Car is not for sale!
LOL

I do predict a number of nice "ASP Ready" cars being available soon..

 

The justifications for this move, at least in Fastrack, have been so bogus that I actually hope there really are a wave of letters supporting it.
* Class in decline... slightly, but not compared to STC / STS, which fell off a cliff this year.
* Dual purpose cars: yeah, the Vette is a great dual purpose car, unless you need to carry more than two people, or you live in a climate where there is some sort of weather other than sun. Oh yeah, if dual purpose cars matter, why do STC / STS exist? Do people typically drive to work and haul their kids around in 25 year old Hondas?
* More diverse class: An E36 M3 won last year. It's not anyone's fault but theirs that no one runs one as it has clearly proved it cam be competitive.

Question for the audience - is there another ST* class that will have a BIGGER course dependency than ours now? Maybe STX, but even then I think they are a lot more similar in size and shape overall than STU.

I feel like there was no amount of feedback that was going to change this. Someone posted this on another forum:



I mean, if I was going to pick something to dig out of a 25 mph corner on that chart, who WOULDN'T pick the 2.0L with the big laggy turbo?

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/mo...k-right-p.html

I'm guessing what, 4k at least for the basic build (post 13)?

 

My goal for STU was the to be one of the fastest "show up and drive" cars (no changing tires, etc)... (so no ASP for me)

Maybe the wife is having our first child at the perfect time, 2014 can be a sit on the sideline season if needbe, with good reason, while we watch the boost buggies take on 'MURICA!

 

I'm interested to see how much the class declines in participants on the evo sti side. ( I really think the scca just shot themselves in the foot on this one)

Has anyone compared the AS c5 corvetter vs stu times at Nationals? I know they're wearing slicks, but most of the top c5 times beat the $not out of all the top stu cars.

Every AS car in the trophies beat all the stu cars for 2013 nationals. Imagine what they will do with reduced weight, improved suspension, and more power.

 

reminder they still have to put that power down, which on giant street tires isn't simple, and not sure that 97.5% factor really applies.

 

Butt Dyno- is that graph Gs vs. MPH?
Is there any other info about it? Tire sizes/ compound/ brand/ surface/ temp/ same day/ same driver?

I would love to have some Corvettes in STU but maybe the C4 is a better fit; or limit them to 245s

 

Wow

We never saw anywhere close to that kind of lon-G on the BSP (ASP) car. And that was with WAY more TQ than I ever saw in STU. Whoever made that graph either knows how to skew the info or just made a mistake.

Corey

 

"David_SS" (Whitener)
here's the photostream that graph came from
http://s256.photobucket.com/user/Dav...id_SS/library/

is he on the STAC?

 

...and look at the chart that includes the Auto C5, lol

 

it would appear that he is (Aug 22, 2012)

and that he either owns a C5, or would like to (based on his photostream)

so......
begs the question, are we sure we're being represented properly/fairly?
at a minimum I'd like to see the math/science behind that chart, and how much/little it weighed in their decision

 

We are not represented. I don't think that there's anyone on the STAC that currently competes in STU. And since that STAC is volunteers (on a space available basis), that's our fault.

And while I should have written my letter sooner.. apparently, I would have liked more than one fastrack cycle for this decision to have been made.

-'chono'

 

Did we really create a class where the pinnacle of the class, the car to have, is a 12 year old automatic corvette?

 

Looks like David_SS owns or plans to own a Grey C5 Corvette:



Also: http://s256.photobucket.com/user/Dav...tml?sort=3&o=8

It's also a little suspicious that he made two versions of that chart. The first one (photobucket shows newest photos first in the stream as far as I can tell) included the C5 Auto, but he later uploaded a second version of the chart with the C5 Auto curve removed. Not to mention the bizarrely unrealistic values for the Evo in there.



I really hope that chart didn't weigh into anyone's calculations.

We certainly didn't, but I'm starting to wonder if an overly-eager C5 owner is doing his best to make a class for himself.

 

That's what I said on rrax forums when that pic got posted. someone screwed the pooch making that graph.

 

So how do we combat this?