[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I retired from GM in March 2017. Before I left, there were two 458s in the Corvette Team fleet. One was torn down to study the chassis and powertrain. The other was a driving benchmark vehicle. 488 had not been released yet at the time the 458s were acquired and I doubt that even the Corvette team could’ve justified going out and buying a 3rd Ferrari.

Yeah, that part makes sense.

I also totally forgot that the 488 was that much different then the 458 so that's my bad lol

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

As far as deep staging and shallow staging. Deep staging is when you get all the way up to the beams to have a kick ass reaction time and get a slight lead to actually win a race getting as far up as possible. When you're as far away from the beams as possible to get a little bit of a running start by 10"-12", that's called shallow staging. Also what the guys doing hero runs do. Thats what Revan Evan does and all those guys not racing anyone just trying to get the best et possible.

Yep, when I raced competitively I eventually had to start deep staging. I just couldn't cut a good light in my 07 thanks to that stupid drive by wire. My 04 I could chop the tree down lol, my 07 made it look like I was sleeping. Didn't help to much because of the rules of the series going deep kind of always through me off my launch technique

According to some a shallow stage can knock as much as 2-3 tenths off of your ET

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Yep, when I raced competitively I eventually had to start deep staging. I just couldn't cut a good light in my 07 thanks to that stupid drive by wire. My 04 I could chop the tree down lol, my 07 made it look like I was sleeping. Didn't help to much because of the rules of the series going deep kind of always through me off my launch technique

According to some a shallow stage can knock as much as 2-3 tenths off of your ET

Interesting that a deep stage would change your R/T. Most racers just adjust their timing to the last yellow to achieve the desired R/T. Changing staging position would also change timing to leave off the last yellow - I usually only like to adjust one thing at a time. But you found what worked for you, so really that's all that matters.

I'm no hardcore racer, but managed to cut a decent 0.038 at my last event. Far from perfect, but pretty good for my 3rd pass ever with that car.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by shaffe

So they benchmarked against higher end cars and your point is? Ford finally set their sights higher than an outgoing camaro model/generation. Now if some of the guys on 6G think that makes it equal to it than that is their problem.


There was some screenshots of the C8 Z06 mule being tested with a 458....the 458 hasn't been made since like 2015 or 2016. You liked to address how it was bad of Ford to target the outgoing Z/28 I would like your opinion on this

EDIT: the 458 is NA FPC the 488 that replaced it is turbocharged - so that is probably why they are testing against it. I still find it odd they would test against a 5 year old car though. I am sure we will see more current benchmark cars eventually

My point is that Ford directly and indirectly sets these expectations. You implied that Motor Trend came up with super car killer on their own.

ICONS (Jason Cammisa) invited a 911 GT3 RS to test against the GT500. Coincident that Ford had one follow the GT500 around?

My dislike for Ford is that they pretend to not advertise times, etc. but their media machine, using 3rd parties, is obvious during the lead up to every model variant.

Chevy advertises times, competes and makes their benchmark target known.

Ford actually said the 2015 S550 looked above Camaro for its standard. Come on Shaffe ...that is funny.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Ford actually said the 2015 S550 looked above Camaro for its standard. Come on Shaffe ...that is funny.

To be fair,

The 5th gen was still being produced and Ford certainly didn't know how good the Alpha 6th gen was going to be.

The same thing happened with the 5th gen ZL1 - Camaro team benchmarked the 2010 GT500, not expecting the 2013 662hp Trinity monster to be released soon after the ZL1 launch.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

To be fair,

The 5th gen was still being produced and Ford certainly didn't know how good the Alpha 6th gen was going to be.

The same thing happened with the 5th gen ZL1 - Camaro team benchmarked the 2010 GT500, not expecting the 2013 662hp Trinity monster to be released soon after the ZL1 launch.

GM knew. My team told them. They didn’t care. Felt they had a couple sharper knives in the drawer. Also pointed out that they were beyond single focus on straight line performance and wanted to focus on a truly balanced sports car.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Interesting that a deep stage would change your R/T. Most racers just adjust their timing to the last yellow to achieve the desired R/T. Changing staging position would also change timing to leave off the last yellow - I usually only like to adjust one thing at a time. But you found what worked for you, so really that's all that matters.

