Weight Rules In Solo 1...need Math Help...

[ADAM]

(taken from another post)

OUR RULE SYSTEM DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR WEIGHT CORRECTLY.....AND AS SUCH FAVOURS LIGHTER CARS IN THE RULE SYSTEM....


we only take into account WEIGHT during acceleration..we DO NOT take it into account during braking or cornering..which is a huge problem...since we are not a drag race series...

I was actually starting to look for a university math student to work out the proofs on these issues.... ANYONE have any advanced math students looking for a neat project?

I want to show, how greatly the lighter cars are favoured by the current rules, and we will need a matrix/formula to use once its said and done to equalize the lower weight cars with the heavier ones.

if anyone knows of a university level, or very advanced highschool math student that would take this issue on as a project please have them e-mail me at

tyoga@rogers.com

[ScotcH]

ps ... must love dogs


;)

[thgear]

it could be either simpler or easier than that.


you have a car, and you have weight transfer

3 things affect weight transfer, track width, center of gravity, and weight of vehicle.

once you know the weight transfer, you can figure out how much a tire can hold out before it gives in.

this is all irrespective of suspensions

suspensions are there to absorb road irregularites and keep the guy/girl in the seat comfortable

race intended suspensions work to keep the tire flat with the ground to maximize surface area, nothing more.

aside from lowering the center of gravity, suspensions do not change the fundemental weight transfer problem that is again, derived from center of gravity, weight, and track width


considering the CCC does not do this sort of math, because as James said it himself "we just come up with a magic arbitrary number", this leaves much to be desired.

i agree with Adam, we need to dive deeper into our formula for calculating the suspension rating of a vehicle, making it more math based than experience based, and taking weight into the equation.

again i still cannot believe that a mk4 vw is rated higher in suspension than any civic, considering it is heavier, lacks IRS, more nose heavy, and has a higher center of gravity!!!!!!! :mad:

[thgear]

some more food for thought regarding the weight issue.

i can build you a car that weights 4000 lb that is 2 feet of the ground, and is 4 feet wide,

it will run on 5lb/in springs and it will have ZERO roll on a flat bump-less track

however the weight transfer will be enormous, and even on huge rubber the friction limit of the tires will be overcome very quickly and the car will not be able to turn fast, the tires will just give out.

likewise i can build you a car that will weight 400 lb and be 1 inch off the ground but that rolls 10 degrees during a corner, but even on moderetly sized tires it will outhandle any other car out there because the tires will simply stick to the road.


which is why it kills me to see Honda Civics rated so low an intial suspension rating.

not only is the stock double wishbone up fron and IRS rear provide from negative camber gain upon roll, ie, the tire stays flat in the corner

the ultimate weight transfer to each tire is significantly less than other cars because the center of gravity is relativly low, the weight of the car is relativly low, and there is a good amount of track width compared to every single other car out there (most cars ou there are pretty equal in width so...)

the less lateral weight transfer from those 3 factors the faster the car can turn before the tires give out!

[AirCooln]

Well; It would entirely depend on where the concrete wall is placed and the mass of the car.

Newtons law of universal gravitation states that every object in the universe attracts every other object along the center lines of the two objects proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two objects.

Basically, if you place two 1 gram weights 1 cm apart, they will be attracted to each other with a force of about 0.001 grams here on earth.

An F-body has a great deal of mass. Therefore it has a larger gravitational pull then say, a Civic. A concrete barrier has a great deal of mass. Maybe even more then the aforementioned F-body giving it an even larger gravitational pull.

Using the entry to turn one at Nelson for example with a big wall at the outside of the turn. A big heavy f-body with its great mass and thus large gravitational pull will be attracted back towards the walls gravitational pull and you'll have to expend more energy to move away from it. The matter gets worse when exiting the turn as as you approach the wall just past the grass, its gravitational pull increases exponentially as you near and will try to pull you towards it...and right off the track.

So a vehicle with less mass such as a Civic these forces will be lessened and advantageous to its lap-times.

On a side note this also explains why you may have seen Smart cars orbiting Kenworths.

