National Staff Greg G. Posted December 15, 2006 National Staff Share Posted December 15, 2006 I'm going to fix the alcohol deal. Stay tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrtalon Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 I'm going to fix the alcohol deal. Stay tuned. But if you include denatured alcohol and/or washer fluid, could you then give reasoning for making it illegal? Neither of those fluids burn clear, and neither are anywhere near as dangerous as nitrous. We drive around daily on this stuff 24/7, so I'm not sure why it's not allowed on the track to keep temps down (like water injection but allowing more boost). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric J. Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 I'm going to fix the alcohol deal. Stay tuned. I prefer to take that completely out of context... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted December 15, 2006 National Staff Share Posted December 15, 2006 I'm going to fix the alcohol deal. Stay tuned. I prefer to take that completely out of context... Hiccup, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted December 15, 2006 Members Share Posted December 15, 2006 I'm going to fix the alcohol deal. Stay tuned. I prefer to take that completely out of context... Hiccup, Come on guys, dont get him started. Back to work Greg!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 any word on being more consitant with the few of us that run staggered tire sizes? (meaning either use the smallest overage and smallest under-age when assessing points or...) I guess I can live with the current ruling if I understand where you're coming from with the inconsistancy.... (inconsistancy meaning using the largest overage to add points and smallest under-age to get points back for widths) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted December 19, 2006 National Staff Share Posted December 19, 2006 It is consistent. We give you the most possible points in either case--sounds consistent to me. Hey, you should be glad that we decided to give any credit for going under the assigned tire size. Here is how it wouldn't be ok: If a driver chose to drive with the legal tire size in the rear, and then 40 mm less in the front, and got a 10 point credit. We decided not to average split tire sizes. So, it is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 I'd rather see the average since it is probably the most fair as far as effective overall grip in comparison to "more normal cars" but it is what it is i guess that 40mm narrower in the front would have a HUGE impact in braking grip, inital turn-in, and maybe even steady state cornering (push) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 that 40mm narrower in the front would have a HUGE impact in braking grip, inital turn-in, and maybe even steady state cornering (push) Thats the plan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.