I'm no hardcore racer, but managed to cut a decent 0.038 at my last event. Far from perfect, but pretty good for my 3rd pass ever with that car.

We ran a pro .500 tree so I needed all the help I could get. Deep stage will help your R/T a bit because it will break the timing beams quicker because your that tiny little bit closer the finish.

My best light in my 04 was a .009 I would have to flip through my time slips but I was usually around a .050- .125 in my 04. That car was by no means fast but I was going to get you off the line lol.

In my 07, I was around a .275-.300. That stupid drive by wire had the slightest of delays in it I just couldn't get it down even with a tune. I think my best light in that car was a .175ish

Originally Posted by hotlap

My point is that Ford directly and indirectly sets these expectations. You implied that Motor Trend came up with super car killer on their own.

ICONS (Jason Cammisa) invited a 911 GT3 RS to test against the GT500. Coincident that Ford had one follow the GT500 around?

My dislike for Ford is that they pretend to not advertise times, etc. but their media machine, using 3rd parties, is obvious during the lead up to every model variant.

Chevy advertises times, competes and makes their benchmark target known.

Ford actually said the 2015 S550 looked above Camaro for its standard. Come on Shaffe ...that is funny.

I see where you are coming from. That makes sense. The bolded part is funny, especially in hind sight now with how this gen has played out.

[oldman]

The 400 HP Boxster sounds really good (got to watch the video).
Yep, I got confused on the stage depth I'm old.plus I was fighting a clan match on WoTanks.
Nothing wrong with the DCT, makes for a great road race trans for sure, it just is not a drag race trans (IMO) and that means the ZL1, ZLE, SS and GT with auto are just better to drag race with from stock to crazy and beyond.
The lazy DCT is also going to be a major factor in stop light street fights( I know they never happen on Earth) but in the fictional world they happen.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

GM knew. My team told them. They didn’t care. Felt they had a couple sharper knives in the drawer. Also pointed out that they were beyond single focus on straight line performance and wanted to focus on a truly balanced sports car.

Sad excuse from GM for the 5th gen in my opinion. Was a good handling car at the time, but could easily have used the extra power from the LS9 to compete with the GT500 on all fronts, track and straight line.

Originally Posted by shaffe

We ran a pro .500 tree so I needed all the help I could get. Deep stage will help your R/T a bit because it will break the timing beams quicker because your that tiny little bit closer the finish.

My best light in my 04 was a .009 I would have to flip through my time slips but I was usually around a .050- .125 in my 04. That car was by no means fast but I was going to get you off the line lol.

In my 07, I was around a .275-.300. That stupid drive by wire had the slightest of delays in it I just couldn't get it down even with a tune. I think my best light in that car was a .175ish



I see where you are coming from. That makes sense. The bolded part is funny, especially in hind sight now with how this gen has played out.

Pro .500 is a little more difficult, but again, it's just timing your leave off the yellows. Each driver will find what works for them - and finding that consistency is the key...same stage, same inputs, same leave time based on the tree. 0.275-0.300 is bad...must have been a real struggle to figure out the DBW delay and match it to the tree.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

To be fair,

The 5th gen was still being produced and Ford certainly didn't know how good the Alpha 6th gen was going to be.

The same thing happened with the 5th gen ZL1 - Camaro team benchmarked the 2010 GT500, not expecting the 2013 662hp Trinity monster to be released soon after the ZL1 launch.

I feel like Ford always has a better understanding of what GM is going to do with the Camaro than GM's understanding of what Ford will do with the Mustang because Camaro is a parts bin car. All Ford has to do is look in the parts bin, and they know what's coming next. For example, when the vette went to the C7, it debuted the LT1 engine. Ford knew right away what engine and close to what power and torque the Camaro would get in the next gen...

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Sad excuse from GM for the 5th gen in my opinion. Was a good handling car at the time, but could easily have used the extra power from the LS9 to compete with the GT500 on all fronts, track and straight line.



Pro .500 is a little more difficult, but again, it's just timing your leave off the yellows. Each driver will find what works for them - and finding that consistency is the key...same stage, same inputs, same leave time based on the tree. 0.275-0.300 is bad...must have been a real struggle to figure out the DBW delay and match it to the tree.

