Hey guys don't give Quadrini all the credit for shooting down the 3' pucks. Schultz Racing (Lou and Jim) also emailed the BoD disapproving the pending puck change. Here was and still is our reasoning.
Here is what we knew: Jim started SCCA racing in 2000. Through the August of 2006 he had accumulated the following racing record: * 17 wins, 10 seconds, 4 fourths, 1 sixth 2 DNF's (rod bearing & a wall). Except for one Regional all other races were Nationals. * 3 track lap records, 2 NE Divisional F500 Championships. * 2000 SCCA Jim Fitzgerald Award Winner. * Runoffs Record: 2nd, 4th, 6th, 4th. Somewhere in the above period he had two overall wins, i.e. FF's at NHIS and VIR and eight consecutive wins (2003-2004). The above was accomplished using the now inferior 1" x 2" pucks, one car and one engine! When I read Jay's original proposal it provided no hard data just statements regarding the benefits of larger rubbers/elastomers. I don't claim to know everything but I do know that putting a 3 inches of anything inplace of a 1" anything will alter the cars ride height. Now I reasoned, with the larger puck.could the ride height be readjusted to optimal performance settings or must the suspension be modified? Also, if the puck were thicker and more compliant this might allow the car to go through bouncing cycles or oscillate over uneven surfaces. If the puck were less compliant then why change! I had written Jay several (two I think) emails on the f500 list trying to get more info about ride height and the bouncing and maybe even learn something more about elastomers. Jay replied that he had additional testing to do. I have not seen any test data to date. At this point Jim and I, after much discussion, had no desire to vote for changes that were unproven. There has been no solid data presented that the 3" pucks would "work" as claimed. Nor was it ever group discussed or determined if incorporating thicker pucks might obsolete any of the current cars or require substantial conversion costs to alter suspension rods or buy new rockers. Obviously 42 List members accepted the original proposal with these questions unanswered. Jim and I were not prepared to do so. Do we want a "better" car? You bet we do.but I sure would like to SEE what it is I'm saying yes to.if not it could cost me more in the end. In conclusion, the SCCA provides a process permitting member's issues to be presented, discussed, and ruled upon. If you think this process doesn't measure up or could be better, try getting something changed at your local oval or kart track. As SCCA members we do not "vote" on the issues. I'm guessing there could be maybe 150+, f500 owner/drivers across the U.S. if we really did have a voting membership the Club would have a voting process in place. I don't know who or what anyone else may have written for or against the bigger pucks but I will give credit to the BoD for weighing all the facts not just measuring the popularity of the issue. Having said that, would like the BoD give us that weight break on the 493 to save the class! Lou & Jim Schultz Philly Region PS Best Wishes, Everyone have a good run at the Runoffs. ________________________________ 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! ***
