RE: Re: NZ rallye report (no real content)

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/28/99 10:14:18 PM Central Daylight Time, 
Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz writes:


>  as i didn't mention any listers names in my post except for the quip: "the
>  'wrc' cars are night and day from the old group 'a' cars (note the
>  distinction, at least 1 lister keeps getting this mixed up - in the
>  'suspension debate')" - i'm puzzled why you would think that this referred
>  to you?

Davey, more clarification. Never said it was me, please read the post:  "A 
good report, a couple of targeted shots so excepted, it sure would have 
been better without that ordinance."  I'm saying you had a decent report, 
with a couple of slams that stood way out.  I don't care (or know) who they 
are directed at, I took a shot at getting you to supply information to back 
your tangental pokes.  If you can't do it, that's ok, then we can all 
interpret the pokes as they were intended.
 
>  i am also very pleased to see that you are the crew chief for a rally car.
>  however i find it hard to understand your confusion about the differences
>  between 'wrc' and group 'a'.  mind you, you probably haven't seen a "wrc"
>  car, and are therefore in the dark (again).  what are the differences you
>  ask?    you could start with a "free" transmission per year.  go on to 
engine
>  locations, rear suspension pickup points, cooling and aerodynamics etc. 
etc.
>  s enough to accept that all the top-line teams (bar one, see
>  below) now run to the "wrc" rules, and not the group "a" rules.  out with
>  the old, in with the new.

Read the post, Davey.  Again: "1)  Given the groupe 'A" and the WRC comment, 
what exactly is "night and day" difference in suspensions, if by your own 
interview (and contradicting your own former posts), actives aren't 
competitive, and wishbones aren't used?"  You aren't referring to suspensions 
in your response.  Pickup points changed exactly how and why?  Different 
chassis maybe?  I think my point is valid, and if you feel compelled to 
respond, please stick to the facts regarding the questions asked.  
 
>  why has mitsibushi stuck with a group "a" car, while everyone else has a
>  'wrc' car?  they are clearly focused on group 'n', and are using group 'a'
>  to sell cars.  but perhaps i should quote mre chief engineer bernard
>  lindauer "it's starting to be so close in the world championship that we
>  need something different now.  we are pushing more and more to have a
>  different car. the various options that are available to us - which way the
>  engine will be and all that - are stopping us from doing too much
>  development on the driveline for the moment....i'm hoping for 2000 that we
>  will have a wrc car, but it's not decided yet.  i have tried to highlight 
in
>  japan that, very soon, we will be at the end of this car" (rce, vol8)

Dave, understand what has been written.  Understand where the Rally cars are 
going in terms of design.  The "radical" designs are easily copied, assuming 
they prove to work.  The latest and greatest design is still trial by error.  
"Old" design cars can easily beat the newly designed cars, look to audi for 
documented history there.  I'm all for the new, I'm thinking the smart works 
teams might want to wait a year or two, lots of teething happens in "new 
tech".  Cuz it breaks, or just doesn't work (explain that to the marketing 
guy signing the cheques).  Focus on what sells cars, that isn't always state 
of the art.  In fact, it rarely is.  Winnning a groupe n car, has better 
direct impact on sales and production in many countries.  The other argument 
to consider are plain dollars and sense.  Groupe "n" and "a" has a fraction 
of the cost of "state of the art".  Advertising and marketing dollars rule 
state of the art.  That requires return on investment dollars.  Basic 
business rules.  You win, you advertise.  Pick the venue (groupe) where you 
win the most.  I argue WRC ain't it.  Why?  Lack of (early audi like) 
consistent dominance for investment dollars.  
 
>  also , i fail to understand what you mean by "actives aren't competitive".
>  the focus was running active front and centre and a plate in the rear.  it
>  was certainly competitive with that gear.  there is no front running team
>  without an active centre & front now that toyota has abandoned their centre
>  clutch.  and with the new-for-finland evo seat and focus, afaik, all top
>  cars will now also be running active rear's.

Davey, reread your posts, and my response.  YOU and your interview refer to 
active suspensions, not diffs.  So did I.  Mercy.
 
>  with regard to the bollocks about wishbones and struts, i know that you're
>  struggling with this scott but perhaps you should just accept that some 
much
>  more qualified people than you or i have decided that their rally car (upon
>  which their company is pinning it's motorsport reputation, and scott, not
>  just their internet business reputation) is better off without wishbones.
>  in this group we must put *all* the designers for the top-line rally cars.
>  poor misguided souls, if only they could have the pleasure of talking to
>  you...

Focus on the facts Dave, your posts are much better when you do.  Point 2, 
you didn't ask the question on the suspensions based on performance.  What is 
the definition of "better off"?  Accepting the compromises to performance and 
service.  Both my points.  I'm laughing at the rest of the targetted spam, it 
has little effect on your intended target, it's just a mirror to the soul.  
I'm convinced your server wanted to show YOU the multiple reflections of what 
you shot.

>  your insistance in calling struts  not "state-of-the-art" is, of course,
>  disengenious and (again) wrong.  by definition, you could expect anything 
in
>  a top-flight rally car to be "state-of-the-art".  using ford again as an
>  example, if you're purchasing your xtrac gearbox for over $250k usd, and 
are
>  paying your driver $us6m, then you could expect the highest possible tech.
>  fwiw, a used focus, with spares package (1 y.o.) could be yours for around
>  $1m usd.

Expensive doesn't make it state of the art.  Hand built chassis and 
transmissions are strong and light.  Given our S2 has a 60kUSD transmission 
of "old" tech, I'm thinking your point is lost.  Responding to the 
"suspension" as state of the art, they are not.  In design or execution.  If 
you "want" to say they are, get specific.  I asked a valid question regarding 
suspensions, got personal slams.  Does that mean you don't know or there just 
isn't any "night and day" difference?  I suspect both.

>  struts no good on a curcuit?  check out the latest le mans results before
>  you push that load of coblers.

Dave, understand why they are used, and understand what are the compromises 
in using them.  I think if you look at the design of the LeMans cars, 
packaging dictates the strut, nothing else.  

Stick to the facts Dave.  You are welcome to post me privately with your 
spam.  Publicly, it would be to your advantage to respond to just the points 
raised.  

Thanks

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ@aol.com