From: "Art" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [F500] Re: F500 - Longer Suspension Puck Change Denied
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:18:08 -0400
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
