Pairity Progress!

[Fbody383]

The facts are the facts. Every platform has some sort of advantage over the other. The rules have been adjusted to make things much closer than they were a few years ago.

THIS is much more 'accurate' than talking about fast lap.

Bottom line, 11 individuals have had the fastest lap in CMC over the last 4 years of racing, for the last 25 events...

Since we are not time trialing don't award points and tires on fast laps, I don't see this as relevant as podium positions.

The 2013 CMC rule changes certainly had the desired effect. Even though Ford represents only 45% of the CMC field they have won 66% of the races.

Questions: Can further improvements be made? Can we completely eliminate any wins by those pesky Camaros?

The original observation is also a fair one.

For CMC the better question could/should be: did each driver competing with minimal mistakes, in a well prepared car, whithout unnecesary distractions (i.e. yellow/red flags, out of class racing, third party contact/avoidance, picking the right lane in traffic, etc.) have the capability to podium regardless of make/model?

AI is a different question because they invite differences of development per car. So not only is the driver a variable a Chevy may not be a Chevy in AI. CMC is devoted to trying to squeeze the platform differences out.

Did the 2013 changes go way-way-way-way too far? Absolutely not.

As Dan has fairly asked, can further improvements be made? I don't think that answer is as clear, though I tend to believe that yes, some erosion of the 2013 moves would be reasonable.

[mach1]

I am going to build a 4th gen and just switch back and forth between platforms depending on the rules. J/k
It looks to me that the rules are pretty damn solid considering the previously posted data.

I think lap times are quite relevant when we are comparing the platforms.

This is pretty spot on IMO, but I think it is 80% driver 20% platform.

For CMC the better question could/should be: did each driver competing with minimal mistakes, in a well prepared car, whithout unnecesary distractions (i.e. yellow/red flags, out of class racing, third party contact/avoidance, picking the right lane in traffic, etc.) have the capability to podium regardless of make/model?

[AI#97]

I'll make you a helluva deal on a mustang that will make Mr Patterson sweat a lot. Will include the correct intake to knock the power down....just have to not draw attention to the face plated trans! . $25k for the fastest SN95 in the 5 state area....or more.

[michaelmosty]

Fast lap time totally means something when talking about platform parity!!! It has to do with getting the most out of the platform and seeing the potential that is there.
My question would be, why are the GM fast laps not transitioning to as many race wins?
Heck, Dan was in the regional championship hunt up to the very end and it is pretty safe to say he had some of the worst mechanical luck at multiple events this year.

Just because a car wins or gets on the podium, doesn't mean it is the best platform to have.
And just because a car has the fastest lap of the race, doesn't mean it is the best platform to have either.
Like has been stated, there are a dozen factors that determine the finishing position of an individual.

[Fbody383]

Fast lap time totally means something when talking about platform parity!!! It has to do with getting the most out of the platform and seeing the potential that is there.

That's more lap time consistency and 'raceabilty' than one lap flying performance.

[Note: this made me think, do you have the data on fastest race lap person versus their qual times? I'm aruguing it's racing parity not outright one lap time parity.]

I don't think you would argue that a driver/car that had every pole, and fastest lap time but never reached the podium (without mechanicals, incidents, etc.) was parity. (To be fair, based on our collective experience, it's hard to believe this could happen)

CMC parity is green to checker and not just starting line to starting line.

IF we could simply swap drivers around in cars and have them maintain the same relative level of performance, we might be able to see the platform differences. We won't and, in government terms, no body wants to pay to do so.

Ultimately I think we have a pretty good problem - well sorted cars and very capable drivers at the front of the field. But the orginal question is valid - are there changes that could be made to continue to increase competitiveness?

And I like to argue. From behind a keyboard. As a midpack slacker. Orange.

[RichardP]

Mathematically, the Fords have a better power to weight ratio. In theory, this was done to compensate for reduced handling/cornering speed and come out with equal lap times. I think the platforms are reasonably close in this aspect.

