Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have been contacting the people running for the BOD.  I am writing this to gather support for the two whom I feel will help guide the organization.  Yes, I am trying to manipulate the election by informing voters. (That was intended to be a joke)

All four of the people running are good people; all four want the best for the Champcar.  We differ on where we want the Club to go. 

E. Tyler Pedersen-  Does a great job seeking out sponsorship for Champcar.  Races a BMW e30 in class C.

Doc Waldrop- Is simply a nice guy that works hard for the club.  He has many hats… the least of which seems to be his most public Live Broadcaster during the race.  Races a BMW e30 in class C.

Bernie Myers- Builds ‘hotrods’ and runs his own shop.  Bernie is the only one of the four that I have never talked to in person. Races a ford foci in class B.

Chris Huggins- Engineer.  Races a BMW e30 in class C.

 

First off if you think the origination is perfect you need to vote for both Doc and Tyler as they have been very helpful getting Champcar to where it is now. 

 

I am of the opinion that Champcar is the best thing going right now, but it is teetering away from what it started out to be.  I don’t want to run Lemons and their joke of a paddock mess… WRL and their full tilt racecars are out of my price range.  I want high car counts with affordable cars.  I view some of the new VPI listed cars as beyond what is affordable.  Honestly I want more Chump less Champ.

 

I view the swap calculator as a barrier to entry.  I think some of the fastest cars in the Champcar manipulate this formula/rule to advantage and the day is coming that if you want to be at the pointy end of the field you have to also build something swapped or run one of the new low VPI performance cars.  It will always be easier to build a car running the factory running gear… some people aren’t fabricators but we can swap bolt on parts with the best of you.  I don’t think any of the people running will seek change the swap calculator; like I would.  However I do think Chris and Bernie will seek to address the VPI adjustments on modern expensive sports cars. 

 

I want stricter point limits placed on Aero.  One team claims 5 seconds a lap around the Glen and Sebring with their 10pt huge rear wing.  I don’t believe 5 seconds but what if it is ½ that?  Name something else that is 10pts and worth 2.5 seconds a lap.  You can’t.  You might be able to argue that a racing radiator that keeps the car from overheating is more as it keeps you out of the paddock and on the track.  (I added this sentence just because of the people asking for free radiators and how dumb I feel that is.)  Bernie is only one of the four that might go after aero and try to get more points on it.

 

Chris has a strong history of seeking rules clarification in a public manor and improving our rules for everyone.  Not just those with a direct line to the benevolent dictator or secret hand shake with tech.  There should not be a how tech enforces items supplement to the BCCR.  (Some of which are against the BCCR…in my opinion) The BCCR should clearly cover all items listed in the Rules Interpretation document.    I view this document and the need to have it has a problem with the Champcar.  I think Chris will seek to expand the BCCR to include or specifically exclude these items.  I think he would be an asset to the clarification of our rules to potential builders and tech.  To some a thicker BCCR is devils talk… you can vote for Doc and Tyler.  One of the best things about Champcar is we have the same tech people at every event I go to.  If you can make them happy at one event you’re not going to run into crazy surprises 7 hours away from home at the next event.   But I think it would help the image of Champcar if rules that aren’t or are in the BCCR are being enforced by supplementary documents that aren’t widely known about.   

 

In short I am supporting Chris Huggins and Bernie Myers and I encourage others to as well. 

 

I guess one of the reasons that both Tyler and Doc won’t get my vote is a strong resistance to putting the rabbit back in the hat.  You can put it back in… you can close obvious loop holes… by addressing them in the rules.  Also I think both have played a part in the divergence / teetering of Champcar.

Both Doc and Tyler want to attack free parts as part of their declaration statements…(first isn’t that putting the genie back in the bottle? Something neither of them wants to do) Let’s look at the free parts we get:   

  • ·         ECU’s are now a free part.  Factory ECU’s cannot be policed: period end of sentence.  Opening them up is actually the right thing to do.  I run a fancy ECU on my car it didn’t cost huge $ just lots of sweat wiring it in ... Closing the ECU rule will cost me money because then I have to have someone program my factory box… dumb.  My car is going to go the same speed either way.

  • ·         Springs are a freeish part now.  What we had before was great, I liked it until I realized that anyone running a 944 had a competitive advantage due to the nature of the unseen torsion bars hiding the rear.  They could run full on racing parts without points because no one can see what they are doing.  To level the playing field an adjustment had to happen or do we just concede 944’s need to be the best handling cars on the track?  

  • ·         Air intake before the throttle body is free now.  Who runs an OEM air filter… one guy that had the best designed factory part ever… the rest of us all monkey around with this.  This is perfectly fine to open up because everyone has done this: Level playing field.  Everyone got a few points freed up here and we all get what we want.  I view this as fair.

