Cheating

[Jnovak]

As a non competitor in vintage FF racing i am curious as to the cost of these new "legal" pistons. I have read the rules in the GCR.

[marshall9]

As a non competitor in vintage FF racing i am curious as to the cost of these new "legal" pistons. I have read the rules in the GCR.

Call Ivey and ask him, lol.
But, seriously, I think , although I haven't read the legal court complaint, there may be copyright violations. If they are marked "Ivey" as per the rules during fab, or modified after without his approving of the rules interpretation, trouble brews.
As far as cost, well, initially I cannot imagine that it cost any more to make hence no more to buy then legal ones. As far as total cost, it's hard to say, if someone builds an engine and doesn't inform their customer and their customer spends a lot of money on the build and going to races and chasing a championship only to be dq for something that they did not know about, there could be a problem there as well. You and many here in this forum have a lot more experience with rules and Tech than I do for sure. If something is specified as a part to be used, I do not know if it has to remain stock as produced or can be modified. I have not been able to find the actual lawsuit to read, but I would imagine that it is filed in federal court, as the majority of items are used outside of Oregon.
Tread carefully.
Ask LaRue, he is an attorney.

[John LaRue]

LaRue has heard nothing of any litigation.

[Roland V. Johnson]

I have not heard anything about litigation over pistons either. I think the set I bought last year were about $650. They do make competitive power much longer than the old cast ones though.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Jay, I forgot to note that you do not have to use the Ivey pistons.There are other alternatives in the GCR. Just as you do not have to use the new crank, block, head, rods, which were made when OE parts supplies became hard to find. I believe these parts were made to be as much like the OE parts as possible, and not make any additional power. But since they are made out of much better material they last a lot longer.

[Bill Manofsky]

Here is the SCCA announcement. There are twelve sets of illegal pistons out there. They are not all the same in appearance. To stay safe in the near future, buy CP pistons directly from Jay Ivey or have a legitimate/known FF builder who knows Jay directly.

[racerxlilbro]

Thanks for doing this Wayne. I only wish you would have had these tools at the May VARA race and the SVRA race at Fontana. The problem I have always had with doing a protest is the cost of the bond that has to be posted. It is often thousands of dollars and therefore out of reach for all but the wealthiest racers. So it rarely happens and the cheaters know that. Nothing has changed since I raced SCCA 20+ years ago. I thought Vintage racing would be more honest and gentlemanly. Too bad the egos have to get in the way of that. Frankly, I was too slow to worry about who was cheating and preferred to spend my money running my car rather than risk losing it protesting another racer. Hopefully these tools will bring down that cost. For me cheating is just outside the Spirit of Vintage FF racing. I ran a legal Ivey motor as did the majority of the racers in "FF The Series". To say that 95% of our group was cheating is absurd.

Totally agree. Working hard to get "out-handled" down the straights is beyond discouraging.

[Bill Manofsky]

Thanks for doing this Wayne. I only wish you would have had these tools at the May VARA race and the SVRA race at Fontana. The problem I have always had with doing a protest is the cost of the bond that has to be posted. It is often thousands of dollars and therefore out of reach for all but the wealthiest racers. So it rarely happens and the cheaters know that. Nothing has changed since I raced SCCA 20+ years ago. I thought Vintage racing would be more honest and gentlemanly. Too bad the egos have to get in the way of that. Frankly, I was too slow to worry about who was cheating and preferred to spend my money running my car rather than risk losing it protesting another racer. Hopefully these tools will bring down that cost. For me cheating is just outside the Spirit of Vintage FF racing. I ran a legal Ivey motor as did the majority of the racers in "FF The Series". To say that 95% of our group was cheating is absurd.

Agreed.......What everyone should take away from this incident is that it in involved a small group of people.

The VAST majority of the field of drivers in SOCAL vintage racing are squared away legal. I hope that this does not taint any of them, and specifically VARA as a whole.

The focus should turn to making FF Driver's Challenge a success in order to further the momentum of the resurgence of FF racing in SOCAL.

[Eagle5000]

.

[reidhazelton]

I just skimmed this thread and I find it very funny. It's a 4 page argument on, literally, nothing. It's not a specific example, just an assumption in vintage. Throw in a phantom lawsuit, "I once knew a guy" accusations, and morphing hypothetical scenarios, and you've got an internet troll bonanza. All we need is an FF sidepod reference and you've got an apexspeed bingo!

Some people cheat. Shocker.

When you don't have tech inspections, cheating goes up. Shocker.

[stonebridge20]

FF sidepod.


How much did I win ?

[kea]

When you don't have tech inspections, cheating goes up. Shocker.

I can think of one class at the run-ons that hasn't been torn-down in over a decade.
At least the threat of an inspection will keep cheating down.

[TimH]

Diffusers!

[Daryl DeArman]

I just skimmed this thread and I find it very funny. It's a 4 page argument on, literally, nothing. It's not a specific example, just an assumption in vintage. Throw in a phantom lawsuit, "I once knew a guy" accusations, and morphing hypothetical scenarios, and you've got an internet troll bonanza. All we need is an FF sidepod reference and you've got an apexspeed bingo!

Some people cheat. Shocker.

When you don't have tech inspections, cheating goes up. Shocker.

Those with direct involvement have been purposely vague for their own reasons.

Maybe one of the many players involved may feel inclined to bring you up to speed as to what transpired, how it was discovered and what was done about it. Or at least their version of the events.

I will tell you one thing you are absolutely incorrect about is the assumption this thread and the facts being alluded to are just vintage. In fact, one of the suspect engines was at the RunOffs and was not protested for whatever reason(s).

[Eric Little]

Those with direct involvement have been purposely vague for their own reasons....


...In fact, one of the suspect engines was at the RunOffs and was not protested for whatever reason(s).

So are you being "purposely vague for your own reason" or would you care to tell us who the driver of the "suspect engine" at the runoffs was and what it is that is suspected to be illegal about the motor?

I find it very disheartening that it is so easy to throw around allegations, get so many people to believe it as truth, with such little (or no) amount of evidence. So tell us, who do you believe cheated at the runoffs and how did they do it?

Eric Little

[Daryl DeArman]

So are you being "purposely vague for your own reason" or would you care to tell us who the driver of the "suspect engine" at the runoffs was and what it is that is suspected to be illegal about the motor?

Yes, I am being purposely vague because if those directly impacted have found solution(s) they are happy with I don't need to speak on their behalf.

