Jim, If the individual in question was Mike Quadrini, he is certainly entitled to his opinion and writing that opinion to the BOD. Further, as I have found in some of your other posts, your information as to what is and what isn't is lacking. Mike Quadrini has certainly participated and driven his cars at speed in races throughout the northeast. And if he is the premiere manufacturer in the northeast as suggested, one that in the reality has produced many, many championship cars with his knowledge and design, I would think his opinion would be noticed. One voice, one vote but noticed nonetheless. If you have a problem with the BOD giving a knowledgeable manufacturer more credence then the "landside of drivers", then you have a problem with the BOD, not trying to degrade the experience of the possible writer of the letter.
>From what I have found out about that "infamous" email is that the safety issue and the possibility of "avoid(ing) pogo stick bouncing" down the track was the basis of the request for a re-evaluation of the puck request. Although our cars do have a cracking frame issue and should be constantly reviewed, I would suggest that if your issue is only a safety issue as you suggest in your situation, it might be better addressed to the SEB/MAC then to try and get the racing group to do something for your immediate problem: rough parking lots. The suspension on our cars is an issue but from my perspective, it would be better to have real results to base an opinion on rather then just jumping on a "fix" that may or may not solve a problem and may in fact, cause more of a problem. Jay has suggested that he does have some testing results and I await his information before I start going down a path that will just cost more money or make things worse. Art -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [F500] Re: F500 - Longer Suspension Puck Change Denied Larry, He is in the minority and if he is who I suspect that he is (Mike Quadrini, the NE car maker referred to earlier), this person has never ever driven a F440/500 in competition much less had a suspension failure at speed so he is NOT the one to listen to. Besides, he is outvoted by a landslide of drivers. Remember that this is a SAFETY issue so considering a carmaker's input as overriding puts the BOD at risk. Many drivers have commented over many years of continuously looking for metal cracks so that they can avoid a horrific failure at speed simply because the rubber puck does not have sufficient compliance to reduce the shock to the chassis. We are still looking for a better way of dampening in order to avoid pogo stick bouncing. Jim -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:18 AM Subject: Re: F500 - Longer Suspension Puck Change Denied I was not at the meeting due to an unavoidable committment, but I was told that one major builder of F 500 cars spoke out against the move. Larry Dent On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BOD, I have just heard that this change was turned down even though there were over 42 drivers in favor of this improvement. I have been running F440/500's since 1982 and I have had multiple suspension failures at all four corners over these many years where the supporting metal has broken completely with one particular rear failure at speed that lifted the rear of the car 4 feet in the air (I was looking straight down at the road!). My heart, needless to say, stopped momentarily; to say that this kind of failure at speed is a SAFETY issue and you DENY IMPROVING the suspension just stuns and flabbergasts me. I was there in 1983 when the rubber puck suspension rule was first written in as a SAFETY item. Were any of you around then and remember this? Do you also remember during the discussions for this rule that the puck dimensions of 1" thick and 2" diameter were considered only a starting point - to be reviewed periodically for the appropriateness only to be forgotten about ! all these 20 years until now - we are human and do forget! I urge you to immediately reconsider your vote, remember that this is a SAFETY issue and vote your conscience to help the F500 community. And last, do you want to risk going on record denying this safety improvement when a suspension point metal failure at 125 mph seriously hurts or even kills a F500 driver? I await your response not your acknowledgement of receipt. Jim Murphy 3R93012 Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. = ________________________________ FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 _________________________________ _______________________________________________ F500 mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change options please visit: http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 *** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
