Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesm
i agree in that my top priorities go in this order:
1: reliability
2: drivability
3: area under the curve
4: peak power
but i disagree that lap after lap track data really matters. it does to a very, very small subset of the market, but the fact is 99+% of the FI 86's in the world will never take a lap on a track. and stock cars aren't even reliable in that scenario, so to expect one with 100+ extra horsepower to be so is a little much.
people who do track their cars don't need other people's data because they're generating it on their own, and are likely smart enough to realize that all of the variables at play would make it pretty much worthless to them.
|
I agree with you aside from peak power, just don't think it matters as much if you have to scale it back to meet goal 1 and 2. It's true we could probably argue the merits of lap over lap logging but the truth is you can easily find the upper limits of stability this way better than any other testing, namely for testing heat issues. If it passes there, you should never have issues with street able performance. (on the 86 platform) The same is not true in reverse.
I had a PM with Mike about this. Two schools of thought, go out and beat the car 10/10ths or just run more laps at 80-90%.
Proving a tune, or durability does not mean the car has to be run 10/10ths at the track for valuable data collection. You have been playing with tuning now you get the concepts if you were going to do tuning for somewhat what data collection would you prefer?