Alternate 2004 rules? [Archive] - CASC Ontario Region Message Forums

Logan

11-20-2003, 03:35 PM

This is a comment from one of my clubs executive members that participates in solo 1:

The Solo 1 rules are based on as very simple formula with three input
variables - power, weight and a handling index. The weight to power ratio
is weighted 70% in the formula, and a car's handling index is weighted 30%
in the formula. The formula outputs a Performance Index (PI) in percent.
The classes are 5% "wide" and so, for example, all cars with a PI of say 50
to 55% are in the same class.

Mods add Performance Index Points (PIPs) which are added to the starting PI
to find the final PI which defines the prepped car's class. There is no
attempt to keep cars of the same body style or drive configuration together.

The handling index is somewhat arbitrary and is a way to tweak a car's
starting PI as seems appropriate. Generally speaking though cars with
similarly refined OE suspensions should have similar handling indices.

Mods affecting power have been given PIP values that correspond the their HP
potential in a typical car. Competitors with highly modified engines have
the option of dynoing the car to demonstrate the actual power level (which
allows less than optimum engine mods be classified fairly).

Mods affecting suspension have been arranged so that a fully developed
suspension will raise a car 3 to 4 classes.

Mods affecting weight are currently completely arbitrarily assigned PIPs
with no rational basis.

What is really amazing is that this simple approach, that makes very broad
assumptions about the actual performance potential of vehicles based on very
rudimentary data, actually seems to work for the average Solo 1 competitor.
It is not so clear that it is actually fair at the upper and lower class
extremes (but there aren't many competitors at the extremes so it doesn't
worry us much).

ShaneG

11-20-2003, 03:58 PM

Be warned that if we stray too far from the original CNAC rule set we will get screwed (one way or another) if we choose to compete outside of Ontario, at ...say the Canadian Nationals or Eastern Nationals

I don't remember what event it is but a big one is being held just outside Montreal in '04

This also runs contrary to those who have desired the CNAC rules in order to have "national" classes - more like the SCCA!

I think we can tweak rules for our region, but how about we try the rule set for a year before making too many changes... that and let our new SOLO 2 Director get setteled before suggesting too many changes

I don't want to see a grumpy Wes:eek:

Gord

11-20-2003, 04:02 PM

Personally I really like this approach as it tries to put comparable performance vehicles against each other. And comparable performance can easily mean a heavily modded econobox vs. a factory hot-rod. The idea is to make things as close as possible.

It's actually not unlike the current (past?) rules that we use where you can have "lower" class cars do some mods and step up a class to compete against stock cars. Great idea if you ask me.

I know a lot of people with factory hot-rods have complained in the past that they had to go against cars that were modded, but does it really matter? It sure can make things interesting.

-Gord

ice/solo racer

11-20-2003, 04:38 PM

I think having the perfect rule set will be an impossibility regardless of how its attempted.The single biggest factor in determining success in solo 2 is the driver-simply put a great driver in a poor car will always do better than a poor driver in a great car.
My point is maybe we should accept what ever rules we have(and they should be the same regardless of where you live)and focus more on driving the best as is possible.I see it at every competition,someone bitching that their car is outclassed but when watching them run you see huge amounts of time left on course from to much coasting,not pushing hard enough(too much?)etc.
I don't really mind the whinning about car classing-I've done my share and will likely continue to do so every now and then, its just that in solo2 I'm beginning to believe the car has far less to do with it then the guy telling the car what to do.

Logan

11-20-2003, 05:33 PM

Tom,
I agree, and I have no intention of trying to stop us from using the CNAC rules for 2004.
I like them and look forward to competing within them.
However, this is just some food for thought that I thought I would share with everyone.

AcidGord

11-20-2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Logan
Especially since we are worried how the CNAC rules will work given our (mostly) small lot selection. [/B]

We've been using CNAC rules here for years and trust me, our big lots are MUCH smaller than probably the smallest lots you guys use. No problems here.

Right now the only issues some competitors have with the rules are about engine swaps.

Marsh

11-21-2003, 07:25 AM

You're V8 guys don't find them a little harsh?

I'm dominating over the Camaros and Mustangs now with them in the same class. Under CNAC they are at least 2 classes faster. I used to say that bring a Mustang to an autocross is like bring a knife to a gun fight. Now it's like bring a knife to US nuclear air assault!

Doug P

11-21-2003, 08:16 AM

Ya, what Marsh said!

