Jump to content

Good Bad and Ugly Discussion.


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, petawawarace said:

No. 

 •  Aerodynamic Devices                            

o Spoiler / Wing / Splitter / Diffuser / Aero Pan /Air Dam / Side Skirts: 10 pts/ea                                

  • Aerodynamic devices not to exceed width of bodywork (fenders, bumpers, doors) when                                       viewed from above. Note: Side mirrors are not included in bodywork width. 

 

The answer to the tech desk ticket was just poorly written

Difference in what you posted vs. the tech desk ruling is the tech desk says OE bodywork not to include fender flares...The BCCR, does not specify that you have to use OE bodywork, it just says bodywork.  Therefore, if going by that, one could assume you can take the additional width into consideration.  I get your point and agree with it, however the BCCR does not specify it in the way we are thinking it should.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 433
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Good morning folks.  I had a great discussion with Mike Chisek and Bill Riley yesterday.  I knew that the TAC was working on about 5 or 6 additional cars that need revalued on the VPI list so for 2021

My story.  I'm not one for protesting.  Have never done it. I also understand that post race tech, whether protested by a team or discovered by tech, illegal is illegal.  When I am asked to withdraw m

Just to be clear.  Nobody is upset with GBU for building the car or how the team is or drives.  We are upset with how the series handled teching and point association with this car, both pre and post

Posted Images

1 minute ago, hotchkis23 said:

Difference in what you posted vs. the tech desk ruling is the tech desk says OE bodywork not to include fender flares...The BCCR, does not specify that you have to use OE bodywork, it just says bodywork.  Therefore, if going by that, one could assume you can take the additional width into consideration.  I get your point and agree with it, however the BCCR does not specify it in the way we are thinking it should.

But it does. The BCCR says that no aerodynamic devices may extend past the bodywork. The tech desk clarification states

 

"The maximum width of a wing or splitter is determined by the OE body shape and not by any bodywork added to the car that makes it appear wider. In your case, you cannot include the new fender flares in your measurement and instead must measure from the OE steel fender dimensions."

 

The BCCR lumps them all together as "aerodynamic devices"  The tech desk article asks the question about the "aerodynamic devices" and the answer for some reason says wings and splitters. It is a poorly written response in that sense, but it has to mean all of the "aerodynamic devices", or there needs to be some sort of separation just for wings and splitters.  I'm guessing wings and splitters were mentioned just because they are the most common to exceed the bodywork.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hotchkis23 said:

Difference in what you posted vs. the tech desk ruling is the tech desk says OE bodywork not to include fender flares...The BCCR, does not specify that you have to use OE bodywork, it just says bodywork.  Therefore, if going by that, one could assume you can take the additional width into consideration.  I get your point and agree with it, however the BCCR does not specify it in the way we are thinking it should.

"determined by the OE body shape"  That widebody kit is not OE body shape

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, petawawarace said:

"determined by the OE body shape"  That widebody kit is not OE body shape

Again, that is not in the BCCR, it is on the tech desk..

 

Which begs the question, what is the applicable ruling, the BCCR, or a tech interpretation that you may then find out has also been relayed to 4 or 5 other teams all with different values...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Final Turn Motorsports said:

GBU team owner has reached out to me.  This is part of the last comment he said. 

 

I can all but promise you, everything that is questionable will not be on the car next time around.  He was given a free pass, but has also been on here reading everything. 

Screenshot_20200915-125406_Messenger.jpg

Sad to have come from Gingerman where a protest about the internals of a motor was checked, found to be out of compliance, and the team pushed to ec, but at one of the biggest events of the year, with a car that has multiple rule violations, they are given a free pass...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Final Turn Motorsports said:

GBU team owner has reached out to me.  This is part of the last comment he said. 

 

I can all but promise you, everything that is questionable will not be on the car next time around.  He was given a free pass, but has also been on here reading everything. 

Screenshot_20200915-125406_Messenger.jpg

That is good to hear. And I assume with the experience that he has, he must have been expecting this.

Unfortunately, the fact remains that they still podiumed twice with an illegal car, and it held up.  Can I show upto Daytona with a bunch of illegal parts, win and just say sorry after? I am Canadian after all!!

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hotchkis23 said:

Sad to have come from Gingerman where a protest about the internals of a motor was checked, found to be out of compliance, and the team pushed to ec, but at one of the biggest events of the year, with a car that has multiple rule violations, they are given a free pass...

Seems like the "free pass" should have been when they were in "E" class at their previous race, but then no one cared much since they didn't make it to impound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hotchkis23 said:

Sad to have come from Gingerman where a protest about the internals of a motor was checked, found to be out of compliance, and the team pushed to ec, but at one of the biggest events of the year, with a car that has multiple rule violations, they are given a free pass...

