Pips for Live Axle cars

[G-ForceJunkie]

Everyone says the mustangs did so great this year, but I think generally, the mustangs were better prepped than their competitors.

In my case, my biggest competition came from a car that was barely into GT3. Adam's car, from what I understand, is basically a GT4 car.

In Russ's case, I "think" he was probably the best prepped car in GT1 as well. Avi was FAR from optimized, on tires alone. Dave has a good setup, but from I understand, can still find quite a bit of speed before moving up a class, and Christian's car was built for a different rulebook.

Chris, who because his car was not optimized for his class, used "uber" tires to get him to the front.

The Mustangs may have dominated, but who did they dominate?

For those still unconvinced, keep in mind that with mustangs having a 35% suspension rating, all of us are paying quite a few pips for '06 right there.

I believe the exact pip in reference was "Addition of bars" or something like that. After that mini-rant I have come the conclusion, there should NOT be additional pips for Live axle cars.

Note: This is NOT a thread to discuss "All" the rule changes for '06, let's try to keep it on topic.

[Dave Barker]

Andy, as far as the PIPs for extra links are concerned, you have to consider the competition. The 3 rd Gen Camaro ((83(?) to 92)). starts off at a suspension index of 50% vs your 35 %. Like your car it has a live axle. It does have better brakes but the chassis is really not much, if any better than yours and the car weighs significantly more. By far and away the main reason for it to be at 50 and you to be at 35% is the rear suspension. The Camaro has a panhard rod and torque arm and is paying the equivalent of at least 3 base PI points (10% handling index) for those mods alone over your car. Tell my why we would allow a Mustang to put on a Griggs type panhard and torque arm suspension for the old 1 PIP rule under "other suspension mods"?? while the Camaro is paying the equivalent of 3 PIPs for the same thing? 2 PIPs for this is still a real bargoon as it is for the DECH rear end or the Griggs type Watt's linkages.

As with anyone who has owned a 3 rd Gen Mustang, (including the previous owner of your car) will testify, these cars gain more performance from suspension mods than just about anything else that runs in Solo1. Do you really think that doing springs and shocks on an ITR or WRX STI will really improve the performance as much as springs and shocks do on your car? Not likely. This is why we have the sliding scale of suspension PIPs if you like. It makes the lower suspension index cars ( which are more than just 3 rd gen Mustangs) pay more as they improve and the high suspension index cars pay less. I think the final rule will have cars at around the 60% level stay about where they are.

As far as optimization in GT1 is concerned, None of us were. Christian kept breaking, Avi needed likely some better rubber, Russ wasn't getting a heck of a lot of performance for his engine PIPs and I spent the last weekend with a high speed ignition miss. Russ and Christian ran "Uber" tires for a few weekends between them (which proved to be SERIOUS optimization) but at least that will require 5 PIPs next year. Had the weather been wet, Avi would have had us for dinner and we would be screaming about Subarus being optimised for wet weather.

[CobraStang]

I think Andy has a good point.

If PHB & TA are the main reason why the older Camaros are rated at 50%, then why are the SN95 Mustangs rated at 45%? And the SN95 Cobra rated at 50%. Neither has a PHB or TA. They're heavier than ever, causing the chassis to flex, despite efforts by Ford to stiffen the chassis. And chassis flex is really a minor issue when sub frame connectors are a free mod. The fact is the 3rd and 4th gen Mustangs have the same rear suspension, plus a bit wider front track than the older Mustangs. Is that small change really worth 10%?

My total Performance Index was 79.8. If I had added even just 3 RWHP, I would have been up a class. That sounds pretty optimized to me. The dyno plot option lets people with safe and conservative engine mods remain competitive. It didn't matter how I got to that power level, it remains that I had maxed out the power advantage for the class.

On the other hand, the springs and shocks you're running are streetable, Dave, and not optimized for the track. You made a performance compromise for practical purposes (ie daily driver). There's no way to measure that compromise, so you're forced to take the full 4+2 PIPs.

Although Andy didn't clearly point this out, I think he is driving at the point that the combination of PIPing the Panhard Bar, and the Torque Arm, and then adding another factored increase in PIPs on top of that, is a major "rules" beatdown of the Mustangs. In fact, this beatdown rates my car higher than the Camaro, after springs, shocks, alignment, PHB & TA. By a full 1.4 PIPs!

The older 35% rated Mustangs (and other 35% rated cars) used to be able to take springs, shocks, alignment, and other (PHB & TA), for 8 PIPs. Now, it will cost them 13.8 PIPs, or the equivalent of a full class more. And then some. Nice.

Even after all that, the Camaro still has the benefit of the Short Long Arm front suspension geometry.

Don't think SLA makes much of a difference? Well, the new Griggs SLA for Mustangs won in its first race, setting a new track record in the process:
http://griggsracing.com/news/SLAwins.html

But if a Mustang owner equipped their car with an SLA, what class would they be in? Modified? Open Modified? Would equipping a Mustang with a front suspension geometry similar to a Camaro even be allowed? It doesn't seem likely that the CCC would allow a Mustang with a similar front and rear suspension as a Camaro, to actually compete against a Camaro. Too bad, as its a classic battle.

[DECH_92]

Quote: from ScotcH

This idea is what the CCC tries to accomplish, though granted,
on a slower timeframe. We review the results of the competition,
and if we find an anomolous car, we (try to) fix it. However,
we look at the CAR, and not the driver. If a CAR is regularily and
easily beating other cars, then maybe the car is misclassed.
If however, the DRIVER is beating all others in his class, well,
there is no justification for penalizing that driver by arbitrailiy
moving him/her up a class. Besides ... sand-bagging is not fun, and
the idea of Solo 1 is to drive balls-out all the time, not try to go
almost as fast as you can, without breaking out (that sucks in my opinion).
Quote:


Have the Mustangs regularily and easily beating other cars? :eek:
Or are you penalizing the driver? :confused:
How long have Mustangs been in Solo1 and now there some super car.
Sure didn`t sound like a super car over the years on these forms.

Did you win all the time when you had a Fox Dave?

As usual, I probably don`t no what I am talking about but is there
not the chance that alot of cars have been moved up a class or 2
and made them totally out classed? :(

[ScotcH]

My post was an argument against bracket racing, but it is what the CCC is all about, so I can accept it being used in this thread. You're right that some of the proposed changes might make a car uncompetitive ... that is why they are open for discussion, and until a final rule book is published, we want to hear your thoughts ... thanks! We will be running the entire field through these changes to see how it affects the standings, so these changes will not be finalized arbitrarilly.

Really what I meant with the quoted statement is issues like the STi or 350Z SUSP ratings, which were clearly misplaced last year. These apply to the base staring point of the cars. The other 2 main changes:

1) tires - this affects everyone equally, and really can't be argued (the tires ARE faster)

2) susp sliding scale - I don't think it's a big secret that suspension mods affect cars differently, and low base cars benefit more that high base cars. The challenge of course is to come up with a fair way to capture this fact. We're still working on it (you should see the formula Ron sent us!)

[ADAM]

Hi Andy,
my car at the mid season was in GT3, and I would say prepped very well for the class. You and your brother both (once you knew the tracks) could have easily beaten the rest of the field of GT3 hands down no problem......

well its not the driver cause both you and your brothers margin of times were good enough to beat the rest of the field.... its the car...

years back..we sandbagged the mustangs with a silly low suspension index, as they historically sucked and got beaten by at the time..cars they were heads up against.... so we allotted them a very low suspension index to see if that would help them compete..a few years later..as you can see..it indeed did...

if in reality....going back to 1989...when the 240sx and the 5.0l GT mustang came out..you think the 240sx and the 5.0 in stock form are on equal footings....well...any street battle would show a decicive win to the mustang easy....the suspension/handling difference when you slap on R's and some springs just is not there..... so you have a 55% suspension rated car vs a 35% ....

your car would easily have run away in GT3 if you had known the track....and if the season was longer....

