The 2012 PCGB Club Championship

[Neil Haughey]

This is an car video overlay from Malcolm Eddison driving a Lotus Elise Trophy car. http://youtu.be/Hr6TVNUzz8g and compare to Marcus in the Hartech Boxster http://youtu.be/2TyKaxLp6i4 His lap time is almost identical to those Marcus put in last weekend. Look very carefully at his corner speeds, in Copse for example the lowest speed his car drops to is a full 6 mph more than Marcus. Move on down to Stowe and its the same story again, listening to the throttle adjustments both drivers are pushing hard. 6 mph difference in corner speed is an eternity over a lap. The highest speed Malcolm reaches on the Hangar straight is 121 mph, way slower than a boxster by about 10 mph. The overall lap times are similar though due to superior cornering of the much lighter car. Malcolm's notes on the vid complain about old tyres which for reference on a trophy car would by Yokohama list 1B tyres (AO48) supposedly less grippy than the Michelin cups, certainly watching the vid he is only getting around 1.1g to 1.3g in the corners of interest.

 

[bazhart]

Please explain your point Neil and what is the power, the weight and therefore the ratio for that Lotus? Baz

 

[Neil Haughey]

I didn't watch every lap but on Marcus's fastest lap (race 1) when he had a clear track ahead his lowest speed in Copse was about 84 mph, most laps I watched he was dipping to 80 or 81 mph. On that Malcom Eddison lap his lowest speed in Copse blipped down to around 87 to 88 mph but was more like 90 or so. Similar trend if pretty much any corner is compared I just felt like picking on Copse due to its balancing on a knife edge nature. The overall lap time was 1 second slower though than Marcus. Malcolm Eddisons top speed on the Hangar straight was 121 mph which is about 2 mph slower than Stuart is showing on his video data overlay on Youtube. It just goes to show just how important optimum handling and cornering is. I would have thought the point was obvious, why is your boxster on I presume fairly new cups several mph slower through the corners than a car running on old A048s?

 

[bazhart]

Well done Neil - you nearly got me there. When you cannot win an argument by sticking to the relevant facts - introduce a complete irrelevance and get everyone focusing their attention on that. If you are keen to be a winner - give up motor racing and stand for your local elections - you should have been a politician. To be specific - when you cannot deflect attention away from how a Porsche model gifted a superior power to weight ratio manages to lap a circuit faster than the other models with an inferior power to weight ratio - introduce a completely different make and type of car to muddy the waters - and get everyone arguing about that - -brilliant! - and it almost worked. I will not shy away from that challenge - more info please - exact model - type of front and rear suspension (McPherson strut or double wishbone etc), wheel base, power weight etc and I will see what I can do. Now turn your attention to this - which is relevant. We have a Championship in which we try and control the performance of different models by a power to weight ratio (it worked well in the past). Cars with similar power to weight ratios competed equally providing different models at the front of the field. A new model is introduced in one class with a much more beneficial power to weight ratio than any others and is seen to be faster accelerating (surprise surprise). Lap times by drivers who were previously equal when they were in the same models (with the same power to weight ratios) were very similar but suddenly those that drove the new model were about 2 seconds faster at Silverstone than they could manage before while the other drivers in the same models or in Boxsters - were lapping about the same (allowing for track improvements). The same was true at different circuits with Marcus similar to his 964 times and Ben usually slightly slower than his 968 times (until he benefitted from our extensive handling development and managed a few tenths quicker). Everyone could see that the models with a far superior power to weight ratio were quicker (often able to pull out on a straight and simply blast passed). Why the mystery as to how that model managed that performance? Those of us who understood the relevance of that weighting predicted the outcome before the season even started and were spot on. Why do you find it so hard to follow that a power to weight ratio is used to control the acceleration and therefore top speed. At circuits where top speed was measured (like Donnington) the 996's were faster (surprise surprise) and had a much better power to weight ratio. In class 2 the 968's has an advantageous power to weight ratio and could not be beaten. Where is the mystery? I don't think there is anyone that does not have a vested interest in preserving the 996 advantage (directly or indirectly) does not accept that they were too fast to compete fairly. I believe Purdie decided not to compete with them as it was an impossible and unfair situation. Neil - please explain what you would do to slow down the 996's so that they were on a par with the other cars (and perhaps explain what the hell a Lotus has to do with that). Presumably you would make them corner faster somehow (oh but you say they would have to be lighter to do that). Perhaps you would limit their top speed (so they are more like a Lotus) oh but you would need to add weight for that. What would you do Neil to make a 996 2 seconds slower round Silverstone? - or being the emerging politician that you are would you instead allow all the other cars to be made much lighter - so the owners all have to spend so much money lightening their cars - they cannot afford to put decent tyres on them any more or keep them in good fettle. Let's stick to the relevant facts - our events use weight to equalise performance. It worked just fine before - all scientific dynamic systems, formula and simulation models agree that adding weight will make a car slower while removing it will make it faster. If you struggle with that Neil apply it to your simulation programmes and see! We don't need to change any of the other cars weights (except perhaps by a small amount - a 993 - and by a larger amount an S2 or Boxster 2.5 in class 2) - but we do need to slow down a 996. I know - why not add a little weight to a 996? - surely that is not too complicated for anyone to understand and - if we stick to the relevant facts - what Neil is wrong with that? Oh - but being the politician you are rapidly becoming - you will probably now answer a completely different question of no relevance! Baz

 

[Maxx]

ORIGINAL: bazhart Please explain your point Neil and what is the power, the weight and therefore the ratio for that Lotus? Baz

Hi, Malcolm Edeson here, a buddy of mine alerted me to this thread. Can't comment specifically on the parity issue (although am happy to if I'm sure I have all the facts) but thought at least I would answer this question. The Elise in the video is approx 143bhp at the wheels and minimum weight for the ET series is 825k, it was probably a touch heavier on this video but probably not by anything significant. Car weight, tyre width (rubber on the road) and centre of gravity (mass) all go to make up a cars cornering ability and the Elise scores higher than other similarly shod cars I have driven mainly due to it's lower centre of gravity. I'm a driver coach and get to drive and data log/video lots of different cars inc a couple of Boxsters racing in the Lodgson series so have some knowledge of and LOTS of data on these. If I can help in any way then happy to. Malcolm

 

[Maxx]

I just checked some data I have from one of my drivers Steven Boyles who races in the Lodgson series. They run Toyo R888s which are virtually identical to the grip characteristics of the A048s used on the Lotus. Apex speeds between this Boxster and the Elise are virtually identical with the Boxster actually pulling slightly higher apex speeds on occasion. Just done some work at Donni with Boxster and Elise Trophy car and only a second between them on the National. I can confirm having driven and data logged many cars that Michelin Cups are indeed grippier than the A048/R888s. Malcolm

 

[Steve Brookes]

Baz, I don't think Neil deserved such a harsh response (above). Particularly the sarcastic comments aimed towards him. Over the last few pages this has been a very constructive discussion. From what I've read, most people are concerned about the imbalance that appeared in the 2012 season and agree that there is a need to do something about it. Especially the current miss match in power to weight ratios. This includes Neil because he wants to race his 944 fairly in class 2. Discussion threads on forums are always likely to go off on some tangents. As I read it, Neil only wanted to extend the discussion to the strengths and weaknesses of different models and whether these could be factored in to future regs. I am sure he did no intend to dismiss the power to weight issue or try to divert the discussion away from it. Neil had some bad luck at the very start of the season with his 944 so did not get to race it in the championship. Therefore, I guess you did not get to meet him? Having met Neil a few times, I can assure you that he is a gentleman, passionate about his racing and always has good intentions when discussing matters such as this.

 

[bazhart]

I wouldn't want to be thought of as being harsh and I thought it was a light hearted way to counter the fact that Neil has used EMC to look after (and I think rebuild) his car and I assumed that he had and was coloring his responses to the criticism they must feel coming from me about the weight of their Championship winning car - for rather obvious reasons. Of course I do not know if that is true so this seemed like a friendly way to say "what the F**k is a Lotus to do with these power to weight arguments in our class. I felt the point was expressed by me that the 996's were undeniably 2 seconds faster at Silverstone and couldn't see how a diversion to discussing a Lotus had any bearing on that. I thought Neil would understand that but if I have offended I apologise. While the Club have shown themselves unable to work out simple mathematical variances - I do know Neil and think he knows very well that the 996's were too light but seemed to be defending them in any way he could think of including introducing a red herring. I will eave it up to Neil to comment if I have ever done anything to help or instead to harm him (if he wishes to) - and if so you will see which side I am on. There are a number of unsavory possibilities that could explain a lot of the power to weight anomalies and the reluctance to do anything about it or to enter into discussions about it. I prefer to believe in the integrity of the Motorsport team until and unless anything is ever unearthed to the contrary. I have carefully avoided adding those possibilities to this already inflamed argument - preferring simply to make sure the new regs come out soon (rather than too late) and that there is an explanation of some kind as to why the figures are as they are so they can be discussed formally if needed. There are also a lot of other issues I could raise to impact unfavorably on cars breaking rules in the Championship (not the least of which is a well documented and recorded raising and lowering of a rear spoiler during all the races of a front running car) that could have excluded it from the results (and that this point has just been reinforced in the Technical report from the MSA on variable aerodynamics). 2012 is behind us and there is nothing to be changed now - but I tried hard to get a fairer set of power to weight ratios before the season started (and failed) and now the evidence confirms (I think without any serious objections) that it was unfair and I simply want to make sure there is not a repeat in 2013 and that we can see the regs and decide what to do in time this time. If I had received any minimal communications whatsoever from the Club in response to my E-mails and postings on this subject - I would feel more comfortable about getting somewhere - but the total lack of apparent concern (expressed by their complete silence) makes it feel like a repeat of 2011 leading up to the unfair 2012 regulations. I only feel forced to carry on with my arguments because of the lack of any reaction (that really common respect would expect to be provided). I am angry at the way this was handled last season and now and I am fed up with being the only one to defend fair play and particularly when others divert attention form the simple truth that the 996 cars were far too light and it needs changing. If this comes over as offensive - again I am happy to apologise but if I had been proven wrong or if the argument was marginal - you could argue it is uncalled for - but it was not - it is right and it is absolutely unarguable that those cars were too light. I feel this whole process has been forced on me to fight the good fight almost alone and please don't blame me too much for expressing that frustration and isolation that is entirely the fault of the Club officials for totally ignoring the issue before and presently. I hope somehow that someone will make sure the Club handle these things more professionally and more accurately in future and demonstrate that their verbal commitment to fair play is not just empty words. Baz

 

[bazhart]

You will be pleased to hear that I have decided that there is nothing more to be gained from me prolonging this particular thread. I am basically finding that I am repeating the same points and that others are wandering a long way off the central points and that the diversions are complicating a very simple issue - while I - in my frustration - will probably say too much and fall out with too many people.. On Sunday the BBC politics program - discussing the rail contract expressed the views that in the modern World management has learned that admitting when you make a mistake, keeping communications with others open and jointly trying to find ways forward (when problems emerge) is the only way to make progress and that the era of autocratic management is well flawed and over. It is even more important for Club officials to realise their responsibility to the members to at least be accountable for the decisions they make and by keeping everything secret and never opening dialogue with anyone over anything - leads to mistakes (if they ever were made) never to be corrected or improved. I understand the financial constraints of the Motorsport Division and that one thing autocracy does do is minimise costs - but there is a point where it can go too far and enable casual decisions to be made without proper research or accountability. So - finally - my point is that the power to weight ratio is such an influential issue that clearly can pre-determine which models are likely to win the Championships - and has been the subject of complaint and I think is proven to have been wrong and not corrected in time. This is a typical consequence of such a closed management system and I think the Championship would benefit greatly from that subject being better calculated and some form of explanation provided so everyone can see it is above board and responsive to errors. My hope is 2 fold. (1) That qualified advice will be sought and a formula created for the calculation of the power to weight ratio for different models and that any variance from that result is explained and kept within a maximum deviance that is stated. (2) That the Club will ensure that in future some basic modern methods of acknowledgement of members communications will be established as a minimum courtesy so it is never again necessary to expose so much of our potential dirty linen to the volatile medium of our Internet forum - as the only way to be sure someone is listening. Finally - can I repeat that I have no personal gripe with any competitor or team - have congratulated the winners - am not dwelling on the past mistakes made by the Club and hold no animosity to anyone involved. I hope to compete again next season and simply want to feel that someone is listening to the members and that they will do something to improve the early posting of the 2013 regulations and that we can understand how the power to weights for 2013 were established and that it corrects the errors in 2012. If this does not transpire there will be fewer competitors, fewer sponsors and fewer teams in the future - and that is not what the Motorsport division was set up to promote and more relevant - nor what its members want. Baz

 

[lali]

Well said Barry, mistakes have clearly been made and I'm sure others will be blamed. Something should be done to address the inequality and it's up to the club members as a collective to make that change. On a slightly separate note the last couple of days I've spent with a boxster at spa and the ring have yielded some very Positiv results. The new car has been tracking with my 968 with very little trouble.. Admitidly I'm not the fastest peddler but I do know the ring.. I'll report back after the Silverstone back to back test...

