Rennie-
points for measured response, noted!
what kinds of odds are you offering for all, part, or some of forecast events? and how much can I bet on each of the offered odds?? with the exception of the November 20 date which was selected for obvious reasons, the milestones and observations are the "recipe" for ramming F1000 through last year. configuration control here at ApexSpeed is outstanding and if anything doesn't look familar I'd encourage you or others to page through the sorted mess that was 2006.
quality engineering (far more than the club is willing to pay for) was contributed directly and indirectly last year to the F1000 railroad as was drafting/technical publications work and the work was ignored. the directly contributed engineering was submitted in the form professional engineers submit change proposals to drafts or released documents: is, should be, and why. process questions were asked that should have set off red lights and sirens and they were ignored. less than ninety days after ignoring repeated attempts to correct/improve the bodywork opening diagram included with the rules, the rules were capriciously changed because of some noise from the FC conversion boys. given the public record here and the CRB's e-mail account my hearing is going to be real poor at any suggestion that I haven't been attempting to help the process along. I've always been in the business of quality objective engineering, not expedient/popular soundbites.
"solutions" are misguided and sometimes reckless adventures without a specific problem they solve better than everything else that was objectively considered. said another way, without a problem you're most likely looking at misguided change and not a solution (ie: the creation of a new problem). WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? with all the solutions and recommendations and debate surely someone can write down the problem. without a written problem statement how do we know that any of us are on the same page?? without a written problem statement how do we objectively test the statement against available objective data to improve it?? it's my sense that very little objective data has surfaced in the conversation to date and far too many partision soundbites have been flung from both sides of the discussion. FF National participation number are down a bunch, FF National participation numbers aren't down nearly as far compared to other formula and sports racing classes for the same period, today's FF's are too expensive, FF National participation is improving, FF participation is incleasing much quicker at other organizations in the US, the Kent is old, the Kent is a tractor engine, the Kent is expensive, FF1600 participation in Great Britian is booming again, recently approved alternate parts have addressed coming shortages, FF is alive and well north of the border, FV engines are older than the Kent, FF don't sound cool, ......... Steve has shared some of the cost data needed. a great deal more cost data is needed to understand average income, consumer price index, the cost of the cars, and the cost of competition over time. it's my sense there are some other things that will prove useful: FF laptimes over time for the tracks that have supported FF competition for the complete period; Indycar/Champcar/F1/NASCAR attendance and TV ratings versus time; average FF field size versus time; and a number of other things smart people will think of. until ALL this stuff (which is really not that much in absolute terms compared to a single incident investigation) is collected and related to everything (pro's & con's) else you're dealing with a shot in the dark and not a problems statement. it's been my expereince that draft problem statements will evolve with testing until it accomodates all of the objective data in hand. the problem statement when complete will be able stand up to the most intense partisan debate without change. hypotheticly, following an incident investigation it's not that hard to imagine the impact on passenger revenue miles if someone on the team blurts out to the press "my favorite piece of data was ignored"............
I'd recommend the beginning of the analysis window be July 1977, the date of "Formula Ford Comparison Chart" by Steve Nickless that appeared in Formula (magazine). it yields a thirty year window. it's also my strongest recommendation that all of the work needs to be done publicly!!! public access and a real time opportunity to contribute is a must if anything approaching a concensus is to be achieved at the end of the day; who knows maybe even a little healing. this is no different than what a geographicly distributed proposal team does in arriving at a proposal baseline for a multi-million/billion dollar contract.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM???
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
ps: elimination of any and all reference to "age" is highly recommended for legal/litigation reasons.