VS the rest of the GT3 field was VERY, VERY VERY close in time battles....both Wes, taylor, and I and others have alot of driving experiance as well....so the cars were being driven to a high level..(still room for improvement) however the mustang..just outclassed ours cars easy...by a very high margin in some cases.....

the point of the rules is to have equal cars against each other....your car VS the rest of the field IMO is not equal or even close...

speed wise you have a 14sec car vs 17 sec cars... :)

thats my take on the situation

(not to say you did not drive well, but we are not taking that really into account)

[G-ForceJunkie]

Hi Andy,
my car at the mid season was in GT3, and I would say prepped very well for the class. You and your brother both (once you knew the tracks) could have easily beaten the rest of the field of GT3 hands down no problem......

well its not the driver cause both you and your brothers margin of times were good enough to beat the rest of the field.... its the car...

your car would easily have run away in GT3 if you had known the track....and if the season was longer....

VS the rest of the GT3 field was VERY, VERY VERY close in time battles....both Wes, taylor, and I and others have alot of driving experiance as well....so the cars were being driven to a high level..(still room for improvement) however the mustang..just outclassed ours cars easy...by a very high margin in some cases.....

the point of the rules is to have equal cars against each other....your car VS the rest of the field IMO is not equal or even close...

thats my take on the situation
ok, but what I think your missing, is that the mustangs are already being punished via Convergence, my car will have 3-4 pips added onto AS IT SITS just through suspension convergence.

Let's look at Atkins's car. Ok, now imagine that car without V710's. How well do you think it would've done? Won SGT3? Probably not. Now how do you expect that car, without uber tires, to win SGT2 ? Or, with uber tires, it would have to win SGT1. Chris's car is well prepped, and he knows how to drive, but there's no way he can win SGT2 with a WORSE car than won SGT3 with last year

It seems to me your all missing that the mustang's get it worst through convergence, because they have the worst suspension ratings in the book! then ON TOP OF THAT your adding pips for the only items that make our suspensions half-decent, and then submitting those pips to the convergence factor!

Even with just convergence to deal with, I think all the mustang's will be bumped up a class, if you add "arms" pips on top of that, we might as well just do lapping days :o

[ADAM]

yeah..... and..... your car is easialy 3-4PIPs faster than any GT3 car.. (5pips is 1 class and approx 1+ sec time)

your car driven hard and sorted out could easily be a GT2 or GT1 car.... and win in that class as well..


the rules float year to year....if you want an easy kill over cars that you vastly outpower and pretty much handle as well as.... whats the point? there is no glory in that..its an easy kill....you want the difficult kills...the kills that force you and your machine to the raw edge of what they can do.... :)

i would take your car hands down over the 240sx/civic/miata if the rules remained the same..it would be a no brainer....and if thats the case.... the rules need to be tweaked...

in GT3..you cant say the same about the miata's , civics, or 240sx's...cause either of those cars could win on a given day...the racing was that close......why.... cause the cars are very close in performance....

when the CCC sees a descrepancy in the rules... we change it...its easy to see what cars break out of thier "station" in life..in regards to the rules... our job is to level the field of cars..... while taking drivers out of the equation.

IMO

[JGraves]

Guys, don’t forget that a lot of other cars with mods are moving up a class as well. Atkin’s Mustang may be moving up to SGT2 but I believe James’ RX-7 is also moving up. I’m not sure what Russ’s Mustang has for suspension mods or what tire he ran (last year or for SGT2 class in ‘06) but with a better optimized (stiffer) suspension, he should be able to compete in SGT2 for ‘06. Riaan’s Mustang will most likely be moving to SGT1 where it should be competitive with Arek’s M3.

I guess my point is not to look at what’s happening to your car in isolation, look at where you’re going, who is staying there, who else is going there and who’s moving out of that class.

The rules as presented at the workshop are not the final version. By the CCC’s own admission, the suspension convergence area needs a lot of work. The basic idea was discussed during the initial development of the linear classification system but deemed too complex to implement in the first year. It is not an easy concept to implement and I don’t think it can be both fair and simple at the same time. The ideas presented at the workshop where obviously underdeveloped and oversimplified. Give the CCC time to fully develop the idea and it will benefit the Solo 1 community as a whole without disadvantaging any individual competitors. Remember there is a difference between having an existing advantage removed verses being put at a disadvantage.

[Logan]

On the topic of springs:
Why not make "bolt in" springs like a set of Eibachs (not ERS) or some other aftermarket off the shelf spring 2 pips, and any other spring that can be adjusted on a threaded sleeve or swapped for a different rate 4 pips?

[Dave Barker]

Russ, you have a point re the Cobra being rated at 50 % being likely a bit high due to it's brakes and now that they are free, some of that rating is not justified. OTOH surely most people would say that an SN95 car has a significanltly better chassis than a 3 rd gen Mustang. Also do the SN95 cars not have better front suspension geometry with better caster etc.?

Greg. In the long distant past, while driving my 3rd gen Mustang with a suspension very similar to Andy's, against newer 4th gen F bodies, I was competitive. For this reason I think that Andy's Mustang should be very competitive in GT2 where stock F bodies compete. It should do VERY well at Mosport and not so hot at Dunnville.

Don't get too panicked about the convergence stuff just yet. The ratings are not set although the principles are.

Fortunately this year, the true competitiveness of cars will be better sorted out as no one can run " Uber" tires without paying 5 PIPs for them

[glh]

Logan because off the shelf springs can be set up the same as coilover with a little work.

I'm with Jeff on this a LOT of cars will be moving around and if you want to run in GT3 get yourself a 110 hp car and go play don't expect to bring 250 hp to the plate it's not right.
And who knows what it will look like at the end of 2006.

Cabin fever already going to be a long winter
Steve

[Chuck91GT]

2 PIPs for this is still a real bargoon as it is for the DECH rear end or the Griggs type Watt's linkages.

To make a Foxbody Mustang really competitive one needs to install the Griggs coil over suspension. The cost is approx. $12,000 American. For the cheaper Maximum Motorsports equivalent $8,000 American. Just to be competitive in SGT2??? I think not.

The Mustang group won 4 classes. How many did the imports win? For the 2005 season we wanted more Stangs. We got them. They competed in 4 classes and won. So now we have to penalize them to make them less competitive. Maybe the Stangs did win but it was probably because of their drivers not just the cars themselves.

I respect the time that the committee has put in but I seriously doubt that any of the members have the expertise to accurately classify and equate the many different cars that run in Solo 1. Four Mustangs won this year? How many won last year? In fact, how many competed last year? Three Hondas (no Mustangs) won the top 3 places at the Nationals this year - apparent domination. If the Mustangs are so great wrt their suspension mods how could they have all lost to "lesser" cars?? Food for thought!

[Dave Barker]

Greg, my best time on Fabi with my Mustang, which was very similar to Andy and Todd's car, was 75.21. This would be very competitive in GT2 this year and was done on Yokohama 008 RS tires. I am sure that occured on a day where everything was perfect including a huge tail wind, but I am a better driver now. I maintain that this level of 3rd gen Mustang will do well in GT2

Chuck, the 4 Mustangs this year did well for very different reasons.

Riann proved how much power can be made for a 3 PIP supercharger pulley

Russ proved that despite having an engine that was no where near maximised that his car could actually corner better than anyone would predict on reasonable rubber ( still need a low suspension index Russ??) After all you can't claim that the car has no sig power gains AND handles like a pig but still won the class.

