Re: NZ rally report (no real content) II

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/4/99 10:51:00 PM Central Daylight Time, 
Dave.Eaton@clear.net.nz writes:

> the economics of 'wrc' cars vs group 'a' cars is way out of our league
>  scott, your experience so noted :-)

Not sure what that means.  Econ is business, plain and simple, so is racing.  
I suggest a read of John Buffums book, to understand 'state of the art' 
regarding struggles of cutting edge in terms of realized wins.  Looking at 
his breakdown of what makes a winning team, the driver has more influence 
than the machine.  As machines get closer in terms of equipment and "state of 
the art" per your own quote, the dollars go up to the drivers piloting them 
(audi did this before, during and after Groupe B).  Guilt by association also 
means, when one Works makes a "breakthrough" spending "state of the art" 
dollars all others must ante or fold.  Given your own quotes, Mitsu might 
just have made the best decision.  

>  also, if you continue to think that there is no difference between 'wrc' 
and
>  'a' in terms of suspension regulations (pickup points and so on), perhaps
>  you should just read the regulations, they make it pretty clear.  or 
perhaps
>  even check out the front strut towers of the ford focus, versus the road
>  car?  the fact is that with a wrc car, the designers have considerably more
>  freedom for e.g. rear tunnel design, suspension design, and suspension
>  pickup points, heck even wheelbase and track.  so the ford engineer told 
me.

Dave, get specific if you are making the suspension claim, "and so on" has no 
depth or understanding.  Bottom Line:  "Night and day" is a statement you 
haven't supported, I claim you can't.  Stick to just the suspension, if you 
read my original post, that is the only issue I questioned.  Pickup points 
doesn't make "night and day".

>  as i said, it is highly likely that there will be no more group 'a' cars in
>  the wrc next year.  so, with regard to the relative merits of group 'a'
>  versus 'wrc', the case rests...

Not sure what that means again.  I'm not favoring one over the other.  Just 
questioning your statements about them.
  
>  also, i did not say that "active suspension can't be competitive".  re-read
>  my post.  in my post i talked about ford's experience with active 
*dampers*,
>  not suspension.  the ford engineer told me that ford did not have active
>  suspension on the car, that they were playing with it (along with dampers),
>  and hadn't as yet found an advantage.  do you think they were lying?

Davey, please do tell us the difference between an active damper and an 
active suspension.  Is there any?  I argue an active damper, makes for an 
active suspension.  Please do take this opportunity to correct my thinking 
here.  How else would one make an active suspension?
  
>  you claim that the *only* advantage of struts is packaging.  fine.  that's
>  your call.  foolish, but that's your prerogative.  i would note however,
>  with all due respect, that a great many top-line designers seem to disagree
>  :-)

"Only" is a misquote.  Again, you never asked the question based on 
performance.  I only questioned two of YOUR claims per your interview.  Guilt 
by association doesn't at all mean it's preferred, only that your "state of 
the art" applies to the accepted compromises.  If cutting edge breaks or 
doesn't work, a team sure would want the best design to make the fastest 
swap, that's "old tech" in terms of winning thinking.  Kinda redefines "state 
of the art", doesn't it?
  
>  actually, the whole idea that you seem to consider that an experienced
>  motorsport-orientated manufacturer would invest 10's of millions in an
>  attempt to get the glory in the wrc and then would deliberately design
>  something that was not the absolute best (in his opinion) for the dollars 
he
>  has to spend, is just plain laughable.  i sure you don't do this in your
>  business when someone approaches you with their hard-earned money - if you
>  do, then thanks for warning us.

Dave, is it that you have a hard time communicating your position when 
challenged?  I am not personally attacking you or what you do, just asking 
you to support your position.  If you can't, let's drop it.  I can all read 
the pokes as they were intended.   I could ask you to apologize for the 
personal and business knocks, but I really don't care about them.  They just 
waste bandwidth, have zero effect on me or my business, and only reflect on 
you and your unsupported claims. I'm confident you think they better your 
position.  

>  if you sit back and look at it, what are the differences that make the
>  500hp+ group 'b' machines (audi, lancia, peugeot, with their double
>  wishbones) so much slower over a special stage than today's top cars which
>  make do with only 300hp?  with all due respect to the current crop of
>  drivers, i do not consider any of them a match for alen, rohrl or toivonen,
>  so you cannot say that drivers are where it's at.  there are 3 things that
>  have made the major difference: tyres, suspensions and transmissions.
>  simple really.

More claims, that I challenge.  Please provide support for the groupe b being 
slower over stages than the wrc cars.  That is documentation i haven't seen, 
and should be easy for you to support.  Drivers are an equal or greater 
effect on the win, than the car, plenty of documentation of that.  I believe 
if you look to the rallye circuit, you can find some small improvement in 
tyres (er, given your nip below, that would be 'tires' wouldn't it?:), mostly 
in the snow.  As far as the rest, ck Michelin rally tires out, are you sure 
you want to make that statement?  As far as transmissions, not sure I'm with 
you there either.  I believe you to mean differentials.  The suspension 
claim, you haven't made that clear in 3 posts now.  Given that, time to drop?
 
>  and can we please drop the "rallye" and "groupe" affectation?  it's "rally"
>  and "group", as we're using english.  thanks.

Sure, then you can use 'tire', "as we're using english. thanks".  I'm only 
looking for you to answer a couple of points davey.  It's becoming obvious 
you can't seem to do that without personal spam.

I'm content with your lack of depth in your "answers" and more unsupported 
claims in this post.  If all you can do is throw spam into the spit, let's 
drop this now.

Thanks

Scott Justusson
QSHIPQ@aol.com