Jump to content

ABR-Glen

Members
  • Content Count

    3,539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

ABR-Glen last won the day on June 17

ABR-Glen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,343

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Minneapolis

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Don't you feel that the VPI is supposed to represent the maximum potential of the car, not the average?
  2. I'm not naive to the fact that there are people out there doing things they know they shouldn't because they know they will get away with them. But I believe it's the responsibility of the series to protect me from them. To have a representative of the series validate that way of thinking will only encourage more people to do it. If everyone is doing the same then that would be fair, but I don't see Champcar lasting long with a "stock appearing" type ruleset. Like I said in my first post, if you want to take these opportunities to rework these unenforceable areas into rules that reflect the actual enforcement, I'm fine with that. I have plenty of knowledge and skill to compete in a series with an "open" rulebook (but I probably won't because I already know I'll end up getting beat by the guys spending more money). However as a series representative I don't think you should be promoting undetectable modifications, every modification is supposed to be declared.
  3. Hopefully we get a chance to vote on our TAC members in the future and I can support someone who's opinion better represents mine.
  4. I'm disappointed to see a TAC member using this train of thought. Not being able to verify something at the track is not a license to break the rules, anyone who does is a cheater. If you want to use these types of scenarios to write rules that are more enforceable, that would be great so that us "legal eagles" aren't getting beat by cheaters when the series can't tell the difference. Don't give people justification to make undetectable modifications though.
  5. It's huge, and yet some people think it's not big enough. How would this standardized system allocate points in a way that came up with at least 300 points of difference for those two cars just based on their specs? A truly terrible car would likely end up below zero, but so what, there isn't even a good way to spend that many points with the value of things going down every year.
  6. I don't think it's a bad idea, but it sure seems contrary to the idea of promoting the "variety" that some are so fond of. Without the "fudge factor" of vpi, how are you going to throw a bone to a car that doesn't perform as well in the real world as it does on paper? Compare specs of a fox body Mustang to the "golden standard" E36 and see if you can find a way to justify the current difference in vpi (which is often debated)
  7. And they never will if people quit asking for it, but I agree with Andrew. The bend seems more appropriate for this group. If people want to run the kink there are other options.
  8. Not exactly light at 19 lbs https://www.summitracing.com/parts/usm-u10215906550
  9. I don't have a problem with using more weight breaks if it gives the intended results a cross all cars equally. I'm surprised it works that we'll for the MR2, but does the same work for a Miata, RX7, Integra, or 944? I also think there is zero chance they would implement your idea about having separate weights for awd or convertible models, they will want to keep it simpler than that. OTOH, I like the suggestion of using the lightest weight instead of the heaviest, it's probably closer to as-raced weight.
  10. ABR-Glen

    2019 Brainerd

    *sad face*
  11. Why would you allow someone to do a swap on an NA MR2 and get more power than the turbo for less points? That's exactly the situation the old 4.5.6 was trying to prevent. Why should it matter whether the best engine for a given chassis was turbo or not?
  12. Seems like you need to replace your E36 "easy button" while you are in there, been a rough few races
  13. Sort of a "rip the whole bandaid off at once" theory? Couldn't be any worse I suppose.
  14. Clearly the TAC must have discussed these changes and have logical reasons for making them, will that reasoning be explained publicly? I'm not saying everything needs explanation and I fully understand that it would likely foster disagreement/debate, just curious if any details will be shared. I'm all for the transparency that keeps being discussed.
×