You'll also recall, I lost by 1.5 seconds at that event. Just showing even
more that the cars are mismatched, for on some days they run similar times,
and other days/courses HUGE differences. The same can be said for BS and
CS, AS and FS,... I could go on, but the point is, that's why classes are
based on car type/profile and multiple performance data, not just one
specific performance.
---JCG
----- Original Message -----
From: Annie Gill <baby_nsx@yahoo.com>
To: Joe Goeke <buttheat@hotmail.com>
Cc: <autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: The 'New' G Stock?
> now, now, Joe, it's not the same drivers, you're not
> there anymore! And if I remember right, you had
> fastest GS time at the San Diego Tour on Sunday, in
> the big ol' Audi no less, over how many Type R's??
> (tee hee)
>
> nice new e-mail address, too!
>
> Annie Gill
> 98 ITR
>
> --- Joe Goeke <buttheat@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll take a light under torqued car with a great LSD
> > and double wishbone
> > suspension, over a heavier/torque car ANY day.
> >
> > So you are saying that no good drivers are running
> > in GS except for the Type
> > R drivers? Look at some of the data this year
> > compared to last year with
> > the _same_ drivers competing against Type R's now.
> > You'll see a HUGE
> > difference in times. ---JCG
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kevin McCormick <ktm@unify.com>
> > To: 'Scott Meyers' <solo2@uswest.net>
> > Cc: <autox@autox.team.net>
> > Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 8:45 AM
> > Subject: RE: The 'New' G Stock?
> >
> >
> > > Ah, you're looking at only HP - look at the
> > pounds/torque ratio - (as Joe
> > > did earlier) - the Type R is worse off then the
> > others. Also, the rev's
> > > required for each of the respective HP numbers
> > show an intersting story as
> > > well. Not to mention 15x6 wheels compared to the
> > rest at 16x7 or so. The
> > > Road & Track article on the new Celica says 6.5
> > for 0-60 (Toyota's
> > numbers)
> > > with the six speed.
> > >
> > > You just have good drivers in Type R's now - how
> > is that different than
> > > Neon's? The Camaro's and DSM cars will do fine, I
> > expect (remember that a
> > > Prelude came in 3rd last year, BTW...).
> > >
> > > I agree, though - leave things as they are and put
> > the Celica in there.
> > > Don't much with what is working...
> > >
> > >
> > > Kevin McCormick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Scott Meyers [mailto:solo2@uswest.net]
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 8:32 AM
> > > > To: Kent Rafferty
> > > > Cc: autox@autox.team.net
> > > > Subject: Re: The 'New' G Stock?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kent Rafferty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So, potentially you could have the following
> > match-up
> > > > > in GS (excluding the Type R, etc for now),
> > correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > Car hp weight
> > lbs/hp
> > > > > --------------------- --------
> > ---------- ---------
> > > > > Audi TT Quattro 225 3200 14.2
> > > > > Audi S4 250 3500
> > 14.0
> > > > > DSM AWD 210 3100 14.7
> > > >
> > > > Firebird V-6 200hp 3200
> > 16.0 but rear
> > > > drive + posi &
> > > > big rubber.
> > > > (ever notice the
> > engine
> > > > setback in one of
> > > > these?)
> > > >
> > > > Type R 195 2400
> > 12.3 Wow!
> > > > All the good
> > > > stuff *and*
> > this power to
> > > > weight. No wonder
> > > > it dominates.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know. With all of the "new good stuff"
> > coming out
> > > > that is classed in G
> > > > Stock, it might make sense to leave all there
> > for another
> > > > season and see just
> > > > how things stack up.
> > > >
> > > > Better than making a lot of wrong guesses based
> > upon "I thought".
> > > >
> > > > And after looking at the above, the Type R seems
> > to be way
> > > > out of the scope of
> > > > the other cars.
> > > >
> > > > Scott Meyers
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
|