My 2 cents....

[jadams]

well weight-power ratio is good as a general guidline, but there are many other big things in the equation. The driver is by far has the biggest on impact on the results, but I think that it followed closely by the cars ability to put the power to the ground effectively. Furthermore, the ability of the car's braking is huge. If you can brake deeper (without upsetting the car), and then put the power down quicker after the apex, you will shave time off. Having said that, my car makes good hp, and has a nice torque curve. Last dyno run it made 455 RWhp @ 6,200 and
around 415 RWTQ at 5,200 . The torque curve is a monster. I have no less than 350 rwtq from 2000 rpm on up to redline. My car with fuel weighed 3330#'s last season, and I am hoping to have it around 3280# this season. So weight to power is 7.3. To get under 7:1, I would have to remove over 100#'s from my car. This would most likely be possible, but I don't have that much ambition. The shortfall of my car is definately braking.......If I brake too deep, the rear axle of my car will hop violently, and it is not very conforting. As a result, I am forced to brake a bit earlier to avoid this. I have been struggling with different things over the years to make this better, and this year I have new adjustible shocks which hopefully can help damp the axle tramp. We'll see. So in summary, I think all of the cars are so different, that the weight to power ratio is really not that important. It can certainly help out, but it is not the end all be all.

[jadams]

That post was supposed to go under Scotts original one about SPA.....See.....Driver error strikes again!

[offcamber09]

Jeez- your car gained 25 rwhp sitting in the garage over the winter?

[jadams]

Well actually it gained it last season after I figured out my ignition problem. Once I fixed the ignition break-up problem, it gained 30 hp as a result. The first dyno reading was reported with a pretty bad high rpm miss.....that is gone now though.... but as I stated earlier that is only a portion of the equation.

[mossaidis]

This whole thread just cracks me up! SPA <> ST3/4

Try driving a car with 18:1 lbs/whp ratio!

[CP]

Have you tried different pad compounds front to rear? Maybe your initial brake application isn't smooth enough. I'd also think you could lower your lap times if you're on the throttle BEFORE you get to the apex.

[offcamber09]

This whole thread just cracks me up! SPA <> ST3/4

Try driving a car with 18:1 lbs/whp ratio!

I do that also, our Porsche 914 has a 16.9 ratio and holds both SCCA F Production track records- 1:18.6 chicane and 1:13 flat south oval.

[WillM]

I'm with Mickey and think the whole thing stinks!

We've got 1/2 the cylinders but only 1/4 the hp.

18.5 lbs per hp!

[Dave_G]

We've got 1/2 the cylinders but only 1/4 the hp.

Yeah, but with 1/4 the HP, we get 90% of the speed.

(21 lbs./HP on a good day)

[jrottn]

I didnt realize Hondas and Miatas were such high HP/TRQ cars
The 318ti was towing around at least 26lbs. per hp
+1 on what Joel said- it is the whole package (although power/weight is a big part of the equation)
I would guess that the Ultima that runs The Glen with us is down around 4lbs/rwhp- not bad.

[StephanAlfa]

I didnt realize Hondas and Miatas were such high HP/TRQ cars
The 318ti was towing around at least 26lbs. per hp
+1 on what Joel said- it is the whole package (although power/weight is a big part of the equation)
I would guess that the Ultima that runs The Glen with us is down around 4lbs/rwhp- not bad.

Ha! you forgot the leaning my friend, THE LEANING! surely this has got to robb some of the rwhp...