The 2012 PCGB Club Championship
- Thread starter paulf968
- Start date
lali
New member
If you click on the jpeg it'll open up bigger. Im a little confused with you last paragraph where you state that " the Class 2 968 is only 3.6% heavier than the class 1 ( I get that 1240KG vs 1285 ) but the 944S2 is 12.22% heavier." - the weights in your table show the S2 as 1190kg vs the 1240kg of the C1 968. So Im guessing that's a typo? Cos I make it 50kg lighter than the 968.
lali - I don't know if this explains it but the ratios are worked out from the rear wheel torque in KW and the car weight whereas I have used the engine power in bhp to discuss the issues to try and help it be less complicated for the readers. I hope to soon be able to post the next pages (and the first one) full sized (as they will be easier to read then). Baz
I managed to increase the image on the previous page - posted page 2 and will send 3 and 4 tomorrow. However it is important not to get too wound up about detailed figures. If there is a problem with anything technical that should reasonably follow a trend (whatever it is) if one result sits well outside of the trend of all the others - that is all you need to know if something is not right. I think the way the ratios are printed in the regulations (with 6 figures decimals all under 1.0000) prevents many people understanding the relevance of them. If for example there was a column next to each car showing the % difference with say the average of the cars raced in the previous season - then this years regulations would have shown that all the cars that competed together were within 1 to 4% of the average (some lighter and some heavier) but the new 996 just entered then on that same column showed up as being 8% lighter than the average and 12% lighter than some - perhaps others would have questioned that decision and perhaps more would have been done sooner to recognise the error when they proved clearly faster. Or even easier to see - would be a graph in which the average line was shown and all the cars shown as well. If one car was well outside the trend line and that car also had a clearly different performance to all the rest - it will almost always be because whatever caused the figure to be different contains the explanation. This is true of all the technical issues I have ever come across andis an easy way to establish when something is not right. The actual precise figures or what you compare them with is not important - what is important is that if in a sequence of figures you are comparing - one sticks out much more than the others and however those things perform the performance of that one is also quite different to the others - you can be sure that it needs investigating and something is probably wrong. Hoping to present clearer graphs soon, Baz
The graph on the following posting will show how the figures in this one look and reflect that a straight line is a much better starting point for a new model. The figures fit in with the observations drivers, spectators , commentators and all those involved were aware of during the season. There have been a few strong words expressed by many frustrated drivers and all of those would also fit in with the advantages and dissadvantages that the positions of a straight line graph would also reflect. These weights would have put the cars in both Championships much closer together in the races. The field would have been less well spread out at the front, the results would have been more variable and the racing more exciting. The championship would have ended up closer and more compelling - but the most important point of all is that it would have been much fairer and given everyone a better chance to get a result that more fairly demonstrates the capabilities of the team, the standard of preparation of the car and the ability of the driver - which is what it really should all be about. It is a thankless task to try and set a set of weights for different models that is fair and there will always be people trying to lobby their own case to help them when actually they are just trying to gain an unfair advantage. I can absolutely guarantee that everything I have done in respect of this power to weight ratio error has been motivated by honest and fair minded comments and figures and I have not applied any slant whatsoever to favour our cars. I just happen to have spent years working with these ways of analysing performance and so for me - as soon as I first saw the ratios - I didn't suspect there was something wrong - I absolutely knew there was something wrong. Every way I looked at it - some cars needed a weight