MR2 Championship

Andrei wrote:I did find your own previous posts directed at me quite offensive.

Andrei wrote:Please feel free to ridicule me here...

I'm not looking to fall out with anyone. You need to decide in your own head what it is you're trying to say because in one post you're suggesting that you spent money upgrading your suspension to achieve an extra 2 - 3 tenths per lap and then in another you say that 2 - 3 tenths is "splitting hairs".

The committee have two choices - either we bring the few people with customised suspension back to [a] standard or we end up with a situation where everyone else has to spend out to keep up. All things being equal - geometry correctly setup on cars, same tyres, same driver ability the car with custom suspension will be quicker - only by 2-3 tenths, but still quicker and still first over the line. And with the regulations as they are people won't just spend out for the same suspension, they'll want better and the cycle repeats.

Andrei wrote:Frankly, if this the way you want to conduct this debate, then I am not interested. It is not my style and I am not going to lower myself to personal insults.

You're one of the most vocal people in this debate Andrei - why are you so surprised that I'm replying to what you put, and picking holes in your arguments when they exist? I'm running out of ways to say the same thing in different ways in the hope that it will sink in.

Andrei wrote:Good luck in sorting out the mess that you have created!

I didn't create it, but I am trying to fix it.

I'm away now until next Monday, so it's unlikely that I will contribute on this thread now until then.

I'm still awaiting any proof that this perception of improvement from what has become know as the 'custom' set up is anything other than perception.

This storm in a tea cup (which I think Patrick is controlling/managing rather well actually) could potentially be a red herring which is wasting allot of people's time and soon to waste a few people's money. I do hope that before Patrick went to the trouble of proposing these changes to the regs that this perception was grounded by fact. A few people spending their hard earned and realising no gain is their own business!! HA!

Before we go any further can someone please show me any evidence that someone who spend £x or £xxxx is actually benefiting?

I refer the jury to a previous post where I demonstrated that at a return trip to Cadwell, both Andrei (with AW dampers and springs) and Zac (with AW springs only(I think)) were slower.

Sorry to harp on about this but I think this is fundamental as a basis to move forward in proposing new regs.

And Patrick - the old 2-3 tenths quote from Andrei won't do - I don't see it in his lap times, and it might have been more for upholding the honour of AW......who in my book doesn't need that as he transformed my car from 'Wilsonesque' under steer to a neutral beauty without so much as breathing on the shocks and springs.

So again, before I decide if I want to shell out again for new gear, what advantage demonstrable advantage is there that warrants this cost?

Pete

Guys, please take the time to register your views (anonymously) here:

http://mr2championship.freeforums.org/p ... -t670.html

LuckyP wrote:I'm still awaiting any proof that this perception of improvement from what has become known as the 'custom' set up is anything other than perception.

This storm in a tea cup (which I think Patrick is controlling/managing rather well actually) could potentially be a red herring which is wasting allot of people's time and soon to waste a few people's money. I do hope that before Patrick went to the trouble of proposing these changes to the regs that this perception was grounded by fact. A few people spending their hard earned and realising no gain is their own business!! HA!

Before we go any further can someone please show me any evidence that someone who spend £x or £xxxx is actually benefiting?

I refer the jury to a previous post where I demonstrated that at a return trip to Cadwell, both Andrei (with AW dampers and springs) and Zac (with AW springs only(I think)) were slower.

Sorry to harp on about this but I think this is fundamental as a basis to move forward in proposing new regs.

And Patrick - the old 2-3 tenths quote from Andrei won't do - I don't see it in his lap times, and it might have been more for upholding the honour of AW......who in my book doesn't need that as he transformed my car from 'Wilsonesque' under steer to a neutral beauty without so much as breathing on the shocks and springs.

So again, before I decide if I want to shell out again for new gear, what advantage demonstrable advantage is there that warrants this cost?

Pete

I know I must appear like a dog with a bone here (Andrei - does that translate OK? )

But do we have any drivers visiting the lounge (I have visions of purple velvet upholstered, heavily buttoned, dark down-lit, claret walled boudoired stylie chambres ) that would like to comment on these 'perceived' gains?

There will be more 'developments' of existing or proposed regulations - this is MOTORSPORT after all. To me it's my own little F1 world - not talented or rich enough to go anywhere near 'top level' motorsport, but what I like, what I really like, is how the grid do different things to try to improve their cars. Be it making holes in their wheel arch liners, porting their intakes to different locations, ballasting their cars with plates or fuel.....they are all fantastically ingenuative and a testament to our formula.

To introduce a new regulation on the whim of a 1, 2 or an undisclosed number of anonymous 'perceived' performance claims is, in my very green approach to this fun-packed and very enjoyable arena of motorsport, at best unfortunate and at worst damaging to our very good reputation.

Lucky out.

Gentlemen,

I deeply regret this getting "personal" - and I really hope we are heading away from it. It now looks that way.

I don't think anyone has use the F word yet so I will do it: FUN!
I am doing this for fun but I don't think any of use would do this if we were not competitive. There's track days and knitting for that. The absolute plus for this is to "go racing with your mates" and know that mostly if a competitor says "have a good 'un" or "good luck" before a race, they usually mean it.

I have really enjoyed racing with/against you guys over the last year and the previously 2 for a lot of you. I have a lot of admiration, respect and envy for what people have achieved - all the way up an down the field (Driving, Engineering and Setup).

I thought this was a re-opened debate on proposed changes to the regs and was treating it as such. (Debate: people expressing opposing views?)

There have been relatively few of us contributing to this debate. The championship does not belong to any one person or group of people. We elected a committee and they discussed the issues and came back a set with proposals which they "offered" to us. Comments and counter proposals were welcomed - and that is what was happening.

If anyone else is seething at opinions posted (by anyone) in this thread, I would strongly urge you to express own (or at least vote!). You don't have to trash anyone else's in the process - just respectfully disagree - and perhaps educate them a little?

I sincerely regret any upset I may have caused to anyone by opinions I have expressed. I have maintained all the way through that I am not an engineer and pretty much invited anyone to disagree with my opinions - or educate me as Mark has now done. If anyone is that unhappy with me, please pm me and I will send you my phone number or you can send me yours and you can put me straight - on my phone bill if you wish!

Hey, to demonstrate I don't mind admitting IF I have made a mistake, get this - I finally got to a rolling road yesterday and "found" and extra 6bhp on my car. How? I removed the crappy cool air induction system I had instatlled so badly and re-fitted a basic K&N unit. Did I say I am not an engineer?

Really, Best Regards , sincerely hope to see you all at Silverstone
JOHN #77 (now away 'til Mon)

LuckyP wrote:....he transformed my car from 'Wilsonesque' under steer.....

Hey John

I do hope this little reference didn't get you seething?

Only taken from your description of your car's handling as posted by you in the title of your RACE 1 Anglesey video:

"Anglesey-in-car-77-race-1-understeer-r-us"

Personally, I think this is a very good debate. It will give us a better understanding of why/if we have to redevelop our cars over the winter, rather than a regulation change bought in without clear and demonstrable reasons behind it's revision.

Unfortunately, up until now, the debate from where I'm sitting is one sided, with the guys making good arguments for keeping the regs as is, but no justification from anyone as to why the changes have to be made - other than what Patrick has said about some of the field PERCEIVE that they must either mod a shock themselves, or pay for one to me modded to achieve a gain.

Am I wrong?

PS

LuckyP wrote:....fun-packed..

Pete,
Absolutely no offence taken and definitely no seething! I was merely encouraging others not to do so.

Sadly, you have prompted my final essay on the topic. (who cheered? OK who didn't cheer?). Any further reponses will be limited to 10 words (max).

Right then Fido, lets's take your bone and I’ll chuck in another:

Q1) How do we disprove/prove this "perception".

I am also not a mathematician. I have thought through a few different ways of doing this but each is flawed in some way or other. I think the least flawed would be to take the results each race from (say) half way through 2008 and run through into this year. The only number to analyse would be the MPH within each race. You define the race winner’s MPH as 100% and then work out (say) the next 10 finishers as a % of that. E.g. 2nd place was 98.4%, 3rd place 94.3% etc, etc. I would specifically NOT use lap times because any perception is based on the relative performance of the competitors in the race. You can then arrange all these percentages in a row and see if you can make any sense of them.

The main flaw is that we had a few front-running drivers in 2008 who are no longer racing in class B this year. This means that the results may not be as cut-and-dried as you might think!
You could just use the top 10 or so drivers competing this year who were also competing last year and get that dude off Numb3r5 to work out an algorithm to consolidate the results and produce a percentage likelihood of there being a perceived difference in the level of competitiveness. Hell, if you’re a real “mathsocist”, you could run this for all the results for the last 2 seasons. And plot them in a graph. And produce the Powerpoint presentation. Yes, life probably is too short.

Q2) How relevant is it to the current debate?

The last time I looked, the "Vote" indicated that more people think the rules should be changed than not. I question whether folks have made their votes based only on this much discussed "perception".

If the above maths showed up any significant results (either way), they would still be open to interpretation – and further debate. “Yes, it’s the shocks”, ”No it’s the geometry”, “yes it’s the springs”, ”but look how much closer they all were at Donington” , “but that was a wet race” etc, etc. So unless anyone really is that big an anorak, it probably isn’t worth the effort. But please publish here if you do!

I will not presume to speak for others but I think the main concerns are about having a having a level playing field and stability of tech spec and budget – year-on-year. I believe the perception (or fear) is that an expensive component or set of components is going to arrive on the scene and potentially throw additional expenditure at some competitors. I think that is these are the main “arguments” in favour of tightening the regs in some way.

And in terms of what we can afford or not. I can’t afford any more time to participate in this debate. Whatever the outcome is for the 2010 regs, change or no change, the sooner they are finalised the better. I’d rather know ASAP whether I am budgeting for Class B or Group B, or a rebuild of the Westfield and a return to autotests for a while. Those £30 entry fees are looking quite appealing at the moment!

Cheers JOHN #77

WillJohnson wrote:Q1) How do we disprove/prove this "perception".

I think the least flawed would be to take the results each race... The only number to analyse would be the MPH within each race....

I couldn't disagree more!!

I thought long and hard about which time/speed/measurement to use to prove the 'perception' of gain as just that.

The trouble with a race MPH is that is has more to do with race situation, traffic and the like and far less to do with outright vehicle/driver speed.

I chose fastest lap because out of say a 9 lap race, you are more likely to see one lap where the traffic gods clear a route and the speed of the car/driver on that particular lap shines through. Arguably the qually laps would reveal the same unobstructed comparison.

WillJohnson wrote:Q2) How relevant is it to the current debate?....

I think that being able to prove that the modified shocks have a benefit has everything to do with the current debate. If they don't, then surely we are just costing people money is they have to change.

One noticable difference that I can hand on heart say is an improvement, is that whilst the car does still break away, it seems more managable, I guess the damping rates are more suited to the springs?? I does seem 'safer' to me. And in my short racing career, I've seen more than my fair share of slowmo tail breaks leading in to right royal tank slaps!!! You know who you are!! Just take a look at my videos!!

So in summary - from my findings, faster....debatable. Safer...definately.

Money aside, that would be reason enough why I would want to stick with the current regs next year.


Pete

q1 - Fair enough, agree to differ - theory debate over, you got time or resource get the maths done? (both sets if you really want to crush my theory to a pulp!)
q2 - I am not arguing against modded shocks - a single spec of reace-proved shcoks would be great. I just want to avoid cost of mod after mod after mod. (i.e. one-off spend except for repairs)
sh*t that's 61 words!

WillJohnson wrote:q1 - Fair enough, agree to differ - theory debate over, you got time or resource get the maths done? (both sets if you really want to crush my theory to a pulp!)
q2 - I am not arguing against modded shocks - a single spec of reace-proved shcoks would be great. I just want to avoid cost of mod after mod after mod. (i.e. one-off spend except for repairs)
sh*t that's 61 words!

q1 - Point taken. Respect. I'll have a go.

q2 - Good to know. I agree, that modded shocks are a good thing. I feel I now have a set that suit the springs. I don't want cost to change either.
Hopefully, the new AW Race Springs will give those that want that stiffer ride but not the expense/time to mod their shocks the same perceived benefit - if only the proven improvement in feel/safety.

I believe there are a few sets floating about and I hope that those that try them for Silverstone practice will give a full account.

LuckyP wrote:I'm still awaiting any proof that this perception of improvement from what has become know as the 'custom' set up is anything other than perception.

This storm in a tea cup (which I think Patrick is controlling/managing rather well actually) could potentially be a red herring which is wasting allot of people's time and soon to waste a few people's money. I do hope that before Patrick went to the trouble of proposing these changes to the regs that this perception was grounded by fact. A few people spending their hard earned and realising no gain is their own business!! HA!

I have to say I agree. I can't help feeling tho that this debate is in danger of going round and round untill it dissappears up its own fundament. Typed words however well put (and i am impressed with some peoples elaquance . . Mr Willson, tho I have to admit i got lost at about line four as I am no mathamatition) can't fully express what we all want to say. If you could look into all our minds I feel that you would see the same thing. We want to make the car as quick as poss, for the least cost. Even the guys with plenty of cash don't want to chuck it away I'm sure. I proposed a compromise a few posts ago that i felt would keep most people happy. That is to say free springs, the shocks on the list and allowing re-jetting and/or re-oiling standard shocks. I can live with the list springs as well, assuming they are not massively more expensive than the £150 coilsprings ones i was planning to get, if i have to. Coil springs do make an off the shelf mr2 racing spring tho, and i would like to see a few more options if only to free everyone from any accusations of self interest.

Patrick said

At Rogue Motorsport we've already had preliminary discussions about creating a non-adjustable inverted monotube damper for use in the MR2 Championship.


This isn't re-jetting or re-oiling, and if you turned a standard shock upside down you couldn't bolt it on and all the oil would pour out the vent holes in the top!

I think we all want the same thing, but just need to find a calm, civilised way of acheving it.

PS I also agree with the F word thing. Play nice children