The 2012 PCGB Club Championship

[paulf968]

rsy944 -- Stuart, all the very best with whatever you decide to do, if it is not to be PCGB I for one will miss your very friendly presence in the paddock. Paul Neil ..... just reflecting on that news that Alex will be out in a Boxster in Class 1 next year. That marker has been put down nice and early. Not that I have given it a lot of thought but I don't think I would have guessed that Kev would be doing that. Good luck to them anyway, it will hot up the Boxster battle at the very least!

 

[bazhart]

Neil, I am not sure how you can on the one hand how you can call for clarity over how the power to weights are worked out and then at the same time be dis- interested in the relevance of a graph that actually does (IMHO) show the whole picture and the solution easily and clearly. I have got the explanation worked out and put on 2 pages on a WORD file containing 2 graphs - but cannot work out how to put it on the forum (it seems to limit the size too much or want different file types - I am too thick to know what to do). Help please anyone more capable with computer systems - I am happy to forward it to anyone by E-mail that can place it on the forum. I believe it explains everything and also shows what to do and how to simply manage it in future. I think this is important since it is clear that keeping the issue of how it is worked out a secret and not being willing to discuss it has caused a loss of confidence in the fairness of the system or the ability to quickly improve it if it is wrong during the season - and this is making potential entrants and drivers look elsewhere or consider withdrawing during the season or in the future. Clarifying how it works in a simple way that everyone can understand would put confidence back and enable people to make decisions (that cost them a lot of money) in time to prepare for the next season. I look forward to seeing how Alex gets on with the Boxster - and wish hime and the team all the best in 2013 (they did a great job in 2012 and their experience will always be hard to beat) but I am sad if we don't see Stuart in a 2.5 or 2.7. I am pretty sure we will not be fielding a team or building new cars if we do not have confidence in the process of setting or adjusting fair regulations. The drivers and the guys at work want to but just like any professionally managed business - we cannot justify risking such huge investment without some way of knowing where we are likely to stand and what the potential outcome may be. Racing is a risky enough investment as it is but having no idea where you might be (due to the mystery of the power to weight ratio system) and seeing a reluctance to discuss it or correct it quickly if it is obviously wrong - places much to much uncertainty to simply throw money at it and hope! Baz

 

[Neil Haughey]

Even though I haven't been around the paddock much at all this year I have to say your enthusiasm Stuart has been brilliant when we have been track side together. I have watched all your vids on Youtube, the recent battle with the Strasse 964 was great to watch. Your apex speed in Copse is the same as Marcus Carniel so you have certainly pushed the car hard enough to deserve a bit more return on it IMHO. For me personally no idea if I race with PCGB next year or not, so many variables at the moment, with the driver being the biggest one. That test session I did with Kevin at Mallory a couple of weeks back was a huge shock, first time the car has ever handled properly nicely, so much better than I expected it was like my old S2 track day setup it was so neutral. I actually ended up injuring myself due to the g forces in Gerrads. I did something in deep between my neck and left hand shoulder that was still hurting last weekend. The 4 hour drive back home convinced me the best thing to do is to go away and learn the car again because its chassis has improved by as big a margin as between a road car and where my car was at before the improvement is that huge.

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: bazhart Clarifying how it works in a simple way that everyone can understand would put confidence back and enable people to make decisions (that cost them a lot of money) in time to prepare for the next season.

100% agree with that Baz. The points I made Baz were not to make a counter point to try and argue for a status quo, more to try and explain my reading of how the regs ended up in their current form. I don't agree with it and I support your call for this part of the regs to be formulated in a clear simple to understand way. Fundamentally we shouldn't have to have second guessing debates to try and figure out why the numbers are what they are.

 

[964RS]

Neil - sorry to hear you got injured in the Gerrards - that sounds painful. []I too have a pain between by neck and left shoulder. I was lazy and didn't put my HANS device on at Croft when I had my only mechanical failure of the season. Nose first into the Armco at 30mph is not good for your neck. I've worn it for every race since. [8|]

 

[Neil Haughey]

Paul I always wear a HANS now, I got so used to it that I don't like the feel of the shoulder belts without the HANS, they seem to dig into the base of the neck which I find a bit worrying. That corner is pretty unique it just seems to go on for ever but it has the benefit that you have enough time and space to look at the speedo and get a clear feel for how fast the car is and the handling balance. You hit a patchy bit about 1/2 way round and the car drifts out across the track, a slight lift stops it from sliding further and holds the car at mid track or so ready to accelerate out onto the straight. I think Mallory on Wednesday mornings is pretty much the ideal car shakedown and test venue.

 

[paulf968]

.......... just don't mention Mallory to Paul Seagrave !

 

[Neil Haughey]

God yes I did hear about that, very unlucky, it has claimed a lot of victims especially on the exit of Gerrads and ISTR one of the guys at the recent CSCC race meet there had a huge off on the exit of the Devils Elbow.

 

[lali]

Interesting run of threads in the past half a dozen pages or so.... I may be talking out of turn here, I've spent less time trackside than I had hoped this year, but Ive tried to stay on top of whats been going on. The season isn't very long, the fact that Boxster is new and the drivers have had to learn the car and re learn lines around circuits in such a short time cant be overlooked, Marcus and Ben have done phenomenally well, and I'm sure if they are back next year they will only get better and the gap will get smaller. I can only speak about Pete from a 996 POV, he's very used to driving them and his experiences in Britcar in the past undoubtedly count massively to his successes this year. In comparison Alex is nowhere near as quick in the 996 as Pete but they will trade 10ths in a 968. The other 968 drivers are all in their 3/4/5th seasons in the cars, many upgrading from 944's before that so they can all built on experience from last year, and ALL of them have worked really hard this season to up their game both on track in the cars and physically and mentally off the track. So comparing season on season lap-times improvements are expected. - Otherwise the additional training/testing and even dieting would have all been a waste? The cats been let out of the bag a little earlier than I expected with Alex and the Boxster... but the internet is what it is. I am however allowed to say that the early work and testing that has been going on has the car where it's 'expected' to be. I'll be back in the Beetle next year, where talk of Power and Torque mean nothing... Its full speed everywhere in that!!

 

[Neil Haughey]

It will be great to see you out in the Beetle again Lali, I guess you must really be deeply in love with that car. The boxster thing was a bit of a shock, I thought he was joking, I was even more surprised when he gave me permission to 'announce' it.

 

[lali]

Neil, Love is a strong word... But it's not strong enough for my feelings towards the beetle. I was brought home from the hospital in one when I was born. I guess the noise made a lasting impression!! Yeah the Boxster announcement had to be made, next years sponsors needed to know what was happening. It's going to be a busy old time next year, lots of wheels in different paddocks!!

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: lali I can only speak about Pete from a 996 POV, he's very used to driving them and his experiences in Britcar in the past undoubtedly count massively to his successes this year. In comparison Alex is nowhere near as quick in the 996 as Pete but they will trade 10ths in a 968.

That is actually a very important point to make, right at the start of the season, testing at Brands he looked like he was driving a car with 3 or 4 years of development already under it. I remember in particular talking with Graham about Druids as I noted he had it nailed perfectly, he noted he was quicker round that corner than pretty much everyone else out on track at the time, except Pete who was on another level. On one level it was depressing on another it was pretty awesome to watch TBH, like he had another 0.2g grip that never run out. Maybe expectations were too high or something because I was expecting him to slaughter everyone on the race day. As it was the weather gods and the reliability gremlins played their tricks on both on us.

 

[Neil Haughey]

This is what CarTest 2000 says about comparative lap time analysis from the tool "Note that CarTest is not trying to drive each car optimally for each track. The shape of the track is being followed. No attempt is being made to find the best driving line or the best braking points around the track." If that is the case pretty much anything it says about lap times is essentially useless and no more meaningful than comparing straight line acceleration. It also uses a fixed g-g plot model for the grip rather than dynamically modelling the tyres and suspension as all driving simulators do. As an example when I drive my 968 model I have to take different lines because it has an LSD to model the KAAZ unit. This means turning in slightly later, slightly harder, dipping to a slightly lower apex speed and nailing it more aggressively compared to the S2 model. It also tends to go hand in hand with much more aggressive trail braking. For the S2 I use my real EMC geo setup and on the 968 its tweaked to be like Alex's car. Likewise I take subtly different lines in some places. I do all these things to try and find the fastest way round each track which IMHO is absolutely vital to making a meaningful comparison. At the end of the day I understand from real world experience that its still a long way from definitive, sometimes it will give me pointers which I later find are real (comparative gains as in what to focus on with the car) and sometimes it comes up with bad pointers which produce dead ends (dodgy racing lines sometimes). I only use it as an aid or a pointer, dangerous IMHO to put to much stock in these aids as it can leave one blind to what the simulation isn't saying. Sorry but I just can't agree with using something as simplistic as Car Test 2000 to compare the cars competing in the championship in quantitative terms, qualitative comparison OK but dangerous IMHO to put too much stock into the exact numbers produced by such analysis that doesn't actually simulate circuit driving in a meaningful way.

 

[bazhart]

Sorry Neil I don't believe you are that unable to analyse systems and issues better than that and therefore I think your reply is being too influenced by you trying to tow what you may think may be the company line with your chosen friends and racing partners. I never suggested using that system - only that like every other way I compared the performance - it gave the same results. My point was that right from the outset - a blind man on a galloping horse knew that 1 car had an obvious unfair advantage and any way you compare the performances (torque graphs to weight, power to weight, power to weight ratio variances, over the counter comparative systems, dyno performance predictors etc - they all show exactly the same error - that while many other cars are correctly weighted similarly - the 996 was clearly way out - or are you now saying that the cars at Silverstone were actually equal and somehow Peter and Mark improved their personal driving performances by 2 second/lap more than anyone else managed? If not please explain what did make the difference to their performance. Furthermore Car test 200 would be useless as a comparator if it worked with completely different lines and G forces each time you compared a different car. Are you really suggesting that the results do not reflect the difference in performance? Are you saying it does not rank the cars correctly? You also can alter a lot of parameters - like weight, power etc so you can play with the results to make the cars nearer to the ones we race. The results are slower lap times than our race cars because they are using road parameters but if you modify the resulting lap times by the same proportional corrector (to allow for those road tyres and their reduced grip etc) the resulting answers are very close to the differences we found for the front runners. It is precisely because it uses the same parameters that it absolutely does work out the acceleration in the gears available using the torque of each engine that it provides a useful independent view of the difference in the performance of each model by taking out the driver differences. Frankly I am dissapointed in your response. I noticed and understand why you have increasingly shown some natural preferences for some teams and their cars but I am staggered at the method you have chosen to counter my point - come on - you can do better than that! I am getting utterly fed up with this whole issue myself (so I am sure everyone else is too). It is a simple issue. The club is our club and it runs racing championships. It will not explain how it works out the main feature that potential investors and participants would want to know to decide if they are going to enter the series and with which model. It will not discuss it with the people involved and has shown that it is capable of influencing the results by making mistakes and not correcting them in time or enough effectively gifting the Championships to a chosen model. Many Championships - have weight functions for drivers that win (like + 10 kilos etc) but they mostly publish how they weight their regulations and how they correct them. By not publishing the next years weightings in time for people to develop a new model - our club forces people to guess and hope and then suffer or benefit depending on the accuracy of the outcome knowing that if it is wrong it probably will not be changed enough and anyway they will have no mechanism to be heard if it is wrong. If that is not changed it will result in a reduction in the field as some people move to other events in which they can both understand what they are likely to be up against and have a means to present a case that will be considered - if it is clearly wrong. I guess it may be easier if we just withdraw and race elsewhere (and no doubt that would please some people who are confident that their choice will work out for them - for some reason) but hang on - this is our club - it is not a business offering us a race event - we own it and we vote for who and how it is run. As a longtime member I have a perfect right to present my views. As they are not aknowledged when I send them in and as there is no explanation as to why the 996 was initially weighted so light and as no dicussions seem on the table - I have a right to try and put that right through the only mechanism that reaches other members - the Club website. I know many others agree with me but are too frightened to say anything since the problem of construction of the Championship rules are so difficult to get to - they fear that the same autocratic way things can be changed without explanation may impact on their entry or model. Perhaps I should give up and go away - but it is such a shame when it is so simple (whatever you may think Neil) to see the error and put it right. All I want is fair play - please explain what is wrong with that?????? Shortly I hope to post my final words on the subject showing how simple it is to get it right and by what methods. Baz

 

[Steve Brookes]

It sounds to me like the way forward is that all interested parties; team owners, drivers and the PCGB motorsport members should get together over a weekend to share their experiences and come up with a solution that makes it a fair and better championship for all. Maybe try bending Chris Clark's ear to get something set up? Chris is a very fair and easy to approach person.

