More class splitting crap

I laughed this morning as I read the post of Cory. It seems that the "strokers" want the class split up again and because they haven't been able to accomplish this with the crude back stabbing methods that they've come to rely upon they've decided to go this route.

Cory wrote:
My personal opinions (not speaking for the Ad Hoc Committee):

[FONT=Segoe UI, Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif]1. The 2-stroke/CVT and MC/sequential manual are incompatible and can never be equalized. One group or the other will always believe they are the underdog. This is not breaking news. Dix and others have been waving this flag since day one.[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI, Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif]Dix doesn't have a clue nor a voice as he hasn't raced in years. Everyone that hasn't raced due to the the class merging is purely a show of ignorance. The back markers think they can win, everyone knows they can't but at the same time everyone wants to see the retarded kid solve the calculus problem no matter how long it takes.[/FONT]

[FONT=Segoe UI, Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif]2. After this year, there will be another wave of 2-stoke guys who will either quit completely or put their cars in the garage indefinitely. The number of MC cars in not growing nearly fast enough to offset the loss of 2-stroke cars. The 5+ year-old civil war in the class is keeping new people on both sides from joining the class. The slow death of the class will accelerate. [/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI, Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif]The number of MC cars currently represent over 40% of the majors races and 35% of the super tour races. I wouldn't say that the growth isn't there considering that half of the MC crowd said screw SCCA when they imposed the 30mm restrictor. More said screw the AD-HOC committee for imposing the 29mm restrictors when there was no need.......A TWO STROKE WON the 2016 Runoffs MORONS........ So, I would say that on its third year of running majors level events that the MC crowd isn't doing too bad. If it wasn't for the "geriatrics club" the MC cars would represent 46% of the class on the majors level and 41% on the super tour level. Better hope people can continue to pass physicals or else the MC crowd will have the majority sooner than later.[/FONT]

3. Even though the 593 is the wildcard between the 2 proposed classes, all 3 proposals effectively create a 2-stroke class and an MC class. Separate classes and a defined timeline for resolution of the civil war will draw back 2-stroke guys and encourage new participation in both classes. The future will be clear - F500/600 will revert to a 2-stroke class, become an MC class or die.This comment is too dumb to comment on.

[FONT=Segoe UI, Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif]3. In the event that the 2-stroke class survives, we can address engine supply and parity after the transition period. For example, if options 1 or 2 are implemented, we could bring the 593 back into F500 after the transition. Alternately, if option 3 is implemented, we could do whatever we want with the 593 restrictor after the transition.[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI, Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif] The AD-HOC committee finally admits that the 493 an 494 is the underdog by saying " run the 493,494 and heavily restrict the 593" as a option. If the two stroke crowd is going to accept the fact that they have been lied to this entire time by the people who own the 593 saying " the 593 has the same power as the 493 and 494 " are in my opinion deserving what they get coming to them. I laughed the hardest when I read the " [/FONT]if option 3 is implemented, we could do whatever we want with the 593 restrictor after the transition "comment. It shows the true intent of the "strokers" agenda. It's not to grow the class , its to destroy it by dividing the class numbers.

Quote:

---

So, I would say that on its third year of running majors level events that the MC crowd isn't doing too bad. If it wasn't for the "geriatrics club" the MC cars would represent 46% of the class on the majors level and 41% on the super tour level. Better hope people can continue to pass physicals or else the MC crowd will have the majority sooner than later

---

Quote:

---

The back markers think they can win, everyone knows they can't but at the same time everyone wants to see the retarded kid solve the calculus problem no matter how long it takes.

