FB Request for Input - Shifters
In the December Fastrack (http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-dec.pdf), in the middle of page 34, you will find a "What Do You Think" item addressed to the FB community. Please read it and respond through the CRB letter system (crbscca.com).
Also, in the Tech Bulletin (bottom of page 56), you will see that we have added a new section on differentials.
Thanks,
Dave
WE should have included those lines in the original rules. Seems a little unfair to those who just spent what, $7k (?) on a shifter to impose now. Maybe the cars that have shifters run with a weight penalty. (1100lbs with, 1000 without...)
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
The shifters (Geartronics) are less than $5k (yes, I know, not cheap, but not $7k).
I agree it is simply too late to unring the bell.
100 lbs. sure is a huge penalty. I would be yanking the system off the car (no small chore) if faced with 100 lb. penalty.
Those are really only 2 choices, with no middle ground:
1) pure mechanical (with or without ign. cut/blipper)
2) anything goes
A nice compromise would be a 3rd choice:
Mechanical and/or cable operated gear shifters are permitted. Throttle blippers and ignition and or/fuel interrupters are permitted. Electro-mechanical shifters, pneumatic shifters and similar devices are permitted. The driver must determine when the shift takes place.
This would prevent the closed-loop system that, by most admissions, is the pricey part of that system, while still allowing all the people that have solenoid or pneumatic actuators to keep their system.
I don't foresee anybody voting for anything except #3.
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
Mike:Originally Posted by Mike B
Please explain how that would be enforced. The advisory committee considered a choice like the one you have proposed, but rejected it because of the inability to enforce it.
Dave
Simple: no computers allowed. If there's a GCM or microprocessor tied into the shifting system, it has the potential to make decisions for the driver and is, thus, illegal.
Your choices don't offer a middle ground of "dumb" solenoids or pneumatic actuators.
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
For convenience, pasted from scca.com:
[FONT=Arial-BoldMT]What do you think?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial-BoldMT]FB [/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]Member input has been submitted to the CRB regarding the state of the art of assisted shifters in FB. Member input is being [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]requested on the subject.[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]There is concern that the state of the art of assisted shifter systems is reaching a technical level where "smart" systems can [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]make gear selection and shift timing decisions and that the potential system cost and impact on competitiveness is not in the [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]spirit or intent of FB as a restricted class (GCR 9.1.1.H).[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]There is also concern that detection and control of "smart" systems is beyond the capability of SCCA scrutineers without [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]specialized tools that may simply not be available. For example, a system capable of rejecting a shift for the purpose[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]of preventing an over rev might also be able to control when to shift for performance enhancement and this might be [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]undetectable.[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]With these concerns in mind, member response is requested on the following questionnaire:[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]Would you be in favor of:[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]1. Only mechanical and/or cable operated gear shifters are permitted. Throttle blippers and ignition and or/fuel [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]interrupters are not permitted. Electro-mechanical shifters, electronic shifters, pneumatic shifters and similar[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]devices are not permitted.[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]2. Only mechanical and/or cable operated gear shifters are permitted. Throttle blippers and ignition and or/[/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]fuel interrupters are permitted as long as the mechanism and method of actuation does not exert any control[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]of the gear shift. Electro-mechanical shifters, electronic shifters, pneumatic shifters and similar devices are not [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]permitted.[/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT]3. Shifting mechanisms and control are unrestricted as long as the driver initiates the shift. [/FONT]
[FONT=ArialMT][Note: these choices might not be the exact language of a rule proposal, if one is made.][/FONT]
Please think about this a bit more. 1) How would you write a rule that draws a bright line between what could be done with discrete component electronics as opposed to "obvious" microprocessors? 2) Once there is anything that requires electricity in the system, how do you ensure that there are no processors hidden (from tech inspectors)?
It isn't that the advisory committee didn't want something along the lines you suggest, but they couldn't answer those two questions to their satisfaction.
Dave
Since when does the SCCA write rules that draw a "bright line"?
Example: The S2 diff rule states "excessive shimming is prohibited". "Excessive" is a subjective term and not overly "bright."
Then this is much ado about nothing.
I do appreciate your effort and the effort of the other Board members.