AcidGord

11-21-2003, 12:27 PM

I suppose therein lies the rub. We have a couple of Vettes that come out once in a while and one regular Mustang. Certainly nowhere near the FSS/FSP turnout that you get. We're currently Honda/Miata dominated.

Gord

11-21-2003, 12:51 PM

So how have you guys dealt with some of the issues of classing that I mention in the other thread (on classifications)? Example, a MK4 Jetta 8v that's got springs or whatever and lands in CSS/SP. It obviously doesn't belong there.

-Gord

Greg F

11-21-2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Marsh
You're V8 guys don't find them a little harsh?

I'm dominating over the Camaros and Mustangs now with them in the same class. Under CNAC they are at least 2 classes faster. I used to say that bring a Mustang to an autocross is like bring a knife to a gun fight. Now it's like bring a knife to US nuclear air assault!

Easy there big guy. Save that type of thing for the smack talk section, hehe.

I feel sorry for the poor Mu' Tangs too though:o

Doug P

11-22-2003, 09:44 AM

Don't forgat the Camaro!

Marsh

11-22-2003, 02:58 PM

Guys, please!... It's Rustang and Slowmaro.

Greg F

11-23-2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Doug Phillips
Don't forget the Camaro!

Sorry 'bout that, I'm still trying to come up with a cool nickname, like Transexual American for you know what. ;)

But so far I got nuthin!:D

Taylor

11-24-2003, 10:15 AM

Well as I raised this issue at the Solo Workshop (and it's obviously an issue others are fully aware of)... we need larger lots for this classification system.

Unfortunately I have not actually ATTENDED an ARMS (Atlantic Region) Solo 2 event (well I have with CNAC AND CEAC but that's a little different), and I don't mean to sound disrespectful but the drivers there arn't as serious as the drivers here, and we're not as serious as the SCCA guys. So I think it "Works" for them in Atlantic Canada because there is only a handful of notably good drivers, here there's maybe 3 handfuls, so there's more voices from people who know they are a competitive driver but know that the classing will make things difficult or impossible.

I like (and wanted) to go with CNAC rules, though if the clubs don't change their course designs and/or find larger lots, I think we may suffer as bad or worse than we had with the system used this past year (and however many before it).

The clubs REALLY need to step up design. I believe the reason why a mustang is two classes higher in SCCA (and basically CNAC) rules is because they run higher speed/higher gear courses with wider turns.. power to weight takes on a higher weighting than handling does (lile in Solo 1).

BTW, I would love to see a Solo 1 style linear classification system in Solo 2. But, Solo 2 is different than Solo 1 and I think if the country makes a mass move to CNAC and as CNAC is very similar to SCCA, it gives use freedom to compete, competitively in neighbouring regions. Solo 1 doesn't really need or fit that.

Still regardless of classification system, if one club designs a tight pain in the ass course in a small lot and another designs a wide open flowing and fast course on a larger lot, the results in a competitive class will shift, every time, every day. Consistency in course design is probably the best thing we could hope for for fair competition.

Sorry if this is too obvious or preaching to the choir.

Marsh

11-24-2003, 12:08 PM

At the last two WOSCA events we managed to make them a little more open (with the unfortunate odd hair-pin that entails), and had good success. With everyone on street tires the competition was fairly level. And by open I just mean top of 1st gear and a few spots for second.

30thSS

11-24-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Taylor
Well as I raised this issue at the Solo Workshop (and it's obviously an issue others are fully aware of)... we need larger lots for this classification system.

I like (and wanted) to go with CNAC rules, though if the clubs don't change their course designs and/or find larger lots, I think we may suffer as bad or worse than we had with the system used this past year (and however many before it).

BTW, I would love to see a Solo 1 style linear classification system in Solo 2. But, Solo 2 is different than Solo 1 and I think if the country makes a mass move to CNAC and as CNAC is very similar to SCCA, it gives use freedom to compete, competitively in neighbouring regions. Solo 1 doesn't really need or fit that.

Still regardless of classification system, if one club designs a tight pain in the ass course in a small lot and another designs a wide open flowing and fast course on a larger lot, the results in a competitive class will shift, every time, every day. Consistency in course design is probably the best thing we could hope for for fair competition.

Some neat stuff here I would tend to agree with you. As a new commer to this again, I was new in 1990 as well, I find the classification in the new CNAC rules tough for this car of mine in regards to Solo II. Maybe in Solo 1 ok but on these tight courses I can not make use of the HP advantage I'm classed for. A lot of F-body enthusiasts out there would love to take a crack at this type of motorsport but feel reluctant when they see how tough it is for them. And not everyone wants to go for Solo 1. Maybe a different set of classification is needed for Solo 2 vs Solo 1 that will work for all lot designs.
Just my 2 cents

J.C.

