nasaforums.com

Official Forums of the National Auto Sport Association
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:36 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:33 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 10:28 am
Posts: 24
"Please keep ALL factors of racing involved and do not make knee jerk suggestions based on one corner exit at one track at one event in the nation."

It's not about corner exit. If the data was showing that the cars were coming off the corners faster, then a higher speed down the straights could be attributed to driver or setup. In these cases, the data shows an outright acceleration advantage irrespective of corner exit. If torque doesn't matter, why so adamant about not including it in a calculation similar to what is done in GTS?

"The following table shall be used to determine each car’s base minimum weight when multiplied
by the engine’s average horsepower or Peak TQ multiplied by .9, whichever is higher - in case
Peak TQ is even or higher than Average HP - the Minimum Weight will be determined by Peak
TQ ratios"

https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/do ... sFINAL.pdf

While this one was only one event, it contained a great sampling of different cars, drivers and data from across the western states. As there was also a dyno, compliance checks, and AIM boxes installed in certain cars, it should provide a fair representation of what is really happening. Perhaps after the Eastern States, there will be further data with which a fair decision can be made. It was very clear to anyone watching those races, that irrespective of how great a driver the Corvette had piloting it, there was a clear advantage given to it by the current set of rules. Not faulting him for taking advantage of that, but it should be addressed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:41 am
Posts: 21
NorcalTT wrote:

https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/do ... sFINAL.pdf

While this one was only one event, it contained a great sampling of different cars, drivers and data from across the western states. As there was also a dyno, compliance checks, and AIM boxes installed in certain cars, it should provide a fair representation of what is really happening. Perhaps after the Eastern States, there will be further data with which a fair decision can be made. It was very clear to anyone watching those races, that irrespective of how great a driver the Corvette had piloting it, there was a clear advantage given to it by the current set of rules. Not faulting him for taking advantage of that, but it should be addressed.


I was glad to see the data in all the cars, I'm a huge fan of this... and think it also helps eliminate the 'dyno discrepancy'... as you can very clearly control 'car exit speed and trap speeds' from point a to point b and see if the difference is 'hp' or if it's 'mechanical grip'.

I'm happy to drive another car, and show the difference a driver can make. I think it's comical chasing 'hp' and 'tq' ratings as the reason a car wins. I took a TTC/PTC car, and brought it 'up' to TT4/ST4... and I was getting beat locally, consistently by Austin (who brought a TTB/PTB car, down to TT4/ST4)... Aero was/is the Difference in ST. Period.

You saw two cars, prepped to the national level, racing other cars that (in my opinion) were not. ST4 is a new class, and Austin & I have been duking it out locally every month since January, evolving our cars, and fighting for hundredths against one another each weekend. And I could not beat him locally with all that aero. I tried everything, lexan rear window, carbon fiber hood, didn't matter... no aero, no additional grip. It's that simple. Austin and I were on stickered tires almost every session, at the championships (including the race) I didn't notice that on the other cars.

Austin's Miata, and my Corvette had considerably more Aero than any of the other cars... we didn't make passes with straight line speeds... if you watch the race, most of our passes were on the inside and outside of corners. Due to our cars having considerably more mechanical grip. Not TQ, not HP... we all dyno'd within the HP to weight ratio... his car a turbo 4, mine a N/A v8.

While I don't think I have to defend my experience and track record, I also have multiple 25 hour races at Thunderhill, the track is much faster than people realize (from a cornering speed perspective).

IMO, The E36 is probably one of the best cars for the class, it's chassis is a proven one and I've been beaten by them before, I'm confident they will continue to get quicker.

Regardless, rules are meant to evolve, but I agree with many of the other people on here... if you go after torque... than everyone builds 7K RPM motors and gear the cars. You have Porsches/BMW's/Corvettes in ST1-ST3 all battling it out with significant different power bands.