---

Way to inspire people Clint! I met you at the 2014 runoffs, and you had nothing nice to say about the other MC competitors, so I do not know why this is a surprise. This is pretty insulting to many. Others have been kicked off this web site for less. Keep up the team building effort, that is why there so many problems with this class>>>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lance3556

you had nothing nice to say about the other MC competitors, >>>

---

? Sorry, haven't ever had anything bad to say about a competitor that runs a MC car. Don't know what you're even referring to. Didn't have anything bad to say about anyone that was at that event either. Help me out, what did I say that made you come up with that assumption. Oh, and I'm done "inspiring" people. The people in this class that wants it split is guys that couldn't ever win to begin with so this is the only way they can feel like they have a shot. It's sad that they don't realize they're killing themselves.

Clint,

Have you asked your father and Carl Maier why they voted yes for the class split?

Cory

Regardless of the people and personalities involved, splitting the class WILL kill the class. We can all say goodbye to the Runoffs and Majors competition if that happens. Personally, If F5 or F6 was a regional level class only, I would not stay in the class. Too much money and effort in this sport to not be able to compete on a national level.

The truth is Clint, Calvin, Steve Thompson, and James Weida would win races regardless of what they are driving- two stroke or MC, because of driver skill, dedication, willingness to spend money, and being comfortable hanging it out every lap, during every race weekend. Most of the people complaining either don't even race anymore or think if the MC motors leave the class they might win.

I originated one of the class split proposals. I am not under any disillusions that my driving prowess is sufficient to win against the top drivers in the class - be they 2-stroke or 4-stroke.

Placing the MC drivetrain into the 2-stroke CVT F500 class was an 'arranged' marriage forced upon the class by SCCA. The MC drivers have been unhappy with the restrictions placed upon their powertrains from day one. The 2-strokes have been unhappy that SCCA violated the cardinal rule of the class philosophy 2-stroke CVT powertrains in forcing the marriage.

It is time for a divorce account irreconcilable differences.

All I personally know is that I will continue to compete in a 2-stroke CVT car for as long as my health will permit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cory mcleod

Clint,

Have you asked your father and Carl Maier why they voted yes for the class split?



Cory

---

Neither one of them would ever tell me what was said on that committee much less what they voted for. Which scenario (s) did they vote for?

Since the inception of the MC motors on a majors level the class numbers has increased every year. I don't see how or why anyone would change the scenario up now. All that will happen is the two strokes will die off eventually due to lack of interest and the four strokes will go race with another organisation just like the formula vees have. I highly doubt the two strokes will have that option as no organisation other than SCCA that I have approached has wanted the two strokes to run with them. The appeal of the two stroke and CVT has come and gone. The longevity of the class rests in a few peoples hands on the two stroke side. The majority of the participation from the two stroke side comes from three guys that all are in the same trailer. One of which has the most starts in a single class nationwide according to SCCA numbers on their site. Once one or all of those guys are out the class will take a extreme nose dive and the overall participation will go down. The MC crowd has grown rapidly in comparison to the two strokes over the past three years. All but one brand new car has been built for the MC motor. That's a 5-1 ratio that I know is a fact. This is in despite of the fact that a large majority of the MC crowd has left
due to the frequency of the restrictor changes.If the class splits the MC crowd will go there way (to another organisation) and the two strokes will eventually die in a few years after. I'm sick of the crying that the majority of the two strokes are doing because they can't figure out how to compete. It's called Hard Work and dedication.... Just FYI, I was approached by the AD-HOC committee to do a comparison test at HPT between the two stroke and four stroke. When I arrived to HPT the test was aborted because the person who had the two stroke car hadn't made the first effort in making the test scenario happen. He concluded that he need more track time to learn the track.........a track that he had raced EVERY YEAR the track had been opened plus three Runoffs races. I can see where he may need more time to become familiar with the track due to lack of track time there...... In my opinion he knew what would happen if I had the chance to test two top notch cars on the same day. No one would have excuses anymore . Guess that's why the test didn't happen in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clint

Since the inception of the MC motors on a majors level the class numbers has increased every year. I don't see how or why anyone would change the scenario up now. All that will happen is the two strokes will die off eventually due to lack of interest and the four strokes will go race with another organisation just like the formula vees have. I highly doubt the two strokes will have that option as no organisation other than SCCA that I have approached has wanted the two strokes to run with them. The appeal of the two stroke and CVT has come and gone. The longevity of the class rests in a few peoples hands on the two stroke side. The majority of the participation from the two stroke side comes from three guys that all are in the same trailer. One of which has the most starts in a single class nationwide according to SCCA numbers on their site. Once one or all of those guys are out the class will take a extreme nose dive and the overall participation will go down. The MC crowd has grown rapidly in comparison to the two strokes over the past three years. All but one brand new car has been built for the MC motor. That's a 5-1 ratio that I know is a fact. This is in despite of the fact that a large majority of the MC crowd has left
due to the frequency of the restrictor changes.If the class splits the MC crowd will go there way (to another organisation) and the two strokes will eventually die in a few years after. I'm sick of the crying that the majority of the two strokes are doing because they can't figure out how to compete. It's called Hard Work and dedication.... Just FYI, I was approached by the AD-HOC committee to do a comparison test at HPT between the two stroke and four stroke. When I arrived to HPT the test was aborted because the person who had the two stroke car hadn't made the first effort in making the test scenario happen. He concluded that he need more track time to learn the track.........a track that he had raced EVERY YEAR the track had been opened plus three Runoffs races. I can see where he may need more time to become familiar with the track due to lack of track time there...... In my opinion he knew what would happen if I had the chance to test two top notch cars on the same day. No one would have excuses anymore . Guess that's why the test didn't happen in my opinion.

---

BS to the Max! The car/driver in question had not turned a wheel ANYWHERE since his car was damaged in a race at HPT in 2014. In the interim HPT was closed in 2015 & 2016 with a repaving taking place in late fall of 2016 or early 2017 with the track being under new management. Repaving a track makes it a new surface that has to be learned from scratch. The new track surface was a green as green could be on the test day before the HPT Major. Driver in question had never run with the 2006 Runoff's offset on the back straight. Through out the weekend he was consistently 1 second behind you - whenever he found a second improvement, so did you. And then on Sunday Sven came along to finish Second but to also beat your best time by half a second.

The straight line acceleration of a gearbox transmission cannot be made equivalent to the curved power application of a CVT. EFI with open fuel mapping cannot be made equivalent to 40 year old Mikuni 38VM Roundslide technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmi16

BS to the Max! The car/driver in question had not turned a wheel ANYWHERE since his car was damaged in a race at HPT in 2014. In the interim HPT was closed in 2015 & 2016 with a repaving taking place in late fall of 2016 or early 2017 with the track being under new management. Repaving a track makes it a new surface that has to be learned from scratch. The new track surface was a green as green could be on the test day before the HPT Major. Driver in question had never run with the 2006 Runoff's offset on the back straight. Through out the weekend he was consistently 1 second behind you - whenever he found a second improvement, so did you. And then on Sunday Sven came along to finish Second but to also beat your best time by half a second.

The straight line acceleration of a gearbox transmission cannot be made equivalent to the curved power application of a CVT. EFI with open fuel mapping cannot be made equivalent to 40 year old Mikuni 38VM Roundslide technology.

---

Yep pretty sure you don't have a clue as to what I was even talking about.


The straight line acceleration of a gearbox transmission cannot be made equivalent to the curved power application of a CVT
No one in this has class has the guts to post data so that argument can be resolved.

EFI with open fuel mapping cannot be made equivalent to 40 year old Mikuni 38VM Roundslide technology.
Sure it can, actually the carbs can out perform the efi if you want to screw with it enough. Oh, that's probably why no one has opted out for the carbs instead of the efi that currently runs a MC motor......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmi16

BS to the Max! The car/driver in question had not turned a wheel ANYWHERE since his car was damaged in a race at HPT in 2014. In the interim HPT was closed in 2015 & 2016 with a repaving taking place in late fall of 2016 or early 2017 with the track being under new management. Repaving a track makes it a new surface that has to be learned from scratch. The new track surface was a green as green could be on the test day before the HPT Major. Driver in question had never run with the 2006 Runoff's offset on the back straight. Through out the weekend he was consistently 1 second behind you - whenever he found a second improvement, so did you. And then on Sunday Sven came along to finish Second but to also beat your best time by half a second.

