CRB letters - equalize engines in F500

[Jnovak]

Is the stock power about 125ph? I have read 3-4% improvement for a dry sump system on most race engines. Part of the improvement comes from reduced ring tension and windage from a better pan design... neither which seems to be in play in this case. So 6-12hp would seem like a high estimate.

In the F500 aero thread it is stated that the winning car had 17% less frontal area. A FV needs 40-44 hp to compensate for aero dry at 100 mph. So a 17% reduction in frontal area could be though of as a reduction of 6.8 hp of drag in a FV. Now what happens if we raise the speed to 150 MPH in a F500?

Does anyone have data on the HP requirement required to over come aero drag at 150 mph in a F500? I think it is going to be a serious number.

This looks more like an aero than HP competition in the case of the F500 race at Daytona.

Brian

Thanks Brian, yes I know what it takes for our car to go 150 mph. I know our aero drag numbers and have a very good estimate of the 2nd place car because I know that body combination very well and I estimate that our coefficient of drag is about 10% less than that car. Add that to our 17% less frontal area and guess what happens?

[mcs11]

Stick to your story that 90% of the class doesn't believe Jay, including the aerodynamicist I know from Lola. You're starting to waver from the "it's all aero related!" message you've been pushing for a month now.

[allof6]

My question is did Cal and Jay "Cheat"? My guess is if they did they didn't get caught, but I doubt that's the case. Fact is they built a better mouse trap. This was done by what is allowed by the rules and buy doing this everyone was caught with there pants down!

Although some may not like it or even agree with it, the fact is you need to learn from it and move on. If it means rules are changed then rules are changed.

Everyone should be looking at trying to catch them after all it is "Racing".

[mcs11]

No I don't believe they cheated. Said that over and over again now. I want those rules changed so it doesn't make it mandatory to run all that extra crap to keep up but i want the rules changed for those specific items. SCCA is notorious for slowing all of us down though which is my gripe.

[reidhazelton]

This has turned into one of the dumbest threads I've read in a long time.

So basically, people are pissed Jay built a car to the current rules and DB-1'ed the field? I'd be pissed at Jay if I was his customer and he didn't do everything he could to build the best car he could.

[mcs11]

No the problem is because of 1 person, we all get BoPed behind the 2 stroke cars. Again. Which is especially convenient with him building a new 2 stroke car for next year. Also again.

My issue is with the motor not the car

[Jnovak]

No the problem is because of 1 person, we all get BoPed behind the 2 stroke cars. Again. Which is especially convenient with him building a new 2 stroke car for next year. Also again.

My issue is with the motor not the car

Wanna buy a motor? Just the motor and nothing else.

Just remember that Clint kicked that motors butt several times last year.

The 2 stroke Blade has already been built and delivered to a customer. I will be helping him as much as I helped Calvin.

[reidhazelton]

No the problem is because of 1 person, we all get BoPed behind the 2 stroke cars. Again. Which is especially convenient with him building a new 2 stroke car for next year. Also again.

My issue is with the motor not the car

What prevents you from having a similar engine? Money? Time? Had Jay cornered the market on that type of engine? Does the rule book say "Only Jay Novak can have XYZ"?

I get becoming outdated with rules changes, trust me. I'm the guy with the Iron-headed, Ford powered, iron caliper-shod, radial tire-not-gonna-fit, 23 year old FF. I feel your pain that it totally sucks to get out dollared with rules changes and end up with an noncompetitive garage queen. But that isn't Jay's fault.

[mcs11]

I get all that Reid. Since qualifying on Monday for the runoffs we've been hearing the message "it's all CFD I spent xxx hours doing CFD blah blah blah." I called him out while he was in our paddock spot Tuesday saying he was full of it after what both Clint and myself watched first hand on track. Cal said it in every interview and we all knew it was bull. Especially liked the blanket IN POST RACE TECH BTW covering up all the systems on the back left of the car like you're the Peugeot LMP1 team LOL I called him out on here publicly for being full of it since we all knew it wasn't purely CFD. Would of been real easy if he admitted to it from the outset. I'm glad he's finally saying it now though.

