The 2012 PCGB Club Championship

[Neil Haughey]

I haven't done back to back comparisons but looking back through older times I reckoned the 35kg slowed the 968 down by about 3/4 of a second round Silverstone. Having said that when I did all the stuff with Paul last year I drove my 944 S2 model on the same tracks through the season and the only track where there was a big gap between a class 2 944 S2 and the old class 1 968 was at Silverstone, next was Castle Combe then Donny at about 1 second. The surprise for me was Oulton which we discussed before and highlighted why it was highly intelligent of Marcus to target that track with the S2 last year as its Oulton and Brands where the lighter car narrows the gap right down. ISTR only about 1/2 a second gap between S2 and 968 round Oulton which with the extra 35 kg would have narrowed that right down. I will repeat the Silverstone comparison with and without the extra 35 kg and let the AI drive the car round and see what it comes up with. The AI drives with extraordinary consistency (unsurprisingly) but follows a set of way points programmed in with the track.

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: bazhart 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

Thanks Baz if you can email me the curves for a 996 and a boxster S I can program those in like we did with the 968. For the exercise so far I just took the 968 curve which I had previously boosted up to 250 Bhp and then boosted it up a further 50 Bhp. I moved up every point between 3k and 7.5k by about the same amount, the end output came out at something 280 lb/ft. Its dull but easy to do to generate new engine models, each value is input in Nm at ISTR 250 rpm intervals using the Physics editor tool. Gear ratios and track widths would also be useful but I can probably find these on the internet this evening. I will just guess that each car has a CofG about 1 inch or so lower than the 968? The point you make about the torque curves is a good point as I have always felt that cars like Stuarts 2.5 boxster have a big disadvantage against cars like the S2 in this area. I think the really key thing I have seen so far is that the naysayers could say the boxster should corner more quickly and that this will balance the performance. Well I found in my modelling its true the lighter car can corner faster but it was nowhere near enough to make up the performance deficit and of course seems to be negated by the more powerful car just with its superior drive out of many corners.

 

[Neil Haughey]

Right then I let the AI drive round in the class 1, 968, class 2 968 and S2 for a couple of hours total. The gaps are like this: class 1 968 class 2 968 +0.5s class 2 S2 +1.0s The 30Kg addition slowed the car down much less than I thought, my gut feeling was about 3/4 of a second as previously stated. Interesting that right at the start of the year I said it wasn't enough but I would have been happy with a 60Kg adjustment on the previous numbers. Well given that the car with 30Kg on it sits bang in between the performance of the cars with the old weights it seems my gut feel number was a good one. Its interesting as well that the gaps are so small and this agrees with what a lot of ppl have said based on experience. Its notable that even at the old class 1 and 2 weights I only see 1 second a lap difference between the S2 and 968 on the longest track in the country. It should be pretty clear that the driver will make much more of a difference when we are looking at fractions of a second.

 

[Neil Haughey]

Just for background as to what on earth I am talking about and what I have been doing the past couple of years these articles give the idea: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/technology/when-computer-games-meet-the-real-world/ http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/digital-reality-f1-simulators-revealed/ http://www.racecar-engineering.com/blogs/will-computer-games-redefine-motorsport/ The really interesting thing for me personally is that 80+% of the difference between my real car and the model of it I have in rFactor disappeared after EMC rebuilt it and got all the suspension right. Best thing I ever did to that car was crashing it.

 

[bazhart]

Hi Neil, One of those nights with your head buzzing and too much to think about so decided to get up and try and empty my head by offloading some of it. I am too busy this week to send any more torque figures but what I really would like you to do (if you have time) is to run your simulation with the same car and same peak bhp - but different torque curves. i.e. your 996 simulation (weight distribution, 300bhp etc) but change the torque and see what difference it makes to the lap times. Comparing it to a 968 would be good because the 968 is 240bhp so the 996 is exactly 25% more bhp (300-240 = 60, 60/240 = 0.25 = 25 as a %). I don't have the graphs or chart figures here tonight that I E-Mailed you yesterday but if you look at them I think you will be able to calculate the % ncrease in torque over the 968 at whatever steps your simulation programme has in it (say 4K revs, 5K revs etc) Use the same calculations - i.e. at any revs you have information for - (996 torque - 968 torque)/968 torque - and then increase the torque in your simulator by the same %. What this should show is that for the same weight car and the same power - the difference round a circuit that extra torque would have. I presume that when you drive on the simulator you do not just go full throttle as soon as the apex of the corner is passed but have to gradually feed in the power as you exit (to avoid losing rear wheel traction). If so it would be important to get on the throttle as soon as possible and in the same gear you would use on the track. You can see from the videos drivers post that it is usually roundabout 4k Revs that they start to throttle up. This makes a big difference because once on the straight the gear change revs reflect the drop in revs from peak revs to whatever the gearing makes the revs drop to in the nest gear. Although the bigger engines have more torque low down - this is not really used on the straight and there is relatively little difference in the torque as a proportion of the maximum bhp (which we are trying to control with weight) as the engines rev drops are small then and 4K is never used. the big difference is that initial acceleration out of the corners that starts the bigger engine'd cars off down the straight a few mph faster - which is a difference they more or less maintain until the breaking point. I don't have time to replicate that this week as I am busy on 2 projects that have date limits this week but it would help to equate the positive difference in seconds it makes from which the change in time that you think the weight makes round the corner and provide a result that explains the shorter time they take from apex to braking for the next corner. This is also why my methods of simulation confirm (for example) how we managed to win at Brands Hatch (all be it that Pete's car was out of it). Brands has three main corners with adverse camber where you cannot used the potential benefit of that extra torque on exit because paddock drops away and limits throttle throughout the drop, the corner after druids also drops away (and it is too easy to run wide if you throttle up too much) and clearways starts off negative camber (just when you would be using that 4K revs area) but then unwinds as you can get onto full throttle. Plus being such a short circuit - the straights are too short for that initial speed advantage to build up before braking. Silverstone (at the other end of the scale) has lots of places to use heavy exit throttle and longer straights. All this will help create a fairer way to weigh the cars. The differences in circuits will always mean some cars will be faster at some circuits and some at others - but what we want to avoid is one model being faster at every circuit (all other things being equal). I am trying to create a system that will result in more cars and different models being closer together throughout the race and different winners at different circuits. IMHO nothing could be better for the series than seeing 10 or 12 cars in close formation, changing places and battling for the results. Formula 1 would give so much of they could create just that. Quite apart from that - all of us here at Hartech agree that it would be much more of a challenge, much more stretching and much more satisfying to be trying to make our cars get to the front of such a close race than simply to run away in the lead with the chasing pack unable to close due to an unfair advantage. We didn't go in for this just for the glory of a Championship or a podium and the closer the car's performances - the greater we will have to think, test, try things and work hard - which is what we are trying to achieve. By comparison - finding you cannot beat a particular model - just because it has such an unfair advantage - simply de-motivates everyone from even trying (as it can be a waste of time and effort if the advantage others have is insurmountable). I think the same applies wherever your car, driver or team effort places you in the race - the challenge is to recognise that if you can improve something - even a little - you can move up the rankings - that for me is what it is all about. No one will bother if the gap is too large. I agree with you that the problem created by the additional torque of bigger engines does make you think there should perhaps be a capacity limit for different classes - say class 1 - 3.2 and upwards and class 2 - 3.2 and downwards. But then you have the 3.2 Carreras and the 928's to consider. Perhaps 3.2 and upwards and less than 20 years old for class 1 and over 20 years old for class 2 would do it? These issues will become more important as models like the Cayman, larger engine'd Boxsters, 3.6 996's and 3.6 and 3.8 997's gradually are allowed in - as all will have more powerful, bigger and more torquey engines. Fortunately the capacity, improved handling, 6 speeds, torque and age - seems somewhat to link together. In 5 years time it may be necessary to add another class as the older cars will then be the 996's etc so perhaps an age limit for different classes would be better? Hope you can manage to test those differences and thanks for the efforts. Baz

 

[Neil Haughey]