The straight line acceleration of a gearbox transmission cannot be made equivalent to the curved power application of a CVT. EFI with open fuel mapping cannot be made equivalent to 40 year old Mikuni 38VM Roundslide technology.

---

Just for the record, since you're obviously talking about CJ, I thought he did great CONSIDERING all of your above statements. Just goes to show the strength of a 593 and a good driver that could win in just about any car given proper seat time...........say .........more than one time in three years.......

I'm going to say this once in bold, red letters, so that everyone is notified at the same time and there are no excuses...


Ad hominem attacks are strictly forbidden here at ApexSpeed. Insults and attacks on other groups or members will not be tolerated. The next action against anyone calling names or insulting others at any level for any reason will be for and instant and permanent banning. All of the Mods and Admins are on high alert with this thread and have full permission to have a heavy hand with the ban hammer.

In other words, knock it off.

If one of the views of the 2 stoke power plants is EFI is better than Carbs, why have they not asked for EFI? I am just getting tired of having to be the one how spends all the time, money and other resources to show up and try to win. The changes are getting out of hand and rather annoying. EFI would make your lives better and according to many 2 stokes faster. Why not ask for EFI and get "competitive" with MC power? I think the cars are even now and more changes to the MC power will hurt the class over all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluterek155

If one of the views of the 2 stoke power plants is EFI is better than Carbs, why have they not asked for EFI? I am just getting tired of having to be the one how spends all the time, money and other resources to show up and try to win. The changes are getting out of hand and rather annoying. EFI would make your lives better and according to many 2 stokes faster. Why not ask for EFI and get "competitive" with MC power? I think the cars are even now and more changes to the MC power will hurt the class over all.

---

To my knowledge there is not a 'EFI aftermarket package' for 2-strokes. Within the past decade BRP has been building their E-tec EFI motors. None of the SCCA legal 2-strokes were ever made for EFI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmi16

To my knowledge there is not a 'EFI aftermarket package' for 2-strokes. Within the past decade BRP has been building their E-tec EFI motors. None of the SCCA legal 2-strokes were ever made for EFI.

---

How hard is it to get a new engine allowed into the class? Would be comparable to the current engines? Well at least the 592 as that seems to the favored engine with 2 stokes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluterek155

How hard is it to get a new engine allowed into the class? Would be comparable to the current engines? Well at least the 592 as that seems to the favored engine with 2 stokes.

---

The other side of that, and it is not known to my knowledge, is how much would a complete E-tec engine and everything required to operate it cost.

F500 has always been a budge conscious class, moving from carb engines to EFI engines would drive up the cost factor.

At one time, F440 (F500's predecessor designation) had a Claiming Rule. When I broke into the class back in the 80's the rule stated you could claim any car for $6K. Obviously the cost of cars has risen dramatically since then.

Now might be a great time to look into it. The rules are always changing anyways lol. Plus it seems inevitable classes have to evolve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluterek155

Now might be a great time to look into it. The rules are always changing anyways lol. Plus it seems inevitable classes have to evolve.

---

A claiming rule was on the survey that was sent out by the adhoc committee. It had a pretty unanimous thumbs down in the survey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan McMahan

A claiming rule was on the survey that was sent out by the adhoc committee. It had a pretty unanimous thumbs down in the survey.

---

Sorry I meant the EFI for the 2 stokes

So as some what of an outsider looking back in (after 10+ years out of the class), what is the main reason for the 2 stroke crowd not wanting to either convert to MC power, or find a compromise? For the last several years, all I've seen an all out war against each other.

