Auto-X: SFR Slush 1 - Oakland - 10-05-08
#91
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,351
Car Info: 1.8L FWD
yea, i saw this GC coupe. i was looking at it and went, "What side skirts are those. They look awesome! Especially how it molds to the car...hey how come these fenders are so much wider than mines."
#94
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: El Cerrito, CA
Posts: 694
Car Info: 2004 WRX
Looks like everything had a great time and a great course. I had to make a sacrifice and miss the AutoX today since I was over at Thunderhill doing my first Track day! Soooo much fun!
Karlton, great run! I just watched your video.
Karlton, great run! I just watched your video.
#97
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Power to weight was a big, big help today. Also being a little small on the car size helped with going flat through the gates.
I ran 41.6 in T2 and 40.9xx in my Fun6 Runs with International B in the car. So might've been around a 40.5 without him and if I wasn't so damn sloppy and rusty my could've broke into the 39's.
I was off my marks when came to turn in points and just over all steering timing. Slaloms weren't an issue cause they hardly existed, and the ones that were there were SUPER spaced out, so I was practically flat.
#98
Chicks dig me. April Fool's!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 10,989
Car Info: 1997 Impreza, 2014 BRZ
Hmmm... I really thought it was the opposite. I figured that the lower powered cars would have an advantage. I figured that through the slaloms and stuff, I could keep my foot to the floor and it wasn't going to be an issue. Probably something that some of the faster cars couldn't do.
#99
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Hmmm... I really thought it was the opposite. I figured that the lower powered cars would have an advantage. I figured that through the slaloms and stuff, I could keep my foot to the floor and it wasn't going to be an issue. Probably something that some of the faster cars couldn't do.
#102
Registered User
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Santa Clara CA USA
Posts: 1,253
Car Info: 96 Chevy Impala SS, 06 GMC 2500HD (former 02 WRX)
FWIW, 42.6, 41.1 (clean), 41.1 (not clean). Both of those 41.1s were with BAD braking mistakes (i.e. braking too late) at the back corners of the lot (after the northbound slalom, after the back straight). Easy low 40.x or high 39.x in the car, not in the driver yesterday
In the Integra, the entire back straight = no lifting at all. Same with that northbound slalom. I'm getting more trust in the Dunlops, not quite there yet.
In the Integra, the entire back straight = no lifting at all. Same with that northbound slalom. I'm getting more trust in the Dunlops, not quite there yet.
#103
FWIW, 42.6, 41.1 (clean), 41.1 (not clean). Both of those 41.1s were with BAD braking mistakes (i.e. braking too late) at the back corners of the lot (after the northbound slalom, after the back straight). Easy low 40.x or high 39.x in the car, not in the driver yesterday
In the Integra, the entire back straight = no lifting at all. Same with that northbound slalom. I'm getting more trust in the Dunlops, not quite there yet.
In the Integra, the entire back straight = no lifting at all. Same with that northbound slalom. I'm getting more trust in the Dunlops, not quite there yet.
#104
http://www.sfrscca.org/solo2/Results...h/round01.html
results posted...
ummm hey g35 guy looks like you didnt work twice...? I thought it was weird seeing you run when i worked then run again when i ran
results posted...
ummm hey g35 guy looks like you didnt work twice...? I thought it was weird seeing you run when i worked then run again when i ran
Last edited by vietnameeh; 10-07-2008 at 03:24 PM.