Gee, this is what I call a
target rich environment.
Gentlemen, I stand by my comment that H16 (whomever
he is) engaged in trolling by quoting Dave Klym out of context and inferring Mr. Klym claimed something which he did not. Instead of reading H16's post critically, several of you immediately jumped on the insult bandwagon (you know who you are), and I called you out. If you consider my "insult" to be inappropriate at two posts, Aysedasi, it should be unforgivable after 120...
BTW, Aysedasi, here's my quick definition of "trolling": the posting of false or half-true claims with the deliberate intent of sowing discord or provoking argument...an
agent provocateur.
But you want me to stick to facts, so let's start with this one...
H16 asks,
"Do the DSPs even have impact structures?"
Yes, you can see the left side impact structure in this photo of the Fabcar at an early stage of construction. The structure is constructed of multiple alternating layers of honeycomb and cloth, just as is the side of the Audi's tub, only it's about 10 times as thick.
You do have on one point, though, H16. I started to write the sentence about the rear wing one way, and then incompletely edited it when I rewrote it. You harping on it is about as useful as me pointing out your spelling of "streesed". But I guess if you can't argue on the facts, you can always resort to the same old tactic of insult.
Even your one serious attempt at refuting one of my points falls short of the mark. FYI, for the past several years, tire companies have been limited to 2 dry compounds at F1 races (plus wets) -- ALL competitors who race on those tires must use those same tires, irrespective of which team the tires are engineered for (Ferrari in the case of Bridgestone - a compromise between Williams and McLaren for those on Michellins). Jordan,
et al, are stuck with what ever tire their chosen tire manufacturer brings to the venue. They are NOT free to engineer a tire optimised for their chassis (but will be from 2003). To wit, they are stuck with a
spec tire. And thank you for filling in the details about fuel. Since the teams are not free to develop the fuel during the course of a competitive season, as they are the aerodynamics and most other areas of the cars, they are stuck, in effect, with a
spec fuel for the duration of the season. QED
Sorry, H16, but "semi-automatic" means that the driver doesn't have to depress the clutch for each shift, not that you have pretty bottons on the steering wheel. One way to accomplish the gear shift is to ratchet the lever fore or aft (not up and down, H16). Another, vastly more expensive, way is to have the pretty little buttons on the steering wheel. Each system requires the driver effect each individual gear change and hence are functionally equivilent.
H16 claims that the GA rules forbid diffusers, and I challenged him to show me where it states that in the rules. He can't, because the word "diffuser" does not appear in the rules. Instead, paragraph 2-1.1 states:
The bottom of the car must be flat from the front bulkhead to the rear axle centerline and the full width of the bodywork, side to side.
Is this the basis for your claim, H16? If it is, I suggest you read Toyota's answer to a very similar ACO rule. See especially
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/GTOne.htm I, for one, will be astounded if no DSPs show up at Daytona without some form of a diffuser. Will GA aggressively control how broadly the rule is interpreted? Sure. Will teams seek to maximize their downforce? Most assuredly!
BTW, H16, I have read the rules. Most carefully. And I could drive my tow rig through that particular section. In case you aren't familiar with them, GA's DSP rules can be found at
http://www.grand-am.com/daytona_prototype/rules.html Take your pick of formats.
Speaking of rules, H16, please also take notice of ACO's injunction against air entering the car's body for any purpose other than cooling. This is essentially the same position as in GA. You seem to think of GA precluding ducting along the sides as some sort of shortcoming on their part. The fact of the matter is that GA reserves the area on the sides between the wheels from the reference plane upward for 20" to cover the
side impact structure. Teams are essentially free to intake and exhaust coolant air outside this reserved area, with minor caveats.
The rest of H16's reply doesn't warrant a response. Likewise cybersdorf.
BobN makes a couple of good points, though. First, go to the head of the class for correctly identifying me. Fritzenhauser is the knick-name I have had for 40 years, and Dauntless is the name of the new CSR I am designing. No mystery, I also go by Stan and by 54Ford on other forums, and my email is always the same (and available in my profile - hint, H16). And while I may have only a few posts here, I have around racing for more than 35 years, and recently engineered my son to a Bronze at the Runoffs (in a carbon tub Rt-41), so I know a little bit about racing. Furthermore, I recognise a provocation when
it lands like a thud. H16 can weasel all he wants, but the fact remains that he made several claims about Klym and about DPS that don't stand up, and IMO he deserves the come-uppance he's getting.
OTOH, I am not confusing H16 with Chris. H16 doesn't use the same sentence structure and mispellings. So not to worry.
I have no data yet on the DSP's top speed, but since the Audis could just touch 200 on the Mulsanne Straight (like I said, sluggos compared to "back in the day"...
), I am comfortable that the fastest DSPs will be within striking distance of that speed at Daytona.
But Bob, I
can interpret Klym's comments without being him or being told something in person by him, because I can read his comments within the context that they were given. Dave doesn't compare his car to an R8 - but he does claim quite rightly that his car is every bit as much a bespoke design and uncompromised pure race car as is the R8. To imply that Klym is suggesting otherwise, as H16 tried to do above, is not only disingenous and an insult to Klym's accomplishments, but an insult to this forum as well.
Okay, Aysedasi, you wanted it "on the facts". There you have it. The ball is back in H16's court. Will he argue on the facts or will he continue to resort to the tired old standbys of insult and invective. And I don't care how many posts he's made!
Cheers! Stan