Any updates on reclassification?
08-10-2001, 01:12 PM
#11
Registered User
Thread Starter
Exactly pfb. With the boxster being able to run 1"-1.5" wider wheels front and rear it allows a much wider tire without compromising sidewall deflection/stability.
Perhaps the rules makers aren't aware of this particular issue?
UL
Perhaps the rules makers aren't aware of this particular issue?
UL
08-10-2001, 01:36 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before this thread gets totally out of control..
The Boxster does not get "lots more rubber" than the S2K. Even in the 18 tire sizes (245/35 18) tread width is similar to the 245/40 17's and to the 245/45 16's used on the S2K. Where the S2K gives up rubber is on the fronts (225's), but it's only about .3 inches. Probably the significant difference in the sizes is just the sidewall and what that does to response.
On the comment from Daddio that the Boxster and S2000 need more development. Well, he's entitled to that opinion and has alot of results to back his statements up. However, I'll just say that possibly the only significant piece of development in each car might be to put Daddio in the driver's seat, and leave it at that. What setup works for Daddio, or any other top level driver for that matter, may not be the best or work for everyone.
Also, finding light weight aftermarket wheels for the Boxster is not as easy as it seems. Finding anything in the 17" size that meets stock rules and is lighter than stock is very difficult. The combination of a relatively high offset (50+mm) and 5x130 bolt pattern drastically reduces the number of manufacturers. We ended up going with BBS racing 3pc wheels, which ended up being $$ and not really that much lighter than the Porsche OEM 17's. The 18" wheels are another matter, as I think Fikse has a couple models that will work, though they are very big $$.
Also, saying one tire combo is .4-.6 faster than another is kind of ridiculous in an autox environment. We tested 18's vs 17's last weekend and were .2 sec faster than the 17's, when we ran the 18's second and during a warmer part of the day (we were first run group in the 17's). Also, the 17's were almost shot (should have brought a new set). Would I conclude that 18's were faster from this? Certainly not an overdog setup. A big negative on the 18's was that they added a total of 30lbs of rotating weight to the car. With some good aftermarket 18's to get the weight down, I could believe the 18's would be a slightly faster setup. However, that's not going to happen before Nationals. We'll just win on the 17's.
The Boxster does not get "lots more rubber" than the S2K. Even in the 18 tire sizes (245/35 18) tread width is similar to the 245/40 17's and to the 245/45 16's used on the S2K. Where the S2K gives up rubber is on the fronts (225's), but it's only about .3 inches. Probably the significant difference in the sizes is just the sidewall and what that does to response.
On the comment from Daddio that the Boxster and S2000 need more development. Well, he's entitled to that opinion and has alot of results to back his statements up. However, I'll just say that possibly the only significant piece of development in each car might be to put Daddio in the driver's seat, and leave it at that. What setup works for Daddio, or any other top level driver for that matter, may not be the best or work for everyone.
Also, finding light weight aftermarket wheels for the Boxster is not as easy as it seems. Finding anything in the 17" size that meets stock rules and is lighter than stock is very difficult. The combination of a relatively high offset (50+mm) and 5x130 bolt pattern drastically reduces the number of manufacturers. We ended up going with BBS racing 3pc wheels, which ended up being $$ and not really that much lighter than the Porsche OEM 17's. The 18" wheels are another matter, as I think Fikse has a couple models that will work, though they are very big $$.
Also, saying one tire combo is .4-.6 faster than another is kind of ridiculous in an autox environment. We tested 18's vs 17's last weekend and were .2 sec faster than the 17's, when we ran the 18's second and during a warmer part of the day (we were first run group in the 17's). Also, the 17's were almost shot (should have brought a new set). Would I conclude that 18's were faster from this? Certainly not an overdog setup. A big negative on the 18's was that they added a total of 30lbs of rotating weight to the car. With some good aftermarket 18's to get the weight down, I could believe the 18's would be a slightly faster setup. However, that's not going to happen before Nationals. We'll just win on the 17's.
08-10-2001, 01:38 PM
#13
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ultimate lurker
Perhaps the rules makers aren't aware of this particular issue?
Perhaps the rules makers aren't aware of this particular issue?
08-10-2001, 03:08 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple things, then I'm hitting the road for the CenDiv Divisional at Peru...
First, the rules makers are generally aware of things like tire/wheel size as these are the items often brought up in letters to them. Next, as for fully developed, I don't feel that any car is ever fully developed... the top drivers are ALWAYS looking for adantages and for that reason I don't think you can conclude such things. For instance, Gary Thomason last year got pretty close to hitting the nail on the head... Just because it was the first year for the car doesn't mean that someone with his setup acumen didn't get damn close. Further evidence is that our own Ron Bauer was a bit off Gary... I know it's not necessarily the driver - Ron is a superaltive driver. But Gary has much more experience in suspension tuning.
As for the Boxster's potential, wheels, etc... I have to be a bit careful here becuase GH told me allot of things that were obviously in confidence. But what I can say after driving on GH's setup on both the 17's and 18's is that one of the two setups is significantly better. My guess is that something in his shock settings allow that particular tire combination to work better. Both GH and I were able to go .5-.6 faster consistently on the better wheel/tire package. Also, to the topic of tire advantage for one car or the other... Both may have 245's in the rear, but a 245 on a 8.5 or 9" wheel vs. a 7.5? It's a no brainer. We're cornering on the two parts of the tire that are bowed up from being squeezed on the rims... Boxsters are cornering on ALL the tire.
It was painfully obvious after driving 3 different S2K's at the test day, then GH's Boxster that the Greman car has WAY more steady-state grip. If there are a bunch of sweepers at Nationals a Boxster will do well. S2k's transition better (lighter) so if there are a bunch of slaloms I feel the S2000's will do well.
I'll put this part in bold because it's a statement I truly believe: The differences between a fully setup Boxster and a fully setup S2000 fall within the normal course dependancy range one would expect to see between cars in the same class.
Unfortunately, the perception is the S2000 is unbeatable... Which may still be true. But after my (admittedly limited) experience driving the Boxster and S2000 side by side I can say that they are very equal on concrete. If you look at both S2K blowouts this year (SanDiego and FtWorth) not only were they both Joe, they were both on ASPHALT. The difference between the cars seems much smaller on concrete. Maybe it's because the extra grip of the concrete allows all that rubber on the Boxsters to work. Who knows... I just feel like the seperation of the Boxster and S2000 is still too much of a knee-jerk reaction.
Going into the test day, I felt that we would prove the S2000 is much better than the Boxster. I think GH felt that also. That was not conclusively proved, which left us both scratching our heads. But, along the lines of innocent until proven guilty I think the S2000 is still innocent. I hate to see the reclassing of a car happen due to results from asphalt events, when we all know that different surfaces can have different effects and that Nationals is on concrete.
I'm not mad about this... I know that the S2000 is good, and that we'll be fairly competitive next year. (unless an A driver hops in a C4 Vette... those cars are not being run to potential anymore, and are getting within tenths, if not beating stooks with B drivers.)
I would just hate to see two classes dominated by Boxsters... if they put the S in AS with the S2K.
In closing let me throw out some numbers from the test day.
Saturday Course(driver, car, etc.):
GH, Boxster, Tire option A: 57.1
Me, Boxster, Tire option A: 56.9
GH, Mistress: 57.4
Me, Mistress: 57.1
Me, S2k, Gendron Bar, Hoosiers, Stock shocks: 56.5
GH, Boxster, Tire option B: 56.5
Me, Boxster, Tire option B: 56.4
Sunday Course(driver, car, etc.)
GH, Boxster, Tire option B: 56.5
Me, Mistress: 56.9
Chris Dvorak, S2k, Gendron, Hoosier, Stock Shocks: 56.6
Me, Boxster, Tire option B: 56.7
GH, S2k, Gendron, Hoosier, Stock Shocks: 56.5
Lots of drivers, lots of cars, two competely different courses and times all within .6 range. I know it's only one weekend, but it's certainly compelling data. We might get the chance to try this again next Thursday, and I'll be sure to report back. For now, I've gotta hit the road!
First, the rules makers are generally aware of things like tire/wheel size as these are the items often brought up in letters to them. Next, as for fully developed, I don't feel that any car is ever fully developed... the top drivers are ALWAYS looking for adantages and for that reason I don't think you can conclude such things. For instance, Gary Thomason last year got pretty close to hitting the nail on the head... Just because it was the first year for the car doesn't mean that someone with his setup acumen didn't get damn close. Further evidence is that our own Ron Bauer was a bit off Gary... I know it's not necessarily the driver - Ron is a superaltive driver. But Gary has much more experience in suspension tuning.
As for the Boxster's potential, wheels, etc... I have to be a bit careful here becuase GH told me allot of things that were obviously in confidence. But what I can say after driving on GH's setup on both the 17's and 18's is that one of the two setups is significantly better. My guess is that something in his shock settings allow that particular tire combination to work better. Both GH and I were able to go .5-.6 faster consistently on the better wheel/tire package. Also, to the topic of tire advantage for one car or the other... Both may have 245's in the rear, but a 245 on a 8.5 or 9" wheel vs. a 7.5? It's a no brainer. We're cornering on the two parts of the tire that are bowed up from being squeezed on the rims... Boxsters are cornering on ALL the tire.