increase - while the others looked close enough not to make any issues of. I presented my case by E-mail and posted reports months before the season started and continued to present facts and figures throughout the season with little response. I appreciated the recognition of a problem but thought the small weigh reductions for almost everyone else was too little too late and anyway I still don't understand why the car models that had already gained an unfair points tally were allowed to continue racing without any changes when the newly adjusted cars (that were all performing relatively fairly together but could not compete with the cars that were too light) had to then take weight off their cars - requiring them to test and adjust their suspension etc and be at a temporary dissadvantage - when a simple weight increase to the cars that were too light would be inexpensive, quick and cheap (you just bolt a weight plate on them) and if it then took them a while to re-set their suspension - that was only right - they had already gained extra points when they were too light. If that added weight turned out to be too little or too much it could easily be adjusted by adding or removing some. This makes the provisional scales for next season (published months ago) wrong and so for everyone interested in competing - there is an urgent need to see what the organisers propose for 2013. We cannot allow another delay to prejudice the choices of potential competitors and benefit those unfairly that it turns out somehow chose the right model in advance. Baz
OK here is the final page and I now rest my case on this forum. I am not sure how far I should follow it up if nothing is done to improve the regulations to make the cars more equal or to let us all know soon enough to do something about it - but if the alternative is pulling out I see no disadvantage in pursuing my objections as far as I possibly can. I am surprised to have received so little support from other competitors. I am not sure if this is because they are not bothered, scared or don't understand it all. I hope (whatever the reason is) that my efforts to explain help them understand, my willingness to speak out provides them with some backbone and they realise that it is in the long term interests of the club to improve the methodology of power to weight ratio selection and the Motorsport division's response to communications to them from its members. It is all such a crying shame because the Motorsport team otherwise to a brilliant job (really superb) and we found a lot of benefits from competing for the 1st time and would really love to do it all again and have even set up a very exciting team for the future - but what I cannot do is justify to my other shareholders (or myself) spending the huge amounts of time or money involved when I cannot believe myself (or promise them) that we will be competing on a level playing field - or if mistakes were made - that anything significant will be done in time to influence the Championship results. Come on Motorsport division take a few hours out to put it right, deliver the regs for next season and get your internal administration up to date and in touch with its members. Baz
paulf968
New member
As promised earlier, I have now made a power to weight ratio chart looking at Class 2 Draft Regs for 2013 (main models only) DRAFT REGS FOR 2013 - Class 2 MODEL_____PWR_____% increment over a 968 968________112840____0.00% 3.2 Carrera__117647___+4.26% 2.7 Carrera__113636___+0.71% 911 SC_____103004___-8.72% Carrera 3.0__100429___-11.00% 944 S2______104202___-7.66% Boxster 2.5__100422___-11.00% So as before compared to a 968 +ve means a higher comparative PWR & -ve means it is worse. That does show the Boxster 2.5, 911SC and Carrera 3.0 as the most disadvantaged in class and also indicates that the 944S2 will struggle against a 968 with the same quality of driver. A 3.2 Carrera is obviously the best weapon to go & win it in 2013, providing you can drive it to it's limits! I observe that the range of percentages in the chart above is from -11 to +4.26 which is over 15%. Additionally, for my earlier Class 1 chart the range was from -6.17 to +14.59 which is over 20%. Permit me a comment to conclude. It is my opinion that these ranges of percentage differences are far too wide to enable balanced competition within each class. This is not a scientific suggestion but it does seem to me that the range covering all models should be smaller, certainly never bigger than 5% and any cars of similar power should not vary by more than say 1 or 2% from each other. Is this an idea that may have some merit?
