Dynojet compliance and "dynojet correction factors"

[Eric W.]

Just a lurker who is always interested in these kinds of threads. If your intended target comes up clean what will be your excuse then? and will you accept it as truth or will you just perpetually accuse? In other words will you ever be satisfied? just wondering love to hear the outcome of this one

 

It's obvious. Then we either make more excuses or start cheating ourselves

[Trackrocket]

I'm going to start cheating...my cruise control doesn't function as it once did...seems every time I go to use it my car hauls ass!

[FlyingDog]

When a GTS3 car can out run a GTS4 car on the straights and gets caught by a slow CMC car in the corners, there is something funky going on. When that car wins his class, it's a pretty safe assumption that he's cheating.

I'm going to start cheating...my cruise control doesn't function as it once did...seems every time I go to use it my car hauls ass!

I thought that feature was unique to my car...

[gianniy]

any updates for the weekend? Did the competitor get dynoed? Race results?

[///mracer]

any updates for the weekend? Did the competitor get dynoed? Race results?

 

nope, the 996 did not get dynoed, it looked like he had motor issues in qualifying on sat and parked it for the rest of the weekend. Doug was running well in GTS3 but had mechanical issues in the race on sat and he did not return.

[mwh911rs]

speaking of dyno results. Is there a Dynojet in the Yorktown VA area that any of you use. I went to a place that has the Dynapack without knowing that NASA requires Dynojet. Looking to join GTS3 next year

Thanks,

Mark Hilburger

#619 1972 Porsche 911 w/ 3.2L

[Eric W.]

speaking of dyno results. Is there a Dynojet in the Yorktown VA area that any of you use. I went to a place that has the Dynapack without knowing that NASA requires Dynojet. Looking to join GTS3 next year

Thanks,

Mark Hilburger

#619 1972 Porsche 911 w/ 3.2L

 

Welcome Mark. Dunno where Yorktown is, but you can enter your zipcode here and find:

 

http://www.dynojet.com/dyno_centers/list_automotive.aspx

[mwh911rs]

Thanks Eric. 'bout 12 dynos near me.

are you seriously considering PTA? it would be a shame if one bad apple and no good way of showing compliance at the track would cause honest drivers to jump out of GTS.

Mark

[Eric W.]

Thanks Eric. 'bout 12 dynos near me.

are you seriously considering PTA? it would be a shame if one bad apple and no good way of showing compliance at the track would cause honest drivers to jump out of GTS.

Mark

 

Naw. My heart is with GTS. Though I do supersize into PTA sometimes. Just not in MidAtlantic caus they run GTS and PTA in the same group.

 

The whole point of the thread was to see if there was a way to check compliance at VIR. Was a little frustrated that it couldnt. Didnt wanna make it seem like people were jumping ship or to accuse anyone, sorry for that.

[tdady]

The whole point of the thread was to see if there was a way to check compliance at VIR. Was a little frustrated that it couldnt. Didnt wanna make it seem like people were jumping ship or to accuse anyone, sorry for that.

 

I really didn’t want to respond to this but I feel its gotten so out of hand that Im compelled to if only to try and make some people understand the truth and also because I really do enjoy running with GTS and NASA. But from the very first race I did there have been some people that just cant accept getting their asses handed to them by a better driver. They're the people that instigate these types of threads and have actually cussed me out at the track. For those people I cant, nor would I, really express how I feel on a public forum. I will just continue to do my best to humiliate them on the track.

 

That being said.....

 

 

Eric,

If you honestly mean that I appreciate it. For the others of you, especially Jeff, I would suggest you get your facts straight then address the situation in a more manly fashion instead of hiding behind a computer and defaming someone or attacking their character to their friends.

 

Fact.... I had my 996 car dynoed at an independent shop about 50 mile from my house. Its a VW/Audi tuning shop that I have NO affiliation with. They did 4 pulls on their Dynojet and the results were.. 308hp,306hp,310hp and 309hp. The average of those is 308.25 therefore I submitted the 308hp dyno sheet. At that point I added ballast to my car so it now weighs 3485#s with me in it.If you put those figures in the GTS calculator you'll see that it is at the VERY top of GTS3. Right where I wanted it to be.

 

Fact.... My car is a retired Koni Challenge car and is equipped with a factory stock motor and ECU. Yes the ECU has been tweaked to optimize the timing and the fuel mapping but thats all.

 

Fact.... I run on such a tight budget that I still use the stock brakes and 17" wheels. I even use "take off" tires because I cant afford to buy stickers. My car is also equipped with a data accusation system that I don’t even use cause I cant afford a laptop or the software to run it. I sure as hell wouldn’t spend the money for some exotic ECU mapping that I could change with my cruse control or anything else for that matter.

 

Unfortunately last weekend at Summit Point I had clutch problems and had to park the car for the weekend. This really sucked for me because I really wanted to put all of this to rest then. Im sure there will be those people that will not let this go (ever) and all I can say is this, as of now I plan on attending Hyperfest. At that time I invite any one of you to meet me at pit in after a session, get in my car (you can sit your ass on the coolsuit cooler) and ride with me to the scales and then directly to the dyno. I assure you I will be in compliance!!!!

 

By the way, the "996" driver has a name its Tim Costa. If, in the future you feel the need address "that 996" I would appreciate being address personally.

[eMINI]

Now what's going to happen?

[good hands]

When is enough enough ? I am new to this group but I was wondering why someone goes to the extent of putting in 400lbs of ballast to make a class ? Should I buy a GT3 Porsche ... do the math and put in 650lbs of ballast ? I was a little dismayed at not being competitive last week . There certainly needs to be some consideration to" the spirit of the rules " . Has there been any thought to a maximum amount of ballast ? Is this worth it's own thread for discussion ?

[streak]

How much do I need to add to run GTS1? I figure I can get at least 200lbs behind the seat and maybe another 250 up front

 

Kidding aside, after last weekend I'm not a believer that adding ballast levels the playing field, particularly in order to get into a lower class.

 

Not sour grapes since I will readily acknowledge that many drivers out there are better than me and many "slower" cars have passed me. I have lots to learn.

 

But trying to compete, really compete, against a car with a lot more hp with some ballast to "even things up" isn't going to be very fun for very long. By lap two the class leaders were entering turn 1 as I was coming out of turn 10. Lap two. There's no competing with that. Keep the classing legitimate. Just some thoughts and observations

 

The beauty of GTS is its simplicity, it may also be its curse.

[///mracer]

look at it this way, a lighter car should have the advantage in the brake zone and turns so adding lots of weight to counter the HP is not really a benefit.

 

But i agree, this question should be in a new thread.

[mikew968]

I have been racing with NASA for 3-4 years now and find the competition to be the most competitive and close racing I have seen. The power to weight ratio works very well. If things are not working out for you I would suggest you look at the set-up of the car or yourself rather than the system. There are certain cars in certain classes that SEEM to be better but that might be people simply choosing to follow success. Here is what I have seem class wise:

GTS-1 seems to be mostly 944's with some BMW's here and there

GTS-2 seems to be 944S2 and 968's although some BMW's have done well too

GTS-3 in this area and at nationals has been dominated by BMW's

GTS-4 and 5 seem to be 911's and newer BMW's

 

Mike

[JSG1901]

How much do I need to add to run GTS1? I figure I can get at least 200lbs behind the seat and maybe another 250 up front

 

Kidding aside, after last weekend I'm not a believer that adding ballast levels the playing field, particularly in order to get into a lower class.

 

Not sour grapes since I will readily acknowledge that many drivers out there are better than me and many "slower" cars have passed me. I have lots to learn.

 

But trying to compete, really compete, against a car with a lot more hp with some ballast to "even things up" isn't going to be very fun for very long. By lap two the class leaders were entering turn 1 as I was coming out of turn 10. Lap two. There's no competing with that. Keep the classing legitimate. Just some thoughts and observations

 

The beauty of GTS is its simplicity, it may also be its curse.

Recognizing that some of your comments are tongue-in-cheek (kind of, at least), I'd like to address the idea of using weight to drop yourself into a different class for a moment and consider the actual math.

 

I don't know the specifics of your car but the typical GTS2 car seems to have about 195 hp, which means the minimum weight with driver would be 2,828 lbs. To make that same car legal for GTS1 it would have to be, at the very minimum, 3,608 lbs. That would get it to the GTS1 class minimum of 18.5 lbs/hp.

 

A more typical GTS1 car would have about 150hp and be able to run a minimum weight of 2,775 lbs at the same power-to-weight ratio, an 833 lb advantage over the ballasted-up GTS2 car. But, the GTS2 car has a lot more power: 30% more power, in fact.

 

The problem is that power isn't what matters.

 

30hp isn't much unless you're putting it into a shifter cart. Then, it's a massive amount of power capable of sub-4-second 0 to 60 runs. What matters, then, is power in relation to weight, hence the GTS power-to-weight ratios. In my hypothetical example above, given your ballasted up car running at the GTS1 minimum power-to-weight ratio, and assuming similar gearing between the two cars (another factor), your car should be able to accelerate at the identical rate of the 2,775 lb, 150 hp car. You guys should have a pretty even run all the way down the backstraight.

 

But then you get to the end of the backstraight and you have to stop...and then turn. But you have to stop (and then turn) 30% more weight. Assuming you're running similar tire sizes, there is no way. You can't possibly stop 30% more weight in the same distance on the same tires. But OK, you want bigger tires. If your competitor is running 245s, you could go to 315s and have about 30% more tire. IF you could fit 315s into your wheel wells (which is unlikely), and IF you could run hard enough on them to get them fully up to temperature (also unlikely), and if you have enough brakes and brake cooling to put up with the significantly-higher braking demands...if all that is true then you could probably brake as hard as the lighter car and probably could even corner as hard.

 

But the reality is 315mm tires are 70mm wider than 245s. 70mm is just a teench under 3 inches. Per side. You'll have to widen your car to get them to fit. That will cause additional aerodynamic drag, which will slow you down on the straights so you'll no longer be keeping up with the lighter car with better aerodynamics...and so on.

 

The bottom line is making a powerful car extra heavy to drop it into a lower class--given drivers of equal skill--is a losing proposition. The catch, as pointed out earlier, is the "drivers of equal skill" part of the equation. There are guys racing in NASA who can put an otherwise-uncompetitive car on the top step of the podium. There are other drivers who aren't able to stay ahead of the fast guys one or two (or sometimes three) classes down from them. I don't mean this disparagingly, that's just how it is. It's not because these faster drivers put a lot of weight in a more powerful car and overcame the physics, it's because they are better drivers--enough better to make up for the disadvantage that comes from the extra weight.

 

The great thing about GTS, in my not humble-enough opinion, is that it gives us a very easy to understand, measure and follow formula for building cars that are competitive with one another. What it doesn't do is give us a way to equalize the drivers.

 

(Climbs down from soapbox).

[streak]

How much do I need to add to run GTS1? I figure I can get at least 200lbs behind the seat and maybe another 250 up front

 

Kidding aside, after last weekend I'm not a believer that adding ballast levels the playing field, particularly in order to get into a lower class.

 

Not sour grapes since I will readily acknowledge that many drivers out there are better than me and many "slower" cars have passed me. I have lots to learn.

 

But trying to compete, really compete, against a car with a lot more hp with some ballast to "even things up" isn't going to be very fun for very long. By lap two the class leaders were entering turn 1 as I was coming out of turn 10. Lap two. There's no competing with that. Keep the classing legitimate. Just some thoughts and observations

 

The beauty of GTS is its simplicity, it may also be its curse.

Recognizing that some of your comments are tongue-in-cheek (kind of, at least), I'd like to address the idea of using weight to drop yourself into a different class for a moment and consider the actual math.

 

I don't know the specifics of your car but the typical GTS2 car seems to have about 195 hp, which means the minimum weight with driver would be 2,828 lbs. To make that same car legal for GTS1 it would have to be, at the very minimum, 3,608 lbs. That would get it to the GTS1 class minimum of 18.5 lbs/hp.

 

A more typical GTS1 car would have about 150hp and be able to run a minimum weight of 2,775 lbs at the same power-to-weight ratio, an 833 lb advantage over the ballasted-up GTS2 car. But, the GTS2 car has a lot more power: 30% more power, in fact.

 

The problem is that power isn't what matters.

 

30hp isn't much unless you're putting it into a shifter cart. Then, it's a massive amount of power capable of sub-4-second 0 to 60 runs. What matters, then, is power in relation to weight, hence the GTS power-to-weight ratios. In my hypothetical example above, given your ballasted up car running at the GTS1 minimum power-to-weight ratio, and assuming similar gearing between the two cars (another factor), your car should be able to accelerate at the identical rate of the 2,775 lb, 150 hp car. You guys should have a pretty even run all the way down the backstraight.

