What's your problem with understanding results? These SCCA results can't be driver-dependent, because, across the board, they show that S2000 consisently have better times than the RX8.

It doesn't matter about specific technologies that is suppose make the car 50-50 or better skidpad numbers. All these things should lead to better performance of the car, but again it failed to beat the S2000.

you guys should take this arguments here

I do agree that using SCCA result is not a valid point, is actually stupid.

you think mythbusters would do a rx8 vs s2000 episode? :)

it would be awesome if they did

Instead of using the word "stupid" and "not valid", why don't you explain WHY?

welcome to the thread, what the hell are you talking about? :cwm27:

Not going to, its already been explained and you didn't think it was a good point. If you really need to be explain why is not valid then this is a waste of time. If you are a smart as you are showing here then you would see the point.

Is like saying that you saw a show of PINKS and a Sentra won against a Ferrari so that makes the Sentra a better perfomer.

Oh? And what's a more valid source of info? A few mag racers on an RX-8 website? Nonsense.

What is stupid is your syntax and placement of words.

This is the way SCCA works. SCCA has local chapters located in major metropolitan areas across the country. Local car enthusiasts join these chapters in order to compete on local and national levels in various events...some requiring more skill than others. The most widely participated in event is solo II.

Obviously not all cars are created equally, so SCCA has created different classes for them to compete in. Ranging from Super car classes to economy car classes. The S2000 and RX-8 are both in pretty esteemed classes, but the S2K being in a class above.

Racers across the country take their cars and race them in closed circuits in what we all know as autocross solo II events. The results are tallied and posted on various chapter websites. We are talking hundreds of drivers for each chapter.

Combine this with Chapters across the nation and we get a sampling of a vast plethora of drivers across the nation of different skill level, race, age, religion, etc. The only thing that remains constant are the tracks, the cars involved in each class, and the way that they are measured and judged.

When you look at the many controlled factors, the results are clear. This becomes a very valid way to measure a certain cars performance and behaviors on a closed circuit track...a track where handling takes precedent. We wont' even get into the S2K vs an RX-8 on an open track where acceleration would play a large role.

Given all the controlled variables, the large sampling of drivers on a national level, and seeing the S2000's average times being better than the RX-8's average times, it is obvious that a trend has formed, and that the S2000 has bested the RX-8 anywhere from 3 to 5 seconds average in Solo II events. Driver skill is eradicated as a factor in the equation due to the simple fact that the sample is vastly large. Driver skills of all levels participate in Solo II.

The only time that you can argue that driver skill played a large factor is in events where it is one driver vs another driver in each car. That is the ONLY time. Here we have a multitude of drivers driving each car. Calling these race results not valid is nonsensical...they are the only real world race results where average people can post their times.

These results are far more reliable than heresay and mag racing. These are tangible real world results. People buy sports cars for performance. Performance is measured in results, and in data. There is not a question about it that if you buy an RX-8, you'd be hard pressed to turn out a better time than an equally skilled driver in an S2000 in Solo II. Let alone open circuit tracks.

No friggen duh, let's just say the s2k and 8 had similiar wheelbases (fulcrum points if you will) they don't by the way (8 is longer). Now, if you want a highly responsive handling car you need to lower the yaw moment of inertia by centalizing mass between the wheelbase. Just for drama imagine a 3000 pound driveshaft between your two fulcrum points, is that really going to be responsive? No, it is going to resist change in motion.


Quote from shaolin: "Driver skill is eradicated as a factor in the equation due to the simple fact that the sample is vastly large. Driver skills of all levels participate in Solo II."

You give no population sample, just speculation.

Hey if you payed attention to my palcement of word you would notice I said result not categories, but still not a valid way to compare the cars because some one felt that the 8 was inferior that the S2000. But because the S2000 is on A stock category it makes it better than a Porsche 911 which is in the same cat as a RX-8 ( B Stock)BTW?

But you fail to realize that the change in motion in the center of gravity is minimal in comparison to the fulcrum points. Mass in the center of the vehicle actually stabilizes the car on the track, and in the center of the vehicle is where the driveshaft is located...weight in the center of a mass does not affect weight transfer.

By the way there is no such thing as a 3000 pound drive shaft.

Without getting into details, I'm almost certain I've spent more time at the track than you. This is why I understand what 3/10ths of a second means - it means a ton of seat time. But benchracers like you love to talk in fractions of seconds of a cars performance when you couldn't extract more than 75% of its potential. Sad, really.

