10-21-2011, 02:21 PM
Ya know, I thought about the torque thing and maximizing tq when hp is rule limited makes sense. However, by removing 10 - 30mm of tire you reduce the ability to use that tq. It's penalized for the tq AND the tire to use it. I think taking a star away and forcing one to take tire points to use the tq and handle the weight is a fair compromise.
I'd bet the 1/4 mile times are at least equal between the three cars with second half of the track (a road course straight) going to the BMW/Honda. The long tubes designed to go on a 305cid run out of breath at 4500RPM, and I mean no breath, it's like hitting a wall. That's why it only makes 230-50hp with that much tq. The tq advantage in this car is neutered by the lack of RPM. If we had to pull our trailers around the course, then yes, a second (and third) star would be appropriate.
As I unwind the wheel, I can't put down any more tq on a 255 A6 than you, the tire and traction circle don't care how much is available.
I don't think the pre-LT1 cars (84-91, 88-91 have about 20hp over 85-88) are faster than an E36 M3. Similar pw/weight, more usable RPM, and given 10yrs of suspension/chassis research by a company as good as BMW it wouldn't be a surprise. There are advantages/disadvantages to each that I think are pretty well balanced and would expect them to be classed the same. The S2K folks are high, for all the reasons you mentioned.
I might make a case if I was seriously considering a TT venture but it's not going to happen anytime soon. Which is pretty much why I posted this here and not there, not trying to make a stink, just a discussion.
edit- unless you guys think there is a case, I might see if a few of the guys running would be interested. so, honest feedback, i'm certainly not coming at this as competitor who's trying to blame the "system".
I'd bet the 1/4 mile times are at least equal between the three cars with second half of the track (a road course straight) going to the BMW/Honda. The long tubes designed to go on a 305cid run out of breath at 4500RPM, and I mean no breath, it's like hitting a wall. That's why it only makes 230-50hp with that much tq. The tq advantage in this car is neutered by the lack of RPM. If we had to pull our trailers around the course, then yes, a second (and third) star would be appropriate.
As I unwind the wheel, I can't put down any more tq on a 255 A6 than you, the tire and traction circle don't care how much is available.
I don't think the pre-LT1 cars (84-91, 88-91 have about 20hp over 85-88) are faster than an E36 M3. Similar pw/weight, more usable RPM, and given 10yrs of suspension/chassis research by a company as good as BMW it wouldn't be a surprise. There are advantages/disadvantages to each that I think are pretty well balanced and would expect them to be classed the same. The S2K folks are high, for all the reasons you mentioned.
I might make a case if I was seriously considering a TT venture but it's not going to happen anytime soon. Which is pretty much why I posted this here and not there, not trying to make a stink, just a discussion.
edit- unless you guys think there is a case, I might see if a few of the guys running would be interested. so, honest feedback, i'm certainly not coming at this as competitor who's trying to blame the "system".
Current: 1985 LS1 Corvette | 2014 328i Wagon F31
Former: 2010 Ford Edge | 1999 Integra GS
I have a little bit of a rub near lock but if you are turned to lock on a track there are other problems already...
Former: 2010 Ford Edge | 1999 Integra GS
I have a little bit of a rub near lock but if you are turned to lock on a track there are other problems already...