Secondly, I believe that just because an engine builder had some non-compliant parts made which carried markings identical to the compliant parts, that doesn't PROVE he used them in customers' engines. Just because owners who utilized that engine builder refused to allow their engines to be torn down and inspected doesn't PROVE they were using the parts. Certainly you can understand how it looks though, right?

I find it very disheartening that it is so easy to throw around allegations, get so many people to believe it as truth, with such little (or no) amount of evidence. So tell us, who do you believe cheated at the runoffs and how did they do it?

Eric Little

As to the runoffs, I didn't say anybody cheated at the RunOffs. I said "one of the suspect engines was at the RunOffs and wasn't protested for whatever reason(s)".

If you want me to make an allegation, I will. I allege that: (1) more than ample time transpired between the initial discovery that these parts existed and the RunOffs. (2) that one owner of one of these engines very likely showed up with a completely compliant engine hoping to be protested as though that would disprove anything about past allegations. (3) he was significantly, an uncharacteristically, off his normal pace.

[Eric Little]

Yes, I am being purposely vague because if those directly impacted have found solution(s) they are happy with I don't need to speak on their behalf.

Daryl,

You have posted to this thread in 16 posts. You seem to have spoken on someones behalf with a good deal of one side of the issue. If it is the case that those people are now happy, what was the purpose of your post #134? All resolved or there is still a need to implicate others with rumor and inuendo?

Secondly, I believe that just because an engine builder had some non-compliant parts made which carried markings identical to the compliant parts, that doesn't PROVE he used them in customers' engines. Just because owners who utilized that engine builder refused to allow their engines to be torn down and inspected doesn't PROVE they were using the parts. Certainly you can understand how it looks though, right?

Without the full story, no, I cannot understand how it looks. I know of the situation in which a tear down was refused. What has been posted here is far from a complete recounting of what happened. So here it is and the racers of ApexSpeed can decide if they think it was appropriate. 1) No formal protest of the in question engine(s) was filed. 2) The sanctioning body did not have a documented procedure to conduct a tear down. 3) The tear down was not going to be performed at the track. 4) The entire car(s) in question were to be held by a competitor to the owners/drivers of these cars for an indefinite period until such tear down could be conducted that was estimated to take a couple of weeks to get to.

Knowing that, I hope that everyone else says, "Daryl, I do understand how this looks and it is not the rampant cheating that you have implied in the multiple posts you have provided."

As to the runoffs, I didn't say anybody cheated at the RunOffs. I said "one of the suspect engines was at the RunOffs and wasn't protested for whatever reason(s)".

Do you at least agree that the implication was there? You have spent a great deal of time demonizing a builder and racers (albeit unnamed) and stating that you know what is illegal about the motor but now you want to go with you never said anyone cheated but only because the driver "wasn't protested for whatever reason(s)". Sorry but I am not sure that many people who have read this entire thread see it the way you are now spinning it.

If you want me to make an allegation, I will. I allege that: (1) more than ample time transpired between the initial discovery that these parts existed and the RunOffs. (2) that one owner of one of these engines very likely showed up with a completely compliant engine hoping to be protested as though that would disprove anything about past allegations. (3) he was significantly, an uncharacteristically, off his normal pace.

I see. So your continued vigilante policing of FF within this forum has made them redo their motor so that it was no longer illegal. How about sharing with us who was "uncharacterstically, off his normal pace." so that they can weigh in on your allegations? Care to share a name?

Eric Little

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl,

You have posted to this thread in 16 posts. You seem to have spoken on someones behalf with a good deal of one side of the issue. If it is the case that those people are now happy, what was the purpose of your post #134? All resolved or there is still a need to implicate others with rumor and inuendo?

I was speaking for nobody else. I am completely cognizant that I only had one side of the issue. My purpose on post #134 was to respond to Reid. In hindsight, I should have just let sleeping dogs lie.

Without the full story, no, I cannot understand how it looks. I know of the situation in which a tear down was refused. What has been posted here is far from a complete recounting of what happened. So here it is and the racers of ApexSpeed can decide if they think it was appropriate. 1) No formal protest of the in question engine(s) was filed. 2) The sanctioning body did not have a documented procedure to conduct a tear down. 3) The tear down was not going to be performed at the track. 4) The entire car(s) in question were to be held by a competitor to the owners/drivers of these cars for an indefinite period until such tear down could be conducted that was estimated to take a couple of weeks to get to.

You and I have the same understanding of how it went down. I completely understand the shortcomings of the "process" and reason(s) to refuse teardown. I am also aware of the optics involved with refusing a teardown given the knowledge that there were a dozen sets of counterfeit pistons in existence.

Do you at least agree that the implication was there?

I can certainly understand how that could have been inferred.

So your continued vigilante policing of FF within this forum has made them redo their motor so that it was no longer illegal. How about sharing with us who was "uncharacterstically, off his normal pace." so that they can weigh in on your allegations? Care to share a name?

I sincerely doubt that any actions that may or may not have taken place had anything to do with what I typed here. For all I know the owner of said engine could be a highly ethical and moral guy who learned that these parts existed and may have made their way into his engine without his knowledge. It seems entirely plausible that he would have discussions with his engine builder and was either re-assured his engine was fine or told he needs to have his engine freshened before the runoffs.


As to naming names, I'm not going to call out anybody without any proof of them cheating.

As to weighing in on the allegations, the thread has 130+ replies and 11,000+ views. I'm sure they've had ample opportunity to get their point across!

[Eric Little]

You and I have the same understanding of how it went down. I completely understand the shortcomings of the "process" and reason(s) to refuse teardown. I am also aware of the optics involved with refusing a teardown given the knowledge that there were a dozen sets of counterfeit pistons in existence.

Thank you. I am glad you see the error in the process and why a competitor would reasonably refuse such a teardown. The optics are only as they are as it has taken over 130 posts and six months for someone to point this out. Seems a relevant fact that if known when the original accusations that create the optix you refer to, should have been posted within the original post stating that refusing a tear down is implicit evidence of illegality. But I guess that should be up to someone else to point out. Why wasn't it me you might ask. I stayed out of this thread because stepping in front of the mob with pitch forks looked an unwise idea. In more recent posts, some have questioned whether the logic has been appropriate and so the timing now seems better. What I have learned from this thread and others here on ApexSpeed is that the price for performing well is to be accused of cheating.

I sincerely doubt that any actions that may or may not have taken place had anything to do with what I typed here. For all I know the owner of said engine could be a highly ethical and moral guy who learned that these parts existed and may have made their way into his engine without his knowledge. It seems entirely plausible that he would have discussions with his engine builder and was either re-assured his engine was fine or told he needs to have his engine freshened before the runoffs.

