Re: dry performance q's

[Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

..>From: "Graydon D. Stuckey" <graydon@apollo.gmi.edu>
..>Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:02:59 -0500 (EST)
..>
..>On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Phil Payne wrote:
..>
..>> > But stock, does the q system give an unfair
..>> > advantage above the competition, given the total package?  Me argues not.
..>> >  And I haven't been to a track event yet that contradicts this without 
..>> > the hp in the mix....
..>> 
..>> Tain't what BMW think.  Or Alfa Romeo.  Or ovloV.  Or Vauxhall.
..>> 
..>> Audi was made to carry a 35kg weight penalty because AWD gave them an 
..>> _obvious_ advantage in the last season of the BTCC.  They're carrying it again 
..>
..>If you'll read Scott's post, he does limit the comparison to "Stock" 
..>Qs, and fully admits AWD's superiority in high HP apps.

i wouldn't call btcc (fia class 2) cars high hp.  295hp high? nope.  class 1 (rip)
with 450+hp is getting up there.  there was talk of banning awd there as well.

..>
..>> The professionals seem to disagree with you. 
..>
..>I think the professionals are agreeing entirely with Scott.  Its you that 
..>doesn't seem to know how to read.

lighten up - i think phil was refering to the pilots who drive the things for a living.
they're supposed to be amongst the very best in the world.  smoking jo i'd rate
against anyone on the list i afraid.  biela, well what can you say...

-dave
'93 s2
'90 ur-q