Andy and Todd proved that 3 rd gen Mustangs respond exceedingly well to suspension mods and

Chris proved how fast V710s were at the beginning of the season. Chris is the only one in my mind who can claim any hardship due to the loss of most of the plus 4 engine class authorised mods

BTW Chuck , Subaru STIs didn't win any classes this year but are going up a class anyway.

[haniforama]

If the Mustangs are so great wrt their suspension mods how could they have all lost to "lesser" cars?? Food for thought!

The other part of the equation: driving :D

[Dave Barker]

The other part of the equation: driving :D

Hanif, you are opening the can of worms that Adam has already tried to spring. i.e that faster classes are inherantly disadvantaged from winning overall due to higher standards for overall score and higher speed variances.
Fortunately this is not relavant to Andy's question but I would point out that the "National" winners were from some pretty slow to medium speed classes only.

[ScotcH]

Hanif, you are opening the can of worms that Adam has already tried to spring. i.e that faster classes are inherantly disadvantaged from winning overall due to higher standards for overall score and higher speed variances.
Fortunately this is not relavant to Andy's question but I would point out that the "National" winners were from some pretty slow to medium speed classes only.

Never mind :confused:

[G-ForceJunkie]

What fire is that?
Note: This is NOT a thread to discuss "All" the rule changes for '06, let's try to keep it on topic.

Sorry...but if there is a need for a thread regarding the overall champion... PLEASE take it here: http://www.casc.on.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=7111

:)

[Chuck91GT]

Just out of curiosity, how were the percentages for the different suspensions determined?

[Chuck91GT]

The other part of the equation: driving :D

I already mentioned that the Mustangs won their classes because of the drivers.

The top 3 drivers at the Nationals won because of the other side of the equation: the cars.

[DECH_92]

Hi Andy,
(once you knew the tracks) could have easily beaten the rest of the field of GT3 hands down no problem......

well its not the driver cause both you and your brothers margin of times were good enough to beat the rest of the field.... its the car...

your car would easily have run away in GT3 if you had known the track....and if the season was longer....

however the mustang..just outclassed ours cars easy...by a very high margin in some cases.....


You guys must see the humor in these statements coming from Adam. :D

I agree Andy`s & Todd`s car will be competitive in GT2 but in GT1? Not a chance.

Didn’t Russ and Dave B be within 1/0ths in most events until Russ went V710`s
Didn’t Chris and Dave P be within 1/0ths in most events until Chris went V710`s

So now that V710`s are 5 pips and assumed not used, the cars are equal again, are the 4 cars in this example all moving up 1 class?

[Taylor]

Car Prep was not the factor. Of all the GT3 cars, mine and Andrew and Mikes were probably the best prepped for the class. In fact, theirs was prepped a little better than mine, while I took the weight and dyno option, I did this because I was getting charged 2 pips for a header that did not give me 2 pips worth of benefit but seeing as how I have a Japenese engine, it's not easy to find the proper OE header for it. In addition to that, I also claimed 1 pip for an OE flywheel (the VX flywheel is different than that that came stock with the VTi in Japan), which when I told people about it, they thought I shouldn't even have claimed it.. In fact, I'd probably be justified in not claiming it since it was the stock flywheel for the car! (As an aside, it's existence in the VX also isn't performance, it's fuel economy). Anyhow those bad 3 pips killed me against further lightening the car. But I don't think the extra 40-50lbs of interior would have made a significant difference in standings for me.

Outside of that, with the exception of Mosport (and even there I was pretty close to 10/10ths, all I had left in the bag was not to brake for 1) I drove the wheels off that thing. I bettered Pratte's time in my car (though with me in the car) at Fabi (2nd event), and I was much quicker than he was at Dunnville in my car (again with me in it). Dave has a very similarily prepped car (minus engine) and HAD almost the exact same setup prior to that engine. So if you're of the camp that Dave is an good or exceptional driver, I feel pretty confident that I was driving that car to a very full and healthy amount of its potential.

At the end of the day, your Mustang, stock, has 3 times the torque I have. Twice the Horsepower. Once you upgrade the suspension, it's not a linear improvement over one of (if not THE) lowest ratings in our rulebook, it's exponential. Also you were able to lighten your car. I should also point out the two guys that beat me were also in RWD cars. That's a factor that I'm not sure how is taken into account in our rating for the cars... but one we all know is an advantage in the dry.

The known factor here is suspension ratings have been an arbitrary number. Sure they're assembled by taking into account a number of factors but they're more about potential than reality. Much easier to make a mistake when it relates to numbers like that.

As to why Chris is as fast as he is. Well GT3 did keep him at bay a couple times... basically all events where he had normal wheel/tire size. Obviously the wheels and tires still make a much greater improvement that previously assumed. He's also one of the best drivers we have, he's driven that car for quite some time and the car is definately an exhibit of what 'optimally prepped' means.

I'm always willing to give up a little based on driver, but in some cases this year, it was clearly the car. I'm just ticked I didn't get to the two events you tanked at. I could have made up for my two tanked events (Pro and DDT 1) and maybe even won the class. :)

As for Adam's success... well there's always an exception to the rule. :p hehe.. but seriously. Like Adam said, it was a GT3 car, he was lowballing his prep level to try to put me on tilt at the beginning of the season. He probably could have been in the same vicinity of laptimes had he went for GT4 but he's a girlyman and didn't feel too confident about beating Krispy heads-up. I think he may have taken an event or two from him actually. But ce la vie. At least Adam did get his class win. I hope he savours it.. going back to the turbo truck motor of literal (mechanical) death. :)

[ADAM]

Hanif, you are opening the can of worms that Adam has already tried to spring. i.e that faster classes are inherantly disadvantaged from winning overall due to higher standards for overall score and higher speed variances.
Fortunately this is not relavant to Andy's question but I would point out that the "National" winners were from some pretty slow to medium speed classes only.

YES DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THIS again... cause no one seems to agree with me its harder to drive a faster car..than some slow crap boxes....

[thgear]

harder to drive consistently

yes

harder to drive,

i dont think so...

OHH NO WHAT HAVE I DONE?? :eek:

[craig]

... and a solid-axle car is harder to drive than IRS ... :p

Anyhow, the more power a car has, the harder it is to drive that car to its limits.

[G-ForceJunkie]

Despite the fact I started this thread, my car at this point is exempt from what I’m trying to say, since I don’t have any “arms” modified or added.

The argument here is NOT convergence.

Let’s look at Russ’s, Chris’s, and my car.

Me:
- I’m up 3-3.8 pips – which I do not disagree with, the discrepancy is about the panhard/torque arm mods (which I have none of – but will have to get at some point if I want my car to handle decent in the future)

Russ:
- did NOT dominate his class this year
- is up 4.7pips WITHOUT uber tires

Chris
- is up 7.8 pips WITHOUT uber tires, or 13.8 PIPS with his V710s
- Without tires, he would not have won his class this year, yet now is he as the top of SGT2 with a slower car than he had last year.

Will some of our competitors be moved up? Likely, but moved up THAT much? I highly doubt it.

I also come with this list off the top of my head, I’m not sure if these are things considered when determing a suspension rating, but the Camaro suspension is definetly superior to the mustang’s
Advantages of Camaro over 35% mustang
-SLA
-ABS
-Can it fit wider tires?
-Comes with Panhard/Torque Arm – meaning geometry is setup to work with it, a mustang is a compromise.
-Bigger brakes, and rear discs
-Better weight distribution (can’t find anything to verify this though?)

