STL - FWD vs RWD are we at Parity?

I like close racing and the idea, even if my driving doesn't match up, that I can compete.

Are we at parity between the FWD and RWD groups?

When it comes to the two camps, what about the different engine sizes?


S2:D

Judging by the recent change in weight penalty for RWD I would say that the STAC doesn't think they have achieved parity yet. This year will see more development on FWD combos, less RX-8's and more weight on current RWD guys so they are headed in their intended direction.

:014: :dead_horse:

I don't know why you would see that as a negative Chris. With a class this young, the committees need to make changes until they feel they have hit their goals. The inclusion of the rotards was done to bolster numbers and while it gave the developers a goal because a lot of those cars entered in very developed form, it's not unreasonable to determine that 215whp is outside the target for the class, at any weight, given the way cars get spec'd into the STCS.

The new RWD adder is more in line with what IT did when they used software modeling at these HP levels.

I see these changes right in line with original goals and recent results. The only grey area will always be that the FWD cars are still very much in development so some reverse actions may need to be taken in the future but that is fine too.

My only wish for this class will continue to be modern, legal engines in chassis from any year. The combinations would be epic.

No Negative Outlook

I'm just tired of talking about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rabbit07

I'm just tired of Greg talking about it.

---

:smilie_pokal:

Honestly, I've been on record that 7.5% is my thoughts. But we're getting to the point where we're nicking pits. We're not necessarily "done" with this, but we'll continue to collect relevant data and make small adjustment -- only if needed.

- GA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Amy

:smilie_pokal:

Honestly, I've been on record that 7.5% is my thoughts. But we're getting to the point where we're nicking pits. We're not necessarily "done" with this, but we'll continue to collect relevant data and make small adjustment -- only if needed.

- GA

---

Where is that "Like" Button?

I appreciate that the STAC will continue to monitor and make adjustments. I just hope that includes among the NA, NB and NC model Miata's. S2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

I don't know why you would see that as a negative Chris. With a class this young, the committees need to make changes until they feel they have hit their goals. The inclusion of the rotards was done to bolster numbers and while it gave the developers a goal because a lot of those cars entered in very developed form, it's not unreasonable to determine that 215whp is outside the target for the class, at any weight, given the way cars get spec'd into the STCS.

The new RWD adder is more in line with what IT did when they used software modeling at these HP levels.

I see these changes right in line with original goals and recent results. The only grey area will always be that the FWD cars are still very much in development so some reverse actions may need to be taken in the future but that is fine too.

My only wish for this class will continue to be modern, legal engines in chassis from any year. The combinations would be epic.

---

AGree with all of this but caveat on the bolded part. We didn't use "software modeling." We took a look at a program (Lapsim I think) that we didn't understand, that simpy had a box entitled "FWD," and then used that to create a POOMA weight modifier. Let's not impart any scientific reliability to what we did.

From afar, I remain interested in STL but would prefer RWD and just not sure where this going. My perception (just that -- just an opinion) is that a couple of excellent drivers in an RX8 are skewing the numbers and creating a bigger handicap for RWD cars than is necessary. Just my opinion though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffYoung

AGree with all of this but caveat on the bolded part. We didn't use "software modeling." We took a look at a program (Lapsim I think) that we didn't understand, that simpy had a box entitled "FWD," and then used that to create a POOMA weight modifier. Let's not impart any scientific reliability to what we did.

---

http://www.lapsim.nl/index.html

What's interesting is that we had our straight-up POOMA's as baselines, had some theories about weight/HP/linear or not application of said weight and we used an industry SIM to check were our POOMA's were. Surprisingly or not to some, we were damn close and some of those theories were validated by the SIM and some tweaks were made.

I personally loved the process and the results. Like the SIM or not, to me it gave some validation to that aspect of the Process which in reality is one giant POOMA.

I should be more specific and say 1.6, 1.8 and 2.x motors.
S2

Great point that this changes at different power levels...

Also it seems that a FWD drive car often uses itself up faster, this becoming more true the higher the power level, regardless of class/category.

And while at the runoffs, I discussed this with an SCCA official involved in the rules making process... Regarding what seemed to be a steep RWD penalty in his category. I asked him, "Are you happy with a FWD car stealing every track record and having an advantage in the beginning of every race, not to mention after every restart?"

His reply with out hesitation was, "Yes."

Anyone else see something wrong with that?


Another aspect to this issue is something that we all experience when racing on track with another class. Not every car makes its speed/time in the same place. Or in other words, when that slow in the corners guy in the faster class runs you over or away from you in the straights only to hold you up in the corners... Now what if that guy was in your class?

In other words, in most situations I believe that with two cars running the same lap time with equal drivers, one FWD and one RWD, The FWD drive car will win more often.

Chris, here's the metaphor I use whenever this discussion comes up.

We have two cars, both optimal in their chassis design: Honda S2000, a well-balanced, multi-link, RWD car; and a Honda Integra, a good, multi-link, FWD car. Both are prepped to the limits of the STL regulations, and have good suspension coponents (dampuhs, bars, springs, etc).

Into each we install the same engine, a ~210whp Honda K20. Both have a 5-speed transmission, optimized final drive for the engine, and the factory gearsets are swapped optimally for each. Brakes are largest allowed for the class and are balanced to their optimum. Same 225 series tires.

We setup both cars at 2430# total weight.

We take both to a beautiful Fall weekend at Watkins Glen's long course, a track with fast straights and good handling and braking areas. Into each we insert Randy Pobst and tell him to run qualifying laps in both. He starts throwing down.

I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that the front wheel drive Integra would as fast as the RWD S2000 at the same weight. So, we start adding weight to the S2000 (in the optimal location) and re-setup the car optimally, and continue to add weight and re-setup the car to the point where Randy has them both doing the same lap times.

You and I each have to guess at what point of added weight to the RWD Honda S2000 so Randy is doing the same lap times as the FWD Honda Integra.

What's your estimate of the added weight? Don't do the math yet, just think about how much weight you'd add to the S2000 before you'd consider choosing the Integra in your next Majors race.

Now take that number and divide it by 2430.

What's your percentage?

I'll tell you mine later.

- GA