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
I have to admire the logic that decides to add a lot of uncertainty to a class that has been by all accounts succesful. Why not leave the rules alone while the class continues to grow? Just because a few people got sand in their ******s at the runoffs over an air shifter that was all over the grid from the front to the back? Then a few more people decided to lie about the systems and what they were capable of?
When will we get to know the results of this and what the rules are going to be next year? Does the class get to spend all year wondering what rules FB will be racing under next year? Awesome.
Good job encouraging people to come to FB by letting them know that people will definitely try to change the rule and wipe out people's investments and work whenever it suits them. Why would anyone want to race in FF and FC with their stable rules?
Facts are not welcome here and will not be tolerated. Please keep them to yourself. We are trying to put together outrageous emotional arguments about what these shifters do, what they cost, and what they are capable of.
I don't remember if you were there or not when Schweitz got out of the car after the runoffs race. The very first words out of his mouth were, "Can we go zetec racing now?" I hope the answer is yes. Soon.I agree it is simply too late to unring the bell.
100 lbs. sure is a huge penalty. I would be yanking the system off the car (no small chore) if faced with 100 lb. penalty.
I will respond to this part of your post only. If you will note, this was a request for input. It is not yet (and might never be) the basis for a proposed rule change. Depending on member input, a rule change might be proposed for 2012.
The request serves two purposes: it will provide some guidance to the advisory committee and the CRB on what to do in this area; it puts the membership on notice that there might be a change in this area and to proceed accordingly.
Dave
I would be fine with something along the lines of Mr. Beauchamp's idea that prevents the whizbang shifters IF we were discussing this before everyone (hopefully a Firman West guy will chime in to verify or correct me, but I think there are 10 cars with the system) had purchased, installed, and competed with these shifters. It is just too late to ban them and tell everyone who spent $4X00 and tens of hours installing and setting them up (I think I spent 80 hours on it, it's a lot of work, especially on a Citation) to take them off or don't run at all.
Wren, yes, we will be Zetec racing in the other car next year, but I would hate to give up on FB. I like the concept, and Schwietz sure likes driving them.
I'm happy that the CRB has asked for member input up front prior to attempting to make any changes. At least this way there is some effort at making this a true "process". I would like to thank the CRB personally for taking this approach as this is such an important topic to the FB class.
When reading some of the wording of this request it becomes pretty clear that there is still a dramatic mis-understanding (some of it apparently strictly fear based) on just how these shifters operate and what they are capable of.
Nicholas and I are preparing some technical material that we hope will help clarify and ally any fears that anyone might have as to what the Geartronics shifter in the form that we sell it in is capable of. We will try and get this material out as quickly as possible but we are currently swamped with car builds and planning out not only our own team efforts for next season but that of the F1000 Pro Series. We got a lot on our plate right now. But this is important enough to us and we feel to the class itself to give it some priority.
When going through the car counts in FB it became clear to us that more than 10% of the current FB class has the Geartronics shifter install in their car, and when you start to include other electronic shifters you can be talking about nearly 40% of all FB cars today with some kind of electronic shifter installed. Any rule that limits their use will have a major impact on the class and could quite literally lead to some serious unforseen repercussions. We would like to see this class grow as a whole and not get fracture off into separate individual bits, each persuing their own ideas of how the class should be run.
I can also tell you that nearly every person that has contacted us recently who has expessed interest in entering the FB class has told us that paddle shifter availability was a major factor in deciding whether or not to enter FB. None of the guys we spoke to was in the slightest bit interested in using out-dated manual gear shifting.
We think this speaks volumes for the overall appeal of the class. Shifter technology may only be one part of FB's appeal, but it has quickly becoming a major part of it from what we've been seeing in talking to future customers.
This may not be the "cheaper" alterative to FC as may have been in the original intent, but if all FB was was that then it probably wouldn't have half the car numbers it currently has or a even one-third of it's growth potential or appeal. FB has become interesting to racers because of what it is today. Not because of what it might have been "intended" to be. Those that think that they are helping the class by trying to take it back to it's original "intent" may in fact be hurting the class. Hurting it's growth, hurting it's appeal. We should be thinking in terms of how to move the class forward to a more prosperous future and not trying to back date its technology and the shifters are clearly within the rules as they are written.
Anyway, my views. Thanks for taking the time to read it. I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving and have a wonderful time with your family.
Cheers everyone.
(sorry for any spelling errors had to write this quickly)
What a bunch of horse sh*t started mostly by people that don't even have an FB, are trying to hock their own crap and slower guys trying to make sense of getting their butts whipped.
The word going around the last time this topic came up was that if the ban on these shifter systems happened a lot of guys were going to run their cars as FS and get their own thing going there. I think that is a good idea.
Write a letter
How about instead of spouting off here, everyone just write a letter. As Dave has said, they would like to get input from us, and have asked us to do so using the letter system. It is just as easy to send them a letter as it is to post here. Why do the same guys that get angry about scaring people away post the scariest, most knee jerk, reactions. Save that energy, and send it to the rule makers, where it could do some good.
BTW what is the question? are people actually worried that someone is going to have a system that shifts on it's own?? good, they'll be the slowest guy on the track. Since when is having an automatic transmission in racing an advantage?
I think MikeB should do one of those surveys on this topic and we can get a feel for what the driver/owners really want.
I submitted my letter before posting in this thread.
What was the intent? I can tell you, as one of the folks who had regular confrence calls and actually formed the rules (built the 1st one, etc) what the intent was. It was to take the existing FC rules and allow for the use of bike motors. The appeal was disposable motors that would cost less to operate than the Pinto but offer FC- like performance. It was not all that long ago that bike motors were part of FC.
Then the class evolved. Smart folks like Stohr, Wright, Novac, Firman, etc built cars that took advantages of the loop holes in the rules (BTW, Ok Richard, you told us so). Technology improved, motors got better, oiling/ aero/ shifters....
Now the class is approaching FA costs to be at the front. Definately approaching FA speeds. You need the latest shifters (maybe) and the latest motors (maybe). You definately do need the latest best aero/ chassis. This will be the trend forever under the current rules, constant updates to keep up with the Jones's. Why do you think I purchased a Zetec?
How many of the FB founders still have FBs and are racing? I know I'm out, Mike B is looking for a newer car, Russ M is out, Sean M out, Rob L (?)... we were the folks who created the class.
I wanted to take my 96 VD and have a car that would keep up with the latest FCs (I admit I was surprised when out of the box I was spanking them). I'd buy a $3,000 motor, run it for a year or two, sell it for $1500 used.
I really don't get to have an opinion on the subject but do believe a whatever goes policy is bad for the future of the class. Cost does need to be contained. If folks want to add slick shifters, the latest motors etc, then I think competition adjustments should be made (weight/ restrictors/ ?)- 100lbs may be too much, I was just throwing out a number. Otherwise where does it end?
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
You do know what these systems are capable of, right? An automatic is slower but the Geartronics system is not, and a "cheater" system could be a huge advantage. The problem is how do you tech it?
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
Did something change in the way we do things? Weren't we always free to write the CRB and the BOD with our opinions? I know that I have always been able to.
Whether this is a specific rule proposal or not, it has the same effect as a rules proposal. Obviously there is a lot of consideration being given to making a major change to the FB rules and that will have a big effect on what people choose to spend their money on.
Some people seem convinced that they could build an automatic shifter under the current rules and have an advantage. They're just wrong is all.
I am submitting mine now. Multitasking.
It's really, really not. I am actually pretty sure that you can win the runoffs on the budget of a guy who still has to sleep in the trailer at the track with only his dad and his idiot friend for help.
Definitely no on the shifters. Niki was the fastest Firman there and finished third without the shifter.You need the latest shifters (maybe) and the latest motors (maybe). You definately do need the latest best aero/ chassis.
The motors have a potential to be a problem, but there are some pretty reasonable solutions. As it stands now, a 2007 GSXR will be fine for next year too.
A good zetec gearbox costs a lot more than one of these shifter systems and you will have the same potential to play keep-up there as in FB.This will be the trend forever under the current rules, constant updates to keep up with the Jones's. Why do you think I purchased a Zetec?
The only reason the geartronics system works as well as it does is the human in the loop. A cheater system will not be a huge advantage. The drivers are getting the shifts when they want them and they are going to make better decisions than a computer.You do know what these systems are capable of, right? An automatic is slower but the Geartronics system is not, and a "cheater" system could be a huge advantage. The problem is how do you tech it?