Steve Brookes
Moderator
Speaking as a scientist, in my world (biology, ecology and geology) a variability of 5% is an indeed an acceptable limit when making comparisons. Engineers and physicists work to much lower tolerances so might want a closer match. However, since racing involves a human element I'd say it's more akin to the touchy feely sciences. So in short...5% sounds a good aim to me. [
]Baz, I suspect you may have touched a nerve by exposing the frailties of the current system in public. In my experience(non motorsport in my case) the powers that be won't like it and will be determined to keep things as they are, no matter how right you are!ORIGINAL: bazhart I am surprised to have received so little support from other competitors. I am not sure if this is because they are not bothered, scared or don't understand it all. I hope (whatever the reason is) that my efforts to explain help them understand, my willingness to speak out provides them with some backbone and they realise that it is in the long term interests of the club to improve the methodology of power to weight ratio selection and the Motorsport division's response to communications to them from its members.... Come on Motorsport division take a few hours out to put it right, deliver the regs for next season and get your internal administration up to date and in touch with its members. Baz
Thanks Paul and Andy, If I could continue your analogy Andy - I found myself in the position of say a nerve expert looking ahead and seeing that rules were being made that would create a situation where a lot of people would suffer nerve damage in the future - especially some who had nothing to do with the rules. So I contacted the people concerned (who were good at their jobs but not nerve experts) before any damage was done and explained the problem they were creating (no doubt completely innocently) and how to avoid it. not only were my warnings ignored but they were not even aknowledge so I continues to present them and the when it was clear that some nerve damage was starting - I continued to warn them and offer help in explaining the reasons for the problem and what to do about it (especially as my own team were by now suffering from it). Eventually it was decided that the people innocently suffering from the start of nerve damage should have to take time and money to take steps to minimise it while those causing the problem could continue to do so and benefit from the points situation they were finding themselves in - this seemed unjust. The unfairness of this was again explained but no responses came back from those who set the rules that caused the problems. Eventually the outbreak was over but some time in the future it was going to start up again and having seen people suffer even those making the rules admitted they may have caused the problem - but seemed reluctant to explain how they may avoid it in future. Having predicted the outbreak, experienced the pain and realising it would repeat itself unless something was done I again contacted those setting the rules that could cause a repeat outbreak - asking them to change them to minimise the problem in future (now that they know it was a problem) but again they did not respond at all. This meant if nothing was done - there was a good chance that it would repeat itself. With people wanting to take part having to spend huge sums to take part (but not wanting to suffer nerve damage) several decided not to put themselves in a postion where they could catch the bug while others (with their hands on the purse strings) wanted reassurances that their teams would not catch it - that could not be given since there was not information about the regulations for the future and no contact to inform them when they may get them to read and make up their own minds. In those circumstances the only recourse I had was to do nothing for fear of consequences or speak out on the forum that they all read to expose the problem and hopefully manage to minimise the pain for others in the future from nerve damage. I put the health of the people who will suffer ahead of my own - but am finding that people seem unwilling to voice their own fears from catching the same illness - preferring it seems to hope they only get a mild dose. In recent years and right now as well - the consequences of people being too timid to stand up and be counted when they knew things were clearly wrong eventually comes back to haunt them and much harm has been done. Right now there is an easy to apply remedy that can prevent anyone catching nerve damage - and in these circumstances I feel I must pursue it (somewhat reluctantly - as I know there will be consequences). The ideas noted previously show great common sense and direction - a potential remedy. Set a limit to the amount of deviance from a central formula, ratio or line on a graph (OK say + or - 5 % from the average for example -whatever) so that the new models power to weight ratios cannot exceed and then adjust them thereafter in the light of performance and experience by adding weight to any that are clearly too light or removing it if too heavy. It was not my intention to make this public. I have kept very quiet about it (despite suffering nerve damage myself) and presented my respectful points directly to those concerned in private and offered my time to meet and explain further or be questioned. The fact that this is now being aired in public is only because they completely ignored all those attempts to help and are imminently going to announce future rules that may or may not contain the same virus. If what I have done has exposed a nerve it was entirely preventable and seems to only have done so because of the apparent disinterest of those involved - they only have themselves to blame - and I don't see why I should suffer for that as I am only trying my best to prevent them suffering and to protect them and everyone else in the future. If there are repercussions I will accept them - I can remove myself from the area that is likely to be infected and so can others (some have and others are considering it). Yes it has totally got on my nerves - this refusal to do something simple in everyone's interests is so frustrating. A variance of 5% would have put the 993's slightly heavier and the 996's heavier (even if they were at the beneficial end of the ratios) and it would at least give everyone a reasonably fair chance (great idea guys). These things are typical in life and throughout history - that every so often there are areas that act as if they don't need to involve, consult or discuss their rules with anyone and it always eventually leads to disaster with several innocent people getting caught up in it meanwhile. For goodness sake it is such an important ratio but such a simple thing to put right - what on earth is the problem? There are other issues I could raise involved but I will not yet and prefer to await the immediate outcome and there are other bodies that are involved in our Sport that also can influence the outcome - lets hope simple common sense will prevail. Baz
Neil Haughey
New member
That is a very fair point Baz, and its the way I prefer to think about it. Fundamentally it was never explained. This is the point I made earlier and its something I find difficult because as soon as one starts to think of reasons why a particular car is set at a certain weight another example can be brought out as a counter point. Some simple examples: 1) Lets say for example that the 993 was given weight reductions because experienced showed they burned up the rear tyres and generally end up pretty tail happy. OK then why was the 996 introduced with a much bigger % advantage, was it assumed the engines just don't make the power like the old air cooled units etc. etc. this has never been clear to me. 2) Lets say in class 2 for next year the 3.2 Carrera has a big PWR advantage because its much more difficult to drive. Well what about the SC, couldn't any same logic be applied to that car which by the numbers looks like a poor option in class 2. I have said it before on here, after my last spin last year I followed Tim round for the last lap, his SC was no quicker down any of the straights than my S2 which means in reality he was never going to get enough cornering and stopping performance out of that car to beat well driven S2s. He knew that so its no surprise he didn't turn out this year. There is something none of us have pointed out till now. The regulations provision for any competitor to have to run with a data logger, most guys now run one of the two companies logging systems regularly anyway. It is interesting that competitors data recordings have not been asked for but I can understand that no one involved would have thought to ask in this situation. Looking at the actual traces for the cars concerned would settle this pretty clearly without any need for recourse to anything else. I will suggest to Steve when I talk to him to consider going down this route in the future which they already have provision for in the regs. It may have been put there as a mechanism to put off cheating but why on earth not use it to monitor if the weightings are appropriate? The actual data traces more than anything else will allow close comparison, its what professional race teams use and more and more its what many club competitors are using. If one driver is slow to the throttle but has a data channel for the throttle it will show, likewise if Baz's boxsters show higher speed corner traces but are still much slower over a lap it becomes un-debatable at that point, there is nothing left to prove or demonstrate only conjecture. I have been around Porsches for 13 years now, love my race car to bits and want to race it in my own car club.
StuartR16
New member
On holiday in the sun and reading the threads with great interest. Any suport you need Baz I will be happy to help, Paul , thanks for your kind words and showing my Boxster to be so far down in power to weight, I much prefer the 2 x 25 min sprint races over 1 long race so may be back with PCGB next year but this mess needs sorting out
You are right Neil, some cars do have advantages and disadvantages over others (and I think they should have a small compensatory weight adjustment to equalise them) but I cannot find a single technical reason why a 996 should have been thought to need the largest power to weight ratio advantage that any model has ever enjoyed before. It has modern brakes and suspension and double wishbone rear suspension, excellent aerodynamic, a chassis used in many forms in racing, a variocam system and 4 valve heads that produce a wide flat torque curve, a 6 speed gearbox and is the second largest engine capacity in the Class. Those arguments could have deemed it necessary to handicap it not gift it a performance advantage - reducing the value of the class win and demoralising the other competitors. It is however a very difficult subject Neil, but with all due respect - if the organisers cannot see the error in their initial power to weight ratio limit for a 996 - even when it is pointed out to them and was obvious on track - I really don't think they could handle the greater complexity of data logger read outs - and I thought my research, the very simple and basic figures and graphs and explanations show that it doesn't need such sophistication to improve fairness and competitiveness. What a data logger would do however is enable people who understand how to interpret acceleration rates in to power outputs - to identify cars running over the power limits - or using dual ECU programmes that can be switched on or off with hidden switches or other devices (that many of us are aware have been used). That is a whole new subject I prefer not to go into any further (I think I have done enough on my own to try and put this main subject right). Introducing corner speeds etc also adds complexity to a simple subject that has not been handled well at the most basic level and anyway tends to sort itself out. As one leading 993 competitor stated - his car was slower in braking and cornering than our Boxsters but could always out drag them once well out of the corner. You know yourself that if you get stuck behind a driver that is slightly slower than you but in a roughly equal car - it can be almost impossible to get passed them because they hold you up in the corners and getting on the power and are just as quick down the straights. If the car in front is quicker on the straight it simple pulls away and you can never make it up even if your brakes are better. The race at Castle Combe showed up how difficult it was for Mark Proctor to pass Marcus in the corners and then along the straights (resorting to taking the grass in the end I believe) but once in front there was no way back. However introducing these small issues (that could never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction) to a simple problem - would only complicate the issues and prevent a resolution. I think the first step we need is a simple timely issue of the draft (almost wrote daft - what a Freudian error) regulations and a target power to weight ratio to be set (or a line on a graph) with a maximum deviation % that all models (including newly introduced ones) are kept within and for which any cars allowed to be heavier or lighter within those limits have a brief explanation. There must then be a mechanism for competitors to present a case for change (so their complaint can be recorded) and a reply with a brief comment, so that anyone doing so has their point recorded and it can be referred to again if time proves their point to be valid - or it can be considered as an adjustment for the following season. Talking generally - in situations like this - it is important that everyone is comfortable with the rules and regulations and if things are not transparent it often leads to suspicions (however unfounded) that there is something to hide (and there often actually is). The more that transparency is clouded and squashed through fear, ignoring correspondence and apparent disinterest - the more those concerns grow and we do not want to go there if it can be avoided. We had a great season. We have never built racing cars, had to get used to new equipment, never had to try and sort out the handling to a top competitive level nor experienced the stresses and strains on the cars that racing evokes. To have 1 win and podiums and be in with a chance of the Championship at the end and have a racing and testing 100% reliability record and for the team to have learned and experienced so much was brilliant and very rewarding and exceeded all our expectation. We enjoyed the excellent organisation and respect all the Porsche Motorsport Staff involved - but it cost a huge amount of money. Other successful motor racing competitions go further to ensure equality (even weighting winners to slow them down) and F1 has tried numerous solutions to make the race more exciting and the series' that get televised and are always the ones that deliver competitive races. All we need to do in order to move in that direction is to make a small change to the weights of some cars, introduce a formua to explain how the ratios are calculated and what limits apply and why and at least to respond to members who try to communicate with the organisers to demonstrate that theirs views are important and to remove the element of fear of repercussions that completely ignoring such well intentioned issues can generate. Baz
Neil Haughey
New member
If that was a certain orange and white car when he caught me last year ISTR I let him make an easy pass into Copse and was then held up all the way through Maggots/Beckets into Chapel. Once out on to the Hanger straight though he disappeared down the road like I was standing still. Surprised me a lot as I would have thought the 993 handles better than that but it is definitely amazingly quick out of corners and down the straights. I was doing 2:40 at the time and again ISTR he was several seconds a lap faster all from straight line performance I feel. As you say the 996 is a very different beast though quite apart from lap times it must have been pretty obvious to anyone either track side or on track that those things if setup properly corner like their on rails. Apart from anything to do with the 996 or 968 I will suggest to Steve putting the early 2.7 boxster in class 2, just can't see anyone building one to run in class 1 but with its extra grunt over the 2.5 it would definitely be competitive in class 2. I predicted who would win the championship right from the start based on the regs and entries, next year I predict that if someone who is experienced in 911's decides to enter a Carrera 3.2 in class 2 they will clear up and win the championship, take your pick from any number of experienced 911 racers that could do it. If I was one of them the temptation to get "your chance" at winning a prestigious championship would be too great not to look at. This is an even bigger problem than anything going on in class 1 as the situation with class 2 has yet again provided a championship winner from the lower division. I can't imagine anyone spending the big money competing in class 1 could be happy with that and besides your issue with the 996 Baz you guys competed pretty well in what ended up being a fairly close class 1 battle.