Yes our engine makes more power than your engine.

So lets give you 5hp for the pipe like you're claiming (impressive to know with apparently no dyno time again), I won't even say the near 8 we saw from the sump system at the school I worked at, hell I'll give you 4 and 1 for the water pump. That's 10 already and Jay you know damn well 3hp in these cars is worth about 1mph so there's 3mph of the advantage already.

Once again I'd like to thank you for tripling the price of what a motor in this class needs to cost to be competitve. With that I'm out back into forum oblivion for another 9 years. Enjoy the racing people.

[SEComposites]

Sounds like you lost the Runoffs mentally before it even started!

[mcs11]

Pretty much. That's also why I loped around in the infield grabbing the runoffs track record and fastest infield time in the process. Good spotting on that.

[problemchild]

What a fascinating reflection on SCCA Club racing. Ten class outsiders who never have, and never will, race a F500 are dumping on the guy, who once Clint dropped out, just destroyed the field with a spectacular display of grit and driving. I cannot believe anyone who watched the race could say anything negative about Matt. Notice that the rest of the F500 community are not "liking" criticism of Matt. He is trying to take the high road and pushing for the class to fix the issues so that the entire community does not have to spend $1000s of dollars moving the bar to a new place. Just because SCCA has traditionally let this happen, does not mean it is right. It is just a shame that this class that finally seemed to have sorted through it's civil war, now has to deal with a new wave of nonsense.

[stonebridge20]

Hey Jay. Did everybody build to the same rule book or did you get a "special" book to
build by?

Yea, no,.....I didn't think so.

The rest of this is piss poor sour grapes BS.

[Purple Frog]

Since I sit on the FSRAC I have been following this zig-zag with interest.

I actually see Matt's point to some degree. And, I understand what Jay has developed within the rules.

A few years ago, many of us thought that F600 would create a "crate motor" class that would lower engine costs and simplify the complexity for some of racing with a belt and clutches.

Now 600 seems to have evolved into a race motor class. Yes, you can run a used bike motor, but the 'bolt-ons' can add a lot to the cost (great headers, dry sumps, electric water pumps, etc. etc) all within the rules as written. OBTW, We saw the same progression in F1000 in the last decade.

If one competitor takes full advantage of the existing rules it can redefine the equalization formula. The "improved 600" ramps up the performance level, the 500 guys complain, resulting in the CRB throttling back of the 600s. Yet, in effect it throttles back almost all the 600s to a point now below the 500s. The 'race motor' 600s may with the smaller restrictor now be equal with the 500s, but all the crate motor 600s are now slide back to less than the 500s. Thus, maybe swinging the pendulum back the other way.

As written the rules basically say that to be competitive in F600 you must add all the goodies. So, the philosophical question may be: In an era when we are pushing spec tires into an open formula class (FF), do we in effect create a need to increase costs in another open formula class?

Interesting....

[Wren]

This has turned into one of the dumbest threads I've read in a long time.

So basically, people are pissed Jay built a car to the current rules and DB-1'ed the field? I'd be pissed at Jay if I was his customer and he didn't do everything he could to build the best car he could.

At the runoffs a few years ago, I heard a competitor from another class say, "I wonder what is going to happen when a competitor starts trying really hard in that class?"

Now we know.

I've seen this bitching in other classes when people start to try really hard. I thought it was ridiculous then too.

Especially liked the blanket IN POST RACE TECH BTW covering up all the systems on the back left of the car like you're the Peugeot LMP1 team LOL

You do realize that doing things like that is actually pretty common in classes where people are trying hard, right? I have seen people go to some pretty extraordinary lengths to steal ideas from other people.

He is trying to take the high road and pushing for the class to fix the issues so that the entire community does not have to spend $1000s of dollars moving the bar to a new place.

