Supercharged vs NA at the track Part 2. (Results are shocking)

[GTM_Challenge]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

So after reviewing my data between those 2 laps more, Smmmurf is right. The supercharger is making a bit more power over stock at the track (and there was a difference in driving consistency), but I still don't think it's that much. This is still just a 1 lap sample which are my 2 best times (that I have data for) at Laguna Seca. I've had the same overall results at Thunderhill as well.

After seeing this, its apparent that the supercharged car has the potential to be faster for sure. Not bashing you, but if your braking plots looked the same as they did with the NA laps, you'd have gone faster for sure.

Is the car faster with a s/c? Yes. Were you faster with a s/c? No.

There's a lot to be said for confidence in relation to track times. Thats why I don't like high hp cars. I'm slightly afraid of them at the track. I'll stick to my momentum cars that I can laugh at myself while I am driving.

[Purple Derple]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

Just my fastest lap.

So how is it that the lap with the better time 1:44.3 had a lower average speed 81.275 than than the lap with the longer time 1:44.6 @ 81.337?

edit: i should also add that MRLS is a low grip track and it gets very green in the winter from all the rain and dirt so depending on the season, track conditions could also account for different lap times. really hard to do scientific justice on this ya know?

[pbonsalb]

I would want to see the IAT. I suspect they were very high. An intercooled supercharged is the better choice for track use. Out of curiosity, are there any programs that would show you the improvement in lap time you should get on this track if you actually had another 100 rwhp?

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by DallasBoosted

Saying without a pro driver you can't evaluate the part is disingenuous.. he's reporting his results with a part. News flash: none of you are pro drivers either. If he can't get better lap times out of the supercharger for whatever reason, then chances are, those reasons might apply to you too. Identifying the reasons is fine, but lets not go overboard with the "you're not a pro driver, your results don't matter" nonsense.

Thanks. This is probably the reason most people don't like to post their own data on the forums. Everyone gets on their high horse and acts like they are professional drivers. I go to the track for fun, but I go with personal goals of being a faster/better driver. I'm just here to share my personal REAL WORLD experiences WITH DATA.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by GTM_Challenge

After seeing this, its apparent that the supercharged car has the potential to be faster for sure. Not bashing you, but if your braking plots looked the same as they did with the NA laps, you'd have gone faster for sure.

Is the car faster with a s/c? Yes. Were you faster with a s/c? No.

There's a lot to be said for confidence in relation to track times. Thats why I don't like high hp cars. I'm slightly afraid of them at the track. I'll stick to my momentum cars that I can laugh at myself while I am driving.

Well this is just one sample. The video in my signature has a slightly faster supercharged lap, but I can't find the data for it anymore. When I say I'm consistent I mean my clean laps are generally within a second of each other. And I get just a little bit faster with each event I attend. I've only done 16 track days in my life so yes I have so much to learn. But when I look at all of my times on average between 2 different race tracks, the difference between being supercharged and not is pretty much non existent. That's all I can say.

Confidence has nothing to do with it. I'm very comfortable with oversteer (as seen in my videos). I'm on the gas just as hard with or without the supercharger. I just don't feel much difference at all.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

I would want to see the IAT. I suspect they were very high. An intercooled supercharged is the better choice for track use. Out of curiosity, are there any programs that would show you the improvement in lap time you should get on this track if you actually had another 100 rwhp?

Well I know 2 guys who track their vt600 kits and their cars both overheat to the point of getting high temp warnings so I'd rather stay with the 535 if I had to keep the kit. And yes, this is pretty much every session in any weather condition.

[CSanto]

Awesome Data Radiant. Thank you for sharing. I'd be interested in seeing this data with a 575/585 kit. See if the intercooler helps at all at the track.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by Purple Derple

So how is it that the lap with the better time 1:44.3 had a lower average speed 81.275 than than the lap with the longer time 1:44.6 @ 81.337?

edit: i should also add that MRLS is a low grip track and it gets very green in the winter from all the rain and dirt so depending on the season, track conditions could also account for different lap times. really hard to do scientific justice on this ya know?

I never came here saying I had scientific data. At least I have data. Where is everyone else's? As mentioned before, I experienced the same scenario at Thunderhill as well and those track days were during the early summer.

