Art Are you saying that it was Mike? If a very successful tuner/builder is on top now I can understand why he might not want to see things change.
Art wrote: >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. > > >= [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of jwhit.vcf] ________________________________ 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! ***
