"The basic concepts of the class have worked well for the past 22 years
and I don't see any compelling reason for those hallmarks to be changed"
well chuck i tend to agree for the most part except when it comes to the
issue of the suspension
The original intent was to monitor the puck size, i dont see where that was
ever monitored along with other changes over the last 15 yrs.
original formula for the car was 700 lbs i believe ,it might have even been
650 anybody know???with a 440 chap or kawi engine,
now along with hardly any of these breaking the 100mph marker on any
consistent basis i think there is a real safety issue now that is not beeing
payed attention too by the bod.
back when the amw was let in there was a significant weight penalty added
total weight went to 750 lbs----- no puck change
rotax 494 came in 94 or 95 again another 50 lbs added to the class shortly
after that bringin the total to 800 no puck change, i didnt see the 50 lbs
penalty between the rotax and amw go away they just brought the entire car
weight up to the same level, now we
have another weight increase of 50 lbs with the addition of the new rotax
engine??? anyone see this pattern?? total weight is now up to 850lbs no
puck change.
So to date we have
cars that consistently hit well over 100 easily with 200 lbs of extra weight
now it would seem to me that if your going to add weight it should have been
looked at where the extra weight was adding the extra stress.
The way I see it at the moment THE SCCA HAS A SERIOUS LIABILITY ISSUE,
It has been requested that the rule be modified for what I see more as a
safety concern than any other reason, the thicker puck has hardly any cost
issue, or real perfomance gain,and from what I see driving this originally
was the complaint from drivers and failure of suspension components from
beeing overloaded.
The response to just deny the change with no explanation floors me.
Look at this SCENARIO and i would like to hear someone/anyone disagree with
me.
Driver "X" hits wall and dies during race due to failure of suspension
component.
This would be a horrible headline but the way i see it, insured or not at
that point someones going to be looking for reasonable LEGAL explanation of
why the request initiated by a safety concern was was so quickly denied
without a reasonable explanation /opinion at this point. you can sign
waivers etc. but all in all someone could win a suit for negligence and
wrongfull death, it sucks to have to present it like that" but there is no
judge that is going to accept this answer
" The change was not consistent with the rules or intent of the class"
Well if we are so dead set against giving a rule change for the puck maybe
we should be asking for the total weight to be brought back down to the
original ??? cuz hey it wasnt the original intent to have 850 lb cars
either. but that part of the intent and rules looks like it was overlooked
pretty easily.
Dan
From: Cory McLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [F500] Write the Shock Rule
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Class is not in jeopardy of losing national status, which is different than
the Runoffs issue. 14 cars for sale is not unheard of, and is not an
indicator of people leaving the class (ever heard of upgrading or buying a
new car?) We can absolutely grow the class without killing it in a
misguided effort to turn it into a new class.
1. Run your car as much as possible if it's been sitting in the garage.
2. Buy a car and run it if you're on the fence or have been sitting out
(my situation).
3. Promote the class based on what drew us to the class.
4. Rent your car to newbies whenever possible.
This is just a few ideas off the top of my head and there are plenty
more that have been posted on this list, but they all assume that the
person truly cares about the class. I agree with Chuck - what is the
motivation for someone new to the class, without the years of effort,
friendships, and sweat invested in the class, who obviously doesn't
understand ( or purposly refuses to understand) the demographic that the
class appeals to, to want to reinvent the specs? Is it truly for the long
term benefit of the class, or is the motivation somewhere else?
Cory
Eric Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The class is not attracting many new owners, road racing participation
is
down, National class status is in jeopardy, many cars are becoming
autocross
only cars, 14 cars are for sale on the web page, and you guys want status
quo? What do you suggest to generate renewed interest in the class? How do
we save it? Any positive ideas or do we just stick around and wait for the
eulogy?
Sorry to come on so strong, but I hope there is a larger purpose to this
discussion than just spending money for performance, safety, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil
Osenburg
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [F500] Write the Shock Rule
Chuck,
I agree with you !
If you want something different - get into something different !
Gil
----- Original Message -----
From: "McAbee, Chuck"
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:56 PM
Subject: RE: [F500] Write the Shock Rule
> It has always amazed me how the newcomers to a class, any class in SCCA,
> always want to reinvent the class to their liking (so it will be
> 'easier' for them to win - since they have 'expertise' in the changes
> they want).
>
> The hallmarks of F440/F500, since 1984 at least, have been -
>
> 2 stroke, water cooled 440/500cc engine
> CVT Transmission
> Suspension medium = Elastomer 1" thick x 2" diameter
> 10 inch wheels
> 80" maximum wheelbase
> 55" maximum width
>
> The basic concepts of the class have worked well for the past 22 years
> and I don't see any compelling reason for those hallmarks to be changed
> at this time. F500 is not 'just another Formula class' at present and
> if it were to become 'just another Formula class' it would become
> totally invisible in the plethora of the other Formula classes.
>
> F500 is what it is!
>
> The biggest bang for the buck in SCCA racing!
>
>
>
>
> Chuck McAbee
> SEDIV #16
>
> -----------------------------------------
> 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.
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
________________________________
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! ***
