I'm not going to leave the car stock. There are always reasons to change. Making changes for specific intent can be useful (or not). You imply making changes for change's sake. If you're one of the lucky ones who actually knows what you're doing, go for it. If you are at 80-85% (your own estimate), you're not getting the most out of the car in any particular state and then you change it again. That's not how a racer does things.

I don't. It appears you don't, either.

That pretty much says it.

If you were doing it according to a strategy, I'd agree. What you've said all thread long tells me that you don't have that strategy. If you've got the money and you're having fun, fine. I'd rather max out a setting and THEN make changes for the situation. Saves money in the long run and proves that you're a good driver. The rest is for show.

 

I am almost at the setting to start working towards maxing out the driveability of the car. I don't think I will hit the max capabilities of the car. I honestly don't think that many people ever accomplish this. That is why I said I am driving 80-85% of the car in its current state.

I am going in on Monday morning for the new alignment which will be the second alignment since installing the coil overs in March. So I guess the only thing that I haven't messed with this season is the alignment. I am hoping that the new alignment will push the coil overs to a capacity that will capture what they are designed to do.

strategy? maybe I don't have one or maybe I am fullfiling a strategy that was put together over a year ago? Now it is coming to a realization. who know's?

Next year a new strategy will unfold.

 

Can you two take it to a room?

 

this is a heel toe thread, is this not a debateable subject, can we not ponder the ? with back and forth individual views?

give us a break....

this board is getting boring....

I'm done

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CMiS2K
this is a heel toe thread, is this not a debateable subject, can we not ponder the ? with back and forth individual views?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Strike

 

H/T being the fastest way around a track is certainly debateable, because it is not true, it's just one technique. The only thing H/T does is keep the rear tires from braking loose under decel, that is it, no magic there, but not the only way to accomplish it.

Paul Gentilozzi and Scott Pruett never H/T in a Trans Am car and they have won their fair share of races, not to mention Scott's 2003 championship (along with Paul's many). You would be surprised how many pro level racers DO NOT H/T.

H/T is not the only way to smoothly downshift while braking for a corner. If you are gentle on your clutch release, feathering it in the same way that you do while accelerating from a stop, you can accomplish that exact same smoothness while maintaining better braking control(IMHO). It's even easier with a lightweight flywheel. Of course, wear and tear will be a bit higher on the synchros and clutch, but that wasn't the issue here, it was if H/T was always faster.

 

No, sorry you're wrong.


Yes you can be fast with out it, but that time you just spent feathering the clutch you could have been braking harderl, in the right gear ready to go. I've never once heard or read anything about "feathering the clutch". Some guys learn to still be smooth w/o it. But theres going to be time lost as you have to take your foot off the brake, then blip the trottle to rev match then go.

Take 1 car w/ 2 drivers (preferably clones). One H/T's, the other doesn't, but otherwise they drive exactly the same. The driver that H/Ts will be faster hands down.

 

I suspect (can anyone confirm?) that Trans Am cars would have sequential transmissions that don't require use of the clutch while shifting -- that would render heel toe unnecessary.

By sequential I mean the mechanical racing boxes that have been used for ages, not one of the new-fangled semi-autos like the ones used in Formula 1.

Steve

 

I was gonna say that but I wasn't sure enuf to make the statement. I'm pretty damn sure they are sequential tho.