Quote:
Originally Posted by Koa
I just don't get it.. Stu and zaric laid out in VERY solid math and logic why claims of this driveshaft reporting back any noticeable improvement to lap times/power is a pretty much closed case example of butt dyno trickery more than anything.
At the end of the day, the rotational weight savings does MINISCULE amounts of gain over the equivalent sprung amount... soooo much so, that realistically, no appreciable gain in lap time or performance to, in their opinion, warrant the $400 spent.
Notice the bold is where the facts stop and opinion starts. How aligned one is to that opinion is open to debate. In my opinion, that $400 can be used for MUCH better purposes, if on a budget. If a dude(tte) really is looking to spent more money on his car, and already has a full header system/tune/brakes/whatever... fuck. go for it!
but if he/she does and comes here to try and exclaim how amazing it is, and how they can definitely tell, etc... don't expect the people who understand the real forces at work to hold their tongue.
|
Lap times? What lap times? It was all theory and the math while correct was applied only enough to prove a point which is: A lighter driveshaft does not make a humanly noticeable difference in overall 0-100 times. No argument here, as far as I know, nobody else said otherwise. But people would be hard pressed to notice a difference between 92 vs 93 octane on a 0-100 run. Or a 5 degree temperature change. Or 2 psi change in tires. Or a 2mm change in tire width. Do none of these things matter as well?
To prove or disprove whether a driveshaft makes a tangible difference in responsiveness and ability to change directions at speed is an infinitely more difficult problem which hasn't been addressed by anyone mathematically. (because it's really hard without dedicated software)