 

[paulf968]

Barry, draft Regs concerning power to weight ratio were published for 2013 within the 2012 Regs. So looking to that in advance of any changes that may be proposed for the final 2013 Regs: As a 968 owner/racer I looked at the main models in Class 1 for 2013 and made this little chart. It shows the % increase in power to weight ratio over and above a 968 as the baseline. DRAFT REGS FOR 2013 -CLASS 1 MODEL__________PWR_______% incr't over a 968 968____________120352____0.00% 964____________120994___+0.53% Box 2.7 to 02____112931____-6.17% Box 2.7 03/04____114644___-4.74% Box 3.2 99/2_____114498___-4.86% Box 3.2 03/4_____123001___+2.20% Box 3.2 05/7_____130208___+8.19% 993____________130689___+8.59% 996____________137911___+14.59% -ve means car has lower PWR than a 968 so is weighted down. +ve means car has higher PWR than a 968 so is lighter by this measure These are the facts from the Draft Regs for 2013, I prefer to let the numbers do the talking. nb I should add that a similar chart for Class 2 in 2013 throws up a different picture for a 968 when compared with the 944 & 2.5 Boxster, will leave that for another day. ps now updated to include all of the Boxster models allowed in the draft regs for 2013

 

[thegoose]

Paul, do you have a figure for the 99-02 Boxster S as well?

 

[bazhart]

Well done Paul it really is that simple and you can now see how easy it was to spot before the season started and why I tried hard to put get it changed before it resulted in the problems we have had all season and since. All we need is a line on a maximum % variation or a line on a graph. This doesn't mean we have to stick every car on it but just that it is a basis for going forward. Before 2011 the cars had been racing together for some time and were fairly balanced (I think). I accept it can be easy to get a new model wrong and if so all that is then needed is to say (for example) that we are moving such and such a model this way or that way from the line because it is older - has less gears, has smaller or thinner wheels or old suspension - or has a bigger engine and modern variocam technology so is too torquey and must be moved the other way and we are going to start at say 20 kilos - whatever. It doesn't matter what the reasons are - it just needs to be seen to be for a reason that is given and not a fixed figure with no reasoning that no one can therefore argue about or get changed. I am going to try and upload the 4 pages of my final explanations and views - one on each posting (which may or may not take a few hours or days to fully upload). It shows just how simple it all is and therefore makes it more and more difficult to understand the type of resistance to any communication about it that we have been experiencing. I agree that the Class 2 figures were not so far out - and can see that if 968's are to be moved to that class to make way for newer class 1 models in the future - they needed an incentive. However none was given to a Boxster the year it was introduced - so if that was the thinking - why such a huge benefit just for that 996 model when it was introduced? Baz

 

[paulf968]

Marcus ......... my previous post above is now updated to include all the Boxster models allowed in the draft regs for 2013. NB. If you were a Boxster driver and if my chart counts for anything your best chance in 2013 would appear to be in Boxster 3.2 S version (2005-7) ie the most recent model allowed.

 

[bazhart]

Thanks Paul and it is important for readers to understand that a plus in the figures means it is too light by that % and a minus that it is too heavy (compared to a 968). I am going to try and post the first page of 4 now. Not too confident it will work. Basically it shows how far out the 996 was and how close the others were. The graphs are just a way to visualise the same discrepency shown up by the % figures. All we need in the Championship is something like a graph with a line on it (or even simpler a ratio with a deviation % as shown already) so people can get a grasp of what to expect and where they want to invest their considerable time, effort, hopes and money!. If it was say a straight line (as you will see (if it posts) is reasonably fair - this would not stop some models deviating. All that would happen is that for some models an allowance of plus or minus would be allowed for say less gears, age, suspension type, more or less torque - whatever. New models coming in are good for the sport but if they were fitted on to the line (or with an explained deviance) if and when it became clear it might be too far out to be fair - it could be so easily explained - justified and altered. Anyway - for what it is worth - here goes with page 1. Baz