Although I did originally point out to the Club that the 968 in class 2 was too light (and my graph earlier includes some class 2 anomalies) - you will appreciate that my focus was on class 1. I don't expect things to be perfect and I don't expect to win and I have no problem with any of the competitors or teams (and am really sorry that many of them will probably be fed up with me going on about this problem - especially if they have developed a 996). It is not because we didn't win nor because we are bad losers - but a lot of people ended the season demoralised and this is bad for the Club, while we simply cannot justify huge expenditure for next season without knowing what the weight limits are likely to be and which model to go for. Furthermore the complete lack of response to correspondence about this all season coupled with an apparent inability to put right a problem that was raised well before the season even started - means that unless there is a change of attitude and an improvement in the rules - the field will be unnecessarily depleted and we can have no confidence that we will be racing on a level playing field next year. Frankly I don't understand why such an easy problem to solve that was to obvious and proven has to place me in such an unfortunate position within the Club and no doubt the teams when it has escalated because of the reaction (or lack of it) of the Club officials probably simply because they don't fully understand what for others is a simple issue or have other undisclosed reasons for allowing a blatantly unfair situation to prevail. I have not caused this - it needed raising and could have been handled better and have been sorted months ago and require no need for any further comment or posts. I look forward to enjoying our imminent celebrations with all the teams, all the drivers and the Club officials and hope they understand that my motives are valid and reasonable and have not been directed at any particular individual. I admit that if I had picked a 996 to race I probably would not be too pleased with all the fuss but I can assure everyone I would have accepted a correction in good spirits and enjoyed the challenge of trying to build and race a better car in a fair competition. Baz
Steve Brookes
Moderator
With finding this discussion so interesting, I decided to take Barry's suggestion (earlier on in this thread) to do some plots myself of the relative performances. I thought it would be good to start from a theoretical point of view by starting with three different weight and power cars (A, B and C) and see what the plot would look like if they had a target of 200 bhp per tonne. This results in a simple plot that looks like this:
The equation of the line indicates that there is a slope of 5 and there is a perfect fit of the points and a perfect intercept of zero (hence the equation is y=5x). When I then plotted the proposed weights of the class 1 cars (by the Motorsport regs) for 2013, it was noticeable that the slope of the line changed as well as the intercept (see equation on chart). Here we see that the cars are scattered around the line rather than on it:
When I substituted Barry's proposed weights, the line improved somewhat. But still the slope and intercept are a way off the theoretical ideal of y=5x:
So, I then adjusted the weights of all the cars so that they all achieved 200 bhp/tonne. Not surprisingly, all the cars now sit perfectly on the line which has the same equation as the theoretical ideal:
All the above is summarized in the table below. The last column showing that it is possible for all cars to have exactly the same power to weight ratio (P:W). All you have to do is choose what you want your target P:W ratio to be and draw the theoretical line. I chose 200 bhp/tonne as that seems to fit in well with our series of cars. It's then easy to use the line to determine what weight the car should because you already know its power.
Nb. Box 3.2 E is the early boxster S and Box 3.2 L the later boxster S.
Neil Haughey
New member
Nice work Steve but it misses one important point, the lighter cars should generally corner faster (slightly) and especially so if running on the same tyres as a much heavier car. This is why it is correct IMHO for the heavier cars to have a slightly higher PWR even though they benefit from being able to overcome aerodynamic drag more effectively. The regs reflect this to some degree, notwithstanding the oddities which Baz has pointed out.
