100% agree.


Not really in the eye of the beholder, it is just fact. Some recent NASA GTS fast laps compared to PCA results:

Btw, I used the 2nd place time for the Glen, since 1st was Ronnie. He still "only" ran a 2:09, which is way off what he can run. I would guess he just drove fast enough to win at the GTS race.

The one that is really sad is the Mid ohio results. This was the national championships for NASA, so you would expect some really good drivers. Yet the PCA times for similar classes are still better.

GTS is still very much of a growing series. I would expect it to trend up over time.

And yes, I was talking about Ron that drives a red 964 cup (he posts here as rocketman). He also drives in PCA, the difference being he does not win by 5+ seconds. He is certainly one of the best out there.

 

Nadar, asking Colin for data is like asking an Arab for sand! Oh, that wasn't PC, was it?

 

"Nadar, asking Colin for data is like asking an Arab for sand!" (how do you use the Quote feature on here anyway!!)


Larry,
I see that Colin is well versed in using the data. Being a "scientist," I am also well trained in interpreting the data to support my point.

For example, IIRC the 2005 F class data he has for SP is Gary Grisby's qualifying time. In the sprint race, GG was second in group behind a D car. Using all my scientific authority, I could look at the sprint race data and argue that given "superiority" of a D car comapred to an F car, the F drives are more skilled than D class drivers Given my skill level, I guess I should look for a D car.

Never having met Colin, I hope he is not a fan of Pinks.

As you can tell I do not worry about what is PC, as long as it is in good fun.

Nader

 

Absolutely in good fun. Click on the "" marks in the lower right of your screen and that will produce a quote of that post. They look like this:

 

Your data for GTS2/F class at Mid Ohio is flawed. First of all the fastest GTS2 time of the Nationals weekend was a 1:41.5. Second, I'm very familiar with the F car that set the 1:41.5 during the PCA race, and believe me it has a lot more than 190 rwhp. It would be classed as a GTS3 car if it was subjected GTS rules.

 

I thought the same thing before I started racing in NASA GTS. The dyno checking that goes on is quick and painless, and the results are remarkably repeatable. I was on the dyno 5 times this year, and never had more than a 2 hp variance. If you brought a dyno to a PCA race you'd see a lot of very nervous drivers.

 

here here....

 

There is no doubt that Gary is fast. His co-driver in Grand Am, Terry Heath, is also fast. It was disappointing that Terry got rid of his 930 so quickly, as I would have liked to race him more (I only faced him once at Sebring this past year).

And you should buy a D car. I need more fodder, er competitors



I love Pinks. Especially thye CRX with the fake NOS system! Though the best racing was the episode with the two bothers.


I did not pick the fastest times, I just took the best race times. Not having all cars lined up on a dyno, I had to guess at the rwhp numbers. So of the 9 data points I provided, I was off on one. The point is that PCA is usually faster and deeper than GTS. This is actually what you would expect in a series that is relatively new. If you took all the best from PCA & BMWCCA, I am sure it would change dramatically. I am also sure there are some very fast drivers in GTS as well, just not as many in PCA or BMWCCA club racing.

 

Curious - did they use a Dyno to check GTS cars at the NASA Nationals?

 

Yes they did. I've run 6 NASA race weekends this year including Nationals, and they had a dyno checking GTS cars at 5 of them.

 

Absolutely! I was there helping a friend who was racing his GTS1 944S. He got two copies of the dyno sheet, one for him and one for the GTS series director. The director calculated the cars minimum weight for the weekend based on the dyno HP. Yes, there are always people who will cheat and this process can be gotten around. However no car should be be suddenly gaining many car lengths on the competition. With video camera's and the director watching for large lap time improvements it is more likely to keep everyone competitive.

I have seen too many illegal cars in PCA. The reality is that PCA doesn't have the skill, manpower or desire to police the rules. This is sad but true. If PCA adopted the 'at the track dyno' at least the obvious cheaters would think twice.

 

Dyno's are too easily beaten when used for rules enforcement. All it takes is the desire to circumvent the power to weight based rules.

I'd much rather see PCA simply start to enforce the rules they have on their books. However, doing that would necessitate distributing to everyone racing with PCA, the exact specs they would be teching too, and PCA has shown a great reluctance to do that to this point.

 

I feel that the NASA racing is in its infancy stage and will no doubt become a huge success.I like how they class the cars ,that they use a 13/13 rule and the fact that they dyno!!I like any rules that prevents cheating.
The cross over from pca to nasa is a non issue.
I have spoken with several friends who run in pca who are interested in nasa for the simple reason of being able to race at the Glen 2x a year as well as Limerock and being able to do Pocono all a very easy drive.
Plus the idea of racing for points and a national event sounds fun to me.
p.s. thank you for the kind words.
Ron