DSR / CSR Difference

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
MCalvert	DSR / CSR Difference		Lead	[-]
Registered User Posts: 5 06/10/08 05:37:12	Now that the hoopla is over combining the classes, what exactly is the difference between DSR and CSR? I know the weight difference and engine combinations, but i have read and reread the rules and I don't know what I am missing. I take it from the threads that the major objection to combining is that DSR is unrestricted and the rules as I interpret them suggest that. From a chassis and aero stand point they are the same, yes? That all being said, then to equalize the two classes, would be a matter of legislating weight and HP potential for whatever combination? Mark
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Duane Dyckman	CSR/DSR	#1	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 319 06/10/08 13:24:19	Mark, There are apparently 2 schools of thought. 1) CSR has not had the development to its cars that DSR has. Therefore, if CSR had been and should be developed the laptimes should not be as close as they are presently. 2) DSR should be a steppingstone Sportsracer class; S-2 to DSR to CSR to mirror the Formula classes. Number 1 requires someone to develop CSR cars - Rennie and Stan Clayton started on that approach. But I don't think they have revealed what goals they think they can attain speedwise for the CSR. Number 2 requires, without number 1, a move backwards in speed for DSR. That approach will incite just as much venom as the recent BOD fiasco. So, the result is status quo. The 11th and 15th most popular classes (as of 3/31/08) will stagnate IMO. A SWAG - we'll be revisiting consolidation for CSR and DSR in 2 years particularly if the economy remains in its current state.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David Arken	Consolidation if and when	#2	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 632 06/10/08 14:11:48	If the BOD goes with the previously accepted scheme of raising the minimum participation number over time until the desired number of classes at Runoff's is reached all this combination comes to a natural end. By that I mean if CSR falls below the minimum the competitors will likely ask for appropriate CSR engine restriction to run as a DSR. By that time maybe CSR's will be faster than D's and their engines will require restriction. If they are not then the solution might be to just accept them into DSR with the understood and written statement that if any previously allowed CSR engine is developed to the point it becomes a DSR killer it will be further restricted, this protects the 1000cc engines already in DSR. This is by no means meant to be the "solution" but something along the above lines can be refined and put in place if the BOD uses the minimum participation scheme. One of the reason I chose DSR over CSR in 1990 was that even back then CSR was struggling, their engines were way more expensive. David
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
mjaremko	DSR / CSR	#3	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 23 06/10/08 15:03:43	IMO the biggest difference in 2008 between the two is $$. Under the current rules for both class's the DSR's are going faster for much less out go and maintenance costs. For instance, my new 07 GDRE Suzuki makes 29 more horse power than my 03 Loynings Yamaha and costs $4k less, that trend will be hard to find in CSR. mj Last Edited By: mjaremko 06/10/08 15:11:58. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
mad2002tii		#4	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 493 06/11/08 07:07:51	Although this will need to come from the CSR drivers to the CRB I would like to see the 45% rule lifted for CSR. This would allow the FA conversions to take advantage of there original tunnels and would create a functional difference between the classes besides weight and HP. Mike Devins hrp-llc at comcast dot net
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David Arken	CSR Tunnels	#5	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 634 06/11/08 10:45:28	Mike, Anyone can make a proposal, and it should be sent to the BOD. David
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
MCalvert		#6	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 6 06/11/08 15:07:46	Had to take a day to think about what has been said and at least I was right about the differences. For me, I saw the consolidation as a major plus all the way around. It would have allowed me to use a larger engine and not fight the weight issues (I am 6' 240lbs). The downside to that is a dilution of technology, meaning you don't have to use exotic materials, basicly put together a tank and throw in a larger motor. Pluses and minuses to that arguement, more affordable cars, more cars vs. running an exotic car and engineering your way to the front. I'm not sure what is being spent on a top of the line GSXR, but I can't imagine from what I read that it is a whole lot less then what it would be to tweak out a VTEC. I do agree that if the classes get combined rules would have to be watched closely as the larger motor cars adopt some of the technology. Very tough call. And thanks for the responses, it sheads some light on some of the reactions to the consolidation. The surface of the debate seems rather straight forward, but there is a very large can of worms hidden underneath. I like the idea of a larger field of cars, but I am not sure how it should be pulled off. Mark
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote