Jump to content

Jer

ChampCar Staff
  • Content Count

    3,774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Jer last won the day on November 15

Jer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,616

1 Follower

About Jer

  • Birthday 09/07/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Denver, Colorado but race everywhere
  • Interests
    racing, fishing, hiking.

Recent Profile Visitors

10,811 profile views
  1. Thank YOU. We sure are trying.
  2. If I had the energy/time/know how to build a new car by myself, I'd build an SC300. Strip the hell out of it and win.
  3. I'm not on the TAC, but I would say the VPI table is there to try to equalize cars from a performance standpoint, i.e. their ability to do well. Fuel should be part of that equation.
  4. We have two Board members who also work closely with the TAC. I actually do not feel comfortable addressing the calculator. I would prefer @riche30 or @E. Tyler Pedersen address this. I don't want to mistep in speaking about it, and that is not my forte in any case.
  5. We never had a TAC before that took such a comprehensive look at the cars. They did a great job IMHO. Are they perfect? No one is perfect. In knocking the Thunderbird back to 250, we as as Board recognize that it hasn't been a dominating car, and we wanted to soften the blow. Every year cars will be looked at, and maybe this car gets a future adjustment...or maybe not. The compelling reason the final 50 point bump IS fuel capacity. We discussed this specifically last night. So I would argue that this is proof we DID take the fuel capacity into account when assigning value to this generation of Thunderbird. And please don't kill the messenger, I'm delivering what was decided as a TAC, adjusted down a bit as a Board in the interest of perceived or real fairness.
  6. This is most definitely a safety rule. Cars climbing others and rolling is a safety issue, not a competition issue. We are trying to keep the series safe. If these rules do indeed affect 50% or more of the cars and that is overkill, we will scale back how we test for it. The idea is to get the cars that have a tire sticking way out to make their cars safe in close quarters.
  7. We will use the rest of the year to figure out the best way to implement testing. That will be announced to the members around year end and will definitely be in effect for Road Atlanta. Right now we are leaning towards the 11 and 1 test and go from there. But we want to see that in practice before we make anything final.
  8. Cobras were not addressed. I have no idea, please send a note to the TAC.
  9. The only change was the Thunderbird. The VPIs are already posted except that change made last night. I'm not sure when the point change will be posted, but i assume in the next day or two. I'll address the swap calculator later, I have to get ready for work.
  10. You are very welcome. We also had a "lively" conversation about repurposing materials from a car. The debate orbited around these parameters: 1) we don't want cars to be hacked up and look like junkyard wannabes. If we allow for repurposing across the board, hoods could become splitters and spoilers, as an example. 2) this was countered by not wanting to take away the advantage of ingenuity and creativity. I remember the rusty Cougar flipped trunk lid. We all marveled at the creativity involved. 3) There also is a 60% of body panels mandate, so we can't get too carried away. But if a team spent no money and created a better use for a component on the car, should that be penalized? The TAC recommended (but it wasn't unanimous) that if items are repurposed, and they are now things that carry a point value, they get the points. Some members of the Board also feel that way, others did not. Please let me confirm what the outcome was before I post further. I think I know what it is, but let me confirm. I feel bad for tech, because they are simply trying to enforce the rules as written or given to them as we are sometimes moving the bar on them. This might be another one of those cases.
  11. As a Board we discussed the Thunderbird last night and opted to find middle ground. Instead of going from 200 to 300 points, we went from 200 to 250 points. This will help those teams, but still account for the almost 50% increase in fuel capacity over the Mustangs.
  12. Guys, we had a Board meeting last night and discussed this at length. Conclusions and changes: 1) We've only had three cars climb others in the history of the club. 2) This is being addressed now because more and more, we are seeing larger tires and rims stuffed under cars and are sticking out more than ever. We are trying to address that before it becomes an issue. 3) The video and interpretation should not have been posted because it had not been discussed yet by the Board. We are going to use the last five races of 2018 to try different things, see how this goes in tech, and potentially alter how the rule is interpreted. Using a 10 and 2 measurement, we might catch a lot of cars out that really don't pose a problem, including in some case stock wheel/tire setups on certain cars. that is not the goal. To help, we have moved the measurement points to 11 and 1 and let's see what this turns into. It is not set in stone and we can change how we implement and test this.
  13. I think as a part that doesn't have an assigned value, you use material cost. I'm using plastic so...Measure your flares and do your calc.
×