Quote:
Originally Posted by footie
I don't disagree with anything you are saying and I was saying something similar, let me explain, performance variations mean that though there is still an improvement the degree of improvement will vary due to the arc of the corner, the enter speed into and through the corner and most important of all whether it's at the start of the session or near the end as heat plays a really big role in the difference between the two. My comment of the straight making no difference was more to highlight that you could in theory have a track with only two corners and two hellish long straights (I know the idea is dumb but there you go) compared to another track with more than a dozen corners but an equal length, you have to admit that the latter track would yield the greater difference. This was my point in using the one second per minute rule.
|
Again pretty much disagree with everything. The degree of "improvement" thru each corner will be small, because significant increases in obtainable "G" run hand-in-hand with smaller differences in actual cornering speed and time spent in the corner. That relative improvement will be pretty much a constant in any and all of the corners, however. If you spend four seconds going around the Carousel up at Mont Tremblant on PS2s, then maybe you'll do it in 3.8 seconds on PSCs. Call it five percent, timewise. On the other hand, you're in the Le Diable right-hander for maybe two seconds. That being so, you're likely to see the same five percent improvement through there, for a gain of about a tenth. I'm making the numbers up, but I hope you catch my drift.
I personally have no clue as to which of the break-a-snake's-back or two-corner tracks would show a greater difference between times due to choice of rubber. I'm tempted to say the two-corner track would show a larger difference than the serpentine track, but admit that's just a feeling. In all probability, there would likely be either little difference or none at all.
You need to think about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by footie
On the subject of semi-race rubber on stock suspension, I touched on this a long time ago but I feel I need to repeat this again. Each car is set up for a specific type of compound when it's suspension is developed, that is why BMW, Porsche among others choose a certain type of tyres as OEM. Now while their will be an improvement using semi-race rubber over the stock kind the improvement isn't a great as it could be with the suspension re-tuned. Some may feel this is BS but I can assure you it is not and that is why when I say the most logical improvement the tyres may make on the ring is closer to 3 seconds and not the 8 seconds you believe is possible, the only way that could happen is the manufacturer is re-tuning the suspension for those special runs which would be kind of cheating...
|
My experience over the years with multiple as-delivered cars (except for sneakers and pads) tells me different. A fat second per minute, while not carved in stone, is a very good guideline. Retuning the car (meaning a negative camber setup of perhaps three degrees or so) will yield more, as you say, but to me, that means perhaps a second and a half per minute.
Bruce
Edit: PS - If memory serves, wasn't Rohrl screwing around in the 7:49 7:50 range in a Turbo maybe three years back, before hurling those PSCs on there and going 7:40? Porsche then made them optional on the Turbo, so they could properly say a stock Turbo could best the Z06, right?
Just an example, but it mirrors my own experience.