Runoffs trap speeds are posted

[smithpr]

Guys:

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/Fil...untraps-AS.pdf

The Runoff trap speeds are posted.

Guess how many GM cars are in the top 30 fasted trap speeds?

One.

Guess who?

Let the debate continue. However, it does seem that Fords overall are faster then GMs.

Philip
#54 A/S

no .. no way ... I don't believe it ... the numbers are made up .. I wont believe it until I see it on SCCA letterhead.. signed and stamped with a seal...
this is a farse.... more of that GM conspiracy talk I tell ya .. just more of it ....

its not true I tell you .. its not true.....

Originally Posted by smithpr

Guys:


Guess how many GM cars are in the top 30 fasted trap speeds?

But Potential-wise, it appears a GM package can cover the entire Mustang field, except one..

(couldn't resist)

The real question I wanted to ask everyone, do we know where this taken and how? I presume T-ponder loops because of how good the data is. Is this at S/F, or corner Alpha?

[jimwheeler]

Damn Kyle, I've seen some never-say-die guys in my long and checkered career, but you are the neverest.
wheel

[Ted Johnson]

Some of these numbers seem odd. Formula mazda numbers in the 138 mph range? Formula Atlantic 115 mph range? GT1 140mph range? Since when can a formula mazda pull with a gt1 car? Am I missing something? It says its measured between start/finish to turn alpha.

Rain, maybe?

[smithpr]

Guys:

The more I think about this the more I want a Ford.

It looks like it doesn't take much to get a fast Ford. West has one of the fastest cars. In addition, there are a number of Fast Fords and the money and effort doesn't seem to matter. Some of the guys that talk about spending the most are not any faster then some of the other Fords.

I know Sloe has a well developed car and it looks like the rest of the Ford guys need to step up the program.

This data shows that that it is almost impossible to get a fast GM. Based on the speed numbers I should do not support any rule changes. The GM guys just need to step it up. I decided I am going to be just like the Ford guys. No changes. I have a very fast GM and I sure do not want other cars as fast as mine.

If the GMs handle so much better they would carry the corner exit speed down the straight and at 114 mph the speed would be the same.

As Kyle says, just drive better guys.

Let the class die who cares. If this data doesn't prove that you are a fool to build a GM I do not know what would.

Jerry Post is right. GM should stay home and save their stuff until the rules change.

Philip

What would it take to fix this?

Philip

Originally Posted by jimwheeler

Damn Kyle, I've seen some never-say-die guys in my long and checkered career, but you are the neverest.
wheel

Well Wheel, Tis the season for optimism! Someone please tell Philip that and buy him a beer for me..

Some things I noticed about the trap speeds:

Harvey was fast in a straight line, but was off pace a bit on the rest of the lap. Harvey Duplicated Ed H. fast speed, but typically the two cars were 4-5 sec. appart in lap times.

Only 3 laps in the race were in the 54's (Sloe (1) and Lavign (2)).

15 laps in the race were in the 55's. These were among 5 different cars; Hosni, Lavign, Sloe in fords; Phillip and Heinrocket in GMs. Lavign had the most and presumably the clearest track.

The highest trap speed of the event, by Sloe, was on his personal slowest lap (a 57.3) (other than in lap).

Lap times vs. trap speeds relationship seems all over the board.

Of the top six finishers on track (3 Ford, 3 GM)(tech not withstanding), 5 had best trap speeds ranging 114.02 to 113.07, and then there was JH with 111.05..

Just a few observations...

Kyle

[SedanMan]

Originally Posted by KW78

Some things I noticed about the trap speeds:

Some possible conclusions about trap speeds (although I'm sure you'll correct me Kyle ):

Originally Posted by KW78

Harvey was fast in a straight line, but was off pace a bit on the rest of the lap. Harvey Duplicated Ed H. fast speed, but typically the two cars were 4-5 sec. appart in lap times.

Wouldn't this indicate that even if you can't manage a high corner speed (including the corner leading onto the straight where the trap speed was measured) when your car makes more horsepower than other cars you still end up with higher speeds than the lower horsepower cars? Put another way, Harvey's Ford had one of the highest trap speeds even though his lap times were slow compared to the 12 people that finished ahead of him in the race and the 22 people that outqualified him.

Originally Posted by KW78

Only 3 laps in the race were in the 54's (Sloe (1) and Lavign (2)).

The only cars in the 54's were Mustangs.

Originally Posted by KW78

The highest trap speed of the event, by Sloe, was on his personal slowest lap (a 57.3) (other than in lap).

Again, if you have the horsepower you'll have a high trap speed, even if you're off in a corner or two on any given lap.

Originally Posted by KW78

Lap times vs. trap speeds relationship seems all over the board.

Lap times are a function of driver ability whereas trap speeds are more of a function of car horsepower (anyone can mash their foot on the gas pedal at the beginning of a straight).

Originally Posted by KW78

Of the top six finishers on track (3 Ford, 3 GM)(tech not withstanding), 5 had best trap speeds ranging 114.02 to 113.07, and then there was JH with 111.05..

Once again, even if your car (Heinricy's) has lower trap speeds, meaning less horsepower, if the higher horsepower cars in front of you drive off track, break, or get DQ'd then it's still possible to inherit a win, even if your car lacks the potential to drive to the front and take the win.

Which is the basis for the main question that GM car owners are asking themselves these days, especially about attending the Runoffs......"How much time and money am I willing to devote to a race in which the only chance I have of winning is if all the top Fords have mechanical problems or all the top Ford drivers make a lot of driving mistakes?"

This is just one more set of data that supports what the GM folks have been saying for a while now. Namely, Fords make more horsepower and when combined with good driving and car setup then the Ford potential is higher than the GM potential. (assuming GM drivers and Ford drivers are about equal in skill level and car prep ability level....but of course Kyle, you think if the GM guys including Heinricy would learn to drive and set up cars as well as the Ford guys that then the GMs would be beating the Fords. Other than yourself, I wonder how many other people in the AS community (including Heinricy) believe this to be true.....

[t4wallace]

Originally Posted by KW78

Well Wheel, Tis the season for optimism! Someone please tell Philip that and buy him a beer for me..

There is not one thing that you have posted here Kyle that gives any GM'r optimism. Especially a 3rd gen. And there is nothing in the way of POTENTIAL (empahsis for Kyle) that should give a GM'r optimism either. I have heard your position (GM should have hope b/c a GM won, Wheel isn't tapping the potential of his rig and we all have $4995 to spend on a trip to Bondurant). The trap speeds are just more in the way of data that supports the Ford bias in the rules, especially under the hood. This isn't pessimism Kyle, it's factual data that supports the OPINIONS of many. Ford drivers inlcuded when spoken to outside the realm of public forum.

Originally Posted by KW78

Harvey was fast in a straight line, but was off pace a bit on the rest of the lap. Harvey Duplicated Ed H. fast speed, but typically the two cars were 4-5 sec. apart in lap times.

There is nothing more frustrating in CenDiv than to be driving a GM and come up on a Ford that you're 1-2 sec./lap faster than and get parked there since you are down 30-40 hp. Or, you can try sailing it in there in the braking zone and hope they were taught to share as children.

Originally Posted by KW78

Only 3 laps in the race were in the 54's (Sloe (1) and Lavign (2)).

OPTIMISM would have at least one GM lap in this rarified air.

Originally Posted by KW78

15 laps in the race were in the 55's. These were among 5 different cars; Hosni, Lavign, Sloe in fords; Phillip and Heinrocket in GMs. Lavign had the most and presumably the clearest track.

The highest trap speed of the event, by Sloe, was on his personal slowest lap (a 57.3) (other than in lap).

By my count, there were 19 laps that were sub-56.
Laps that Heinricy ran in the 55's: 1
Other GM laps in the sub-56 category: 1 by P. Smith for a total of 2.

The remaining number of laps faster than a 56 run by a Ford: 16

That's certainly optimistic. If I'm on crack.

Originally Posted by KW78

Lap times vs. trap speeds relationship seems all over the board.

This just in. Horsepower and lap times are not statistically significant. You have posted the reasons why in other places.

Originally Posted by KW78

Of the top six finishers on track (3 Ford, 3 GM)(tech not withstanding), 5 had best trap speeds ranging 114.02 to 113.07, and then there was JH with 111.05..

Let me help you here: There is a horsepower (or horsepower to weight) disparity.

I have watched enough Fords yank me 4 cars at MidO (back straight) to know this to be fact. And please don't reply with the whole "run off the corner" thing. I'll send you video of how a car can have a three car-length run coming out of 3 at Road America and still loose 5 lengths by the braking zone going into 5. This phenomenon repeats itself 3 times per lap. And this would be in the 3rd gen GM that is consistently in the top 5 nationally since 03. Included in this footage would be a driver earning his keep in the braking zone and the corners to combat the driving ability of mashing the pedal on the right.

The data does not support parity no matter how you try to spin it Kyle. And a one-lap flyer on A's is not enough data to measure potential and doesn't support your position anyway.

I'd love to see you and Ed develop a GM and prove that we're wrong. At least you'll have put your money where your idea of potential is.

Too bad Spec Miata was the first to the SM stickers...