As to naming names, I'm not going to call out anybody without any proof of them cheating.

As to weighing in on the allegations, the thread has 130+ replies and 11,000+ views. I'm sure they've had ample opportunity to get their point across!

So I will end the suspense. I do find it unfortunate that accusations can occur without the fortitude to tell the full story. The big shocker...

The competitor at the Runoffs in question was me. I base this on the fact that those who alleged counterfeit pistons were speaking of my chosen motor builder. In addition, this thread has been about Kent motor accusations and I am one of only two Kent motors at the 2018 Runoffs (the entry list shows three but I can assure you that Bill Kephart was running a Honda in his Vestal having competed against it on a number of occassions).

To set the record straight, between the accusations and the Runoffs, my motor was at my builders. However, it was for dyno testing without opening up the motor. We found more power due to a few things (thanks again Art Smith). I DID NOT TAKE IT TO MY BUILDER TO MAKE IT LEGAL. It was legal from day one. I have personally reviewed everything he has done to my motor. You see, I work in the energy industry. I have worked for the past 20 years developing and managing an organizations compliance with the plethora of rules about how electricity is transacted. Those rules, the volume and complexity, make the SCCA rule book look like a 'See Spot Run' book. I do not find it difficult at all to read, understand, and evaluate the motor as built against what I have read. I agree that some of the rules in the SCCA rule book are not written as well as they could be but honestly, the rules around the Kent motor are not that terrible. Plus, as the competitor, I am responsible for the legality of my equipment. It is not something I am willing to delegate to anyone.

So, I did not suddenly get "cold feet" and decided to make the motor legal with the hope it would be torn down and clear the legality for everything that had happened before. I think the lack of a reasonable process with an appropriate chain of custody was pretty clear on the reason for the denial of that tear down and is adequate demonstration that the allegations of illegality and the allegation that refusing the tear down is in some way confirmation of illegality is simply wrong.

Finally, my being off my normal pace was down to an electrical problem. Despite doing a hardship lap every day, changing every component of the electrical system I could, putting the car on the chassis dyno (where it ran perfectly) did not cure the problem. I will be the first to tell you, had it run as I know it can, I doubt we were a podium car. The top three were fast. I should have run better but in the end, a bad qualifying and a motor that ran inconsistently on a track that is difficult to pass on resulted in a 14th place finish (not something I am particularly proud of). I think there is no real question as to why no one bothered protesting a 14th place finisher at the Runoffs. With all of the work impound was doing that week, I would think the SCCA would deny that protest as being largely irrelevant given all the cars that were podium finishers.

I hope this helps people to better understand what did happen and who is being accused (explicitly or implicitly) of what. I hope those same people can understand why I would be offended by the lengthy half story on this topic. While you said that you hope I can understand how the denial of a tear down looks, I hope that you and others can understand with more information how this may look like a witch hunt to others (and for the record, I don't weigh less than a duck and you cannot build a bridge of me).

Hope everyone has a nice weekend. Hope Monaco is entertaining. Hope the rain at Indy holds off.

Eric Little

[Art Smith]

Daryl-

do you have first hand knowledge of the facts at the heart of this disgusting thread?? if so, which ones?? if not, who is your source or sources that you've entrusted your good name to in your multiple posts to this thread? do he, she, or they have any first hand knowledge of the facts at the heart of this mess?? again, which ones?? with limited or no first hand knowledge of the facts at the heart of this supposed happening, who's connecting the dots, creating the missing dots, drawing the damning conclusions, and what are their motives?? to the best of my knowledge there's no rule in the GCR against owning non-compliant parts or even testing non-compliant parts on a dyno; the GCR defines compliant parts that shall be used in competition. going further, I've previously posted pictures of non-compliant parts tested on a dyno that provided major insight into the relative merits of multiple compliant solutions to skin the same cat......................... is this another case of 20 year old "payback" or commercial warfare or one/more competitors that don't like getting beat by an older car or ............................... since it's clearly not a logical or objective discussion of first hand knowledge!!!

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[jhaley]

I don't know if Eric or Art were at the Cal Speedway or Buttonwillow events in question. I was. All I know is a very fast Crossle passed a very fast Swift on the oval at Cal Speedway. We were told it was gearing and more talent. I was later told by a mechanic for one of the cars that it was ceramic coated bearings. I am not a mechanic so I don't know anything about ceramic coated bearings. People with way more experience than me thought the Crossle had too much power. I believe them.

One racer originally agreed to let his motor be torn down by in independent builder, his car was impounded and he then changed his mind and took his car back.

[Eric Little]

I don't know if Eric or Art were at the Cal Speedway or Buttonwillow events in question. I was. All I know is a very fast Crossle passed a very fast Swift on the oval at Cal Speedway. We were told it was gearing and more talent. I was later told by a mechanic for one of the cars that it was ceramic coated bearings. I am not a mechanic so I don't know anything about ceramic coated bearings. People with way more experience than me thought the Crossle had too much power. I believe them.

One racer originally agreed to let his motor be torn down by in independent builder, his car was impounded and he then changed his mind and took his car back.

The Crossle in question is no ordinary car. It is run by a driver with a ton of laps and he is an engineer. If you look over his car and know the Crossle, you will wonder if it really started life as a Crossle. He makes his living off of maintaining cars for a variety of people, including me. The only times I have ever hung close to him is when he intentionally backed off to give me a lead-follow during a race where the two of us cleared the pack. He has driven my DB-1 and I am very certain that if he optimized the setup and ran it at 10/10ths, he would be faster in the DB-1 than in his Crossle. I think what makes people mad is that he is capable of getting the performance he can out of a Crossle. Put him in a modern car and he would win by a larger margin but apparently people would now be okay with it (I doubt that they would be okay with it but it is the truth, in a modern car, he would be even faster).

At Willow Springs this year, he won on Saturday after a battle with Chuck Horn. He lost to Chuck on Sunday by 0.02 seconds. Mind you that Chuck finished third at the Runoffs. No one in our new series of running a North/South championship in CA has accused me or the Crossle owner of cheating. To squelch rumors of cheating, the Crossle owner and I have offered that any of our series drivers that think we are cheating, can protest us and we will do the first protest without a bond. In other words, even if our car is found to be legal, we will spend our own money to have it reassembled. After three races, no one has taken up either of us on this offer.

The one driver that agreed to the tear down withdrew that after being informed of the process with a lack of an appropriate chain of custody. I would have done the same. If you would not, you are far more trusting than I.

