SCCAForums.com

dhrmx5:

LVKnupp:

dhrmx5:

Where is the upside for Scott and Ed?

It certainly wont come from people pointing out the cars ran and you saying its not true

Sorry, Grasshopper, you must learn to open your mind to all of life's possibilities. My statement was true, there are factual mistakes in that press release. I just didn't specify what they were.

Whatever

Gotta defend my homey (homely?) here.

Dave has not said anything untrue or inaccurate here, and since he was ACTUALLY there watching it seems like he would have some cred, but that is up to you guys. There were a lot of problems with that release, but why does it matter anyway? Nothing official was going on there, it was a private test and for all anyone knows we could have been running unlimited Hydroplane engines in the cars.

No one ever said we were not on Hoosiers, we ran R's A's at lots of pressures and lots of set ups. I think we burned 13 sets in two days with two cars.

Yes, we ran mostly at the T1 weights, but Lance, wouldnt you think our test was incomplete without taking the opportunity to see what the car could do without the ballast? What weight do you think the fastest lap would have been done with? Ferrari Challenge 2700 or Carrying two Peter Keanes around with us?

I am planning on requesting a lighter weight and I wanted to see what it would actually do. Maybe its just me, but I dont remember getting any specific data from any of JB's elaborate data collection, and you guys want to complain about a "rumored" time at an "unofficial" test with no tech. Frankly, until SCCA changes the rules, our private testing is nobodys business until we show up to race, That is exactly how it will be going forward, barring any other overzealous Grand-Am releases.

You know maybe we went even faster than that 2:22, who knows?

And one last thing, while we would not have run it anyway, the 430 T1 was only recently ready for testing.  Scott did 4 Nationals this year. none of you guys showed up to race him. BUT he beat my race record at Seattle in the 360 and he was right on the record in a C5 at TWS racing Grissom and won both of those races. We are not sandbagging here folks. If he did that in his 430 you would be crying bloody murder to the CRB  and you all know it!

 EZ

Good for you! Don't give 'em any data at all. Why should you. You are playing within the rules as they presently exist and it's your money and lots of time. No one else out there gives up the really important secrets on their development programs. You would be a moron if you did.

That being said, the only way out of this dispute about cars just showing up or sandbagging and then winning one race is to have a series of races (8-10) at the different major venues across the country with the points winner being declared the National Champion. That ends the sandbagging, and the one race appearance. You can still have your division races and winners but no more one race wins it all. You can still have important individual races like the June Sprints and a Runoff but it would not be for the National Championship. I think all other race series crown the overall points winner as the actual National Champion and yet retain "significant" individual races during the year to win (i.e. Daytona 500, 12 Hours of Sebring, etc....). You will not be subject to a crash, oil spin, or flat tire deciding your fate in one race. You have actually earned the title, not politicked (?) your way into it.

Phil I am with you about the 1 race for all the pride is bullsh*t.  You do state that it is not anybody else’s business about data but yet Buttermore, Lynch, Tracy and I were required by the SCCA to run data loggers at the Sprints, so why shouldn’t the 430 have to present something before the Runoffs?

Ed I am sure if you call up Peter Keane of the SCCA that they would be more then willing to discuss data on our cars.  In short you are just twisting yours or your follower’s stories about what took place at RA – I am not buying it.  If you want to have your testing secret just ignore the post and go on with business but don’t expect to twist the story and then say it is only our business, people will react. 

On top of that personally I have a problem in general (as do many) about the Challenge 360 or 430 even being in the class, these cars do not qualify as Touring cars and should be in a GT class.  For 1 when all these calculations are put into the models are paddle shifters equated into the math?  No.  I can assure you that if you allowed me, Buttermore, Lynch, Tracy, Pintaric or whoever this advantage you would see at least a 1 to 2 second gain per lap.  Last I don’t believe a single word about you or whoever being faster in a C5 than your Ferraris.  You forget my last arrive and drive client Mike Solley owned these cars and I have tested them back to back.  I can tell you (and it is in past posts) that after testing my C5 for 2 days at HPT in 06 I jumped in Mikes 360 with no clue on setup and the first one to try it in T1 trim and went .7 seconds faster in it then my C5 after just 4 laps.

You won’t hear me talk about this subject anymore as it has been put out in the public eye and most of the general consensus is the car is to fast & not a T1 car.  Unfortunately for the rest of us we have to deal with it and won’t see the car until September.  I will agree with you on one note you are not doing anything wrong by the SCCA rules or in comparison to how others have presented cars in the past.  You/Tucker have the ability to come to Amateur racing with a pro set-up in cars that none of us can go out and buy to analyze which is awesome but in general that will draw extra attention.  Guys like us don’t have 2 or 3 other series to fall back on and for us this is the only game in town so we want the playing field to be far as we have to wait another entire year if it is not.

apex97:

I am planning on requesting a lighter weight and I wanted to see what it would actually do. Maybe its just me, but I dont remember getting any specific data from any of JB's elaborate data collection, and you guys want to complain about a "rumored" time at an "unofficial" test with no tech. Frankly, until SCCA changes the rules, our private testing is nobodys business until we show up to race, That is exactly how it will be going forward, barring any other overzealous Grand-Am releases.

Good luck with that Ed.  The LS3 can't get within 2 seconds of the lead and we've had no luck.  I'm even hearing rumors they might add more weight next year?!?!!?  Maybe they think 2 seconds is just too close for comfort.  But maybe they'll like you better than us though and help you out some....I hope so.  Go smoke 'em.

apex97:

Yes, we ran mostly at the T1 weights, but Lance, wouldnt you think our test was incomplete without taking the opportunity to see what the car could do without the ballast? What weight do you think the fastest lap would have been done with? Ferrari Challenge 2700 or Carrying two Peter Keanes around with us?

ATTENTION:  This is HUMOR.......

Was that one Peter per front fender or one Peter front and rear??  It's all about the corner weights!!!

DISCLAIMER: This is HUMOR.......

LVKnupp:

Phil I am with you about the 1 race for all the pride is bullsh*t.  You do state that it is not anybody else’s business about data but yet Buttermore, Lynch, Tracy and I were required by the SCCA to run data loggers at the Sprints, so why shouldn’t the 430 have to present something before the Runoffs?

 

Ed I am sure if you call up Peter Keane of the SCCA that they would be more then willing to discuss data on our cars.  In short you are just twisting yours or your follower’s stories about what took place at RA – I am not buying it.  If you want to have your testing secret just ignore the post and go on with business but don’t expect to twist the story and then say it is only our business, people will react. 

 

On top of that personally I have a problem in general (as do many) about the Challenge 360 or 430 even being in the class, these cars do not qualify as Touring cars and should be in a GT class.  For 1 when all these calculations are put into the models are paddle shifters equated into the math?  No.  I can assure you that if you allowed me, Buttermore, Lynch, Tracy, Pintaric or whoever this advantage you would see at least a 1 to 2 second gain per lap.  Last I don’t believe a single word about you or whoever being faster in a C5 than your Ferraris.  You forget my last arrive and drive client Mike Solley owned these cars and I have tested them back to back.  I can tell you (and it is in past posts) that after testing my C5 for 2 days at HPT in 06 I jumped in Mikes 360 with no clue on setup and the first one to try it in T1 trim and went .7 seconds faster in it then my C5 after just 4 laps.

 

You won’t hear me talk about this subject anymore as it has been put out in the public eye and most of the general consensus is the car is to fast & not a T1 car.  Unfortunately for the rest of us we have to deal with it and won’t see the car until September.  I will agree with you on one note you are not doing anything wrong by the SCCA rules or in comparison to how others have presented cars in the past.  You/Tucker have the ability to come to Amateur racing with a pro set-up in cars that none of us can go out and buy to analyze which is awesome but in general that will draw extra attention.  Guys like us don’t have 2 or 3 other series to fall back on and for us this is the only game in town so we want the playing field to be far as we have to wait another entire year if it is not.

You are correct then. If you  guys are required to run data loggers then the other types of cars should be mandated too. It is ridiculous any other way. That really makes the whole "process" a joke.  

I agree with Lance on the point on data. We were required to provide data at the Sprints- it was not optional. My guess is that  there is data on the 360/430 and it should be requested by or provided to the CRB like it was from us. I don't even care if no changes are made between now and the Runoffs. At least we all would know that the CRB has the info they need from all of us.

I too will shut up on this subject. I am putting our car back together and plan to show up for the big dance and run the piss out of it and try to win. Whatever happens, we will congratulate this year's winner and won't whine about it. See you in September.

John sr

If the CRB wants data from us at race weekend, we would be happy to provide it. As this thread illustrates, things go on in testing that are not for public consumption and not useful for comparing cars "Apples to Apples" on the same weekend prepared to the same rules on the same day

We will be testing at HPT all summer long, if Peter wants to send us a logger I will be happy to provide data.

I am glad you guys provided data, but I'd like to have them show me where in the GCR they can compel us to install a logger in a club racing car. By the way, who gets to see it?

EZ. 

apex97:

I am glad you guys provided data, but I'd like to have them show me where in the GCR they can compel us to install a logger in a club racing car.

Just FYI - for the Sprints it was in the Supps:

13. Data Acquisition: SCCA Technical Staff and/or Club Racing Board members and their delegates may install data acquisition equipment in a competitor’s car. This program is to assist the CRB in competition adjustments; participation is mandatory, not optional and is NON-PROTESTABLE.

Also in Runoffs Supps:

9.14. Data Acquisition: SCCA Technical Staff and/or Club Racing Board members and their delegates may install data acquisition equipment in a competitor’s car. This program is to assist the CRB in competition adjustments; participation is mandatory, not optional and is NON-PROTESTABLE.

Ok thanks! I support any program that can give the CRB good information. Real data is the best source to confirm or refute calulations.

 EZ