Joe, you support my points in your message to Ron but you refute them here...
1. There were at least 5 different cars contending for the GS National title in
1998. That to me is a successful class.
2. You also state that you think the DSM's are competitive with the Type R's.
How does that make the R a 'ringer' if it has equal competition???
3. Lets look at North raw times then:
Allen: 59.632 Eclipse
Sapp: 59.676 Type R
Paul Z: 60.139 Prelude
Joe G: 60.108 Audi A4 2.8
Bob E: 59.609 Type R
Jim R: 60.244 F-body
...doesn't look to bad to me...
As far as the development point, I will concede that as valid. It is my
understanding that Bob E had been roadracing one in 1998 and was at worst very
familiar with the car. He is also a top driver. With more development, the
cars could go faster. A second year developing an A4 may have improved that car
as well?
I'll go back to my original point that sparked our (butt)heated debated: with
Mark Allen, you and Ron gone (out of the A4), I hope the same drivers (Jim Rohn,
Paul Zimmerman) can repeat their 'competitive' performances. Otherwise, the
Type R's look to fulfill their own prophecy. The competition for the Type R's
that WAS there, as the numbers bear out, simply isn't there this year.
BTW: Thanks for a somewhat civilized debate. Lets thumb wrestle for it in
Topeka.
AB
1. Then why did you state: "The bottom line is that the 1998 Nationals didn't
show the Type R as a dominant car."
2. What part of: 2500lbs vs 2700 to 3300, Lowered stiffened double wishbone
suspension, 195 peak HP dosen't sound like "ringer" to you? The _only_
thing the Type-R has against it is the relative low torque, which if it
weighed what the other GS cars weighs, and didn't have the other goodies, it
would suck (see GSR). So, with the _only_ thing bad about the Type R being
torque, just how much lack of torque does it have? The Neons were the
fastest FWD with about the same torque as the Type R, and closer to there
weight than the rest of GS, and the Neons had a proven record of being
faster than GS. So if the Neon has enough torque (and no limited slip) to
win DS, which was faster than GS, why would the Type R be considered to be
severely limited by it's torque. What part of this ringer do you still not
understand.
3. South course details you left out.
1) The south course was mostly sweepers. Great for high G-loading cars.
It's also called parity between cars with different power/torque to weight
ratios.
2) The Type R had been classed barely over a month. Just how much time does
one need to develop a front running new car at the nationals level? I would
suspect quite a bit more. This might indicate the times were not as fast as
they could be.
3) Endicott's fast "scratch" time was on a run where he got the car
completely sideways (I mean about 70 degrees!) two times. How many folks
have had class winning times doing that? BTW, Bob would have won the event
on ANY of his times the second day, if only one of they would have been
clean.
4) Bob was flying to a big road race in less than 3 hours, and literally
hopped in a car for the KC airport, as soon as he finished running. This
may have contributed to number 3 above.
What do these details mean: Take a underdeveloped car, drive it on a parity
type course, and drive it with more than one big mistake, and still have the
times to win a 47 car field? Seems we hadn't seen the true performance of
the Type R.
---JCG
|