 

But then you get to the end of the backstraight and you have to stop...and then turn. But you have to stop (and then turn) 30% more weight. Assuming you're running similar tire sizes, there is no way. You can't possibly stop 30% more weight in the same distance on the same tires. But OK, you want bigger tires. If your competitor is running 245s, you could go to 315s and have about 30% more tire. IF you could fit 315s into your wheel wells (which is unlikely), and IF you could run hard enough on them to get them fully up to temperature (also unlikely), and if you have enough brakes and brake cooling to put up with the significantly-higher braking demands...if all that is true then you could probably brake as hard as the lighter car and probably could even corner as hard.

 

But the reality is 315mm tires are 70mm wider than 245s. 70mm is just a teench under 3 inches. Per side. You'll have to widen your car to get them to fit. That will cause additional aerodynamic drag, which will slow you down on the straights so you'll no longer be keeping up with the lighter car with better aerodynamics...and so on.

 

The bottom line is making a powerful car extra heavy to drop it into a lower class--given drivers of equal skill--is a losing proposition. The catch, as pointed out earlier, is the "drivers of equal skill" part of the equation. There are guys racing in NASA who can put an otherwise-uncompetitive car on the top step of the podium. There are other drivers who aren't able to stay ahead of the fast guys one or two (or sometimes three) classes down from them. I don't mean this disparagingly, that's just how it is. It's not because these faster drivers put a lot of weight in a more powerful car and overcame the physics, it's because they are better drivers--enough better to make up for the disadvantage that comes from the extra weight.

 

The great thing about GTS, in my not humble-enough opinion, is that it gives us a very easy to understand, measure and follow formula for building cars that are competitive with one another. What it doesn't do is give us a way to equalize the drivers.

 

(Climbs down from soapbox).

 

I'm not going to claim to be the greatest driver alive, far from it. I know I'm leaving seconds somewhere on the track. You are assuming a lot in your scenario. Real life examples are much clearer. Watch my video. In the first two laps the BMW's disappear. That kind of shoots your theory about matching me in a straight line. Those are newer cars with MUCH better brakes and are in fact, from what I was told, GTS3 cars ballasted to compete. Newer suspensions, better brakes and much more horsepower. Your example would be correct but in real life the much newer and technologically advanced car will whup the older legitimate GTS2 car all day long regardless of how much ballast it carries because it has suspension and braking advantages that I don't. I'm discussing very specific cases here. Not theories. I'm not an engineer but common sense tells you that the classing is in place for a reason and it's not for a 25 year old 200 hp car to compete with a car 15 years newer, 300 hp and antilock brakes. Who has the advantage in the brake zone? Who has the advantage in the corners?

 

Theories are nice but they don't translate to reality.

 

I'm not bitching, I have a long way to go and a lot to learn. It was just an observation.

[streak]

I have been racing with NASA for 3-4 years now and find the competition to be the most competitive and close racing I have seen. The power to weight ratio works very well. If things are not working out for you I would suggest you look at the set-up of the car or yourself rather than the system. There are certain cars in certain classes that SEEM to be better but that might be people simply choosing to follow success. Here is what I have seem class wise:

GTS-1 seems to be mostly 944's with some BMW's here and there

GTS-2 seems to be 944S2 and 968's although some BMW's have done well too

GTS-3 in this area and at nationals has been dominated by BMW's

GTS-4 and 5 seem to be 911's and newer BMW's

 

Mike

 

From where I sit that seems right. A 944 S2 or 944 Turbo is perfect competition for a later 80's 911. Same HP, same technology. I don't know much about BMW's to know what years should be similarly competitive. A 911 after 1989 is a much faster car with much better brakes and much more hp. It shouldn't be in GTS2. What is the similar model BMW for a 1990 964?

[bobt993]

This could go 20 pages. I am new to NASA having only a little more than a year of racing with the program. Compared to other race organizations, I think the GTS format provides the most competitive group possible when the rules are followed. I have been in a race with the majority of racers being described here during a NASA race and have had good clean action. Both Jeff and Eric are great drivers with a fair sense of play. I had a really good duel with Eric at VIR early last year that went down to the last lap. He simply out-drove me to the finish. Over the last year, I have been working on getting the car to the proper weight and fixing some bugs that haunted me for three races last year. If Eric or Jeff could have fixed my car at the track, I guarantee they would have just to beat me knowing they had no advantage. My goal is to compete well nothing else. Placing makes for a good beer conversation afterwards, but winning at all costs ruins the intentions of club racing.

