A/C delete pic (997.2)
09-03-2009, 12:43 AM
#16
Rennlist Member
09-03-2009, 09:25 AM
#17
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wishing I Was At The Track
Posts: 13,632
Received 1,864 Likes
on
964 Posts
I'm sorry but I get a chuckle out of listening to all this talk of radio delete that, A/C delete this. At the end of the day the GT3 is still a luxury sports car, albeit one that acquits very well on a track. But there are any number of better options for those after a real track experience. Buy an Ariel Atom or Radical. Better yet, buy a shifter cart - it'll pull 3g and do 0-100 in 7sec - throw it in the back of pickup and go really wring your neck.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the attractiveness of lightweight. But do you really think that you're going to be that much faster deleting A/C or Nav? I'll say it again, we'd all be safer and faster if we spent more time getting proper instruction rather than worrying about deleting this or that item off our luxury sports car.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the attractiveness of lightweight. But do you really think that you're going to be that much faster deleting A/C or Nav? I'll say it again, we'd all be safer and faster if we spent more time getting proper instruction rather than worrying about deleting this or that item off our luxury sports car.
09-03-2009, 11:27 AM
#18
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away....
Posts: 17,107
Likes: 0
Received 259 Likes
on
173 Posts
Flying Lizard complained that the system obstructs view behind the seats, but the comfort is nice. They are working with the view problem.
the reason for A/C in the new RSR is that rules now state it is required for some series as driver cabin temperature has to be such a temp to be safe for long durations of driving.
I was surprised once i learned of the new addition. Im sure the drivers will like it
09-03-2009, 07:46 PM
#19
Three Wheelin'
I'm sorry but I get a chuckle out of listening to all this talk of radio delete that, A/C delete this. At the end of the day the GT3 is still a luxury sports car, albeit one that acquits very well on a track. But there are any number of better options for those after a real track experience. Buy an Ariel Atom or Radical. Better yet, buy a shifter cart - it'll pull 3g and do 0-100 in 7sec - throw it in the back of pickup and go really wring your neck.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the attractiveness of lightweight. But do you really think that you're going to be that much faster deleting A/C or Nav? I'll say it again, we'd all be safer and faster if we spent more time getting proper instruction rather than worrying about deleting this or that item off our luxury sports car.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the attractiveness of lightweight. But do you really think that you're going to be that much faster deleting A/C or Nav? I'll say it again, we'd all be safer and faster if we spent more time getting proper instruction rather than worrying about deleting this or that item off our luxury sports car.
09-04-2009, 10:31 PM
#20
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wishing I Was At The Track
Posts: 13,632
Received 1,864 Likes
on
964 Posts
Yes and no. If your response was motivated by my admittedly overly harsh criticism then point taken. I was over-caffeinated at the time. My bad.
OTOH, if you're saying we shouldn't render opinions then I disagree. I'm currently on the fence about the front lift system and the feedback on this forum is helping shape my decision regarding which way to go. My view is that this forum, and others like it, are all about sharing opinions, experiences, and information.
Now to a more measured response on A/C delete. Since you've spent time on the track you know that heat leads to fatigue, both in machines and people, and fatigue degrades performance. Racers spend a lot of time looking for ways to reduce heat-related fatigue - cool suits, venting, and even A/C. It makes for a faster, safer racer.
I can only think of two reasons offhand to go A/C delete. One would be if you were building a completely stripped out autocross or short-event racer. But then I'd question why you'd start with a new $130k street car. The second is if you only ever drive in cold climates. Having recently spent a few days in 103 degree heat in Seattle, I'd have to say there aren't many of those places around.
But hey, just my .02 and to each his own. Peace out.
OTOH, if you're saying we shouldn't render opinions then I disagree. I'm currently on the fence about the front lift system and the feedback on this forum is helping shape my decision regarding which way to go. My view is that this forum, and others like it, are all about sharing opinions, experiences, and information.
Now to a more measured response on A/C delete. Since you've spent time on the track you know that heat leads to fatigue, both in machines and people, and fatigue degrades performance. Racers spend a lot of time looking for ways to reduce heat-related fatigue - cool suits, venting, and even A/C. It makes for a faster, safer racer.
I can only think of two reasons offhand to go A/C delete. One would be if you were building a completely stripped out autocross or short-event racer. But then I'd question why you'd start with a new $130k street car. The second is if you only ever drive in cold climates. Having recently spent a few days in 103 degree heat in Seattle, I'd have to say there aren't many of those places around.
But hey, just my .02 and to each his own. Peace out.
09-05-2009, 12:54 AM
#21
Three Wheelin'
Yes and no. If your response was motivated by my admittedly overly harsh criticism then point taken. I was over-caffeinated at the time. My bad.
OTOH, if you're saying we shouldn't render opinions then I disagree. I'm currently on the fence about the front lift system and the feedback on this forum is helping shape my decision regarding which way to go. My view is that this forum, and others like it, are all about sharing opinions, experiences, and information.
Now to a more measured response on A/C delete. Since you've spent time on the track you know that heat leads to fatigue, both in machines and people, and fatigue degrades performance. Racers spend a lot of time looking for ways to reduce heat-related fatigue - cool suits, venting, and even A/C. It makes for a faster, safer racer.
I can only think of two reasons offhand to go A/C delete. One would be if you were building a completely stripped out autocross or short-event racer. But then I'd question why you'd start with a new $130k street car. The second is if you only ever drive in cold climates. Having recently spent a few days in 103 degree heat in Seattle, I'd have to say there aren't many of those places around.
But hey, just my .02 and to each his own. Peace out.
OTOH, if you're saying we shouldn't render opinions then I disagree. I'm currently on the fence about the front lift system and the feedback on this forum is helping shape my decision regarding which way to go. My view is that this forum, and others like it, are all about sharing opinions, experiences, and information.
Now to a more measured response on A/C delete. Since you've spent time on the track you know that heat leads to fatigue, both in machines and people, and fatigue degrades performance. Racers spend a lot of time looking for ways to reduce heat-related fatigue - cool suits, venting, and even A/C. It makes for a faster, safer racer.
I can only think of two reasons offhand to go A/C delete. One would be if you were building a completely stripped out autocross or short-event racer. But then I'd question why you'd start with a new $130k street car. The second is if you only ever drive in cold climates. Having recently spent a few days in 103 degree heat in Seattle, I'd have to say there aren't many of those places around.
But hey, just my .02 and to each his own. Peace out.
09-05-2009, 01:36 AM
#22
Yes and no. If your response was motivated by my admittedly overly harsh criticism then point taken. I was over-caffeinated at the time. My bad.
OTOH, if you're saying we shouldn't render opinions then I disagree. I'm currently on the fence about the front lift system and the feedback on this forum is helping shape my decision regarding which way to go. My view is that this forum, and others like it, are all about sharing opinions, experiences, and information.
Now to a more measured response on A/C delete. Since you've spent time on the track you know that heat leads to fatigue, both in machines and people, and fatigue degrades performance. Racers spend a lot of time looking for ways to reduce heat-related fatigue - cool suits, venting, and even A/C. It makes for a faster, safer racer.
I can only think of two reasons offhand to go A/C delete. One would be if you were building a completely stripped out autocross or short-event racer. But then I'd question why you'd start with a new $130k street car. The second is if you only ever drive in cold climates. Having recently spent a few days in 103 degree heat in Seattle, I'd have to say there aren't many of those places around.
But hey, just my .02 and to each his own. Peace out.
OTOH, if you're saying we shouldn't render opinions then I disagree. I'm currently on the fence about the front lift system and the feedback on this forum is helping shape my decision regarding which way to go. My view is that this forum, and others like it, are all about sharing opinions, experiences, and information.
Now to a more measured response on A/C delete. Since you've spent time on the track you know that heat leads to fatigue, both in machines and people, and fatigue degrades performance. Racers spend a lot of time looking for ways to reduce heat-related fatigue - cool suits, venting, and even A/C. It makes for a faster, safer racer.
I can only think of two reasons offhand to go A/C delete. One would be if you were building a completely stripped out autocross or short-event racer. But then I'd question why you'd start with a new $130k street car. The second is if you only ever drive in cold climates. Having recently spent a few days in 103 degree heat in Seattle, I'd have to say there aren't many of those places around.
But hey, just my .02 and to each his own. Peace out.
Opinions that are substantiated are what I love to read about here...My own reasons to not have A/C in the RS were simple...firstly; just good old fashion purity of a "race car" with less weight over the rear axel and I can open the windows as indicated for cooling...In the RSR; however, that b*tch gets really hot inside especially at Sebring and thus the cool suit....still weighs less than the whole A/C unit.....driver comfort is paramount and fatigue secondary to heat caused me to come in more than once with the fixed windows on the RSR!....gotta luv the cool suits and helmets....lack of A/C in the RSR requires an electrically heated windscreen for those rainy days...had it malfunction once at the Glen and had to unbuckle so as to be able to reach the screen to wipe it down while driving......total pucker factor!!
I'm sorry but I get a chuckle out of listening to all this talk of radio delete that, A/C delete this. At the end of the day the GT3 is still a luxury sports car, albeit one that acquits very well on a track. But there are any number of better options for those after a real track experience. Buy an Ariel Atom or Radical. Better yet, buy a shifter cart - it'll pull 3g and do 0-100 in 7sec - throw it in the back of pickup and go really wring your neck.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the attractiveness of lightweight. But do you really think that you're going to be that much faster deleting A/C or Nav? I'll say it again, we'd all be safer and faster if we spent more time getting proper instruction rather than worrying about deleting this or that item off our luxury sports car.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the attractiveness of lightweight. But do you really think that you're going to be that much faster deleting A/C or Nav? I'll say it again, we'd all be safer and faster if we spent more time getting proper instruction rather than worrying about deleting this or that item off our luxury sports car.
I'm enjoying reading this debate. Touchy stuff, but you're keeping it objective and rational. That's becoming an endangered species of discourse on the Web. Bravo.
For my two cents', I don't think there's anyone trying to shout down the legit buyer for choosing options that might be more "qualitative" than "quantitative."
I don't necessarily laugh at others when they pay for the froufrou stuff (I've been known to check the option box for a piece of carbon facade here or there) but I certainly have to laugh at myself when I replace a $130K "start of the art" car with another $130K "state of the art" car two years later and the performance delta is available, realiseable and measureable only with a pro driver under ideal conditions. Even if I could extract that second decimal place of G or that tenth off a lap time, I'm only lapping, not racing, no sponsors, just enjoying the drive, bringing it in shiny side up on affordable tires and driving defensively in traffic ... so I think most RS buyers understand the "get real" aspect and for at least a good percentage of them, it's not a Rennlist thing (constant enthusiasm) it's more like a "for once in my life" thing.
09-05-2009, 10:01 AM
#23
Rennlist Member
On a hot 100% humidety day in Florida, switching from student car to my car in a fire suit, I would probably be faster with the A/C on if they would let me close the windows ;-)
09-06-2009, 09:29 PM
#24
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first started tracking many years ago (Subaru), everyone used to turn off the A/C because of it slightly reducing power. First thing ALL the instructors at EVERY circuit did was turn it back on "because you'll be faster and more consistent if you're comfortable"
If you're going for out-and-out max lightness track tool then fair enough, but even for a commited track enthusiast the few lbs saved probably won't make a great deal of difference...
If you're going for out-and-out max lightness track tool then fair enough, but even for a commited track enthusiast the few lbs saved probably won't make a great deal of difference...
09-07-2009, 10:52 AM
#25
Rennlist Member
My students would certainly be faster if I am comfortable ;-)
In the UK you are allowed to run with the windows closed, much better!
Open windows is uncomfortable in the 100% humidety in Florida, makes the car dirty inside and IMHO, less safe.
I don't understand why we need to run with the windows open in the US, while in Europe I believe you are required to close them. I mean give the track workers a window breaker.....
Some cars even close the windows upon an impact for safety, but the US tracks apprearantly know better than the manufacturers....
In the UK you are allowed to run with the windows closed, much better!
Open windows is uncomfortable in the 100% humidety in Florida, makes the car dirty inside and IMHO, less safe.
I don't understand why we need to run with the windows open in the US, while in Europe I believe you are required to close them. I mean give the track workers a window breaker.....
Some cars even close the windows upon an impact for safety, but the US tracks apprearantly know better than the manufacturers....
09-07-2009, 12:31 PM
#26
Running windows down is certainly wrong. Track operators are slow to update their thinking.
The only example I've encountered in the USA is Porsche Sport Driving School, PSDS, where they insist upon windows up. They base their decision on two things -- arms and heads stay in the cabin, air-bags are still activated and they're designed to work with closed windows. With the advent of curtain and A-pillar and thorax bags, sticking to 80's procedures increases risks and complications.
I've variously heard that windows down would reduce the amount of broken glass or remove one obstacle to extracting the occupants in the event of fire. Both ideas are relevant (though not universally applicable) to tracks and cars in the 80's, but since the mid 90's, I think the occupants should be more concerned about head and neck injuries (which must be addressed before extracting the occupant from vehicle.)
The only example I've encountered in the USA is Porsche Sport Driving School, PSDS, where they insist upon windows up. They base their decision on two things -- arms and heads stay in the cabin, air-bags are still activated and they're designed to work with closed windows. With the advent of curtain and A-pillar and thorax bags, sticking to 80's procedures increases risks and complications.
I've variously heard that windows down would reduce the amount of broken glass or remove one obstacle to extracting the occupants in the event of fire. Both ideas are relevant (though not universally applicable) to tracks and cars in the 80's, but since the mid 90's, I think the occupants should be more concerned about head and neck injuries (which must be addressed before extracting the occupant from vehicle.)
09-07-2009, 02:32 PM
#28
As far as I could discover, it would take convincing the venue insurer to generalize the wording of the policy. It would take the venue owner and operator to assure the insurer that their staff, vistors and participants were properly briefed (and trained) in the "new" procedures and then it would take those two entities to coordinate with event insurers to offer new terms and policies to event operators.
I've suggested just adding a waiver statement to the already preposterously broad waiver terms signed by each participant just stating "If I choose to have my window up, I'll suffer the consequences." Of course then it comes down to some run groups using hand signals for point-by's, so progress is mired in the logistical tar pits. I remember once suggesting that the turn signals should work on any car that can raise the windows. But someone decided turn signals are confusing because "they could mean 'I'm going left' or they could mean 'pass on the left'" which would suggest that a turn signal should, on the track, become something new and exactly the opposite of the turn signal used in traffic. Why this would be open to debate, I cannot understand. That people can point with their hand and so insist that a turn signal becomes a instruction of a pointed hand instead of the indicator or "SIGNAL" of intention is just weakminded at best.
09-07-2009, 02:40 PM
#29
Rennlist Member
I remember once suggesting that the turn signals should work on any car that can raise the windows. But someone decided turn signals are confusing because "they could mean 'I'm going left' or they could mean 'pass on the left'" which would suggest that a turn signal should, on the track, become something new and exactly the opposite of the turn signal used in traffic. Why this would be open to debate, I cannot understand. That people can point with their hand and so insist that a turn signal becomes a instruction of a pointed hand instead of the indicator or "SIGNAL" of intention is just weakminded at best.
http://www.youtube.com/v/CLOD3uKTVGk
http://www.youtube.com/v/qliVqbJInQw
Before the sun went down we ran that day with the rule that turn signal to the left, means pass me on the left, because hands were hard to see in the dark and cars without turn signal were not allowed, but I could see a solution with bright gloves or something.....
