SCCA Solo C Street Discussion

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

No, I'm comparing engineering.


Are you then suggesting that if the FRS cost more money to build then the engineers would have chosen a different weight distribution?




again I get the feeling you're not really reading what I'm saying and just jumping at a pre-established conclusion.


Yes the car will be slower! In absolute terms. But what's also important is for the driver to drive the car at the cars limit.

If I feel like I'm driving at 95% of the car's 100% ability.. and then lower the car's ability by 4%, but now feel like I'm driving at 100%, I'm up 1%. Comprende?





For fucks sake *captain picard meme*, I never said the car will be faster.

I understand what you're saying, however I don't agree with your resolution.

5% is wasted, If you're not driving at 100%, then why not limit the car to match the level you are comfortable driving with.

The car will be slower, but will you be slower? You may be faster, but the car will still be slower.

I get it :P

But its just cones man :p

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

And you want to complain about going theoretical?

OK, I'll put Andy Hollis in his CRX and we will see what is faster. Apples to Oranges.

I don't know what you are trying to say there but it's not making sense.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

I understand what you're saying, however I don't agree with your resolution.

well I don't agree (in principle) with my resolution either


but the issue is that stock is a tricky class


if I was in STX I wouldn't give a fuck, there's plenty of adjustability there to align all kinds of drivers.

I KNOW I can tune with a swaybar. I KNOW I can tune with shocks. But that's not what I'm curious about. I was curious about another thing, but ya'll seem to be very angry about me even thinking it, like I just insulted your grandmother.

and I love this bread-and-butter response of "just learn to drive better", what the fuck kind of advice is that. Anyone could tell that advice to anybody. Fucking Alfa-Alfa could be yelling it at you from the bleachers "drive faster ya fuck!"

[qoncept]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

again I feel like I'm not getting the actual point across.

No, again you're getting stuck up on semantics. Adding 100lbs will not make YOU faster in your car. And if by some chance we're all wrong and you're right, you still aren't going to get very far convincing us the way you're talking to us.

although for arguments, sake, if I gave you a 70/30 split car of equal parameters are the FRS, you think you'll be equally fast? around the course?

No, now you're putting words in my mouth. There are more factors than I could ever consider that determine how "well sorted" or "balanced" a car is. But I believe 100% that adding weight to change the bias is like chasing Jim Beam with Natty Light.

[7thgear]

here's another question:


anyone hit up the scales with the spare/tools removed, a straight pipe, and only 10L of gas in the tank while sitting in the car?


my calculations say roughly 57/43 split


yay/nay?

[qoncept]

I KNOW I can tune with a swaybar. I KNOW I can tune with shocks. But that's not what I'm curious about. I was curious about another thing, but ya'll seem to be very angry about me even thinking it, like I just insulted your grandmother.

Here's your answer: People aren't upset because you present the idea. They're upset because you are acting like we're all idiots when you're the one going against conventional wisdom and making claims without data.

Hint: We don't want data, we want you to be respectful.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by qoncept

No, again you're getting stuck up on semantics. Adding 100lbs will not make YOU faster in your car. And if by some chance we're all wrong and you're right, you still aren't going to get very far convincing us the way you're talking to us.

This is a much better response, thank you, and I'll agree to your points.


I'm just in an experimentive mood. As I previously said I'm currently driving through snow and ice and the weight has definitely helped me stay on the road.


I understand that this is difficult to translate to a sunny day on tarmac, but there's a certain amount of physics involved that doesn't get discussed. Which, again, is why I alluded to the mid-engine vehicles.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by qoncept

Hint: We don't want data, we want you to be respectful.

Actually, I want the data. And I wish someone had the data, then I'd shut up. But all I'm reading is "don't do it, it's stupid" but no one saying "I tried it, it didn't work"


Because the only known case of someone close to me doing it (on a track, in a stock mustang) actually went faster when he put his spare tire back in. But that was one case, and a spare in a mustang is probably 40 pounds tops, and no known experiments since then. So I unno.

[Kido1986]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

here's another question:


anyone hit up the scales with the spare/tools removed, a straight pipe, and only 10L of gas in the tank while sitting in the car?


my calculations say roughly 57/43 split


yay/nay?

I'm not getting into you two's lover's quarrel but I did. Let me find the picture and update this post, but it was 2610 with about 8-10lbs of junk in the glove box and 3-4 gallons of fuel. Looking for the picture to show the balance now.

Edit: My dynamic DNS isn't working so I can't remote into my home system to look through my pictures

Edit2: Found it on some online storage


56.1% front, 43.8% rear (took out 10 pounds for glovebox stuff I forgot)

[chriskory]

"noob question" has turned into massive trolling

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by chriskory

"noob question" has turned into massive trolling

because I don't know how far the rules can be interpreted.


it doesn't say where the spare tire must be kept.


and it also doesn't say where I can have a passenger... can I put them in the rear seats? How about the trunk :P

that was my actual question, and only bimmer635csi bothered to answer it (and to a lesser extent, John)

the rest of you decided to fuck thinking and just telling me to "learn to drive a loose car", so who's trolling?

[DylanFRS]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

once again, weight distribution is not weight/power ratio

Not sure what I said about weight/power ratio so your comment confuses me.

[7thgear]

okay so basically this is what I'm reading


because the near-absolute majority of the autocross population firmly believes that additional weight of any kind can't possibly be of net benefit, then I should safely experiment with any ballasts I want and not worry about a possible protest because it would be impossible for me to actually go faster.

I now have my answer and will prepare for the summer's experiments.

[qoncept]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

Actually, I want the data. And I wish someone had the data, then I'd shut up. But all I'm reading is "don't do it, it's stupid" but no one saying "I tried it, it didn't work"


Because the only known case of someone close to me doing it (on a track, in a stock mustang) actually went faster when he put his spare tire back in. But that was one case, and a spare in a mustang is probably 40 pounds tops, and no known experiments since then. So I unno.

Fair enough, and if you're right ... I'd say I'd try it but I don't think I'm consistent enough to determine anything.