Best Regards,
Dave

_________________
Nat'l Championships
08 PTB
09 CMC2
13 PTB/TTB/TTC
14 PTB/East/TTC West
15 PTB/PTC/TTB/TTC West


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:49 am 
Offline
Forum Racer
Forum Racer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:57 pm
Posts: 436
Location: Concord NC
HP is just torque x speed, they are, and forever will be, connected at the hip. If you have the same HP at twice the rpm, yes you have half the torque at that point, BUT you at doing half as much work twice as fast. It's the power curve over the usable range that matters.

I did this over the winter, it's an ST3 spec Corvette, Mustang, and Thunder Roadster. The weight, RPM, and power are all over the place.

This is corrected for actual DYNOJET acceleration corrected for weight and wheel speed. THis is an exact representation of their relative acceleration.

If you think 700 ft-lb corvettes, vipers, whatever, are lugging their cars around at 2500rpm, you are wrong. We are wringing them to redline just like everyone else, as the torque (acceleration) at the WHEEL is higher in a lower gear/higher rpm.

Image

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:03 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 10:28 am
Posts: 24
Dave Schotz wrote:
NorcalTT wrote:

https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/do ... sFINAL.pdf

While this one was only one event, it contained a great sampling of different cars, drivers and data from across the western states. As there was also a dyno, compliance checks, and AIM boxes installed in certain cars, it should provide a fair representation of what is really happening. Perhaps after the Eastern States, there will be further data with which a fair decision can be made. It was very clear to anyone watching those races, that irrespective of how great a driver the Corvette had piloting it, there was a clear advantage given to it by the current set of rules. Not faulting him for taking advantage of that, but it should be addressed.


I was glad to see the data in all the cars, I'm a huge fan of this... and think it also helps eliminate the 'dyno discrepancy'... as you can very clearly control 'car exit speed and trap speeds' from point a to point b and see if the difference is 'hp' or if it's 'mechanical grip'.

I'm happy to drive another car, and show the difference a driver can make. I think it's comical chasing 'hp' and 'tq' ratings as the reason a car wins. I took a TTC/PTC car, and brought it 'up' to TT4/ST4... and I was getting beat locally, consistently by Austin (who brought a TTB/PTB car, down to TT4/ST4)... Aero was/is the Difference in ST. Period.

You saw two cars, prepped to the national level, racing other cars that (in my opinion) were not. ST4 is a new class, and Austin & I have been duking it out locally every month since January, evolving our cars, and fighting for hundredths against one another each weekend. And I could not beat him locally with all that aero. I tried everything, lexan rear window, carbon fiber hood, didn't matter... no aero, no additional grip. It's that simple. Austin and I were on stickered tires almost every session, at the championships (including the race) I didn't notice that on the other cars.

Austin's Miata, and my Corvette had considerably more Aero than any of the other cars... we didn't make passes with straight line speeds... if you watch the race, most of our passes were on the inside and outside of corners. Due to our cars having considerably more mechanical grip. Not TQ, not HP... we all dyno'd within the HP to weight ratio... his car a turbo 4, mine a N/A v8.

While I don't think I have to defend my experience and track record, I also have multiple 25 hour races at Thunderhill, the track is much faster than people realize (from a cornering speed perspective).

IMO, The E36 is probably one of the best cars for the class, it's chassis is a proven one and I've been beaten by them before, I'm confident they will continue to get quicker.

Regardless, rules are meant to evolve, but I agree with many of the other people on here... if you go after torque... than everyone builds 7K RPM motors and gear the cars. You have Porsches/BMW's/Corvettes in ST1-ST3 all battling it out with significant different power bands.

Best Regards,
Dave


Thanks for chiming in Dave. You are right, you don't have to defend your experience and track record and my posts by no means were intended to take anything away from your awesome record and accomplishments over the weekend. More importantly, you are a really nice/humble guy and it's super cool that you and your Dad do this together and make such a killer team. I also have no doubt that you could take any car out there and win in it. I also agree that you can't just point your finger at HP/TQ and say that's the reason a car is winning. Perhaps I just don't understand why there is such hesitation to factor it in - if for nothing else than to appease those who think more creates an unfair advantage. I'd also be curious to hear more about the aero changes that you thought made the biggest improvement or rather what you saw or didn't see on the other cars. I'm tapping out on this thread at least about TQ! Congratulations again to you Dave. DavidF - thanks for the information and calm dialog.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:43 am 
Offline
Forum Time Trialer
Forum Time Trialer

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: redwood city, california
Lets face it!
With an unlimited budget you could probably make any car dominant in this type of racing with open rpm, open gearing, open shocks, etc. but since the rest of us are fairly normal planet earth residents!
Question is were the miata and the vette 1 million dollars into their development, and is Dave (whose name shall remain nameless) really that much faster?
Looks like we are gonna have to be somewhat objective to what type of budgets the majority have when setting up the rules and be ok with a close encounter of the third kind every now and then and maybe even have the nats in Area 51 every so often!

NorcalTT wrote:
Dave Schotz wrote:
NorcalTT wrote:

https://nasa-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/do ... sFINAL.pdf

While this one was only one event, it contained a great sampling of different cars, drivers and data from across the western states. As there was also a dyno, compliance checks, and AIM boxes installed in certain cars, it should provide a fair representation of what is really happening. Perhaps after the Eastern States, there will be further data with which a fair decision can be made. It was very clear to anyone watching those races, that irrespective of how great a driver the Corvette had piloting it, there was a clear advantage given to it by the current set of rules. Not faulting him for taking advantage of that, but it should be addressed.


I was glad to see the data in all the cars, I'm a huge fan of this... and think it also helps eliminate the 'dyno discrepancy'... as you can very clearly control 'car exit speed and trap speeds' from point a to point b and see if the difference is 'hp' or if it's 'mechanical grip'.

I'm happy to drive another car, and show the difference a driver can make. I think it's comical chasing 'hp' and 'tq' ratings as the reason a car wins. I took a TTC/PTC car, and brought it 'up' to TT4/ST4... and I was getting beat locally, consistently by Austin (who brought a TTB/PTB car, down to TT4/ST4)... Aero was/is the Difference in ST. Period.

You saw two cars, prepped to the national level, racing other cars that (in my opinion) were not. ST4 is a new class, and Austin & I have been duking it out locally every month since January, evolving our cars, and fighting for hundredths against one another each weekend. And I could not beat him locally with all that aero. I tried everything, lexan rear window, carbon fiber hood, didn't matter... no aero, no additional grip. It's that simple. Austin and I were on stickered tires almost every session, at the championships (including the race) I didn't notice that on the other cars.

Austin's Miata, and my Corvette had considerably more Aero than any of the other cars... we didn't make passes with straight line speeds... if you watch the race, most of our passes were on the inside and outside of corners. Due to our cars having considerably more mechanical grip. Not TQ, not HP... we all dyno'd within the HP to weight ratio... his car a turbo 4, mine a N/A v8.

While I don't think I have to defend my experience and track record, I also have multiple 25 hour races at Thunderhill, the track is much faster than people realize (from a cornering speed perspective).

IMO, The E36 is probably one of the best cars for the class, it's chassis is a proven one and I've been beaten by them before, I'm confident they will continue to get quicker.

Regardless, rules are meant to evolve, but I agree with many of the other people on here... if you go after torque... than everyone builds 7K RPM motors and gear the cars. You have Porsches/BMW's/Corvettes in ST1-ST3 all battling it out with significant different power bands.