Baz it was noticeable straight away when I generated the engine model for the boxster based on an old 968 engine model file I had, in comparison the low mid range is really weak on the boxster and yet your hauling around considerably more weight. I am letting the AI run them round at the moment, I spent the last 2 nights gathering and inputting data for the 996 and 986. Stuff like putting the fuel tank in the front, getting the right track widths (used workshop manuals for cars with 18" wheels). Its interesting that the boxster has slightly wider rear track and much longer wheel base than the 996 but equally interesting that the gear ratios and final drive seem to be identical. That surely can't help as one would assume a much lower power car would have shorter ratios. Some other interesting tidbits in comparison to the front engined cars models I have. Both run stacks more castor and thus don't seem to need anywhere near as much camber on the front. The boxster model I have now is the nicest handling car I think I have driven in any sim, nicer than either my 968 or S2 models, OK once more than a bit sideways it just spins but its wonderful to slip into corners at a slight angle (like a big kart). If the real cars can handle that nice sign me up, would love to drive one. Not quite so happy with my 996 model though, its fast but difficult, as I've never driven on track in any 911 variant I don't have the experience to say if its doing the right thing but it does do some of the stuff ppl talk about with 911s. I am keeping my powder dry for now on the results until I am happy with both models and that I am getting the most out of them because all the fine tuning makes such a big difference and can distort the results. Simple but big important example, I prefer the boxster model without an LSD and get faster times out of it like that but the 996 model just plain needs one, although bizarrely its to stabilise corner entry more than anything else (didn't expect that). When I am finished I could share all the mod data for others to play with in rFactor, would you mind this Baz as the engine data came from your goodself?

 

[bazhart]

Well done Neil - you are getting there. You say that the difference between some models is only 1 second round the longest circuit and a good driver can easily make that up. This is not only not true but also not what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to make the basic weights and various technical differences result in cars that with the same technical quality building and preparing them, the same track set up capability and the same driver - are able to lap at exactly the same speed - so anyone competing in that model reaches their (and their teams) potential and that the results reflect the fairness of the regulations and provide a level playing fields for all. If one model is 1 second faster than another - it should be changed so it isn't. In F1 or any lower level racing - it is very difficult to pass a similar car and driver once they are in front of you. This is partly because the concertina effect means that even if they are lapping at exactly the same speeds everywhere - a car 1 second ahead will pull away as it accelerates and increase the gap between it and the car behind - only closing the gap again on braking into the next corner. This makes it physically almost impossible to get close enough to pass and this is why F1 had to think up ways to make it possibole for the car behind to overtake (Kerrs and DRS). Qualifying times place a car that is faster in front on the grid - so a second difference starts the car in front with an advantage and makes passing it almost impossible (hence the processional races that are boring to watch). A car with more torque can negate that advantage because - lets say we have 2 models with the same peak bhp (and therefore the same weight) but one has loads more torque from 4K revs to that equal peak bhp. If the more torquey car is behind it can close up to the one in front on accelerating out of the corner - so when it brakes and the concertina effect unwinds it can pass on braking into the next corner (this accurately describes a 993 racing a Boxster S last season). If it is in front instead it can simply pull away. This means that if we are going to control performance through peak bhp and weight we need to dissadvantage cars with more torque (usually those with bigger engines and more modern technical things like Variocam etc) by adding something to a fair power to weight formula to equalise performance (and visa versa). It was clear from checking the previous lap times when the same drivers were equal in the same models the previous season - to those this season when some still had the same cars but others had a 996 - that the 996's were quicker (allowing for track improvements that everyone benefitted from) by almost 2 seconds a lap round Silverstone. Any analysis that does not get close to that reality must therefore be flawed. All my three different methods of comparing lap performance (before the season even started and on record at PCGB Motorsport) showed about the same difference and therefore cannot be ignored. It also showed little influence at Brands Hatch and about half the Silverstone advantage at Donnington Park and a 3-4 mph faster top speed (that was actually recorded there). I have worked out a fair and balanced system that I am submitting to the Club that is technically and scientifically correct and also agrees with (and predicts) all the results during the season with sufficient accuracy to be followed. It does provide an advantage or dissadvantge correction to an equal ratio for all models (for things like wheels and tyre sizes, torque, engine size, etc) and the results also agree with your figures (35 Kilos being about 1 second/lap) and therefore indicate something in the region of a 70 to 80 kilo increase for a 996 (and other small adjustments - all of which fit in with the general opinion of non technophobes who just observe the differences). When applying the new formula's to the cars that previously were roughly equal - the results are almost the same except the ones that clearly had an advantage or dissadvantage are adjusted in the right direction - so it must have some merit. The biggest advantage is of course that it is a formula and correction system that can be published and show how each weight was claculated and what weight new models (not yet eligible) should have. This prevents mistakes, provides a mechanism to adjust future small errors (which are inevitable) and a mechanism to manage dissagreements and know in advance what weights new models are likely to have to carry - so no one gets an unfair advantage by either guessing correclty which model may have an unfair advantage - or having some advanced knowledge of the same. This is the sort of approach we need for next season to ensure fair racing and equal opportunities for all. Baz

 

[StuartR16]

Baz and Neil, You both need to be commended on the work you are doing and the time it must be taking to help sort the weighting out. It has to be clear to everyone that the present structure is wrong. I only hope that the board take notice and do something about it. With the Motorsports dinner coming up an announcement could be made but if not then further action may have to be considered. And before anyone shouts me down, at Brands this year Steve stood up in front of us all and said that any model with an advantage would be looked into and adjusted, in reality too little was done too late, to the wrong cars and nothing at all in class 2. So let’s not assume that presenting Baz and Neil’s hard work to the board will do anything

 

[thegoose]

I've been following this thread with interest and whenever anyone (friends, customers) have asked me recently about racing I've said that we're campaigning to have a level playing field for next year, and I applaude the work being done on it by everyone (Baz, Neil, Paul etc). Anyway, one thing came to mind that has been omitted so far and that is the fact that the reg's don't permit a Varioram 993 (285bhp instead of 272bhp) to enter. I could understand introducing the earlier model first, but the later model was leap-frogged when the 996 was added - this seems odd. I don't know how easy it is to include, but perhaps a prospective minimum weight should be suggested for the 285bhp 993? It would certainly seem better to do so now than it possibly being shoe-horned in later. Apologies for the extra work but it seems wrong for that model to have been omitted as the reg's have evolved to permit newer models in.

 

[bazhart]

The system I am presenting to the Club for consideration does include a fair and equal graph (confirmed by both analytical models and our experiences and lap times last season) plus or minus small variables for varioram, variocam, 5 or 6 speeds, wheel sizes, tyre widths, type of suspension and the size of the engine (reflecting torque advantages etc). You simply plot the power on to the main chart or graph and then adjust it slightly with whatever features another model has. This took hours to work out because the variables must be the same size for each model that has them and so when you place them on a multiple model chart - they don't work out right unless the variables are right. I hope it makes a difference - the results are certainly miles better than the erors created last season and provide a transparent system from which not only can everyone know how it was worked out but also to plot new models as yet not considered. No doubt such a system would not be pefect but at least it provides a basis to improve and create fairness long term. Baz

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: bazhart You say that the difference between some models is only 1 second round the longest circuit and a good driver can easily make that up. If one model is 1 second faster than another - it should be changed so it isn't.

I totally agree with that Baz, the point I was making was more subtle. Simply put getting the setup right and then driving it to its potential will make more difference than anything else. As an example Graham Knights best time at Silverstone was no better than one should expect to be possible from a well driven S2, its actually slower than my model S2 in rFactor. The class 1 968 variant for example I can run close to your real life boxster times. As Ben drove both he can confirm but I am sure he could have got a his old 968 race car round in the high 2:28's or very low 2:29s. I can't disagree at all with the correction numbers you mention, an extra 30 Kg or so difference between the 968 and other cars in class 2 would even out class 2 and a 60 Kg or so correction would more than likely close the class 1 gap. This is actually an important finding thus far as different analysis with different absolute results seem to be pointing to the same answers. Something which I am not happy with is the AI in rFactor seems to be frequently coming up with smaller gaps between the models and vastly slower times then I can achieve by driving them myself, the 968 v S2 comparison for example. I keep going back to study my laps to see what is going on and it seems the AI just doesn't understand how to get the best out of the more powerful cars, whomever programmed it thought the fastest way round a track is to try and maintain maximum corner speed at all times. I won't quote any more times or gaps until I am happy with the laps used for comparison. It may be several days before I finish though as I am busy at work at the moment. I will then go back and check on Brands/Oulton as something that interests me is trying to answer the question what happens at those tracks after a correction is made? Would the 996 and 968 now end up slower than the other cars or could parity be maintained. This is an important question as most would probably expect those 2 cars to be a touch faster than their peers at Silverstone.

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: bazhart You simply plot the power on to the main chart or graph and then adjust it slightly with whatever features another model has. No doubt such a system would not be pefect but at least it provides a basis to improve and create fairness long term. Baz

Absolutely. This is what I have wanted from day 1 as it would be transparent and should remove all the odd anomalies we have all pointed out such as why 2.7 boxsters are so much lighter than the S or why the Carrera 3.2 has potentially a big class 2 advantage which the SC doesn't get to benefit from.

 

[bazhart]

Good work Neil, and you conclusions are very much the same as mine - whatever comparative system I use. I actually think the 996's are no where near as well developed as out own cars as well and can go even faster. That is not in any way a criticism of anyone involved - it is just that we had to test and change things all through the season to get our Boxsters competitive whereas it looked as if the 996's always had enough grunt to be at the front and this never encourages quite the same effort - as it is not needed. It is frightening to think how quick they will go next season without proper weighting. Working out my system has taken hours and hours - but it seems to work and the results agree with everything else - but I am tomorrow involved in a potentially very exciting project that might provide a solution for this without the disadvantage of my personal involvement (which people will obviously downgrade on the assumption I am trying to benefit our cars - which I am not. Lots more to come but I want to see how the Club react to my report before I decide what to do and where to go next. Things are looking a bit more positive anyway. I have not done the same exercise with class 2 (and would need some feedback from class 2 competitors) but the brief work I did do (that Paul expanded) does follow the same logic and conclusions and so I think it would be very easy to convert the system to cover class 2 as well. Baz

 

[Neil Haughey]

Results thus far based on the 996 and 986S models I have been developing suggest the following: 1) The lap times achieved by Pete in the 996 and Ben/Marcus in the 986S are broadly representative of the cars capabilities as I have modelled them. My best laps are comparable but I haven't analysed those laps in detail to check there fairness yet for comparison purposes, there just the best lap times I have achieved with my own models. 996 = 2:25.7 986S = 2:27.5 2) Without a lot of testing and data logging from the sim to check the comparison I can't give definitive answers on the simulated performance gap between the two cars but there is definitely a considerable gap in performance. The reason why I say this rather than let the AI tell me what the gap is, is due to my lack of trust in the AI in this case as it doesn't drive the cars anywhere near optimally. The AI manages the following lap times: 996 = 2:33.1 986S = 2:33.6 Result 1) is an important one for nothing else than the fact I have used stock engine data and a 1.4g tyre which seems to give remarkably accurate corner speeds. I wouldn't try to read anything definitive from the gap other than that I am saying I have done enough already to clearly see for myself that there is definitely a gap and it certainly isn't small, based on this simulation. The times I have achieved are remarkably close to the real times but from experience this doesn't surprise me at all. The gap the AI produces is about the same as that between the 968 and S2 in class 2 but I don't think this is realistic as the gaps I can get driving the models myself are larger by different factors. BTW it was much much harder for me to get fast times out of my 996 model but I managed it in the end. I would like to share these models with others if possible to see what other drivers can get out of them. Driving them is a lot of fun for a start.

 

[thegoose]

Which version of the 986S did you use? The 252bhp/1320kilos or the 260bhp/1330kilos?

 

[bazhart]

Interesting once again Neil - thanks. I am reluctant to base too much analysis on a simulation in which human ability can influence the outcome because we are not supposed to be making weight adjustments for different driver skills (or indeed technical set-ups). I think what we are trying to do is weight the cars so that IF (and I know it is a biig "IF") we could get drivers to drive different models of cars around circuits (set up by the same technicians until they are happy with them) with the same skill and ability - and put different weights in the different models until they all lap at the same times - then we would take some averages for each model type and the result would be what power to weight each car should fairly run at. Now I know that is impossible but all the analysis and simulations or calculations I did showed exactly the same outcome - that the 996 was about 70 or 80 kilos too light, the 993 about 30 kilos and the Boxsters (as they started the season) 15 to 30 kilos too heavy. It is difficult when different driver abilities and technicians capabilities (and indeed finances) - all make the same models run at the back, middle and front - but it is possible to do a better job than was done for 2012. However if you look at the lap times of the front runners in class 1 at Silverstone this year and last year - for Pete Morris (968 and 996), Mark McAleer (968 and 996), Ben Demetrio (968 and Boxster), Mark Koeberle (968), Paul Folllet (968) and Kevin Harrison (964) (just a random selection - not targeted for any unfair advantage) you can learn a lot about the situation. Taking averages over all three races - those driving the same car both years managed a very consistent improvement of 1.669778 seconds (probably due to partial resurfacing and track changes). Paul was on average 1.543667 faster (slightly less than the average due I suppose to the minimal 968 weight increase for class 2). Ben improved by 1.95 seconds (or 0.280222 seconds better than average - as we finally got the handling of our Boxsters working). His previous performances this season mainly being the same or slower in the Boxster than his 968 but also benefitting from the recent weight reduction for Boxsters. The 2 * 996 drivers improved by an average of 3.9655 seconds (Pete by 4.022667 seconds). This means that by comparison with the drivers and teams abilities and cars etc the 996's were 2.0155 seconds quicker than all the other cars. When Pete Morris and Mark McAleer raced 968's they had similar abilities and lap times to Ben Demetrio (and others). Silverstone circuit had circuit improvements this year but everyone seemed to get around quicker than the year before - but if we allowed for that - you find that the class 2 968's were slightly slower and the eqivalent of 35Kilos accounted for about 1 second/lap. Meanwhile the above shows that Ben in the Boxster S was running similar times to the 968 in which he won the previous season (allowing for those track improvements) but the 996's were about 2 seconds quicker than the same drivers managed in 968's (again allowing for track improvements). This would also suggest that 70 kilos extra may have slowed them down by 2 seconds and agrees with all the other diagnostic results. This would suggest that at Brands Hatch they should be say 3/4 of a second quicker, Donnington, 1.25 seconds etc. Silverstone is not necessarily therefore representative of performance differences at all circuits (and I think the 996's would always win there even if the had weight increases but probably a boxster or 968 should still do well at Brands hatch for example) )but it still is difficult to get away from the conclusion that the 996's were too light by about 70 kilos. This is also the points that a straight line graph (with the line based on previously equal models) of power to weight ratio reveals as well. It is a very difficult thing to get right and no one will ever be happy with the outcome. We all are bound to see a dissadvantage for our cars - but despite that - it is still possible to identify a model that is clearly no where near right and much too advantaged or disadvantaged and this season it was the 996's in class 1 and 968's (in class 2). Since it was possible to accurately predict this before the season started and was clear during the season - it puts a question mark against the original power to weight decisions (why were they so wrong?), against the inability to represent a case to anyone that seemes interested (which is unjustified in an expensive and competitive arena and a competition for members of a club) and against the slow and inadequate adjustments - resulting in winners that could have been predicted at the start - which must be wrong and something needs changing to improve that situation. I hope it will be - if it is not - I suspect the series and the number of competitors will suffer - something that is completely unecessary and can easily be solved. If it is not done soon - it will be too late for competitors to commit to building cars for next season. If it is so easy to work out the results before the season starts and so easy to confirm the general errors by different people using different methods - why can next years adjustments not be sorted out and published sooner rather than too late? Baz

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: thegoose Which version of the 986S did you use? The 252bhp/1320kilos or the 260bhp/1330kilos?

Marcus I used the engine data from Baz which is 252 Bhp and a vehicle mass not including a full fuel load of 1330 Kg, as per the regs for a 99-02 986S with the -15Kg mid season adjustment (1345Kg in the regs dated 31/01/12).

 

[thegoose]

Thanks Neil, I was just curious because Hartech ran one of each power&weight.

 

[Neil Haughey]

ORIGINAL: bazhart Interesting once again Neil - thanks. I am reluctant to base too much analysis on a simulation in which human ability can influence the outcome because we are not supposed to be making weight adjustments for different driver skills (or indeed technical set-ups). I think what we are trying to do is weight the cars so that IF (and I know it is a biig "IF") we could get drivers to drive different models of cars around circuits (set up by the same technicians until they are happy with them) with the same skill and ability - and put different weights in the different models until they all lap at the same times - then we would take some averages for each model type and the result would be what power to weight each car should fairly run at.

Now that would be something incredible although then the arguments would be around the simulation etc. etc. so its almost an endless debate, although both of us have no doubt it would be vastly more equitable than what anyone is currently doing. Our championship is fairly unique though for attempting to balance the performance of cars of different specification, in most cases the idea is to rigourously enforce a strict specification. Even the big guys such as BTCC can get it seriously wrong sometimes trying to balance different car specifications. Driver skill shouldn't be to much of a factor when its the one driver (me) driving different models. I did find however that it took me a several sessions to crack my 996 model but when I did the lap times tumbled. The key was in getting the trail braking right. If I compare in detail the speeds at various points in all the corners it should show if the comparison is a fair one as this will show up any anomalies or badly driven corners on one particular lap. I should say however that the optimal way to drive each car is different to the point that programming a system to do the job perfectly for a multitude of different car models is extremely difficult. One of the articles I linked to previously suggests the AI in rFactor is a perfect driver but my experience with tin top car models to date says that whilst extremely consistent the AI is rather lacking. I may even use FRAPS to record the laps and stick them on Youtube.

 

[Steve Brookes]

ORIGINAL: Neil Haughey I may even use FRAPS to record the laps and stick them on Youtube.

Yes please Neil.....I'm sure I'm not the only one trying to imagine what these sim runs look like! p.s. you must be knackered now after all those laps! []