Eric Little

[Art Smith]

Jim-

I did not attend either the Cal Speedway or Buttonwillow race.

finally some "first hand knowledge", great. thanks!!

1.) a very fast Crossle passed a very fast Swift on the oval at Cal Speedway

conclusions, observations, and opinions are just that; NOT first hand knowledge. were the "people with way more experience than you who thought the Crossle had too much power" all using engines from the same engine builder in Oregon??

without offering an opinion about what you may or may not have been told, checking out the page below at Velocity Haus's website might answer some of your questions: https://velocityhaus.com/van-diemen-...-ball-500.html
ie: silicon nitrite is a ceramic material with a number of potentially very useful mechanical properties for use on a race car............

2.) one racer originally agreed to let his motor be torn down by in independent builder, his car was impounded.
3.) he then changed his mind and took his car back.

do you have any first hand knowledge of the terms of impound the competitor was presented after his car was impounded?

a very fast Crossle passing a very fast Swift is old news; I saw it happen back in the day at Sears Point (probably 1983?) !!! not much of a story without first hand knowledge of the terms of impound the competitor was presented after his car was impounded....

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[reidhazelton]

As to vintage cheating, here is my take. Overall, it's no more prevalent than anywhere else - which in SCCA I feel is pretty low in the open wheel classes. I've never suspected anyone in FF of cheating. Why does vintage get a bad rap? Two reasons;

1. Overly prepared cars that are built beyond what was period at the time. Is this cheating? No. Did Sprites in the 60s and 70s have 150hp? No. But that is not against the rule book. Those who keep their cars period correct feel the more recently built cars that are built to more modern specs are 'cheaters', despite being compliant with the rule book. That title gets tossed around, looses context by the time it is 3rd, 4th, and 5th person, and people then assume they are cheating outright.

2. The largest reason; driver skill difference. I've seen the largest skill gap between the front and the back in vintage racing. Some are out there to turn some laps in a piece of history, and others are out to push it. About 8 years ago or so a prep shop had a customer complaining (as well as the prep shop) that a few vintage FFs had cheater motors - cams being the specific gripe. Well, the other competitors (one of which I was coaching for the weekend) got wind of it and took offense. After discussion I offered to get in the car belonging to the accuser to avoid taring down a bunch of vintage FF engines. I knew it was a good car and very capable. In the 4th lap I did a time that was 3 seconds faster than the fastest lap of the winner the day before. I've seen this in vintage S2000 as well. Up here, the fastest vintage S2000 who everyone marvels at is still a good 5 seconds off the Runoffs pace from nearly 10 years ago. Put Corey Fegus in the car and I'm sure he will be a 'cheater' too.

Just because an older car passes a new one, does not mean they are cheating.

Generalized accusations, hearsay, and rumors are pretty lame. If you have suspicions, go talk to them or protest them.

[Eric Little]

Just because an older car passes a new one, does not mean they are cheating.

Generalized accusations, hearsay, and rumors are pretty lame. If you have suspicions, go talk to them or protest them.

Keith,

You need to fix the ApexSpeed systems such that I can like this post more than once.

Eric

[Garey Guzman]

As to vintage cheating, here is my take. Overall, it's no more prevalent than anywhere else - which in SCCA I feel is pretty low in the open wheel classes. I've never suspected anyone in FF of cheating. Why does vintage get a bad rap? Two reasons;
....
Just because an older car passes a new one, does not mean they are cheating.

Generalized accusations, hearsay, and rumors are pretty lame. If you have suspicions, go talk to them or protest them.

I've never beat JRIII or a couple other top FF guys but I'm decent. Still working through teething issues with my gone-over 1971 March but I was faster than a couple of Crossles at the last race. I could see where they were slower and was even told by one of the drivers how I had "T6 nailed!".

When I was in college, I crewed for Vintage guys and they loved to talk about who was cheating. But the bottom line was that fast drivers were in front while less-capable drivers, no matter how beautiful and well-prepped the car was, were in the back.

So I said all that to agree with Reid. There is probably a lot less cheating at the front than at the rear!

Now can we let this poor thread die? It's really not constructive.....

[problemchild]

I don't know any thing about this story than what I read here ....
but things I know about racing in general.

People that are cheating have the same stories and excuses as the ones who are not cheating.
People that refuse teardowns have the same stories and excuses, whether they are cheating, or not.

My personal choices:

I don't do business with people who cheat, or are suspected of cheating.
If I have to double check my engine builders work, for legality or competence, I get a new engine builder.
If I was ever to refuse a teardown, I would have the engine sealed, and publicly investigated by independent sources.
Very clear "periods" can be applied to all above statements. I cannot imagine the scenario, that I was accused of cheating, knew that I was 100% legal, and went home without clearing my name.
I also believe in trying to fix rules that are open to exploitation, rather than exploit them.

Most of my friends and associates in racing have similar values. That is not coincidence.

[tstrong]

So as one of the major Pro/Antagonist in this west coast piston cheating controversy I have followed this thread for almost 9 months and tried hard not to respond or “get sucked in” hoping all the hype would just go away. Obviously that has not happened And the recent rehashing compels me to chime in with the hope to provide some additional facts (and opinions) that will give folks enough info to let them draw their own conclusions in private and put an end to the ridiculous claims from folks who have no clue as to the details of the situation.

Some background- I began racing Formula cars 33 yrs ago and have raced FF, FC, FM, and FA both vintage and SCCA. I have run a FF of one type or another almost exclusively since the the early 90’s. I love the class due to the very limited modifications allowed such that I can measure my performance against those of my peers on a “level” playing field. For reference to some statements I will detail later I will tell you I am a degreed mechanical engineer and have worked as a mechanical/ aerospace engineer for almost 35 years. I built FF engines for myself and a couple other folks for about 10 years in the 90’s, used Loyning engines for a couple years and then switched to Ivey engines approx 15 yrs ago and have used them ever since and definitely have a relationship and friendship with Jay and the family so I certainly am not unbiased in this discussion and will point that out right from the beginning.

So the story starts that I have raced with most or all of the folks directly involved in this controversy for years. We have run together and relatively close for a few years using both common and different engine builders. First one of the competitors started using a new engine builder a few years ago and seemed to have improved his performance. Over the next year or two a handful of other competitors had engines built by this builder. There were some questions of legality and the engine builder voluntarily allowed an inspection of an engine in his shop and a valve discrepancy was identified which the engine builder agreed to remedy by replacing the valves with compliant parts. The controversy and allegations went away for approx a year. Then once again the performance level of certain competitors seemed to take a leap forward and the allegations surfaced again.

