Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: STL - FWD vs RWD are we at Parity?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    42

    Default 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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    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.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Purcellville, VA USA
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Chris "The Cat Killer" Childs
    Angry Sheep Motorsports
    810 417 7777
    angrysheepmotorsports.com

    IT,SM,SS,Touring, and Super Touring

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    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.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Purcellville, VA USA
    Posts
    902

    Default

    No Negative Outlook

    I'm just tired of talking about it.
    Chris "The Cat Killer" Childs
    Angry Sheep Motorsports
    810 417 7777
    angrysheepmotorsports.com

    IT,SM,SS,Touring, and Super Touring

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rabbit07 View Post
    I'm just tired of Greg talking about it.


    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    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.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    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.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •