I couldn't agree more Paul, I prefer to see things altered to improve "our" competition - but I am losing confidence as a result of the lack of responses this season when the problems were obvious and the predictions easy to asses and immediately confirmed their accuracy. Too many people put too much money and time into the competition for guesswork and amateur assessments to sway the pendulum the wrong way. Let us not forget that those at the bottom end of the financial level and models put just as much of what they can afford into the competition as the larger teams do and they deserve a competitive class to race in. I appreciate that there needs to be strong management of the series and that inevitably we will not all be happy whatever anyone does - but the unfairness this season goes well beyond that. First an obvious huge deviation from the formula for other cars when the 996 was 1st weighted to its advantage, then (I still think) too little weight added to the 968's for class 2. Then a disregard of serious points made before the series started to point out the errors and then an oblivious response as the predictable performances were revealed. A lack of interest or response in the points raised by drivers and teams and finally an admission it was wrong once the final race was completed - completely unsatisfactory - sorry - but that it always was and continued to be. One reason I was given for lighter cars next season was so the eventual introduction of even newer models (almost ll with even bigger engines) would not have to weight them too much. The torque all these new cars would bring would be very hard to manage with weight alone - so perhaps another idea would be to introduce capacity limits as well to classes. For example class 1 could be 3.2 and upwards and class 2 - 3.2 and downwards - moving all the 968's into class 2 and allowing say a 3,2 Carrera or a Boxster S in either (with different weights as the 968 has now). Or limit class 1 to over 3 litre say except for the 3.2 Carrera. As newer models with bigger engines are introduced (997's Cayman S's etc) the limit could be raised and the cars moved down and weighted more. I completely understand that for all sorts of reasons the series needs to be run strongly by a small team with limited funds and that means somewhat autocratically - or chaos would ensue - however in all kinds of control systems (from small businesses to governments) history has shown that this kind of system eventually throws up too big a distance between the "management" and the "prols" (drivers/teams) where those at the top ignore everyone else but in so doing don't realise how serious the problems are until it is too late. I think we are dangerously close to this (if not already there) and it needs addressing for the sake of the Club, its members and participants in the sport - or it will quickly go down hill too far to recover for many years - if at all. I hope someone is listening - or for sure these prediction will come as true as my original ones for the performance of the cars in the classes this season. Baz
The 2012 PCGB Club Championship
- Thread starter paulf968
- Start date
Steve Brookes
Moderator
At the two meets I attended (both Oulton Park rounds) there was no doubt that you guys were the stars of the show. From what I saw from the sidelines, the Porsche races were the most watched of all the races on the programme. There was a real buzz and an increase in the crowd chatter when the Porsches came out to play. I am sure this was because of the variety of models taking part and the battles that were going on throughout the field. Despite the difficulties of parity being discussed here (which I agree need some attention), you have a good formula here to build on for the future. [
]
Neil - Stuart and I mentioned to Steve that Graham Knight's car just pulled away on the straights even though we exited the corner at the same speed. Steve informed us that, out of interest, he even weighed Graham's car on the weighbridge at Silverstone and it was on spec for Class 2! Steve K would not commit, when asked, to confirm the date when the final regulations (including the models in each class, the power and weight limits) would be issued. This has a bearing on driver's car selections for next year. We all know it takes considerable time to prepare a car in readiness for the next season. Appears to be a done deal that all the 968's will be in Class 2 next year regardless of any changes to regulation power and weight. Stuart is right - it appears that the Class 2 has become the playground for the competitive 968's. It was clear that introducing the 968 into Class 2 would upset the status quo and a weight correction should have at least been discussed - afterall there were at least 2 weight corrections during the year in Class 1 IIRC. The appeal of Class 2 was the lower budget, sporting spirit rather than the high budget, super-competitive, professional support requirement of Class 1. Steve K appears to be making Class 1 for the 'newer' generation cars inc 996's, Boxster S's. Is this to please the Porsche sponsor I wonder. [] All but the Silverstone races were combined into 1 day to reduce the costs for the professional teams I infer from Steve K's comments. This he did without consulting all the drivers. Did someone say this was OUR championship. Appears to me that on many levels it is autocratic. [&:] I fully support Barry's approach to the power and weights as a means of levelling out the pack. Barry stated from the outset that the ratios were in favour of the 996's, 968s and Boxster S's which is sportsman like but candid considering he is running Boxster S's. I'm a technical person and I like to do such things in a systemmatic, undertandable and scientific manner. Steve K said that that his handicapping takes into account many factors. His explanation was not crystal clear. I suggested that these factors should be transparent to all and be included in the regulations. The only factual information in the regulations is the power and weight of the cars and a PWR is stated. The PWR's have a number of decimal places but the impact of the difference is many kilograms. [8|] I am but Little Voice against a championship that has been running many years.
] All but the Silverstone races were combined into 1 day to reduce the costs for the professional teams I infer from Steve K's comments. This he did without consulting all the drivers. Did someone say this was OUR championship. Appears to me that on many levels it is autocratic. [&:] I fully support Barry's approach to the power and weights as a means of levelling out the pack. Barry stated from the outset that the ratios were in favour of the 996's, 968s and Boxster S's which is sportsman like but candid considering he is running Boxster S's. I'm a technical person and I like to do such things in a systemmatic, undertandable and scientific manner. Steve K said that that his handicapping takes into account many factors. His explanation was not crystal clear. I suggested that these factors should be transparent to all and be included in the regulations. The only factual information in the regulations is the power and weight of the cars and a PWR is stated. The PWR's have a number of decimal places but the impact of the difference is many kilograms. [8|] I am but Little Voice against a championship that has been running many years.Neil Haughey
New member
Thanks for your contribution Paul, the points you make about the ethos and costs of class 2 tallies with my own points.
He may have weighted it up as a precursor to entering next season but if doing that why on earth run on different tyres to the Michelins. Anyways I am surprised he pulled away from you guys, testing at Brands with his car 60Kg lighter than mine there was no difference between us at all on the straights. I was actually faster out of clearways pulling away from him a couple of times, we exchanged a lot of notes through the day to help each other out. He was much faster than me though in the corners that can really make up a lot of time such as Druids and Surtees. I was left with the over-riding impression that I had better drive out of corners and thus a slight advantage on the straights but much much worse handling (understeer), some of which was naturally my fault. It should be noted however that Graham has got consistently faster through the year as he has gained experience. Paul is 100% right though that a top driver in a well prepped S2 could and probably would have won races this year. I am totally convinced of that. It will interest Baz/Paul and a I guess a few others but I dusted off the 968 model I was using with them last season and my own S2 sim model based on my own cars data. I spent a good 2 hours solid driving both round the Arena GP circuit layout in rFactor. The results backed up exactly what a good few ppl have said comparing the two cars, EMC in particular as almost identical to what Kevin has said to me many many times. The very best lap time I could get out of the 968 model was 1 second ahead of the S2, but and its a big but the more typical or average times were more or less identical. I really had to nail everything perfectly to get a faster time out of the 968 model whereas I know I can get within 0.1 to 0.2s of my best S2 time straight away as its so adjustable around its limits, basically much easier to drive quickly. I have been hugely surprised that my findings from a modified by me computer game seem to tally exactly with what the biggest 944/968 race car specialists have been saying to me for the past 3 years. This then raises an interesting question, do we set a performance level based on the best ultimate performance achievable or something more akin to the typical lap times expected of club driver on a typical race weekend? I believe this is at the heart of how Steve sets the weightings even though I have said consistently from the start of the year that he got it wrong (I would be happy with 60Kg). As I pointed out in your thread Paul the 2.7 boxster sticks out like a sore thumb with the 185Kg gap to the S yet for us its only half that, just sounds plain wrong doesn't it.
Neil Haughey
New member
Completely separate point about the 996, would be interested to see what everyone else's opinions are and if you all agree with me. I have some sympathy for Steve with the 996 as clearly he was trying to follow a logic based on what happened with the introduction of the 993. However from what I have seen the two cars are hugely different, the problem with the 996 isn't so much power as the fact they just handle so amazingly well. Watching the 993's in recent years they have tended to look very tail happy. As no one including the ex-BTCC guy has managed to stop the 993 from being tail happy one has to conclude its probably part of the cars basic chassis characteristic. The 996 on the other hand seems to handle like its on rails, the EMC Pete Morris one in particular has looked perfect on track, just glued to the track. Clearly the car has a big performance advantage but only a small part of that is power/weight, most seems to be handling if compared say to the 993 and I don't think Steve could have been expected to predict that. He probably felt the car would suffer on its tyres the same as the 993 tends to only even worse.
paulf968
New member
Neil, from my memory the way the 993 was introduced was different to what happened this year with the debut of the 996. IIRC the 993 came in with a relatively high weight in 2009. as the teams tried to get the 993's to handle, there was I think 2 reductions in weight for the 993 during the season to 'correct' it's relative performance This season the 996 came in by general consensus 'light' compared to established power to weight ratios AND then some of the other models in Class 1 received a small weight reduction part way through the season in an attempt to level that advantage off. You can decide whether it was enough. eg perhaps look at this video from Marcus for the Boxster eye's view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp5j716ihZA&feature=relmfu As you say the fact that the 996 seemed to handle rather well so soon has perhaps been a surprise and caught us all napping ...... also, the apparent advantage in running a 996 was masked a bit by some mechanical issues and a couple of offs early in the season. When those were history Pete M and McAleer had worked out how to be quick, they became regular podium visitors, ably assisted by Mark Sumpter who missed 5 races in the season! Of course, it is not just about the cars. This series has some amazingly good drivers in it and for me it has been a privilege to share the track with them whilst trying to hang onto their rear bumpers!! See you all at the awards dinner on 27th October, get your ticket applications in now !!
It is very difficult to come up with a set of power to weight ratios that will result in everyone being happy with the outcome - and apart from this issue the way the events have been organised and run was superb (and I am not being patronising in saying that). Everyone at PCGB Motorsport did a fantastic job and deserve massive credit and praise for that - but they failed to get the right one extremely difficult issue (but probably the most important technical one) the initial power to weight equalisers and then failed to react quickly enough or sufficiently to make the races fair. Yes drivers and teams have different abilities but the problem is that at PCGB Motorsport they clearly are not expert at analysing dynamic car performance (and why should they be). It is a very complex subject and no doubt experts would still dissagree on the outcome. These days you can take the driver skill right out of the equation and analyse performance based on simple and available criterea. There are programs that work out acceleration based on engine performance, gears, weights, tyres and frontal areas and if you change the weights they change the results. I checked these before the series started and they proved most of the previous power to weight ratios close enough to provide fair racing but also showed the 993 slightly too fast, the 968 in class 2 slightly too fast (almost not enough to worry about - probably mainly showing up on the faster circuits) but it also showed the 996 much, much too fast with the weight allocated and needing about another 65 kilos to get close to a fair weight. I then bought an analytical program (car test 2000) that takes standard cars (with all the information already loaded) and races them with the same driver (effectively) around different International circuits. These were using road sports cars (so were slower than our race cars) but if you allowed for that the proportional difference between models was exactly the same. You could then change the weights until you got the same lap speeds - which is what we seek. That program also analysed straight line performance and again exactly the same result came out. Then if you use logic and common sense combined with some basic racing and technical performance knowledge you know that cars accelerate from around 4K out of corners and at the gear change point on the straights and that a car with greater torque will accelerate more quickly (and these are usually with bigger engines). Six speed gearboxes also offer a slight advantage over 5 speeds as they create a better rear wheel torque curve. There is nothing the drivers or the technicians can do to counter that fact and so it need balancing within the rules. By the end of the season we had out team and drivers totally demoralised