Best Regards,
Dave


Thanks for chiming in Dave. You are right, you don't have to defend your experience and track record and my posts by no means were intended to take anything away from your awesome record and accomplishments over the weekend. More importantly, you are a really nice/humble guy and it's super cool that you and your Dad do this together and make such a killer team. I also have no doubt that you could take any car out there and win in it. I also agree that you can't just point your finger at HP/TQ and say that's the reason a car is winning. Perhaps I just don't understand why there is such hesitation to factor it in - if for nothing else than to appease those who think more creates an unfair advantage. I'd also be curious to hear more about the aero changes that you thought made the biggest improvement or rather what you saw or didn't see on the other cars. I'm tapping out on this thread at least about TQ! Congratulations again to you Dave. DavidF - thanks for the information and calm dialog.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:58 am 
Offline
Hard-core Forum Racer
Hard-core Forum Racer

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 2:34 pm
Posts: 568
Not a classy response from a Champion, Dave. I don't know you from Adam, but you just gave the oldest, most patronizing racing response in the book to people who are simply talking about class balance and nothing else. No one attacked your championship, but you felt compelled to tell the rest of your competitors that you somehow have more experience, and know Thunderhill better than anyone, and that is why you were running ST3 times.

We have all run the 25 hours of Thunderhill multiple times dude.

Austin had consistent times through the weekend, and I know that those cars should be able to do that because I know good drivers who run 55s in e36s and s2000s. We also had many national level drivers in ST3 this weekend, and you were driving times in TT that should would have had you on a ST3 podium. So are you saying the entire field of ST3 drivers also doesn't know Thunderhill as well as you? Doubtful.

The lap charts from TT show you had more car that you were showing. I had AIM data in my car every session, mostly because I RAN every session in ST4. Where were you? Hopefully at some point there was an AIM system in YOUR car, which means NASA will have the data and get to make the right decision.

Most of us were under no illusion that our cars are not nationally prepped. That's why no one was talking about or contesting your championship. You car was simply being used as a data point in the overall parity discussion. You just made it about your competitors and your championship.

A real Champion knows to lift up the people he has bested, it makes his accomplishment even more meaningful. I know 4 people at the track who would have gone 2 seconds faster than you in your own car(and I am not being conceited and counting myself among them), based the technique I saw when you drove by me.

I look forward to when ST4 rulesets develops and we get more nationally prepped cars out there. I will enjoy what you will say when you are on the other side of this debate.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:26 am 
Offline
Forum Hot Lapper
Forum Hot Lapper

Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:34 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Lexington, KY
A torque number by itself is totally useless when calculating a car’s acceleration potential. Torque only matters once you factor in rpm. Remember the formula for horsepower? HP = torque*RPM/5252. Horsepower is what matters, and average HP is the correct way to measure a car’s acceleration potential.

The old saying “HP sells cars, torque wins race” is just an oversimplification of saying that “average HP” wins races. Cars with low torque and high horsepower (say an S2000) have very peaky horsepower curves, which equates to low avg. HP compared to the peak number. Cars with high peak torque (say a Corvette) usually end up having a much more flat horsepower curve, which equates to high avg. HP compared to the peak number, and lots of “area under the curve.”

GTS came up with hp+tq/2 as a very simple way of estimating the avg. horsepower. It was easy for people to use, but it isn’t/wasn’t the most accurate. The current method of actually measuring average horsepower on the dyno graph (and ignoring torque altogether) is the correct way to calculate acceleration potential. We might still need to make some tweaks to the number of data points used and the rpm points, but there’s zero reason to bring torque back into the calculation.

_________________
Jeff Preston
TT/PTE Miata #417


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:01 am 
Offline
Forum Spectator
Forum Spectator

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 22
I don't have anything in this fight as I am an ST3 competitior. But I would ask the basic question of what do you think the lap time delta should be between ST3 and ST4? 2 secs/3 secs...or should it be 7-8 secs? I don't know.

Usually between ST3 and ST2 comparing past results of similarly skilled and prepped competitors one could argue about 2 seconds between the best of the best is average (tracks, Laguna Seca, Sonoma, Buttonwillow, Thunderhill....drivers, Bill Brinkop ST2, Tony Colliccio, Tristan Littlehale, Brett Strom ST3 examples). I am usually 1.5-2 secs/lap slower than TC and Tristan on ultimate lap time as an in class ST3 competitor with basically the same car, same tires, and I have a TT3 Championship from Buttonwillow last year (Tony and Tristan didn't run in TT3 thankfully!!). So I might be 4-5 seconds slower than the next class up. But the real difference is only 2-3 seconds in relative terms. The driver's are the biggest difference.

If 3 seconds were the target lap time delta number between classes ST3/ST4, looking at the times below, seems like it may be about right? But maybe your argument is it should be 6-8 or more seconds?

Here are some of the fastest lap times at Thunderhill by class at Champs and from a prior event, all on fresh tires obviously and setup for ultimate lap time:
TT4 - Dave Schotz - 1:53.344 1991 corvette
ST3 - Brett Strom - 1:50.367 qualifying session for champs (factory Audi RS3 LM race car)
ST3 - Tony Colliccio - 1:50.895 qualifying session (8/15/16) and he believes he could go faster (e36 chassis 250hp running 10.5 lb/hp I think)

And I am not defending anyone, but I'm pretty sure neither Dave nor Austin have millions in their cars. If they have more than $25k in them I would be surprised.

Flame on...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:23 am 
Offline
Hard-core Forum Racer
Hard-core Forum Racer

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 2:34 pm
Posts: 568
I think its weird that anyone disputes the corvette has a straight line advantage. There is a video of the car passing 4 cars before the start/finish line from the back. He was the only car to change his position before start finish. That means his car is an outlier in the field, hence the parity discussion.

This has nothing to do with the skill of the driver, familiarity with the course, setup, braking. Those things were not in play. The skinny pedal moved the car 4 spots. It's ok if people ask why.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:26 am 
Offline
Forum Time Trialer
Forum Time Trialer

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:22 pm
Posts: 261
Location: redwood city, california
so you are basically saying that with another few grand over and above the 25k already invested in the vette and finding a pro driver or one of those guys 2 sec faster that someone mentioned, the st4 vette would be doing st3 factory audi times?

how much is tony coliccios car? or the audi? are they legal for st3?
what tires are they on?


erik911 wrote:
I don't have anything in this fight as I am an ST3 competitior. But I would ask the basic question of what do you think the lap time delta should be between ST3 and ST4? 2 secs/3 secs...or should it be 7-8 secs? I don't know.

Usually between ST3 and ST2 comparing past results of similarly skilled and prepped competitors one could argue about 2 seconds between the best of the best is average (tracks, Laguna Seca, Sonoma, Buttonwillow, Thunderhill....drivers, Bill Brinkop ST2, Tony Colliccio, Tristan Littlehale, Brett Strom ST3 examples). I am usually 1.5-2 secs/lap slower than TC and Tristan on ultimate lap time as an in class ST3 competitor with basically the same car, same tires, and I have a TT3 Championship from Buttonwillow last year (Tony and Tristan didn't run in TT3 thankfully!!). So I might be 4-5 seconds slower than the next class up. But the real difference is only 2-3 seconds in relative terms. The driver's are the biggest difference.

If 3 seconds were the target lap time delta number between classes ST3/ST4, looking at the times below, seems like it may be about right? But maybe your argument is it should be 6-8 or more seconds?

Here are some of the fastest lap times at Thunderhill by class at Champs and from a prior event, all on fresh tires obviously and setup for ultimate lap time:
TT4 - Dave Schotz - 1:53.344 1991 corvette
ST3 - Brett Strom - 1:50.367 qualifying session for champs (factory Audi RS3 LM race car)
ST3 - Tony Colliccio - 1:50.895 qualifying session (8/15/16) and he believes he could go faster (e36 chassis 250hp running 10.5 lb/hp I think)

And I am not defending anyone, but I'm pretty sure neither Dave nor Austin have millions in their cars. If they have more than $25k in them I would be surprised.

Flame on...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group