11-24-2003, 01:16 PM

Taylor I feel you are stating the obvious but for some reason, there is just no interest in the truth. I agree with what you said and an example was given earlier regarding a corvette being beaten on small courses and in my opinion people just want to ignore this. Why? I know courses have shrunk alot over the years and it really baffled me when I came back to the sport. Rules state gate minimum widths are to be 15'. So why do most clubs interpret that as maximum of 15'. Don't people realize that making the gates narrower prevent the more powerful RWD cars from putting down power since their rear comes out under hard acceleration? (maybe they do) I have asked why these changes have happened and to this day no one is willing to give an answer. If you really want to use these set of rules you really should make sure you are using them for the same application or else what is the point? Atleast this way when an Ontario competitor goes to a National or US event there are no surprises.

30thSS

11-24-2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Marsh
Guys, please!... It's Rustang and Slowmaro.

:rolleyes: hmmmm....trying to think here..hmm lets See...hmmmm...OK I got one. How about Honda Quaelude. Some folks used to do those in the 70's along with LSD:D . As far as slowmaro goes, didn't TM win a season in an identicle car to this? A 1997 SS Slowmaro?:D Hopefully I won't embarass myself next year with good tires on...Better move the spectators Marsh! :)

JoeT

11-24-2003, 01:35 PM

Actually we brought up this very topic last year, when the courses were getting tighter and tighter (see link below), up until the 2nd half of the year, it was tight as can be and people seemingly designed the courses to make it almost impossible to drive a larger car around. After Tony K posted the thread below, things seemed to flow a lot smoother.

Click the link below, it's interesting reading.

http://racing.kos.net/soloforums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1477

Originally posted by J.C.
Taylor I feel you are stating the obvious but for some reason, there is just no interest in the truth. I agree with what you said and an example was given earlier regarding a corvette being beaten on small courses and in my opinion people just want to ignore this. Why? I know courses have shrunk alot over the years and it really baffled me when I came back to the sport. Rules state gate minimum widths are to be 15'. So why do most clubs interpret that as maximum of 15'. Don't people realize that making the gates narrower prevent the more powerful RWD cars from putting down power since their rear comes out under hard acceleration? (maybe they do) I have asked why these changes have happened and to this day no one is willing to give an answer. If you really want to use these set of rules you really should make sure you are using them for the same application or else what is the point? Atleast this way when an Ontario competitor goes to a National or US event there are no surprises.

Gord

11-24-2003, 01:47 PM

Still regardless of classification system, if one club designs a tight pain in the ass course in a small lot and another designs a wide open flowing and fast course on a larger lot, the results in a competitive class will shift, every time, every day. Consistency in course design is probably the best thing we could hope for for fair competition.

I think classification system is very important in the scenario of tight vs. open courses. A tight course is tight for everyone driving similar sized/type cars. The problem is if you start mixing different types/sizes of cars together into the same class. Then you see problems. If it's you and a bunch others in the same or similar cars, then tight or open, it's still fair competition.

The big problem we have here though is the single overall solo champion. You then inevitably have people from all different types of cars being judged against some common measure. They don't have this in the SCCA as far as I know. The only way you could really fairly do something like this is the way we do the shootout (many drivers, one car, one course).

The tight vs. open thing really isn't that important (IMHO), provided things aren't so tight that some car's can't fit through the gates. You see it all the time in all forms of racing that tour different circuits. Some tracks favor HP, others handling. You see car's that favor one or the other shine at different times. Put all together, it makes things interesting.

My $0.02 on the matter.

-Gord

miataboi

11-24-2003, 02:09 PM

my best advice... and what I'd do if I had a musclecar...

go to the corvette events at Bronte.

They OFTEN tailor the course to the likes of the 'vettes, mustangs and f-bodies...

long straights... hard brakes... tight turn... long straight... etc.

It favors the high HP cars... because all cars have to slow down for the turn that <90*... but not all cars can rocket off the corner... like a big torquey car...

A good example on how course setup can affect results... can be found here, on the last page: - fastest overall...
http://66.46.236.210/2003/pdfs/Event7.pdf

the difference between 6th and 7th fastest overall was a full second!

The reason...

Course design.
Look at the difference in the types of cars in the top 6 compared to the 7th.