[GTM_Challenge]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

Well this is just one sample. The video in my signature has a slightly faster supercharged lap, but I can't find the data for it anymore. When I say I'm consistent I mean my clean laps are generally within a second of each other. And I get just a little bit faster with each event I attend. I've only done 16 track days in my life so yes I have so much to learn. But when I look at all of my times on average between 2 different race tracks, the difference between being supercharged and not is pretty much non existent. That's all I can say.

Confidence has nothing to do with it. I'm very comfortable with oversteer (as seen in my videos). I'm on the gas just as hard with or without the supercharger. I just don't feel much difference at all.

A. Oversteer is slower.

B. When top speeds are higher everywhere and cornering speeds are lower, that comes down to driver, and possibly chassis set up with the additional power. The car is faster with the S/C. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not saying that you can't drive by any means. Those are some good times for sure. But to say that a S/C car is not faster on track because you were now faster on track with a S/C isn't the right reasoning.

[Purple Derple]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I never came here saying I had scientific data. At least I have data. Where is everyone else's? As mentioned before, I experienced the same scenario at Thunderhill as well and those track days were during the early summer.

Well I didn't intend to sound critical, I am just chiming in on what I see here and attempting to lend an explanation. We would all certainly expect that on two cars with the same set up and weight, the one with more power would put up better times. What about the thing about the lap times vs avg speed? That doesn't make sense to me.

[SROC5]

Very interesting data and hats off to you Mark for taking the time and posting it! I was just asking several people about this the other day (i.e. heat soaking issues with non-intercooled SC).

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by GTM_Challenge

A. Oversteer is slower.

B. When top speeds are higher everywhere and cornering speeds are lower, that comes down to driver, and possibly chassis set up with the additional power. The car is faster with the S/C. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not saying that you can't drive by any means. Those are some good times for sure. But to say that a S/C car is not faster on track because you were now faster on track with a S/C isn't the right reasoning.

I know. You mentioned confidence, that's all. I'm going all out with or without the blower. Obviously driver skill is one of the big variables, but you are basing your judgement on one lap. I'm basing mine on a whole season of track days with and without the kit which includes things that can't go on paper like the overall feel of the car.

So maybe the big lesson here is mods won't necessarily make you faster (even ones you'd expect to really help). Becoming a better driver is the best mod you can do.

[Purple Derple]

Originally Posted by GTM_Challenge

A. Oversteer is slower.

I just want to clarify this point a bit for everyone here. Let me start by saying, I know what you mean when you say this. Oversteer is slower than a slip angle that is optimum for the tire's design. Power oversteer in the second half of a corner is certainly slower. If you are sliding the car on power, you aren't putting the power down and driving the car forward and you're overheating the tires. But I love a car that oversteers because you can get it to point early in the corner. I would say oversteer itself isn't a slow condition, it is just what cause of oversteer and how you drive it that can be.

[DallasBoosted]

Originally Posted by Purple Derple

Well I didn't intend to sound critical, I am just chiming in on what I see here and attempting to lend an explanation. We would all certainly expect that on two cars with the same set up and weight, the one with more power would put up better times. What about the thing about the lap times vs avg speed? That doesn't make sense to me.

All things being equal, more power on the same lap should be faster; but by how much? With much more power, you'd be forced to get on the power a little bit later unless you are really pro at modulating; an HPDE-type driver might just flat out be more cautious on the throttle due to that.

Then you're going to accelerate more on the straights, requiring an earlier braking zone; again an HPDE type driver might over or under-brake causing corner speeds to be inconsistent and since the car has so much more power, the tendency might be to overbrake so you can get on the power earlier, whether you know you're doing it or not.

Without adding grip, aero, or decreasing weight, adding power is a diminishing returns game... yes every little bit helps (to an extent) but adding more and more isn't always better and better.

You guys sitting here saying his driving is the culprit are ignoring the obvious: 1:44 is a pretty good time for an HPDE driver at Laguna in an N/A M3. He added a part and then took it back off, and noticed not much change.


