| pio!pio! | 04-26-2006 12:42 AM |
[QUOTE=WRX-ECE]
GM Suspension Engineer: "If we can achieve X damping then the car can get Y more Gs through turn 7, we need to revalve the struts because they can't achieve that damping in stock form"
Result: A Cobalt being way faster then any of us would put money on it doing...
[/QUOTE]
This is what more likely happened
GM Suspension Engineer: "After analyzing the data of an on track run from all four suspension position sensors, we can differentiate that data to obtain shock velocities. Plotting a histogram of that data with a sufficiently accurate bin size, we get an approximate Gaussian distribution of the shock velocity data. We can then adjust the high or low speed compression or rebound of each independant shock to make the Gaussian distribution more ideal. We will then make the adjustments -- also taking into account driver feedback -- and retest for another session."
Result: A Cobalt being way faster than any of us would put money on it doing...
If we can get that level of technical profiency from the tuner teams that would be freaking awesome.
GM Suspension Engineer: "If we can achieve X damping then the car can get Y more Gs through turn 7, we need to revalve the struts because they can't achieve that damping in stock form"
Result: A Cobalt being way faster then any of us would put money on it doing...
[/QUOTE]
This is what more likely happened
GM Suspension Engineer: "After analyzing the data of an on track run from all four suspension position sensors, we can differentiate that data to obtain shock velocities. Plotting a histogram of that data with a sufficiently accurate bin size, we get an approximate Gaussian distribution of the shock velocity data. We can then adjust the high or low speed compression or rebound of each independant shock to make the Gaussian distribution more ideal. We will then make the adjustments -- also taking into account driver feedback -- and retest for another session."
Result: A Cobalt being way faster than any of us would put money on it doing...
If we can get that level of technical profiency from the tuner teams that would be freaking awesome.
| STi-MAN | 04-26-2006 12:58 AM |
[QUOTE=pio!pio!]This is what more likely happened
GM Suspension Engineer: "After analyzing the data of an on track run from all four suspension position sensors, we can differentiate that data to obtain shock velocities. Plotting a histogram of that data with a sufficiently accurate bin size, we get an approximate Gaussian distribution of the shock velocity data. We can then adjust the high or low speed compression or rebound of each independant shock to make the Gaussian distribution more ideal. We will then make the adjustments -- also taking into account driver feedback -- and retest for another session."
Result: A Cobalt being way faster than any of us would put money on it doing...
If we can get that level of technical profiency from the tuner teams that would be freaking awesome.[/QUOTE]
+12345
GM Suspension Engineer: "After analyzing the data of an on track run from all four suspension position sensors, we can differentiate that data to obtain shock velocities. Plotting a histogram of that data with a sufficiently accurate bin size, we get an approximate Gaussian distribution of the shock velocity data. We can then adjust the high or low speed compression or rebound of each independant shock to make the Gaussian distribution more ideal. We will then make the adjustments -- also taking into account driver feedback -- and retest for another session."
Result: A Cobalt being way faster than any of us would put money on it doing...
If we can get that level of technical profiency from the tuner teams that would be freaking awesome.[/QUOTE]
+12345
| azn2nr | 04-26-2006 01:04 AM |
the car was only 2300lbs had a pro dirver, the team rented the track out the day before so they would know what they would run and not only that, they had a freaking weather team to dial in the aero to the conditions of the day. no one team had that many people with them that day.
im just proud to see vesko finished 2'nd.
im just proud to see vesko finished 2'nd.
| MPME | 04-26-2006 02:21 AM |
[QUOTE=SlideWRX]Quoted for truth; The car they were running is fairly close to a production car.
As for other 'tuner' drivers, Gary Sheehan, who has been driving touring car championships for several years (and several in WRX's) usually runs the Element Tuning car; The Cobalt beat him, a seasoned touring car driver.
It isn't just the driver, and it isn't a tube chassis race car; the production cobalt can be setup to perform.
Tom[/QUOTE]
Ignorant post of the day award winner.
So, let's cut the ignorance and speculation:
The Cobalt, built by Powell (long-time GM road racing partner--the Powell's have been building/preparing/racing/winning for GM for more than 20 years) took a Cobalt, built it to near-GAC specs, but when I say 'near,' I mean beyond the restrictive GAC rules, not less than GAC rules.
With the car weighing almost nothing, and power nearly doubled, adding in touring car ace and GM High Perf division boss John Heinricy to drive the car only demonstrated the 'no holds barred' approach GM took to win this event.
Yes, full team of engineers, full weather data, and what else? How about tire warmers.
Funny, the thread starts of with a [B]super[/B] n00b post, and then spirals down from there. If you think the car, team, funding, or engineering force behind Sheehan or any other team at this event were within 80% of what Heinricy brought, well, you're an idiot. GM doesn't play when it comes to success. Sorry, but I'm not going to sugar-coat reality here.
Like the old cliche of bringing a gun to a knife fight, GM perfectly executed what they set out to do from day one--have the average idiot mesmerized and overawed by the performance of a 'lowly' Cobalt against the biggest and most feared tuner cars around.
"What? A Skyline was beaten by a Cobalt? No Way! That has to be the best time attack car ever! For ever-ever? For ever-ever."
Geez. If this isn't subliminal advertising, I don't know what is. GM did an awesome job, out-spent and out-resourced everybody by a mile, and walked away with both a victory and a major attitude shift towards their Cobalts in the tuner/import scene they so dearly want to recruit and sell to.
Mission accomplished.
Rant off.
As for other 'tuner' drivers, Gary Sheehan, who has been driving touring car championships for several years (and several in WRX's) usually runs the Element Tuning car; The Cobalt beat him, a seasoned touring car driver.
It isn't just the driver, and it isn't a tube chassis race car; the production cobalt can be setup to perform.
Tom[/QUOTE]
Ignorant post of the day award winner.
So, let's cut the ignorance and speculation:
The Cobalt, built by Powell (long-time GM road racing partner--the Powell's have been building/preparing/racing/winning for GM for more than 20 years) took a Cobalt, built it to near-GAC specs, but when I say 'near,' I mean beyond the restrictive GAC rules, not less than GAC rules.
With the car weighing almost nothing, and power nearly doubled, adding in touring car ace and GM High Perf division boss John Heinricy to drive the car only demonstrated the 'no holds barred' approach GM took to win this event.
Yes, full team of engineers, full weather data, and what else? How about tire warmers.
Funny, the thread starts of with a [B]super[/B] n00b post, and then spirals down from there. If you think the car, team, funding, or engineering force behind Sheehan or any other team at this event were within 80% of what Heinricy brought, well, you're an idiot. GM doesn't play when it comes to success. Sorry, but I'm not going to sugar-coat reality here.
Like the old cliche of bringing a gun to a knife fight, GM perfectly executed what they set out to do from day one--have the average idiot mesmerized and overawed by the performance of a 'lowly' Cobalt against the biggest and most feared tuner cars around.
"What? A Skyline was beaten by a Cobalt? No Way! That has to be the best time attack car ever! For ever-ever? For ever-ever."
Geez. If this isn't subliminal advertising, I don't know what is. GM did an awesome job, out-spent and out-resourced everybody by a mile, and walked away with both a victory and a major attitude shift towards their Cobalts in the tuner/import scene they so dearly want to recruit and sell to.
Mission accomplished.
Rant off.
| Drink | 04-26-2006 11:43 AM |
light weight plus decent displacement still equals GAY.
| Butt Dyno | 04-26-2006 11:59 AM |
[QUOTE=DrinkAV8]light weight plus decent displacement still equals GAY.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your informed, nuanced critique. I look forward to your future on NASIOC.
Thank you for your informed, nuanced critique. I look forward to your future on NASIOC.
| Drink | 04-26-2006 12:04 PM |
I do what I can.
| GrpB | 04-26-2006 01:04 PM |
Well I'm a super noob and obviously adding to the ignorance in the post but I had to commen:
Slide WRX should have said that it isn't just the car, it isn't just the tires (or tirewarmers), it isn't just the driver, it isn't just the team, it's all of those put together make ANY car capable of performing, be it a Cobalt, WRX, Yugo, etc. It is this methodology that makes any race team successful, and I assume some elements of this were lacking with the other teams. "Tuner" does not equal "race team".
I suspect that if the same GM team had done the same except with the 2nd place car they would have been much more than 1 sec ahead of the nearest competitor.
And in terms of expense, from the pictures it seemed like all the other serious competitors started with prep similar to the Cobalt, then added much larger wings/aero, much larger brakes, much more engine modification, etc. The Cobalt used sliding 2 piston production calipers and 1 piece rotors from a larger car, many of the other cars seemed to have Stoptech, or Brembo, etc, and yet the Cobalt keeps getting called out as something from another world. I think some of the turbocharger/intercooler combinations on the unlimited cars could pay for the entire engine package of that Cobalt.
The real reason this thread is still going is because all of the haters deep down still believe that some cars (specifically their car), are inherently better than other cars (usually the opposing car in the marketplace, but in this case the Cobalt), when in fact all cars are just 4 tires and a steering wheel, and if you know how to work within those constraints ANY car can be a fast car.
It's interesting that many of the people here are anxious to downplay the achievement as an affront to their own interest in motorsport as opposed to a lesson in what to do to win (e.g. muster resources, come prepared, test, work as a team, etc.). Or, even more disappointing, that nobody is asking good questions, like:
1) Where was the Cobalt fast and where was it slow? Was it really fast on braking/corner entrance and through the apex so that it carried more exit speed, making up for it's lower power/weight ratio?
2) Did anyone there do section times or was anyone datalogging their own car while on track with the Cobalt as a reference for what it was doing on track (and thus how to beat it next time)?
3) How was the nitrous system engaged, all at once, progressively with respect to throttle, at what point after the apex or down the straight, was there noticeable wheelspin or change of line when it was engaged?
4) With no front swaybar and a beam rear axle what did the spring rates look like? Was it good under braking? Did it carry the inside rear wheel all over the place?
5) How good was the damping? Was it going over curbs/rough stuff easily where other cars were getting unsettled?
6) How much was JH on the gas? Surely coming out of corner the spectators and other drivers would be able to hear if he was able to get on the gas much earlier than the other cars?
7) Were the tires of the competitors not coming up to temperature or cold chunking? Were the tirewarmers there to juggle the compound they chose versus the warm up laps available, or were they necessary to make the tires work?
8) Were there any other race teams there or were they all "tuning shops" using a hired driver?
9) Was there enough time to get even a decent baseline of tire pressures and alignment settings, much less spring rates and damping?
I'm pretty sure the GM guys weren't talking about Gaussian distributions, I would think that JH would come in and say "it's good on turn in but it's still spinning the tires too much on exit", and the engineer says, "ok well let's give it 4 clicks more rebound in the rear and raise the rear ride height by 10mm" or something like that. Same as any other race engineer. They're not gods, they just know what they're doing.
The easy way to gauge how fast the cars were would be compare to race times of real race cars on the same track in the same configuration. Something like American Iron Extreme or H1 or ITE, etc. Apprently no organizations race this track in this configuration, or comparing these lap times to race lap times is not as interesting as complaining and ranting.
So easily demoralized message board people are, it's a disappointing insight . How I hope that GM does it again next year and gets beat by another manufacturer team that serves them their own medicine, or even better by a good privateer team that started preparing for "next time" while they were loading the trailer "this time". It wouldn't be anyone posting in this thread, though...
Slide WRX should have said that it isn't just the car, it isn't just the tires (or tirewarmers), it isn't just the driver, it isn't just the team, it's all of those put together make ANY car capable of performing, be it a Cobalt, WRX, Yugo, etc. It is this methodology that makes any race team successful, and I assume some elements of this were lacking with the other teams. "Tuner" does not equal "race team".
I suspect that if the same GM team had done the same except with the 2nd place car they would have been much more than 1 sec ahead of the nearest competitor.
And in terms of expense, from the pictures it seemed like all the other serious competitors started with prep similar to the Cobalt, then added much larger wings/aero, much larger brakes, much more engine modification, etc. The Cobalt used sliding 2 piston production calipers and 1 piece rotors from a larger car, many of the other cars seemed to have Stoptech, or Brembo, etc, and yet the Cobalt keeps getting called out as something from another world. I think some of the turbocharger/intercooler combinations on the unlimited cars could pay for the entire engine package of that Cobalt.
The real reason this thread is still going is because all of the haters deep down still believe that some cars (specifically their car), are inherently better than other cars (usually the opposing car in the marketplace, but in this case the Cobalt), when in fact all cars are just 4 tires and a steering wheel, and if you know how to work within those constraints ANY car can be a fast car.
It's interesting that many of the people here are anxious to downplay the achievement as an affront to their own interest in motorsport as opposed to a lesson in what to do to win (e.g. muster resources, come prepared, test, work as a team, etc.). Or, even more disappointing, that nobody is asking good questions, like:
1) Where was the Cobalt fast and where was it slow? Was it really fast on braking/corner entrance and through the apex so that it carried more exit speed, making up for it's lower power/weight ratio?
2) Did anyone there do section times or was anyone datalogging their own car while on track with the Cobalt as a reference for what it was doing on track (and thus how to beat it next time)?
3) How was the nitrous system engaged, all at once, progressively with respect to throttle, at what point after the apex or down the straight, was there noticeable wheelspin or change of line when it was engaged?
4) With no front swaybar and a beam rear axle what did the spring rates look like? Was it good under braking? Did it carry the inside rear wheel all over the place?
5) How good was the damping? Was it going over curbs/rough stuff easily where other cars were getting unsettled?
6) How much was JH on the gas? Surely coming out of corner the spectators and other drivers would be able to hear if he was able to get on the gas much earlier than the other cars?
7) Were the tires of the competitors not coming up to temperature or cold chunking? Were the tirewarmers there to juggle the compound they chose versus the warm up laps available, or were they necessary to make the tires work?
8) Were there any other race teams there or were they all "tuning shops" using a hired driver?
9) Was there enough time to get even a decent baseline of tire pressures and alignment settings, much less spring rates and damping?
I'm pretty sure the GM guys weren't talking about Gaussian distributions, I would think that JH would come in and say "it's good on turn in but it's still spinning the tires too much on exit", and the engineer says, "ok well let's give it 4 clicks more rebound in the rear and raise the rear ride height by 10mm" or something like that. Same as any other race engineer. They're not gods, they just know what they're doing.
The easy way to gauge how fast the cars were would be compare to race times of real race cars on the same track in the same configuration. Something like American Iron Extreme or H1 or ITE, etc. Apprently no organizations race this track in this configuration, or comparing these lap times to race lap times is not as interesting as complaining and ranting.
So easily demoralized message board people are, it's a disappointing insight . How I hope that GM does it again next year and gets beat by another manufacturer team that serves them their own medicine, or even better by a good privateer team that started preparing for "next time" while they were loading the trailer "this time". It wouldn't be anyone posting in this thread, though...
| MPME | 04-26-2006 01:31 PM |
[QUOTE=GrpB]Well I'm a super noob and obviously adding to the ignorance in the post but I had to commen:
Slide WRX should have said that it isn't just the car, it isn't just the tires (or tirewarmers), it isn't just the driver, it isn't just the team, it's all of those put together make ANY car capable of performing, be it a Cobalt, WRX, Yugo, etc. It is this methodology that makes any race team successful, and I assume some elements of this were lacking with the other teams. "Tuner" does not equal "race team".
I suspect that if the same GM team had done the same except with the 2nd place car they would have been much more than 1 sec ahead of the nearest competitor.
And in terms of expense, from the pictures it seemed like all the other serious competitors started with prep similar to the Cobalt, then added much larger wings/aero, much larger brakes, much more engine modification, etc. The Cobalt used sliding 2 piston production calipers and 1 piece rotors from a larger car, many of the other cars seemed to have Stoptech, or Brembo, etc, and yet the Cobalt keeps getting called out as something from another world. I think some of the turbocharger/intercooler combinations on the unlimited cars could pay for the entire engine package of that Cobalt.
The real reason this thread is still going is because all of the haters deep down still believe that some cars (specifically their car), are inherently better than other cars (usually the opposing car in the marketplace, but in this case the Cobalt), when in fact all cars are just 4 tires and a steering wheel, and if you know how to work within those constraints ANY car can be a fast car.
It's interesting that many of the people here are anxious to downplay the achievement as an affront to their own interest in motorsport as opposed to a lesson in what to do to win (e.g. muster resources, come prepared, test, work as a team, etc.). Or, even more disappointing, that nobody is asking good questions, like:
1) Where was the Cobalt fast and where was it slow? Was it really fast on braking/corner entrance and through the apex so that it carried more exit speed, making up for it's lower power/weight ratio?
2) Did anyone there do section times or was anyone datalogging their own car while on track with the Cobalt as a reference for what it was doing on track (and thus how to beat it next time)?
3) How was the nitrous system engaged, all at once, progressively with respect to throttle, at what point after the apex or down the straight, was there noticeable wheelspin or change of line when it was engaged?
4) With no front swaybar and a beam rear axle what did the spring rates look like? Was it good under braking? Did it carry the inside rear wheel all over the place?
5) How good was the damping? Was it going over curbs/rough stuff easily where other cars were getting unsettled?
6) How much was JH on the gas? Surely coming out of corner the spectators and other drivers would be able to hear if he was able to get on the gas much earlier than the other cars?
7) Were the tires of the competitors not coming up to temperature or cold chunking? Were the tirewarmers there to juggle the compound they chose versus the warm up laps available, or were they necessary to make the tires work?
8) Were there any other race teams there or were they all "tuning shops" using a hired driver?
9) Was there enough time to get even a decent baseline of tire pressures and alignment settings, much less spring rates and damping?
I'm pretty sure the GM guys weren't talking about Gaussian distributions, I would think that JH would come in and say "it's good on turn in but it's still spinning the tires too much on exit", and the engineer says, "ok well let's give it 4 clicks more rebound in the rear and raise the rear ride height by 10mm" or something like that. Same as any other race engineer. They're not gods, they just know what they're doing.
The easy way to gauge how fast the cars were would be compare to race times of real race cars on the same track in the same configuration. Something like American Iron Extreme or H1 or ITE, etc. Apprently no organizations race this track in this configuration, or comparing these lap times to race lap times is not as interesting as complaining and ranting.
So easily demoralized message board people are, it's a disappointing insight . How I hope that GM does it again next year and gets beat by another manufacturer team that serves them their own medicine, or even better by a good privateer team that started preparing for "next time" while they were loading the trailer "this time". It wouldn't be anyone posting in this thread, though...[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of people aren't asking questions, like myself, because we were either there, know the car, or have read all about it.
I really like the Cobalt, and have no problem with anything GM did to use their resources to win this time attack.
Where things get ridiculous is when folks start the "gee, the car was so close to stock, yet blew everybody away" stuff.
A manufacturer showing up with an in-house car, built specifically to win this 'amatuer' event, maybe shouldn't receive the kind of praise as the tuner shops that finsished behind them. You'd expect GM's abilities and resources to outweigh all other, no?
A car that weighs barely more than 2000# doesn't need massive brakes--it doesn't have the mass or overwhelming inertia to require them. A lack of a 'big brake' kit isn't an indicator to how 'unmodified' the car is. The lack of braking component mass is also a nice trick to reduce unsprung weight and minimize powertrain losses.
A Skyline at 3000+ pounds and 90,000hp, would, on the otherhand, need a 'big brake' kit. Pretty straightforward stuff here.
The cage in the car is a product of MANY hours of FEA, not the rest of the cages that were done based on experience. That might sound trivial, but trust me, it only highlights the diffrence in resources a manufacturer can throw at something at no cost, while others have never even used FEA.
As for data and engineering, you're completely wrong--the car and team made full use of a very complete data system, not the "just give her 4 clicks, Jeb" routine you've mentioned. If you think damping frequencies weren't logged and used, the car tested at the GM R&D facility, and private testing done at the track just before the event, I don't know what to tell you.
So, and again for clarity: I REALLY like the Cobalt platform, but think all the n00b praise is kinda funny.
As you said yourself, [I]"Tuner" does not equal "race team"[/I]---why are we slurping on the one full-factory race team that showed up and won a time attack against tuners?
Now if they were beaten by tuners, THAT would be an awesome thread to read.
Slide WRX should have said that it isn't just the car, it isn't just the tires (or tirewarmers), it isn't just the driver, it isn't just the team, it's all of those put together make ANY car capable of performing, be it a Cobalt, WRX, Yugo, etc. It is this methodology that makes any race team successful, and I assume some elements of this were lacking with the other teams. "Tuner" does not equal "race team".
I suspect that if the same GM team had done the same except with the 2nd place car they would have been much more than 1 sec ahead of the nearest competitor.
And in terms of expense, from the pictures it seemed like all the other serious competitors started with prep similar to the Cobalt, then added much larger wings/aero, much larger brakes, much more engine modification, etc. The Cobalt used sliding 2 piston production calipers and 1 piece rotors from a larger car, many of the other cars seemed to have Stoptech, or Brembo, etc, and yet the Cobalt keeps getting called out as something from another world. I think some of the turbocharger/intercooler combinations on the unlimited cars could pay for the entire engine package of that Cobalt.
The real reason this thread is still going is because all of the haters deep down still believe that some cars (specifically their car), are inherently better than other cars (usually the opposing car in the marketplace, but in this case the Cobalt), when in fact all cars are just 4 tires and a steering wheel, and if you know how to work within those constraints ANY car can be a fast car.
It's interesting that many of the people here are anxious to downplay the achievement as an affront to their own interest in motorsport as opposed to a lesson in what to do to win (e.g. muster resources, come prepared, test, work as a team, etc.). Or, even more disappointing, that nobody is asking good questions, like:
1) Where was the Cobalt fast and where was it slow? Was it really fast on braking/corner entrance and through the apex so that it carried more exit speed, making up for it's lower power/weight ratio?
2) Did anyone there do section times or was anyone datalogging their own car while on track with the Cobalt as a reference for what it was doing on track (and thus how to beat it next time)?
3) How was the nitrous system engaged, all at once, progressively with respect to throttle, at what point after the apex or down the straight, was there noticeable wheelspin or change of line when it was engaged?
4) With no front swaybar and a beam rear axle what did the spring rates look like? Was it good under braking? Did it carry the inside rear wheel all over the place?
5) How good was the damping? Was it going over curbs/rough stuff easily where other cars were getting unsettled?
6) How much was JH on the gas? Surely coming out of corner the spectators and other drivers would be able to hear if he was able to get on the gas much earlier than the other cars?
7) Were the tires of the competitors not coming up to temperature or cold chunking? Were the tirewarmers there to juggle the compound they chose versus the warm up laps available, or were they necessary to make the tires work?
8) Were there any other race teams there or were they all "tuning shops" using a hired driver?
9) Was there enough time to get even a decent baseline of tire pressures and alignment settings, much less spring rates and damping?
I'm pretty sure the GM guys weren't talking about Gaussian distributions, I would think that JH would come in and say "it's good on turn in but it's still spinning the tires too much on exit", and the engineer says, "ok well let's give it 4 clicks more rebound in the rear and raise the rear ride height by 10mm" or something like that. Same as any other race engineer. They're not gods, they just know what they're doing.
The easy way to gauge how fast the cars were would be compare to race times of real race cars on the same track in the same configuration. Something like American Iron Extreme or H1 or ITE, etc. Apprently no organizations race this track in this configuration, or comparing these lap times to race lap times is not as interesting as complaining and ranting.
So easily demoralized message board people are, it's a disappointing insight . How I hope that GM does it again next year and gets beat by another manufacturer team that serves them their own medicine, or even better by a good privateer team that started preparing for "next time" while they were loading the trailer "this time". It wouldn't be anyone posting in this thread, though...[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of people aren't asking questions, like myself, because we were either there, know the car, or have read all about it.
I really like the Cobalt, and have no problem with anything GM did to use their resources to win this time attack.
Where things get ridiculous is when folks start the "gee, the car was so close to stock, yet blew everybody away" stuff.
A manufacturer showing up with an in-house car, built specifically to win this 'amatuer' event, maybe shouldn't receive the kind of praise as the tuner shops that finsished behind them. You'd expect GM's abilities and resources to outweigh all other, no?
A car that weighs barely more than 2000# doesn't need massive brakes--it doesn't have the mass or overwhelming inertia to require them. A lack of a 'big brake' kit isn't an indicator to how 'unmodified' the car is. The lack of braking component mass is also a nice trick to reduce unsprung weight and minimize powertrain losses.
A Skyline at 3000+ pounds and 90,000hp, would, on the otherhand, need a 'big brake' kit. Pretty straightforward stuff here.
The cage in the car is a product of MANY hours of FEA, not the rest of the cages that were done based on experience. That might sound trivial, but trust me, it only highlights the diffrence in resources a manufacturer can throw at something at no cost, while others have never even used FEA.
As for data and engineering, you're completely wrong--the car and team made full use of a very complete data system, not the "just give her 4 clicks, Jeb" routine you've mentioned. If you think damping frequencies weren't logged and used, the car tested at the GM R&D facility, and private testing done at the track just before the event, I don't know what to tell you.
So, and again for clarity: I REALLY like the Cobalt platform, but think all the n00b praise is kinda funny.
As you said yourself, [I]"Tuner" does not equal "race team"[/I]---why are we slurping on the one full-factory race team that showed up and won a time attack against tuners?
Now if they were beaten by tuners, THAT would be an awesome thread to read.
| Rally_wgn | 04-26-2006 02:05 PM |
Marshall, thanks for your experienced input on this.
| zzyzx | 04-26-2006 02:09 PM |
[QUOTE=GrpB]So easily demoralized message board people are, it's a disappointing insight . How I hope that GM does it again next year and gets beat by another manufacturer team that serves them their own medicine, or even better by a good privateer team that started preparing for "next time" while they were loading the trailer "this time". It wouldn't be anyone posting in this thread, though...[/QUOTE]
As MP has already pointed out, your post is way off point.
That said, the most demoralizing thing about loosing a race at this or a Pro level is facing the reality that you don't have the cashflow to do all the things you know you need to, to win. It's always a compromise. Those that have to compromise the least, generally do best.
The people looking at the Cobalt and some of it's "stockish" components are completely missing the point: the real money spent on this Cobalt project is not in the piece parts.
As MP has already pointed out, your post is way off point.
That said, the most demoralizing thing about loosing a race at this or a Pro level is facing the reality that you don't have the cashflow to do all the things you know you need to, to win. It's always a compromise. Those that have to compromise the least, generally do best.
The people looking at the Cobalt and some of it's "stockish" components are completely missing the point: the real money spent on this Cobalt project is not in the piece parts.
| pio!pio! | 04-26-2006 02:59 PM |
[QUOTE=GrpB]
I'm pretty sure the GM guys weren't talking about Gaussian distributions, I would think that JH would come in and say "it's good on turn in but it's still spinning the tires too much on exit", and the engineer says, "ok well let's give it 4 clicks more rebound in the rear and raise the rear ride height by 10mm" or something like that. Same as any other race engineer. They're not gods, they just know what they're doing.
[/QUOTE]
Lemme rephrase that then...any engineer that is worth a damn would be talking about Gaussian distributions..if you are incapable of, or unwilling to analyze the data to make setup changes, you aren't a very good race engineer
I'm pretty sure the GM guys weren't talking about Gaussian distributions, I would think that JH would come in and say "it's good on turn in but it's still spinning the tires too much on exit", and the engineer says, "ok well let's give it 4 clicks more rebound in the rear and raise the rear ride height by 10mm" or something like that. Same as any other race engineer. They're not gods, they just know what they're doing.
[/QUOTE]
Lemme rephrase that then...any engineer that is worth a damn would be talking about Gaussian distributions..if you are incapable of, or unwilling to analyze the data to make setup changes, you aren't a very good race engineer
| RebelINS | 04-26-2006 06:18 PM |
[QUOTE]The real reason this thread is still going is because all of the haters deep down still believe that some cars (specifically their car), are inherently better than other cars (usually the opposing car in the marketplace, but in this case the Cobalt), when in fact all cars are just 4 tires and a steering wheel, and if you know how to work within those constraints ANY car can be a fast car.[/QUOTE]
Sweet, so my Ford f-350 doesn't have an inferior on road setup to an F1 car. I would think for sure that their suspension design is inherently better, but good to know that all cars are created equal.
Since any amature can get/make all of the Cobalt parts, I geuss I will go fire up my autoclave in the garage and pump out some cf body panels for my Cobalt.
-Wes
Sweet, so my Ford f-350 doesn't have an inferior on road setup to an F1 car. I would think for sure that their suspension design is inherently better, but good to know that all cars are created equal.
Since any amature can get/make all of the Cobalt parts, I geuss I will go fire up my autoclave in the garage and pump out some cf body panels for my Cobalt.
-Wes
| WRX-ECE | 04-26-2006 06:19 PM |
[QUOTE=pio!pio!]This is what more likely happened
GM Suspension Engineer: "After analyzing the data of an on track run from all four suspension position sensors, ...approximate Gaussian distribution of ...session."
If we can get that level of technical profiency from the tuner teams that would be freaking awesome.[/QUOTE]
Ha, well I always spell Gaussian wrong so I jumped straight to the result...not that I didn't write plenty of distribution analysis software in another life.
GrpB obviously you have some experience on track, but I disagree with some of your statement. For starters, don't imply we are all loser keyboard jokeys who spend our days bench racing over the internet. Alot of the people on this board are accomplished (amatuer and pro) racers (admitadly not me, I'm only a mid-level Auto-xer) or have a professional appreciation for what GM has done (Me for one).
Alot of the other comments come from a lack of education and experience. Instead of rather pompously asking if anyone bothered to look at any other available data, why don't YOU do it and teach people here something new. Let them gain from the experience that I assume from your post you have.
Why would someone question what good having Factory engineers on a team is? Because they are not familliar with what a designer does, knows etc. To them the knobs and numbers come from a magical place somewhere else and knowing where to turn them is based on experience and luck. In fact, as people have tried to point out, they simply allow you to alter a variable in a (here's the important part) KNOWN equation. Having the people that can A) determine/know that equation and B) solve for it will make you faster.
Not that practical experience doesn't count big time and I don't use trial and error nearly everyday at work but knowing why you are doing something goes farther when you are trying to get somewhere unexplored, like proving a Cobalt can go hella fast.
Jeremy
GM Suspension Engineer: "After analyzing the data of an on track run from all four suspension position sensors, ...approximate Gaussian distribution of ...session."
If we can get that level of technical profiency from the tuner teams that would be freaking awesome.[/QUOTE]
Ha, well I always spell Gaussian wrong so I jumped straight to the result...not that I didn't write plenty of distribution analysis software in another life.
GrpB obviously you have some experience on track, but I disagree with some of your statement. For starters, don't imply we are all loser keyboard jokeys who spend our days bench racing over the internet. Alot of the people on this board are accomplished (amatuer and pro) racers (admitadly not me, I'm only a mid-level Auto-xer) or have a professional appreciation for what GM has done (Me for one).
Alot of the other comments come from a lack of education and experience. Instead of rather pompously asking if anyone bothered to look at any other available data, why don't YOU do it and teach people here something new. Let them gain from the experience that I assume from your post you have.
Why would someone question what good having Factory engineers on a team is? Because they are not familliar with what a designer does, knows etc. To them the knobs and numbers come from a magical place somewhere else and knowing where to turn them is based on experience and luck. In fact, as people have tried to point out, they simply allow you to alter a variable in a (here's the important part) KNOWN equation. Having the people that can A) determine/know that equation and B) solve for it will make you faster.
Not that practical experience doesn't count big time and I don't use trial and error nearly everyday at work but knowing why you are doing something goes farther when you are trying to get somewhere unexplored, like proving a Cobalt can go hella fast.
Jeremy
| GrpB | 04-26-2006 07:02 PM |
Ha, I was writing a response and then read Jeremy's post so I'm starting over.
I'm sorry if it came across as higbrow, I didn't mean to sound pompous, I am genuinely curious about those things that I was asking. If anyone that was there can answer them I would GREATLY appreciate it. I guess I posted out of frustration because all the comments seemed so negative, when I think there's alot to be learned from GM doing what they did. Especially if some of the more technical aspects of the setup can be deduced from people that were there observing, other cars on the track etc. Like people analyzing engine notes to try to discern firing orders in F1 or MotoGP. Even more so in a Subaru forum, where battling understeer while still being able to corner exit (accelerate) well should be the prime directives. If what GM did in terms of setup worked so well in a FWD car, maybe a similar setup/driving style/line would prove beneficial on an AWD car (depending on the center diff). I think that would be interesting to talk about.
They may have had lots of resources and better componentry and on and on, but it's still production based car, some of it should be useful to us average Joe's. Were they carrying the inside rear wheel from turn in to exit, were they taking unusual lines, etc. It's not like F1 where it's so far removed from what's in your garage that you can only appreciate it for the spectacle that it is.
So yes, they had lots of stuff that not everyone has, but the knowledge of how to make a car go around a race track is independant, and more important than, the specific componentry used. I wish I could find out some of those specifics, e.g. not just what data they took, but what were they looking for and what were there targets. It's not just cash flow, race teams were able to get good setups before there were computers and data acquisition, and privateers can do the same, albeit with more physical testing. All it takes is a sensitive and consistent driver, a team with lots of notebooks, and some tools. Oh and of course tires, lots and lots of tires.
I think if you took away all the " resources" that GM used, the same team would have come up with the same car, it would just have taken them a whole lot longer.
I'm rambling now, without a point, so I guess I'll just say that the only good thing about winning is winning, whereas the good thing about losing is that you (hopefully) get to learn something for next time. Somebody, anybody please trounce GM next time.
I'm sorry if it came across as higbrow, I didn't mean to sound pompous, I am genuinely curious about those things that I was asking. If anyone that was there can answer them I would GREATLY appreciate it. I guess I posted out of frustration because all the comments seemed so negative, when I think there's alot to be learned from GM doing what they did. Especially if some of the more technical aspects of the setup can be deduced from people that were there observing, other cars on the track etc. Like people analyzing engine notes to try to discern firing orders in F1 or MotoGP. Even more so in a Subaru forum, where battling understeer while still being able to corner exit (accelerate) well should be the prime directives. If what GM did in terms of setup worked so well in a FWD car, maybe a similar setup/driving style/line would prove beneficial on an AWD car (depending on the center diff). I think that would be interesting to talk about.
They may have had lots of resources and better componentry and on and on, but it's still production based car, some of it should be useful to us average Joe's. Were they carrying the inside rear wheel from turn in to exit, were they taking unusual lines, etc. It's not like F1 where it's so far removed from what's in your garage that you can only appreciate it for the spectacle that it is.
So yes, they had lots of stuff that not everyone has, but the knowledge of how to make a car go around a race track is independant, and more important than, the specific componentry used. I wish I could find out some of those specifics, e.g. not just what data they took, but what were they looking for and what were there targets. It's not just cash flow, race teams were able to get good setups before there were computers and data acquisition, and privateers can do the same, albeit with more physical testing. All it takes is a sensitive and consistent driver, a team with lots of notebooks, and some tools. Oh and of course tires, lots and lots of tires.
I think if you took away all the " resources" that GM used, the same team would have come up with the same car, it would just have taken them a whole lot longer.
I'm rambling now, without a point, so I guess I'll just say that the only good thing about winning is winning, whereas the good thing about losing is that you (hopefully) get to learn something for next time. Somebody, anybody please trounce GM next time.
| Chromer | 04-26-2006 08:23 PM |
[QUOTE=RebelINS]Since any amature can get/make all of the Cobalt parts, I geuss I will go fire up my autoclave in the garage and pump out some cf body panels for my Cobalt.
-Wes[/QUOTE]
If they aren't structural, vacuum bagging or even just plain wet layup is fine, and that is definitely within the realm of the hobbyist.
-Wes[/QUOTE]
If they aren't structural, vacuum bagging or even just plain wet layup is fine, and that is definitely within the realm of the hobbyist.
| kfoote | 04-27-2006 11:08 AM |
[QUOTE=WRX-ECE]
GrpB obviously you have some experience on track, but I disagree with some of your statement. For starters, don't imply we are all loser keyboard jokeys who spend our days bench racing over the internet. Alot of the people on this board are accomplished (amatuer and pro) racers (admitadly not me, I'm only a mid-level Auto-xer) or have a professional appreciation for what GM has done (Me for one).
[/QUOTE]
As an example, me. A brief, incomplete resume:
In my career working on SPEED World Challenge cars, starting in 2001, I have, as a crew member, 2 championships and 11 race wins.
In Ameteur racing, I have, among other things, crew chiefed 2 ITS class wins and am 4 for 4 in overall top-5 finishes in the last 4 years of the 12 hours at Summit Point.
I have far less experience as a driver, but it includes 2 SCCA Regional class wins and running in the SCCA Runoffs last year.
For my "real" job, I sell shocks and springs, and am around this stuff all the time. Education is a BS in Mathematics, so I have the theory to back up the practical applications.
I know that there are several others here that have at least equal experience to me, though it may be in other disciplines (ie rally). Anyone who is closely associated with mid-level motorsports can appreciate what GM did with the Cobalt: Used the most resources, and showed up with the fastest car. The only reason I can think of why GM used the Cobalt is for marketing, which as this thread shows, was highly successful. There are several other cars that GM [i]could[/i] have used that would have been better starting platforms (C6 Z06 anyone?), or that they have in their stable that they could have just showed up with (Cadillac CTS-V World Challenge GT car, but unrestricted), but they figured it would be better marketing using the Cobalt, and I have to say, I think it worked.
GrpB obviously you have some experience on track, but I disagree with some of your statement. For starters, don't imply we are all loser keyboard jokeys who spend our days bench racing over the internet. Alot of the people on this board are accomplished (amatuer and pro) racers (admitadly not me, I'm only a mid-level Auto-xer) or have a professional appreciation for what GM has done (Me for one).
[/QUOTE]
As an example, me. A brief, incomplete resume:
In my career working on SPEED World Challenge cars, starting in 2001, I have, as a crew member, 2 championships and 11 race wins.
In Ameteur racing, I have, among other things, crew chiefed 2 ITS class wins and am 4 for 4 in overall top-5 finishes in the last 4 years of the 12 hours at Summit Point.
I have far less experience as a driver, but it includes 2 SCCA Regional class wins and running in the SCCA Runoffs last year.
For my "real" job, I sell shocks and springs, and am around this stuff all the time. Education is a BS in Mathematics, so I have the theory to back up the practical applications.
I know that there are several others here that have at least equal experience to me, though it may be in other disciplines (ie rally). Anyone who is closely associated with mid-level motorsports can appreciate what GM did with the Cobalt: Used the most resources, and showed up with the fastest car. The only reason I can think of why GM used the Cobalt is for marketing, which as this thread shows, was highly successful. There are several other cars that GM [i]could[/i] have used that would have been better starting platforms (C6 Z06 anyone?), or that they have in their stable that they could have just showed up with (Cadillac CTS-V World Challenge GT car, but unrestricted), but they figured it would be better marketing using the Cobalt, and I have to say, I think it worked.
| zoomfactor | 04-28-2006 09:42 AM |
In the end, whatever GM spent for the car and event was worth it. The results are being talked about by benchracers everywhere. I'd say that's probably worth more than a 2 minute add bought during the Superbowl;)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét