A truer measure of a cars handling

martineb72

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
75
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
Mazda Miata
This is the SCCA solo race classifications. The race is 5 timed laps in a large parking lot with cones for lanes, with lots of curves and with rarely a chance to hit even 80mph. Depending on which class your car is in they multiply your time by that class percentage, so you can race against the whole field. It is assumed for classification that your car has the best factory options available. Which is why the 99' MX-5 is a C class, when without the sport package it would likely have been classed lower.

http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Lists/2006/stockc.html

What is funny is the the Mustang GT500 is in the second to last class, while the Honda S2000 is in the second to top class. Note the highest FWD car is in the 3rd class is the Mini Cooper Works. Also note that the new Civic Si is ranked way down the list, while the Integra Type R is much higher.
 
You didn't acutally mean "truer" as another degree of "true", did you? :?
 
Re: A truer measure of a cars handling

martineb72 said:
What is funny is the the Mustang GT500 is in the second to last class, while the Honda S2000 is in the second to top class. Note the highest FWD car is in the 3rd class is the Mini Cooper Works. Also note that the new Civic Si is ranked way down the list, while the Integra Type R is much higher.

I may be missing something here, but I don't see the GT500 listed in any of the classes. In the second to last class (G Stock by my interpretation) there is only the Mustang SVO. This was a 1980's 4cyl turbocharged Mustang. If I'm just being blind then please help me.

Also, keep in mind the purpose of SCCA. The group was never designed for Ferraris, Porsches, etc to go truly compete against each other. It was designed for people with smaller budgets (and cheaper, more practical cars) to be able to go have fun and be safe about it. To keep it safe and keep the less powerful cars competitive, they made their courses very small with few straights. I have seen Vipers, Corvettes, Porsches, etc at these events and I truly appreciate their skill when they do well on those little courses. However, I much rather watch (and drive) on a full road course where there are straights, low speed turns, high speed turns, changes in elevation, etc.
 
I dont unsderstand any of this. :bangin:

Cant you say X car handles better than Y car, or do a ?
 
does the Crossfire SRT-6 and Camaro SS handle the same as the S2000 and NSX?
 
Re: A truer measure of a cars handling

Burningwick said:
martineb72 said:
What is funny is the the Mustang GT500 is in the second to last class, while the Honda S2000 is in the second to top class. Note the highest FWD car is in the 3rd class is the Mini Cooper Works. Also note that the new Civic Si is ranked way down the list, while the Integra Type R is much higher.

I may be missing something here, but I don't see the GT500 listed in any of the classes. In the second to last class (G Stock by my interpretation) there is only the Mustang SVO. This was a 1980's 4cyl turbocharged Mustang. If I'm just being blind then please help me.

Also, keep in mind the purpose of SCCA. The group was never designed for Ferraris, Porsches, etc to go truly compete against each other. It was designed for people with smaller budgets (and cheaper, more practical cars) to be able to go have fun and be safe about it. To keep it safe and keep the less powerful cars competitive, they made their courses very small with few straights. I have seen Vipers, Corvettes, Porsches, etc at these events and I truly appreciate their skill when they do well on those little courses. However, I much rather watch (and drive) on a full road course where there are straights, low speed turns, high speed turns, changes in elevation, etc.

The GT500 is listed under shelby in F class. Might be on another page though that list by manufacturer.

And of course the races aren't designed for the +$100,000 budget. But for real world cars. And if you combine the class ranking and their 0-60 times you do get a good measure of their performance. Instead of the silly HP wars that people talk about.

And I said truer measure and not true measure, because I don't believe their is a 'true' measure of a cars handling.

But it is useful if say you are looking to get a new car that you want to be fairly sporty. You might think, well the Civic Si has a 0-60 time in the 6 seconds, but then you see that it is still ranked low in the list. So you would be better off with something like the VW R32 which has the same 0-60 time, but handles so significantly better, and also show the reason why you might want to get the R32 instead of the GTi. Or a non STI subaru WRX which also has similar accelleration times but is also in the D class. Or a fully kitted out Mini Works in the B class. Of course if you are buying a car you should be able to drive it to see how it handles, but who is going to test drive every car? So this might be useful as a guide, plus sometimes you never get to really road test some cars, like the Mini Works because they don't have those in stock.
 
bartboy9891 said:
does the Crossfire SRT-6 and Camaro SS handle the same as the S2000 and NSX?