These allegations were both creating a divide between friends and competitors within our Series as well as creating a reputation with other clubs that threatened both credibility and entry numbers. Being an engineer I felt it important to try to define and quantify what was perceived as a hp advantage for some of the competitors using engines from the builder in question. As data traces from the cars in question was not going to be forthcoming I decided to take some very specific segment times during a race at California Speedway. By timing segments coming onto the oval, through start finish, and into the entry of turn 3 These segments were selected based on the high speed nature of the entry to the oval and long period of time a full throttle where the cars acceleration rates are slowing as they approach aero limited terminal velocity. Timing was done on 4 cars over numerous laps (DB3 FF Ivey, DB1 Ivey, DB1 other builder, Crossle 30 series other builder). After some data analysis what was determined was the acceleration rate of both cars with the other engine builders engine was indeed higher than either of the Ivey engined cars. As has been mentioned in previous posts the crossle in question is a very highly developed machine driven by a very capable driver. There has been all kinds of claims of well this car had higher corner exit speed and that is why he was faster down the straight, etc. The acceleration analysis/ calculations take this factor out of the equation and the variables basically become hp vs mech drag and aero drag. You are not going to convince me that the total aero drag of even the highly developed Crossle is better than the DB1/ DB3. My conclusions based on the data is that the Crossle has significantly more horsepower than either of the Ivey powered DB’s

During this same time period evidence became available that there were around 12 sets of pistons created by the manufacturer of the legal FF piston to specs requested by the other engine builder and identified with the same P/N as the pistons specified in the GCR and almost every other FF rule book in the US. I personally have build sheets with detail dimensions for 8 sets of pistons from the manufacturer with the other engine builder as the customer and some even include the name of some of the drivers in question that are using this engine builder. Of the 8 sets of pistons I have build sheets for none match the legal FF configuration. Some are only “slightly illegal”, and some are over 12/1 CR and 278g along with other deviations. As has been mentioned above there is no way to know if these pistons are in any of the engines in question or has been surmised above used for some development test mule engine. Interesting to me that you would be doing development work with a component that could never be used in a legal FF engine.

So at this point my personal position was that I believe that I had very credible evidence that the crossle in question had more Hp than two known competitive Ivey engines. The question was is the hp based on some better development/ legal improvement, or was it based on an illegal configuration. At the next race event a competitor (not myself) decided to protest the crossle. I had consulted with this competitor and fully supported the decision to protest. As has been mentioned above like almost all vintage organizations our group did not have an official protest rule. The competitor was approached regarding the protest with details of how it would be administered (unlike some of the speculation above). Because the competitor was opposed to removing the engine at the track the proposal was the entire car would be loaded in the trailer of another competitor and delivered the next day to the shop of an independent engine builder with extensive FF experience but who currently is not in the business of building FF engines. The crossle owner could then remove the engine and witness the tear down . This was rejected by the owner who offered to take the car back to his shop, remove the engine and deliver it to the inspector in a week or two. This option was rejected by the protester due to the loss of custody. In the meantime another competitor using the other builders engine “volunteered” to allow his car to be impounded and engine inspected based on the terms above. The car was loaded into the other competitors trailer and taken to his house but then the competitor that had agreed to the tear down called back and said he had changed his mind and did not want the car torn down and would come over to pick it up. So in the end no tear downs were done and nobody can say for sure whether there were any illegal parts in the engines in questions.

So the bottom line is that two separate groups have formed and although I don’t think anyone is happy about the situation both groups have for the most part got over the issue and are doing their own thing. I have my opinion that the engine in the crossle was not legal, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what happened and whether there was cheating going on or not. Like Greg mentioned above I am not interested in running with others using illegal engines. Our new group is not the perfect solution but we do now have a documented protest process and have moved on. I just hope this sheds some light on the situation and we can quit debating the subject on an Internet forum and picking at the scab. If anyone wants to discuss this issue in more detail, feel free to contact me privately, but please lets kill this debate on a public forum. It is not benefitting anyone. Todd

[problemchild]

..... please lets kill this debate on a public forum. It is not benefiting anyone. Todd

Public debate generally benefits by informing, educating, and protecting. This discussion is so lacking in transparency that I don't know that it did any of that. While I am on the east coast, I just purchased a CF. It would be nice if I, and many others, knew who the players were, so that we can be protected. Like so many of the SCCA matters, information provided by "off-the-record" private messages and undocumented phone conversations, create far more problems than they solve.

Perhaps the next post could be:
I am the competitor who was challenged. My name is X. My engine builder is Y. My engine builder is an honest man who wants to be on the record as the builder of my engine and will stand behind his work.

Even better:
I am the competitor who was challenged. My name is X. My engine builder is Y. My engine builder is an honest man who wants to be on the record as the builder of my engine and will stand behind his work. My engine was protested, torn down, and proven legal. Here is a copy of the protest documentation.

Or even a smoothed over, no contest version:
I am the competitor who was challenged. My name is X. My engine builder is Y. My engine builder is an honest man who wants to be on the record as the builder of my engine and will stand behind his work. My engine was torn down and some parts were found non-compliant. It was an unintentional error caused by misunderstanding with a supplier or supplier error and we apologize for the violation. My engine will be fully compliant in the future and engine builder Y will resolve any other issues with other customer engines.

Please, just no more "once upon a time there was a certain competitor and a certain engine builder ...... "

[Offcamber1]

There are multiple threads on AS bemoaning the lack of competitors in open wheel. How is this thread the least bit constructive in that regard? While highly entertaining reading, if you were a newby considering jumping into FF/CF, would this encourage you to do so?

As it is, it gives me pause in considering converting my Lola back to CF from it's current D/SR configuration, or selling it and buying my brother's Mondiale.

[marshall9]

Todd's version is exactly how I understand things happened.
What do the Patterson's say about this?

[E1pix]

Remember that well, D... name was Paladino, in a black T340, with his "1-2-3 Disco" on the car.

He won the Nat at BIR, but nobody protested... yet. I believe he finally was, at Blackhawk in August, both these coming in 1976.

His motor sounded way too snarky, and went like Heck.

I almost replied to Keith's "Don't get why anyone would cheat at Club level," with "Or any other level," but here's why:
Cheaters are pathetic.

We got torn down in karting at least once a year. Being legal and seeing the look on the protestor's face was Gold, better than any win. Funny thing was the protestors were the real cheaters, and a simple exhaust sniff told that story.