[haniforama]

Me:
- I’m up 3-3.8 pips – which I do not disagree with, the discrepancy is about the panhard/torque arm mods (which I have none of – but will have to get at some point if I want my car to handle decent in the future)



I'm up:

1.5 pips for LSD
1.1 pips for Suspension
1 pip for intake

3.6 in total

It's NOT targetting Mustangs directly, but low suspension index cars (which certain Mustangs happen to be) and Medium to highly modified ones.

[haniforama]

FYI I was looking at the corner speeds that were taken at Event 1, Fabi Corner 1 last year (non-uber tires):

1) EricJ C4 Vette (115,111,111)
2) ChrisA Mustang (112,111,110)
3) ChrisP CRX (110,108,108)
4) DaveB Camaro (110,108,104)
5) GeorgeS 911 (108,108,107)
6) MarcoC Z06 (108,107,107)
7) DaveP Civic (107,107,106)
8) HanifP Civic (107,106,104)
9) FredP Z06 (107,106,104)
10) BradM (106,106,104)

Take from it what you will...

[B18C5]

I dunno if I've posted my views on faster cars being harder to drive yet, but since this post is active I'll do it here.

Faster cars are harder to learn how to drive fast and consistent. Not necessarily harder to drive fast and consistent. Slower cars aren't necessarily easier to drive, but often are.

I don't have the most experience with different cars, but here's how I've come to this conclusion.

Cars I've track driven in order of speed:
1) Dave's Civic from Purgatory
2) S2000
3) coilovered Type R
4) stock Type R
5) GSR powered coilovered del Sol
6) Raj's CRX
7) stock CRX
8) mildly modified 535i

Same cars reordered by how quickly I felt at home track driving them:
4) stock Type R
3) coilovered Type R
5) GSR powered coilovered del Sol
6) Raj's CRX
7) stock CRX
1) Dave's Civic from Purgatory
8) mildly modified 535i
2) S2000

The biggest things here are I felt a lot more at home in FWD cars, and it helped a lot that they had ABS and suspension. Right out the gate I was much more comfortable in those cars. The S2000 was nuts though. Much faster than the others, so it was pretty rough to be fast and consistent with it.

Same cars reordered by how consistent I felt I could be in each one after doing enough laps in them:
3) coilovered Type R
2) S2000
4) stock Type R
6) Raj's CRX
7) stock CRX
1) Dave's Civic from Purgatory
8) mildly modified 535i
5) GSR powered coilovered del Sol

Yeah yeah... it's all extremely subjective. However, I did get PP awards in Raj's CRX and the coilovered Type R. ;) Pretty much any of the top five cars here I could drive consistently no problem. Dave's car I'm sure I could after an hour or two of lapping. The 535i kinda sucked all around with it's crappy suspension, and the del Sol... I dunno, it just didn't seem predictible enough.

But the S2000 became really easy to drive fast after a full Fabi lapping evening. I went through the juicy part of a set of V710s. It was definitely a challenge getting it up to that speed. There was so much more to do, so much more to control, so much more to go wrong. Huge challenge. I realized how easy I've had it in the Type R and all the other FWD ABS cars. They're easy to drive, but not because they're slow, but because they're FWD and have ABS.

Eventually I got really comfortable in the S2000. I was able to use the throttle to steer the car. I knew how to react when I went into a corner too hot. It actually was easier to drive, because having the extra power and RWD handling dynamics gave me more options when things didn't go right. I still spun a couple times, but I used to do that even in the Type R every weekend.

So that's how I figure faster cars can be harder to learn to drive, but are just as consistent once you learn how to drive them.

[rainman]

Anyone that thinks it's more difficult to drive a faster car consistenly doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. If you are a fast, consistent driver you should be able to drive anything fast and consistently. I've had the opportunity to lap and race the BFRA's F2000s at both Shannonville (Pro, Nelson and Fabi) and DDT and was just as consistent in those as I was in my teg. I'm quite sure Krispy would say the same given his past experiences in karting and driving the F2000's a couple years ago.

[Chuck91GT]

We seem to be getting off topic.
As I see it, the question seems to be why the changes and what are we trying to accomplish in the end here?
Since, according to Dave, my car seems to be taking the hardest hit by these suspension changes I would like to know why. According to an earlier post Chris won his class because of the V710s, not the car itself. So why is he being penalized so harshly? He wins SGT3 and is now sent to SGT2 or even SGT1? Where's the logic? Chris says that all of the numbers and PIPS are based on data that the CCC has, but neither I nor most others, have ever seen this data. Sample - why does my Mustang start with a 35% suspension rating?
Here is my suggestion: Tell us why, show us why, in otherwords communicate to us why we are dramatically changing the PIP schedule for the 2006 season.
If there is a serious problem here guys, please tell us what it is. Change for change sake is never a good idea.

[Dave Barker]

Andy, I think you may not be comparing apples to apples. My Camaro is rated at 55% i.e a full 6 PIPs higher than your car base. The 50% index car I used for comparison was a third gen car with McStrut front end, not SLA like my car. BTW the 98-02 Camaros are at 60 % i.e 7.5 PIPs ahead of your starting class ( and yes, your car with its suspension mods will outhandle a stock 02 Camaro anyday). Any way you look at it, your car should be very competitive in GT2

We have assumed that V710s are worth a second which is likely a bit conservative but simple i.e 1 class. Chris A would indeed have done very well if not won his class without V710s i.e he won events 2 and 3 by about a second and event 5 by a big margin. He also won event 4 by almost a second. At the Nationals he paid the double price of not having good rubber and his closest competitor having brand new V710s. My point is, Chris's car was actually the obvious winner in SGT3 if all cars were on the same rubber but he would have had to work a bit harder for it.

Russ, although he is complaining about moving up 2 classes, according to your calculations would indeed only move up 1 class if he uses non-"uber" tires. Guess what, his closest competitors i.e Avi and Myself are also up in SGT3 as it stands. Either Russ or I can de-content our cars down to GT1 but Avi can't. Point is that his main competitors are the same if the cars don't change. Where's the beef?? :rolleyes: (I will admit that both Avi and I have a few PIPs to play with in SGT3 but not much and none of us can use uber tires in SGT3)

Chuck, when the linear car classification system was first set up, the suspension ratings were based somewhat subjectively by multiple members of the CCC of the day. It took a long time comparing this car with that car etc.and took into account , suspension design.drivetrain configuration, max tire size. wgt, chassis structure and brakes. As a matter of fact it was Adam who argued that older mustangs were such terrible handling cars in stock form that they deserved to be so low on the handling index scale (and I agreed with him). Your car is right up there with a 1980 Camaro on leaf springs in the rear. A 3rd Gen mustang convertible is even lower at 30%.

Chuck the reason your car is being hit so hard with PIPs is the removal of the authorised mod sections at least as much as the suspension. OTOH the CCC has always in the past tried to make sure that stock vehicles can be competitve and your vehicle is quite far from stock. Why not de-content your engine somewhat as I think that is where you are losing out?

[Chuck91GT]

Thanks Dave.

Right now I'm thinking about increasing the engine output depending upon how much room we have to play around with in SGT2. A charger with a reasonable amount of boost is probably the cheapest way to go. I've already consulted with my engine builder about that possibility.

Any idea when the new rules will be available?

[Carguy]

My 240SX is now in GT2 without uber tires, same as Andy/Todd's Mustang. It didn't seem like a fair fight in GT3 last season even with my uber tires. If the Mustang is at a disadvantage in GT2 why should I bother competing in that class next season?

[G-ForceJunkie]

The car in question isn't my exact car, it's more Chris's and Russ's because they would be paying for pips under the new "addition of arms" pip.