because they could not compete with the 996's, several class 2 drivers and teams the same due to the 968's, a number of teams no longer competing and others looking to other events to compete in - all because there was a failure to get the weights right (or to correct them during the season). This was unbelievably frustrating for me since I forwarded all this information before the season even started and even when those predictions were clearly shown to be right and accurate - the promised corrections never materialised and the whole season was unfair. Sorry for sounding big headed but Paul Follet knows that I have studied rear wheel torque curves and their influence on dynamic performance for decades (and based the performance of my successful racing motorcycles on it and more recently our unusual 3 litre 944 turbo - that he drove and proved the point). I don't blame the Motorsport team for being sceptical about my original predictions or the motivation behind supplying them - but during the season they must have realised that it is possible to do a better job of analysing the performance and setting the weight limits - using modern available technology - than they did their way. I think they may view these current complaints as an attack on their authority to run the series their way and are therefore are resisting simply learning and in future taking advice (not suggesting from me as I could still be involved) but there must be others they can rely on to help. All I ask is that they drop the resistance and simply show their intention to get this right for next season and to accept they need help to set the right limits and to notify us sooner rather than later. When you are investing 6 figure sums in racing you deserve some consideration to allow you to make the right decisions early enough. Yes the racing was better this season but the disgruntlement among the participants was higher at the end and the field may well be poorer next season if something is not done soon. The organisers always use the difference in driver or specific car set up performance to try and prove they were right all along. The figures I provided from Silverstone comparing 2011 and 2012 drivers using the same cars with drivers using different cars - proves the 996's were clearly 2 seconds quicker and that no one could drive any other car fast enough to compensate for that. However - there are fast and slow circuits and different circuits suit different cars. I don't expect weights to be set to handicap any one car and know some models will shine at some circuits and others at others - but we need to trust that the principle stated to make the models fairly compete with each other (given equal drivers and set up) will be followed for 2013 - and it is not difficult and does not need months before it can be declared. We need to trust that when it is clearly wrong (which no one would blame anyone for at the outset) the changes are done quickly before too many points have been accumulated and done byt he only way they is both simple and cost effective - to add weight to any cars that are too fast until they are not - SIMPLES! We will not compete again unless we think there is a resonable chance to win. We do not want any advantage whatsoever and anyway - if we decided to race again next season we may even consider a 996. My complaint is therefore genuinely to use modern technology to do a better job of making the weights fair for all - to improve the field, keep ALL the people who pay for the whole series anyway happy and the create true Champions we can all feel was fair and equitable. Is there anything wrong in wanting that? Baz
paulf968
New member
+1 to your last few words, nicely put. use modern technology to do a better job of making the weights fair for all - to improve the field, keep ALL the people who pay for the whole series anyway happy and the create true Champions we can all feel was fair and equitable. Is there anything wrong in wanting that?
I should have added that I do realise that most competitors know they are unlikely to win and therefore they just accept an opportunity to race around a circuit in the Championship and enjoy competing with those closest to them. For them it probably makes little difference what the rules are and they prefer not to rock the boat. However I hope they realise that the costs are increasing year on year and for them to race at all needs a full grid and the interest of the general public - which those at the front and their results and performance have a large influence on. If the teams at the front pull out it may well give more chance for those further back to move up but eventually it will massively increase their racing entry costs and even threaten the series. It would have been better for the club, the competitors and the series - to have seen 10 cars all near each other at the front of the race - changing places and challenging each other (especially as it is increasingly being televised) than the procession that soon emerged. There is nothing more boring than cars all running around in line astern and no changes (as F1 understand and have done a lot to improve). We also need more sponsors and more businesses to compete and it is discouraging if they see there could be random unfairness through an inability to get the cars reasonably on a level playing field. It s a simple job to put this right - why not simply do it and lets look forward to a fantastic series in 2013 - the best ever - onwards and upwards. Baz