The OP and the letters were taking the high road. They were polite and respectful. The posts here are not. Jay is getting flamed for doing a good job.

[mcs11]

Wren, Jay is getting flamed for constantly claiming "it was all CFD" when roughly 30% of their 10mph open air (no draft) advantage was money they poured into the motor. Every other class is working to reduce cost, why are we not? They built and won Daytona and congrats to Cal he deserved it. I'm not mad about that I'm looking forward. Stopping cost before it gets out of hand would seem the smart play to me before it goes the way of Atlantic and prices itself out of its intended market.

[mcs11]

Since I sit on the FSRAC I have been following this zig-zag with interest.

I actually see Matt's point to some degree. And, I understand what Jay has developed within the rules.

A few years ago, many of us thought that F600 would create a "crate motor" class that would lower engine costs and simplify the complexity for some of racing with a belt and clutches.

Now 600 seems to have evolved into a race motor class. Yes, you can run a used bike motor, but the 'bolt-ons' can add a lot to the cost (great headers, dry sumps, electric water pumps, etc. etc) all within the rules as written. OBTW, We saw the same progression in F1000 in the last decade.

If one competitor takes full advantage of the existing rules it can redefine the equalization formula. The "improved 600" ramps up the performance level, the 500 guys complain, resulting in the CRB throttling back of the 600s. Yet, in effect it throttles back almost all the 600s to a point now below the 500s. The 'race motor' 600s may with the smaller restrictor now be equal with the 500s, but all the crate motor 600s are now slide back to less than the 500s. Thus, maybe swinging the pendulum back the other way.

As written the rules basically say that to be competitive in F600 you must add all the goodies. So, the philosophical question may be: In an era when we are pushing spec tires into an open formula class (FF), do we in effect create a need to increase costs in another open formula class?

Interesting....

Thank you

[Brian.Novak]

no disrespect Brian but that didn't really answer anything. Chris has, theoretically, the same car as Cal so why cant there be a price if he wanted everything? Blanket included. I'd still like to know why somebody spends thousands buying/making various add on parts for a drivetrain and that winds up restricting ALL of the people who don't? .

Obviously Chris' and other Blade customer cases are very different as we already have all that work done and can provide it to them. I was speaking more to anyone else out there with a car (KBS, Scorpions, etc) that may want to do this. It will obviously require something different.

We have no desire to restrict anyone else in the class based on our engineering work. Unfortunately as we all know the SCCA rulemeisters can get it wrong, but that has not happened yet. I completely understand where you are coming from on this and how frustrating it is as we have gone through it many times. I would hope that the rules are not completely based off of the Blade's performance, and the entirety off the class is looked at.

Blankets cost extra

[Brian.Novak]

I get all that Reid. Since qualifying on Monday for the runoffs we've been hearing the message "it's all CFD I spent xxx hours doing CFD blah blah blah." I called him out while he was in our paddock spot Tuesday saying he was full of it after what both Clint and myself watched first hand on track. Cal said it in every interview and we all knew it was bull. Especially liked the blanket IN POST RACE TECH BTW covering up all the systems on the back left of the car like you're the Peugeot LMP1 team LOL I called him out on here publicly for being full of it since we all knew it wasn't purely CFD. Would of been real easy if he admitted to it from the outset. I'm glad he's finally saying it now though.


So lets give you 5hp for the pipe like you're claiming (impressive to know with apparently no dyno time again), I won't even say the near 8 we saw from the sump system at the school I worked at, hell I'll give you 4 and 1 for the water pump. That's 10 already and Jay you know damn well 3hp in these cars is worth about 1mph so there's 3mph of the advantage already.

Once again I'd like to thank you for tripling the price of what a motor in this class needs to cost to be competitve. With that I'm out back into forum oblivion for another 9 years. Enjoy the racing people.

I get your frustration but this is really the only thing that bothers me. Competitors are under no obligation to disclose anything done on the car to beat the competition. EVER. If SCCA requests information, we will gladly provide but we do not need to tell everyone what we do.

For the record, I agree with Frog and where you are going with your argument.

[mcs11]

Never asked to disclose everything i just wanted the "its all cfd" message to stop when we all knew it wasn't true. It became well known and widespread but still the denials. Rules get jacked up for the majority of the class when somebody on the committee does such things.

[Speed Sport Engineering]

To get on the podium at the runoffs, in virtually any class, requires both fantastic driving and fantastic car prep. Both of these guys drove great races, as did James in 3rd.

With that being said, part of racing is to get advantages anywhere possible within the allowed rules to try and tip the odds in your favor. The legacy of the Indianapolis 500 was built on clever engineering and the quest to beat the next guy. Club racing is no different.

I get the frustration when a competitor has a strong advantage. I've been on both sides. I can also understand the desire to find ways of preventing certain advantages from becoming the new class standards. I've personally had 100's of hours of work wiped out by rules changes in response to claimed advantages. It sucks on both sides. But that's racing, pure and simple. If anyone thinks that even in the spec classes winning drivers and engineers aren't studying the rule book, they are being very naive.

If the class doesn't want inovations to become the standard, then together amongst the class it should be discussed and follow the process to get rules more restrictive. Openly stating reasons why one competitor won on an internet forum doesn't do anyone or the class any favors.

All of the podium finishers should be commended on thier fantastic week and race. The runoffs is a marvoulus display of driving talent no matter what engineering tools are used. Good engineering only takes things so far....the driver still has to drive it to win it.

Michael

[problemchild]

The OP and the letters were taking the high road. They were polite and respectful. The posts here are not. Jay is getting flamed for doing a good job.

I think Jay was being criticized for bringing a gun to a knife fight and claiming it was just an extra sharp knife. The flaming I read was not directed at Jay.

I think the tone of PF, Matt, and Brian's posts just above is appropriate discussion to move the class forward. We, outsiders, should let them do that.

[Jnovak]

Since I sit on the FSRAC I have been following this zig-zag with interest.

I actually see Matt's point to some degree. And, I understand what Jay has developed within the rules.

Now 600 seems to have evolved into a race motor class. Yes, you can run a used bike motor, but the 'bolt-ons' can add a lot to the cost (great headers, dry sumps, electric water pumps, etc. etc) all within the rules as written. OBTW, We saw the same progression in F1000 in the last decade.

Let's see here what the massive costs actually are that you are complaining about.

Headers $900
Dry sump complete $1370
2011 engine $1650
Figure it all out $$$Priceless

Matt I am glad that you got the lap record you drove your ass off and I respect that. However you are asking us to tell you everything that we have that it took to win and that is not going to happen. I already told you what one of your weak links was but more is not going to happen.

I know that you think the 2011 motor is much better than your 2007 motors but that is simply not the case. I suggest that you spend the time searching the internet looking for dyno data from GSXR600 bikes of different years. There is a TON of actual dyno data out there done by the major bike magazines and you will see that pretty much all the years from 2007 to 2013 are within +- 1 hp as tested in stock form. The reason Cal chose the 2011 motor was the very low miles and the price of $1650 for the motor he purchased.

Please note that the same motor that won the Runoffs at Daytona was in the car at the races last year when Clint totally kicked our butts at the Sprints and at the Mid-Ohio pro race. We did not complain at all but just went back to work.

If the CRB decides to penalize the dry sump or take it away that's life and we will move on and see if we can make the mousetrap handle better.

[R. Pare]

At the runoffs a few years ago, I heard a competitor from another class say, "I wonder what is going to happen when a competitor starts trying really hard in that class?"

Now we know.

I've seen this bitching in other classes when people start to try really hard. I thought it was ridiculous then too.

You do realize that doing things like that is actually pretty common in classes where people are trying hard, right? I have seen people go to some pretty extraordinary lengths to steal ideas from other people.

The OP and the letters were taking the high road. They were polite and respectful. The posts here are not. Jay is getting flamed for doing a good job.