[ADAM]

i drove go carts for years as well... and they are not really close to a unibody car are they :)

Anyone that thinks it's more difficult to drive a faster car consistenly doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. If you are a fast, consistent driver you should be able to drive anything fast and consistently. I've had the opportunity to lap and race the BFRA's F2000s at both Shannonville (Pro, Nelson and Fabi) and DDT and was just as consistent in those as I was in my teg. I'm quite sure Krispy would say the same given his past experiences in karting and driving the F2000's a couple years ago.

[ADAM]

guess i am out to lunch then....

better tell all the F1 drivers and fighter pilots they have an easy job, since thier machines are so easy to pilot.....

:)

[Chuck91GT]

Anyone that thinks it's more difficult to drive a faster car consistenly doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. If you are a fast, consistent driver you should be able to drive anything fast and consistently. I've had the opportunity to lap and race the BFRA's F2000s at both Shannonville (Pro, Nelson and Fabi) and DDT and was just as consistent in those as I was in my teg. I'm quite sure Krispy would say the same given his past experiences in karting and driving the F2000's a couple years ago.

Let me try and understand this. Down the back straight at Fabi the Mustang reaches a speed of approx. 182+ Kph and then takes the corner at 112+. The driver brakes at the 50 ft mark or less and tries to control the rear wheel drive car through the corner as the rear end tries to break loose as he feathers the throttle. Now the lower speed car cruises down the straight at 140 and then barely has to brake to get around the corner as the front wheels help to pull him through the corner.

No problem for those driving the higher powered cars!! They're all bigger and stronger.

[B18C5]

Now the lower speed car cruises down the straight at 140 and then barely has to brake to get around the corner as the front wheels help to pull him through the corner.It's more like, "now the lower speed car struggles down the straight at 140, brakes to EXACTLY 115 because any speed can't be regained mid-corner, then is forced to rely only on the front tires to do all braking, steering, and accelleration through the corner." ;)

[rainman]

OK, getting off-track...

As was pointed out a little earlier, the two types of cars require different kinds of inputs but they are not any more difficult to drive more consistently or fast. Of course, track configurations will favour some cars over others, but there isn't anyone on this board that isn't very familiar with their own car and what is needed to get the most out of it. Could it be that the tracks that Solo 1 uses (SMP, DDT, TMP) favours handling and lighter weight whereas the Mosport GP circuit favours horsepower?

[B18C5]

OK, getting off-track...That would be more like, "now the lower speed car struggles down the straight at 140, forgets to brake until he's already in the corner, then is forced to rely only on the grass and rocks to slow him to a stop, while everybody looks at him like an idiot. Damn newb." :)

[B18C5]

Seriously though... the way I understand it is quite simple.

Stock Mustang - 35%
Stock Camaro - 50%
Stock Integra - 60%
Stock Type R - 70%

The 10% suspension difference between the Integra and the Type R is worth exactly 3 PIPs if you plug it in. If you do a 9 PIP suspension to the Integra and to the Type R you have identical suspensions, but the base Integra will have spent 3 less PIPs for it, just because it's base suspension rating is lower.

If you apply the scale factor to the Type R, you get 1.26 PIPs back. It's not ideal, but it's better than losing 3.

If you do the same with the Mustang and Camaro, the difference between 35% and 50% is worth 4.5 PIPs. I'm not sure how many PIPs you'd use for a full suspension in either car, but I assume it'd be around 13 or so? So add 4.94 to the Mustang and 2.08 to the Camaro.

So the difference between a full suspension Mustang and Camaro would be 1.64 PIPs in favour of the Mustang.

Uhhhh, yeah. That's not exactly clear, is it? Let me try that again...

[ScotcH]

Seriously though... the way I understand it is quite simple.

Stock Mustang - 35%
Stock Camaro - 50%
Stock Integra - 60%
Stock Type R - 70%

The 10% suspension difference between the Integra and the Type R is worth exactly 3 PIPs if you plug it in. If you do a 9 PIP suspension to the Integra and to the Type R you have identical suspensions, but the base Integra will have spent 3 less PIPs for it, just because it's base suspension rating is lower.

If you apply the scale factor to the Type R, you get 1.26 PIPs back. It's not ideal, but it's better than losing 3.

If you do the same with the Mustang and Camaro, the difference between 35% and 50% is worth 4.5 PIPs. I'm not sure how many PIPs you'd use for a full suspension in either car, but I assume it'd be around 13 or so? So add 4.94 to the Mustang and 2.08 to the Camaro.

So the difference between a full suspension Mustang and Camaro would be 1.64 PIPs in favour of the Mustang.

Uhhhh, yeah. That's not exactly clear, is it? Let me try that again...


LSD on the ITR? That's worth 1.5 PIPs, so it's almost a dead heat.

[B18C5]

Stock Mustang - 35%
Stock Camaro - 50%
Stock Integra - 60%
Stock Type R - 70%

What we want to do is full suspension on all these cars. Is it safe to assume that any of these cars with a full suspension should have the same suspension rating. A full race suspension is a full race suspension. Looking at those corner speeds there aren't any cars that are super crazy hugely faster than any others in the corners. SO...

Full suspension Mustang - 13 PIPs on 35%
Full suspension Camaro - 13 PIPs on 50%
Full suspension Integra - 9 PIPs on 60%
Full suspension Type R - 9 PIPs on 70%

So now we'll convert all the PIPs to suspension rating. To do this we figure out what suspension rating the car would require to equal the amount of PIPs it would amass by doing full suspension.

FS Mustang + 13 PIPs = 78% suspension rating
FS Camaro + 13 PIPs = 93% suspension rating
FS Integra + 9 PIPs = 90% suspension rating
FS Type R + 9 PIPs = 100% suspension rating

As you can see, once you work it out, the Mustang is only rated as being 78% as good a handling car as the Integras, when it really is more or less equal.

So if you plug in the chart from dinging the cars with the sliding scale things work out differently...

FS Mustang - 13 PIPs on 35% = 16.55 PIPs
FS Camaro - 13 PIPs on 50% = 15.08 PIPs
FS Integra - 9 PIPs on 60% = 9 PIPs
FS Type R - 9 PIPs on 70% = 7.74 PIPs

So now that makes...

FS Mustang + 16.55 PIPs = 90% suspension rating
FS Camaro + 15.08 PIPs = 100% suspension rating
FS Integra + 9 PIPs = 90% suspension rating
FS Type R + 7.74 PIPs = 95% suspension rating

I think that's pretty damn close...

[B18C5]

LSD on the ITR? That's worth 1.5 PIPs, so it's almost a dead heat.Good point. I forgot about that...

FS Mustang + 16.55 PIPs = 90% suspension rating
FS Camaro + 15.08 PIPs = 100% suspension rating
FS Integra + 9 PIPs + 1.5 LSD = 95% suspension rating
FS Type R + 7.74 PIPs = 95% suspension rating

EXACT! That's beautiful! There's the proof that these numbers aren't coming out of someone's ass.

[Chuck91GT]

That would be more like, "now the lower speed car struggles down the straight at 140, forgets to brake until he's already in the corner, then is forced to rely only on the grass and rocks to slow him to a stop, while everybody looks at him like an idiot. Damn newb." :)

Of course, applying THIS logic to the high speed cars, they go off the track at 182+, crash through the fence and rollover on the other side of the access road.

[haniforama]

I volunteeer to swap cars with ChrisA all next season to settle the slow versus fast arguement... :D

[Chris91GT]

I volunteeer to swap cars with ChrisA all next season to settle the slow versus fast arguement... :D

LOL! Do you at least have a good stereo for me to listen to while I wait for Fabi 1? :D

[thgear]

or just see if you can get up to 10 000 rpm... thats a pretty nice sounds too ;)

[Chris91GT]

Dave,

As much as I hate to say this... I agree with the convergence (after taking a look at different angles). And I'm not looking for any concessions on my car.