  • ·         Clutch is free… are they wanting to put points on my pressure plate? Dumb.  Tech is never going to look at it.

  • ·         Brake pads are free…  last time I checked we all have racecars here so this seems fair.

  • ·         Brake cooling is free…

  • ·         Manifolds on swaps are free… neither Doc nor Tyler are likely to go after either of these items.  (they shouldn’t be free)

  • ·         Hand tool mods are free…  I can only think that this Tech interpretation needs to be included in the BCCR.

  • ·         Wheel spacers are freeish… at most shouldn’t this be included into the cost of the 2x on the wheel?  (as this is just used to mount a wheel that isn’t perfect for a car)

  • ·         I think the big one is suspension bushings are free… but if I understand this again is because Tech has to be able to enforce rules.  Some cars have hidden bushings and short of full on disassembly reality hits and to level the playing field bushings are free.  I don’t like this but reality sometimes stinks.  

  • ·         Power steering components are free…  I think Tech has bigger fish to fry than what widget is in someone’s steering rack.  Who cares?  I don’t.  (this may help old American cars more than newer German cars or miata’s that run power steering without fluid, but again who cares?)

  • ·         The screens on my radiator are free… if I make the mesh tight enough on my screen I can make a free air dam.  Seriously who cares?

Free parts aren’t the best true but honestly they are a forum problem, in reality they help level the playing field.   I listed 12 free parts above… I think 11 should remain free; the other needs to be corrected.  

 

Flame on... ;). I don't expect to be popular but maybe I can help Chris and Bernie by giving my opinion.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait what?

 

You wrote:

"I guess one of the reasons that both Tyler and Doc won’t get my vote is a strong resistance to putting the rabbit back in the hat.  You can put it back in… you can close obvious loop holes… by addressing them in the rules.  Also I think both have played a part in the divergence / teetering of Champcar.

 

Both Doc and Tyler want to attack free parts as part of their declaration statements…(first isn’t that putting the genie back in the bottle? Something neither of them wants to do) Let’s look at the free parts we get:"   

 

Then you proceeded to write 12 items that are free and then wrote:

 

"Free parts aren’t the best true but honestly they are a forum problem, in reality they help level the playing field.   I listed 12 free parts above… I think 11 should remain free; the other needs to be corrected."  

 

 

What do you want exactly?  

 

Do you want the free parts to not be free, or are you okay with them?  I am VERY confused.  Why do you NOT believe the declaration statements?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your support Ben. It will be tough to beat the incumbents they put us where we are today. But with that being said I do agree with many of the issues you bring up, that's why I decided to try and run. The barn door was opened up with the changes made to the Vehicle Performance Index and the Fixed Point Value List but it's time to close the door, bite the bullet and make some adjustments to close up the gaps made.  

 

Areo is a bit concerning. Never has such a big improvement in performance been given so little points. Active Areo needs to be addressed not just for those that may be using it but to also stop a team from developing it. 

 

2.5 points per hub is also low. It's a safety item yes but if I have better hubs I'm now going to run wider rims & tires. And with some areo update I just knocked off 4 seconds in lap time for little in a points penalty.           

 

The electric power steering needs to be looked at before that gets out of hand.

 

I've mentioned that I have written some rule books and there have been mistakes. But I've never made a decision on my own to change a rule mid season. I have always looked to the members for their opinion and if we had a majority vote we would change the rule.

 

Thanks again for your support Ben. I hope to be able to answer anyone's questions

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Wait what?

 

I might need to say that twice. 
 

I honestly appreciate the stated objective of informing the electorate.  But it got really confusing after that.  In addition to Rob’s confusion:

Green font normally means sarcasm in this forum.  Is that what you meant with the green?   Because they don’t seem like sarcastic remarks.  Please edit the original post rather than answer me or Rob - I think that would be simpler.  Thanks!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread may become the “talk about all of the candidates” thread (each candidate seems to have their own individual thread), I would like to make one remark:

 

Temperament may be a more important characteristic in a BOD member than viewpoint on swaps, free stuff, etc.  

 

Being an effective board member in this type of organization requires the ability to listen to other points of view that you strongly oppose, and work towards compromises that are sometimes quite a ways off from your core beliefs. 
It also requires working just as hard for the people you don’t like as you do for the ones you like. And you are guaranteed to get all sorts of grief from some of the forum guys no matter WHAT you do.  A person that will get wrapped around the axle about that last point won’t make good decisions in the long term. 


@Jer has been pretty impressive on the temperament issue, although if you dig long enough you can surely find where even he lost his patience with some ungrateful member.  He is a good one to compare the current slate to. 
Just my 2 cents.  

 

Edited by Racer28173
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ablesnead said:

I think that the Champ versus Chump line was a good one....I support the champ direction moving forward..

