# In before Clyde makes fun of me (Auto-x RX-8)



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> Dude! Two wheels!


I'm still not convinced that it's up on two wheels in that shot.


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

Andy said:


> I don't need to hear that!! I'm already getting my butt kicked with all the other cars in B Stock... what's one more, I guess.
> 
> Maybe the RX-8 should be moved to AS too. :eeps:
> (j/k)


 :rofl:

Well, I've never driven my car with Hoosiers, so who knows. It's tough without driving the cars back to back, but I don't think I'm giving up anything to the RX-8 in terms of absolute grip (with my Kumhos versus his Hoosiers) but his car is _so much faster_ and _so much more predictable_ in quick transitions. It also has much better steering speed and feel.

I'm giving my car one more year, trying Hoosiers next year, then deciding if I'm going to stick with it or not.

John


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

·clyde· said:


> I'm still not convinced that it's up on two wheels in that shot.


Like I said when I posted it, I think it's an optical illusion.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

SoloII///M said:


> This whole exercise of driving Clyde's car makes me realize how much I underestimated the RX-8, or rather how overconfident I was with regard to the M3's capability. Man, equal drivers, the RX-8 would kick all manner of ass.


So you're calling me a sh:tty driver, eh? :flipoff: :lol:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

SoloII///M said:


> Like I said when I posted it, I think it's an optical illusion.


 I know...was :stickpokeing Nick. 

Still a cool shot though/


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

·clyde· said:


> So you're calling me a sh:tty driver, eh? :flipoff: :lol:


Haha. Hardly. You were right with me in raw time and you didn't hit any cones!

I initially thought that the lack of torque would be a detriment on the autocross course. Also, the published curb weight of the RX-8 must be for fully optioned (sunroof?) models, because your 2888 is very light.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

SoloII///M said:


> Haha. Hardly. You were right with me in raw time and you didn't hit any cones!
> 
> I initially thought that the lack of torque would be a detriment on the autocross course. Also, the published curb weight of the RX-8 must be for fully optioned (sunroof?) models, because your 2888 is very light.


 Yeah, but you had never been in the car before and your best raw time was still over a second better than my best. :banghead:

I dunno what it is with the curb weight. I was 10 gallons shy of a full tank (call it 65 lbs). The Hoosiers weigh less than the OEM Bridgestones (perhaps as much as 7 lbs per tire, so call it 28 lbs). No idea about the difference in shock weights. The options on the car, Sport (foglights, xenons and DSC) and navigation aren't particularly heavy (no idea how much a xenon headlight assembly ewighs compared to a halogen, though)

2888+65+28= 2981 lbs vs 3029 published curb weight. :dunno:


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

·clyde· said:


> Yeah, but you had never been in the car before and your best raw time was still over a second better than my best. :banghead:


Ping Ken. :eeps:



clyde said:


> I dunno what it is with the curb weight. I was 10 gallons shy of a full tank (call it 65 lbs). The Hoosiers weigh less than the OEM Bridgestones (perhaps as much as 7 lbs per tire, so call it 28 lbs). No idea about the difference in shock weights. The options on the car, Sport (foglights, xenons and DSC) and navigation aren't particularly heavy (no idea how much a xenon headlight assembly ewighs compared to a halogen, though)
> 
> 2888+65+28= 2981 lbs vs 3029 published curb weight. :dunno:


You had manual seats. The power ones might be really heavy. You didn't have a sunroof. That might add between 20 and 40 lbs.

I think the published numbers are fully equipped cars.

John V


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

SoloII///M said:


> Ping Ken. :eeps:


What would he have to say about 49.6 vs 50.7? 



> You had manual seats. The power ones might be really heavy. You didn't have a sunroof. That might add between 20 and 40 lbs.
> 
> I think the published numbers are fully equipped cars.


You may be right, but I recall seeing weights for GT and appearence pack cars in the 3150+ range. :dunno:


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

leather weighs more than cloth? :dunno:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

racerdave said:


> leather weighs more than cloth? :dunno:


 Forgot...leather (and ass heaters) is only part of the GT package too.


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

racerdave said:


> But it's GREAT to see the car in video! It looks really well composed... did you make the rebound change from where it was jacking way up previously? It didn't look bad in the video. But the nag screens made it hard to follow.


Clyde's RX8 has to be pushed hard at the limits before that trait shows itself :angel: :eeps:


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

the rear looks pretty jacked up to me  I'm sure it was getting higher than that for me in a few places :yikes:

you can see how it allows all the weight to transfer diagonally to the outside front tire, where under the right conditions it wants to spin about that point like a top 



·clyde· said:


> Here's a pic from the Tour a couple weeks ago (courtesy Nick):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

TeamZ4 said:


> Clyde's RX8 has to be pushed hard at the limits before that trait shows itself :angel: :eeps:


Possibly it doesn't happen to drivers who are smooth with their inputs? :angel: :eeps:


----------



## TeamM3 (Dec 24, 2002)

SoloII///M said:


> Possibly it doesn't happen to drivers who are smooth with their inputs? :angel: :eeps:


it's a lot easier to be smooth when you're slow :neener:


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

·clyde· said:


> There are some striking differences in positioning and the way the car moves.
> 
> Very cool to see.


This is kind of interesting. John's best run (raw) and my best run side by side with timecode with the course broken into five segments. Four of the five segments begin with the cars in the same basic position and the time code at 0. Segment 4 begins with me a bit in front of John, but John going faster. It zeros on the approach into the first left (which, frankly, should have been the finish point for Segment 3).

Anyway, seeing how and where I'm losing time against John is rather instructive, as is seeing the sections where I'm getting through a little quicker. The final turn into the finish is eye opening between our two approaches. It was a very tight 90 left through a box designed to slow you down and a short straight chute to the finish. We approached with about the same speed, but John went wider with a more classic style late apex. I dove in a little sooner and a little hotter. I wound up crossing the finish a tick or two earlier (comparatively), but it's clear that John's trap speed is MUCH higher than mine. Another car length or two before the finish and he would have had me. OTOH, if the finish had been a car length or two closer to the last turn, I would have had him by that much more.

There's a lot of little stuff like that. It all has to be taken with a grain or two of salt since the camrea's viewpoint is shifted a little between runs, which limits the relative accuracy of the time measurements.

Anyway, the video is in MPEG-4 format and I would recommend using Apple's Quicktime player to watch it since you can go through it frame by frame. Since the frame rate (and counter) is based on nearly 30FPS (29.97), each three ticks of the right most part of the counter is equal to one tenth.

Right click -> Save As...

Front Slalom: John wins by 3/10 (5.2 MB)
Front Stretch: John wins by 2/10 (5.9 MB)
Back Stretch: John wins by 4/10 (7.4 MB)
Mid-Field Turnback: John wins by 1/10 (9.2 MB)
End Slalom-Finish: Clyde wins by 1/10 (7.1 MB)


----------



## SoloII///M (May 16, 2003)

TeamZ4 said:


> it's a lot easier to be smooth when you're slow :neener:


 :rofl: Riiiiighhht, 'cause it's so hard to stand on the brake pedal 

I did manage to hit more cones in the '8 than you did in it at the tour... I'll chalk that up to getting four runs at this event.


----------