From a racing perspective, when two cars are equally capable of producing the same lap time, the car with the better power to weight ratio has an advantage in passing and preventing being passed. The difference in CMC is subtle but I’m sure we’ve all experienced more extreme examples of this. You come up on a car with a big motor that you are say two seconds a lap faster than. Getting past is an exercise in frustration. He can take full advantage of his strengths on the straight but when he parks it in the corner, you can’t take advantage of your cornering advantage because he is physically in your way. It takes really exact positional timing to pull it off even though he quickly fades from the rear view mirror once you do pull it off…

Richard P.

[blk96gt]

I agree with Michael and Tyler, lap times are very relevant, but IMO are only relevant if there is data attached. There are too many other factors that go into lap times to only consider how fast someone drives around a track.

The only way to properly solve the (potential) parity issue is to find/hire a third party driver to drive multiple platforms and compare data/lap times. There is even an issue with this, as you really need to have all platforms tested prepared to the limit of the rules. Even so, I still think it would be interesting to get 2-3 cars from each platform and let someone drive them back to back with data.

Hire someone like Eric Foss for the day, and he brings a Traqmate with him and will even go over the data with you. I'm pretty sure his cost is around $1000/day. Split between 6-8 people it would be <$170/person plus the cost of the DE/track day.

[BlueFirePony]

I agree with Michael and Tyler, lap times are very relevant, but IMO are only relevant if there is data attached. There are too many other factors that go into lap times to only consider how fast someone drives around a track.

The only way to properly solve the (potential) parity issue is to find/hire a third party driver to drive multiple platforms and compare data/lap times. There is even an issue with this, as you really need to have all platforms tested prepared to the limit of the rules. Even so, I still think it would be interesting to get 2-3 cars from each platform and let someone drive them back to back with data.

Hire someone like Eric Foss for the day, and he brings a Traqmate with him and will even go over the data with you. I'm pretty sure his cost is around $1000/day. Split between 6-8 people it would be <$170/person plus the cost of the DE/track day.

I'd be willing to wire up the cars for free with our sensors so you will get much more comprehensive data - 4 corner balance, travel, temp. We are not going to make steering angle sensors right now, but I am looking into some semi-universal sensors that would also provide steering input data - combined with throttle, brake and the 4 corner, you will be able to objectively see how driver input affects the car through the session and how the chassis and tires are behaving.

[AI#97]

I agree with Michael and Tyler, lap times are very relevant, but IMO are only relevant if there is data attached. There are too many other factors that go into lap times to only consider how fast someone drives around a track.

The only way to properly solve the (potential) parity issue is to find/hire a third party driver to drive multiple platforms and compare data/lap times. There is even an issue with this, as you really need to have all platforms tested prepared to the limit of the rules. Even so, I still think it would be interesting to get 2-3 cars from each platform and let someone drive them back to back with data.

Hire someone like Eric Foss for the day, and he brings a Traqmate with him and will even go over the data with you. I'm pretty sure his cost is around $1000/day. Split between 6-8 people it would be <$170/person plus the cost of the DE/track day.

Or you could hire someone already familiar with driving both chassis to their limits on the same track on the same day at a track that driver can drive blindfolded....AND is cheaper than Eric Foss! I might just know someone like that.

[Daniel Allford]

James P. Watch a few videos of straight away speeds and it is pretty evident of the faster car.

Richard P. Mathematically, the Fords have a better power to weight ratio. In theory, this was done to compensate for reduced handling/cornering speed and come out with equal lap times. I think the platforms are reasonably close in this aspect.

From a racing perspective, when two cars are equally capable of producing the same lap time, the car with the better power to weight ratio has an advantage in passing and preventing being passed. The difference in CMC is subtle but I’m sure we’ve all experienced more extreme examples of this. You come up on a car with a big motor that you are say two seconds a lap faster than. Getting past is an exercise in frustration. He can take full advantage of his strengths on the straight but when he parks it in the corner, you can’t take advantage of your cornering advantage because he is physically in your way. It takes really exact positional timing to pull it off even though he quickly fades from the rear view mirror once you do pull it off..


Been there, done that.
Dan