This may be a very unpopular opinion that I am about to share... but here goes:
 

I like that tech has some discretion in penalties. The Gingerman engine issue was a team who got 2nd place by less than a second and was just a couple laps ahead of several more teams. And “wrong engine” is worth at least 50 points (5 laps).
Indy was a different situation, tech added some items to their sheet overnight and it yielded 2 more laps, which is nowhere near their victory margin. (Items that tech thinks are OK but we all know are BS is a different matter entirely)

Edited by enginerd
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, enginerd said:

This may be a very unpopular opinion that I am about to share... but here goes:
 

I like that tech has some discretion in penalties. The Gingerman engine issue was a team who got 2nd place by less than a second and was just a couple laps ahead of several more teams. And “wrong engine” is worth at least 50 points (5 laps).
Indy was a different situation, tech added some items to their sheet overnight and it yielded 2 more laps, which is nowhere near their victory margin. (Items that tech thinks are OK but we all know are BS is a different matter entirely)

 

Not a different matter entirely. 2 laps worth of parts, as we've all pointed out, does not cover all the un-declared items which should have been points. I think with all those items accounted for, it would exceed their MOV.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Final Turn Motorsports said:

GBU team owner has reached out to me.  This is part of the last comment he said. 

 

I can all but promise you, everything that is questionable will not be on the car next time around.  He was given a free pass, but has also been on here reading everything. 

lol...okay. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, enginerd said:

This may be a very unpopular opinion that I am about to share... but here goes:
 

 

Yea its not real popular here.    The Gingerman ruling is how it should work,  the Indy one is not.   Just my opinion, and its worth everything you paid for it.  :)

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, enginerd said:

tech added some items to their sheet overnight and it yielded 2 more laps, which is nowhere near their victory margin...

 

BCCR 5.3.2.1.2. For races 9 to 16 hours, all penalties shall have a multiplier of 1.5.

 

Since Indy was a 10 hour, 18 pts = 3 laps.

 

If you want to get absurd (clearly not the intent) BCCR 5.3.2.1.2 technically applies to BCCR 5.6.1, meaning they should have started 18 laps down on day 2.

Edited by Grufton
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Grufton said:

Seems like the "free pass" should have been when they were in "E" class at their previous race, but then no one cared much since they didn't make it to impound.

That's the way it's always worked in Champcar and frankly, I don't see any issue with it provided we swiftly deal with the issues when a team is on the podium. Just-in-time enforcement seems like a reasonable approach.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDChristianson said:

Yea its not real popular here.    The Gingerman ruling is how it should work,  the Indy one is not.   Just my opinion, and its worth everything you paid for it.  :)

 

I think the difference is that at Indy only one item was protested, the bars, and was found to be legal because it was asked about and claimed for the 10 points on the techsheet. If I found a loophole, asked if OK to do it, did it and passed tech I would not think it was fair to be DQ later for it. From that perspective it would not be fair to them as they did the process correctly by asking and putting in their log book.  I would imagine it will change as we will need to evaluate that rule and put limitations on what the 10 points on a strut/shock tower brace is going forward with two results- not allow it at all or add more points based on the number of bars and contact points with clarification it has to be a complete bolt. Maybe say it can only have X amount of bars max and X amount of contact points.

 

For the other DQ or to EC it was due to stroking and engine and we all know that is not allowed, well I hope we all know. There is not rule to loophole on that I assume, but who knows, maybe I am just not creative enough to know.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Final Turn Motorsports said:

GBU team owner has reached out to me.  This is part of the last comment he said. 

 

I can all but promise you, everything that is questionable will not be on the car next time around.  He was given a free pass, but has also been on here reading everything. 

Screenshot_20200915-125406_Messenger.jpg


That is very respectable of him, however, I don't think we should be relying on the good will of competitors solely to enforce themselves in lieu of tech being willing to do it..

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think tech is willing to do so. When I brought up my concerns to Jay he listened, took notes, explained why certain items are OK and clarified them to me. He then went to the team, addressed the items and added the laps. Since the laps would not have affected the outcome the day before the finish still stayed. I think the process works and tech listens.

 

I think the issue here is that most of the items we are bringing up might not have been known to tech, I want to assume that. These items were not on the protest form to apply it so by the rules what could they do?

 

Personally I do not expect tech to find most things on all of these different platforms and expect teams to show what they have and I think almost all do with good intent. When I go through I bring up all the items I have and they do not know my platform so I have to explain it as to where the points come from. They are heavy into the safety items and I want them to keep me and others safe. I expect the teams to read the rules and apply them. If a team misses things and an honest mistake then add the points and we deal with it. Most of us on the forum have done this a very long time and know the rules well so we can apply them, but a lot of teams do not. I try to give the benefit of the doubt.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

I think tech is willing to do so. When I brought up my concerns to Jay he listened, took notes, explained why certain items are OK and clarified them to me. He then went to the team, addressed the items and added the laps. Since the laps would not have affected the outcome the day before the finish still stayed. I think the process works and tech listens.