But lastly, is anyone really surprised that a non-intercooled supercharger heatsoaked badly and didn't make a huge difference at the track? We aren't talking about 1/4 miles or 15 second airport runs here, where that type of setup would see its maximum potential.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by DallasBoosted

Saying without a pro driver you can't evaluate the part is disingenuous.. he's reporting his results with a part. News flash: none of you are pro drivers either. If he can't get better lap times out of the supercharger for whatever reason, then chances are, those reasons might apply to you too. Identifying the reasons is fine, but lets not go overboard with the "you're not a pro driver, your results don't matter" nonsense.

My point was actually validated; it is not that you need a pro driver, you need a pro-level driver who can lap consistently. Mark has since reported that consistency was a factor: slower cornering speeds especially in the corkscrew on the best lap caused the SC'd setup to run a time slower than NA.

Also, FWIW, I know there are a couple pro level drivers who frequent these boards and though I am a finance guy and not a pro racer , I was blessed with the opportunity to have driven with a pro team for a season when I was in undergrad.

Testing requires a very consistent driver and optimally also includes software capable of attributing lap discrepancies to power, individual cornering speeds, etc.

Mark is quite fast for having only done 16 track days and is taking the necessary steps to get faster including data analysis and performing the right steps to make the car consistent.

[ms372]

very interesting to see how the SC and NA compare on a track. i know that ess has already added more power to the 535 kit to make it 550. perhaps they made it more responsive with the new tune.

[Purple Derple]

It would also be useful to see the rest of the data as well then we could really see what is happening.

[DB]

Originally Posted by Purple Derple

What about the thing about the lap times vs avg speed? That doesn't make sense to me.

This happened to me before as well. My guess is that it is due to not covering exactly the same distance on each lap. If the distance to complete a lap is slightly less, you could complete that lap faster than a longer distance lap even with a lower average speed. Again, my guess.

[Longboarder]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

Well I know 2 guys who track their vt600 kits and their cars both overheat to the point of getting high temp warnings so I'd rather stay with the 535 if I had to keep the kit. And yes, this is pretty much every session in any weather condition.

I just tracked over 80 laps at Big Willow with my ESS VT2 625 between two days within two weeks and never once did my oil temp needle increase beyond what it normally does during everyday driving. The only thing that happened was destroyed stock brakes. The VT2 kits have a significant cooling advantage since they keep IAT's way down comparatively. Cooler IAT's means cooler engine oil temps.

Your results aren't shocking at all. I personally would never do a non-intercooled kit if the intent is anything but daily driving in a cool temp climate. Once you start tracking, your IAT's will get so hot you are essentially back to stock power. What's the point? You just added 40 pounds to the front of your car? I don't know why you just didn't try a water/meth kit just to test it out (they are cheap) but it's your car.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by Longboarder

I don't know why you just didn't try a water/meth kit just to test it out (they are cheap) but it's your car.

I wouldn't mind living with it if the only issue for me was stock power at the track. The slight decrease in throttle response, extra weight, and affected linear power band were my primary issues. The fact that I ran just as fast a time without the kit only validated that removing the kit was the right thing for me to do. Many people suggested a water/meth kit, but I shouldn't have to do that. I was going to upgrade to the intercooler, but it blocks the oil cooler which causes the engine temps to rise. I've seen it happen over and over on more than one car. I have no idea how you aren't having the issue. Maybe it's the weather in your area or maybe you just aren't driving hard enough at the track?

I don't get why people think I made a big mistake one way or another. If you read about superchargers on these forums all you hear is complete praise aside from the fact that you void your engine/power train warranty. I was well aware of potential heat soak of a non-intercooled kit at the track. I did my research. In fact, I stated before I even purchased the kit that I would be happy if I had more power on the street and stock power at the track. I want my car to run safely and that's exactly what it did.

I got a good deal on the kit and put a good 10k miles with the supercharger on the car. I loved it on the street, but didn't care for it at the track. I learned a lot from the experience. Now I get to sell my kit to someone looking to give it a shot for a good deal as well. I'm 100% glad that I got to experience my car with a supercharger and I'm also 100% happy that it's off the car now. I'm not a fanboy and I'm not jumping on any bandwagons on this forum. I like experiencing and learning about things for myself.

[Car54]

Was the belt slipping? Do you log boost?

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by Car54

Was the belt slipping? Do you log boost?

No and no. There's no issue with the kit. The car pulled insanely hard on the street. It was like night and day.