I like your replies and I kinda agree to a point. Making the car easier to drive normally entails raising its performance envelope.
Perhaps. I actually don't know. But even if that's true, it doesn't imply that extending the performance envelope will make the car easier to drive. In fact, it might do quite the opposite (read on and you'll hopefully see what I mean). Additionally, there's the question of who finds it easier to drive. That's not an idle or flippant question, either, it's a real one. Most cars come from the factory with some understeer built in because for most people, a car that understeers is easier to drive at the limits (or more precisely, to recover from going over the limits) than is one that oversteers. But removing at least some amount of the understeer is one of the first things we do to extend the performance envelope. It makes the car "harder" to drive, but it pays off because it makes the car more flexible in its handling.
Another example, not from the realm of automobiles but rather from the realm of aviation, is the F-16. The F-16's aerodynamic design makes it so hard to fly without a computer that they
had to implement a fly-by-wire system just to make it possible for humans to fly it at all. But that aerodynamic design makes it perform substantially better than more traditional stable designs, which is why they settled on that approach in the first place.
But even so, I expect that most performance improvements make it easier to drive the car faster, if only because they expand the performance envelope of the car. But that doesn't automatically imply that a modification which does
not improve the performance of the car can't make it easier to drive at the limit.
So at any given speed you are now only at 80% of the cars limits instead of 90%. The problem is arguing in favor of some brace on a car already stiff enough to run 80%. That brace is not doing anything measurable.
Oh, I agree it's not likely to be doing anything measurable, particularly in the hands of a driver who is sufficiently capable that they can objectively measure performance improvements. But as I argue, that type of person is precisely the type of person who
cannot (with caveats) determine the effects of modifications which would improve driver confidence but which would otherwise yield no gains. They'll be able to feel a difference in how the car handles, but that difference won't help them improve their lap times. But that difference may well help a less experienced driver improve their lap times, which is really the point here.
Someone who can consistently drive the car at its limits may be able to tell that a modification makes it easier
for him to drive at the limits, but (a) that doesn't automatically translate to said modification being useful for someone less experienced and (b) a modification that makes it easier for a less experienced driver doesn't necessarily make it easier for a more experienced driver.
I could add stripes and claim my car feels better. Then I could ask for a gofundme page to pay for my testing to "prove" that it is faster because no one has tested it before. Its similar nonsense.
Well, sort of. The difference is that while the modifications we're talking about probably won't raise the limits of the car (which is really what you need for the car to objectively be faster), they
must at least change the feel (more precisely, the response characteristics) of the car. Stripes don't even do that. An exceptionally good driver won't be faster with the kinds of modifications we're talking about here, but that driver must at least be able to feel a difference in the way the car drives. If that driver doesn't even feel that, then yes, I fully agree that the modification would be of the same sort as racing stripes (even worse, actually, since it then wouldn't even change the appearance!).
Aftermarket part makers, make stuff that sells. It does not need to work. It only needs to make a profit. Just because a brace exists, doesn't mean it does anything. It certainly is not good for 2 seconds of lap time. Those claims are ridiculous. Thats why actual racers here and on facebook are calling it bs.
And I agree with them that, absent real evidence, it's likely that it doesn't do anything to raise the limits of the car. But does it make it easier for the driver to achieve an improvement of 2 seconds in his own driving, something that he might be able to achieve anyway with a bit more experience? On that, I cannot say. But I cannot discount that possibility, and neither can anyone else who is at roughly the same level of skill and hasn't driven a car both with and without that specific modification. It's at least
logically possible, something that can't be said of racing stripes.
So let's say we have a modification that makes it easier for a relatively inexperienced driver to drive the car at (or at least closer to) its limits. It's a modification that wouldn't make any difference at all to someone who can take cars to their limits all day long (the sort of driver you'd need to assess the objective performance improvement of a modification). The amount of improvement seen by the inexperienced driver will diminish as that driver gains experience. That might make the modification worthwhile initially, but its value won't last. Assuming the driver reaches a state where he can wring every last bit of performance out of the car, he'll then be able to remove the modification without any impact to his lap times. Was the modification worth doing under those circumstances? Only that driver can really say.
I think what we can say unequivocally is that there are almost certainly other modifications that a similar amount of money and effort can go towards that will yield the same improvement, but in a permanent fashion. That makes those modifications superior to the kind we're talking about, and I don't think a reasonable person can likely disagree with that.
One additional thing: the biggest performance mod by far is the driver mod. You have to be pretty advanced to be at the point where a modification to the car will yield greater performance improvements than would more experience. I expect that most here aren't at that level of experience/capability. But that means at least one of the following possibilities is in play for most here:
- The performance modifications they're making are not the best use of their money/time, and they'd be better off spending it on more seat time
- The performance modifications they're making are primarily for the purpose of changing the car's characteristics to better suit their tastes, and any performance improvements are really just a happy coincidence
The modest changes I've made to my car most definitely fit in the latter category. They make the car noticeably more responsive and change the balance to better suit my preferences. I've no idea how much, if any, they improve the performance, but that's not why I made them. But where I'm going with this is that
even the performance improvement modifications discussed in this forum are likely of limited benefit in the hands of most in comparison with the benefits of more seat time. Yes, there will be a point of diminishing returns with respect to seat time, and at that point, modifications will come into their own. But not until then, in my opinion (which is certainly worth about as much as you're paying for it

).