Wren we will have to agree to disagree. Niki is one of the best drivers in the SCCA yet he finished 3rd... why? I doubt is was due to driving. Right now, the Citation is the best car in the class. Hurry and develop your aero folks! Add those shifters... that's this year. What will develop next year? Cooper (also one of the best drivers) felt he was at such a disadvantage without the shifter he purchased one at the runoffs! He is not running with an unlimited budget.
Motors... you really think an 07 will win the runoffs? I don't. It will probably be a BMW, a 09 GSXR or ??
...and your just wrong on the keep up with the Zetec cars. Yes, the gearbox is expensive, but you don't have to completely redesign the car every year to keep up. Everyone is running the same motors, roughly the same aero, etc. Go watch a F2000 series race and you'll see some seriously close racing with most of the field qualifying within 10ths of each other. Not the case right now with FB.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
Dave,
Require that the shifting system be discrete and self-contained with no connections to other controllers / external systems / ECUs / sensors / etc. Let the shifter be as sophisticated as one desires, but without access to things like RPM, wheelspeed, gear position and so forth, you have effectively broken the closed loop. If the system has a controller there should be no connections other than for power, shifter buttons, and to the disparate physical actuators required to shift, clutch or blip throttles.
Gives something discrete and verifiable to police, at the very least.
Cheers,
Rennie
So guys and their $40-$50,000 FBs and their $5-$7,000 shifter systems are going to just agree to run them at regional races, foregoing Nationals and the opportunity for the Runoffs? Honestly I dont see that happening.
If you only want people who already own FBs to chime in on this topic, then you'll have what, 15 people who can give their opinion?
You would do well to listen to people who DONT already have an FB but who are interested in the class and have an opinion, if the goal is to grow the class. Just as talk of constantly exploding bike engines turned a lot of people off who were interested in this class, the idea of spending $5,000 and up for shift systems is going to make lots of people think twice about getting involved in this class.
I agree with all of that, but it isn't any different than FC. FC is just more mature than FB and has already solved the problem of what chassis everyone is going to run.
The Citation aero is FC aero except for the diffuser and an important part of the manufacturing process involves me making wing skins on my living room floor. Brandon and Tom also ran an extra $8 worth of plywood as additional bodywork. Nothing about it was high budget.
Yes, I think that an 07 will win the runoffs. The 09 is not much of an advantage. No one has even figured out how to make a BMW run in a car yet and it may not be possible.Motors... you really think an 07 will win the runoffs? I don't. It will probably be a BMW, a 09 GSXR or ??
The F2000 guys are spending a fortune on aero packages and someone has developed a car that they say will DB1 the entire field. FC's continue to go faster every year, even though the rules stay the same, look at how many people managed to run 12's at the runoffs this year versus previous sprints. People are developing the cars....and your just wrong on the keep up with the Zetec cars. Yes, the gearbox is expensive, but you don't have to completely redesign the car every year to keep up. Everyone is running the same motors, roughly the same aero, etc. Go watch a F2000 series race and you'll see some seriously close racing with most of the field qualifying within 10ths of each other. Not the case right now with FB.
The only reason for people with good FB's to redesign their car is if they want to. Good cars from last year are going to be good cars this year. The FB rules do leave more room for tinkering, just because there is more room for bodywork and wheels.
Tom, you're right that some people would be discouraged from joining the class because of the shifters. But I have heard as many non FB people express interest in the class because of the shifters as I have heard them say they are discouraged by the shifters (I know that is completely unscientific, just a comment). To those who are worried that someone MIGHT not get involved in FB because of the shifters, does that outweigh the fact that some current competitors will definitely leave the class if the shifters are banned after they are allowed to compete for 2 years? I'm sure not all will leave, but some will. And does that make it fair to change the rules and outlaw the shifters at this stage of the game?
If I have to take the back half of a Citation apart (anyone who has worked on one knows this is about the same number of steps as taking apart a watch) to remove the Geartronics, take all the wiring off, design and build a suitable mechanical shifter, etc., I can see no reason to put it back together as an FB. Especially when who knows how long it will be before the next part that has been on the car for several races is made illegal.
I agree with Rennie on this one. It should be enforceble with this set up and could be tested with a continiuty test or voltage test. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to rewire the geartronics system to this type of configuration and all the investment would not be lost. You would also still have the ability to utilze a pretty sweet paddle system.
As far as possibly losing potential drivers in the class, these are only guesses with out some sort of survey on people that are sitting on the fence. There could be people that are staying away because they feel they would have to buy an expesive shift system or the oposite and are staying away pending not being able to run a car with this wizzy technology. We will never know without some form of survey data. Any comments are merely speculation and should not even factor in to the input of the question. It is not sound science.
Well....I thought I did but apparently I don't know the true evil intentions and capabilities (lol) but I'm interested in hearing what I'm missing.
[quote]
why not? people in this sport spend that kind of money they are racing nationals, regioinals or anything else that comes to the track (but I know what you mean)
Actually yes, why not listen to the 15 people that actually invested in the class as the rules were written. I think it makes sense. Why listen to someone that may or may not have intentions of getting an FB.If you only want people who already own FBs to chime in on this topic, then you'll have what, 15 people who can give their opinion?
Well then listen to me. I'm a newbie and was attracted to this class (after looking at just about every other class) because of the current rules and specifically the open shifter policy. Plus you don't need to spend $5k on a system. My system cost $2k. What does a good mechanical/cable paddle shifter system run $1000+?You would do well to listen to people who DONT already have an FB but who are interested in the class and have an opinion, if the goal is to grow the class. Just as talk of constantly exploding bike engines turned a lot of people off who were interested in this class, the idea of spending $5,000 and up for shift systems is going to make lots of people think twice about getting involved in this class.
And as far as someone saying that Glenn Cooper went to the Geartronics because he was'nt competitive, that's BS. He said he went to that system because he was sick of the POS cable system that wouldn't work at speed.
One last thing about the 07 gsxr not going to beat an 09 gsxr or BMW.....didn't that already happen this year??
Quit your bitching. It's not that bad. I don't understand why everyone didn't design their air accumulator tank for their air shifter as a stressed part of the rear spar.
Wren,
Does this mean I can spill some solvent on the back part of your car and it will develop an air leak?
Next year may just be closer racing!
It is not a sound science, but I don't think it is reasonable to just ignore the sentiment that people will leave the class because of a Geartronics ban. I can only promise one that will leave. But you are definitely right; there is no sure way to know which way will cost/gain the class more entries.
"Rewiring" the Geartronics to make it comply with a "no CPU" type rule is a much taller order than you might think. About like rewiring my iPod to play LPs.
What would you do if you put in a lot of work and money into a part that was heavily integrated into your car, ran it for 2 seasons, and then it was deemed illegal?
I think technically the loads pass through the air accumulator, then through the oil tank, longitudinally through the air compressor, around the battery, and then back through the oil tank for good measure. That's the Citation way.
Not quite, but you can still try. If we took some paint off then I might have a better chance of convincing Brandon to paint his car pink.Wren,
Does this mean I can spill some solvent on the back part of your car and it will develop an air leak?
Next year may just be closer racing!
If you ever get a chance to look inside Brandon's or Tom's rear spar, it is impressive what they have jammed in there. They had to squeeze in an oil tank and an air tank so holes had to be cut in the spar for them. So the oil tank and the air tank are stressed to get back the strength. Very simple.
Seriously. It's a marvel of modern organization. Almost like an IKEA store.
Josh,
What would you do if you put in a lot of work and money into a part that was heavily integrated into your car, ran it for 2 seasons, and then it was deemed illegal?
Schwietz's budget, I would probably wipe my forehead and say "that was fun while it lasted"
If it were my budget or many others you pose a good point.
I like this idea but wonder if it can be done so tech guys can easily verify. We certainly don't want them feeling they need an hour to trace down wires buried deep inside a car.
My main reason for FB disenchantment (other than underestimating the conversion effort and biting off more than I could chew) was the moving goal posts. I know you have that in every class, but it's exaggerated in FB. There is no other class where your current package can be left behind so fast. It really gives a huge advantage to the people with the funds to continually update (more so than any other class).
