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

58 minutes ago, enginerd said:

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. 

And now everyone can see why they never wanted to publish the log books. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, enginerd said:
1 hour ago, enginerd said:

 

1 hour ago, enginerd said:
1 hour ago, enginerd said:

 

 

1 hour ago, enginerd said:

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. 

You know what happens when you assume, right? Haha! 
 

Edited by Paulie
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So......2 bars maximum in front of the firewall.....does not say that more will be added points... or assessed by tech....it says maximum...am i wrong in this interpretation/literal reading of the rule that any lay man tech inspector should be able to interpret?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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.   

Nobody cares. And once again, you tromp into a thread, acting like some anonymous expert (who now hob-knobbed with John Greenwood, and probably partied with John DeLorean and maybe dated Bo Derek), and in reality, you don't have a clue. 

It's not a Greenwood kit. Nobody said it was a Greenwood kit except you. The one-piece front end, cove vents, doors and rear 1-piece exactly match the old Eckler's "Turbo" widebody kit. Those molds were eventually sold, and another manufacturer continued them, also calling them a "Turbo" kit. 

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

So......2 bars maximum in front of the firewall.....does not say that more will be added points... or assessed by tech....it says maximum...am i wrong in this interpretation/literal reading of the rule that any lay man tech inspector should be able to interpret?

This is what I brought to Jay's attention minutes into impound, that and that it went further forward than the "front axle".
image.png.2d11bb8c2a75f7e6f9a8e90b01b9049b.png

I was told that the BCCR shows that this is part of the maximum "free roll cage", and that they would be assessed points by the material rules for additional material.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hotchkis23 said:

So......2 bars maximum in front of the firewall.....does not say that more will be added points... or assessed by tech....it says maximum...am i wrong in this interpretation/literal reading of the rule that any lay man tech inspector should be able to interpret?

3.2.17. In order to prevent massively expensive roll-cages that start to look and act like a tube-frame chassis, ChampCar  

has defined the “maximum, value-free” roll-cage. The “maximum, value-free” roll-cage includes all pads, points, tubes and triangulations necessary to maintain an  

extremely high degree of safety, while keeping costs in- check and competition well-balanced. Teams MAY exceed the design and application of the “maximum, value-free” roll-cage; however, additional value will be assessed by the Tech Inspector, based on the perceived performance enhancement of the roll-cage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tech does not actually care what the rule book says. they only care their opinion with the car in front of them.  they will change that opinion of rules depending on which car they are are looking at.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Snorman said:

Nobody cares. And once again, you tromp into a thread, acting like some anonymous expert (who now hob-knobbed with John Greenwood, and probably partied with John DeLorean and maybe dated Bo Derek), and in reality, you don't have a clue. 

It's not a Greenwood kit. Nobody said it was a Greenwood kit except you. The one-piece front end, cove vents, doors and rear 1-piece exactly match the old Eckler's "Turbo" widebody kit. Those molds were eventually sold, and another manufacturer continued them, also calling them a "Turbo" kit. 

Must be someone cares about the bodywork it was mentioned. You act as if this forum was your own playground for you and your little buddies who always agree with each other.  Your knowledge of this subject is pathetic and contributes absolutely zero to the discussion.    If you really knew Greenwood you would not have made that comment but I being an owner of the Greenwood customer cars I really do know more than you. 

As they say in baseball  "another swing and a miss"

Next time you google dig deeper you haven't even scratched the surface yet.

You & your group need to take a deep breath.   ha ha

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEE DEE said:

Must be someone cares about the bodywork it was mentioned. You act as if this forum was your own playground for you and your little buddies who always agree with each other.  Your knowledge of this subject is pathetic and contributes absolutely zero to the discussion.    If you really knew Greenwood you would not have made that comment but I being an owner of the Greenwood customer cars I really do know more than you. 

As they say in baseball  "another swing and a miss"

Next time you google dig deeper you haven't even scratched the surface yet.

You & your group need to take a deep breath.   ha ha

Nobody said it was a Greenwood body kit. A week ago I posted what kit it was. You are the one talking about the Greenwood cars you had back in the '70's (or '80's...regardless, 40+ years ago, lol). 

I guess congratulations for knowing John Greenwood? 

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

BUT THERE IS STILL AN 8 POINT LIMIT!!! LIMIT!!!!

 

Limit- is defined below.

 

At no point does the BCCR say you can add more cage attachment points, for extra declared points.

 

Or maybe we need a court ruling on the definition of "is"

Screenshot_20200926-193722_Chrome~2.jpg

Screenshot_20200927-060701_Chrome.jpg

Buddy... no.  IMO they definitely do say you can exceed the amount points in the rule book.  In that paragraph the word “MAY” is in all caps too.  This is why I think so many guys flipped out about the cage design.  They aren’t interpreting the paragraph at the end. 

“The“maximum, value-free” roll-cage includes all pads, points, tubes and triangulations necessary to maintain an  

extremely high degree of safety, while keeping costs in- check and competition well-balanced. Teams MAY exceed the design and application of the “maximum, value-free” roll-cage; however, additional value will be assessed by the Tech Inspector, based on the perceived performance enhancement of the roll-cage...   

 

That’s where it’s all at IMO and apparently in the eyes of tech.  So IMO the rule book goes out of its way to point out you can do this.  

Edited by Paulie
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paulie said:

Buddy... no.  IMO they definitely do say you can exceed the mount points in the rule book.  In that paragraph the word “MAY” is in all caps too.  This is why I think so many guys flipped out about the cage design.  They aren’t interpreting the paragraph at the end. 

“The“maximum, value-free” roll-cage includes all pads, points, tubes and triangulations necessary to maintain an  

extremely high degree of safety, while keeping costs in- check and competition well-balanced. Teams MAY exceed the design and application of the “maximum, value-free” roll-cage; however, additional value will be assessed by the Tech Inspector, based on the perceived performance enhancement of the roll-cage...   

 

That’s where it’s all at IMO and apparently in the eyes of tech.  So IMO the rule book goes out of its way to point out you can do this.  

I think you're probably right Paulie. 

 

I also think its why many folks have been squealing for years about adding free stuff to the books.   Every time something became free we were closer to the disaster that the GBU car is. ( I do not blame them)   When the custom tubular subframes got added for a ridiculous , in my mind, 10 points I had conversations with several people, including at least one TAC member, that we were getting very close to someone essentially building a tube frame car.  Well tada here we are.  

 

So if this is really what the book says, I think it needs to be changed.     

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paulie said:

Buddy... no.  IMO they definitely do say you can exceed the mount points in the rule book.  In that paragraph the word “MAY” is in all caps too.  This is why I think so many guys flipped out about the cage design.  They aren’t interpreting the paragraph at the end. 

“The“maximum, value-free” roll-cage includes all pads, points, tubes and triangulations necessary to maintain an  

extremely high degree of safety, while keeping costs in- check and competition well-balanced. Teams MAY exceed the design and application of the “maximum, value-free” roll-cage; however, additional value will be assessed by the Tech Inspector, based on the perceived performance enhancement of the roll-cage...   

 

That’s where it’s all at IMO and apparently in the eyes of tech.  So IMO the rule book goes out of its way to point out you can do this.  


Paulie, you certainly can go above and beyond the minimum value-free cage in the rules, however, it implies a common sense approach to applying extra points based on perceived performance. I would say by most definitions, 4 (or is it 5?) tubes coming through the firewall and tying the front frame horns, 'shock' towers and both sides together would add a lot of 'perceived' performance. (I actually can't think of another area that would benefit performance more on that car..)

While I think Rob may be a bit *too* hung up on number of points, it also does specify that very clearly in section 3.2.11.
 

Edited by Slugworks Paul
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DEE DEE said:

Must be someone cares about the bodywork it was mentioned. You act as if this forum was your own playground for you and your little buddies who always agree with each other.  Your knowledge of this subject is pathetic and contributes absolutely zero to the discussion.    If you really knew Greenwood you would not have made that comment but I being an owner of the Greenwood customer cars I really do know more than you. 

As they say in baseball  "another swing and a miss"

Next time you google dig deeper you haven't even scratched the surface yet.

You & your group need to take a deep breath.   ha ha


I see nobody spreading as much ignorant malice on this forum as you do.

Edited by Slugworks Paul
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Slugworks Paul said:


Paulie, you certainly can go above and beyond the minimum value-free cage in the rules, however, it implies a common sense approach to applying extra points based on perceived performance. I would say by most definitions, 4 (or is it 5?) tubes coming through the firewall and tying the front frame horns, 'shock' towers and both sides together would add a lot of 'perceived' performance. (I actually can't think of another area that would benefit performance more on that car..)

While I think Rob may be a bit *too* hung up on number of points, it also does specify that very clearly in section 3.2.11.
 

Yes it’s specified very clearly, but see I think the paragraph at the end places that rule into the “maximum value free” design.  That’s the problem.   3:12:17 puts that into the “free” category and then goes on to expand on what happens if that rule were to be exceeded even stating that it may be done.  Basically an invitation. 3:12:17 becomes a rule that’s included in the free design and a lot of guys though it stood on its own and apparently it’s not, according to the the rule makers, and 3:12:17.   I don’t see how the argument that it’s illegal according to the rules can be won when all of the rules there are put into context.  Pull it away separately, sure, but I don’t see how here.   I’d agree the performance language in the last rule is where someone might have a decent argument. That’s where I’d focus anyway.  Can you tell I’ve been sued before? Lol! 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Paulie said:

Yes it’s specified very clearly, but see I think the paragraph at the end places that rule into the “maximum value free” design.  That’s the problem.   3:12:17 puts that into the “free” category and then goes on to expand on what happens if that rule were to be exceeded even stating that it may be done.  Basically an invitation. 3:12:17 becomes a rule that’s included in the free design and a lot of guys though it stood on its own and apparently it’s not, according to the the rule makers, and 3:12:17.   I don’t see how the argument that it’s illegal according to the rules can be won when all of the rules there are put into context.  Pull it away separately, sure, but I don’t see how here.   I’d agree the performance language in the last rule is where someone might have a decent argument. That’s where I’d focus anyway.  Can you tell I’ve been sued before? Lol! 

 

per the logbook of the GBU car..  They took only 5 points for all the steel they used on the car, which was supposed to be for the custom suspension mounts in the rear.    Tech went thru the car with blindfold on.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 10:26 AM, Jer said:

Guys we are looking to adjust all huge fuel tanked cars with low VPIs.  We don't want to play whack a mole with just the Vette.  We are working on it.  

When all this started... this was the exact comment I was dreading to see. We are already spending money a 1978 G-body. We are by no means capable of building anything like the C3 in question. I really hope the impending changes don’t push the domestic cars out of the series. 

Edited by AJJaxin
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJJaxin said:

When all this started... this was the exact comment I was dreading to see. We are already spending money a 1978 G-body. We are by no means capable of building anything like the C3 in question. I really hope the impending changes don’t push the domestic cars out of the series. 

 

They're not looking to push them from the series.  But everyone needs to be on a level playing field value wise, and the GBU corvette proved that an older american muscle platform with a large tank and low point could be turned into a unicorn.

 

Building a competitive car isn't meant to be easy.

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

 

They're not looking to push them from the series.  But everyone needs to be on a level playing field value wise, and the GBU corvette proved that an older american muscle platform with a large tank and low point could be turned into a unicorn.

 

Building a competitive car isn't meant to be easy.

Indeed.. it ain’t easy! Our fuel capacity is better than a Miata, but not quite up to the C3’s 24 factory gallons (That’s crazy!). We are not trying to make a run at the ChampCar podium with our Malibu (thus getting ourselves invited to drive for the factory Porsche team at LeMans), but we don’t want to see our efforts chased out of the series before we even finish the car. We are just wanting to have fun, make some new friends and get more damaged vets (like myself) back into some form of competition. 
 

From my limited time in the ChampCar paddock (I drove two stints in the Pinto at COTA), I hate to see this drama. Everyone there was great to me and my wife and let us take pics of their cars, inside and out. Most even offered to let us sit in them. If ChampCar goes away, this is what I will always remember. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AJJaxin said:

From my limited time in the ChampCar paddock (I drove two stints in the Pinto at COTA), I hate to see this drama. Everyone there was great to me and my wife and let us take pics of their cars, inside and out. Most even offered to let us sit in them. If ChampCar goes away, this is what I will always remember. 

Champcar is not going away.  Have faith that the personel in charge will figure it out.  Enjoy yourself at the events because we are all extended family just wanting to have a good time.  Politics are never easy.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJJaxin said:

Indeed.. it ain’t easy! Our fuel capacity is better than a Miata, but not quite up to the C3’s 24 factory gallons (That’s crazy!). We are not trying to make a run at the ChampCar podium with our Malibu (thus getting ourselves invited to drive for the factory Porsche team at LeMans), but we don’t want to see our efforts chased out of the series before we even finish the car. We are just wanting to have fun, make some new friends and get more damaged vets (like myself) back into some form of competition. 
 

From my limited time in the ChampCar paddock (I drove two stints in the Pinto at COTA), I hate to see this drama. Everyone there was great to me and my wife and let us take pics of their cars, inside and out. Most even offered to let us sit in them. If ChampCar goes away, this is what I will always remember. 

 

The last thing we would want to do is force any car out of the series. Hopefully the series will take action on outlier cars to actually prevent that from happening.  Having the perception of an uneven playing field for whatever reason will force teams away, especially teams that make lots of races.  As far as adjusting the VPI of a car, that is not anything new, it has been done before.  I have no idea if that will be done in the case of some of the lower VPI high HP high fuel load cars, but it certainly has precedent.  

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

 

The last thing we would want to do is force any car out of the series. Hopefully the series will take action on outlier cars to actually prevent that from happening.  Having the perception of an uneven playing field for whatever reason will force teams away, especially teams that make lots of races.  

I'm 100% puzzled why what happened (or at least from all outward appearances, appeared to happen) with the GBU car actually occurred. Does the series really think it's good business? Does it really think it's going to attract new teams

I think the opposite. If we take our ball and go to WRL we're taking ~10-12 race registrations and ~$16k in annual revenue paid into the series with us. From what I've seen in various comments, we aren't the only ones. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
29 minutes ago, Snorman said:

I'm 100% puzzled why what happened (or at least from all outward appearances, appeared to happen) with the GBU car actually occurred. Does the series really think it's good business? Does it really think it's going to attract new teams

I think the opposite. If we take our ball and go to WRL we're taking ~10-12 race registrations and ~$16k in annual revenue paid into the series with us. From what I've seen in various comments, we aren't the only ones. 


You hit the nail on the head.  Certain people think having a Riley and his deep pockets coming and whipping up on everyone is good.  Certain people think its horrible.  Trying to find that middle ground is where the work is done.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, riche30 said:


You hit the nail on the head.  Certain people think having a Riley and his deep pockets coming and whipping up on everyone is good.  Certain people think its horrible.  Trying to find that middle ground is where the work is done.

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!

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
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...