Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/15/2019 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Some method of fuel equity\balance. Allow low fuel tank cars to have equal fuel (most likely on a weight basis) to the winning cars at some sort of VPI adjustment (not free) No, not right now. Now is not the time to make a major change to our rule book. Selling fuel-for-points will open up a whole can of worms that will be hard to predict or control. Best to fix things within our current "lane" before we go adding a bunch more variables to the equation. Rules stability is more important in the short term. More than one class of performance, or using the classes to give cars prepped to a lower power\performance level their own group. “Champcar Classic” vs “Champcar” or something like that. As the swap calc target PWR, 500 point car performance, and “weight (cough cough)” were all crept faster to keep popular cars in, the required podium build has crept up. Are you ok with a class built to allow, “real racing real cheap”, for guys wanting to race each other for position at that slower\cheaper\more stock pace. No. This will add more management overhead & complexity, increase costs, and could split our customer base. I feel we are in a good niche currently, with a nice reputation for being inexpensive and accessible, but more "serious" than Lemon's. Its still possible to build a car with a backyard budget and be competitive. Are you willing to give some winning common platforms a penalty lap or a few? Or will you choose to simply give more stuff to existing cars to keep popular\desired cars under 500 (anything over 500 points seen as having a death by some). This could allow a cheaper\slower\easier\safer method of rebalancing the performance of cars without having to creep the speed up each time we rebalance. No, not at this time. Rules stability is important. I don't want to give free stuff to anyone. I don't currently see a car that is "dominating" and needs to be nerfed. I did write a few VPI adjustment petitions for cars that I feel have a VPI that is too high, and requested that they be reduced. Are you willing to look at an alternative system for evaluating swap cars? An example would be a TAC\Tech assigned VPI for any non OE Engine\Trans\Diff\Fuel\Major suspension structure (whole subframe\clip\welded up cars) rather the swap calculator (of dubious input data). Yes, I am open to looking at alternative systems. I was interested in the petition for a "Swap-VPI list" that was submitted. No, It does not need to happen at this time. Rules stability is important. A major change such as this should be announced WELL in advance, and due-diligence research needs to completed. The current system has not produced any cars that have been dominant. In fact, to my knowledge, swap cars aren't even winning their expected percentage. Should we concentrate\price accordingly for races in the popular east and central regions, or use funds from popular regions (aka overcharge) to grow the unpopular regions? Keep watering the tracks with low turnouts hoping to make it finally grow, or make it really strong in the regions we run and try to more gradually head west? We need to continue to make efforts to grow the business. Companies need to spend money on development, advertising, etc to establish market positions. I do not agree with your "overcharge" statement - charging more money than is necessary to break even is not overcharging - its good business practice. Every company does it. What can we do to make the series more inviting to new\casual race teams? Lemons in some regions crushes us in turnout (NJMP has 120+ cars), is part of this because the make the weekend more of a destination event? What can we do to make the social part of this hobby stronger, would this make the turnout and roots for people stronger? I do not have the answers to such a question - if I did, I would be much more wealthy than I am now. The only way to figure this out is to make some changes, observe the result, and assess the correlation. I think some efforts can be made to attract teams from other series, to streamline the "hurdles" required to get started with us, and to clarify some sticking points in the rules. I have some ideas to bring to the table, not sure if the current BOD has already brainstormed this topic or not. Do you support open sharing of podium car’s specs with the rest of the series, as a check on their legality and to limit long-term technical advantage? Examples being online posting of their log book, tech sheet, swap sheet, pictures of car and any measurements we take as a series (power, weight, etc). Or do you think that knowledge is sacred and people should rely on tech and “spying in person” to figure out legality of competitors and how to improve their car. We have been told digital tech sheets are coming. I do not know how far along this process we are. I support making the Tech/Swap sheets/log books public, but to avoid a logistical/management nightmare situation for tech inspection, this cannot happen before the digital version is rolled out. Even with that, a system will need to be developed and tested on a small scale before a 100% implementation. Drew, You are, without a doubt, one of the most technical people participating in this club. The video series you did with Bill was a gracious effort to support the series, and I am sure you have made many contributions to the TAC discussions. Thank you for those contributions, and for posing these questions. I don't think we often agree on things - traditionally I see you posting some very complex ideas which I see as fundamentally changing the ruleset. If you are wishing to elect a technical person to the BOD, I have no doubt I can meet that expectation. I believe my technical expertise and experience speaks for itself. However, if you are expecting the technical person to support some of your complex ideas, that will not be me. I want to follow the KISS method - No major changes, No mentality shifts, 100% stability of the rules.
  2. 4 points
    This car is EC so no points figured for anything . So to answer your question if your car came from the factory with a spoiler, side skirts, or air dam they were figured into its VPI and no additional points should be added . Now if it was a dealer option on a limited edition you will have to pay aero points .
  3. 4 points
    repurposed material = 0 point add repurposed material = parts that came on your car from the factory . With that said you can take something from your car change it and use for another purpose . If you choose to do this you need to document where the part came from ,how you changed it to what it is now . If you cannot show the process or we cannot tell from looking you will be charged material or FPV points .
  4. 4 points
    @Black Magic I have appreciated your input while being on the TAC and look forward to doing so more in the future. As you know I am not a technical writer, but I do have some ideas, so I'll give it a shot to your questions, comments, concerns. Here are some of my comments to your questions: Some method of fuel equity\balance. Allow low fuel tank cars to have equal fuel (most likely on a weight basis) to the winning cars at some sort of VPI adjustment (not free) I have always supported giving fuel to other teams at a certain level, but we have not found a way to do this yet. As long as people pay points for the extra fuel; no more free stuff. If someone wants to try and figure this out @mender and @wvumtnbkr could probably get us a good start. For now I know the Thunderbird was increased with suggestion from the TAC due to the extra fuel it could carry around. More than one class of performance, or using the classes to give cars prepped to a lower power\performance level their own group. “Champcar Classic” vs “Champcar” or something like that. As the swap calc target PWR, 500 point car performance, and “weight (cough cough)” were all crept faster to keep popular cars in, the required podium build has crept up. Are you ok with a class built to allow, “real racing real cheap”, for guys wanting to race each other for position at that slower\cheaper\more stock pace. Right now I know people build cars to classes (A, B, C, D) and people build cars to win overall. I feel at this point we need to focus on making sure our current business model is 100% correct with the rules and communication to members before we venture to something new. If you remember back in the ChumpCar days there were ideas to bring in drifting, trucks, oval cars, etc. None of those did anything and I feel like we should not invest money at this point to bring in another class with another ruleset. Are you willing to give some winning common platforms a penalty lap or a few? Or will you choose to simply give more stuff to existing cars to keep popular\desired cars under 500 (anything over 500 points seen as having a death by some). This could allow a cheaper\slower\easier\safer method of rebalancing the performance of cars without having to creep the speed up each time we rebalance. Currently if members feel that certain platforms need penalties because they are winning a lot, then as members we should be submitting petitions. Right now I feel the ruleset and VPIs are at a good place to allow for people to pick a car and add minimal items to it to be competitive or go to a car with a VPI of 200 points and choose the path of engine, suspension, etc. We have to remember that a good team with great drivers can pick a platform as a team who is just getting into racing and have two different results. At that point should we penalize teams for having better drivers or better engineering than the other team? Are you willing to look at an alternative system for evaluating swap cars? An example would be a TAC\Tech assigned VPI for any non OE Engine\Trans\Diff\Fuel\Major suspension structure (whole subframe\clip\welded up cars) rather the swap calculator (of dubious input data). I feel that right now we have a good system for swapped cars. Should we concentrate\price accordingly for races in the popular east and central regions, or use funds from popular regions (aka overcharge) to grow the unpopular regions? Keep watering the tracks with low turnouts hoping to make it finally grow, or make it really strong in the regions we run and try to more gradually head west? I have actually been contacting tracks in the midwest to try and see what dates are available to see how we can put more races back in the Midwest. I feel we are east and southern heavy with races and membership. WRL did take a lot of MN teams from ChampCar, but now those teams are no where to be found. I feel we still need to have a presence in the West. We still have teams and membership in the Midwest and West that we cannot abandon. AER has put themselves in a spot where they are East heavy. Lucky Dog has done the same in the West. WRL is trying to have a presence nationwide now but have not