The course was a fun one... well flowing... with the exception of 2 spots... the first tight left-hander / uphill corner forced you to slow down a bit... and without torque, it was hard to pull up the hill... cost a tenth or 2 over the "powerful" cars...

...and the second 110* turn at the BOTTOM of the hill... forced nearly everyone to grab on the binders... but the faster cars (with massive torque, awesome power:weight, or kickazz gearing - or 2 of these!!! - see first 6 placed cars!!!) were able to launch hard off this last tight corner... and this speed carried them through the remainder of the course... cost about 3-4 tenths for sure over these other competitors...

It's just about car characteristics and course design.
I agree that GOOD course design can be achieved whereby a FLOWING course can allow you to carry speed / momentum around the course... Curtis from the PITTL series is one of the BEST course designers I have EVER SEEN!

I don't want to say "open" as this to some that can mean less gates, more straights, etc... but FLOWING.

If you're into straights and puttin' massive power down... go to st. thomas! ;)

I'm ALL FOR more "flow" to the designs... but not at the expense of "tehnical" courses... nice, technical, flowing courses.. straight parts AND finesse parts will be the best that we can achieve on our sided lots. We can NOT create a Topeka type course on the lots that I've seen around here... realistically... (except for Bronte... and they're for the 'vette guys anyhow!)

J.C.

11-24-2003, 02:43 PM

Joe you are right things have improved, but on more then one occasion I have found courses to go back to smaller tight designs. At the shootout DDT parking lot cones were spaced at exactly 15' apart. Not 15'+ but 15'. One comment I heard was well atleast this will make it tougher for the SoloI guys as they are not used to it. This is a main reason why SoloI driver attendance is down at the shootout. This really saddened me as how do you determine the best driver if its not a fair event and a few competitors won't come because they already feel things are stacked against them. There is more to it then just gate size. Some cars have a sub 30' turning radius, some are 35' and some are 40'. I have not seen any National or US events where larger turning radius cars are punished so harshly to manage the course. The sad thing is there are some drivers driving larger vehicles that are quite good but are unable to do as well as they could. This may influence them in not going to National events or sadly even to leave SoloII for SoloI.

P.S. This does not affect me anymore as my 1987 DECH with its 38'+ turning circle is now salvage, but fair is fair and IMO things have not been fair.

Doug P

11-24-2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by miataboi
my best advice... and what I'd do if I had a musclecar...

go to the corvette events at Bronte.

A good example on how course setup can affect results... can be found here, on the last page: - fastest overall...
http://66.46.236.210/2003/pdfs/Event7.pdf

If you're into straights and puttin' massive power down... go to st. thomas! ;)

I agree that this was a great course layout, fun and challenging to run.

With respect to the more "powerful" cars I don't see any Mustangs or Camaros in the top 10 on this course.

Musclecars do not need to run the FTD but if driven well they should be competitive in their class and run well with PAX.

I am not interested in straight line power. I enjoy the corners and competition but as with most people I like to show up with a hope of being competitive in my class. If cars are in classes of similiar handling/power it should not make very much difference what the course layout and design is. All cars in the same class will be equally affected.

A variety of different types of courses in a regional series makes it challanging as long as cars are classed to be competitive regardless of course design.

Using the event 7 as an example Stephen Tong ran Barry Searles car that day for a 38 second raw time in CSP. As such I was pleased to be able to be within 0.7 in my C1 Z28 and scored 99.177 in my class against Ralph in his Prelude. Close competition all year.

This same event saw Peter run a 37.3 and Daniel ran a 37.7 in their WRX cars. Daniel was than a second faster than me and next year we are in the same class. I enjoy a challenge but I think it will be a blowout.

I don't see any Camaro/Mustangs in the Halifax listings or the results I have found from out west. The SCCA has the WRX in a different class altogether.

What are the CNAC car clasifications based on?

Marsh

11-24-2003, 03:12 PM

Yea Doug, but I ran a 38.0 balking at the same event. So long story short, you need to find a way to make the new springs worth about 3/4 sec to a full second in order to be competitive. And this is totally reasonable. Sure your the under dog, but there is always a faster car.

At that event Doug Logan ran a 37.3 stock and he'll likely be in my class next year, with suspension added on. We're all going to have our work cut out for us.

Doug P

11-24-2003, 03:25 PM

Your right Marsh, the driver is the item to work on the most.

I but Stephen in there for comparison just to dress myself up as not a total hack but I definitely have a lot to improve.