I figgered the best protest is letting the cheaters live with it. But if a big win was cheated away, to the Shed with Ya!

Back in the late '70's, there was a guy (don't remember his name) in a Lola (342, IIRC) FF at the June Sprints that was at least 10 mph faster on the straights than anyone else. Fortunately, he was so slow in the corners that he was not a threat at the pointy end of the field. He was the subject of lots of conversation in the paddock - anyone there would remember this incident. We had more than a few laughs over this. IIRC, someone should have protested him, but we were all too busy to do it, and he wasn't a threat, so we didn't.

I don't remember when, but he was eventually protested (at a later race, IIRC) and his engine was illegal in many respects - cam, compression ratio, etc. I never saw him again at any race I attended.

The funny part was that even though he was obviously massively cheating, he couldn't run at the front, and probably was embarrassed out of the sport due to his cheating.

So it does happen, but not usually in such a naive, blatant fashion...

[Daryl DeArman]

There are multiple threads on AS bemoaning the lack of competitors in open wheel. How is this thread the least bit constructive in that regard?

In my opinion, heavily subscribed classes exist where more folks feel that they can compete on even footing and have somebody to race against.

If I was coming in to the class as a newbie, I'd find it inviting and reassuring that there is a series/group running that has addressed the concerns as opposed to sticking their heads in the sand and pretending it isn't happening. Doing nothing about it isn't constructive for the health of the class.

[Keith Robinson]

I don't get why people cheat especially at the club racing level, but just like we witnessed in the Runoffs at Laguna, a lot of the time it comes down to "interpretation of rules". Everyone looks for an edge to beat or be more competitive than their fellow competitor, but in some types of racing like short track, it's more like a cat and mouse game racers play with tech. I've heard many stories of cheating in club racing though from way illegal engines (bored and stroked) in CFFs where the owner didn't even know, to blatant purposeful cheating like lead filled water bottles thrown in with the driver at impound. It's a shame it happens, but it does happen.

Boy, that could lead to lead poisoning, maybe that was the source of his problem !

[Eric Little]

My apology up front for the length of this post but since much of this thread has been about a group of us being cheaters, this one long post pales in comparison of length of discussion damning that same group.

So as one of the major Pro/Antagonist in this west coast piston cheating controversy I have followed this thread for almost 9 months and tried hard not to respond or “get sucked in” hoping all the hype would just go away. Obviously that has not happened And the recent rehashing compels me to chime in with the hope to provide some additional facts (and opinions) that will give folks enough info to let them draw their own conclusions in private and put an end to the ridiculous claims from folks who have no clue as to the details of the situation.

Please note that I did not post to this in the initial phase of this thread. I was happy to let people believe as they wanted and move on with my own racing. It was not until post #134 (a full nine months after this thread started) that Mr. DeArman effectively called me out as racing a “questionable motor” with the clear implication being an allegation I was cheating that I chose to respond. I would have been perfectly happy with letting sleeping dogs lie but instead, as I dreamt of chasing cats and eating Scooby snacks, I was poked in the ribs with a sharp stick. I hope you can understand that while many on ApexSpeed did not get the reference Mr. DeArman was making related to me, I do know that many here in CA knew exactly who he was referring to. I do not take my reputation lightly and chose to respond shedding more light on the events that occurred. While you provided more detail, it still does not contradict what I said. That is,competitors were still asked to have their car in the custody of a competitor which is not due process for an inspection. You claim that “the competitor was opposed to removing the engine at the track”. While he does not post here, I have spoken with the competitor, he has read the response I am providing, and agrees with it. The competitor in question (Stewart Paterson as has been alluded to in the post by Marshall) did not object to a tear down at the track. In fact, Stewart was informed by the chief of tech, that he would not be conducting any tear downs at the track. Like all competitors, Stewart understands this to be a real possibility and while it may make for a long Sunday by the time you get home, it is the price we pay to compete. So based on this, nothing has changed. Illegality was alleged, a meaningful tear down process by the sanctioning body was not provided, the alternate tear down proposal was denied (by one competitor immediately and by the other after due consideration). None of this demonstrates any illegality but we then go on to provide circumstantial evidence to convince all who will listen that the allegation is true.

These allegations were both creating a divide between friends and competitors within our Series as well as creating a reputation with other clubs that threatened both credibility and entry numbers. Being an engineer I felt it important to try to define and quantify what was perceived as a hp advantage for some of the competitors using engines from the builder in question. As data traces from the cars in question was not going to be forthcoming I decided to take some very specific segment times during a race at California Speedway. By timing segments coming onto the oval, through start finish, and into the entry of turn 3 These segments were selected based on the high speed nature of the entry to the oval and long period of time a full throttle where the cars acceleration rates are slowing as they approach aero limited terminal velocity. Timing was done on 4 cars over numerous laps (DB3 FF Ivey, DB1 Ivey, DB1 other builder, Crossle 30 series other builder). After some data analysis what was determined was the acceleration rate of both cars with the other engine builders engine was indeed higher than either of the Ivey engined cars. As has been mentioned in previous posts the crossle in question is a very highly developed machine driven by a very capable driver. There has been all kinds of claims of well this car had higher corner exit speed and that is why he was faster down the straight, etc. The acceleration analysis/ calculations take this factor out of the equation and the variables basically become hp vs mech drag and aero drag. You are not going to convince me that the total aero drag of even the highly developed Crossle is better than the DB1/ DB3. My conclusions based on the data is that the Crossle has significantly more horsepower than either of the Ivey powered DB’s

On what basis do you conclude that “The acceleration analysis/ calculations take this factor out of the equation and the variables basically become hp vs mech drag and aero drag.”? I fully admit to not being an engineer but as a driver, I know there are many factors to getting through any segment in less time than another and that there are another set of factors that get me a higher top speed in a sector than another. Having been to Cal Speedway, there is a corner before entering the oval. From personal experience, I have seen as much as a 15 MPH difference in exit speed as that corner has a wicked bump and the consequence of a wall drivers right at the exit. I also know that from a spectator viewing standpoint, this corner cannot be seen. So how is it that your analysis was able to take this out of the equation? In addition, did you consider other factors that could make a difference? What about gearing, friction losses of rotating parts, suspension settings such as toe, camber, and caster? We have all seen drag races in which one car has a shorter elapsed time while the other has a higher top speed. And with the draft at Cal Speedway, it is not out of the question to believe that some opted for top gearing assuming a draft while others did not. Such differences are significant. Finally, I do not find it unbelievable that that there are motors out there that legally produce more power than an Ivey motor. The mere fact of more power does not demonstrate illegality. Illegality needs to be demonstrated by a meaningful inspection with appropriate due process. If there was so much concern at Cal Speedway, why was no protest filed there? If there was suspicion and a protest was going to be filed at the next race, why then was the sanctioning body not prepared to conduct such a tear down in an appropriate manner? Why is it that when an appropriate tear down was replaced by a chain of custody that would place the car in the hands of a competitor that the denial of such a tear down is a de facto ruling of illegality?