proven the car counts, so it is down to Lemons and ChampCar that have a nationwide presence. What can we do to make the series more inviting to new\casual race teams? Lemons in some regions crushes us in turnout (NJMP has 120+ cars), is part of this because the make the weekend more of a destination event? What can we do to make the social part of this hobby stronger, would this make the turnout and roots for people stronger? We average anywhere from 5 to 20 new teams an event, just depends on the event. We are still attracting teams and I have talked with teams from NASA and SCCA about getting more track time and renting seats from people here in ChampCar. Lemons is a party and people know that and you can do any crazy build you want. I think that is what attracts people to Lemons. I have never done a Lemons race, so I don't have that experience. I think knowledge is key to attract new members. A lot of the shows we go to, people have never heard of us or don't realize we exist. That is a marketing item that we all as members and a club need to fix. I am pretty proud to say though at Autoclub we had over 20 cars which is a West coast race. Some Lemons and Lucky Dog racers came and hung out with us. Now we need more. Do you support open sharing of podium car’s specs with the rest of the series, as a check on their legality and to limit long-term technical advantage? Examples being online posting of their log book, tech sheet, swap sheet, pictures of car and any measurements we take as a series (power, weight, etc). Or do you think that knowledge is sacred and people should rely on tech and “spying in person” to figure out legality of competitors and how to improve their car. I feel the way that we run impound now with putting tech sheets on cars and having open logbooks is great. I don't think they need to public on the internet for people to see. There are many ways to build a podium winning car with the same platform, it's up to the car owner or team to figure out which path is best for them.
  5. 2 points
    When people started whining because Danger Racing was more creative in building their race car than they were.
  6. 2 points
    Where ,when and who did this ? We are not perfect and mistakes are made but any vertical addition to the lower front bumper should be 10 points no matter what it's made of, unless repurposed. Please see post above for definition of repurposed..
  7. 2 points
    My wife always wondered why Jimi Hendrix sang "excuse me while I kiss this guy."
  8. 2 points
    that is really awesome exposure...I think it advances the champ over chump direction of the organization , something I endorse..
  9. 1 point
    I can make anything into anything (within the bounds of science) and it is zero points, as long as I can prove it. This was how the rules were when I started and I'm glad it is back to that. That was a huge appeal to the series, even if I don't take advantage of it.
  10. 1 point
    The quote above is from the link in the previous post. It is a correct statement. In the Draft version of the 2019 BCCR that was provided to the TAC for review, there indeed was a statement in there that I italicized above. The TAC group agreed with it, and it was included in the first publication of the 2019 BCCR. When a car showed up at an early 2019 race - possibly Road Atlanta - with a decklid that had the rear section upturned to act as a rear spoiler, much discussion between the CEO, TAC and BoD ensued as to whether it should be free or 10 points. The argument that eventually won described it as being true to the roots of the series that promotes innovation. Thus, the italicized statement was removed from the BCCR. Some felt this "muddied" up the rules, but as stated above, this was the final determination.
  11. 1 point
    I wish someone would decide whether this is a performance-based series or cost-based series. If its a performance based series, then this shouldn't be an issue. If its cost-based, then I can understand the "adding parts" argument. I hate how this series remains in this weird purgatory between the two.
  12. 1 point
    I made my own, not bad for my first try. I did brake one of the louvers and had to have it welded back on.
  13. 1 point
    Yes. One of those is adding something to the car. The other is repurposing. This has been a core value of champcar foreva. When did the spoiler thing from a trunk stop being free?
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    "There's a bathroom on the right."
  16. 1 point
    Or I once heard someone make a request to the radio DJ and ask them if they could play Bob Seger's "we were naked from the first" ( instead of "making Thunderbirds") I guess she thought he was singing about being born
  17. 1 point
  18. 1 point
    https://www.shiftupnow.com/press_releases/shell-to-partner-with-round-3-racing-and-shift-up-now-for-champ-car-endurance-series-at-barber-motorsports/
×
×
  • Create New...