This particular shifting issue is a tough nut. It would have been better to rule out assisted shifting from the beginning, but hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
I miss FB but kinda looking forward to heel & toe while shifting an H pattern (like God intended real drivers do! :-).
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
[quote=JohnPaul;276892]Well....I thought I did but apparently I don't know the true evil intentions and capabilities (lol) but I'm interested in hearing what I'm missing.
...and I therefore was not competitive!
why not? people in this sport spend that kind of money they are racing nationals, regioinals or anything else that comes to the track (but I know what you mean)
Actually yes, why not listen to the 15 people that actually invested in the class as the rules were written. I think it makes sense. Why listen to someone that may or may not have intentions of getting an FB.
Well then listen to me. I'm a newbie and was attracted to this class (after looking at just about every other class) because of the current rules and specifically the open shifter policy. Plus you don't need to spend $5k on a system. My system cost $2k. What does a good mechanical/cable paddle shifter system run $1000+?
And as far as someone saying that Glenn Cooper went to the Geartronics because he was'nt competitive, that's BS. He said he went to that system because he was sick of the POS cable system that wouldn't work at speed.
One last thing about the 07 gsxr not going to beat an 09 gsxr or BMW.....didn't that already happen this year??
The fact was that I could not make the stock system of bellcrank rods and heims
do what I wanted, when I wanted. It quite often would "reject" my selection of a downshift. This in and of itself should have made the system illegal!
I then made my own cable operated system, (falsely) believeing the above referenced system to be at fault. All it took was one lap to see that wasn't the fix, either.
As I have said all along, my helmet is off to those that can downshift the motorcycle engine'd cars in a timely manner.
Coello seems to have a handle on it mostly...
I guess it really comes down to the scrutineers being able to actually check something like this, but that seems more than far fetched w/o all sorts of special training and equipment. We all know that things can be hidden in all sorts of places, and switches can have dual functions.
Who's to say there are not things happening right now in FB or any other class for that matter that are hidden.
IF the downshift reject feature is found illegal and needs to be "unwritten" from the programming, who would even be able to tell that had been done?
I'm not gonna let the tech guy take the car for a session and see if he can get it to reject an ugly downshift (sorry Herb!).
I'll get writing on my letter of input straight away.
Wren - What does the Schweitz comment about Zetek mean? Is he referencing larger, more competitive fields? I really have no idea what the "intent" of the comment was, although when you answer, I'm sure it'll all become quite clear.
Last edited by glenn cooper; 11.24.10 at 8:57 PM.
Just because someone has a lot of nice bits on their race car doesn't make a rule change at this stage any more or less fair or mean they have an unlimited budget to absorb it.Josh,
What would you do if you put in a lot of work and money into a part that was heavily integrated into your car, ran it for 2 seasons, and then it was deemed illegal?
Schwietz's budget, I would probably wipe my forehead and say "that was fun while it lasted"
If it were my budget or many others you pose a good point.
FYI Schwietz gets a lot of help and additionally is so hopelessly addicted that if he has $1000, he will spend $995 on racing, $5 on McDonald's, sleep on a park bench, then put another $10,000 on a credit card to fund some more racing. Ask him what is priorities in life are, and the top 10 will be racing. He will say this even if his family is present.
Brussels, How many times I gotta tell ya - no synchros, no clutchy.
Heel and toe is for street cars, real drivers use their left foot on the whoa pedal!
When you say "package" are you talking about engines?
2007 - Engine to have, and is doing all the winning - 2007/2008 Suzuki
2008 - Ditto
2009 - Ditto
2010 - Ditto
Of course if you were not referencing engines, I'll just go back to preppin' the gibletts!
I think it just meant that he would rather be racing an FC. He is going FC racing next year in a Piper as I understand it.
I have been pressuring Brandon for years to go zetec racing instead of FB. I feel like there is more progress there since the mess at the runoffs and the bull**** surrounding the shifter than in the last 4 years.
I just started a bellhousing for the new car I am building. I am also building a bellhousing for Brandon and Tom, whether they like it or not.
Josh,
That is what I like about Tom. He is the pure racer that I wish I could be. I respect him and everyone who supports his efforts. You guys bust hump, and it shows.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