Is it cost?
Is it not knowing how to convert it?
Is it just objecting to something new?

I remember the days when my Dad raced… he would spend the entire damn weekend wrenching on the car, only to have it fail. That’s the entire reason we got out of 440… and after spending a weekend with Clint, I see that’s no longer the case. I've seen so many chassis's converted over to MC power so the knowledge is out there…. Hell, I've got one of my chassis’s at Clint's shop now that's slated to be changed over from a 440 to a MC later this year.

As much talk as it has been about splitting the class, has anyone thought about splitting it under the same category so we don't lose the SCCA grouping? i.e Formula Something with F500/F600 split starts? All the 2 strokes can run against each other, and the MC cars (without restrictors) can run against each other on the same track time. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t F2000 do this with the Pinto/Zetec motors? Seems like a better idea than constantly waging war against each other.

Just a thought from an outsider with a ton of time on his hands today...lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApolloKnight

So as some what of an outsider looking back in (after 10+ years out of the class), what is the main reason for the 2 stroke crowd not wanting to either convert to MC power, or find a compromise? For the last several years, all I've seen an all out war against each other.

Is it cost?
Is it not knowing how to convert it?
Is it just objecting to something new?

I remember the days when my Dad raced… he would spend the entire damn weekend wrenching on the car, only to have it fail. That’s the entire reason we got out of 440… and after spending a weekend with Clint, I see that’s no longer the case. I've seen so many chassis's converted over to MC power so the knowledge is out there…. Hell, I've got one of my chassis’s at Clint's shop now that's slated to be changed over from a 440 to a MC later this year.

As much talk as it has been about splitting the class, has anyone thought about splitting it under the same category so we don't lose the SCCA grouping? i.e Formula Something with F500/F600 split starts? All the 2 strokes can run against each other, and the MC cars (without restrictors) can run against each other on the same track time. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t F2000 do this with the Pinto/Zetec motors? Seems like a better idea than constantly waging war against each other.

Just a thought from an outsider with a ton of time on his hands today...lol.

---

The number one reason that will be given is that it goes against the spirit or the base "religion" of the class. Other than that, people will say the cars will never be "equal". I laughed every time I've heard that because no one complains about how far the fastest two stroke is killing the second fastest two stroke by, all that anyone is concerned with is how far off the two stroke is to the four stroke. Reality check.........the two stroke that won the Runoffs last year killed the nearest two stroke ,but when the four stroke that was being compared to that same car was brought up in the spotlight the major complaint is that "it's too close to the two stroke". No one can see the Forrest because they're staring at the trees too much. This year at the Runoffs I predict that Thompson will absolutely smoke the closest two stroke by a minimum of 15sec by race end provided there's no yellows and of course if he doesn't break or go off of the track. The other prediction is that no one will be concerned with that at all but will be concerned with how close of a race the four stroke and Thompson may potentially have. In other words, Thompson smokes the field by 15seconds and there's no issues. Thompson has a good close race with a four stroke car and the world will come to a end............

Clint

I respect you and have known you for a while. You are a much better driver than I, maybe ten years ago I had something but not now. General observations from somebody who has been in the class for a while and built Runoffs winning cars. The 593 is faster than the 494 no doubt. But not by much. Jon Brian Doug and You turned pretty close times to the 593. The biggest difference is the cars handle a lot better. Steve is carrying a lot more speed into and through corners than most. He is keeping the power down...like you.

The bike motor has more top end on long straights. I have experience it at Pocono and Mid Ohio. I simply get pulled hard. Back end of Mid Ohio I can catch up. It's just different and will favor different tracks with different motors. I'd put you in my car in a second with Hulings stuff and you would see the same thing.

Let's just try to get to Indy and have a good time. You and Steve will probably check out leaving a number, hopefully me in there, fighting for third. See you at Indy.


