I suppose I should qualify my rationale - in our race format the winning cars typically race 20-25 heats or more. I don't mind having a little less performance at the top of the race while the graphite breaks in.
Maybe it's because we're wood-tracking it, or maybe because when I add a couple puffs of graphite it really isn't that much, but our times were as follows prior to the epic wrecks in the stop section that knocked our wheel askew:
2.477 (Lane 3)
2.475(Lane 1)
2.478(Lane 2) (thrown by bad stop section)
2.483(Lane 3)
2.480(Lane 3)
2.480(Lane 3)
2.480(Lane 3) (Hat trick!)
2.471(Lane 1) (Fastest Lap)
2.484(Lane 2) (thrown by bad stop section)
2.507(Lane 2) (VIOLENTLY thrown by bad stop section)
2.550(Lane 1)
After that everything was over 2.55. Sad times...The racer who eventually took first averaged 2.52, so we were tearing it up until that point.
But my point is that the times were pretty consistent in the beginning. I only wish we had good data to show how the times progressed, but the alignment being wrecked kinda made that hard to do.
Have a great race.
Maybe it's because we're wood-tracking it, or maybe because when I add a couple puffs of graphite it really isn't that much, but our times were as follows prior to the epic wrecks in the stop section that knocked our wheel askew:
2.477 (Lane 3)
2.475(Lane 1)
2.478(Lane 2) (thrown by bad stop section)
2.483(Lane 3)
2.480(Lane 3)
2.480(Lane 3)
2.480(Lane 3) (Hat trick!)
2.471(Lane 1) (Fastest Lap)
2.484(Lane 2) (thrown by bad stop section)
2.507(Lane 2) (VIOLENTLY thrown by bad stop section)
2.550(Lane 1)
After that everything was over 2.55. Sad times...The racer who eventually took first averaged 2.52, so we were tearing it up until that point.
But my point is that the times were pretty consistent in the beginning. I only wish we had good data to show how the times progressed, but the alignment being wrecked kinda made that hard to do.
Have a great race.