I said the same thing about D-Sports many years ago at some of our seminars, and sure enough, someone finally did a few years back and pretty much embarrassed the rest of the class at the Runoffs at RA. Rumors are that the effort cost him a cool $4 million for that plastic trophy.

Many years ago, at a local race, we were asked by someone who had just bought one of our older FFs:

" When are you going to stop developing your cars?".

Huh?????

If you don't like having your arse handed to you by someone who spend the time to build a car that took advantage of the full set of rules, don't complain - you could have done the same thing, yet chose not to.

If the rules that were used create an unnecessary expense that the class does not need for safety or reliability, then get to work and get the rules changed - I doubt that anyone will complain.

And a few people here need to study up a bit on what aero advantages ( and mechanical drag reduction) bring to the table across the board, at all speeds.

[reidhazelton]

If the current rules are not favored by the majority, then write letters and have them changed. Don't attack the guy who built a car to the full extent of those rules.

If you beat someone, in what world is it expected that they have to tell you how they did it? If I spent a year or more building a car, and who knows how many thousands of dollars, there is absolutely no way I would be telling people the things I learned in doing so. That's called competition and I am not giving away the fruits of my labor. If I spend 10 hours on a dyno getting a good header, I'd hide it too. That's my investment and my effort, you're not getting it because you have a nice pair of binoculars.

People have been covering up things for a long time, Jay is not alone. Heck, I've covered up random things just to fit in and make people think I have something to cover up. I covered up my overflow bottle once and it was interesting to hear why people thought I was doing it. (Secret is I did it because it was a Mobil1 bottle and looked trashy.)

Again, if you don't like the rules, rally support, and write letters to the CRB. How this thread began is how it should go, not turning to an attack on a fellow competitor who just raised the bar.

[Jnovak]

Never asked to disclose everything i just wanted the "its all cfd" message to stop when we all knew it wasn't true. It became well known and widespread but still the denials. Rules get jacked up for the majority of the class when somebody on the committee does such things.

ok Matt, I admit it is not all aero. Just 90%.

btw I stopped doing the CFD over 2 years ago. Now we are developing the car.

Have one of your aero buddies calculate the aero HP requirement for the following data and then you can post the numbers yourself

Your car:
Frontal area 8.1 sq ft
Estimated drag coefficient .55
Weight 880lbs

Blade:
Frontal area 6.9 sq ft
Estimated drag coefficient .49
Weight 880lbs

Please tell us what the drag HP is for both cars at 100 mph and 140 mph.

[Daryl DeArman]

Penalize the MC powered cars that choose to run a dry sump with a smaller restrictor.
Penalize the MC powered cars that choose to run an electric water pump with a smaller restrictor.
Penalize the MC powered cars that choose both with an even smaller restrictor.

That doesn't penalize all the MC powered cars because of one that chose to develop a car, within the rules, moreso than others.

It doesn't upset the apple cart and it doesn't needlessly raise the price to compete.

Those who don't run that stuff already play nicely with the 2strokes and those who do run it will be doing so mainly for the perceived reliability (if the restrictor is properly sized).

Imagine if next season somebody actually takes the time to dyno tune the motor and run smaller radiators and ducting to take advantage of the advantages of an electric water pump.

[J Weida]

Since the rules were changed 2 year ago in the f500 class the scca has not been representing the majority of the class competitors. The new way is dirty tricks and politics. There is no way to police the number of engines in the class now . You might as just get rid of engine tech. If you think letters make a difference you are crazy . Matt you drove a great race the only problem was the car that won was really 3 seconds a lap faster.

[Purple Frog]

Jay,
I'm not complaining about the costs. In my world those costs are minor. I didn't think wheel spats in FC should have been made legal, they were, and now many think they are a "must have" at fast tracks. Not a big cost creep, but a cost creep non-the-least. I was just trying to make Matt's point in a clear non-emotional way.

