Voboril, Chuck wrote:
>
> Evidently, there are a lot of people jumping to conclusions because of
> the road race performance abilities of a FF2000.
> Downforce and absolute HP mean everything in that venue.
FF2000 has lots more HP and torque, wider wheels. The car gets up and
goes alot faster than a 1600. And it was about a hundred years ago that
people were saying that wings at Solo II speeds meant nothing. That
has been disproven.
>
>
> Is there any attribute that indicates a FF2000 should be any
> quicker than a FF1600 in a transient oriented, non-downforce environment?
Yes, HP and torque and downforce. And regarding the "transient
oriented" environment, the courses are not 100% transitional. There
are lots and lots of places on a Solo II course where you get a huge
advantage if you out-accelerate the other guy. A 2000, even with extra
wt, out accelerates a 1600.
> Just to make sure, we suggested leaving wings off.
> I just got the imprsssion from Gary Godula's letter that if the wings
> were left off, he doesn't give it much of a chance.
I did not get that impression from Gary's letter.
>
> Maybe we missed something here.
> Are we all wet?
What you missed was that CM is a thriving, STABLE class. There is zero
reason to add a faster car bastardized into a potentially slower car to
the mix. If someone wants to go autocrossing in a formula car like a
FF1600/2000, then they have many cars to choose from in the 1600
formula. If they really have their heart set on a 2000, then they will
have to realize the car won't get them a top finish at Topeka. That's all.
Sincerely,
Jim Garry
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/autox-cm
|