I think that event 7 was used as an example of a course that should allow the f-bodies to run quicker. That said I was able to get with a second of the WRX (a big 97%) which was as close as it got all year.

On average I was consistently 2 seconds behind and early in the year Daniel said he was on street rubber!

By the way I had a great time on Sunday. See you next year.

miataboi

11-24-2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Doug Phillips
Your right Marsh, the driver is the item to work on the most.

I but Stephen in there for comparison just to dress myself up as not a total hack but I definitely have a lot to improve.

I think that event 7 was used as an example of a course that should allow the f-bodies to run quicker. That said I was able to get with a second of the WRX (a big 97%) which was as close as it got all year.

On average I was consistently 2 seconds behind and early in the year Daniel said he was on street rubber!

By the way I had a great time on Sunday. See you next year.

Yes... you did run well... particularly when compared with Steve in Barry's car... (I don't know what Barry has done to his... but spring rates seem fairly low / stockish...
HOWEVER...

If I understand correctly... you can run springs??? SO... 1000+ lb spring rates and custom coilovers / re-valved shocks... fresh tires... and IT'S ON!!! ;)

Take that N/A anemic Miata... similar times to your brute.. BUT... think about it... every time that you were fast... the miata was slow... and vice-versa! (within reason)... VERY different cars!!!

Understanding that the Subies DO have an advantage with AWD... in that... IMO... they can be driven closer to the limits... easier... (ducking!) A RWD car takes more precision to be TRULY quick... (Truthfully, BOTH take TONS OF SKILL to be FAST in... this NEVER changes)

This was a good example of how a course could have areas that a small, low-powered, nimble car could do well in some areas... and where a grunty powerhouse (f-body) had an advantage in others... and all in all... I think most agreed that it was certainly in the better-half of course designs... (in it's own right)

(And let's not mention that a big, slow, poor-handling, torqueless car basically can't have a course designed whereby they will have any advantage whatsoever!!! That much we CAN agree upon, right?) ;)

JUST for comparison... I recently drove a C5 on Fabi... and thought than anything smaller than that... even the DDT layout that was run at the shootout would have been too "tight" for the car... it's strength is grunt!

SO... it's a LITTLE unfair to think that a car of such capability, speed and "performance comfort zone" can be the ideal car in a parking lot... and a small one at that!!!

Big, uber-powerful cars will not be "in there element" in auto-x... right? It's almost hard to believe that anyone could believe this to be the case with our lot-sizes... BUT... I think that we can have SOME courses that do well for both...

(FYI... 3 years ago... Steve Tong took FTD in a stock Miata at a corvette event!!! - I kid you not!... it was wide-open, high speed... and just didn't have too many SUPER TIGHT corners where huge grunt would help the others... and hurt the "displacementally-challenged")

It was a great battle... and an example of a great course layout... the low-power guys weren't FORCED to scrub off all momentum... and the high-hp guys were able to lay-down the rubber and get REALLY movin'.

THAT's what we need more of!

FLOW!
All things circular... flow, movement, like a river... flow, momentum, turning, feel it... flow.

Logan

11-24-2003, 04:40 PM

There are a few obvious solutions I can think of to the "flowing" course comments.
I don't know how well received these will be, but here they are anyway:
1) Have a course design committee, this committee will design ALL the regional courses
2) Have all the regional events held in the SAME lot (preferrably something large). This takes away from what the regionals are supposed to be though(the best of what each club has to offer).

And Marsh, that day was different than all my other days all year.
I think next year you and I will both be scratching at Tony's back.
IF I decide to change my suspension.... If not, then he's your problem!!

Greg F

11-24-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by 30thSS
Hopefully I won't embarass myself next year with good tires on...Better move the spectators Marsh! :)

Hey, weren't you the guy that tried to run me over while I was marshalling at WOSCA recently?:eek:

That's certainly one of my most memorable and hilarious memories of this year!

tanney

11-24-2003, 06:57 PM

If I understand correctly... you can run springs??? SO... 1000+ lb spring rates and custom coilovers / re-valved shocks... fresh tires... and IT'S ON!!!
Mmmm, I think this man is on to something! It's not about the car, it's about the driver and the prep of the car.

1) Have a course design committee, this committee will design ALL the regional courses
2) Have all the regional events held in the SAME lot (preferrably something large).

The rule book (current year) requires the club to send the Solo 2 Director a course layout 6 weeks before an event. If this was actually done........then it could be reviewed, but like you said, it would take away from the "regional" aspect of the series if the same committee designed every course, even if not in the same lot.

