Even if we were to assume that's true - and it's absolutely not, simply because you were not there and all you have is a results sheet which doesn't tell the whole story - what about everybody else in the class...? Is the class to be limited solely to the best example of RWD sports car available versus the best example of FWD strut car available to use today*?Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt
Given the evidence at hand, I suggest you've just offered excellent supporting anecdotal evidence for slowing down a couple of front-running cars.
GA
*As the Miata is to small 2-seater sports cars, the FG Civic is to FWD strut cars. When Honda decided to ditch the wishbone suspension for the Civic, they didn't just throw some crappy struts on the car as they did with the RSX; they really did that car right. The suspension geometry is as good as it gets for struts, to the point where many pro teams did not even bother moving pickup point and relocating ball joints as allowed by the rules; it just wasn't needed.
A lot of people think that car does well because of the very good ~200hp K20Z3 (which has to de-cam and run a restrictor for STL); that's certainly part of the equation. But that chassis is a super package all on its own. Bob Beede actively moved from a 1.8LGSR engine in a '99 DWB Civic in 2012, to a lightly-modded SSB FG Civic Si in 2013 and thought it was the better package.
The ongoing "Miata Penalty" will continue to vex all RWD cars. In the same vein, it's quite possible that FWD strut cars may eventually suffer the "Civic penalty" (unless we choose to slow down those specific examples instead...)
Regardless, the CRB will continue to adjust vehicles as needed to ensure reasonable parity within the Majors program. And since the class is based on general mechanical characteristics of the vehicles versus line-item classifications the CRB will, no doubt, continue to create and adjust these characteristics as needed to ensure that direction.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks