Quote:
The challenge with the Golf is not only does it have the power, it also handles extremely well. Maybe part of the issue is the process doesn't take into consideration torque enough? Compared to its counterparts in ITB, the Golf has bigger brakes, more baseline HP, and more torque. Yeah, the rear suspension is "worse" but the fwd cars are just dragging that end along for the ride. I'm sorry Andy, but you're just not going to convince me that it's not 75 lbs light. It makes it even tougher for me to swallow when other Golf III owners such as Kirk agree that the weight relative to other ITB cars is off, not to mention many other knowledgeable individuals. For the record, I did not bring up the Golf's weight in this thread. LOL
LOL - Yeah, that strut front end is pretty much regarded as state-of-the art. You've never actually DRIVEN one, have you? My car is GREAT in big fast corners but sucks in anything that changes direction more than 90*. I'll grant you the brakes but I don't think there's an ITB car out there that's brake-limited in sprint races. I WILL agree - and it's been a topic of ITAC conversations - that we don't consider torque to the degree that maybe we should. I've been asking for someone more clever than I am - anyone - to help me understand how we might do that.
Quote:
But you know what, you now think it's spot on so it probably won't get corrected. Again, maybe there's a flaw in the process being used and it does truly fit the results of other ITB cars. Just like how cars have been classed in the past, I'm sure this process will be tweeked along the way.
Read what Jake wrote carefully: There's a world of difference between "spot on" and what's within the operating tolerances applied. ...