 

BTW, I realize the dynojet is needed for compliance, but if the top 3 are dyno'd at the same time, why cannot that not be used as an indicator of potential non-compliance. I would suggest if there is a dyno available, that it be used to at least monitor the top running cars. If all three are high, then it would point towards the dyno calibration.

[///mracer]

From where I sit that seems right. A 944 S2 or 944 Turbo is perfect competition for a later 80's 911. Same HP, same technology. I don't know much about BMW's to know what years should be similarly competitive. A 911 after 1989 is a much faster car with much better brakes and much more hp. It shouldn't be in GTS2. What is the similar model BMW for a 1990 964?

 

no offense but if you are saying that we starting limiting what cars can be in what class due to the "age" of the car that is just wrong and not the intention of GTS. Everyone gets to "choose" which type / year / etc.. they want to race. Older technology can always be made up for with money, engineering, creativity, etc...

[JSG1901]

You are assuming a lot in your scenario. Real life examples are much clearer. Watch my video. In the first two laps the BMW's disappear. That kind of shoots your theory about matching me in a straight line. Those are newer cars with MUCH better brakes and are in fact, from what I was told, GTS3 cars ballasted to compete. Newer suspensions, better brakes and much more horsepower. Your example would be correct but in real life the much newer and technologically advanced car will whup the older legitimate GTS2 car all day long regardless of how much ballast it carries because it has suspension and braking advantages that I don't. I'm discussing very specific cases here. Not theories. I'm not an engineer but common sense tells you that the classing is in place for a reason and it's not for a 25 year old 200 hp car to compete with a car 15 years newer, 300 hp and antilock brakes. Who has the advantage in the brake zone? Who has the advantage in the corners?

Hunt,

 

Like you, I'm not trying to pick a fight. And, I can appreciate that there is an advantage to anti-lock brakes, particularly in the rain. Like yours, my car is from the 80s, in my case 1989, three years newer than yours but still 20 years old and in the age range I think you have no quibble with as a GTS2 car. Unlike yours, my car does have ABS although it would be very unusual for me to brake hard enough to use it.

 

Also, mine is a legitimate GTS2 car, weight-wise. I ran no ballast at Mid-Ohio last month and crossed the scales 10 lbs over my minimum weight with a nearly-empty tank. I do have a very good suspension setup and, as of this year I'm running a wing and splitter, all of which make my car faster than it might otherwise be, but here's the thing: In our first race in April (Mid-Ohio club course), over the course of the 12-lap race I averaged 2.093 seconds a lap faster than the 2nd place GTS2 car. My times were almost 4 seconds a lap faster than the 6th place (out of 9) GTS2 car. For the record, I was using 10+ heat-cycle tires from last year and when my car was dynoed after the race and I was down a few horsepower from where I expected it to be (193 vs 196).

 

So, is that an unfair car with an unfair advantage? It's old, it creaks in right-hand turns, but it still goes fast. I'm not finding competitors' cars of any vintage or horsepower making me uncompetitive, regardless of horsepower or ballast, which makes me think the difference between cars is something else.

[Eric W.]

Damn, I come back from the GrandAm race at NJMP and this thread (and the GTS Forum) explodes with activity.

 

Yes Tim, I mean it. I enjoy close, tight racing. I do it for the people too. I love talking to people, battling them on track, then share a beer with them afterwards. Im pretty sure, just like you, if I win, I want people to know it is legit. I created this thread because I dont want people doubting the winners or podium finishers. I know I can turn sub 207s at VIR (as I did at a recent BMW Club Race), but I also want to know that if challenged, I can say I did it fair and square. But with the way the rules are currently written (for VIR), people would just assume that since I turned a crazy laptime, I must be a cheater. I dont want to have a win, then only to have people talking about me thinking I am a cheater. I want them to go, o SHIZ... that Wonger is a crazy mad, awesome driver

[good hands]

You are assuming a lot in your scenario. Real life examples are much clearer. Watch my video. In the first two laps the BMW's disappear. That kind of shoots your theory about matching me in a straight line. Those are newer cars with MUCH better brakes and are in fact, from what I was told, GTS3 cars ballasted to compete. Newer suspensions, better brakes and much more horsepower. Your example would be correct but in real life the much newer and technologically advanced car will whup the older legitimate GTS2 car all day long regardless of how much ballast it carries because it has suspension and braking advantages that I don't. I'm discussing very specific cases here. Not theories. I'm not an engineer but common sense tells you that the classing is in place for a reason and it's not for a 25 year old 200 hp car to compete with a car 15 years newer, 300 hp and antilock brakes. Who has the advantage in the brake zone? Who has the advantage in the corners?

