.jpg)
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 David Ferguson |
IMPORTANT - Your opinion requested |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 2267 06/26/09 05:09:07 |
As you may be aware, there has been a proposal to help revitalize our class. The proposal can be found on the first posting on the following thread S2 Proposal
or you can download it directly from S2Proposal.pdf The CRB is asking for our quick input on the following question. Should the MZR engine proposal be put forth for 2010 with dyno data alone, or is additional on track testing required? (Result)
Last Edited By: David Ferguson 06/26/09 05:12:32.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Fred Michael |
#1 | |||
|
Posts: 290 06/26/09 13:01:34 |
I could understand track testing if the proposal was for a chassis spec change. An engine change that involves matching a new engine to an existing engine is
something that can only be done on the dyno.
After the engine is PROPERLY mapped to match a pinto then, when it is put in a car it may prove that the pinto MIGHT need a lighter flywheel to match the injected motor's throttle response to get both cars off the corner in a similar fashion. I am willing to take that chance. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Richard Pare |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 1 06/27/09 15:54:45 |
Question: What definition are you going to use as to what constitutes a "monobloc" caliper? AP makes a "monobloc" aluminium replacement for the old LD20. Depending on how you define what a "monobloc" actually is, you could inadvertantly make that caliper illegal. Personally, I'd bet that no matter how you define it, I (or someone else) can find a way around the definition and legally make exactly what you think you don't want to see. |
|||
|
|
||||