 

I think the issue here is that most of the items we are bringing up might not have been known to tech, I want to assume that. These items were not on the protest form to apply it so by the rules what could they do?

 

Personally I do not expect tech to find most things on all of these different platforms and expect teams to show what they have and I think almost all do with good intent. When I go through I bring up all the items I have and they do not know my platform so I have to explain it as to where the points come from. They are heavy into the safety items and I want them to keep me and others safe. I expect the teams to read the rules and apply them. If a team misses things and an honest mistake then add the points and we deal with it. Most of us on the forum have done this a very long time and know the rules well so we can apply them, but a lot of teams do not. I try to give the benefit of the doubt.


Perhaps it would be relevant for @Final Turn Motorsports to share his story to address your points.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2020 at 8:51 PM, MoparBoyy said:

the wilwood 6 piston and 4 piston are in the same casting, so its hard to tell unless you look IN the caliper.

Screen Shot 2020-09-13 at 8.48.48 PM.png

From a photo that was posted, they are the 4 piston version (not sure if someone already pointed that out - this is a LONG thread)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

I think the difference is that at Indy only one item was protested, the bars, and was found to be legal because it was asked about and claimed for the 10 points on the techsheet. If I found a loophole, asked if OK to do it, did it and passed tech I would not think it was fair to be DQ later for it. From that perspective it would not be fair to them as they did the process correctly by asking and putting in their log book.  I would imagine it will change as we will need to evaluate that rule and put limitations on what the 10 points on a strut/shock tower brace is going forward with two results- not allow it at all or add more points based on the number of bars and contact points with clarification it has to be a complete bolt. Maybe say it can only have X amount of bars max and X amount of contact points.

 

For the other DQ or to EC it was due to stroking and engine and we all know that is not allowed, well I hope we all know. There is not rule to loophole on that I assume, but who knows, maybe I am just not creative enough to know.

You are not wrong here Troy.    There are a lot of things in play on the this situation.    My head was really still wrapped up in how a car like this ended up in at a race approved to be at 500 points.    Two different things.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you not on the book of faces, I thought this was an extremely well written synopsis:

"

In seriousness, I have enjoyed this series incredibly for a number of years. This weekend appears to have several of us at a crossroads. There appear to be those who see this Corvette as an excellent read of the rules and then there are those who have complaints about A: the actual legality of many attributes of this build, B: how these items were or weren't claimed by the team and 😄 the Orwellian way in which Champcar declared this build as legal and not to be questioned despite all the evidence to the contrary.

If this kind of build is allowed (and going to be allowed on a broad scale), then that's a direction away from the existing spirit of Champcar. That's fine, but it ought to be properly communicated by the body instead of introduced by a car of (to be generous) questionable point interpretation. I can tell you right now a $10k/weekend tire bill and a build that's exponentially more expensive than the rest of the field are going to send people packing. So I ask Champcar: what's your objective here? What did you think allowing this car would do for the quality of competition? For the objectives of the series? For the motivations of the bulk of us, who don't have access to a pro engineering team, who keep this series in business?

There also appears to be disparity across what's allowed and for whom. Maybe (again, being generous) the approach that Riley took along the build in contacting Champcar to ensure legality of each individual item was something that's never been fully done by another team (although I highly doubt that). Or maybe, at the root of my satire, Champcar needs to more uniformly enforce rules regardless of who the builder is. When Joe Shmoe from Waukeegan shows up with a similar vehicle, I don't think there's a high degree of confidence that it will be treated the same way.

Finally, I have the utmost respect for Riley's achievements. The man and the organization have contributed to and succeeded in racing in ways that the vast majority will never be able to do. And man, would l love to drive that Corvette. However, what's the point of blowing up this little pond?

You don't have to agree with me. Many of you probably won't. But this car has laid bare significant communication and equality of rule implementation issues, not to mention set a precedent for the direction of the series that is concerning to a lot of us."
Edited by Slugworks Paul
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2020 at 12:49 PM, enginerd said:

Never gonna happen. Diesels are lauded for efficiency in street applications only because gasoline engines are very inefficient in street applications. In a race environment the gasoline engine is operating in its most efficient window (WOT all the time) and so the difference between diesel and gas is quite small. A diesel will still be more efficient but it won’t be 200% more efficient... closer to 20% if I had to guess. 

Don’t forget, we run under yellow..allot... 😉

  • Like 1
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...