Hunt,

 

Like you, I'm not trying to pick a fight. And, I can appreciate that there is an advantage to anti-lock brakes, particularly in the rain. Like yours, my car is from the 80s, in my case 1989, three years newer than yours but still 20 years old and in the age range I think you have no quibble with as a GTS2 car. Unlike yours, my car does have ABS although it would be very unusual for me to brake hard enough to use it.

 

Also, mine is a legitimate GTS2 car, weight-wise. I ran no ballast at Mid-Ohio last month and crossed the scales 10 lbs over my minimum weight with a nearly-empty tank. I do have a very good suspension setup and, as of this year I'm running a wing and splitter, all of which make my car faster than it might otherwise be, but here's the thing: In our first race in April (Mid-Ohio club course), over the course of the 12-lap race I averaged 2.093 seconds a lap faster than the 2nd place GTS2 car. My times were almost 4 seconds a lap faster than the 6th place (out of 9) GTS2 car. For the record, I was using 10+ heat-cycle tires from last year and when my car was dynoed after the race and I was down a few horsepower from where I expected it to be (193 vs 196).

 

So, is that an unfair car with an unfair advantage? It's old, it creaks in right-hand turns, but it still goes fast. I'm not finding competitors' cars of any vintage or horsepower making me uncompetitive, regardless of horsepower or ballast, which makes me think the difference between cars is something else.

 

For the record. The BMW guys were complaining that your home track is 944 biased and that 944's kick their ass there on a regular basis. I have never run MO so I can not comment from experience. But the BMW guys don't like MO.

[streak]

Like you, I'm not trying to pick a fight. And, I can appreciate that there is an advantage to anti-lock brakes, particularly in the rain. Like yours, my car is from the 80s, in my case 1989, three years newer than yours but still 20 years old and in the age range I think you have no quibble with as a GTS2 car. Unlike yours, my car does have ABS although it would be very unusual for me to brake hard enough to use it.

 

Also, mine is a legitimate GTS2 car, weight-wise. I ran no ballast at Mid-Ohio last month and crossed the scales 10 lbs over my minimum weight with a nearly-empty tank. I do have a very good suspension setup and, as of this year I'm running a wing and splitter, all of which make my car faster than it might otherwise be, but here's the thing: In our first race in April (Mid-Ohio club course), over the course of the 12-lap race I averaged 2.093 seconds a lap faster than the 2nd place GTS2 car. My times were almost 4 seconds a lap faster than the 6th place (out of 9) GTS2 car. For the record, I was using 10+ heat-cycle tires from last year and when my car was dynoed after the race and I was down a few horsepower from where I expected it to be (193 vs 196).

 

So, is that an unfair car with an unfair advantage? It's old, it creaks in right-hand turns, but it still goes fast. I'm not finding competitors' cars of any vintage or horsepower making me uncompetitive, regardless of horsepower or ballast, which makes me think the difference between cars is something else.

 

First I'd get that right hand creaking figured out. I've heard that's particularly bad news in a 44.

 

I really do get that I'm not competitive as a driver yet. I also get that your home track may have put you at a distinct advantage over the competition that showed up that WE. At least one of the competitors to which I refer had never been to SP before. I also think that you wouldn't ballast yourself down to GTS1. I also think that if you did you'd win. Maybe you should run a test. Add enough ballast the qualify for GTS1 and compare back to back lap times. You claim that ballast will cause you to run commensurate with the lower class. I disagree.

 

Antilock brakes are a big advantage unless yo are Randy Pobst who doesn't need them. Those newer cars with bigger engines running ballast in excess of 300 lbs used about 1/2 the braking distance than I did. Yes I could be better on the brakes no doubt but how much of an advantage does a car have if lap after lap it uses 1/2 the brake zone? Regardless of ballast. Kinda shoots your theory that the ballast effects the brake zone.

 

I still think that if you need to add that much weight to run in a particular class then you are trying to run in the wrong class.

 

I'll be quite now and learn some race craft. See you in GTS1 (jk)

[JSG1901]

For the record. The BMW guys were complaining that your home track is 944 biased and that 944's kick their ass there on a regular basis. I have never run MO so I can not comment from experience. But the BMW guys don't like MO.

OK, that could be. How do the BMWs feel about Putnam? We're going there in a couple of weeks....