 

[MarkK]

Did you drive your 968 race/track car to the ring???Bet that was great fun,must say I think the ring is a beautiful place but I just could not commit to trying there because there is literally no run off whatsoever in a lot of places.....all the circuits we drove in 2012 in the championship feel pretty safe with the exception of the odd corner. My particular bogey is the hairpin at croft that has cost me quite a bit over my two seasons of pcgb....[&o]

 

[Paz]

ORIGINAL: lali Well said Barry, mistakes have clearly been made and I'm sure others will be blamed. Something should be done to address the inequality and it's up to the club members as a collective to make that change. On a slightly separate note the last couple of days I've spent with a boxster at spa and the ring have yielded some very Positiv results. The new car has been tracking with my 968 with very little trouble.. Admitidly I'm not the fastest peddler but I do know the ring.. I'll report back after the Silverstone back to back test...

Pray tell Lali, not enough info about your latest shenanigans . . .

 

[Neil Haughey]

Right then, just to prove I am not playing politics but are seeking genuine enlightenment on this matter I decided to simulate this comparison myself. I didn't try to do anything super clever just took my class 2 968 model and added 90 Kg, 50 Bhp (same curves just 20% more) and pushed the weight bias 5% more to the rear (43% front 57% rear). Hopefully this represents a reasonably quick comparison of boxster to 996 without going in to all the detailed complications. First I let the AI drive the car. This would seem the fairest comparison as it takes the driver out of the equation but the AI in rFactor is really stupid and doesn't understand how to drive a tin top without any down force. The best times the AI managed round Silverstone Arena GP were as follows: Class 2 968 driven by AI = 2:34.1 Class 2 968 + 50 Bhp + 90Kg +5% extra rear weight bias = 2:33.0 The difference is only 1.1 seconds but I already know that those lap times are nonsense so I spent some time driving this new beefed up 968++ model. My best times are as follows: Class 2 968 driven by me = 2:28.8 Class 2 968 + 50 Bhp + 90kg +5% extra rear weight bias = 2:27.2 The difference now is much wider and I am sure I can improve on that time a touch as this evening is the first time I have driven this 968++ model. The gap has now gone up to 1.6 seconds. Its interesting to compare some of the key speeds at a couple of points on those best laps. Minimum speed in Copse is 86 mph v 84 mph in favour of the lighter car by 2 mph. Maximum speed on Hangar straight is 139 mph v 133 mph in favour of the more powerful heavier car. Gearing, track widths front and rear, suspension geo, alignment and layout, springs, dampers, roll bars, tyre sizes, polar moment, aero drag, CofG, are all identical on these 2 models as the 968++ model is purely that a class 2 968 with the additions and alterations as stated in this post. If I was to create accurate boxster and 996 models I am sure there would be a significant gap in performance. Something very unexpected which I haven't attempted to quantify yet is the amazing acceleration out of corners 300 Bhp and all that weight on the rear end gives, this kind of hammer punch isn't confined to long high speed circuits, its everywhere. It makes me question actually if its really workable to have cars with such huge power disparities racing in the same class, once backed up in the corner you have no hope of getting past when the terminal speed on the straights is as much as 6 or 7 mph more so one can appreciate Baz's driver's frustration.

 

[bazhart]

Thanks Neil, that's a funny way of doing things but as with every other comparative method I used it simply showed that the power to weight ratio of the 996 was too light. Thanks for confirming that fact and now you know why I have been complaining so much. However - although I do not intend to prolong my posts on this subject any further - I have been working on a kind of conclusion to the problem and in so doing some very important issues have come to light that mitigate a lot of the things I have been complaining about regarding how and why that ratio was originally calculated and then not sufficiently adjusted. It kind of lets the organisers off the hook a bit while throwing a lot more light on the problem and in so doing comes up with the simplest of solutions. I am trying to make it as short and sweet as possible - but it actually makes a lot of sense. What is more important to me now is how to make sure we never again face a season of unfair competition and instead see different models of all types and in different classes racing together competitively and drivers, owners and teams all trying their very best to outdo each other on a perfectly level playing field and with confidence and anticipation that there is nothing preventing them eventually getting their cars to the front - except themselves. Baz

 

[Neil Haughey]

Cheers Baz, the thing is what I have been trying to get to the bottom of or rather teasing out is the various ways in which one car is faster than the other without leaving any questions open. Clearly the more powerful car will be faster on the straights, the lighter car all other things equal should be a touch quicker into and through the apex. The question then would have been does one effect cancel the other in order to create parity. The interesting thing is my quick and dirty simulation testing shows that there is in fact a 3rd dimension, how much (if at all) does the more powerful car benefit from a better drive out of the corners. This is important to try and quantify for the real cars as it will have a massive effect on lap time as every racer knows. To try and quantify from the sim laps and get a feel for this I replayed the 2 laps referred to previously and used slomo replay to read off the slowest speed in the corner and then the exit speed when level with the end of the kerb. The numbers come out like this with the heavier more powerful car in brackets: Copse: 86(84), 102(103) Chapel (complex): 64(62), 92(93) Luffield 50(47), 82(84) I also read off the exit kerb speeds in a couple of other places New pit straight: 97(101) Wellington straight: 102(106) Even though the car is slower in the middle of the corners the sheer kick out of the corners means its travelling faster than the slower car before its even settled onto the straights. This is with a more gentle smoother application of throttle as well. If data logs from the real cars show the same trends then it would hardly be surprising to see the 996 turning out faster lap times than the boxster. This is why I mentioned before and will stick to my guns that the only way to put these things to bed is via data logger analysis. Doesn't need anything fancy just a data and video overlay and the ability to play in slomo or freeze frame at the points of interest. As you say Baz the organisers can easily be forgiven for this as the 993 never seemed as capable as the 996 at hooking up the corner exits. No matter who has run one they always look a bit tail happy when pushed. I will let the AI drive the 2 cars round and see if it repeats my comparative numbers.

 

[Neil Haughey]

As promised I let the AI drive each car around for a good 10 laps or so each. Times are 2:34.1 to 2:32.9 in favour of the more powerful heavier car so a 1.2 second per lap performance gap. The overall trend is the same as I reported previously when I drove the 2 models. Letting the AI do the driving it comes up with the following speeds, same scheme as before only now I will include a couple of more test points and give the Chapel exit speed as the right hand false kerb when the AI straightens up the car. Copse: 84(83), 98(100) Chapel: 72(71), 92(93) Stowe: 76(75), 92(93) Vale: 44(44), 95(96) Loop: 43(43), 99(101) Luffield: 53(52), 80(82) The differences when looking at the lowest speed in a corner is really tiny, I have given it in whole units as that is all the interface reports but its a toss up in same corners determining what the number is when it jitters up and down a bit. The heavier more powerful car though is consistently and noticeably quicker by the time it gets to the corner exit. The overall effect is that the extra power gives much more performance than the very slight advantage of extra corner entry/apex speed performance in the lighter car, due of course to the extra performance on the straights as the lower corner speed has already been nullified by the better drive out of the corners. The only way I can see the real 996 not producing similar performance trends would be if it was severely traction limited and struggles to put the power down on corner exits. I haven't heard or seen anything to suggest this is the case.

 

[bazhart]

Very good work Neil - please now accept my apology for previous insinuations levied (and perhaps understand my response when you appeared to be defending the performance by explaining it by pure corner speed deficiencies or my incorrect choice of one of my comparative analytical programmes). I did all this type of analysis before the last season even started and used different ways of comparing things - just to make absolutely sure I had not got it wrong before I started complaining about the figures (as I knew that would probably make me unpopular with the drivers and teams and definitely unpopular with the organisers - and no one wants to be unpopular when you are new to the game! However while the differences in all the other cars was too small to worry about - the reports I sent to Motorsport were comprehensive, contained charts and graphs and highlighted that I though the 993 would be shown to be a little too light (due to previous misscalculations of driver/team performances) and the 996 far too light and untouchable. I predicted lap speed differences at three circuits (all within a few tenths of what proved to be the case) and also did a brief check on class 2 which showed the 968 insufficiently weighted for equality. Later I produced a comparative torque graph for the 996 3.4, Boxster S and 993 showing how much flatter the torque curve was for the 993 and 996 (the Boxster with a rising line (in the power band over 4K revs) for the Boxster - a horizontal one for the 993 and a downward sloping one for the 996. Since on exiting a corner the cars drive from around 4K revs - this meant that the 993 and more so the 996 had more torque available by a greater proportion than the increase in peak bhp (on which the weight is based) and as you rightly point out - with 5% more weight at the rear they can also exploit it. Since acceleration is proportional to torque divided by all the various resistance and since they had more proportionally to their weight they can out accelerate other models in the race out of corners (as one 993 competitor confirmed). This good start enables them to reach a higher top speed (although the weight starts to limit this advantage as the gear changes are then more within the gear drop rev range on the straights. This is exactly the feedback, visible difference and speed trap results found this season. If the original weighting error was small then different methods of comparing performance would probably vary (some confirming it perhaps others less obvious) but if the error was huge - then almost any way you can find to compare it will still show up that the 996's had too much of an advantage. This is the case and what I found a year ago now and is why your method also exposes it and why I have been so active in trying to get it changed. Perhaps you have a but more sympathy for my lone quest now. As time went by and each race exposed the differences and I sent in more reports/comments - the lack of acknowledgement and action - to what had been obvious to me all along and was now obvious to everyone else was extremely frustrating. I have still kept all those reports private - because they were between me and the Motorsport team - but if they were made public the reaction from them would be exposed a very poor indeed and perhaps people would understand why I am still harping on about it. Basically it means to me that either the team didn't know how to get it more accurate (and it is a difficult subject the way they seemed to have handled it) and then didn't want to expose their mistake by admitting it (so simply refused to respond) or they had some other reason (no doubt well intentioned and thought to be in the interests of the series etc) to knowingly advantage the 996 in class 1 and the 968 in class 2 they were not prepared to expose to their members. Either way it is not surprising that people pulled out, were disgruntled and demotivated and many are questioning their continuation next season - so for the sake not only of fairness - but also the future of the series - it needs to be properly corrected. Having said that I think I understand why and how the mistake was made and I am sending a last report to PCGB to try and explain and help. Until then I think it best to keep the contents private - we cannot change last season and the team otherwise do a brilliant job. I think we just need a better way to establish the weights and a better way to adjust them when they seem to be wrong. My shareholders want to continue to invest in racing (for the benefits we gained internally as a team and the PR it generates) but it is a lot of money and they quite rightly want to know if that investment can be wasted by unfair factors outside of their control and which nothing can be done about before they commit to a plan. To achieve this we need an early release of the figures for next season and confidence in the internal workings of those responsible if it starts out wrong. Baz

 

[Neil Haughey]

Thanks Baz. I felt it was important to deal with this issue in all the ways it would end up being argued. I should say however that Pete's best time at Silverstone was nothing short of sensational. Even if I was to fiddle about with the model above to try and generate a 996 accurate model I think I would struggle to get it down to 2:26 flat whereas you know from our previous work together the previous season I can usually beat real times for fairly obvious reasons. It is surprising really why he didn't go much faster on some of the other circuits such as Croft or Castle Combe. When I went back and compared those 2 best laps in detail I made a couple of small mistakes in the 968 class 2 one but fluked a near perfect lap in the 968++ one. Taken overall my gut feeling is that the performance gap is more like that which the AI generates which is about 1.2 seconds. Other differences could have other effects such as the flatter torque curve you allude to, different gearing, different rear suspension layout (may benefit 996 as multi-link). I just couldn't say without spending a lot more time and effort on the models. The simple question though of what happens when 50 Bhp, 90Kg and a 5% more rear weight bias are added is a performance improvement around 1.2 seconds per lap around the longest circuit we race on.

 

[bazhart]

Neil I would be interested to know how you think that compares with my analysis of the 968 class 1 and class 2 cars round Silverstone in which the actual lap times suggest that 35 kilos gives about a 1 second/lap difference (after allowing for track improvements) and that 50 kilos equates to about 2 seconds/lap in a 996 (all other things being equal). I prefer to use the fixed driving parameters of a system that doesn't allow for driver error but it would be interesting to see what lap times difference your system provides if you added 35 kilos to a 968 and then again in a 996 with plus or minus 50 or 60 kilos. I have my own results we can compare. Baz

 

[bazhart]

Just a couple of other things Neil before I try and relax for the rest of the weekend - I do agree Pete is a terrific driver and thoroughly deserves his Championship win. You seem not to allocate as much of the reduced lap times to torque as I do. When you have increased the power output of your model have you also adjusted the torque curve to reflect the stronger torque of the 996 in lower rev areas as used coming out of corners? If you do not have the information I can supply alternative torque curves tomorrow from work. I think you will find that the 996 has a greater proportion of increased torque than a Boxster as the angle of the torque graph is so much the other way round - this of course is the problem of using bhp as the control figure when the bigger engine'd cars (especially with variocam) produce their maximum torque at lower revs and therefore produce more acceleration out of corners as a result. Baz