Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - E6Cueman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Technical Talk / Re: 2018 PAX values released
« on: November 16, 2017, 09:05:12 PM »

SSC was assigned a PAX .001 harder than CS, but that may because the spec tire is not yet published.


And Maybe someone has put in some real effort to make the class appealing.

Driving Discussion / Re: Help With Ice Dice Set Up
« on: October 25, 2017, 10:09:31 AM »
Is that length of stud is pretty much undrivable on bare pavement?

It's doable... but you certainly compromise dry pavement grip, and accelerate wear of the studs.

Technical Talk / Re: Possible system enhancement
« on: October 22, 2017, 08:49:20 AM »
I think for convenience sake, incorporating this information into the existing display would be great.  I.E. Less to haul around and set up and trip over on site.

SASC Events / Re: Results for practise event of October 15, 2017 at YYC
« on: October 16, 2017, 08:02:50 AM »
Cam proved a few things definitively today:
1. He is fast :)
2. Today's course was not a power course

Finally eh! All this time I had doubt.   :-[

Your argument is (somewhat) convincing, so I ended up voting for .814
The (somewhat) is because that camber allows much more effective use of that extra wheel width.  And effective usage of your rubber trumps so many things.

A BS Vette has about as much camber as it wants doesn't it? And a lot more tire and thrust versus mass.

The Tire Rack friendly wheel offset regulations look like they are going to limit SSC cars to about 2.5 degrees front camber.  STX twins run more than three, so one has to wonder if 2.5 will be enough.  In the rear, street regulations give twins adequate camber.

Regardless of where PAX ends up, I'm locked in, and excited about the idea of some local competition outside of the index. 

And for context...

SS   0.826       SSP   0.862       XP   0.892       AM   1.000
AS   0.819       ASP   0.856       BP   0.869       BM   0.956
BS   0.813       BSP   0.853       CP   0.854       CM   0.901
CS   0.810       CSP   0.860       DP   0.865       DM   0.906
DS   0.801       DSP   0.842       EP   0.859       EM   0.905
ES   0.794       ESP   0.837       FP   0.873       FM   0.916
FS   0.804       FSP   0.829       HCR   0.825       FSAE   0.966
GS   0.793                                   
HS   0.786       SSR   0.847       SMF   0.848       KM   0.939
HCS   0.809                   SM   0.861       JA   0.864
            CAM-C   0.823       SSM   0.875       JB   0.834
STF   0.800       CAM-T   0.817                   JC   0.726
STS   0.818       CAM-S   0.838                       
STX   0.822                                   
STR   0.830                                   
STU   0.831                                   
STP   0.820                           

The SSC car is essentially a CS FR-S car minus 10lbft of torque, and plus 0.5" of wheel and 0.5 degrees of camber. I was being pessimistic with my guess... I think it'll be better than a CS ND Miata... but don't think it'll be better than a good BS car.

has there been speculation about what the actual number might end up being?

I'm guessing somewhere in the range of 0.812-0.814... at least I hope that's all we're thinking.

I have ordered the parts and looking forward to running the class next year. I'm even going to try and cord my tires... ON THE INSIDE EDGE!  ;D

No oil cooler :(

... but Q gets to keep his exhaust.

I don't, because my exhaust is titanium. 

Titanium... mass produced... and cheaper than a lot of stainless steel alternatives.

Spec is spec... but something about their execution of this idea is starting to sour me against it.

The new update added 3 more mm of wheel offset too. +40 was already too much. I suspect that clearance tire to spring perch clearance may be a limiting factor in camber adjustment. 
As someone pointed out to me, +43mm rules out some very attractive options that aren't available for purchase on Tire Rack.

+35 to +40 is the first place anyone would have looked without regulations.

Yah I can change my shift knob and add a catch can?!? Where is the oil cooler?

SASC Events / Re: Technical Analysis for September 17, 2017 event at YYC
« on: September 20, 2017, 03:14:34 PM »
My point is PAX is not well explained in any way to new drivers and so, as happened to you, and will ultimately happen to me, we have to ditch our cars and switch to something competitive.  See my previous post, Pax, a critical part of Autocross in North America is reserved to 3 lines in a 30 page novice guide document.

Agreed.  Getting a competitive car for any class can be expensive, and/or a lot of work, or mean that you can't drive your favourite car ever (in my case also an old Corolla)... but it sure makes event day a lot more enjoyable.

SASC Events / Re: Technical Analysis for September 17, 2017 event at YYC
« on: September 20, 2017, 03:05:00 PM »
I feel like alot of people are saying the same thing in different ways.  Stephen I am not criticizing PAX as such, but rather the implications it has on slightly modified cars from individuals entering the sport locally.

Like finishing poorly in PAX overall versus winning a class of one or two in a poorly prepared car?

I like Stephen's analogy of running a marathon in workboots.

As I said... PAX is all that I look at.  I'm sure there are people below me on the PAX results sheet that drive as well as, or better than me, but I don't know who to tell who they are.  Reasonable or not, PAX is the only tool I have for comparing myself to everyone in attendance. 

It's also the reason I ditched a much faster and more fun car for an easy to prepare and practical D Street car.  In my last car, I had all sorts of excuses as to why I couldn't beat Cam.  In the FRS, I was disappointed to discover that all of those excuses were fantasy.

Now I just talk shit about altitude and course design.

SASC Events / Re: Technical Analysis for September 17, 2017 event at YYC
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:11:06 AM »
This discussion has nothing to do with the laws of physics its to do with PAX & HP. Put Ryan and Cam in the M2 & then move both to a ES Miata and my best guess is on last Sundays course the M2 would be quicker. Which is exactly why Stephen was down in 13th place.

As Ryan pointed out, a couple years back Cam in his 120hp MR2 put everyone and everything in the ground, so I don't think it's necessarily true. 

That said, there is certainly a difference between our local course design and altitude, from the general average south of the border on which PAX is based.  The index is still king for me though, and the only thing I look at when examining local results...

SASC Events / Re: Technical Analysis for September 17, 2017 event at YYC
« on: September 19, 2017, 07:05:23 AM »

I imagined that I was doing something like C, taking an obviously shorter line with a faster exit from the slalom.  Slowing down to get left was not a consideration...

It feels like this was the wrong choice -  something I chalk up to my inability to see the exact lay of the land during my walk.  I think if I grew a few more inches, I could really get that birds eye view that I'm looking for.

I may also be horrifically impatient on course, and often overdrive the car, carrying too much speed into elements and thinking it's OK because the car still fits between the lines.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12