However... I am completely behind Russ when it comes to the SN95 and newer cars. Stock vs stock, I don't see the 10% suspension improvement (with the brakes discounted) between the Fox and SN95 chassis. As Russ mentioned, there are chassis stiffening improvements (minor), but they are offset by significant weight gains (+200-300lbs Fox GT vs SN95 GT/SVT). Perhaps one could argue a 5% improvement over the Fox, but 10% is excessive IMHO.

Which brings me to point #2, regarding the S197 cars (2005+). Why is the suspension rating at 60%? This is in the same league as the RSX Type S, BMW Z3, Civic SiR, etc. Not to mention a 25% premium vs the Fox, a 15% premium over the SN95 Cobra, and 5% higher than the 97 Z28. Whoa... this is still a dazed and confused Mustang chassis. For all the hype, it's still a Mustang underneath (albeit an improved one) and that suspension is still full of contradictions. Having flogged two for a week each I can personally vouch for this. I have a great deal of difficulty justifying a premium over the SLA PB TA Z28 suspension. The S197 is still a Mac Strut, high centre-of-gravity heavy barge with a [better than Fox/SN95] live axle. The gods of handling (or perhaps the bean counters) have not intervened in the Mustang development process. Better? Yes. 15% better? No. Better than the 4th gen Z28? Not likely.

It's late and I'm losing my train of thought... but IMHO I would probably rank the four cars in this post as follows:

Fox 35%
SN95 40%
S197 50%
4th gen Z28 55% (as currently spec'd)

[Dave Barker]

Chris, there are differences between 4 th camaros, the 98-02s are at 60% and the 93-97 are at 55%. The new Mustang has effectively the same suspension in the rear and admittedly a bit weaker in the front. OTOH the new Mustang also has by far the best chassis of the bunch and sig better brakes than the 93-97 camaro. Isn't the new Mustang chassis the same one as used on the Jaguar and Lincoln LS platforms?? BTW I think the Ford Engineers would be very upset if you thought the SN 95 chassis was as bad as the previous 3rd gen car.

I do see some issues with brakes now being free in starting class that the superior brakes of some cars should no longer be a deciding factor in the handling index. In that case I suppose we could drop the index for some cars or raise the index to 40% for a 3rd gen mustang, after all they could put on Cobra brakes if they wanted :)

[B18C5]

Of course, applying THIS logic to the high speed cars, they go off the track at 182+, crash through the fence and rollover on the other side of the access road.LOL! You're probably right!

[haniforama]

LOL! Do you at least have a good stereo for me to listen to while I wait for Fabi 1? :D

In fact I do! Complete with 8 speaker stereo system! (The previous owner installed a *bling* set of JDM speakers in the back). I weighed the car with them so I left them in to save the re-weight hassle :D

[Chris91GT]

I volunteeer to swap cars with ChrisA all next season to settle the slow versus fast arguement... :D

Of course, you would have to leave HADA and join TAC. A wise man would do that anyway. Oh, and you wouldn't be able to wear light coloured shorts.

[Posted by Chuck91GT]

[thgear]

where in gods name did the short's comment come from?

ROFLMAO :D

[CobraStang]

Isn't the new Mustang chassis the same one as used on the Jaguar and Lincoln LS platforms?? BTW I think the Ford Engineers would be very upset if you thought the SN 95 chassis was as bad as the previous 3rd gen car.
Yes, its built on the LS chassis. It has a three link/panhard bar rear suspension. It has MacPherson strut front suspension. It weighs around 3500 lbs. It has a much longer wheelbase (by 6"), so navigating tight corners won't be easier. I'm having trouble seeing where the big improvement comes from, if there is indeed a big improvement. The FR500C Mustang from Multimatic is a different story, but at $125,00USD, its a bit out of my price range.
More info on the 2005 here: http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/05/05/susp.htm

You think the Ford engineers haven't compromised the living hell out of the Mustang? Have you checked on the price of a Mustang? The only way they can improve a chassis is if it helps improve total profit (ie lower warranty claims, reduced cost, imcreased sales). Assuming the Ford engineers are always improving a vehicle is funny. Did you "upgrade" to a Mustang II back in '74 Dave? ;)

[Chris91GT]

where in gods name did the short's comment come from?

ROFLMAO :D


Scared S*******.

[Posted by Chuck91GT]

[Chris91GT]

BTW I think the Ford Engineers would be very upset if you thought the SN 95 chassis was as bad as the previous 3rd gen car.

They might be, but reality is reality... and the SN95 is little more than a 1979 Mustang chassis in shining armor. Sad but true. Which is why I can't figure out why the suspension rating is so much higher than a Fox. The fact that you can swap suspensions between the generations is an indicator of just how close these cars are. With minor detail changes, Griggs, Maximum Motorsports, and others sell one suspension package for the Fox and SN95 cars. They are the same car...

And speaking of the S197... yes, built on the LS platform. But it's no LS. It's a compromised solid-axle Mustang built on an IRS chassis with a base sticker price of little more than $20k. You can buy a stripped GT for less than $30k. This is no marvel of engineering... it's simply a redesign for the first time in nearly 30 years using parts-bin components and a modification to the previous-gen solid axle. Compared to the Fox chassis it's absolutely a major improvement... but is not a 50% rating vs 35% a huge improvement (43%)? The S197 is no Z3 or SiR.

[haniforama]

One could argue the ITR was derived from the 88 Civic EF chassis. So does that mean it get's PIPed any less? Is it 20% better? 5% for sure to cover the LSD, and maybe 5 more for brakes, but they are free now so that's a mute point... Then add 500lbs to get to ITR weight......

Both can fit 225 tires, both can end up with the identical braking setup (for free)...

Yet the EF chassis at 500lbs lighter is still rated at 50%.

But would anyone listen to this arguement? Likely not. Sure there is subjectivity in the suspension ratings, but why when it's proven that an old mustang can be the 2nd fastest car in the corners (with a decent suspension and non-uber tires), that the convergence idea doesn't jive with the Ford contingent?

[Chris91GT]

One could argue the ITR was derived from the 88 Civic EF chassis. So does that mean it get's PIPed any less? Is it 20% better? 5% for sure to cover the LSD, and maybe 5 more for brakes, but they are free now so that's a mute point... Then add 500lbs to get to ITR weight......

Both can fit 225 tires, both can end up with the identical braking setup (for free)...

Yet the EF chassis at 500lbs lighter is still rated at 50%.

But would anyone listen to this arguement? Likely not. Sure there is subjectivity in the suspension ratings, but why when it's proven that an old mustang can be the 2nd fastest car in the corners (with a decent suspension and non-uber tires), that the convergence idea doesn't jive with the Ford contingent?

Most likely because said car is the least stock Ford in the series with a few compromises in the ride/handling/streetability arena. We are talking stock cars here.

An ITR's suspension (I suspect) is significantly different than that of the Civic on which the platform is derived. In the case of the Mustang... this is barely true. Sure, spring and shock calibrations are different, but curb weight is also up 200-300lbs from Fox to SN95.

Perhaps the problem is that we have no stock Mustangs running in the field... what we need is someone to go back a couple years and analyze Russ' times when he was stock. I pick on Russ because he is the only guy to have ever run a stock Mustang in recent years.

[rpr]

An ITR's suspension (I suspect) is significantly different than that of the Civic on which the platform is derived. In the case of the Mustang... this is barely true. Sure, spring and shock calibrations are different, but curb weight is also up 200-300lbs from Fox to SN95.

