Robert M. Lang wrote:
> My favorite story in the pub a year or two ago was about brakes.
> The article went into deep detail about hydraulics and ratios for
> pedals - all sorts of good stuff. But the ENTIRE ARTICLE was
> contained in one small paragraph at or near the end that basically
> said that the most importan part of the braking process was the
> _contact patch_ of the tire. That was good stuff, because that's
> exactly what I'd been telling people for years. I was exonerated!
I completely agree that the contact patch between the ground and the
automobile is one of the most important parts of the braking process. Now,
why don't GRM's "tire round-ups" feature braking data? Kind of pointless to
build up knowledge in other articles, and then exclude the information in
future articles isn't it? To me, someone else's laptimes on a circuit that
little information is given about is very useless information when it comes
to rubber selection. Like I said before, I want to see cornering data from
the track, add to that the braking data, give me some skid pad figs, I can
even see a straightline acceleration test being useful. THEN supplement
that data with the laptimes of there three test drivers, and a GOOD
description of the circuit with information regarding how the circuit is
typically driven based on the class of vehicle they are using as a test
vehicle.
Sure all the tires they test are usually the same size, since the use the
same test vehicle... but you and I both know that not all 205/60R15s (for
example, since that is what I used on my TR6) are created equal and the
contact patch size will vary between manufacturer.
> Besides, I don't necessarily read the magazine for it's factual
> content. I like the editorial style, layout and many of the pictures.
> In other words - IT'S ENTERTAINMENT.
If I want entertainment, I will go to a autocross and watch it. But when
auto racing/tuning information is being published incorrectly, in a poor
manner, or with extreme commercial bias, then the entire validity of what
they publish has come into question. Publishers (of magazines like GRM)
have a responsibility that they should adhere to, that is to provide the
most accurate information possible with the least bias possible. If I want
to read information with bias and blatant propaganda I'll pick up a magazine
on Scientology, but that shouldn't be the case with Grass Roots Motorsports.
Fortunately, this thread has been fairly even sided, I've got an equal
number of emails in private supporting my view, while at the same time, a
similar number of emails publicly on the list suggesting my view as quite
harsh. THAT is what I like about this list :-) I'll give GRM credit in
that their legal department hasn't contact me yet either asking me to
publicly rescind my views ;-)
Cheers,
Kai
|