Yeah my RT in my S197 was not good lol. Other guys were able to figure it out, I just struggled mostly because of the pro tree. Once I started in the series it really cut my TnT sessions out for budget reasons so only practice I got on it was in qualifying and race time. I bet if I could have set the time aside to go to TnT and sit in the pro lanes(with my slow ass car haha) that I would have gotten a better grip on it.

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

I feel like Ford always has a better understanding of what GM is going to do with the Camaro than GM's understanding of what Ford will do with the Mustang because Camaro is a parts bin car. All Ford has to do is look in the parts bin, and they know what's coming next. For example, when the vette went to the C7, it debuted the LT1 engine. Ford knew right away what engine and close to what power and torque the Camaro would get in the next gen...

Power train wise yes I would agree. This gen I think they greatly missed on how good the alpha platform itself was going to be.

Will be interesting going forward though, what used to be good for Corvette was good for camaro. Will stuff that is no made for a ME car translate as well

[oldman]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

I feel like Ford always has a better understanding of what GM is going to do with the Camaro than GM's understanding of what Ford will do with the Mustang because Camaro is a parts bin car. All Ford has to do is look in the parts bin, and they know what's coming next. For example, when the vette went to the C7, it debuted the LT1 engine. Ford knew right away what engine and close to what power and torque the Camaro would get in the next gen...

From the 60s GM has been using the Vette as marketable car using corporate parts. The lessons learned are used on the Camaro and other follow ons. If it works on the Vette, it will clearly work on lessor demanding platforms. Ford went with the Gt40 to the GT and on / off had Shelby do Mustang platform work. The experience gained from the GT40 was not applicable to the Mustang. Also, the counter was true the marketability of the Mustang never extended to the GT40 / GT. Just when Ford could have capitalized on their mid-engine experience, they can't! Because their mid-engine designs are not marketable (nobody will buy it for the price needed to justify the production). GM on the other hand, did an incredible leap to a relatively affordable mid-engine platform. I have to admint, 1.5 years ago I was a naysayer and thought the ME was going to flop (too expensive for the gain). Now looking at how beautiful and affordable and the performance numbers of the C8, this car will go down as the MOST ground-breaking car in GM's history of performace. It is offering something never possible before, a mid-range executive can afford an absolutely gourgose car with road and street performance and even drag racing ability.

Now we are at the point of a GT500 with a true cost FAR exceeding a C8, and just barely able to produce wins over either the C8 or the Alpa platfrom. Meanwhile it is all blue-sky for the C8 as it is already competitive with a mildly developed OHV engine

I don't think the MotorTrend GT500 vs c8 article is online, it does make for a great read, especially the part on C8 race track alignment.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Interesting that a deep stage would change your R/T. Most racers just adjust their timing to the last yellow to achieve the desired R/T. Changing staging position would also change timing to leave off the last yellow - I usually only like to adjust one thing at a time. But you found what worked for you, so really that's all that matters.

I'm no hardcore racer, but managed to cut a decent 0.038 at my last event. Far from perfect, but pretty good for my 3rd pass ever with that car.

Instead of having that uncounted time like a shalllow stage between the driver reacting and tripping the beams almost a foot later, in a deepstage the car is tripping the beam immediately as the driver reacts. Breaking the beam starts the timer and sets the reaction time between the tree giving you the go light and you tripping the beam.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Instead of having that uncounted time like a shalllow stage between the driver reacting and tripping the beams almost a foot later, in a deepstage the car is tripping the beam immediately as the driver reacts. Breaking the beam starts the timer and sets the reaction time between the tree giving you the go light and you tripping the beam.

A shallow stage would technically allow for a higher trap speed as you have more distance to accelerate.

However, shallow or deep, the E/T only begins once the Stage beam is tripped out. Since RT does not affect E/T - it all comes down to driver preference.

A deep stage offers no actual advantage over full or shallow stage when it comes to tripping the beam that initiates the clock. Truthfully, I prefer more rollout - which means shallow stage. Allows more movement before the clock begins which should yield higher traps and lower ETs by premise - it is only ~1-1.5' depending on when the Stage beam is initially tripped, which is why all the other factors of launch rpm, traction, prep, DA, wind direction affect a timeslip far more.

Anyway good discussion, I quite familiar with timing systems as I run one with a local club to host airport racing.