Chris, the ITR suspension compared to the EF Civic would be exactly as you stated: slightly stiffer springs, and re-valved shocks. You can bolt ITR suspension up to an 88 CRX with no modifications, if you wanted to, and it would work, the only difference would be as you said, a few hundred pounds less in total weight. So the comparison to the Mustang is actually identical, based on what you said.

Tom

[haniforama]

Chris, the ITR suspension compared to the EF Civic would be exactly as you stated: slightly stiffer springs, and re-valved shocks. You can bolt ITR suspension up to an 88 CRX with no modifications, if you wanted to, and it would work, the only difference would be as you said, a few hundred pounds less in total weight. So the comparison to the Mustang is actually identical, based on what you said.
Tom

Yup - what he said... But also include that the ITR has bigger swaybars as well.

There is a certain Ineffeble quality to the ITR that the CCC recognizes and decided subjectively to assign a 70% rating too. It might not be mathematically correct, but nonetheless, it's there. And yes, stock to stock, an ITR would be quicker than an EF chassis Civic given an equal power to weight ratio and stock suspension.

Similarly with the newer Mustangs You cannot argue that stock vs stock, the newer ones aren't 1 seconds/lap (15% handling index increase equals 4.5pips) better from the factory.

[Chris91GT]

Similarly with the newer Mustangs You cannot argue that stock vs stock, the newer ones aren't 1 seconds/lap (15% handling index increase equals 4.5pips) better from the factory.

I have no idea... haven't seen one on the track yet. But I would love to find out.

[DECH_92]

Dave,

As much as I hate to say this... I agree with the convergence (after taking a look at different angles). And I'm not looking for any concessions on my car.

However... I am completely behind Russ when it comes to the SN95 and newer cars. Stock vs stock, I don't see the 10% suspension improvement (with the brakes discounted) between the Fox and SN95 chassis. As Russ mentioned, there are chassis stiffening improvements (minor), but they are offset by significant weight gains (+200-300lbs Fox GT vs SN95 GT/SVT). Perhaps one could argue a 5% improvement over the Fox, but 10% is excessive IMHO.

Which brings me to point #2, regarding the S197 cars (2005+). Why is the suspension rating at 60%? This is in the same league as the RSX Type S, BMW Z3, Civic SiR, etc. Not to mention a 25% premium vs the Fox, a 15% premium over the SN95 Cobra, and 5% higher than the 97 Z28. Whoa... this is still a dazed and confused Mustang chassis. For all the hype, it's still a Mustang underneath (albeit an improved one) and that suspension is still full of contradictions. Having flogged two for a week each I can personally vouch for this. I have a great deal of difficulty justifying a premium over the SLA PB TA Z28 suspension. The S197 is still a Mac Strut, high centre-of-gravity heavy barge with a [better than Fox/SN95] live axle. The gods of handling (or perhaps the bean counters) have not intervened in the Mustang development process. Better? Yes. 15% better? No. Better than the 4th gen Z28? Not likely.

It's late and I'm losing my train of thought... but IMHO I would probably rank the four cars in this post as follows:

Fox 35%
SN95 40%
S197 50%
4th gen Z28 55% (as currently spec'd)

On a new model car S197, should you not be more on the conservative side then possibly over rating suspension % side to start. Then compensate if necessary?
Plus with a new car possibly new driver, how do you tell if it’s the driver or car?
I think we have some drivers in this league that can drive anything fast compared to your average Solo driver. :eek:

Even though I agree with the 5 pip`s for Uber tires, how the hell does someone like Andrew do 1.30-31 at GP on RA1`s
So I guess suspension rely does make as much of an affect as Uber tires.
Most of our suspension are all done up but man 1.30 or is this pure lack of weight. :confused:

[Chris91GT]

Chris, the ITR suspension compared to the EF Civic would be exactly as you stated: slightly stiffer springs, and re-valved shocks. You can bolt ITR suspension up to an 88 CRX with no modifications, if you wanted to, and it would work, the only difference would be as you said, a few hundred pounds less in total weight. So the comparison to the Mustang is actually identical, based on what you said.

Tom

Tom, keep in mind that what I'm comparing is really a 88CRX to, say, a 99 Si, not a Type R. ie, both are tuned for the same performance levels... just compensating for weight. For the Mustang, I'm comparing a GT to a GT... same tuning. Not a GT to a Cobra.

[rpr]

Tom, keep in mind that what I'm comparing is really a 88CRX to, say, a 99 Si, not a Type R. ie, both are tuned for the same performance levels... just compensating for weight. For the Mustang, I'm comparing a GT to a GT... same tuning. Not a GT to a Cobra.

Ok, makes sense.

[G-ForceJunkie]

Here's a quick thought.

Since it appears as though the Live axle cars will have to pay up to 4.2 pips for rear suspension only
(2 for DECH ASG, 1 for torque arm x 1.4)

How about some IRS specific rear suspension changes? I'm not an IRS expert, but would rear non-OE alignment be worth a pip ?

[ADAM]

i know on 240sx's not much that you would change...for much benifit...

though you could change all the arms, and bushings.... if you wanted to...not sure its even worth it


we take a pip if the rear camber is changed...

[DECH_92]

[QUOTE=G-ForceJunkie]Here's a quick thought.

Since it appears as though the Live axle cars will have to pay up to 4.2 pips for rear suspension only
(2 for DECH ASG, 1 for torque arm x 1.4)

[QUOTE]
Hey Andy, is it 2 pip’s for a MM panhard bar like Russ installed?

[G-ForceJunkie]

No, my understanding of the rule is 1 pip per arm added. Since the ASG is 2 arms, it's 2 pips. The Panhard bar is only 1 arm, so only 1 pip.

[DECH_92]

I sure hope your wrong on this one.
ASG- (watt’s link), and panhard bar are one and the same.
"Lateral control device" :confused:

A shock is a shock, right?
A alignment is an alignment right?
A spring is a spring right? Opps, you have one to many coils on that spring. That will be one more pip.



Thanks for the lack of response. :p

[G-ForceJunkie]

What's the CCC have to say to Greg's question?

[Chris P]

Currently being discussed......

[G-ForceJunkie]

Just an FYI to the CCC: I only broke one track record this year, Mosport Long Track. Civics occupy every other track record for GT3. So tell me...why does my car not belong in GT3?

[B18C5]

Maybe because you were competing against Hanif. ;)

[G-ForceJunkie]

No, I wasn't. Hanif was in GT2 in 2005. Wes (civic) and I were the only ones to set track records this year. We set one each.

[B18C5]

Then maybe it was because you were competing against Hanif's records. His car had already been bumped up a class the year before because it was too fast. Hanif is a damn fast driver as well... there's more than one reason why he's all over the lap records.

[G-ForceJunkie]

My point is that my car has NOT shown dominance in its class against previous record holders.

[Chris P]

Hanif was able to find a loophole in the rules which allowed him to run a GT2 car in GT3 for 2004. We corrected the error in 2005. I don't believe Hanif changed his car in the off season of 2004-2005. In 2006 his car will be in GT1 unless he decontents.

[haniforama]

Hanif won't be decontenting...

More goodies for '06 are in/on order ;)

[Dave Barker]

My point is that my car has NOT shown dominance in its class against previous record holders.