It was painfully obvious after driving 3 different S2K's at the test day, then GH's Boxster that the Greman car has WAY more steady-state grip. If there are a bunch of sweepers at Nationals a Boxster will do well. S2k's transition better (lighter) so if there are a bunch of slaloms I feel the S2000's will do well.
I'll put this part in bold because it's a statement I truly believe: The differences between a fully setup Boxster and a fully setup S2000 fall within the normal course dependancy range one would expect to see between cars in the same class.
Unfortunately, the perception is the S2000 is unbeatable... Which may still be true. But after my (admittedly limited) experience driving the Boxster and S2000 side by side I can say that they are very equal on concrete. If you look at both S2K blowouts this year (SanDiego and FtWorth) not only were they both Joe, they were both on ASPHALT. The difference between the cars seems much smaller on concrete. Maybe it's because the extra grip of the concrete allows all that rubber on the Boxsters to work. Who knows... I just feel like the seperation of the Boxster and S2000 is still too much of a knee-jerk reaction.
Going into the test day, I felt that we would prove the S2000 is much better than the Boxster. I think GH felt that also. That was not conclusively proved, which left us both scratching our heads. But, along the lines of innocent until proven guilty I think the S2000 is still innocent. I hate to see the reclassing of a car happen due to results from asphalt events, when we all know that different surfaces can have different effects and that Nationals is on concrete.
I'm not mad about this... I know that the S2000 is good, and that we'll be fairly competitive next year. (unless an A driver hops in a C4 Vette... those cars are not being run to potential anymore, and are getting within tenths, if not beating stooks with B drivers.)
I would just hate to see two classes dominated by Boxsters... if they put the S in AS with the S2K.
In closing let me throw out some numbers from the test day.
Saturday Course(driver, car, etc.):
GH, Boxster, Tire option A: 57.1
Me, Boxster, Tire option A: 56.9
GH, Mistress: 57.4
Me, Mistress: 57.1
Me, S2k, Gendron Bar, Hoosiers, Stock shocks: 56.5
GH, Boxster, Tire option B: 56.5
Me, Boxster, Tire option B: 56.4
Sunday Course(driver, car, etc.)
GH, Boxster, Tire option B: 56.5
Me, Mistress: 56.9
Chris Dvorak, S2k, Gendron, Hoosier, Stock Shocks: 56.6
Me, Boxster, Tire option B: 56.7
GH, S2k, Gendron, Hoosier, Stock Shocks: 56.5
Lots of drivers, lots of cars, two competely different courses and times all within .6 range. I know it's only one weekend, but it's certainly compelling data. We might get the chance to try this again next Thursday, and I'll be sure to report back. For now, I've gotta hit the road!
08-10-2001, 03:14 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Milton
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bringing the other Evolution school instructor (that I know of) into the mix - do we really have any details from Joe Goeke on why he thinks the S2000 is faster than the Boxster? For those that don't know Joe was the top Boxster finisher in Topeka last year (4th place) and at this point his wife (a top level driver in her own right) is driving the Boxster as she prefers it.
BTW - the reason I mentioned Mark Daddio is not so much because of his obvious superior driving abilities - but that I believe he works as a Chrysler suspension design engineer and would know a thing or two about those complicated underpinnings.
s2k2fast4me - Mark didn't mention anything to me about the Boxster needing more development time - he made that comment solely about the S2000. I will say that I didn't ask him specifically about the Boxster's development.
I did ask him specifically about the S2000 vs. Boxster S next year to which he replied that it will still be the car of the class in the new AS.
Honestly guys - as I've only been doing this for a year now my biggest beef with the new classing is lack of competition (not talking about quality but quantity). I was hoping that the 968 would get bumped up with the S2000 as based on past performance it used to be the car of the class and there used to be a few in the region that ran. Just look at the Kozlaks last year (2nd) and the prior couple of years (1sts).
Etgar
BTW - the reason I mentioned Mark Daddio is not so much because of his obvious superior driving abilities - but that I believe he works as a Chrysler suspension design engineer and would know a thing or two about those complicated underpinnings.
s2k2fast4me - Mark didn't mention anything to me about the Boxster needing more development time - he made that comment solely about the S2000. I will say that I didn't ask him specifically about the Boxster's development.
I did ask him specifically about the S2000 vs. Boxster S next year to which he replied that it will still be the car of the class in the new AS.
Honestly guys - as I've only been doing this for a year now my biggest beef with the new classing is lack of competition (not talking about quality but quantity). I was hoping that the 968 would get bumped up with the S2000 as based on past performance it used to be the car of the class and there used to be a few in the region that ran. Just look at the Kozlaks last year (2nd) and the prior couple of years (1sts).
Etgar
08-10-2001, 03:22 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Milton
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jason,
What's your take on the Gendron bar? Based on the results you posted even on the stock shocks it looks pretty good? Is it really that much better than the comptech bar? Was the car with the Gendron bar running JDM wheels? Were you?
As I'm the originator of the bar you can imagine I'm pretty curious.
Etgar
What's your take on the Gendron bar? Based on the results you posted even on the stock shocks it looks pretty good? Is it really that much better than the comptech bar? Was the car with the Gendron bar running JDM wheels? Were you?
As I'm the originator of the bar you can imagine I'm pretty curious.
Etgar
08-11-2001, 06:26 AM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were a number of varaibles working when J drove that car.
1. Gendron sway bar with a solid bar as opposed to hollow.
2. NEW Hoosiers on US wheels.
3. Stock shocks.
4. Relaxed, non-pressure, test and tune atmosphere. (cars always seem to go faster when it doesn't matter)
The new Hoosiers made the obvious difference plus the stock shocks are just that good. I was impressed enough to shoot Mr. Gendron an email (still waiting to hear back) However I would like to hear Jasons comments on the Gendron bar.
1. Gendron sway bar with a solid bar as opposed to hollow.
2. NEW Hoosiers on US wheels.
3. Stock shocks.
4. Relaxed, non-pressure, test and tune atmosphere. (cars always seem to go faster when it doesn't matter)
The new Hoosiers made the obvious difference plus the stock shocks are just that good. I was impressed enough to shoot Mr. Gendron an email (still waiting to hear back) However I would like to hear Jasons comments on the Gendron bar.
08-11-2001, 06:47 AM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Milton
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SoloVR6,
Are you the one who attempted to make his bar after talking to me and Bill and then had him send you the parts? I'm wondering about the solid bar.
I talked to him about the solid vs. hollow bar and he said the solid bar wouldn't add that significantly to stiffness (most comes from the outer parts of the bar) but it would add weight. What are your thoughts on the matter?
You are right on the stock shocks. Here's what three people said to me:
1. Bill Gendron - keep the stock shocks - you'll get more from an exhaust. I don't see anything I don't like with the stock shocks.
2. Nick Leverone - I can't get over how good this car right out of the box. I'd get some single adjustable shocks.
3. Mark Daddio - I'd get single adjustable shocks - don't waste you money on the double adjustable shocks as the second adjustment does not impact performance on an AutoX course at all - they only affect feel. I'm running single adjustable shocks on my Neon (ESP I believe).
Based on what these guys have said and the Tour results I've seen (winning Tours on stock shocks) and basically what has happened to some people with the incorrectly valved shocks I'm not going for shocks for next season. I have more to make up in driving.
Was Jason running his JDM wheels? If so according to Bill that's equivalent to taking ~200 lbs off the car (rotating mass and all that) - something you can feel seat of the pants.
What kind of surface were you guys on - was the comptech bar not stiff/too stiff for the surface?
Etgar
Are you the one who attempted to make his bar after talking to me and Bill and then had him send you the parts? I'm wondering about the solid bar.
I talked to him about the solid vs. hollow bar and he said the solid bar wouldn't add that significantly to stiffness (most comes from the outer parts of the bar) but it would add weight. What are your thoughts on the matter?
You are right on the stock shocks. Here's what three people said to me:
1. Bill Gendron - keep the stock shocks - you'll get more from an exhaust. I don't see anything I don't like with the stock shocks.
2. Nick Leverone - I can't get over how good this car right out of the box. I'd get some single adjustable shocks.
3. Mark Daddio - I'd get single adjustable shocks - don't waste you money on the double adjustable shocks as the second adjustment does not impact performance on an AutoX course at all - they only affect feel. I'm running single adjustable shocks on my Neon (ESP I believe).
Based on what these guys have said and the Tour results I've seen (winning Tours on stock shocks) and basically what has happened to some people with the incorrectly valved shocks I'm not going for shocks for next season. I have more to make up in driving.
Was Jason running his JDM wheels? If so according to Bill that's equivalent to taking ~200 lbs off the car (rotating mass and all that) - something you can feel seat of the pants.
What kind of surface were you guys on - was the comptech bar not stiff/too stiff for the surface?
Etgar