Does that help? No? Oh well I tried. ;)

[thgear]

heyyyy i never thought of it like that :) , cool

[G-ForceJunkie]

Well; It would entirely depend on where the concrete wall is placed and the mass of the car.

Newtons law of universal gravitation states that every object in the universe attracts every other object along the center lines of the two objects proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two objects.

Basically, if you place two 1 gram weights 1 cm apart, they will be attracted to each other with a force of about 0.001 grams here on earth.

An F-body has a great deal of mass. Therefore it has a larger gravitational pull then say, a Civic. A concrete barrier has a great deal of mass. Maybe even more then the aforementioned F-body giving it an even larger gravitational pull.

Using the entry to turn one at Nelson for example with a big wall at the outside of the turn. A big heavy f-body with its great mass and thus large gravitational pull will be attracted back towards the walls gravitational pull and you'll have to expend more energy to move away from it. The matter gets worse when exiting the turn as as you approach the wall just past the grass, its gravitational pull increases exponentially as you near and will try to pull you towards it...and right off the track.

So a vehicle with less mass such as a Civic these forces will be lessened and advantageous to its lap-times.

On a side note this also explains why you may have seen Smart cars orbiting Kenworths.

Does that help? No? Oh well I tried. ;)
LOL!!!

[Chris91GT]

+1!

Rotlmao!

[J.C.]

Well IMO if your going to revise power to weight you really should be using the vhicles race weight. A 200 lbs driver has a much greater effect on a 1700 lbs car than that same driver in a 3400 lbs car. Add in the differences in weight from one person to another and these differeces can be even more significant.

[h-bomb]

Well IMO if your going to revise power to weight you really should be using the vhicles race weight. A 200 lbs driver has a much greater effect on a 1700 lbs car than that same driver in a 3400 lbs car. Add in the differences in weight from one person to another and these differeces can be even more significant.

I know!

[John P]

Adam your real world changes to your car and your forum posturing doesn't add up. If weight is such a detriment to handling/braking then why did you add about 150lbs to your car? :D

[thgear]

what adam has done to his car does not affect the matter at hand, which honestly i dont think many people take seriously.

the whole PIP schedule tries to place cars in a proper category to create competition

weight/hp is a good starting point

counting 30% of a cars starting pip by rating the suspension is also a good bonus, but one that is ill implemented because that number is derived abitrarily and is does not represent real world physics!

[ADAM]

ahhhh cause I am running 245's on a car that came with 195's, and have a 1.75" roll cage to save my head when the car eventually rolls over and gets destroyed, and to have huge 300zx brakes on the car :)

thats why 150lbs is worth it....

hey John, I can submit a dyno if you want and start attacking you from T1 if you like :)



its a matter of fairness, not where my 240sx will wnd up..its a med weight car so its kinda in the middle....

but to pit heavy camaros VS civics with the same power to weight is not fair.. IMO.. I just cant understand why people cant see how low weight is an advantage? Thats why I want to have someone prove it with math



for the math the following must be used...

2 cars with 2 different weights, BUT all things equal in tire patch size vs weight and all things considered equal in suspension ect...

the only thing we want to measure is the variance of weight and the effect it has on those 2 cars during braking and cornering.....

so say....
car 1= 50ft to brake from 160kph
car 2=65ft to brake from 160kph

car 1=52kph top corner speed with a 1.02G loading

ect.... something like that...with the math to back it up....

can anyone do this?

cause our accounting to weight is archaic

[thgear]

adam, just do it yourself in your turbo car

keep turning the boost up by a pound and keep throwing lead bars into your trunk to balance out the p/w ratio and go on a skid pad

i'm quite certain your cars cornering limit will drop with every addition of power and weight.

however putting it all in perspective can be hard too...

theoreticaly you can have a very light car with such a horrible suspension design that it too will not corner well,

for a perfect system you would have to matricise the following

center of gravity
track width
weight
wheelbase length
suspension design front
suspension design rear
roll center front
roll center rear
weight distribution
wheel/road rate

not to mention rwd/awd and fwd! :eek:

i dont think Steven Hawking could even figure this one out, ahahah

[Carguy]

(taken from another post)

OUR RULE SYSTEM DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR WEIGHT CORRECTLY.....AND AS SUCH FAVOURS LIGHTER CARS IN THE RULE SYSTEM....


we only take into account WEIGHT during acceleration..we DO NOT take it into account during braking or cornering..which is a huge problem...since we are not a drag race series...

I was actually starting to look for a university math student to work out the proofs on these issues.... ANYONE have any advanced math students looking for a neat project?

I want to show, how greatly the lighter cars are favoured by the current rules, and we will need a matrix/formula to use once its said and done to equalize the lower weight cars with the heavier ones.

if anyone knows of a university level, or very advanced highschool math student that would take this issue on as a project please have them e-mail me at

tyoga@rogers.com

Adam, what you really need is a Physics major not just a math wiz.

I generally agree with you on this topic but I think that real advantage of the lighter car is during cornering rather than braking. Contact patch vs the car's weight and less tire deflection in a lighter car allow it to enter and exit corners at a higher speed and thus maintain momentum. Krispy proves this at every event with a contact patch that is greater per lb than most medium sized or large sized cars.

[joedoe]

I can easily prove braking if the only variable is weight. I will need to look into my physics or adv. mechanics book for the formula. ususally smaller cars also have smaller rotors though.

I agree with what you are trying to do in essence but at some point you have to say some cars are better than others for racing.

[thgear]

but at some point you have to say some cars are better than others for racing.

but the whole point of the classification system is to properly match up one cars potential with another in an equal balance.

if we just ran a spec series things would be a whole lot easier :)

[philip_240sx]

Start adding reward weight???? j/k :cool:

I can see Adam's point, but honestly I think this formula is unattainable. And if it is, the car classification is going to be so difficult it will drive most competitors mad. At some point there has to be a line between what is possible (with enough time and money) and what is practical for SOLO1.

[Carguy]

Start adding reward weight???? j/k :cool:

I can see Adam's point, but honestly I think this formula is unattainable. And if it is, the car classification is going to be so difficult it will drive most competitors mad. At some point there has to be a line between what is possible (with enough time and money) and what is practical for SOLO1.

Rewards weight is not required. Just re-class the cars.

[thgear]

all in favor of putting first GEN CRX's with wide wheels into IMPROVED say AYE! :rolleyes: :cool: :D ;)

[MazdaMatt]

Just a thought... why work with the inputs (power, weight suspension etc) when you can just work with the outputs?

Rate cars based on 0-60 time, 60-100 time, skid pad g's and 60-0 time. These are all very easy to discover (most of which are listed by mfg's) and then after that, use the standard upgrade system. C'est ça? Ah, oui!

I'm sorry for all you math buffs that enjoy ninth order nonlinear differential equations, but you just don't need to deal with all that.

Has there been a trend in Solo1 where lighter cars are beating heavier cars consistently? Taking skill into account, of course. Or is this just a case of a couple heavy drivers not being happy about gettin their azzes kicked?

[Guillermo]

Rate cars based on 0-60 time, 60-100 time, skid pad g's and 60-0 time. These are all very easy to discover (most of which are listed by mfg's) and then after that, use the standard upgrade system.

This info is useless unless everyone runs stock cars with OEM tires and OEM brake pads.

[thgear]

unless we start charging pips for upgraded tires and brakes

[AirCooln]

unless we start charging pips for upgraded tires and brakes

...and aero dynamic devices generating down-force. Negative pips for aerodynamic drag and the amount a particular shape and size contributing to cars natural tendency to create lift.

A usable formula is completely unobtainable for this. Far to many variables that would need to be accounted for.

[John P]

Grassroot Motorsport Magazine recently had an article that NASA in the U.S. have gone to a similar system to ours for 2006.

Wonder where they got the idea? :D

[thgear]

Honda CRX Si, 1988 (B16a1) SWAP 5 GrandTouring2 1900 160 11.9 55% 80% 72.3%
Audi S6 Avant, 2002 Audi 5 GrandTouring2 4024 340 11.8 55% 80% 72.4%

i do not see the S6 beating the civic on any racetrack save perhaps mosport... and even then...

[Dave Barker]

I always like it when Adam wants to give my car an advantage. :D OTOH Krispy thinks I should be up a class due to my prodigious torque. :(

In actual fact probably they are both correct and it all works out in the end.
Hanif took me around in his "torque monster" Civic on Nelson and I was suprised by the all out cornering grip, something my car is unlikely to master. I agree that he has a more optimised car than mine but if he were on similar rubber, Mr Atkins would have been in second place.

In actual fact considering that we run numerous different types of tracks and that Nelson is likely as much of a light wgt track as any we run, it is not suprising that light wgt cars did well. I doubt the same results at the Mosport Grand Prix track.

[Chris91GT]

In actual fact probably they are both correct and it all works out in the end.
Hanif took me around in his "torque monster" Civic on Nelson and I was suprised by the all out cornering grip, something my car is unlikely to master. I agree that he has a more optimised car than mine but if he were on similar rubber, Mr Atkins would have been in second place.


I spent my 0 PIPs on tires... now I'll have to work a little harder. Unfortunately, my alignment didn't happen (parts issue), so I'm still at base PI... and could be in a bit of trouble vs the Uber'd-Civic.

[gatherer]

Hey, Get both a Physics major and math wiz and a biologist (everyone needs one of those) and umm get a CIA Spy to .. you never know if they can be handy or not...

I think it's an interesting project Adam, however you risk make the process of classifying a car more complex. (IMHO it's already too complex)

maybe a potential solution would be a non-linear classification system... (just throwing another Idea out there. ) or wieght families. so A Family would have classes T5 to Mod but be for cars under 1000 lbs... B for 1000 to 2000 pounds C for 2000 to 3000 and D for 3000+ of course with so many classes everyone would win a class championship and all would be good. (of course I have Ideas on how to run this so that you don't have that issue and might actually work. but I think it would require re-writing the timing software...)

if you do get that research I'd be interested in seeing it .. from a I'm curious point fo view...

[Dave Barker]

AAAACCCCHHHHH!!!!!! Jason, NOT the dreaded FAMILY system!! That is a skelaton in our closet that is unlikely to be dug up ever again and is the whole reason for the linear system.

Look at last year's top 10 results. There are light wgt , middle wgt and heavy wgt cars represented. That should be good enough.

( Frankly the biggest problem with our classification system is no pips for uber tires......but more about that later as we "collect more data")

[gatherer]

Breath Dave, since you are a doctor I wouldn't want to have scared you enough that you'd have to use the paddles on yourself to keep the ticker going.....

[Carguy]

AAAACCCCHHHHH!!!!!! Jason, NOT the dreaded FAMILY system!! That is a skelaton in our closet that is unlikely to be dug up ever again and is the whole reason for the linear system.

Look at last year's top 10 results. There are light wgt , middle wgt and heavy wgt cars represented. That should be good enough.

( Frankly the biggest problem with our classification system is no pips for uber tires......but more about that later as we "collect more data")

Dave the "uber-crusader" is on the loose... Run for the hills! :)

[thgear]

dont take my line.... :cool:

with regards to the tire issue, you also have to realize some tires will behave differently on different cars with different suspensions.

TOYO says the RA1's should be run at somewhere between 3-5 negative camber (cant quote where i got that information from but i know i'm not pulling it out of my ass)

considering i'm running around -2.5 static, and around 0- 1.5 POSITIVE under load, i'm definetly not using the tire to its maximum benefit.

some one liek Arek on the other hand, with god knows how much negative camber up front and the proper geometry to keep that camber during corner load, is getting much more benefit out of the exact same tires.

[thgear]

i knew i wasnt pulling that info out of my ass! :D

[ScotcH]

some one liek Arek on the other hand, with god knows how much negative camber up front and the proper geometry to keep that camber during corner load, is getting much more benefit out of the exact same tires.

Meh, I only have like -3.5º ... still about 1º left in the adjustment :D

[ScotcH]

If the same time and energy used to fine tune the class structure was put forth to improve ones driving skills, then maybe the fast laptimes strived for would be achieved.

Ahhhh ... the song of the class winner :)

[jason_alt]

Also another factor that hasn't been taken into account are torque ratings. Also, i'm not exactly sure how pax works entirely, but I would think anyone competing against pax would be fuxored in wet conditions. If that's the case, then that's not entirely fair either.

[MazdaMatt]

This info is useless unless everyone runs stock cars with OEM tires and OEM brake pads.

You know, at present the cars are rated based on their stock performance. Its no different. My suggestion is just using more accurate judges of performance (0-60, 60-100, 60-0 and cornering G's).

Today, someone can choose between points or a dyno plot and wieght. With this system you could do the same thing, choose between points or measured performance. I see no flaw there.

At present everyone running street tires is screwed. So saying that my system is usless unless we all run stock tires is no different than saying the current setup is usless unless we are running stock. As a poor student, i think tires SHOULD cost points or should be an entirely different classing ladder.

[thgear]

Also another factor that hasn't been taken into account are torque ratings. Also, i'm not exactly sure how pax works entirely, but I would think anyone competing against pax would be fuxored in wet conditions. If that's the case, then that's not entirely fair either.

pax is simple, you take everyones times that is in a class that is not running against pax, multiply it by that classes pax modifier, then you average out all of those times.

it gives you a pax average

the class that runs against pax, has to divide the pax average by their respective class modifier, and you get a time, a time you must beat in order to get 100 points.

you actualy beat Pax both days, and so did Ron, Krispy and i believe Dr.Dave

i came very close, only 0.1 off.

pax is therefore fair regardless of track conditions, as you really running against the average time of everyone else.

the problem that arises is that if you have a class of only 3-5 people, the level of competition is not so great, esp if you are the fastest in your own class.

but when running against pax, you are running against EVERYONE, including the veterans of every single class! Beating pax is much harder than going up some tought competition, unless ofcourse you are in GT3 :D , because again when you fight pax, you are fighting the collective experience of every single person at the track!!!

[jason_alt]

How about awarding a negative pip value to street tires?

[thgear]

How about awarding a negative pip value to street tires?

some street tires are very very good and are borderline of the performance of some "r-comp"s

atleast that is the common argument offered by Dr.Dave

[thgear]

the list of pax modifiers and how it works could be found in the rule book in the earlier sections.

the pax modifiers for each class are preset by some weird formula which i have no idea how it was derived, at present time they are set in stone.

btw here are the results of event #2 based entirly on pax, i set it so that points do not limit at 100 but keep going upward, after some serious thought i believe that we should for-go our "back up score" system and switch over entirly to pax for the purposes of scoring the overall championship.

after all, its really about being the fastest right? , and pax will only take into account raw speed

http://www.casc.on.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=8743

=========================================

sorry for side tracking..... :o

TO ADAM:

you know... i just looked at the results of event #1, the following are all the hondas/light cars that you beat in your 240sx....

Chris Hewitt BARC 79 Morris Mini
Raj Deol HADA 91 Honda Civic Si
Ana Maria Santos TAC 93 Honda Civic Si
John Paczynski HADA 99 Mazda Miata MX-5 (OOO SORRY JOHN,
Mohamed Hussain HADA 89 Honda CRX Si
Wes Tanney HADA 93 Honda Civic CX
Andrew Van De Peer HADA 92 Honda Civic VX
Jonathan Laird HADA 90 Honda CRX Si
Shakier Alladeen HADA 92 Honda Civic DX
Anna He N HADA 89 Honda CRX Si
Guillermo Aristizabal HADA 93 Honda Civic Si

maybe were making too big of a deal out of it, and should follow Jasons advice and just work on our lines a bit more ;)

[Chris91GT]

How about awarding a negative pip value to street tires?

The reason behind zero-PIP r-comps is purely safety-oriented. Most street tires are not consistent under continuous high temp operation, they become unpredictable, and they are prone to disintegrating under severe heat (ie, chunks of rubber).

Street tires are ok if you're learning since noobies don't tend to maintain the sort of pace that would destroy a street tire. But to promote the use of street tires through the PIP schedule would be reckless.

Case in point... I ran two events in May on my OE rubber (reasonable BFG KDWS). They could maintain some pace for about 1 hard lap, then they began to fall off. They became very greasy, were largely unpredictable in turn-in, and began to throw small portions of the tread after about 3 laps. And that was with the OE brake pads and fluid. Just imagine what could happen with race pads and attacking corner entry that much harder.

[ADAM]

its not a matter of who I beat or who beats who..its a matter of REALITY..weight matters , and we dont account for it correctly :)

[h-bomb]

And we don't take into account driver's weight either. Who do I talk to about that? :D

[Carguy]

And we don't take into account driver's weight either. Who do I talk to about that? :D

I hear ya! :rolleyes: :)

[Slowpoke]

And we don't take into account driver's weight either. Who do I talk to about that? :D
I don't know, but whoever it is, I'm right behind ya with a big Michelin jack handle for enforcement. ;)

Do you realize that I increase the weight of an Insight by 13%?

And that's naked.

[thgear]

start morning lapping by actualy jogging around the race track :cool:

[MazdaMatt]

don't penalize my high metabolism! You have your natural talent, let me have my natural weight advantage!

I promise that if i get fast, i'll fatten up a little.

[J.C.]

I don't know, but whoever it is, I'm right behind ya with a big Michelin jack handle for enforcement. ;)

Do you realize that I increase the weight of an Insight by 13%?

And that's naked.

That's a scary thought Steeve, you driving an Insight naked and with a big Michelin jack! :eek:


P.S. Who's car did you test this out on? :D

[craig]

fPIP's - fPIP's are equal to 32 minus your waist measurement in inches.

oPIP's - oPIP's are equal to 40 minus one's age in years at the start of the season.

oPIP's and fPIP's are combined to form ofPIP's (old fart PIP's). Each ofPIP is worth 1/5 second, i.e., negative ofPIP's decrease your raw time, positive ofPIP's increase your raw time. The maximum number of ofPIP's that can be claimed is 10 (or -10, which is easy for some of us to attain). However, you cannot use ofPIP's to avoid being Krispy-fried.

Er ... where was I ...

Anyhow, to get back on topic: Adam, it isn't weight that is directly an issue, but it is a contributory factor. To make the math (actually Calculus) work, you also need the gearing and tire rolling radius. It will also result in a non-linear classification system (sound of yet another skeleton rattling).

Craig
- ex-nuclear physicist (not much of a job market in designing nuclear reactors for the past 25 years), current mathematical statistican, not a biologist, but did study biostatistics ... not a CIA agent, though. :D

[Chris P]

Krispy-fried..........cool :cool:


Jason A. Go read the rule book you lazy ass :p

[Chris P]

What is the pax modifier and what is it based on?

it is derived from a regression on historical results......don't mess with the stats espicially when the results make sense.

[Slowpoke]

start morning lapping by actualy jogging around the race track :cool:
All that bouncing would spill my coffee. My idea of cardio exercise is 9 cups of coffee a day... never let the heart come to rest is my philosophy. At least not until it's time to switch to beer.

Besides, I don't want to end up paying for the ambulance to come get me because of a heart attack induced by jogging around the track. I'll just up my cardio regimen to 12 cups a day. The shakes should shed an extra pound or two a week.

[jason_alt]

Jason A. Go read the rule book you lazy ass :p

...ruLE..


..boOK..?



it is derived from a regression on historical results......don't mess with the stats espicially when the results make sense.

...rULe..


..b0oK..?

[slai]

How about instead of using peak hp numbers for classification, the integral of the hp curve is used instead to even out peaky engines vs torquey engines. Just putting it out there. :p :D

[Logan]

That would mean a dyno plot is required for every single car, even stock cars that don't come out, just so they can be classified in the rule book.

[slai]

That was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. :)