Steve Brookes
Moderator
It's worth mentioning that the one exception to the 996s being so dominant was Mark Sumpter's 964. If he'd raced at Silverstone and managed three podiums (more than possible considering his results in the other rounds), he would have had enough points to take the Class 1 title away from Pete. Those that administer the series might look at those results and think that is evidence that the weighting made the 964 competitive with the 996 and therefore they have some of the balance right. However, I would say that his results are more down to Mark being an outstanding racing driver rather than the 964 being on par with the 996. I had the chance to chat with Mark at the second Oulton Park round. We talked about his car, how different it was to the previous 3.2 and he mentioned that he'd already committed to the Spa Francorchamps race so wouldn't be able to do the Silverstone rounds. It was clear when we talked about the car that he absolutely loves his new 964. I really hope he races it in the championship again next year. []
]I agree that Mark Sumpter is an absolutely brilliant driver - but his team mate pulled out I believe because he simply could not compete with the speed of the 996's and it is not for me to comment on what Mark himself feels but my feeling is that he found it almost impossible to compete as the season progressed. His driving and team preparation was inspirational and fantastic but I would be suprised if he competed again in that car. I do know he had it tuned to within 1bhp of the limit on Bob Watson's control dyno (whereas we were down a quite a bit) - perhaps this made a difference. I think also what they lacked in gear numbers was partially made up for by the sheer grunt of those 964's with the extra capacity they have and resulting torque out of the corners. It is also unfortunate that as top drivers and teams move up to newer cars - they make it appear that the newer cars are much faster (because they no longer drive the older models at the front of the pack) but the results at Silverstone (and everywhere else during the season) defied any conclusion other than the 996's were simply too light! Baz
Neil Haughey
New member
Clearly the first question to be sorted is what is the performance equaliser as it certainly isn't power to weight ratio. The strongest point you make Baz is in the area of clarifying how the relative performance regulation is calculated, its such a massive part of the regulations that really its the key thing for determining the solution a business such as Hartech will work towards. For the rest of us with a vested interest in a particular model the situation is a little different, I am sure for example that in previous years there have been those put off entering class 2 because they did not want to race a 944. Steve will do the right thing I am sure, it would be a nonsense for the championship to become a 996 and 968 show.
Paz
New member
Well said Sir Paul, a fantastic season's racing with high calibre drivers supported by enthusiastic teams, this is what club level racing is all about! I'm not sure what the paddock will be like without your presence Paul . . . got a sneaky feeling you'll attend a few rounds to see how the series is progressing though. See you at the soiree! [
]Andy, it is not quite as simple as that but it is very very simple if you can handle very simple mathematics, ratios and even graphs. We have progressively made science more and more specific and complex - yet - the fact remains that most complex problems can be reduced down to a simple analytical system that enables everyone to clearly see what is going on and what direction the better answers are in. Simple graphs, proportions, percentages etc - can all be used to get very close indeed to the right sort of conclusions and then if they are slightly out - it is simple to adjust them and refine them. Equally - complex diagnostic systems and simulation programs can calculalte performance around a circuit to great accuracy. for those used to advanced mathematics simple approximation theory methods resolve differences quickly and accurately. What will not work is guesswork (although IMHO - in this case - even that should have resulted in a closer solution). Although it can be complex - this problem has not come about because the problem was too difficult - it came about because the weights set for some models and changes were clearly way out of the right or fair weight - right from the outset - something some of us realised immediately but were then completely ignored. I even offered to visit the organisers to discuss and demonstrate the systems and explain why their figures were so far out - but I don't think I even received so much as an aknowledgement. This was frustrating and the reason why I am determined the Club should not repeat such an obvious mistake next season when it is so easy to get it closer. I will in the next few days knock up a concise report on this subject to demonstrate how easy it is to understand and work with and create some graphs to show the results simply. I will try and place it on here but if I cannot I will make it available on the Internet for those interested to read. Meanwhile - please just get a bit of graph paper (or draw one), put weight vertical and power horizontal and plot the power and weights from the regulations (it does not need great accuracy - a fag