Of course I would like shocks! I asked for real shocks when we did this survey last winter. Unfortunately not enough others did. However, the 3" puck sailed thru without much debate at all and I can see how it would be a clear improvement. We've laid the groundwork for it so let's just follow thru. We must stay unified to get any improvement. We'll look like just a bunch of fools if we now try to champion shocks and springs now.
Chris Reinhardt wrote: > John, did you read Jay's post? There's more data that supports real shocks > as being the safer choice. Sounds like the process would be the same with > either proposal and since the 3" puck got shot down for whatever reason, that > a real shock "may" be an easier sell. > Besides, your talking about building a rubber puck shock that doesn't exist > right now, what do you think the learning curve(read as $$$) would be? It > would be cheaper, easier, and more fair to go to a spec shock that everybody > has to deal with equally. > > CR > >John Whitling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that rather than restarting this whole process, we should >re-submit the 3" maximum puck (you don't have to change if you don't >want to) proposal but this time with the poling results we did last >winter. Sure I would like shocks but that's pie in the sky right now. >Forget it for the short term. > >My plan, and probably most people's plan, was to build in some rebound >dampening with 3" puck so that half was for jounce (means that one side >of the pucks must be compressed in the cans while the other amount is >for bump that is a lot more linear. I would like to try this but >admittedly the performance increase would be minimal and confined to >bumpy situations. > >Joe Palmer wrote: > > > >>Three? 27 at Run-Offs, only a couple teenagers, four newbies >>announced on this list in the past several weeks, and I'm in contact >>with four more off this list, and I'm sure there are others. I've >>spoken to most of them and they all joined F5 for the same reason . . >>. almost verbatim from Cory & Chuck's messages, which happens to be >>the same reason I joined, and Cory, and Chuck, and 99% of this list. >> >>We all look forward to the learnings from the FS project . . . as much >>as you're willing to share. I think the "democratic" style >>"Improvements Initiative" is the fair and efficient way to determine >>what is best for the class. We're certainly free to launch another >>effort to push through another list of Improvement Items for the class >>in 2007 . . . maybe inexepensive shocks and who knows what else. >> >>The healthy debate on this list and testing and FS kind of projects >>are much appreciated by all in providing facts to the debate, which >>will lead to an informed class membership and informed "vote". >> >>. . . we all want the same thing for the F500 class . . . healthy >>growth and continued close, affordable competition. >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Reinhardt" >> >>To: >>Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:26 AM >>Subject: RE: [F500] Pucks again >> >> >> >> >>>Hey Chuck, and all three of those families will contiue to enjoy the >>>class!!! >>> >>> >>>CR >>> >>> >>>"McAbee, Chuck" wrote: >>>Chris - >>> >>>The Rakovan of 2005 used the wording 'snowmobile derived drive train' to >>>implement a design around a transfer case that permitted the engine to >>>be turned so the exhaust ports faced the rear of the car. While that >>>design was found to be legal, when protested at the 2005 Runoff's; the >>>CRB/BOD implemented clarifying GCR wording to make it illegal for 2006 >>>and beyond. The Rakovan of 2005 ventured into the gray area of the >>>rules. >>> >>>If the CRB/BOD would implement a 'RULE' about the 3 inch rubbers or >>>shocks, that would be in the Black & White area of the rules with no >>>gray. If there are Black & White rules for the manufacturers to build >>>cars around, they will as long as someone will buy them. Kenney Price >>>built, I believe, 6 new Scorpions that competed at the Runoff's this >>>year. The 'Highly Competitive' racer will always spend his money if he >>>thinks something is better (i.e.. Faster) than what he currently has. >>> >>>I have to agree with Cory - F500 is not a stepping stone class for young >>>Karters on their way to be the next Michael Schumacher. It is a highly >>>competitive class for nominally young FAMILY men (I know all about the >>>old pharts that also participate, cause I are one) and women that have >>>the passion to race but don't want to bankrupt their family in their >>>pursuit of that passion. The talk of Bike Motors, Geared Transmissions, >>>Hydraulic Shocks and Springs does one thing and one thing alone - DRIVE >>>COST UP AT A GEOMETRICAL RATE besides making all existing cars obsolete. >>> >>>Were the class to implement Bike Motors, Geared Transmissions, Hydraulic >>>Shocks and Springs, then the class would be just like all the other >>>Formula classes and lose it's market. >>> >>> >>> >>>Chuck McAbee >>>SEDIV #16 >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris >>>Reinhardt >>>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:34 PM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: Re: [F500] Pucks again >>> >>> >>>Cory, there's no foundation that new cars will be built around new >>>shocks, ask any of the builders, Jay for example on here, there isn't >>>enough money/new driver's/interest in the class to design/build a new >>>car. >>>Here's a recent example, the Rakovan, do you think he wants to build >>>a new car around a new shock to find out it will outlawed? >>>We keep getting back to the fear of the unknown.. >>> >>>CR >>> >>> >>>----------------------------------------- >>>This email transmission and any accompanying attachments may >>>contain CSX privileged and confidential information intended only >>>for the use of the intended addressee. Any dissemination, >>>distribution, copying or action taken in reliance on the contents >>>of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient is >>>strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error >>>please immediately delete it and notify sender at the above CSX >>>email address. Sender and CSX accept no liability for any damage >>>caused directly or indirectly by receipt of this email. >>> >>> >>> >>>--------------------------------- >>>How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone >>>call rates. >>> >>> > >[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of >jwhit.vcf] [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! ***