As those of us who were here from the start are slowly but effectively pushed out..... more money, more R&D, more aero, more free stuff, .......................I don't even know what electric power steering is but I'm gathering it is a performance upgrade, nor do I understand why or how someone buys upgraded hubs.  Never in the 15 years of driving an E36 has someone suggested I upgrade my hubs.... ???  Why should I care?

 

That being said, the introduction of aero is just the next sweeping change that will push more of us mid-packers off the entry lists...

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben you have written a lot of words of your thoughts and the forum is open to all to read and post. It is a members forum.

I see from your signature you have been a member since 2016 which is a few years now and I might suggest you need to look back much further

and deeper on many of the free items you write about and it would be helpful for you to understand the process that got all those free items before

you  look to  link them to certain BOD.

 

Another thing you might want to look at would be the roles that Doc and Tyler are currently doing on the BOD. Doc is the secretary I believe and yes you

note him on the live boardcast and a current E30 racer. You may find he does much more than you may think. As for Tyler his task is the role of finding 

and signing all of the sponsors, with out which not sure the club would operate well. He and Rich I believe also were tasked with oversight of the TAC group.

 

I'm not here to take anything away from your right to be open and pull for who you see is best, nor will I flame you on your subject matter but I would encourage you to 

look deeper than it appears you have. Most of the free stuff you mentioned happened before any of those present were board members. You may think it is easy to roll

that stuff back but once a team has built to that standard its hard to change and cost lots of money. One of the "free everything" does not even race with Champcar anymore.

The two present you have asked to vote out have done many great things for the present day Champcar.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

change doesn't have to push anyone out....as in life in general ...you evolve ....that said, I would like to see older builds given performance and reliability boosts in order to remain competitive....some are as loyal to a particular car as to the series

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ablesnead said:

change doesn't have to push anyone out....as in life in general ...you evolve ....that said, I would like to see older builds given performance and reliability boosts in order to remain competitive....some are as loyal to a particular car as to the series

 

This sort of thing is already happening, but only certain cars have benifited from it.  The E30 specifically has been allowed to swap engines at a much high power to weight value than most other cars on the VPI list, and the Miata and 240SX both receive free performance parts when swapping engines because it was argued that it could not be done without those free parts.

 

The system struggles with parity, and it gives to some while taking away from others.  It's a problem that can't be removed completely due to the larqe disparity in cars that are used, but allowances have been made in ways that arguably robbed Peter to pay Paul, and it's why we took the old car to someone else's sandbox.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me address a few things here...

 

1st, the e30 was adjusted by 7 points.  That's less than the adjustment of the aftermarket hubs.

 

Every car that swaps that can not use stock exhaust manifolds can use manifolds that fit.  Not just miata and 240.

 

Just look at the recent top 5 of any race and tell me there isn't some "different" builds and cars that are not the usual expected cars.

 

I guess I'm just not seeing where any cars are deemed uncompetitive by the current set of rules.

 

There are of course exceptions.  Fuel limited cars come to mind.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Let me address a few things here...

 

1st, the e30 was adjusted by 7 points.  That's less than the adjustment of the aftermarket hubs.

 

Every car that swaps that can not use stock exhaust manifolds can use manifolds that fit.  Not just miata and 240.

 

Just look at the recent top 5 of any race and tell me there isn't some "different" builds and cars that are not the usual expected cars.

 

I guess I'm just not seeing where any cars are deemed uncompetitive by the current set of rules.

 

There are of course exceptions.  Fuel limited cars come to mind.  

Show me a competitive E36....  😉

 

Bimmerline at VIR, .... anyone else? Bueller?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben won gingerman this year....

 

I think he took 4th in the championship.

 

Is that not competitive?

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Ben won gingerman this year....

 

I think he took 4th in the championship.

 

Is that not competitive?


@dogtired


A decent budget-build on an E36 with good drivers could have won a good portion of the races this year. 

Edited by red0
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, red0 said:


@dogtired


A decent budget-build on an E36 with good drivers could have won a good portion of the races this year. 

I realize my shortcomings from a driver's standpoint... curious what a "decent budget build" looks like...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Let me address a few things here...

 

1st, the e30 was adjusted by 7 points.  That's less than the adjustment of the aftermarket hubs.

 

Every car that swaps that can not use stock exhaust manifolds can use manifolds that fit.  Not just miata and 240.

 

Just look at the recent top 5 of any race and tell me there isn't some "different" builds and cars that are not the usual expected cars.

 

I guess I'm just not seeing where any cars are deemed uncompetitive by the current set of rules.

 

There are of course exceptions.  Fuel limited cars come to mind.  

 

My big gripe is the free parts.

 

If an engine doesn't fit, it shouldn't get free parts to make it fit, especially parts that increase power output and I think you agree on that.

 

The 240SX can not be made competitive in today's field of cars without an engine swap.  An engine swap that benifits from a free oil pan and free intake manifold.  Those parts should be points, and the base VPI of the car should be lowered accordingly (like the MR2) to give it at least a chance at being competitive without the swap.

 

I don't even race one anymore, and the value still annoys me.

 

And the E30 value isn't about the number of points it went down, it's how they did it that chaps my ass.  It was a backroom deal, done in secret, and snuck in to the rules for the benifit of just a few teams.  I actually don't disagree with M50 E30s competing at 500 points, but how we got there is scuzzy and I don't like it.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SonsOfIrony said:

 

And the E30 value isn't about the number of points it went down, it's how they did it that chaps my ass.  It was a backroom deal, done in secret, and snuck in to the rules for the benifit of just a few teams.  I actually don't disagree with M50 E30s competing at 500 points, but how we got there is scuzzy and I don't like it.

Preach!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SonsOfIrony said:

 

My big gripe is the free parts.

 

If an engine doesn't fit, it shouldn't get free parts to make it fit, especially parts that increase power output and I think you agree on that.

 

The 240SX can not be made competitive in today's field of cars without an engine swap.  An engine swap that benifits from a free oil pan and free intake manifold.  Those parts should be points, and the base VPI of the car should be lowered accordingly (like the MR2) to give it at least a chance at being competitive without the swap.

 

I don't even race one anymore, and the value still annoys me.

 

And the E30 value isn't about the number of points it went down, it's how they did it that chaps my ass.  It was a backroom deal, done in secret, and snuck in to the rules for the benifit of just a few teams.  I actually don't disagree with M50 E30s competing at 500 points, but how we got there is scuzzy and I don't like it.

 

This!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SonsOfIrony said:

And the E30 value isn't about the number of points it went down, it's how they did it that chaps my ass.  It was a backroom deal, done in secret, and snuck in to the rules for the benifit of just a few teams.  I actually don't disagree with M50 E30s competing at 500 points, but how we got there is scuzzy and I don't like it.

The main point of contention for me was that the E30 did not go down in points; instead, the Powers That Be tried to sneak in a rule lawyer trick that has essentially defeated the swap calculator's purpose.

 

The final nail in the coffin of the swap calculator came this year, when any accountability of the "fudge factor" manipulation of the swap calculator was removed by this addition/"clarification":

4.5.2.1. “weight” refers to the ChampCar Swap Performance Value of that make and model, as determined by ChampCar. 

 

So it is whatever Champcar says it is. No more backlash from backroom deals, no more concerns with Toyotas that use weights that are either borrowed from another model or just plain fictitious, no attempts at making the swap calculator relevant to actual power to weight ratios that are seen on the track despite having taken the time and effort to investigate those numbers. 

 

Perhaps the phone numbers of those who voted for this travesty should be listed so the people who have complaints about swapped cars can call them directly.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna pile on...

 

Whoever voted to allow some cars to be considered the same platform, and other cats NOT to be considered the same platform while swapping in the higher cars engine should be pointed out as well...

 

S2 swap into 944 for a handy example.

 

If that swap is to be allowed, change the vpi, don't just look the other way on the rule.

 

In other words, vpi seems to be the variable that is "allowed" to be changed.  Not the weight, or hp, or "platform".

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wvumtnbkr said:

I'm gonna pile on...

 

Whoever voted to allow some cars to be considered the same platform, and other cats NOT to be considered the same platform while swapping in the higher cars engine should be pointed out as well...

 

S2 swap into 944 for a handy example.

 

If that swap is to be allowed, change the vpi, don't just look the other way on the rule.

 

In other words, vpi seems to be the variable that is "allowed" to be changed.  Not the weight, or hp, or "platform".

 

 

 

Yah the 944 shenanigans is a whole other thing that just bottles my mind.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SonsOfIrony said:

 

Yah the 944 shenanigans is a whole other thing that just bottles my mind.

Haha!  Not sure if that was a typo or not.  I always say " that's mind bottling".  Just to see people reactions...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Haha!  Not sure if that was a typo or not.  I always say " that's mind bottling".  Just to see people reactions...

Haha. Love it.   You sure that version of the saying didn’t originate in the presence of Tyler. 🤪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, mender said:

The final nail in the coffin of the swap calculator came this year, when any accountability of the "fudge factor" manipulation of the swap calculator was removed

Yep.  The lack of accountability is the big deal to me.  There is no longer a need to worry about facts or logic in the swap “math”

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Haha!  Not sure if that was a typo or not.  I always say " that's mind bottling".  Just to see people reactions...

 

Definitely not a typo lol.  It's so crazy "it's like my mind is in a bottle".  I also enjoy the reaction it gets from certain people.  Just like intentionally saying "for all intensive purposes" lol.

Edited by SonsOfIrony
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...