Maybe what needs to be done is a non scoring competitor, with experience, travels with the series and tests the course for safety and flow during the drivers meeting and the course can be finalized before a final walk through (just thinking outloud, with my fingers)

Just remember that no matter what happens, not everyone is going to be happy. How many people complained about the classification of cars this year (or last), it's all going to happen again, only the cars will be different (in some cases). The best drivers will pick the best cars and prep them to the best level allowable by the rules, and.....win! The rest will, hopefully, have some fun and aim at the few at the top. (Some day, Tony, some day:p )

ice/solo racer

11-24-2003, 07:18 PM

With regards to course design I ended up being a little baffled over the events this year in that courses that I felt fairly confident(I said confident-not cocky)were the ones that were the tightest designs I thought would be best for my light and short car,they were the tightest in terms of competition.
The last half of season the courses did open up and during the walk thru's I thought I'd be screwed for sure.The only front runner in BSS with less power than me is Wes(it would be hard to have less then you eh Wes?)and the courses would seem to favour strait line acceration.
The weird part was that the more open the course seemed the better off I was relative to others in class(even overall),the reason would seem to be that the courses simply flowed well as Miataboi pointed out.
I don't foresee clubs getting a hold of larger lots next year so I guess figureing out how to manage those lots is paramount to making the new rules piss as few people off as possible:eek:
For the record,the double header weekend had a nice flowing course on saturday and one that didn't flow at all on sunday.To back up my point I won on saturday by 2.5 seconds and lost to Doug by 3/10's on sunday-do you think that maybe course design factored in at all?

Logan

11-24-2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by tanney
Maybe what needs to be done is a non scoring competitor, with experience, travels with the series and tests the course for safety and flow during the drivers meeting and the course can be finalized before a final walk through (just thinking outloud, with my fingers)
Agreed,
This person should be Tony.
We will even let him run the events for free!
How's that for a deal!!!!!

miataboi

11-24-2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Logan
Agreed,
This person should be Tony.
We will even let him run the events for free!
How's that for a deal!!!!!

I just got off the phone with Tony...
He said, that if he can drive your car... for practice and for the events... that it's a deal...

Whaddya say?

30thSS

11-25-2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Greg F
Hey, weren't you the guy that tried to run me over while I was marshalling at WOSCA recently?:eek:

That's certainly one of my most memorable and hilarious memories of this year!

I thought the guy waving a red flag was a primary target! :D . You must have been walking out there to replace someone on my very first run of event seven at the summer series. Very dangerous thing to do when a rookie is out on the course with 297 ft lbs of rear wheel torque under his foot! :p I'm glad I was able to make such an impact! LMAO!

Greg F

11-25-2003, 08:56 AM

Actually I was standing safely behind the post when you did a 180º and started coming back the other way!!! :D

30thSS

11-25-2003, 10:02 AM

All I can say Greg is I'm glad the moment was memorable. :) That first run was 65 secs with 4 seconds of penalties. I was able to get down to a 50.4 clean by the end of the day. 15 second improvement. :D I only had the car a month and I use it sparingly on weekends mainly. Under new rules I'm bumped up a pile of classes to BStock. I'm gonna need some more practice and some good tires for this under new rules.

30thSS

11-25-2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by miataboi
my best advice... and what I'd do if I had a musclecar...

go to the corvette events at Bronte.

They OFTEN tailor the course to the likes of the 'vettes, mustangs and f-bodies...

long straights... hard brakes... tight turn... long straight... etc.

It favors the high HP cars... because all cars have to slow down for the turn that <90*... but not all cars can rocket off the corner... like a big torquey car...

If you're into straights and puttin' massive power down... go to st. thomas! ;)

For sure I will have to check out a few events there. Thanks for the heads up. As far as St.Thomas goes....been there done that. And Grand Bend too. I'm not much into modifying this car so whats the point of racing down a straight track, time and time again? I know my E/T and my 60 foot times. With a set of race compounds I would go another test and tune day and see what the difference would be. But maybe 6 or 7 runs and thats it. In short if I do any mods, which is unlikely, I have no other interest in a drag strip. I would much rather spend a sunny Sunday turning corners at WOSCA then mashing my foot to the floor for 14 seconds, even if they are on the tight side for my kind of car. But if I can somehow find the setup and drive well enough I believe I can be competitive. And even if I'm not that competitive I would still take a day doing this sort of thing in this sort of car anytime. It is cheap, and safe, entry level motorsport!