John, Sorry John, I can't answer that question. I would have hoped that you understand that no one should be saying anything about what someone else may or may not have said in a private letter to the BOD. That would apply to the BOD too :-). I know certain things from posing certain questions to certain people. Is that "certain" enough for you :-).
Art -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Whitling Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [F500] Re: F500 - Longer Suspension Puck Change Denied So, Jeez, is that a "yes"??? Simple question .. Art wrote: >John, > >If it was Mike, that would be for him to say. But, as far as your >comment of alluding to some performance issue or other gain being the >reason, I think that would be erroneous. Any benefit coming out >approving a new puck configuration would be available to anyone, QRE >wouldn't be restricted from adding that perceived benefit :-). I should >also remind you that Mike has been very forthcoming to soloists and >racers alike on setups. He has demonstrated in the past his willingness >to answer any question on his cars (although not by computer :-) )and >would have no reason to ask for rejection of this proposal to gain some advantage. > >As I mentioned in my email, I have knowledge of the basis for that >letter, and it was a concern for safety and the potential for lack of >control issues since the addition of the bigger pucks was the only >thing requested to be approved. Again, from my perspective, I would >have opted for testing along the lines that Jay has done before >approving this request with only a hope that it will do as promised. But that's just me :-). > >Art > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >John Whitling >Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 10:57 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [F500] Re: F500 - Longer Suspension Puck Change Denied > >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 [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of ________________________________ 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! ***