For the record you did what I would have done. It is what racing to the rules is all about. Especially in a non-spec class.

Too much of the thread is debating you keeping it under wraps, which is a total waste of forum time. Of course you should keep development under wraps. In fact in a proper tech situation the cars and teams would be sequestered to individual rooms out of sight of each other.

I know there is one silent thread of thought that says so many competitors in the class have just "coasted" for years in regards to furthering development. Sort of content with what they had. Then along comes a focused effort to shake up the paradigm. I think that was the point Wren, Richard, et al were making. I can't evaluate how hard all the teams have been developing. But, at the Daytona Runons I got an earful from a F5 constructor that said they had spent years developing a new body... but they were NOT going to bring it out because the 2 stroke is now at a disadvantage.
My thought after hearing that was along the lines that if you don't play, then how can be really know if parity is being achieved?

[Jnovak]

Jay,

I know there is one silent thread of thought that says so many competitors in the class have just "coasted" for years in regards to furthering development. Sort of content with what they had. Then along comes a focused effort to shake up the paradigm. I think that was the point Wren, Richard, et al were making. I can't evaluate how hard all the teams have been developing. But, at the Daytona Runons I got an earful from a F5 constructor that said they had spent years developing a new body... but they were NOT going to bring it out because the 2 stroke is now at a disadvantage.
My thought after hearing that was along the lines that if you don't play, then how can be really know if parity is being achieved?

I think that may be true. The Scorpion is a new body that they did about 5 years ago and it is a VERY good car. It is still much bigger than the Blade. When I designed the Blade I made it as small as possible. It will not fit a really big driver like our last car did. I figured that this would be my last F500 design so it was no compromise on every detail. Is it perfect? No, it still needs development. Let's see how fast it will be with a 593 in there next year. This is a customer car not mine.

BTW, the Blade is able to fit any MC engine or any of the F5 2 stroke engines.

[mcs11]

So sue me for being the 1 person with enough balls to stand up and fight for lower cost of the class before it gets out of hand... Other series have a full blown cost cap for their cars. At least I'm suggesting the money spending be optional and in this 1 case its $3,000 extra for a motor and exhaust. Good for all you people who consider that minimal or nothing. $3,000 is 2 entire seasons worth of expendable items like tires, brakes and chains for some of the less fortunate in the world.

I do think its funny all these people jumping in accusing me of flaming or trying to expose developmental processes. Daryls quote below and Frogs I quoted earlier is more or less my point rather then what I expect of the new incoming rules. My main point, again, being in bold below...

Penalize the MC powered cars that choose to run a dry sump with a smaller restrictor.
Penalize the MC powered cars that choose to run an electric water pump with a smaller restrictor.
Penalize the MC powered cars that choose both with an even smaller restrictor.

That doesn't penalize all the MC powered cars because of one that chose to develop a car, within the rules, moreso than others.

It doesn't upset the apple cart and it doesn't needlessly raise the price to compete.

Those who don't run that stuff already play nicely with the 2strokes and those who do run it will be doing so mainly for the perceived reliability (if the restrictor is properly sized).

Imagine if next season somebody actually takes the time to dyno tune the motor and run smaller radiators and ducting to take advantage of the advantages of an electric water pump.

[mcs11]

Question for all. Is there a difference in "working hard" vs "out spending" somebody? I keep seeing this we worked hard or what if somebody actually tried stuff getting thrown around in this thread. Currently with my real jobs to pay for all this nonsense and the time in the shop prepping cars, I'm averaging about 18hr work days 6 days a week. I seriously want to know if I'm not considered trying or working hard enough? Honest question

[reidhazelton]

So sue me for being the 1 person with enough balls to stand up and fight for lower cost of the class before it gets out of hand....