Thanks Steve, I had vowed to leave it alone (I think I have done enough on this) but it is nice to know someone else can handle graphs etc. I am also very anxious not to let this subject become any more complicated than it already is. For example we already have the complication of the gearbox losses taken out of the equation when calculating the ratio (which cleverly applies a small disadvantage to less powerful cars (or conversely an advantage to more powerful cars). A straight line graph passing through zero is an easy formula to find and calculate but one that passes through an axis always has a constant in it. My approach was that it really is difficult to know the right angle of the line and where it should intersect an axis - and indeed if it should be straight or (even more complex to calculate) a smooth progressive curve. but I knew nothing would ever get resolved if we went down that route because it opens up too many variables and arguments that fuels the opinion just to allow someone to guess the right weights instead. The small difference in my approach was to use a straight line for simplicity and try to join up the previous figures that the rules used for cars that seemed to race together very equally before. In doing this we would have produced a method that if applied the year before the 996 was introduced would have not met with any major arguments or disagreements. If that same set of rules or graphs were then used to project what the 996 should have been weighted at - the result looks as if it would have made that model equal in 2013 as well (by my figures based on Silverstone lap times adjusted for track improvements). It seemed from this that a simple straight line would have been a much better starting point than whatever system was used instead and would then be able to be presented as part of the regulations so everyone knows in advance how they weights were calculated, provide an opportunity to adjust them and project further to new cars in the future instead of there being no logic, and no justification - making it impossible to find a common point to get any unfair anomalies corrected and making it impossible to discuss the issue with the organisers (which may or may not be their intention). It would not bother me too much if a line was straight or curved - as long as it was published. I would not bother me how wide a tolerance was placed each side as long as the reason certain cars may deviate from the line is briefly explained. You have chosen a particular power to weight ratio that if applied to the cars that previously raced together competitively - would remove that equality that history has shown worked - so for me it is not the way to start looking at the figures. However what any graph line will do (as yours does) is to pick out the advantage the 996 and to a smaller extent the 993 had - the only difference that the different ratios or lines would make being the proportion of the individual weight differences. your figures showing that a 996 needed to be 80 kilos heavier and our Boxsters 55 to 85 kilos lighter (which I think is too much). By basing the line on what worked before the right proportion comes out for the newer cars and older ones that needed a slight adjustment. Finally I think it is wrong that it is impossible for anyone to find a basis to discuss those figures since they way they were determined is unknown. I agree that the organisers should have control and the last word but by avoiding any meaningful communication on the subject they could ruin the future of the Championship if they prove to get it wrong again and not do anything about it. All this would not matter if the original figures looked OK but for some unknown reason just turned out to be wrong (and were promtly corrected) or if the new cars were weighted correctly - or - if they were wrong to start with - they were put it right with a degree of urgency and competence. For the original weights to be far too beneficial to one new model, to be warned in advance with explanations and ignore them, to see they were wrong and do nothing about it, to hear competitors, journalists, the public and commentators point out the obvious error, to do too little too late then forcing the cars that were fairly weighted to make changes and leaving the one that was wrong to carry on as before - all seems to put far too much of an advantage to that model throughout the season and help it to win. A similar situation existed with the 968 for class 2 with a similar outcome. I am still not sure what can explain that obvious attempt to preserve the advantage of one model - and I think we should have that explained - because if there is no good reason and if the intention is equality and fair play - why was it not put right? Then to admit the error when the series is won but not explain how anyone should trust that there is enough detrmination and/or competence to put it right for 2013 is simply not good enough - it is time it was handled better - or the series will suffer. Neil - you know that the heavier cars are inevitably more powerful and therefore have bigger engines. You also know that they are driven out of corners from around 4000 rpm (where their advantageous torque curve starts) and you know that this is the small advantage that the 993's had and a huge advantage the 996's had. You also know that the right roll angle to get the tyres working properly is influenced by the weight acting through the centre of gravity and that lowering the cars reduces the centre of gravity. This makes it much easier to get a slightly heavier car rolling enough to use the optimum grip with the tyres we use and that lighter weight in corners makes no difference since the roll weight on the outer tyres is then adjusted by the spring rates and anti-roll bars (which can be adjusted to suit) until the roll weights are equalised. You also know that even if you do not understand this - it is exactly what people could see for themselves on the track. Heavier cars do need to brake earlier but then they were going faster when the brakes were applied anyway so even this is a small disadvantage. Lets keep it simple - and make it transparent in the future. All we need is an explanation of future ratios promtly - so no one gets an advantage from guessing right - or being in the know earlier than anyone else. Baz
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
