Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bandit last won the day on February 18

Bandit had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


Profile Information

  • Location:
  • Gender
  • Interests
    Going fast

Recent Profile Visitors

2,720 profile views
  1. Vic Elford said if the car would have been reliable it would have been unbeatable. Said it was amazing to drive due to the grip in braking and cornering. Hall said he always braked too early in testing as he couldn't get his head around it. I think it was on pole for all three races it ran. Outran second by 2.2 seconds at Riverside. I had to chuckle at this vid due to the cloud of two stroke smoke behind it from the old JLO snowmobile engine. Way back in 2008 a team ran the Grassroots challenge with a sucker Vette that had a M1 tank blower fan powered b
  2. After a little further research it's not just the CFM but how much vacuum one can pull. This aero stuff is hard.... I doubt the fan I have in mind can pull 10 inches, no chance as it's 1.2hp, but it seem feasible it could make a small difference. I seem to recall, perhaps Black Magic mentioned it, that Gibbs racing got popped for using brake duct fans for downforce. Those guys are looking for the tiniest advantage so while it may not be noticeable, it may be measurable. btw-That Falcon is ugly as hell. But that rear window probably has some serious 60's aero going on. e
  3. Out of curiosity, any idea what the CFM flow created by fans would be required to make measurable downforce? Say a guy was to lay his radiator flat, parallel with the ground, integrated into the splitter, and run a 8000 cfm rad fan on it. Noticeable gain or not likely? Off to see if the cfm rating of Jim Hall's fan is stated anywhere...
  4. A man has to know his limitations. I don't weld cages. Amazed people push out that kind of crap and actually expect to be paid for it.
  5. All I know about the 3.8 Ford is a guy down the road has a Mustang with loud, really crappy sounding exhaust, that he thinks is fast. It isn't.
  6. Yes, it is so difficult to do a google search before setting a cars value. There are some values that have not changed since the Condren era. I kinda wonder if some of them were set assuming a -75 using the convoluted logic one would start from that lower value. Example-1987 Monte Carlo is essentially a 275 point vpi as the car never came with a manual. (250 on the list) Seems rather high. Partsgeek shows lower control arms for '92 SC400 at around $780. Certainly not cheap by any means, but not $1700.
  7. As stated above, that's kinda what I figured. Since shifters are not commented on anywhere else in the rules, while this is in the free section, the wording "not permitted" is troubling and confusing. Instead of waiting til next year, wouldn't it be possible for the BoD to clarify with tech so there is no confusion for this year?
  8. The rule is not automatic centric.
  9. Sounds reasonable to me. However the rules bring it into question. I've only noted shifters mentioned in the BCCR under the free parts section where paddle shift is explicitly denied. As mentioned in my first post I kinda think the idea was to ban expensive sequential shift conversions as can be done on T56's, and other trans I am sure. (And then Strong shows up with some SMT thing....) Perhaps an area where the attempt to conserve words and keep the rules short ends up having unintended consequences? I mean is someone threatened by a 4L60 with paddle shift?
  10. From my first post; So, modern cars get advancements that cannot be applied to older models per CC.
  11. I guess CC is saying the same to those that may want to enter a car that has them factory. ATS, G8, I assume the E90 and such late model BMW's that are on the vpi list. Likely others as well.
  12. I didn't say anything about free or points. The rule says NOT PERMITTED. That seems pretty explicit.
  13. I'm talking about a paddle shifted auto, with torque convertor, here. GM has/had this in a number of vehicles and it works very well. The ATS I mentioned had this as did the G8 which is also on the list. I agree that DSG's should not get the 75 point automatic deduction. Frankly ridiculous if it was ever allowed. Saying that, BMW DCT's are available pretty reasonably (I've seen $750), can take power, and can be bolted behind GM V8's and a number of others as well I'm sure. Would kinda like to give one of those a spin. The DCT out of an E90, I think, is the o
  14. Per the BCCR; "Shifters, provided the original function is maintained (Conversion to paddle shift or sequential shift is not permitted)" Now, the word conversion is there. However, there are now cars on the VPI list that come with paddle shifters factory. Caddy ATS comes to mind. We can't add something to our cars that is available to other cars on the VPI list? I get the idea behind banning $30K sequential shift T56's, but a button shifted automatic is illegal as well? That's just some code and a couple buttons/paddles.
  15. I hope they just jammed a solid axle in the rear to show how little of a difference that C4 irs made. Of course that would cost points as well versus stock irs. They show entered for Daytona the week prior, so I'd guess making both is out.
  • Create New...