During this same time period evidence became available that there were around 12 sets of pistons created by the manufacturer of the legal FF piston to specs requested by the other engine builder and identified with the same P/N as the pistons specified in the GCR and almost every other FF rule book in the US. I personally have build sheets with detail dimensions for 8 sets of pistons from the manufacturer with the other engine builder as the customer and some even include the name of some of the drivers in question that are using this engine builder. Of the 8 sets of pistons I have build sheets for none match the legal FF configuration. Some are only “slightly illegal”, and some are over 12/1 CR and 278g along with other deviations. As has been mentioned above there is no way to know if these pistons are in any of the engines in question or has been surmised above used for some development test mule engine. Interesting to me that you would be doing development work with a component that could never be used in a legal FF engine.

Have you ever considered that the development work being done was to propose a new piston to the SCCA for use in a Kent motor? Perhaps there was a desire to produce a piston that would wear better than the current. That the testing was to see what changes would make more power and which would make the same? Why do you imply then that no one would do such testing/development “with a component that could never be used in a legal FF engine”? While it may not be legal under the rules as written today, the original CP piston was not legal when it was being developed either. But it was developed even though at the time, "it could never be used in a legal FF engine" and the result was a rules change.

You allege that one of the sets of pistons was in excess of the legal compression. As this all occurred, I was informed that there was a belief that the pistons in Stewart’s car exceeded the maximum compression. In post #41, Wayne Mitchell states that there is a whistler device that can detect this infraction. It is further my understanding from discussion with several competitors at Button Willow (the event in which the tear down was requested) that Wayne was the tech inspector. If the accusation was an illegal compression ratio (at least in part) and if for whatever reason, a tear down was not to be conducted at the track immediately, why was the “whistler device” not utilized to provide the information that it could without the need for a full tear down?

So the bottom line is that two separate groups have formed and although I don’t think anyone is happy about the situation both groups have for the most part got over the issue and are doing their own thing. I have my opinion that the engine in the crossle was not legal, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what happened and whether there was cheating going on or not. Like Greg mentioned above I am not interested in running with others using illegal engines. Our new group is not the perfect solution but we do now have a documented protest process and have moved on. I just hope this sheds some light on the situation and we can quit debating the subject on an Internet forum and picking at the scab. If anyone wants to discuss this issue in more detail, feel free to contact me privately, but please lets kill this debate on a public forum. It is not benefitting anyone. Todd

As you know, I left running with the group discussed prior to this split for my own reasons. That said, I had been happy letting the groups go their own direction. This was until Mr. DeArman posted the insinuation that I had cheated. I did believe that folks had gotten over the issue and moved on. But I will not be called a cheater here, in public, without responding. Had this thread been left to die, I would have been perfectly happy. However, I hope that everyone can understand why I would not sit by idly while my integrity was put in question (again, not all knew who was being discussed but a sufficient number of people did that I felt the need to address the false implications). So as to killing this debate on a public forum, happy to do so, so long as others are willing to refrain from implying that I am a cheater (either by using my name or by associating me with an engine builder). I think Reid said it best, if you suspect I am cheating, come talk to me or protest me. As I have stated, both Stewart and I (and what I have not said but have since been told I can say is that all of the competitors running in the SCCA using the builder in question) have offered to perform the first tear down in response to a protest from a competitor with no bond. To date, none of the competitors have taken us up on this despite the fact that the engineering impossibility of a Crossle running with a DB-6 (in the hands of a Runoffs podium finisher) has happened with this group. The new group is not here on ApexSpeed starting a thread titled ‘Cheaters’. They are preparing their equipment, enjoying the competition, and knowing that they could have our motor torn down the first time, at no cost to them.

I am glad that each crowd has found the environment that they desire. Will be happy to let it die if people simply stop making baseless accusations. I agree that this thread is not in the interest of the sport. But it was not in the interest of the sport when the first post hit the board. The follow-up was the inevitable discussion of whether the accusations are true and have been proven to be true.

Finally in response to Greg Rice:

I am Eric Little. Driver of the #5 Swift DB-1(ish) running a Kent motor at the 2018 Runoffs. My motor builder is Pick’s Racing Engines (I have made no secrets about this as he was listed as the cars sponsor for the Runoffs). No one has challenged my car in a manner that could be tested, evaluated, and proven either compliant or non-compliant with the rules. That has not stopped some from implying through rumor and innuendo here that it is illegal.

I have utilized this builder because he discusses with me what he is doing to the engine and does not mind answering all of my questions, physically showing me the build, having me present for dyno testing, and trying my ideas or ideas of others no matter how absurd they may sound to him. He is close to me in physical location, he provides great service and reasonable prices.

I do not take your view that I should blindly trust others. When it comes to racing, it is my safety on the line and my reputation. While I do utilize Stewart to engineer my car, he makes zero changes that I do not know about and I frequently check every nut and bolt on the car even if he just worked on it. Stewart and I get along because he is not offended by my double checking because he understands that it will be my butt in the car if something goes wrong. As for making sure I know that all things about my car are legal, that is very simple. The SCCA rules say it is the driver that is responsible for their car. Not only that, the driver is responsible for the actions of their crew. As such, I make sure that my car is legal and that my crew does not discuss any issues but lets me address it instead. Guess I could never be an “arrive and drive” guy with that mentality.

Now on to fiberglass work for me (which will be itchy, and sticky but undoubtedly more fun than this thread).

Eric Little

[Bernard Bradpiece]

OK. For those of us somewhat bemused at all the hints of illegality and protests of innocence, first, there must not be enough racing on the West Coast to have this thread going mid-season - off season is understandable.

Second, none of us know if engines were illegal as for whatever reason the engines in question were not measured. What we apparently do know is that an engine builder went to the manufacturer of the legal SCCA piston and had a similar piston made with similar markings but different weight and compression. Mr Little argues this is so the engine builder could experiment and possibly get a new piston approved. Its the same manufacturer so the costs will be the same. If the argument is that Mr. Ivey is laughing all the way to the bank on the extraordinary mark-up he makes on selling a modest number of pistons annually we would need to see an alternate manufacturer, not an alternate supplier, and good luck with that. The argument that these pistons were for test purposes is thin - like vinegar is thin. There is no need or demand for improved performance pistons and such pistons would be most unlikely to be approved. What we wanted and got from Mr. Ivey was a reliable piston with a long life.