Andy, at the risk of boasting, my 89 LX Hatch was very similar to what you race. It still had air con that worked and an interior but no cage. so wgt is likely close to identical but power was not the same as yours and the springs were sig softer than yours. On Yokohama 008RS tires ( good for their time but out of date now)I got down to 75.21 on Fabi. ( I admit it was likely on a day with a great tail wind , track conditions and a lot of luck) but given the improvement in tires since then, it is quite obvious that your type of car is capable of GT2 times. I am quite sure that you will be able to drive it that fast in the future. Although you are track experienced this is your first year in Solo 1 and I would expect you will improve both in your driving as well as your car prep. Point is, if we leave you and Todd where you are for next year the whole of GT3 will be screaming.

[Chris91GT]

On Yokohama 008RS tires ( good for their time but out of date now)I got down to 75.21 on Fabi.

Did cars have fuel injection back in the days of the 008s? Still crank start? I bet when the Victoracers came out people were crying for PIPs! ;)

[G-ForceJunkie]

Andy, at the risk of boasting, my 89 LX Hatch was very similar to what you race. It still had air con that worked and an interior but no cage. so wgt is likely close to identical but power was not the same as yours and the springs were sig softer than yours. On Yokohama 008RS tires ( good for their time but out of date now)I got down to 75.21 on Fabi. ( I admit it was likely on a day with a great tail wind , track conditions and a lot of luck) but given the improvement in tires since then, it is quite obvious that your type of car is capable of GT2 times. I am quite sure that you will be able to drive it that fast in the future. Although you are track experienced this is your first year in Solo 1 and I would expect you will improve both in your driving as well as your car prep. Point is, if we leave you and Todd where you are for next year the whole of GT3 will be screaming.
Dave, I assume your car was in GT3 when it ran that time? This year I ran 76.654 at Fabi. That's almost a second and a half slower than your mustang. If you still had that car I'd be getting my butt kicked!

It seems as though I can argue that my car shouldn't be moved up at all.
Yet if I argue that convergence is ok, and there shouldn't be additional pips for a panhard bar and torque arm, all that matters is the camaro vs. mustang suspension ratings :rolleyes:

[Dave Barker]

Andy, back in the "good ole days" the classification system was totally different and quite arbitrary. It was totally inferior to what we use today. There was no GT3 class Cars were divided into stock. super stock. street prepared and modified in classes A,B.C.and D. BTW these classes seemed to change almost yearly and I had to keep cutting up different magnetic letters.

I think some of the reason people are getting so upset re the new proposals is that the linear car classification system we are using is so visiible and defendable that people will argue over even the tiniest disparity in equity. Due to the arbitrary nature of some past car classification systems, if you didn't have the "right" car you were just SOL ,driving for a lower place with no chance of winning so it wasn't even worth arguing about. Competition is much better today.

[Chris91GT]

Andy, back in the "good ole days" the classification system was totally different and quite arbitrary. It was totally inferior to what we use today. There was no GT3 class Cars were divided into stock. super stock. street prepared and modified in classes A,B.C.and D. BTW these classes seemed to change almost yearly and I had to keep cutting up different magnetic letters.

I think some of the reason people are getting so upset re the new proposals is that the linear car classification system we are using is so visiible and defendable that people will argue over even the tiniest disparity in equity. Due to the arbitrary nature of some past car classification systems, if you didn't have the "right" car you were just SOL ,driving for a lower place with no chance of winning so it wasn't even worth arguing about. Competition is much better today.

Yes... the "good ole days". I remember when I was in ASS/2 getting my ass handed to me by you because we were both in the same class... when I had a stock motor! That was quite equitable... no SLA, no TA, and only 225hp! I am 100% behind the linear system.

And just for the record again, I completely support most of what is being proposed, although I would just offer my two cents that with such a radical departure (at least relative to the last couple of years) that we be somewhat conservative. Tweaking remember...

Oh, and also for the record... I don't support 5 PIPs for V710s. I think I may have said that somewhere else... LOL

I will support 5 PIPs for V710s if we get to subtract 5 PIPs in the wet and add 5 PIPs for AWD whenever it rains. Seems like a logical step to me...

[G-ForceJunkie]

Andy, back in the "good ole days" the classification system was totally different and quite arbitrary. It was totally inferior to what we use today. There was no GT3 class Cars were divided into stock. super stock. street prepared and modified in classes A,B.C.and D. BTW these classes seemed to change almost yearly and I had to keep cutting up different magnetic letters.

I think some of the reason people are getting so upset re the new proposals is that the linear car classification system we are using is so visiible and defendable that people will argue over even the tiniest disparity in equity. Due to the arbitrary nature of some past car classification systems, if you didn't have the "right" car you were just SOL ,driving for a lower place with no chance of winning so it wasn't even worth arguing about. Competition is much better today.
There may not have been the current classing system, but if your car had similar mods to mine, then it would've been in GT3 ;)

So what I get from that, is that I should be able to improve my lap times by 1.5 seconds and still stay in GT3 :D

[Taylor]

Andy: Thank you for saying that. If what you say is true and Dave Barkers LX would have fit into GT3 and he would have turned 1.5 second lap times better than yours on what then would have been a notably slower Fabi track, it's PROOF that your Mustang belongs no where near GT3. (and of course neither would his have).

[ADAM]

I give up....

everyone is too concerned with "THIER CAR"


so...I will look out for the nissans then :)

[G-ForceJunkie]

Andy: Thank you for saying that. If what you say is true and Dave Barkers LX would have fit into GT3 and he would have turned 1.5 second lap times better than yours on what then would have been a notably slower Fabi track, it's PROOF that your Mustang belongs no where near GT3. (and of course neither would his have).
Convergence bumps my car into GT2, where most will argue it belongs. The purpose of this thread (which got WAY off-track) was to dispute the extra pips added for the panhard bar and torque arm.

[ADAM]

after being in solo 1, 9 years now (oops solo sprint now :) )

I can say that this current system works great..and it needs tweaking....


why dont all of you who are whining defer to our judgement and see how it goes? Whats the harm? whats the big deal? You guys are argueing this like its the end of the earth.... and I am hearing people say... "well I might not come out next season if the rules change the way we are proposing" like what is that a threat? are we kids? ..wahhhh ...you took my sucker away..I am not gonna play with you any more....wahhhh


I think we all need to get a grip..this is an amatuer sport..where going out and DOING the sport is the fun... what is the point of winning when its pointless and you dont have any compitition? Or you are winning cause the car is just so much better than the rest of the people in the class?

since we seem to have been capable of making the current system work very well... why do you think we are proposing these changes? for fun? to get certain people? a conspiracy?

how bout we just see how the changes go...then reflect.. next winter...

IF the CCC was wrong then we can change things back... whats the harm..

[G-ForceJunkie]

Adam, Solo 1 is fun, whether you win or not - assuming you have someone to race against. If your car is not close to anyone else's, then you may as well do lapping. This is a situation I'll never have to worry about as long both Todd and I are racing. However, I think everyone that races would like to win.

To you, 1 year in Solo 1 probably seems like nothing. To others, 1 year in Solo 1 may be all they'll ever do, and they may only experience one rulebook to base their decision on whether or not they will continue racing in the series.
:)

[Todd #65]

Ohhh Adam.... it's not just a simple sport and you just proved it....


since we seem to have been capable of making the current system work very well... why do you think we are proposing these changes? ... Of course it's a conspiracy, can't you guys see that?


LOL.... I couldn't help it..... we need some comic relief....

BTW everyone, Adam's quote has been 'slightly' modified....

:D

[ADAM]

:)

he he

[Carguy]

why dont all of you who are whining defer to our judgement and see how it goes? Whats the harm? whats the big deal?

Adam, one word - TRUST. We're guys. We compete. We don't trust each other. :p :D

[Carguy]

Adam, Solo 1 is fun, whether you win or not - assuming you have someone to race against.

... and people to have a bitch fest with!!! ;)