Jump to content

Slugworks Paul

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Slugworks Paul last won the day on December 22 2020

Slugworks Paul had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


Profile Information

  • Location:
    : Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
  • Gender
  • Interests
    Racing, Engineering, MRAPs

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As a counterpoint - there is no shortage of people who have either 1. quit racing with champcar or 2. won't consider champcar because of the issues with the rules. There was an interesting conversation on this in a 24HOL group. Lots in CA - and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to why our attendance numbers are bad out there (within champcar) Food for thought, I guess. I remain loyal to champcar and hopeful they can be mitigated so those individuals will consider racing with us (again).
  2. Maybe you should petition to lower the S2 value, if it is comparable to cars that have a lower value and have proven race history?
  3. I think that was a typo - assuming he meant 'tuning' potential.
  4. That's already a pretty self-policing proposition so I don't see a need to add a rule for it. 2 things: 1. If you crank up the boost, you also exponentially crank up the problems. Have fun with that. I actually turned down the boost below stock on my eclipse (by removing a simple little solenoid valve which restricts air to the wastegate) because I wanted my car to be reliable. 2. Turbo cars already have to run a lot richer than NA cars, when you dial it up it's even more the case. Fuel range is already an issue with many swapped cars who upgraded on power, turn up the boost a
  5. I miss the 'squarefold' - turbo manifold homemade from 3/16" rectangular bar stock. You could pretty much jack the car up on the turbo and it would have been fine.
  6. Reading this thread is like watching the titanic (champcar) slowly impact a glacier (power to weight based rules) I wonder who got that VPI so low..
  7. @red0 and I were very successful with an add-on turbo civic in 2014. We won, got a 2nd, and were winning in dominant fashion at another race when some wiring went bad. As a disclaimer, we had a dyno tuner and performance shop owner on our team so we had plenty of dyno time and a very robust tune on the car. After that run, Condren changed the turbo rules to make it about 1500 points to add a turbo, for a few years before it was lowered again. After that, I went to a factory turbo car (eclipse GSX) and got a couple wins with it. I know turbo cars and love racing them in an endurance setting.
  8. I did not say that and that’s a pretty bold and inaccurate assertion. My opinion is closer to your second paragraph.
  9. You're right, those extra doors really slow us down.
  10. I feel like a broken record on infinite repeat at this point, but this car was tech'd going directly against written values in the tech desk, directly against rules in the rulebook, and stretching the rules to a comical degree that goes very much against the precedent with other teams and one can't help but assume there were favors involved. Not only that, the physical tech process used was systematically different than the rest of us use. So no, I've never actually been on that side of the fence. Perceived 'loopholes' are one thing, this is another. Please stop trying to put me in that
  11. It wasn't the first or only time that happened. I think you either missed the point or are purposely missing it, but it's the performance potential that is concerning here. The other racers knowing that if things went just a bit better, or they improved the car/driving/racecraft in the right places, that they would have a shot at winning is important. Winning by massive margins even with signs of 'pedaling' at times certainly won't give you that feeling. It also doesn't help that we can point to obvious areas where the rules were tossed aside or changed during the tech of said car. Feel li
  • Create New...