Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: JBone Dec 15 2008, 10:21 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_y8yZgdng for the latest in this timeless clash of the titans. Somewhat surprise ending, but not. Midway through the doughnuts are freakin' awesome!







{for the love of God let this not be a repost}

Posted by: Kazz5 Dec 16 2008, 08:58 AM

That was a fun watch!

Apparently, they're driving the HKS-modified "FQ-360" Evo X. I found info on it here: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=125124

Posted by: JBone Dec 16 2008, 06:55 PM

I believe the actual car raced head to head was the FQ-300. And it actually finished slower than the STi. However, it was only about .2 seconds or so slower (at least I think that's what Clarkson mumbled).

I would love if they had the FQ series over here.

Posted by: Dan Boles Dec 16 2008, 07:05 PM

Posted by: awd4kicks Dec 16 2008, 09:10 PM

Wow... I've got to find a large enough piece of asphalt to try those AWD donuts in the Talon. I've got plenty of power, I'm certain.

Posted by: SCCA Stang Dec 16 2008, 10:52 PM

to say it very simply. WOW!!!

Posted by: Kazz5 Dec 17 2008, 08:55 AM

Posted by: awd4kicks Dec 17 2008, 09:33 AM

Posted by: Kazz5 Dec 17 2008, 11:34 AM

I think we're going to have to find someone that OWNS a paved spot like that - concrete preferred, of course...

Posted by: awd4kicks Dec 17 2008, 11:52 AM

If you see one large enough that we don't know the owner of...
I'm sure some folks might go in under the cover of darkness with some cameras and let 'er eat. Obviously time would be a limitation, because there would be no hiding the noise.

I was always of the opinion that concrete was more abrasive, hence harder to slip or skid on (Such as at an auto-cross event). I would have thought asphalt would have been better for donuts. Fill me in...

Posted by: Dan Boles Dec 17 2008, 12:06 PM

Posted by: 93dsmowner Dec 17 2008, 12:56 PM

If you see one large enough that we don't know the owner of...
I'm sure some folks might go in under the cover of darkness with some cameras and let 'er eat. Obviously time would be a limitation, because there would be no hiding the noise.

I was always of the opinion that concrete was more abrasive, hence harder to slip or skid on (Such as at an auto-cross event). I would have thought asphalt would have been better for donuts. Fill me in...

Posted by: dualdj1 Dec 17 2008, 01:55 PM

Concrete (if done well) is generally smooth. Asphalt is slightly pitted usually. I can't say for sure, but as long as you have a hard compound tire, I'd think concrete would be less abrasive

If I remember right several nascar tracks switched to Concrete from Asphalt to counter tire wear problems. (could be wrong)

Posted by: Kazz5 Dec 17 2008, 08:27 PM

Concrete is more abrasive, thus more wear.

But it's the man's drifting surface.

Heh.

Posted by: awd4kicks Dec 17 2008, 08:34 PM

Ahhh...Gotcha!

Posted by: JBone Dec 17 2008, 11:04 PM

For transportation purposes concrete can be more abrasive due to the tining and "dragging" done upon finishing for drainage purposes (Ever hear the humming noise your tires make on the interstate?). However, in a nontransportation application concrete can be finished to a smooth glass finish (garage floor, anyone?). The portland can cover the aggregate and make it this smooth.

Asphalt (bituminous asphalt concrete cement) is simply crushed stones with a certain gradation (dependant upon uses) covered in molten hot asphalt concrete. The smooth paving from a drum roller smashes the stone in the concrete into an interlocking manner.

While some racetracks are concrete, several are still bituminous. Indy is bituminous, and so is Gateway in St. Louis, just to name a few off the top of my head.

Posted by: awd4kicks Dec 18 2008, 07:00 AM

Good point about the smoothness of a garage floor J. That never entered my thoughts, but then I'm looking for an outdoor paved arena, where there is usually some roughness left in the finishing of the concrete.

Asphalt must stick pretty well too, if they use it on the speedways. Do they do this also because it's harder or impossible to make a continuous piece of concrete without joints?

So for an outdoor to out door comparison, Asphalt is probably a little more slippery than concrete depending on the age of each one in my mind.

Then again, I'll take what I can get.

Posted by: dualdj1 Dec 18 2008, 08:28 AM

Yeah that's what I was thinking J.

Normal Roadway concrete will generally be more abrasive, as they lay it rough to give you more traction in snow/ice/rain. But concrete in its base can be layed more smooth than asphalt. Run your finger over a new garage floor vs a new asphalt driveway

Posted by: Kazz5 Dec 18 2008, 08:43 AM

There's always gravel or mud ... heh.

Posted by: dualdj1 Dec 18 2008, 10:08 AM

I prefer mud

Posted by: JBone Dec 18 2008, 01:37 PM

Originally, I believe most people uses asphalt for the price. But thanks to the wonderful people at OPEC oil prices have made asphalt as expensive as concrete.

One reason concrete was a little more expensive was service life. Concrete can last almost 20 years with occasional slab replacement. Asphalt maybe 8 years. New combinations are being tested at my alma mater with different asphalt types, trying to get to almost 12 years now I believe. Also, depending on what part of the country you live in, asphalt can last a little while longer compared to other climates. So, some tracks can get away with asphalt and maybe relaying it every 5 years (lot of abuse and high smoothness guidelines).