Jeremy Swank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by f500racer

Clint

I respect you and have known you for a while. You are a much better driver than I, maybe ten years ago I had something but not now. General observations from somebody who has been in the class for a while and built Runoffs winning cars. The 593 is faster than the 494 no doubt. But not by much. Jon Brian Doug and You turned pretty close times to the 593. The biggest difference is the cars handle a lot better. Steve is carrying a lot more speed into and through corners than most. He is keeping the power down...like you.

The bike motor has more top end on long straights. I have experience it at Pocono and Mid Ohio. I simply get pulled hard. Back end of Mid Ohio I can catch up. It's just different and will favor different tracks with different motors. I'd put you in my car in a second with Hulings stuff and you would see the same thing.

Let's just try to get to Indy and have a good time. You and Steve will probably check out leaving a number, hopefully me in there, fighting for third. See you at Indy.


Jeremy Swank

---

Like always, we have been on good talking terms every time we've seen each other. I respect your statements and I know you wouldn't put anything out there for people to see that you know isn't true. I would like to say that we have Weida on video pulling Matt and I on the start of the race at Daytona and there's hard evidence that proves he was within .284 of a mph of me at Daytona. That was his fastest mph to my fastest mph in the same session. (The draft there was worth a minimum of 3.5mph and likely 5mph on average so these speeds were done without a draft). So not only did he have bottom end pull he also had good top end. This was the year I was driving the pink scorpian which has the identical body work that he had on for that race. So while I can see what your views has been, just know that's what mine has been. On the note of being able to drive a 593 powered car, I would love to! The QC check I would have in place is to have thompson at the same track and have it be a higher speed track. We could swap cars for the session and this would certainly lay some stuff to rest. If I were to have those circumstances come to life I would be a lot more convinced on which way to direct my letters to the CRB. (This was supposed to have already happened , but that person came to his senses when he realized what the outcome was going to be......not so good for the two strokes)When I raced against Weida at Gingerman, I told him before the race weekend started that I would write in a letter the CRB asking for a restrictor reduction if I had seen a difference in top speed when we both came off of the corner at the same speed. I did see that I had a slight advantage so I told him right after the race that I would follow through on my promise. I did follow through and wrote in to the CRB with a suggested size. The CRB decided to go even smaller which turned out to be too much so the following year they adjusted it to the size I had requested to begin with (that was by luck, not by any of my doing). SO , now we're at Daytona.....the biggest magnifier of the "dreaded top speed disparity that this class has ever seen" AND it just so happened that the restrictor that I asked for had two IDENTICAL cars with TWO different power plants running within .284 of a mph.......... So while I hear people say the same thing you're saying........I'm just going to leave this info here. These are facts (that's something that can't be argued with) and I have data and reference pages to prove it. By the way, non of what I have said was meant to offend anyone especially you Jeremy. If it has come across that way it wasn't meant that way.

No worries. Very factual. I'm just going by what I have experience in several races. This includes the blade which is its own special thing and other bike cars. It just seems like there is top end I can't overcome. Calvin clocked 136 in practice last year at MO. Faster than most of the FB. In the end though, the driver makes all the difference. Elivan turned a 1:31 on the long mid Ohio corse with a new invader out of the box in 2002. You all turned 1:29's in 494 cars ten years ago.

My car is always there for you to try given the proper circumstances.

See you at Indy.

JNS

Just a heads up guys. Mid Ohio is about 2 seconds a lap slower than it was 10 years ago. An example. Brian Novak still holds the runoffs course lap record he set in 2005 and Steve Thompson just broke Brian's 2007 Mid-Ohio lap record by .2 seconds.

Nothing against Steve or his car. They are now the best of the best, the track is just slower.

There is an interesting discussion going on on the F500.US website that I think indicates that I started the rule about sports car noses being recommended in the rules. This is not true. The rule stating that sports car noses being recommended to prevent wheel entanglement has been in the rules since day 1 which was several years before I got involved in F440 in 1986

I think I was the first to use a sports car nose in 1986 but i am not sure of that.

As I have said many times a sports car nose can significantly reduce the aero drag on an open wheel car and that is common knowledge in the race engineering community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

There is an interesting discussion going on on the F500.US website that I think indicates that I started the rule about sports car noses being recommended in the rules. This is not true. The rule stating that sports car noses being recommended to prevent wheel entanglement has been in the rules since day 1 which was several years before I got involved in F440 in 1986

I think I was the first to use a sports car nose in 1986 but i am not sure of that.

As I have said many times a sports car nose can significantly reduce the aero drag on an open wheel car and that is common knowledge in the race engineering community.

---

You may also have noted that Dix agreed with you on that point and indeed used your figure in his calculations. I noted that the comparisons mentioned aero efficiency at various speeds. I never was any good in Physics so I ask this. Does the aerodynamic full nose make any difference in how fast the car accelerates to its top speed? If that was the case wouldn't your car have the edge in coming off the corner onto a long straight while also having longer to run at a faster top speed than the non-aero F500s?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captaineddie1975

You may also have noted that Dix agreed with you on that point and indeed used your figure in his calculations. I noted that the comparisons mentioned aero efficiency at various speeds. I never was any good in Physics so I ask this. Does the aerodynamic full nose make any difference in how fast the car accelerates to its top speed? If that was the case wouldn't your car have the edge in coming off the corner onto a long straight while also having longer to run at a faster top speed than the non-aero F500s?:confused:

---

Yes it helps with acceleration too. Lower drag helps everywhere.

Dixes estimates are in the ballpark but are a bit low imo.

Jay this is off on a tangent but I am curious why a lot folks aren't doing more work on the tail and engine cover? I brought this up on F500 but on our D-Sports racer we use a Kamm Tail / Shark Fin engine cover similar to the current LMP & F1 cars. In back to back testing it was obvious, you could be very aggressive with braking and turn in on high speed corner entries with the vertical fin.

I still believe, like others, that we will have more of an accurate comparison after this years RunOffs. Naturally seeing as 2018 is at Sears Point (I think some people call it Sonoma) the dominate car will be the polar opposite of what one needs at Indy. I will also,still stick by my remarks that a well prepped well driven car will be the one to beat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Grossmann

Jay this is off on a tangent but I am curious why a lot folks aren't doing more work on the tail and engine cover? I brought this up on F500 but on our D-Sports racer we use a Kamm Tail / Shark Fin engine cover similar to the current LMP & F1 cars. In back to back testing it was obvious, you could be very aggressive with braking and turn in on high speed corner entries with the vertical fin.

I still believe, like others, that we will have more of an accurate comparison after this years RunOffs. Naturally seeing as 2018 is at Sears Point (I think some people call it Sonoma) the dominate car will be the polar opposite of what one needs at Indy. I will also,still stick by my remarks that a well prepped well driven car will be the one to beat.

---

Tom the vertical fin generates a lot of sideforce when the car is in yaw and turning. Adds very little drag in a straight line but adds drag when turning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Tom the vertical fin generates a lot of sideforce when the is in yaw and turning. Adds very little drag in a straight line but adds drag when turning.

---

So it is legal to run the vertical fins?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApolloKnight

So it is legal to run the vertical fins?

---

I do not comment on the legality of concepts.

There is nothing in the rules prohibiting a shark fin. The rear engine covers are more difficult to make than flat square panels that's my guess why most cars don't have them.

Jay, does the drag while turning negate any straight away gains? I assume it would require testing low and high tail / engine covers back to back to see if there is an advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Grossmann

Jay, does the drag while turning negate any straight away gains? I assume it would require testing low and high tail / engine covers back to back to see if there is an advantage.

---

I do not know. I suspect that may be an issue as you mostly see them on big HP cars