62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction

[Aubrey N Bruneau]

Steve, yes, everyone seems to think the track is best.
One thing that I have confirmed for absolute certainty, is that the only place this car EVER spun more than on good, clean, new highway pavement... was on a prairie track, concrete "launch pad".
A little video in Saskatoon, with the old slicks:

Granted, that spinning completely through first and second, was a little extreme ( usually only goes an additional 20 feet in second ). If I remember correctly, the 60 ft was a 1.78 that time. So far, the track performance has proven to be a joke, largely due to the fact that the traction is always so poor.

Dick, I'm told that I'm WAY off on 1st gear in the trans. Saying I should have 3.08 or even 3.22.

Tires seem to "plant" dead-on even left/right ( has slight weight jacking in RR spring )
Car goes straight as an arrow.

No traction device permitted, which has a front mounting point ahead of the factory lower control arm mount.

Still can't seem to find the info on the 4 link, which indicates the optimum geometry for effective initial planting of the tires, resulting in weight transfer, which should perpetuate itself. PLEASE don't tell me the "every car is different" story !
At this point, I'm not looking to tune the chassis in order to go from a 1.50 60 ft, to a 1.49 !
I'm trying to go from 1.75 to 1.50. I don't think this discrepency is due to being out half a pound on tire pressure, or the like. It's a BAD problem, from a very fundamental error in design. Just need to know the "rules" !