SVRA at COTA

[Daryl DeArman]

I wasn't speaking about terminal velocity so not sure how that came up.

Illustrating that just because car (a) reached a similar top speed to car (b) at the end of a straight despite a slower exit speed doesn't mean a whole lot if the straight is long enough. In other words, I would need more info before I called someone a cheater.

I took multiple corners & compared that to end of the straights top speeds which in all cases is below my terminal velocity on my car...sorry I am by far not an expert but the numbers don't add up.<snip>but the fact is the data leads me to believe something is off.

Fair enough. I am also inclined to believe something is off, but not so strongly that I would call them a cheater failing to be able to prove so.

Is it not possible the entrant showed up knowing tech would not have the ability to prove or disprove the legitamcy of his engine?

Absolutely. Even when they have the ability, people look at the probability and take their chances. Heck, when was the last time an engine was torn down at any vintage race or SCCA event outside of the run-offs or sprints?

[Steve Bamford]

Here is what I find hard to deal with...I will give you something to think about & answer relating to cornering speed & similar straightline speed in the exact same distance...

Vintage run Dunlops I believe...I was running 4 Hoosier fronts, that is between 20-25 lb difference of rotating mass to move. How can they possibly end up at the same straightline speed in the same distance if the Vintage car has 20-25 lbs heavier tires on the car not even thinking about the grip difference?

[Tigaman]

Just watched the video with my data in front of me. Mid corner speeds were off 4-8 mph & in one case 10 mph compared to mine yet top speed was with 1-2 mph on most straights.

And that would explain the lap time difference between you and Ryan... You're in the corners for a LONG time at CoTA.

Question: Can you accurately compare mid-corner speeds without also comparing throttle position and brake?

Seems to me two cars could have an identical speed at mid apex, but one driver could already be on the gas while the other is still trail braking.

Yes. Snapshots in time, when the data and video are synced and rendered accurately, work as a comparison tool WITHOUT TPS or BPS information. Do it every day.

The latter is the best explanation of, after looking at Ryan's video, why there is a significant lap time differential. The level of THROTTLE COMMITMENT is far in excess of most driver's demonstrated performance, period.

I'm just saying...I hesitate to call someone a cheater unless I manage to prove they were.

This car was turning laps several seconds slower than a new car, was down on top speed to a new car. It's a new track that everybody is learning...all those variables mean a larger potential delta between entries.

Pointing at one performance data point or another doesn't prove or disprove legality by itself. What it may do is raise enough suspicion to dig deeper.

Roland tried to do the right thing based on his experience and suspicions. Through no fault of his own, he wasn't able to have them confirmed/denied.

Why are we ready to take someones' "win" away when we don't know?

Sounds like a reasonable statement.

What a shame this thread has gone off the rails. It was a great event, yes it could have been better scrutinized, but it is what it is...

[Tigaman]

To respond to the original poster, this is a nice video recap of WAY more of what was going on than this little spat...

http://youtu.be/VXOQwzm-7Q4

[Daryl DeArman]

Here is what I find hard to deal with...I will give you something to think about & answer relating to cornering speed & similar straightline speed in the exact same distance...

Vintage run Dunlops I believe...I was running 4 Hoosier fronts, that is between 20-25 lb difference of rotating mass to move. How can they possibly end up at the same straightline speed in the same distance if the Vintage car has 20-25 lbs heavier tires on the car not even thinking about the grip difference?

Gear ratio, weight of wheels, weight of rotors and hats, weight of axles, actual total weight of car, etc. As to grip difference, once you are very low on the lat. g's long. grip is a non-issue in a FF unless it's raining.

Corner exit speed has a larger effect on time spent getting down the next straight than it does top speed reached. The longer straights the smaller the difference in top speed reached.

[Steve Bamford]

Gear ratio, weight of wheels, weight of rotors and hats, weight of axles, actual total weight of car, etc. As to grip difference, once you are very low on the lat. g's long. grip is a non-issue in a FF unless it's raining.

Corner exit speed has a larger effect on time spent getting down the next straight than it does top speed reached. The longer straights the smaller the difference in top speed reached.

Really? Really? We are still agreeing to disagree? Ok then...

Are you suggesting our gearing was off so much that this would account for the difference? We finished 2nd both days & in the 2nd race around lap 3 we lost 2nd gear, I had to shift from 1st to third. There is no way we were that far off. There was at least one restart too during the race if not 2. I know that doesn't mean we were perfect but to me it implies there is no way that we were far off the mark either.

As I said before we were running the skinny set up with 4 fronts, do you think we were running extra heavy wheels, rotors, hats, etc if we went with this set up to negate the reason we went with it? Same set up we used to win the June Sprints against the other front running & winning car at this event & the Runoffs winner 2012 & 2013.

There is no way possible a car will reach the same top speed down a short straight starting with less entrance speed, less grip, worse aero, & more rotating weight to push for the same class have same minimum car weight without that car having more hp.

Maybe the engine is legal, I never once said it wasn't, but if it is that is the biggest, baddest Kent engine out there & I would love to have it.

[Daryl DeArman]

Really? Really? We are still agreeing to disagree? Ok then...

The only part we seem to disagree on is whether or not the speed reached at the end of a straight in a vintage car being similar to yours is indicative of cheating.

Are you suggesting our gearing was off so much that this would account for the difference?

Not at all. Your gearing could have been optimum for lap time, his could have been lower making a car with more rotating weight and the same hp accelerate quicker. That's all.

As I said before we were running the skinny set up with 4 fronts, do you think we were running extra heavy wheels, rotors, hats, etc if we went with this set up to negate the reason we went with it?

I certainly hope not ....doesn't mean his stuff wasn't lighter. Just because it has a 40 year old body shape doesn't mean everything under the skin isn't top shelf stuff.

There is no way possible a car will reach the same top speed down a short straight starting with less entrance speed, less grip, worse aero, & more rotating weight to push for the same class have same minimum car weight without that car having more hp.

Okay, assuming the same gear ratio and a short straight, I'd agree.

Maybe the engine is legal, I never once said it wasn't, but if it is that is the biggest, baddest Kent engine out there & I would love to have it.

Everything has a price call him up. I'm sure he'd sell it for enough money. If he says no, you didn't offer enough.

[Tigaman]

Corner exit speed has a larger effect on time spent getting down the next straight than it does top speed reached. The longer straights the smaller the difference in top speed reached.

The data supports ^^this^^.

Have y'all ever wondered what happened to the car he passed on the front straight on his flyer? That was his team-mate and they were in VERY close proximity on that backstraight, on that lap...

[Roland V. Johnson]

You're correct Peter, both the team cars seem to have similar engines. Who built them, and how many SCCA FF championships has he won? From 50 mph on the back straight at COTA it takes us on the average 20 sec to reach 120 MPH. Look at the time the modern FF spends in each gear. It takes him 18 seconds to reach 130 MPH from the same speed. I need to tell Jay Ivey that he has forgotten how to build engines. Looking at the speeds and rpm it looks as if he is running about 18/33, 20/30, 21/25, 26/26 for gears (assuming a 9/31 diff). I've never seen a Swift pull a 26/26 top gear like that!

[Frank C]

The power required to overcome aerodynamic drag goes up with the cube of velocity. Thus for 131 mph vs. 124, being conservative, the required power to overcome drag, assuming the same CdA product, is about 18% more. Draw your own conclusions.
- Frank C

[Steve Bamford]

You're correct Peter, both the team cars seem to have similar engines. Who built them, and how many SCCA FF championships has he won? From 50 mph on the back straight at COTA it takes us on the average 20 sec to reach 120 MPH. Look at the time the modern FF spends in each gear. It takes him 18 seconds to reach 130 MPH from the same speed. I need to tell Jay Ivey that he has forgotten how to build engines. Looking at the speeds and rpm it looks as if he is running about 18/33, 20/30, 21/25, 26/26 for gears (assuming a 9/31 diff). I've never seen a Swift pull a 26/26 top gear like that!

Takes us 20 seconds to pull from 50 mph to 130 according to my data. That's a modern FF with very little expense spared on slicks running skinny set up.

I probably missed it earlier in the thread but is the builder of the engine in question disclosed?

[Tigaman]

how many SCCA FF championships has he won?

From 50 mph on the back straight at COTA it takes us on the average 20 sec to reach 120 MPH.

Roland, on the latter, Steve Bamford quotes 20 seconds on his data to go from 50 to 130 MPH.

On the former, do the names Dave Weitzenhof, Justin Pritchard or David Clubine mean anything to you?

Suffice it to say, the cars in question have had no expense spared, nor has any available expertise been lacking in their development.

I still think it's disappointing that the focus is on the cars, rather than the drivers.

THAT is the major difference in performance here...

[Sam Simpson]

No one has come up with an answer as far as I can tell. Since you are so familiar with the driver(s) and car owners, perhaps you could enlighten all of us as to who is the engine builder. With an engine from that builder, I feel sure I could demolish the DB1's on the West Coast who run in SVRA West, not to mention being able to kick Cowdrey's butt. As far as the car and "no expense was spared", perhaps you could also enlighten us all to what that could entail, given the ultra strict limits on the engines (where .5 to 1 hp is considered a big deal, shocks (steel bodied), etc. The bottom line is that anyone who can make a 40 year old LEGAL 1972 Titan competitive with a new Piper with a Honda Engine is a real magician.

[Steve Bamford]

Roland, on the latter, Steve Bamford quotes 20 seconds on his data to go from 50 to 130 MPH.

On the former, do the names Dave Weitzenhof, Justin Pritchard or David Clubine mean anything to you?

Suffice it to say, the cars in question have had no expense spared, nor has any available expertise been lacking in their development.

I still think it's disappointing that the focus is on the cars, rather than the drivers.

THAT is the major difference in performance here...

Peter,

For me to go for 50 - 130 in 20 seconds in a modern car with less rotating mass & for a 40 year old car with 25 lb heavier tires, less aero, seems like a stretch to me...sure their gearing could be better but as I stated before there is no way we were that far off. 2 seconds over this stretch is HUGE in identical cars let alone a car that should be less competitive.

I am also not saying the driver in this car was or was not the best driver on the track however I believe the cars performance is suspect.

[Daryl DeArman]

I still think it's disappointing that the focus is on the cars, rather than the drivers.

THAT is the major difference in performance here...

It may very well be when talking about 7 seconds a lap difference at a newer facility.

However, it doesn't take much/any talent to accelerate down a straight in a FF and that's where most people seem to be taking issue with the cars' legality, whether it's the ability to closely match the acceleration of a new FFit or being 10MPH faster than other similar cars. Personally, I don't feel either performance metric alone is enough to slap a label on somebody, but certainly enough to raise suspicion.

[William I. Hollingsworth]

I have tuned into this thread late having been reminded of it at my lunch with Bob Bruce today about the comments from "Tigaman" (our friend Peter Krause). I think Peter continues to identify why one driver in a Formula Ford is quicker than another - he is better! It is very much a driver's car. The car is much faster than any of us will ever be. A great driver in a Formula Ford, and I think the older ones on Dunlops prove the point, is going to get performance out of that car that few will do.

That brings me to the point of reply to the reference to Modernization. When the Vintage Racer Group was founded in 2004, we were approached by some owners of Club Fords to run with us if they could use Dunlops as the Historic Formula Fords do under Monoposto Racing Rules. They had run in SVRA F70 groups and found it not to their liking. At that time we were talking with Jack Woerhle at SVRA about his putting the Club Fords in Group 2 with the Historic FF - on the same (Dunlop) tires - as safety issue. If a Club Ford has a cast iron head and the canisters removed from it's shocks, and on the same tires, we did not think there would be a distinct advantage of the newer Formula Ford (1973-81) over the older one (1968-72). We saw an opportunity to grow the FF/CF class within VRG with the acceptance of the newer car. What we learned in racing with SVRA is that the evolutionary changes to the uprated Kent engine were accepted even though Monoposto Racing Rules did not evolve with them. At VRG we have come to accept that the engine builders build the uprated Kent engine one way - there is no distinction of its being used in vintage or in SCCA (we are not talking about a "runoffs" engine vs one built for a season). We think there is a parity in the Formula Ford class, that there is no edge to the driver in the CF over the HFF. The better drivers are pretty well split between the CF and HFF and it is always the driver who dominates. Our purpose is to have the Formula Fords, defined by Monoposto Racing Rules be the same. Where there are differences, such as aluminum bodied shock absorbers, an in-cockpit brake bias adjuster, an engine built to SCCA FF specifications that have evolved over time from what Monoposto Rules define - SVRA does not police those differences, VRG does not police those differences; and we would like to see those rules reflect the general acceptance so that we can police the cheating - i.e. an overbore engine, a cam, higher compression. If the sanctioning bodies do not police the engine that has the lighter fly wheel or aluminum bodied shocks on the HFF, their leverage on policing, on what we call "real cheating" (CUBIC INCHES, COMPRESSION, CAM) remain difficult to enforce.

In answer to the Modernization of the Vintage Car: At VRG and at SVRA we do not think we have fostered a modernization of Formula Ford. There is always going to be an evolution. SCCA has done that in its engine rules to make the engine more reliable, especially where parts were no longer available. The Dunlops tires, used on Formula Fords - still - world wide, except in the USA because of the no SCCA tire rule, have been a standard. The engines are still the stock, built to specifications of an uprated Kent 1600 cc engine, aluminum bodied shocks were supplied by Ray Caldwell on his 1972 Formula Fords. We do not see "up grades" in the class. We do see more very well prepared Formula Fords (CF & HFF) that are historically correct. NOTHING in vintage racing today is exactly as it "was raced in its day." We think that FF, FJr, FB, because of Monoposto Racing's Rules have kept costs in check and the cars, in most important instances, historically in check and correct. In the west you may have seen modernization that we do not allow here. VRG has nearly 60 CF/FF in the club. It is hosting next May at the Jefferson 500 at Summit Point in West Virginia the 45th Anniversary of Formula Ford in the USA for all Monoposto Legal Formula Fords. "Upgraded" Formula Fords not allowed.

[Rick Kirchner]

so your definition of an "upgraded" FF is alumnium head, remote pressure can shocks, and in cockipit adjustments?

[Jonathan Hirst]

To William's point above, I wish there was a bit more clarity in the Vintage rules. The way it used to be in Vintage was a new Sprite would show up and if there were some "deviations" from the letter or spirit of the law (flares for example), there was a note made at scrutineering and a time frame to have it corrected reflected the level of discrepancy. No one was put on a trailer that weekend but "get it fixed" was the clear message.

I know a guy (i consider him a friend) building a motor with an aluminum head for running a CF in Vintage events next year. Availability of a steel head is not a problem but the AL head will be on the car and he figures it will be overlooked. Ditto with other regular competitors running remote shock cannisters, DA + dashes, and Hall effect points substitutes. All items specifically not allowed in Monoposto or VRG "but so what?" seems to be a common attitude towards them being used.

Vintage racing is supposed to be fun and no one is looking for a Sunday afternoon teardown, but for some of these items, if the participants and organizers agree to turn a blind eye anyway, just update the rules to reflect that.

Jonathan

[Tigaman]

The way it used to be in Vintage was a new Sprite would show up and if there were some "deviations" from the letter or spirit of the law (flares for example), there was a note made at scrutineering and a time frame to have it corrected reflected the level of discrepancy. No one was put on a trailer that weekend but "get it fixed" was the clear message.

I know a guy (i consider him a friend) building a motor with an aluminum head for running a CF in Vintage events next year.

he figures it will be overlooked. Ditto with other regular competitors running remote shock cannisters, DA + dashes, and Hall effect points substitutes.

All items specifically not allowed in Monoposto or VRG "but so what?" seems to be a common attitude towards them being used.

Jonathan

THIS is the issue.

Monoposto is a social organization that conducts a "points championship" for Monoposto Classic (treaded tire class eligible cars) and F70 (wings and things eligible cars) within scheduled, sanctioned-by-others events.

The sanctioning body takes the money (so determines the ability to compete) and Monoposto holds parties, awards points to those registered and deemed compliant (they hold their own compliance tech, separate from the organizers, IIRC)

We had this same issue with the Sports 2000 cars. The SRCC people would whine about non-conforming cars to the sanctioning body and the sanctioning body would say "don't award them points, but they're running in your race group."

There is not as much linkage or cooperation between the sanctioning bodies and the "social clubs awarding points championships" (SRCC, VS2, Monoposto, BSedan) as there used to be. Somewhat better in the smaller clubs (VRG, VARAC, VDCA), but still not as good as it could be.

Compliance is another issue, in general. Most sanctioning bodies don't have the time or personnel to perform even the most rudimentary checks, other than safety checks. Just my experience.

I think it's a tough balancing act between being a stickler about enforcing EXISTING rules and promoting inclusion of a variety of car preps, let alone verifying the legality of the car prep, no matter what the era.

I have never seen a Pierce Ali head get through tech on a Ford at a vintage event. I have seen people put in with Atlantics and Continentals or "X-classed," if allowed to compete at all. The Monoposto Classic people exert pretty good and positive peer pressure to keep the cars straight, just like the S2 crowd, but they are NOT ultimately responsible if soomeone runs or not. The sanctioning body, the people that take the MONEY, are the final arbiters.

If you don't like it, speak up and communicate to the clubs and organizations. That's the only way to make it better...

[Jonathan Hirst]

Peter - well said and I appreciate that point about being a social collective versus an organizer and the limitations that presents.

I will follow up with Monoposto and VRG offline -

Jonathan

[Rick Kirchner]

Again, I just don't understand. The only function these restrictions seem to have is in limiting the size of fields to "the right crowd, and not too crowded".

After fighting bad points and bad condensers over several race weekends I switched to the pertronix and never looked back. I can spend the time required to fool around with dwell settings checking on other items with more importance. Is it necessary for the vintage driver to love to "tinker"?

At 6' and 220 lbs I struggle to get a car designed for a 165 lb Brit down to a reasonable fighting weight. I've just about done that with ICPs but have suffered extreme taper wear with my favorite pads. In retrospect, although it would have cost a pile of money, I could have purchased an aluminum head, been at a good weight and continued with the LD20s and the pads I like. But the point of this argument is we have a minimum weight with driver, and if you meet it then what's the big deal? You could easily limit the amount of ballast used (for safety reasons) or limit the use of the aluminum head to certain sized guys if you really feel it's such a performance advantage. It's interesting that you state the availability of iron heads is no problem, yet the reason for the aluminum head (and the SCAT crank, and the new ford block, etc, etc, etc) was the lack of suitable OEM parts. Why don't you go all the way back and just require the Cortina? Are you going to police the new block?

Why would you care about DA? For most people DA is an expensive dash with engine logging. I have a much better handle on engine related issues with the AIM I have now vs the original analog (and unreadable ) gauges. With some vintage engines I'd think DA would be a very important tool in limiting the destruction of scarce items.

If the car's in the shop it's not on the track, and if the driver is paying for a new block and rotating assembly he's probably not on the track either. Once they learn how to use it it's a valuable learning tool - are you against people becoming better drivers, or is it necessary to crash and repair a lot along the way?

I'll agree with the remote shock comments. But steel vs aluminum or adjustability? unless you have a source of very cheap throw-away spec shocks, why again apply a limiting factor?

When I wrote the FC rules for VARA, we considered FC1 and FC2 as essentially rocker vs pushrod cars. In FC1 we originally considered requiring no diffuser and period aero. But the number of cars that have no diffuser and single element wide chord wings is approaching zero, so it just made no sense to force people to remove parts from their (working) cars and attempt to source a couple thousand dollars worth of wings.

I keep hearing you guys say "fun" and to me fun means having more cars to race with, but I don't think that's part of your definition.

[Brianf]

What is amazing to me, is that the Monoposto concept, in all respects, does not work for a variety of Formula Fords built after 1972. There are many great cars built after 1972 that are more than 25 years old, but are caught outside of what the hardcore Monoposto devotees want in the way of rules. What bothers me about SVRA and other organizations, is that they are running a wide variety of cars in different classes that are fairly new-some seem to be only around 5 years old, but they can't seem to get a handle on any Formula Ford produced after 1972....it's just too perplexing for them, and mainly, they don't understand the FF class or its history.
My dad bought a new Merlyn Mk20A from Race America in Dallas, TX in 1972. That car did come equipped with steel wheels, but it also was delivered with Firestone Slicks, not Dunlop treaded tires. The new Merlyn MK025 that he bought in 1974 had gas charged Bilsteins and Minilites, along with Goodyear slicks. As Formula Ford continued to develop as a class, every manufacturer was attempting to reduce unsprung weight It seems that cars produced after 1972 should be able to run slicks, as they never competed in the US with treaded tires except during races run in rain.
Furthermore, in CVAR, we run all Formula Fords, Atlantics, and Formula Bs in one group--cars that have both treaded tires and slicks, and I can tell you that there never has been an incident that I have seen, that was caused by the mix in tires. For someone to say that, is, in my opinion, ludicrous.
What needs to happen, is that cars built after 1972 should not have to compete under Monoposto rules, but with a set of rules that takes into account the evolution of Formula Ford that makes sense and is reasonable. The SCCA GCR and Formula Ford specific rules did not stay as a static document after 1972, and any vintage organization is being very near-sighted not to recognize this.
The way to control costs in vintage racing is not with a spec tire, but to continue to enforce no contact rules as per the "spirit of vintage racing." Tire costs are but a drop in the bucket compared to travel costs, entry fees, and maintenance costs of the cars. If someone is bent on putting a new set of Dunlops on for every race, then how are you going to control that?
To SVRA and other vintage organizations----Please don't leave some really great generations of Formula Fords, that are more than 25 years old, on the sidelines because you think you have to force Monoposto rules on every Formula Ford.

[mdwracer]

There has to be cutoffs for classes. While the 72 to 73 divider is donut drive to cv's which isn't a big performance increase-there just has to be a cutoff around that area. That gives a five year group of cars. The 81 to 82 cutoff is a good one in my opinion from outboard suspension(or at least on one end) to rocker at both ends. That gives an eight year group of cars. Then the 1984 DB1 comes and that stayed car of choice till the 1995 Van Diemen...but back to the point...
If you have a pre 73 car and want to run vintage-run Dunlops
If you have a 73-81 run Dunlops and Group 2 in SVRA, or if you want to run slicks, run group 9 wings and slicks or run SCCA Club Ford..

My point is NO change makes everyone happy, but the current SVRA rule set is the best in my opinion.
Aluminum heads-not my liking
Electronic ignition- I don't care
Pre 73: Steel body shocks-yes, keeps $ under control
73 on: shocks aluminum- non remote shocks -yes, keeps $ under control

Mike W

[belair]

WOW!!!!!! I got hooked on road racing after watching a black and white broadcast of Wide World of Sports coverage of a F1 race in Europe when I was probably 12 or 13. Add to that the fact that I grew up in Alabama, in the heart of NASCAR....I wanted it bad. So now as I am close to 56, and I am restoring both my grandfather's 1955 Chevy Belair and a newly acquired Hawke dl2 FF. I will never be a national champion, but I have prepared SCCA showroom stock, and crewed on an IMSA team for a 5 time SCCA national champion, and put him on the grid multiple times when no one else was there. I have prepped and raced FC, FA, and FSV. I usually run mid pack or to the rear, I give signals to passing cars as best I can and run the standard racing line.

With that said....many of you run faster than me....and there is little doubt in my mind that you could go faster than I can in my car.

With my mechanical knowledge of "the race car" in the absence of the ability to check C.C. I would have asked for the following.....

Weight of the flywheel?
Inspect the head for port work?

Surely just these two inspections would have been possible?!

Sorry to interject so late, and obviously this is a closed matter..........there is always next year, and a focus on tighter rule enforcement could happen...........but I was hoping for a more relaxed self policing environment in the SVRA where we run what we brung,,,,,,,and we bring legal cars to compete for the fun of it, knowing that we are all here to enjoy ourselves, and go home at the end of the weekend with ourselves and our equipment as we brought it...........with the addition of some great experiences!!

[Roland V. Johnson]

Peter, for some reason you have become the spokesman for the cars in question. You have never answered the question "whose name is on the engine certification form", saying that the engine is a legal FF engine. You are ignoring the elephant in the room. This car is 10 MPH faster down the straight than similar car with a strong legal engine. Unless the driver can ignore the laws of physics and aerodynamics that takes a lot more horsepower. Titan Mk-6's do not accelerate on top end like a modern aero FF does. Ask anyone who has driven both.

[Tigaman]

Peter, for some reason you have become the spokesman for the cars in question.

You have never answered the question "whose name is on the engine certification form", saying that the engine is a legal FF engine.

You are ignoring the elephant in the room. Titan Mk-6's do not accelerate on top end like a modern aero FF does. Ask anyone who has driven both.

No. That's your assessment. But your driver is a big fish in a small pond in FF. Respect for that, but he is not the benchmark. Period.

No, I haven't seen that piece of paper. I only know that a very respected builder supplies engines to this team. That is all.

Yes, they do and I have seen that happen. The cD is greater on the new cars with wider tires. Big time. The downforce is better in the new cars, which helps on corners only above 75 mph.

In a straight line there is little difference between new and old cars. Look at the data from CFC vs FC, CF vs FF, CS2 vs S2. I have TERABYTES of data comparing top old cars with top new cars.

It is happening this weekend in similar 2-liter Porsches at Daytona...11-13 mph difference at S/F, from a 2-4 mph difference in Bus Stop exit and 200-300 more feet of WOT distance.

Never seen data from your driver so I can't continue any analysis. Sorry.

[Mark Walthew]

The Dunlop tires are not as sticky as the slicks and thus have less rolling resistance. Lots of grip is great in the corners but is a hindrance to acceleration on straights for FFs. This may partially explain how the vintage car on Dunlops can match the top speed of the modern FF on slicks.

[Roland V. Johnson]

As you know Peter, the engine builder signs the Engine Cert Form. If you don't even know his name.....how can you possibly KNOW that the engine is a legal FF engine? As far as having terabytes of data showing that a modern FF is no faster than a CF in a straight line.....show that data to all the CF drivers that just got blown away down the straight by the Swift, Piper, Van Diemen, etc. Since you obviously are not a neutral observer, I don't think sending you my data would be the thing to do. If there is any neutral observer on this board, I'll be happy to send them my data.......you send them yours. By the way, Dan Cowdrey isn't that big a fish out here either.

[TimH]

The cD is greater on the new cars with wider tires.

And so is the frontal area..Not an expert, so glad to be shown my error.

And so I deleted it. Should have reread previous pages more closely. Even at COTA you're not reaching terminal velocity. We sure did in Montreal.

[problemchild]

So's the frontal area. I really think that's probably what's going on here. .

The new Mygales and Pipers are the slickest FFs ever. At COTA, they were running small tires on all 4 corners that were much smaller, lighter, and had less frontal area than Dunlops. Their wide track and aero suspension let considerable air flow around the body instead of pushing a large dirty hole. My experience with Dunlops has been that the gap to slicks is much greater on tracks with many slow long corners ..... like COTA. Perhaps whats really going on here is that one car has 25-30 more hp than the others.

[TimH]

I was editing my post while Greg responded - point taken that maybe the new cars should have a higher terminal velocity.

Anybody have data about the uphill section(s)? Were they all too close to braking areas?

[Steve Bamford]

I was editing my post while Greg responded - point taken that maybe the new cars should have a higher terminal velocity.

Anybody have data about the uphill section(s)? Were they all too close to braking areas?

I have my data which I have shared many points already but if people haven't come to grips with reality at this point then they never will.

[ric baribeault]

I've got no bias in this discussion. I've been biting my tongue from day 1 of this thread. I sat in the stands at the top of T1 and watched the race. I saw nothing that jumped out at me as highly unusual. had my car been finished I would've been on the track and known exactly the truth of this thread. that being said, if the defenders of the 7 second margin want to maintain that the rest of the field was not up to par with the now somewhat slighted party....ok. that's opinion, fair enough, and the results would appear to support that position. but to try and defend it from an engineering or mechanical perspective is absolute crap. as has been joked about numerous times on this site I've owned and driven a ton of cars, especially CF and modern FF. any one who has even the slightest amount of time, at what would be considered good speed, knows that modern cars are appreciably quicker. and to bring up aero to try to justify things at a track like COTA. Really? It makes me wonder why every race car up to F1 doesn't still resemble a 60's car if the aero was so good. common sense would supply me that answer if my aeronautical engineering degree couldn't.

[Daryl DeArman]

...but to try and defend it from an engineering or mechanical perspective is absolute crap...

You are right, instead we should use the empirical data we have to label someone a cheater.

[Tigaman]

You are right, instead we should use the empirical data we have to label someone a cheater.

I'm not an engineer. I'm only a very experienced observer. The data Steve gave and the overlaid on Ryan's video is all I've looked at.

Austin is an odd place. Four corners slower than 40-42 mph, several between 60-70 that include direction changes. This is not a particularly "fast" track in terms of terminal velocity, and there are only one place to approach that (> T1 and into T11 don't count).

From an observers prospective, there's more "time to mine" here than at most other places.

To me, that means the driver makes more of a difference.

That is all.

[Sam Simpson]

A Titan as fast and as aero as a modern FF? Anyone who has raced in FF knows that to be a ridiculous statement. Peter, for once would you just tell us who the engine builder is - or is there just going to be more pratter regarding "its the driver"?

[Brianf]

Peter:

Let's see Mr. Cunningham campaign the Titan in SCCA races for 2014 with treaded Dunlops, win the runoffs, and survive tech. If he can pull that off, then no one can ever possibly doubt your expertise.
Is Mr. Cunningham up for the challenge?

[reidhazelton]

Not to mention the whole Cortina v Kent/Uprated engine thing. It is fact that a good Cortina is several HP down from an equally good Kent.

Absolutely no way could a legit Vintage FF keep pace anywhere (straights or corners) with a modern FF. Heck, my 92 "vintage" FF has a hard time keeping pace down the straights with the new stuff.

Steve Bamford's Mygale is one of the cleanest FFs out there. No way could a vintage FF even compare. He was able to pace Tim Kautz's Piper down the straights, where I didn't stand a chance, and I can kill vintage and Club FFs on the straights.

I find this whole topic pretty funny that there is even debate. Besides, is anyone surprised that a vintage car is "questionable"? Really, who isn't cheating in vintage?

Also, it doesn't matter who built it. Once it leaves their shop, it doesn't take much to slip in a cam.

Sure, drivers are the number one factor in FF. But to get a car to equal the speed at the end of a straight to a new FF is a stretch. I doubt Kimi could do that.

[Amon]

Reid,

Kimi could do it if you: "Just leave me alone because I know what I'm doing"!

Mark

[reidhazelton]

Reid,

Kimi could do it if you: "Just leave him alone because he knows what he's doing"!

Mark