March 2011 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
StephenB
New member
Yes... but I think they were bump-drafting.
I assume then that you agree that dyno numbers don't matter since I was not challenging the multiplier only the 120HP number. Note the past tense on that... I am no longer debating with them since the ITAC members here posted where they got that information. It is what it is.
Stephen
StephenB
New member
Not at the wheels and not done by expensive professional equipment.
Again I wasn't EVER challenging the multiplier which is why I have never submitted any of this info. It may be worthwhile for the MR2 guys but that is a completly different scenario.
Stephen
shwah
New member
Bill's old S-roc (now an HP car) and Bob's white one (which has not been out in a few years) are two cars I would like to spend a few weekends in out there. Just based on spending some straight away time with them and realizing what the weight difference should mean in braking/cornering. I could be wrong though...
If we are looking at 132 at the wheels it certainly doesn't need a weight drop
There's my favorite problem again-dubious chassis dyno data!!
Listen-in my opinion the cpe weight shouldn't go down. I base that on:
my experience (lrg) w/that family of 4/5 cyl engines and common sense;
my experience with the twins showing me their technical abilities vis a vis engine preparation was not terribly sophisticated (ie: not near 10/10)
my own experience on-track with those cars in a very well prepared/tuned/dynoed/competetive A2. (and numerous runs down the hill to big bend in the Blethems company)
But-don't even begin to give that dyno number (132hp) credibility. It is so typical of the bullshit #s coming off chassis dyno operators.
Sorry-maybe thats another subject, but as a practical matter I consider chassis dyno info to be useless in this context. For A/B/C comparisons they are useful, but not here. (IE: if you could put several cars on the same dyno on the same day, correcting for atmospheric conditions each pull-that info would be good data. Whether it would be good information would be questioned, but context is everything)
Point is, don't screw the pooch any further by running with this (132hp) information Steven has humbly (foolishly?) provided.
There's my favorite problem again-dubious chassis dyno data!!
Listen-in my opinion the cpe weight shouldn't go down. I base that on:
my experience (lrg) w/that family of 4/5 cyl engines and common sense;
my experience with the twins showing me their technical abilities vis a vis engine preparation was not terribly sophisticated (ie: not near 10/10)
my own experience on-track with those cars in a very well prepared/tuned/dynoed/competetive A2. (and numerous runs down the hill to big bend in the Blethems company)
But-don't even begin to give that dyno number (132hp) credibility. It is so typical of the bullshit #s coming off chassis dyno operators.
Sorry-maybe thats another subject, but as a practical matter I consider chassis dyno info to be useless in this context. For A/B/C comparisons they are useful, but not here. (IE: if you could put several cars on the same dyno on the same day, correcting for atmospheric conditions each pull-that info would be good data. Whether it would be good information would be questioned, but context is everything)
Point is, don't screw the pooch any further by running with this (132hp) information Steven has humbly (foolishly?) provided.