Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Is the middle ground that location where everyone has to follow the rules? I'm happy to compete against teams with deep pockets, if they don't get the rules rewritten for them!

I'll be honest.  Bracket endurance racing sounds like The most boring thing in the world.  Who wants to drive around with a bunch of rich guys who are either sand bagging, or sucky drivers.  Hard pass

I will answer one of the issues. I thank every team I meet at every race I go to which is 99% of the races. I thank them for choosing us to race with, and I hope they come back. I know for a fact

Posted Images

31 minutes ago, Lethal Cliff said:

This thread was meant to get people to calm down.  Now you people are in the middle of another pissing match.  Give CHAMPCAR time to make a damn decision. 

 

10 minutes ago, Final Turn Motorsports said:

Sounds like the decision was already made, if you read the comments. 

 

yep, tech already came in here and said the car is legal then taunted people to protest it. 🙄

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

 

yep, tech already came in here and said the car is legal then taunted people to protest it. 🙄

To be completely fair, I don't think he taunted protesting.  I think he was saying "wanna bet".  

 

Just trying to be totally clear.

 

I'm very curious.

 

Also, the idea Tyler floated of reteching the car with a member of the TAC around is a suggestion.  Not fact.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paulie said:

I’m easily confused as you all know, so you’re wanting, let’s say, basic ‘88 Civic to automatically be assessed a higher VPI even if “all possible mods” (which sounds difficult to discern) are not there?  Where should they draw the line on “all possible mods”?  Type R platform swap? Seems like that would be unfair to the extreme to the entry level cars coming in and a moving target best solved by using the baseline and points additive system already in place.  Please elaborate.  

Hey Paulie  

Nate pretty well covered this I think.  I will try to better explain what I mean.   

I think you have to take xyz car and first think how good is it after all the free stuff is done.   Brakes upgraded, shocks upgraded, suspension bushings changed, cut stock springs,. holes drilled and camber improved,  a frame shop has properly pulled the strut towers together after hours for a 12 pack,   ecu tuned, exhaust flow improved, air intake improved, fuel cell and surge tank added to max capacity or the vent in the stock tank is monkeyed with to get 3 or 4 gallons more in.  Wheels and tires are maxed out and repurposed material is used for flares and aero.  Its had 400 pounds taken out of it.   and so on. Then how much power does the swap calculator allow this car to have?  145hp? 275?   How much power is available with intake and head swaps, a header, how much might this car benefit from a full aero package and further suspension modifications?  and so on.   So then you start getting the idea that this car should be capable of xx lap times with yy points added.  If base vpi + YY is only 375 and not close to 500 there is potential for a problem.    

 

You really have to point value the cars understanding how fast they can be at 500 points.   Not looking at how good or bad they are in stock form,  because they are not raced in stock form.   If one team can get safely get car xyz below 2000lbs then that is the bar and that is what should be thought about in the valuation process.   Setting point values assuming half baked builds and low to moderate driving is not how it should be done.   That's how I see the world anyway.    

 

   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ray Franck said:

  Sorry I left the ass out .

  As for the rest of this, what ever the rest of this is, you are entirely incorrect.  Read the rules please, no tube frame chassis are allowed.  The rest of this is so far out it is not worth the time to correct.  

   I will no longer comment here as it is toxic, and not doing anyone any good. 

     Anyone would like to contact Thomas , Jay or I you can do so by email, that and our numbers are on the website . 

Oh there was plenty of ass in your post, don’t worry. You entirely missed the point. You claimed that the TUBE FRAME CHASSIS on GBU which had been classified as a “strut tower brace” should actually just be assessed as materials, despite being entirely illegal. If that’s how you’re going to interpret the “rules” then I should be able to do anything I want and just claim material points. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow !    Now all the EXPERTS are coming out about the Greenwood cars.  The more that is said the more you guys make yourself look foolish.   I had a good relationship with John Greenwood.   Why do you all think that the entire body was replaced ?   Maybe the flares were just grafted on the original body, very common back in the early days.   I could graft on those panels today and leave 80% of the original body if I had to,   60% would be an absolute piece of cake.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Final Turn Motorsports said:

I want to see that car with doors open and look at that cage. 

 

Just don't see how this is not more than a 8 point cage.  

Screenshot_20200914-205311_Facebook.jpg

3.2.10. Roll-cages MAY contain a maximum of 2 tubes inside the front engine or storage compartment and each tube MUST terminate prior to the centerline of the front axle.

 

So in that picture there are four bars that are beyond the firewall, on set to the frame, and one set to the strut tower, and then the apparently tech interpreted "strut brace" that in no way ties the two strut towers together..

 

The wording of this rule to me means that teams can, if they choose, have 2 bars MAXIMUM inside the engine compartment...I don't see that as a grey area, but maybe I'm too literal...

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDChristianson said:

Hey Paulie  

Nate pretty well covered this I think.  I will try to better explain what I mean.   

I think you have to take xyz car and first think how good is it after all the free stuff is done.   Brakes upgraded, shocks upgraded, suspension bushings changed, cut stock springs,. holes drilled and camber improved,  a frame shop has properly pulled the strut towers together after hours for a 12 pack,   ecu tuned, exhaust flow improved, air intake improved, fuel cell and surge tank added to max capacity or the vent in the stock tank is monkeyed with to get 3 or 4 gallons more in.  Wheels and tires are maxed out and repurposed material is used for flares and aero.  Its had 400 pounds taken out of it.   and so on. Then how much power does the swap calculator allow this car to have?  145hp? 275?   How much power is available with intake and head swaps, a header, how much might this car benefit from a full aero package and further suspension modifications?  and so on.   So then you start getting the idea that this car should be capable of xx lap times with yy points added.  If base vpi + YY is only 375 and not close to 500 there is potential for a problem.    

 

You really have to point value the cars understanding how fast they can be at 500 points.   Not looking at how good or bad they are in stock form,  because they are not raced in stock form.   If one team can get safely get car xyz below 2000lbs then that is the bar and that is what should be thought about in the valuation process.   Setting point values assuming half baked builds and low to moderate driving is not how it should be done.   That's how I see the world anyway.    

 

   

Success!  And usually I have half a dozen questions before I understand  anything.  Thanks for taking the time to type all that out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hotchkis23 said:

3.2.10. Roll-cages MAY contain a maximum of 2 tubes inside the front engine or storage compartment and each tube MUST terminate prior to the centerline of the front axle.

 

So in that picture there are four bars that are beyond the firewall, on set to the frame, and one set to the strut tower, and then the apparently tech interpreted "strut brace" that in no way ties the two strut towers together..

 

The wording of this rule to me means that teams can, if they choose, have 2 bars MAXIMUM inside the engine compartment...I don't see that as a grey area, but maybe I'm too literal...

Yeah, I’ve heard this same argument since that Sunday.  But the rule book also states later that points would be assessed for anything added that’s not free, so that may be a loophole they seemed to have exploited. I haven’t heard anyone else say that, it’s just what my easily distracted mind went too when all hell broke loose on FB.  What about that?  If that’s the case, then the center line rule is really more for the free side of cage engineering.  I mean why else have a rule later that says basically BTW, if you add more you’ll get points??  It’s like an invitation.  What do you think?

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

3.2.10. Roll-cages MAY contain a maximum of 2 tubes inside the front engine or storage compartment and each tube MUST terminate prior to the centerline of the front axle.

 

So in that picture there are four bars that are beyond the firewall, on set to the frame, and one set to the strut tower, and then the apparently tech interpreted "strut brace" that in no way ties the two strut towers together..

 

The wording of this rule to me means that teams can, if they choose, have 2 bars MAXIMUM inside the engine compartment...I don't see that as a grey area, but maybe I'm too literal...

 

That's for the "free zero-value roll cage".  I have never ready anything that says you can't build a full-blown tube frame - as long as you take points.  Bolt-on tubular front sub-frames are only 10 points now.  And I believe, per the tech desk, that extra frame tubes are valued at 1 pt per linear foot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I see more landing pads than 8 in that chassis.

 

I'll need better pics.

 

Two for the bars going to each a pillar.  2 for the main hoop.  2 for the rear down bars.   2 extra between a and b pillar bars.

 

Am I missing something?

 

That pic shows the a pillar and an extra extra landing pad.  That's a total of 4 if the other side is the same.

 

I'm not saying the car is legal (poi ts for all the metal to put the rear End in is still up for debate, I'm just not seeing enough for definitive proof.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEE DEE said:

Wow !    Now all the EXPERTS are coming out about the Greenwood cars.  The more that is said the more you guys make yourself look foolish.   I had a good relationship with John Greenwood.   Why do you all think that the entire body was replaced ?   Maybe the flares were just grafted on the original body, very common back in the early days.   I could graft on those panels today and leave 80% of the original body if I had to,   60% would be an absolute piece of cake.   

 

literally the only person to say Greenwood car is you.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, karman1970 said:

 

That's for the "free zero-value roll cage".  I have never ready anything that says you can't build a full-blown tube frame - as long as you take points.  Bolt-on tubular front sub-frames are only 10 points now.  And I believe, per the tech desk, that extra frame tubes are valued at 1 pt per linear foot.

Accurate. However, a picture of the GBU logbook was posted and it did not have a line item for “extra roll cage bars beyond the free cage”. So we assume that they did not claim and were not assessed for adding extra bars. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wvumtnbkr said:

 

That pic shows the a pillar and an extra extra landing pad.  That's a total of 4 if the other side is the same.

 

 

that picture final turn posted is the front of the firewall, not inside the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

that picture final turn posted is the front of the firewall, not inside the car.

*edit* I now retract my prior statement which I will leave below 
 

 

I guess you can ask the question: “does the a-pillar bar have to terminate behind the firewall”? Perhaps the a-pillar on the corvette sticks far enough forward that the bar we see IS the a-pillar bar?

Edited by enginerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, enginerd said:

I guess you can ask the question: “does the a-pillar bar have to terminate behind the firewall”? Perhaps the a-pillar on the corvette sticks far enough forward that the bar we see IS the a-pillar bar?

 

the BCCR states "Max 2 tubes in front compartment"

  • 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...