No one is upset about wanting to cap costs. It's the how, not the what. Attacking a fellow competitor isn't going to get you to your objective. If it is fact that SCCA is not representing the majority of the membership (welcome to the club), then rally support, write letters, and get it fixed. The process works if you make enough noise. People said FF would never have a spec tire, now we do. I am not attacking you personally (also, congrats on driving the nuts off that car), as I think we are in the same boat when it comes to costs and what we are comfortable spending with price-to-paly cost escalation, and I applaud you in trying to keep costs down. But, that is a rules issue, and your beef should be entirely with SCCA.

Sure, there is a chance writing letters won't get to where you want to go, it's not easy to get the genie back in the bottle. On the other hand, there is zero chance that flaming Jay will get you their either.

Rally. Organize. Build consensus. Write letters. I really wish you the best of luck in controlling costs.

[mcs11]

No sorry Reid if you're throwing out a bunch of BS and its widely known that it is BS and rules are about to be made based off of said BS I am going to call that person out. Especially when the letters we write are seen by that same person. Again, sue me

No one is upset about wanting to cap costs. It's the how, not the what. Attacking a fellow competitor isn't going to get you to your objective. If it is fact that SCCA is not representing the majority of the membership (welcome to the club), then rally support, write letters, and get it fixed. The process works if you make enough noise. People said FF would never have a spec tire, now we do. I am not attacking you personally (also, congrats on driving the nuts off that car), as I think we are in the same boat when it comes to costs and what we are comfortable spending with price-to-paly cost escalation, and I applaud you in trying to keep costs down. But, that is a rules issue, and your beef should be entirely with SCCA.

Sure, there is a chance writing letters won't get to where you want to go, it's not easy to get the genie back in the bottle. On the other hand, there is zero chance that flaming Jay will get you their either.

Rally. Organize. Build consensus. Write letters. I really wish you the best of luck in controlling costs.

[reidhazelton]

No sorry Reid if you're throwing out a bunch of BS and its widely known that it is BS and rules are about to be made based off of said BS I am going to call that person out. Especially when the letters we write are seen by that same person. Again, sue me

Pretty sure Jay isn't the only one on the CRB/Ad Hoc committy/Whatever. Maybe you should join to be that balance that you feel isn't there?

[Jnovak]

Matt, I am one person on the FSRAC committee. I think there are 12 members. I do not vote on F500 or FA issues.

What I actually do is to send letters into the system just like any SCCA member can do.

You should do the same.

[Marshall Mauney]

Stopping cost before it gets out of hand would seem the smart play to me before it goes the way of Atlantic and prices itself out of its intended market.

Well, that's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that the F5/6 top speed at Daytona was faster than an awful lot of cars that cost a LOT more to operate. Maybe I'm missing the point here, but even with a few engine adders and a new chassis, F500/600 is still without a doubt the best bang for the buck in SCCA.

I'm wondering why, exactly, I sold my F500 and bought a winged car to go 5 mph slower...

[mcs11]

Didnt say he was the only 1 but he's a more prominent voice in the arena that carries a lot more weight then some kid nobody has heard of until September. I get the basics of politics which is seemingly most of racing anymore.

Schedule is pretty full with me not trying on my car currently but where would one sign up if I do free up some time? I know there was an email going around recently about an F5 adhoc that was essentially shot down because of the dischord between 2 and 4 stroke camps.

[allof6]

Question for all. Is there a difference in "working hard" vs "out spending" somebody? I keep seeing this we worked hard or what if somebody actually tried stuff getting thrown around in this thread. Currently with my real jobs to pay for all this nonsense and the time in the shop prepping cars, I'm averaging about 18hr work days 6 days a week. I seriously want to know if I'm not considered trying or working hard enough? Honest question

I wouldn't say you aren't working hard enough but its not solely about the man hours but also about thinking outside the box, and its that thinking and actions taken by other competitors that bring forward the flaws in the rule(if there are any) and brings change. All this ranting from everyone does not bring stability to any class or new blood.

Every one should move on and let the board do whatever they are going to do!

[R. Pare]

I'd say that it is time to close this thread down - it's turned into an unfounded BS accusation arena instead of a discussion of the proposed rules change.