However, what is damming is the fact the pistons were made with identical markings to legal pistons. If they were an experiment then there would be no need for markings of any kind, and certainly no need for any enhancement. Of course then they would be the same as the pistons we already have from that manufacturer so what would be the point. If they were for non- FF 1600cc engines then you would go all out with a pure racing piston. I would suggest Mr. Little figures a different argument.

The West coast guys seem to have come to close on this smelly, unpleasant matter, perhaps so should we. It does not enhance our ability to market Formula Ford racing.

As we know, "no collusion" and "no obstruction". We need to deal with the new normal.

As I concluded in a previous post, if anybody really feels the need to cheat in Formula Ford racing, we can recommend a good psychiatrist to help them out.

BB

[Eric Little]

However, what is damming is the fact the pistons were made with identical markings to legal pistons. If they were an experiment then there would be no need for markings of any kind, and certainly no need for any enhancement. Of course then they would be the same as the pistons we already have from that manufacturer so what would be the point. If they were for non- FF 1600cc engines then you would go all out with a pure racing piston. I would suggest Mr. Little figures a different argument.

If pistons of a different spec were made by CP with the markings of a class approved piston, then your issue is with CP for having done so. If pistons were made of similar dimension for testing and never ended up in a motor in competition, then there is no issue.

As to the point of a piston with similar performance to the current piston it is to allow for choice. I have heard a lot about how Ivey "saved this class" by introducing the new piston from CP. If we owe it to him forever, then why was the Honda approved? For those of us left with a Kent, we do not particularly want to be held to a single supplier for pistons (or any other component for that matter).

I have heard argued by others that people should be allowed a monopoly for a certain amount of time to allow them to recoup their costs. When was the CP originally approved and has it not been sufficient time yet to recoup that investment?

Time to allow competition to do what it does. Produce a better product (be that reliability or performance subject to approval) at a cost indicative of a competitive market. For those that think there is no market, I suggest we let the manufacturers ascertain that. They are after-all in the business of doing exactly that.

I don't need a different argument. It is simple logic. You may have a different opinion of the outcome, but that is life.

Eric (I really hope this useless thread dies soon) Little

[TimH]

As I concluded in a previous post, if anybody really feels the need to cheat in Formula Ford racing, we can recommend a good psychiatrist to help them out.

[Daryl DeArman]

Please note that I did not post to this in the initial phase of this thread. I was happy to let people believe as they wanted and move on with my own racing. It was not until post #134 (a full nine months after this thread started) that Mr. DeArman effectively called me out as racing a “questionable motor” with the clear implication being an allegation I was cheating that I chose to respond. I would have been perfectly happy with letting sleeping dogs lie but instead, as I dreamt of chasing cats and eating Scooby snacks, I was poked in the ribs with a sharp stick. I hope you can understand that while many on ApexSpeed did not get the reference Mr. DeArman was making related to me, I do know that many here in CA knew exactly who he was referring to. I do not take my reputation lightly and chose to respond shedding more light on the events that occurred.

I would do my part to allow this thread to die if folks refrained from calling me out.

As I've attempted, apparently ineffectively, to point out to you (maybe it was in one of our PM's) is that I only piped back up on this thread when the comment was made that this was just a vintage issue or that people were commenting that didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

What I was attempting to allude to is that this isn't just a vintage problem, or just some local issue that nobody in the FF community needs to be concerned about. Folks that read the Racer/Member advisory that SCCA issued before the RunOffs would have known just how big/small the issue was suspected of being.

I did not accuse you of cheating.

I did not accuse your engine builder of sending you to the RunOffs with a cheater motor.

In fact, I stated the engine was likely perfectly compliant at the RunOffs. I said a "suspect" motor and noted that the entrant was uncharacteristically off the pace and was not protested for whatever reason(s).

[Eric Little]

I would do my part to allow this thread to die if folks refrained from calling me out.

I did not accuse you of cheating.

I did not accuse your engine builder of sending you to the RunOffs with a cheater motor.

In fact, I stated the engine was likely perfectly compliant at the RunOffs. I said a "suspect" motor and noted that the entrant was uncharacteristically off the pace and was not protested for whatever reason(s).

One last time. In post #138, you acknowledged the implication of what you had said. Allow me to be more explicit. By referring to a "suspect motor", I do not interpret this to mean, "you suspect the motor to be awesome and fully compliant that everyone should want one." It is clear from the context of this thread that you meant "suspect" in the sense of illegal. I think many would call that a "cheater motor" and most would interpret it that way. Given that the driver is responsible for the legality of their own equipment, I do not see it a stretch at all to interpret your calling a suspect motor as stating that you suspect that the driver of that car is cheating.

I also acknowledge that you did not directly call me a cheater. In fact, despite several opportunities to do so, you were more than willing to cast aspersion that were understood by those in CA but potentially lost on others. I therefore had to point out that it was clear, based upon logic, the reference was to me.

On to the good news that I hope will help this thread to bring the sweet relief that only death (of this thread) can bring. In fact, it was headed in this direction until implication of my being a cheater was made (disagree if you like but the logic is clear). After posting, I was contacted by Kim Madrid. Her and I have been what I would consider friends since when I raced with her. While we may not agree on what happened, who did what, who was right and wrong, we did agree that our organizations (her series focusing on vintage and Kent powered cars only and the organization that I mentioned in another thread focusing on all FF) can very peacefully co-exist as serving different needs. We appear to agree that this thread and disagreement is serving neither of us and we both hope it can simply end as soon as possible. Kim and I agreed to work together to ensure that each series is able to promote itself without any detriment to the other. We are working together actively now to see that this can happen rather than simply hope that people stop making it into an issue.

I hope that the good folks here on ApexSpeed will assist us by ending this thread. I believe Kim is honest in her desire to move the sport forward and that this issue is now behind all of us. Please, let us work this out without a four page, 160 post discussion viewed nearly 13,000 times to inform and misinform all at the same time. As Kim and I make progress, I hope that we see the sport in CA grow and if any progress is worthy of public dissemination, I am sure that Kim and I will be happy to let you know. I have spoken with Kim before posting this and she said she was okay with me posting and appears to agree with the sentiment.

Thank you
Eric Little