> Holy Moly! I guess I hit a nerve. See below:
Not really, just a funny bone ;-).
> Of course cas aren't classed based on one event. But it is necessary to
look
> very hard at Nationals because 100% of the Nations top drivers are there.
It
> isn't the only factor but it is one none the less.
Then why did you state: "The bottom line is that the 1998 Nationals didn't
show the Type R as a dominant car."
> >The timing WAS the main issue, and who wouldn't "precieve" a car as a
threat
> >that had "ringer" writen all over it.
> >How is a two car class better than the one before which was about a 10
car
> >class, especially when one of the top cars looks like a DS car??? Seem
real
> >inconsistant and a mish mash to me. With this 'new GS' thinking, we'll
have
> >other classes with mismatch lineups, like BMW 328's and Miata's... Oh,
yah,
> >that's already there ;-).
>
> This is where you lose me. The Type R didn't/doesn't have ringer written
all
> over it. For 2 years now, the SEB hasn't seen it that way. GS looked
like a
> pretty solid success after you guys did well in the Pros and after a wide
> variety of cars jockeyed for the top spot at the 98 Nationals.
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.
Also, I heard the SCAC recommend TWICE the car go to DS, and the SEB decided
anyway to put it in GS.
> This happened early in the season when Mark Sipe blew the field away at an
early
> event on the east coast. I know GH and Rob Falkner were both there, maybe
even
> Carter Thompson. Saw a few top drivers get Z3 Coupes after that.
Coincidence?
> Not to me. Maybe to you.
I was not aware that he "blew away" the competition. I wouldn't confuse
coincidence with "looks like a solid AS car".
> Actually, I am pretty informed about the details. I worked that heat in
T&S as
> well as having a 'vested' interest in how things shook out (SCAC). Those
> 'details' you are referring to, care to mention them?
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
|