Would you expect them to?
 
bartboy9891 said:
does the Crossfire SRT-6 and Camaro SS handle the same as the S2000 and NSX?

No they don't handle the same, but the Camaro SS doesn't handle that badly but it does require its more powerful engine to keep up with an S2000. But HP alone won't do the job, as you can tell by looking at all the Mustangs and most of the other Camaros.
 
jetsetter said:
bartboy9891 said:
does the Crossfire SRT-6 and Camaro SS handle the same as the S2000 and NSX?

Would you expect them to?
i wouldnt expect them too, afterall they are like the polar opposites of the S2000/NSX.
 
bartboy9891 said:
jetsetter said:
bartboy9891 said:
does the Crossfire SRT-6 and Camaro SS handle the same as the S2000 and NSX?

Would you expect them to?
i wouldnt expect them too, afterall they are like the polar opposites of the S2000/NSX.

I wouldn't say polar but they are different vehicles designed for different things.
 
jetsetter said:
bartboy9891 said:
jetsetter said:
bartboy9891 said:
does the Crossfire SRT-6 and Camaro SS handle the same as the S2000 and NSX?

Would you expect them to?
i wouldnt expect them too, afterall they are like the polar opposites of the S2000/NSX.

I wouldn't say polar but they are different vehicles designed for different things.
yea thats what i meant. People bought the SS for the amount of power you get for next to nothing cost-wise. People will buy the SRT-6 becaues they like how it looks and its much quicker than the normal Crossfire, it doesnt even have a manual.
 
chaos386 said:
the Interceptor said:
You didn't acutally mean "truer" as another degree of "true", did you? :?
What's wrong with that? :huh:
I must say I'm absolutely stunned by that link. How can something be truer than another thing, if that's already true? There's true and untrue, but how can there be another degree of true? I'm alright with "building X is higher than building Y", but what about "claim X is truer than claim Y"? If claim X is true, how can anything else be more true? I'm puzzled! :?
 
the Interceptor said:
chaos386 said:
the Interceptor said:
You didn't acutally mean "truer" as another degree of "true", did you? :?
What's wrong with that? :huh:
I must say I'm absolutely stunned by that link. How can something be truer than another thing, if that's already true? There's true and untrue, but how can there be another degree of true? I'm alright with "building X is higher than building Y", but what about "claim X is truer than claim Y"? If claim X is true, how can anything else be more true? I'm puzzled! :?
It's not that something is truer than true, it's that you're comparing two things which may not be 100% true, and one is closer to the truth than the other.
 
chaos386 said:
It's not that something is truer than true, it's that you're comparing two things which may not be 100% true, and one is closer to the truth than the other.
Okay, I guess that explains it for me. Sorry for the offtopic then! :oops:
 
Re: A truer measure of a cars handling

martineb72 said:
The GT500 is listed under shelby in F class. Might be on another page though that list by manufacturer.

And of course the races aren't designed for the +$100,000 budget. But for real world cars. And if you combine the class ranking and their 0-60 times you do get a good measure of their performance. Instead of the silly HP wars that people talk about.

And I said truer measure and not true measure, because I don't believe their is a 'true' measure of a cars handling.

I see the entry that you are talking about in the F stock class. I'm pretty sure that they are talking about the 1960's era Shelby's. There is no current GT350 (only in 60's) and that is included on the same line as the GT 500 (also made in the 60's). Comparative Mustangs to the new GT500 are the Cobra R and S/C'd Saleens and those are put in a non-stock catagory.

I agree with you that this is a pretty decent way to compare the cheaper cars. Hard to gauge a car's handling just on slalom or skidpad numbers. For the more expensive cars, I would turn to the 'Ring. Most manufacturers are sending their cars out there now if they want it to be respected as a performance car.
 
This thread needs more truthiness.

http://img301.imageshack.**/img301/4589/colberttruthinessyw0.jpg
 
Top