packet sketch will do), join up a straight line or slight smooth curve between the cars that previously were reasonably equal (968, 3.2 Carrera, 993) and then add in the new cars (Boxster 3.2's and 996's). If a car plots to the right of the line it is lighter than equal - if it is to the left it is heavier than equal. To see what weight it should have just raise or lower the dot vertically to your joined up line (since the power remains the same) and read off to the left the weight it should have had. You will soon see how far out the regulations were (and I will confirm this with far more accurate and technical input later) - but actually it is not necessary, It was necessary before the season started because the proof was not there but now we all have seen the actual results - that graph is actually all you need to see what was clearly wrong and reflects reality. As it was that easy - the question that rattles around my head is WHY WAS THAT THE RESULT? I understand why our Boxsters had a slight weight penalty (compared to older models) and I accept it - after all they are more modern and should form a better basis for development. But why should an even more powerful, more torquey car - with more sophisticated suspension and better aerodynamics - that has been proven in other racing versions to be very competitive - be gifted a massive advantage of such light weight as well? - just doesn't make any sense to me. Furthermore - if there is inevitably some doubt about the initial result in the 1st season with a new model - why try and correct it by making the other cars try and find ways to lose weight and have to re-set all their suspension and geo to suit (invalidating the records they carefully kept all season and possibly for several years) when the new model simply needed some weight added (and they have not yet built an extensive record portfolio to refer back to) - why was no change made there at all? Finally - when the weights are wrong and points awarded stand - where would be the harm in adding weight to equalise the performance - EVEN IF IT TURNED OUT TO BE TOO MUCH AND TOO HEAVY) since the points already gained would have bee to some extent unfairly gained and that would only redress the balance. If as a result they then finished too far back for one or two races - that would have only equalised the points overall and some of that weight could then be taken off for the rest of the season. You are right that this is the most important issue in a Championship trying to mix up different models fairly and the way it was handled was far to inaccurate and the response to correct the error too strongly resisted and inadequate. Draw that graph and see for yourself how simple the whole thing actually was and you may then sympathise a little more with my frustration and understand my determination to improve it for 2013 - when this potentially complex subject is actually really so very simple. Baz
Neil Haughey
New member
Just been looking at both Pete Morris's and Mark McAleer's times at Castle Combe. Both improved on their best 2011 times in qualifying but only by 3 tenths each. Unless both had problems and by exactly the same margin getting it together in quali at Combe we are not seeing a clear picture here if judging purely by the results. Both of the boxsters beat their 996's in qualifying at Combe, a circuit well known for being fast.
Neil Haughey
New member
Barry the graph isn't the whole point and only proves something rather obvious that I don't believe anyone doubts or needs to debate. I am only highlighting the results since it seems clear to me that Steve sets the weightings very much around previous results for different models going back many years over different circuits (he has actually said exactly this with regard the S2 v 968 issue). As I said previously I believe he judged the 996 for the regs based on what happened with the 993 but got it wrong because the latter clearly doesn't have as capable a chassis as the former. Some may take a more cynical line and feel that certain models were purposely advantaged to encourage take up of those models in the two classes. Steve could never have said that publicly but if it were to be the case its probably not such a bad thing for the long term health of the Championship to get several 996's in a refreshed class 1 and a much more competitive class 2. The really important point for me is to get clarity on how the weights are calculated, it clearly isn't power to weight ratio only so it seems a bit pointless to me to focus purely on that aspect. Kevin Eacock told me about an hour ago btw that he will be entering Alex in class 1 next year in a boxster, I asked him if this is confidential info but he said no feel free to mention it across the forums.
StuartR16
New member
It just goes to show that comparing data from different years, cars and drivers is not the way forward. I am not interested in how well the top 944 S2 drivers competed with the 968 drivers. All I am interested in is a fair and proper system of weighting the cars. When Paul Ward and myself came out of the meeting with SK we were both demoralised, deflated and to put it politely completely fed up and it was clear to both of us that apart from the planned changes there will defiantly not be any weight change in class 2. This is the reason that I will not be entering next year but going to another championship.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
