Too bad cones count for 2 seconds. The real question is how much slower would you have been if you had taken the right line and not hit cones....

 

Re alignment....as a reference here's where we are now,most Z's are in this ballpark from what I have seen:

Front Toe 3/16" out total,Camber -0.8L,-1.2R(the factory didn't give us much)
Rear Toe 1/16" in total,camber -1.6L,-1.6R

We have gradually reduced rear toe-in and camber to where it is now trying to get the car to rotate better.It's better but not good enough....we all need front camber.
What did Steven think of the Yellow Z vs the Red 968?

 

I probably didn't lose much time at all, nor did I gain any, that's what sucks. Pretty much every cone I hit that got counted, I either just nicked it or I turned *into* the cone (planning on the tires not gripping immediately). I did hit two cones on Sunday where I simply understeered into them, but they were the exception.

Basically, I screwed up on Saturday, throwing away an easy trophy spot (0.2 ahead of G.H.), and probably drove too hard on Sunday to make up for it, especially given the state of the tires.

I'd like more front camber, but that is mainly to help cut down on my tire budget. Another option would be tires that have a better sidewall and shoulder construction so that they don't cord the shoulders so easily.

As far as Stephen's impressions, I'll won't presume to speak for him. I know what he thought about it, but he's around here, so maybe he'll share his thoughts.

 

I doing -2.75 camber on the front (255/17 ra-1'S for track use) with 350evo adjustable arms Pretty good bite in the corners. 275 in the back with stock camber

 

I'm reluctant to draw any kind of definitive conclusion based on my time in Glenn's car at the San Diego Tour, as I never got used to the car -- my first dry run in a 350Z ever was when I pulled up to the line on Saturday morning.

On the bright side, the car's got ridiculous power by B Stock standards. You don't need to beat the RX-8s in the corners and transitions; you just need to not lose more time than you can make up in the straight sections. The power contributes to the car being harder to drive than an RX-8 or a 968, though; in the 968, you can pretty much bury the throttle exiting just about any corner without fear of losing the back end. I had to dust off my long-disused throttle modulation skills in the 350Z.

I was really disappointed with the car's front-end grip. After I realized that this was a problem, I started deliberately entering corners and transitions conservatively, but I still got significant push. I ended up tiptoeing through sections that I would have attacked in my 968; I felt like I could go through any section where I had to turn the steering wheel significantly faster in my 968 than in Glenn's 350Z. I wonder how much of this was attributable to our running on Hoosiers instead of V710s.

The car felt big and heavy in transition. I don't know if this would actually translate to any lost time for a driver used to the car, though.

There were a lot of factors at play which made my impressions of questionable worth. As I mentioned, I never really figured out the car. Also, we were on Hoosiers, whereas my 968 rides on the superior Kumhos. As Glenn mentioned, the car wasn't aligned, so who knows what random settings we were running. Last but not least, Glenn's car isn't optimized; it has the stock exhaust and head cushion airbags, which between them probably add close to 100 lbs. right off the bat.

Long story short -- I could see a well-driven 350Z beating a well-driven 968, but given a choice between my car and Glenn's, I'd choose mine. It's not inconceivable that I might change my mind after more seat time in a 350Z. I also need to go drive a fully prepped RX-8 for comparison's sake...

 

So Glen's math is only 2nd to his driving....

Joe
Sat: 46.634
Sun: 45.752 btw fast time Sunday was a 45.245


Glen
Sat: 49.425+1 Even without the cone that is .791
Sun: 50.420+2 without cone 46.420 still .668 behind.

Course did have lots of sweepers which the RX8 does do well however with your extra tq you should have been faster out of the slow turns. You told me you were going to kill us on the hill with your tq.

 

And I still thought I was going to until I looked at the entry angle to the 180 on Sunday and realized that it was going to be a fast entry, that it wasn't going to be like 2004 where you actually had to slow down to get into the corner. There really weren't any "slow turns" on Sunday except for the start. You may have noticed that I didn't really mention this on Sunday, only on Saturday right after we ran, and well before I'd walked the Sunday course.

Good job on Sunday. You really made Joe work for that win!

(I must have "slipped a decimal point" somewhere, but I'm sure that everyone else caught it, but thanks for bringing it up. And I still need better tires...)