuit that will ensue? Talk about opening a can of worms. What if the unit comes loose and disables my car, how will that be handled (Robbie Gordon's TV camera at Watkins Glen a few years ago).
I think this is a good idea but I share many of the concerns previously stated. If speed and acceleration is all that is requested then as Steve stated the AMB system is well suited for that. Additionally the use of radar guns can tell a lot about speed and acceleration.
Perhaps if this was made voluntary instead of mandatory many of the concerns would go away and take the "Big Brother is watching" feel out of it. Additionally I believe using the data systems at a controlled test such as the pinto vs zetec test that occurred at Summit where tire, aero, weight, driver and other major variables can be controlled is a better use of time and money as well as provide more precise results. If this is going to happen anyway perhaps some reward should be given to the drivers selected to carry the system such as free entry fee or free test fee.
I race a FV, the main differences I see are 1)it is a one engine class and 2) there are some extremely "experienced" folks in that class, and with that comes knowledge and a little bit of resistance to change
And another thing....
You decide what parameters you want to understand, and design an experiment to collect data in order to support or refute a point of view, and then proceed to collect data and then analyize it.
Collecting data without an expreiment designed to specifically get you data under reasonably controlled conditions is an opportunity for all kinds of cross products to come in and make the data useless (or at least lead you in directions that you didn't intend to go, for reasons you don't fully understand).
In the case of the SCCA box, trying to use that data without the rest of the typical information collected would lead you to making conclusions without the knowledge of how well that driver/car/track combo was really working on that day - throttle histogram info being a good overall indicator for instance).
I think the use of that box is really to give decision makers a warm fuzzy that they are working with a larger data set and not just looking at a couple of point soultions with a couple of specific drivers on a couple of tracks - but I think that warm fuzzy is just that, and not really good solid data.
At the risk of derailing everybody's favorite black helicopter discussion, let me reiterate a couple of points.
The Club bought the loggers after years of competitor complaints that we had no way of quantifying performance adjustments. AMB can't provide the same data as installed at HPT. Radar guns (as they exist) can't do it either. Only an on-board system can gather the data needed to tell who is putting what hp to the ground.
The classes we worked with last year were very happy we had the loggers, and cooperation was generally very good. In the end, however, some of the loudest complainers about "the other guy" refused to participate, causing us to miss the opportunity to verify their complaints. As a result, this year participation will be required. That said, last year we also got to cars that had willingly agreed to participate and could not find a suitable installation site in the time available, so we simply moved on to the next car on the list. Of course, in the end a few folks weren't too happy with what the loggers revealed, and the action we took, but that is to be expected.
Thanks for all the wonderful suggestions of nefarious things to do with the data, but they will have to wait for another lifetime. In the meantime we will continue to use the loggers to help settle questions of engine parity, just as we use weigh scales, damper dyno, Cam Pro Plus, etc., to settle other compliance and competition issues.
Someone asked how soon a competitor can get a copy of their data. Last year we gave it to them as soon as it was downloaded if they brought a thumb drive or PCMCIA card. Of course, if Frog comes up and says "Hi, I'm Nick's crewdawg...here to collect his data." there might be a slight delay as we check with Nick...
And now, back to our regularly scheduled black helicopter discussion.
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Stan:
Lets look at the whole proceedure for equalizing the engines. Decide on that and then look at how gathering this data will advance that end.
Without a clearly defined set of goals and proceedures, i think some very competitive people will not participate when they should.
Start with the same group that did the Zetec deal. Expand as you must to get the expertise necessary.
You may find that you need more data than you are collecting and that it will become available when you have built you case for gathering the data.
Hi Stan: Maybe the SCCA's Black Helicopters would stay permanently grounded if a little more discussion was to take place between the members and the pilots before the choppers start the next mission. I think the USAF called them Preflight Briefings. I know I've been too damn busy to read every line of Fastrack for the past year, but was this ever sent out for member input?
I think there's enough collective horses in this class and on this forum to do a real DOE and perhaps help guide the CRB in the data collection effort, but I don't think even a really good experiment will be able to limit the number of variables in what is essentially an uncontrolled environment.
Will you be coming up to Thill for School? If so, we can share some adult beverages.
Does anyone think that someone would sandbag during qualifying at the Runoffs.
Let's be serioous.
As long as the data is not shared with other competitors, what is wrong?
Steve,
I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone sandbagged in qualifying if they were only carrying the logger for that session. Heck we get 4 qualifiers. That's why I asked how long we'd be asked to carry it.
Again, I'm not against it but it needs to be thought through completely. I'm just offering my initial thoughts.
Stan - I can't believe you actually believe that! Did the USAF teach you that?Only an on-board system can gather the data needed to tell who is putting what hp to the ground.
The way to do this, (IF WE WANT PARITY) is to conduct it the way the Zetec and Pinto guys did. In my view, we should have had a phased plan to bring in the new FC engine, to slowly let the Pinto die, and not to add more variables (aluminum head) to the problem. The constant screwing around with the rules is what gets people upset and contributes to lack of participation. I hope our F1000 rules remain precisely stable for the next 5 years or so.
At a minimum, the use of those data loggers should be strictly voluntary.
Who started this F1000 class anyway? Is this suppose to be a spec class?...(i.e, cost saving class?). I don't think a lot of people realize that F1000 is basically a DSR class without the enclosed bodywork.Am I right or am I wrong here?
Look how expensive it is to run at the front of the DSR class and how rampant the costs in that class is. If history is any guide it won't take long until the costs start spiralling out of control in F1000 as well. I wouldn't be surprised if most people who convert their FC cars over to F1000 get priced out of that class within 3 years. They'll be frustrated because no way will they be able to run at the front with the purpose built F1000 cars. Just seems that a lot of those people are in for a very big letdown. Am I wrong to assume this?
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 02.14.07 at 7:23 PM.
Firman F1000
Just a note on this specific issue....the DL1 can be programmed to turn itself on at a specified speed. I bought a remote on switch but have never neeced to use it. If you need to know how to set this up, contact Al Seim (http://www.actdigital.com/). I was lucky, when I purchased it from him he set it up for me.
Only source of data?
"The Club bought the loggers after years of competitor complaints that we had no way of quantifying performance adjustments. AMB can't provide the same data as installed at HPT. Radar guns (as they exist) can't do it either. Only an on-board system can gather the data needed to tell who is putting what hp to the ground."
...ever hear of a thing called a stop watch? I hear that they used them way back in the 90s.
Larry Oliver
Larry Oliver
That only tells you if its faster. It won't tell you the where, how and perhaps lead you to intuit the why.
------------------
'Stay Hungry'
JK 1964-1996 #25
It turns out that I will be there ... crewing for a friend going through drivers school. You instructing or helping someone? StanHi Stan: ... Will you be coming up to Thill for School? If so, we can share some adult beverages.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Hi Stan: Instructing
Unfortunately I've been too busy to build the killer 2.0L engine with the Mikuni's and cam, so it'll be me and the FC.
See you there!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote