Phase 1 Testers - TEC Sebring

its really not off the pace i say the driver is just off pace , ive just spent the last 3 hours running race after race with the aston Vs each GTE car and the opinion of myself ,Takumi and Python is that the handicap is perfect , at Sebring the Aston is easily on pace and at Le Mans it is a top 3 car.

ok will i have pm chris earlier see what cqr daniel is doing

Im jumping on soon to do some times I reckon it shouldnt just be the fast guys!

no need chaddy , im that confident the car is on pace ill even run it .

its just I put laptimes in and i feel my input was overlooked

I wasn't going to post anything, but I'm dismayed by what I've read in the last few pages, the test group should be basing decisions on cold hard data, lap times, not peoples own agendas and opinions on driver performance. The actual results of Python's testing have been overlooked - he *IS* two seconds a lap slower in the Aston at 20% power penalty, but this has been completely ignored by everyone, too busy bickering over unrelated issues such as who's quicker, TCS etc, rather than looking at the actual test data and results:

To recap, these are the actual times posted:

Python, Ferrari 0% - 2.00.7
Python, Aston 15% power, 5% F&R grip - 2.01.2
Python, Aston 20% power, 5% F&R grip - 2.02.7

How anyone can justify the 20% handicap based on those test results beggars belief, when even at 15% the car is 0.5 slower, in the same drivers hands. These are not trivial differences - 0.5s per lap over the 12 Hours is 1.5 laps. With a 20% penalty, that deficit increases to SIX LAPS. If the point of the power penalty is to balance the car so it's inline with the others, then I see no performance-related justification for the extra 5% power penalty, it doesn't correlate with your own testing data so what was the point in even running the laps if your not going to use it? I hear other cars will run 59s too, so we're not even comparing 'best case' here.

Anyway, I understand the decision has been made so I won't make any further comment on it, but having seen how the test group goes about such decisions I don't want any further part of it, so please remove me from future test groups, thanks.

Magic I am sorry you feel this way as you know and you were aware TCC precedence during recent weeks and really - the aston should of not been included in the intial rules from where I stand personally however

Ref the aston.

Me and Richy still have asked for Daniels times with the power handicaps @

20% power with grip handicaps
20% power no grip
15% power no grip

I did PM CQR aero as he made me and Richy aware Friday.

We also asked for other times that Daniel has ran and the same of python to see if the Aston is nerfed at present at which I believe it is

I would appreciate your help in resolving this issue, the TCC test group worked so well

I agree I believe the aston should run at 15% power handicap thats it.

If I can ask for your suggestions to resolve this it as stated above Richy can make the best judged decision and you are correct this thread is a mess

Thanks for your reply Duncan, I personally think Python's times are the best data to work with - he's a very fast driver and his times can be directly compared against his own times in other cars such as the Ferrari. And that's what baffles me, the conclusion reached by Trash etc doesn't correlate with the times posted - the times Python ran validate the original complaint that 20% reduction is too much (i.e. 2 secs a lap slower). So then the question becomes is the car too fast at 15% - again, Python's times show that not to be the case, being 0.5s slower still. That would bring the car into a competitive position with the GT2 spec cars, which is all the drivers want, no ones expecting it to have an advantage, it just needs to be on the same page. TORA GT has shown the 15% relative power gap between GT1 and GT2 works - in fact all 3 classes were on the podium at Suzuka. So to increase that gap to 20% in TEC seems harsh, and going on valid test data from Python it seems to unfairly disadvantage the car.

I completely get the concern you and Richy have, that you don't really want this car included but need to include it for other factors. I'm in an uncomfortable position with being part of the club that has drivers in the car - but I don't see this as a 'CQR' car, this is a car on the TEC list that could end up with some of my clubs drivers in it (assuming they even get the car - I take it normal TORA sign-up rules will apply, and F4H, VVV et all could equally end up in the car?). I won't be in the car or racing at Sebring in any car, so I'm trying to look at it objectively, and from the data posted, all I can see is that even if ONR were driving the Aston, at 15% it would be a little behind the top runners. At 20% it would be lapped 6 times, so for me it's clear what the appropriate power penalty is.

if the handicap changes in anyway it becomes far too dominant and has a easy advantage at sebring and le mans , like i said 3 hours testing yesterday with some tip top drivers and we all felt the handicap was perfect ,it was also said that if the handicap changes in anyway that everyteam will want the car for a easy win.
we are yet too see a single lap time from anyone else regarding the aston ,python is that confident as it is he has asked myself and another driver to team with him and run the car.

I really do feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall sometimes. How can the handicap be 'perfect' when Python is 2 secs slower in the Aston than his own Ferrari time, based on your own testing? Your argument makes no sense, your own data says the opposite and so the only conclusion I can reach is that you have a vested interest in ensuring the Aston runs at 20%, which has no place in an independent testing group - you should leave your own agenda and team politics at the door. If your own testing showed Python to be faster in the Aston, then you argument would make sense, but your own test times show that it isn't, even at 15% power penalty. I don't have time for this anyway, the data is there for all to see, how it gets interpreted is for the organisers to decide.

no i hear you magic idk how he got that 2.01 in the ferrari maybe he was blagging but in testing yesterday neither python or takumi posted a 2.01 it was 2.02s to low 2.03s .
we really tried every factor removing power restrictions ,grip restrictions and all it proved was the car becomes too fast no matter what we tried.

My issue with this whole thing is that we opened up this test group about a month ago or something, before we released the TEC rules and regs. Not many people took part - and that is understandable as we had just completed the TCC testing (which you magic really helped with and that was the whole point of the Testing Group) - so we had to base a car list on what we could only manage.

At that time everyone said the GTE cars were fine, and the Aston was doing the same lap times as the rest of the GTE cars. Now with less than a few weeks to go and with car reg nearly open all of a sudden the Aston is 2 seconds off the pace and needs it's handicap adjusted. That's what annoys me. If it was 2 seconds off the pace then we would have seen this straight away in initial testing.

Now, I agree that data and numbers wise it doesn't all add up. The GT2 cars have a 15% handicap in TORA GT and the GT1 Aston has 30%. After the GT2 cars have their handicap off they are all sitting around the 450-550bhp power bracket. The GT1 Aston is given another 10% back and sits perfectly on 500bhp. The GT2 cars had no grip penalty in TORA GT and the Aston has 5% Front and Rear. Each type of car retains the same grip levels in both the TORA GT and TEC.

The Aston at 15% sits at about 530bhp I think, which is just as in line as the rest of the cars. I don't think it needs any more grip, as even with the 5% off the front or rear it has an advantage over the GTE cars. Power seems to be the issue, because of the restriction.

Ideally, I wouldn't have this car in - have I mentioned that? - and you can now see why. I hate trying to nerf cars into these GT series and with the majority of the GTE cars being on a similar pace this is the sticking point.

We don't have enough time to go in depth for both Sebring and Le Mans, so if this car does change from our initial build - which was awhile ago - then I am going to scrap the rule of Teams having to retain the same car for both rounds. We may have to adjust it for Le Mans again, although I highly doubt it.

I will go with either handicap. I trust Trash but I also can completely see what Magic is saying after looking over it again. The only thing just now is that Python has tuned the Ferarri a lot, and that he threw a quick tune on the Aston and was going almost as quick. With some in depth tuning maybe he can go faster. It's basing it a lot on Pythons times (the only person that really is giving us times anyway) and I also heard that CQR Daniel had knocked off a second from his posted time with the current build by testing and tuning.

Having these series being popular and all "serious" is really becoming a pain now

power is not an issue the ferrari only runs 464bhp the vette runs 485bhp , the aston has a 500bhp plus a GT1 gearbox so pulls through the corners quicker than anything else .
what are dans times in the likes of the ferrari and vette so we can compare to his aston times .

Id just like the Aston to be in the championship, at either 15% power or 20% power which are the two choices we have.

whatever make it 15% if you really need to have a easy win thats fine im done in here.

o....k

Just from what I've read we can either have the Aston at 20% and be 2 seconds off or at 15% and be half second off.

Python, Ferrari 0% - 2.00.7
Python, Aston 15% power, 5% F&R grip - 2.01.2
Python, Aston 20% power, 5% F&R grip - 2.02.7

Honestly Richy, I don't think you should change anything now it's been announced, it sets a bad example and precedent for the future which is best avoided. From Trash's subsequent post, I don't believe Python's times are genuine, clean times for the cars and he's playing the test group for his own advantage which greatly annoys me. I know Daniel's times are genuine, certified laps, best of 2.03.6 with 20% power penalty in a fully tuned car, so it's either near the pace or a couple of seconds behind, we'll only know for sure after Sebring.

now i seen python post a 2.02.7 in a partially tuned aston as did takumi so its pretty clear that its daniel that is off pace and not the car .

Python nae use TCS? Daniel doesn't maybe thats it?

Id trust Daniel over Python after the crap ONR have been doing at races.

Lets hope Sebring is a success for the Astons as Matt is trying to build strong ties with them. 20% or whatever Id still driving it.

TCS is a option to all drivers so forget that .

as for bashing ONR thats a bit flakey isnt it , he spent his day following my orders yesterday as did several other drivers because my times couldnt reflect the cars true performance so we should infact be thanking him .

Its a 12hr and 24hr race so I guess anything can happen so I hope after Qualifying the Aston isnt 2 seconds off at Sebring, even with Daniel driving.

Same old ground dear oh dear.

So Python can do a 2.02.7 in the Aston, that's still 2 seconds behind his times in the Ferrari (2.00.7) and Ford GT (2.00.6), so the original premise that the Aston is 2 secs slower is in fact correct

What Daniel's doing or whether he uses TCS is irrelevant, we're trying to balance the CAR performance not DRIVER performance - Python being 2 secs slower in the Aston than he is in the Ferrari and Ford just REINFORCES the argument for it being 15%, not 20%.

idk if hes on the wind up with his 2.00 flats but i assure you yesterday he and taku were both running 2.02s in every car we tested.

Guys guys guys, it;s too close to mess around with things now.
Testing NEEDS to be done in cars with a build on them and NO tuning at all. that is how I set things up when I first started racing and it's the only way to ensure that personal team efforts aren't santing the results.

In my opinion ANY further testing of cars needs to be done WITHOUT tunes in order to ensure some leel of parity and highlight the MECHANICAL aspects of the build not the tuning.

+1 Matt

There's far too much politics going on here to know what the cars are really capable of, with 15 or 20% the VAMR drivers will give it there all, testing times mean nothing... A quick glance at the drivers, teams and works championships shows that race performances are a very different thing to fake 'testing' times I'm seeing here.