Oh, almost forgot to compliment you on your latest spin on numbers. :Freak_ani

If you comprehend what I just told you, track results from solo II are very much more tangible and real than anything else posted in this thread.

And it depends on what series and trim 911 we're talking about. Not all 911's are created equal.

If the Sentra consistently wins against a Ferrari across the country at DIFFERENT tracks with DIFFERENT drivers, why not?

I have read through all the posts and still cannot find why it is not valid. Let me explain why I think the results are valid AND real-world.

The people who enter SCCA events are amateur (i.e. real people just like you and me) car enthusiasts who want to see how well their sports car perform under conditions suitable to test them: tracks. These are not car professionals hired by some car mags to do comparos.

Are Rx8's and S2000's sports cars? Absolutely! Where is the best laboratory to test which one is superior as a sports car? At the tracks, and with normal people driving it to get real-world results.

Amen.

At least someone else in here understands the real world and doesn't deal in the abstract...

i'm convinced turbodiesel has a physics paper on center of gravity due wednesday and instead of studying this is how he's researching his facts.

http://www.scca.org/_Filelibrary/Fil...-memberapp.pdf

Even if there was only 5 members at each chapter...that would make 500 people...that is more than large enough of a sample. 5 members is not even large enough to form a chapter, but hell this is more than enough...

It is you who deserves an award for speculation.

Have you seen the list of cars that are witht he RX-8? There are some credible car on that list. Lotus Espirit being another one. But if you need numbers from SCCA to make you happy http://www.rx7club.com/images/smilies/jerkit.gif, fine but when I look up SCCA results and find that some RX-8 gets better times than a S2000 and some S2000 get better times than an RX-8, makes it not consistant, so it is not valid. So if I put Mario Andretti to drive a RX-8 against you and he beats you, would you say that the RX-8 is better than a S2000?

1. I don't think I could have explained it any simpler. 5000lb driveshaft=high polar yaw moment, high inertia, high resistance to change in motion, unresponsive handling.

10 lb driveshaft=low polar yaw moment, low inertia, low resistance to change in motion, responsive handling.

2. You contradict yourself yet once again. You say rear engine cars are the best in handling, but fail to realize this is because of their inherent low polar yaw moment from their centralized mass. What have you got to say for yourself now tough guy?

All the reason for the list to be more valid...varying driver skill...

Of course an experienced driver in an 8 would beat an inexperienced one in an S2K...you still fail to make a point.

The lotus Esprit is not one of Lotus' shining stars in the handling department. Go look at the list of cars in A-stock.

Besides, you forget that solo II is a closed circuit event...in other words handling is the focal point. This is why the Miata can compete with a Corvette. This is the only reason why I use solo II as a reference for track results is because this thread is largely about handling of the S2K vs the RX-8.

^ My Friend that is what everyone arguing against you has being trying to say. This results are all driver skill oriented. No, the reason why Miata can compete against corvette is because Miatas have a nice weight advantage, one of the reason why S2000 are on the A stock list.

This is not the first time you put words in my mouth. Rear engined cars can be made to handle just the same as mid engined and as front engined. It's the way the car is balanced to counterweight the location of the engine that affects dynamics.

And again...you fail to comprehend that the driveshaft is acting as a lever from one point to another on to fulcrum ends. The weight of the shaft has no consequence in weight transfer. The carbonfiber driveshaft aids in weight savings and drive wheel response. Your constant rambling about yaw moment is of no significance in the discussion of drive shafts.

Okay and again you take one instance of the 8 vs one instance of the s2k. Driver skill goes out the window when you plot all the results of the S2K drivers vs all the results of the RX-8 drivers. The trends are undeniably in the S2K's favor.

Why do you think when they take polls they ask a great many of people? Good God is it that hard for you to understand? The trends of a great many of drivers have proven that the S2K is faster around Solo II tracks.

The moot point that you made about a few RX-8's turning better times than a few S2K's is simply illustrating the fact that there are a great many varieties of driver skill. Take a statistics class.

You fail to see the big picture...you are only concentrating on a minority of drivers that you would like to focus on because they happened to turn out good times where another minority of drivers didn't turn out good ones and comparing those. Your argument has little credibility and by its very nature is biased.

My argument takes into account the whole of the entire SCCA's results...hundreds of times....when averaged out come down to one truth...the S2K averages better times around solo II than the RX-8. Period.

How many of those are drivers are driving s2ks?
How many of those drivers are driving 8's?
How old are each of the drivers? 20's, 40's,60's,90's???
How long have each of the drivers been driving their respective car??
How much track experience does each driver have?

:iwstupid:

I give up. go bang your head or something.