>> But keep in mind the car you were driving was a Super Evil Nasty Overdog
>> Spawn of Satan ***backdated 14b turbo car***. This is the configuration that
>> the SEB winds up banning with the proposed new rule.
> I still don't like turbo swaps, but whatever.....
...and I don't like insta-torque V-8s with more rubber under their car than I
could cram under 2 DSMs, but whatever... :P
But you didn't get out of the car thinking it was an overdog, did you? How would
you have felt if it was Jamie's Supra you were driving instead?
> I think the SEB is looking at ways to limit boost. Problem being you guys
> *could* claim whatever you want from boost creep, and there isn't much anyone
> can do to prove or disprove all that boost didn't come from illegal means.
I think the SEB is after 2 different things here. One is they are trying to set
down some easily enforceable rules with regards to turbo boost control devices.
The second appears to be that they are worried that someone will figure out an
ostensibly legal way to update/backdate a turbo onto a non-turbo car. The rule
proposed in the latest FastTrack is aimed at #2, not #1.
"How do you tell if boost creep is really creep or an illegal boost control
device?" Well, I don't think you can be _absolutely_ sure either way. You can
pretty much tell from the boost curve profile (a turbo that jumps to 20 and
holds it is probably cheating, a turbo that jumps to 15 and slowly rises to 20
as RPM increases in probably creeping) but I don't think that's something that
could (or should) hold up in Impound.
However, it doesn't matter anyway. If you think Turbocar X has tampered with his
boost controls, then you protest those boost controls, and they get checked
against stock specs. Elevated boost levels or odd boost curve profiles are
_indicators_ of potential cheating, not directly protestable items in their own
right.
In case anybody cares, "boost creep" is when the flow limit of the wategate is
exceeded before the flow limit of the turbo, and the wastegate can no longer
maintain control of the boost level. Boost will then start to rise until either
the flow limit of the turbo is met, or the engine explodes.
> As for the DSM/F-body thing, sure, you are down ponies, but also down
> weigh, and width, and traction. And it seems to me the car autoxes better
> than anyone ever thought (just like it does in GS).
>> My opinion of this configuration is that it's still an underdog on power, but
>> much less so than the T25 car, and that the car has enough other
>> attributes to more-or-less make up the difference.
> I suppose, but the whole turbo swap thing bugs me.
That may be so, but there's no evidence to show that there's a real problem. It
bugs me that Mustang guys can backdate the Cobra R "no rear seat" option and I
can't remove mine, but there you are. We all have our crosses to bear.
Nobody has yet presented ANY evidence as to why DSM owners with backdated turbos
(some of whom have had them for _years_) should have to 1) spend a ton of money
2) spend a lot of time and effort, and 3) reduce the competitiveness of the cars
un-backdating their PREVIOUSLY LEGAL turbos (or backdating the motor too).
>> Your opinion (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the car may be competitive
>> with or slightly better than your car (a 3rd gen F-body, in case anyone lives
>> under a rock and doesn't recognise Sam) depending on course layout.
> That about sums it up.
>> That sounds to me like a good match, possably as good a match as you can get
>> between such dissimilar cars. It certainly doesn't sound like a car that
>> needs legislation to slow it down.
> Except the f-bodies have been around since dirt was invented. DSM's will
> go faster and faster (everything else has). We, meaning the pony-cars, are
> not going to find some magic since the cars have been raced by so many for
> so long.
Well, the latest generation of the F-Body is still fairly new and there's not
much in common between a '68 F-Body and a '99 F-body, so it's not like
everything learned since '68 is applicable to a given Camarobird.
But yes, the DSMs will indeed get faster as we learn more about them. The big
question is "how much faster"?
My personal opinion is that we've hit all the high spots, and that we're now
down to the game of inches. There are no more big suprises lurking in the DSM
camp, just a whooole lot of tweaking. I think that, given enough time, that DSMs
will be able to run with the F-Bodies on 60% of courses, be better than the
F-Bodies 20% of the time, and worse 20% of the time. Right now, I think it's
more like 50%-10%-40%.
But even if I'm completely wrong, IT DOESN'T MATTER. If DSMs wind up being just
ever-so-slightly better than the F-Bodies on most courses, well, then F-bodies
wind up being to DSMs what Mustangs are to F-Bodies right now. Most of this game
is driver anyways, small differences in car potential don't matter. (Re: John
Ames)
And if DSMs wind up being class-killing overdogs, then _reclass the cars_.
Any way you look at it, there is NO NEED for the SEB to be making legislation to
slow the DSMs down. Where's the evidence? Where's the problem?
DG
|