Jeffball - The more questions you ask, the more questions you're gonna get! I like Burninator's approach to establishing parameters/goals. Once I know how things are being quantified, I might have a better suggestion on something qualified to meet said expectations.

I agree with most of what Burn is saying. However, I don't think you can leave out the Road Course. That test would tell you more about how the car handles in the turns at high speeds. After all, what the point in having an Ultimate car if you can't go fast at some point?
I think you can get rid of the Dyno and Car Show, but the Gurus are a big part of what makes the car work. They simply can appreciate the work that has gone into the car whether it was built or bought. And zip ties never win, so quality is a concern.
And Bruce, you are correct. We need things that can be quantified with numbers. That's where I started this discussion. Can we gather enough data on cars to determine what is "Ultimate" without holding a competition. I love competition, but how can you decide what to bring to the table without knowing where to start. Tests that we can get objective data from can be carried out over time without meeting in one place on one day for a competition.
I also think that perhaps a dollar/performance ratio would be great. I can build a 500hp Honduh or Mirage that does all of the quantified items above, but would your model of a girlfriend (yes we're dreaming) want to be seen in it? (subjective test data) On the other hand, Aston Martin, Porche, and Maserati all build fast 4 door cars. But can you afford them?

The dyno, road course, and guru panel are pretty important I think. The dyno not only measures peak power and area under the curve (critical for a street car), but also shos how well tuned and good the parts selection. This is especially true if the dyno test is performed on an inertia type Dynojet that is extremely sensitive (with smoothing = 1) like the dynos at K&N. It's not about bragging really, but let's face it: who doesn't like power? If you're afraid you probably should have built something with more balls or had it tuned better.

The guru panel isn't about impressing, but it kind of is in a secondary way. If you impressed a guru, then your car must have been pretty well thought out and executed. The gurus were always chosen because they knew WTF they were looking at having been experts in their various fields. They were also chosen because they had been around a while building, racing, and tuning cars. The gurus would be able to see immediately if your car was a pile of crap that just looked the look or if it was truly engineered masterpiece. Details were everything and the guru panel scored them.

The road course probably wasn't too good of a contest at USCC because the cars were all driven by different drivers. I think that was more of a limitation of schedule and cost during the SCC USCC days, but if those weren't concerns then I having the same driver drive all the cars would be a good way to measure how well set up a car is. After all canyons and curves do exist on public roads too.

I really liked the USCC just as it was. Sure, it was big and complicated, but I felt it truly reflected what a car actually was and forced entries to be all-around performers. That being said, the "Gross Display of Horsepower," while fun to watch and look at, shouldn't be a judged competition.

Posted By Eric Hsu on 10-08-2011 01:10 AM
The dyno, road course, and guru panel are pretty important I think. The dyno not only measures peak power and area under the curve (critical for a street car), but also shos how well tuned and good the parts selection. This is especially true if the dyno test is performed on an inertia type Dynojet that is extremely sensitive (with smoothing = 1) like the dynos at K&N. It's not about bragging really, but let's face it: who doesn't like power? If you're afraid you probably should have built something with more balls or had it tuned better.

The guru panel isn't about impressing, but it kind of is in a secondary way. If you impressed a guru, then your car must have been pretty well thought out and executed. The gurus were always chosen because they knew WTF they were looking at having been experts in their various fields. They were also chosen because they had been around a while building, racing, and tuning cars. The gurus would be able to see immediately if your car was a pile of crap that just looked the look or if it was truly engineered masterpiece. Details were everything and the guru panel scored them.

The road course probably wasn't too good of a contest at USCC because the cars were all driven by different drivers. I think that was more of a limitation of schedule and cost during the SCC USCC days, but if those weren't concerns then I having the same driver drive all the cars would be a good way to measure how well set up a car is. After all canyons and curves do exist on public roads too.

You said what I had thought every time I read the USCC issue. In order to find the ULTIMATE car you have to remove as many variables as possible! Same driver in each car is really paramount to determining which car is the best all around! 

I think a percentile approach might work for some of the categories. For example, when it comes to performance numbers one could use the 95th percentile to establish a limit. A 0-60 below a certain maximum, lateral acceleration above a certain minimum etc. One could then decide the size of the people to fit in the car. Is is four adults? Say, four 6'00 200 lbs. adults, and if two or more complain on the street cycle or the track cycle then the car is not comfortable enough. It should have a manual transmission with a real clutch. The same adults should be able to pack for a weekend and their bags fits in the trunk. Now if your can create the car and come in under budget for a new car that is comparable then great. I think the car that fits this the best is no longer in production for the states, and that was the Pontiac g8 GXP.

The G8 was cool, but I think for production cars these days you'd be hard pressed to find a better daily driver than a CTS-V Wagon. Look at the Road & Track lightning lap results, they didn't test a wagon, but the coupe and the sedan are pretty damn fast. Now that the wagon is available I think it's close to perfect. Also, Hennessy tuned a CTS-V (maybe with a supercharger, I'm not sure) and it launched so hard On-Star called to see if everyone was okay.

I see your points about the guru panel, road test, and dyno. I just always felt that the dyno wasn't needed. If you can build a lightweight car that drives well and accelerates fast without making 500+ hp then why lose so many points because it doesn't make huge numbers? That competition alone seems to eliminate too many cars (especially FWD cars) that don't make a whole lot of power, but would be great for the street. I suppose a guru panel is a good way to look at build quality and all that, so I'll give you that much, but I don't think cleverness of a build or fancy engineering tricks should have much bearing on the results (just my opinion). The road test I can see both ways. Yes there are canyons and curves on public roads, but I never drive 10/10ths on them like you would on a road course. One of the best parts of it would be as a stress test to see who's car breaks on the track. If it has to be done then I'm with everyone else that it should be done with the same driver.

I understand this would be a bug undertaking, and a lot of work. But I think it could drive a huge amount of trafic to the site. Everyone loved the USCC, it was one of my favorite parts of SCC mag.

How about we change up the dyno portion to incorporate the numbers into a hp/lb assessment/point value? I agree that the dyno will favor displacement (FI or not) but hp/lb or lb/hp helps to show (me personally) how usable the horsepower may be.

Anyone up for an impromptu competition during or after SEMA? I won't have anything to bring to the table, but with the number of people, cars, vendors, etc. at SEMA, why not see what those cars can do? Most of the true show cars they have at SEMA are thrown together at the last minute to look good during the show, but I'm sure someone brought something worth testing.
You might be able to talk a dyno company into using their display unit and see if Kojima would let you invade the Time Attack. Talk the media companies into covering the event, and before you know it, you've got a real event to do all of this "data collection". It just takes a little work and lots of collaboration with the right companies.

Posted By Der Bruce on 10-10-2011 05:40 PM
How about we change up the dyno portion to incorporate the numbers into a hp/lb assessment/point value? I agree that the dyno will favor displacement (FI or not) but hp/lb or lb/hp helps to show (me personally) how usable the horsepower may be.

It wouldn't be hard to incorporate a power to weight ratio category. 

I don't you how you would find a fair way to measure it due to it's nature, but for me insurance is a big part of deciding what I would consider a good daily driven street car. I remember looking at the prices of a 2003 RS6 a few years back and thinking "hell yeah, I could swing that". I got an insurance quote and my dream died. It was like over $400 a month. I have also seen someone insure a 2003 WRX wagon and a 2005 STi. The STi had the a lower premium for them.

I always liked the USCC and it would be awesome to see something like that here. If I was to pick a contender, I would say a 2009 GT-R with "stage 2" parts and a tune along with additional oil and transmission cooling if it was seeing a track.