448 replies to this topic

[Andrew Charbonneau]

danny stain in car vidio parity

[Andrew Charbonneau]

danny i found your first race vidio

[Andrew Charbonneau]

I smell victory at VIR

[htron435]

I can't believe that I just spent the last two hours reading this entire thread -- I think my head is about to explode.

[john mueller]

I can't believe that I just spent the last two hours reading this entire thread -- I think my head is about to explode.

!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45CHLPg39Kg

[seege]

I smell victory at VIR

Is that what that smell was?

[Johnny D]

So watching the NASA championships race.
There was some 99's in it right?
So can I assume I'll be buying another size RP for next year?
J~

[Glenn]

I just want to Thank NASA for a great experience. Good to see everyone. Hope to be back next year.

[Weekend Warrior]

Who hacked Glenn's account?!?

[Weekend Warrior]

[Caveman-kwebb99]

So watching the NASA championships race.
There was some 99's in it right?
So can I assume I'll be buying another size RP for next year?
J~

IMHO, there was only one 99 capable of winning the show! that would be the #02 car, had he not missed the start of the first qualifying race by over half a lap he would have easily been in the hunt, wet or dry!

I guess the RP question remains! I beleive there needs to be a change, but thats just one opinion and I am sure everyone has theirs!

[Glenn]

IMHO, there was only one 99 capable of winning the show! that would be the #02 car, had he not missed the start of the first qualifying race by over half a lap he would have easily been in the hunt, wet or dry!

I guess the RP question remains! I beleive there needs to be a change, but thats just one opinion and I am sure everyone has theirs!

You forgot the 155 car as he was punted on day 2 qual. and was a contender during the race as well.

[Jim Drago]

Hard to make many parity arguments pro or con in that race.. Hard to admit I actual agree with Dewhurst here The hard thing to determine is the prep levels of the cars dynoed etc.. I know the prep level of the 155 car and the 02 car, both are top examples 99 cars in the country, I also feel the prep level on the #94 (NA 1.8) car was very similar. I don't know the prep level of the top 1.6 cars there so I can't comment.
I know for certain, "I" , "me personally" ... would have raced a 94/97 first, a 1.6 secondly,an 01 up thirdly and a 99/00 last. In NASA or SCCA, none of the rules are that far off that a good driver can't win in any car, but at a championship event, you better be in the best version you can get your hands on, have it dialed in, make no mistakes and have a little luck. That is exactly what our winner did. The result was more about the driver than the year car, that's the way it should be.

I think the same applies in NASA as in SCCA... When people have both cars in NASA and SCCA( 1.6 and 99) and chose the 99 in SCCA and the 1.6 in NASA, it says something, perception often becomes reality. That will always be the case, regardless of the rules, we just need to get it where the choices are split rather than so one sided as they are at the moment in both sanctioning bodies.
Jim

[dmathias]

Which year is better in the rain?

[FTodaro]

Jim Not to mention that it would be nice to get back to that place we were a few years ago when what was legal in NASA was Legal in SCCA, but we are going different directions. Next year likely to continue a different plate, and wt for the 1999 and for sure a different tire. This is all adding to the frustration of trying to run both clubs.

[Glenn]

Hard to make many parity arguments pro or con in that race.. Hard to admit I actual agree with Dewhurst here The hard thing to determine is the prep levels of the cars dynoed etc.. I know the prep level of the 155 car and the 02 car, both are top examples 99 cars in the country, I also feel the prep level on the #94 (NA 1.8) car was very similar. I don't know the prep level of the top 1.6 cars there so I can't comment.
I know for certain, "I" , "me personally" ... would have raced a 94/97 first, a 1.6 secondly,an 01 up thirdly and a 99/00 last. In NASA or SCCA, none of the rules are that far off that a good driver can't win in any car, but at a championship event, you better be in the best version you can get your hands on, have it dialed in, make no mistakes and have a little luck. That is exactly what our winner did. The result was more about the driver than the year car, that's the way it should be.

I think the same applies in NASA as in SCCA... When people have both cars in NASA and SCCA( 1.6 and 99) and chose the 99 in SCCA and the 1.6 in NASA, it says something, perception often becomes reality. That will always be the case, regardless of the rules, we just need to get it where the choices are split rather than so one sided as they are at the moment in both sanctioning bodies.
Jim

+1 on the 94 to 97.

[Jim Drago]

Jim Not to mention that it would be nice to get back to that place we were a few years ago when what was legal in NASA was Legal in SCCA, but we are going different directions. Next year likely to continue a different plate, and wt for the 1999 and for sure a different tire. This is all adding to the frustration of trying to run both clubs.

We'll talk with John Mueller when thinking on next years rules, I would like to see the rules the same myself. But we will definitely be on different tires, but if it is only tires, that isn't too terribly different.
Jim

[Astro]

So watching the NASA championships race.
There was some 99's in it right?
So can I assume I'll be buying another size RP for next year?
J~

Here goes my opinion...The fastest lap (1:42.9) for the entire weekend was set by #02, which is the '99 of Alex Bolanos, which finished 5th before moving to the back for a pass under yellow. Both Derek Whitis and Adam Molaver would have also been up front in their 99s had they not crashed.

NASA dyno'ed the top 7 from Thursday qualifying race, which included 2 '99, 2 '94-97, and 3 90-93, with the majority of entries being 90-93 so the new rules seem to make the cars more even than in previous years!

The only reason there weren't more '99s at the front is because most of the competitive '99 cars did not come. Don't assume they aren't competitive just because they didn't show up!

I bet the 99s dominate the runoffs...I wonder why...

Congrats to Nate, Sammy, and Greg. It was great running with you...I will see you next year.

[Johnny D]

The only reason there weren't more '99s at the front is because most of the competitive '99 cars did not come. Don't assume they aren't competitive just because they didn't show up!

Did the drivers show but not the 99's or both?
J~

[Tom Sager]

Ahh, the great parity debate. Here's the average lap time from the NASA Nationals last weekend using the fastest lap from each of the top 2 types of cars from Friday's qualifying session and qualifying race. I chose this sample as they were the only true dry sessions of the event (not including warmup). It's a 4 lap sample for each type of car.

1.6 = 1:43.463
1.8 = 1:43.692
'99 = 1:43.738

Yes, the field had more 1.6 cars which increased the chances for better laps for that car.