Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I feel that if it's not in the BCCR then it shouldn't be an enforced rule.  The aluminum surge tank being points has been around as long as aluminum flywheels being points and that new ruling (flywheels are open) made it into the BCCR but nothing regarding the surge tanks? 

 

Here's an idea.  If the tech committee comes up with a new rule or some kind of points adder there is at least 1 full quarter of a calendar years notices to the members, maybe a section that can updated as needed in the BCCR that has new rules or upcoming rules and the dates that they take effect.  They did this with the addition of the dash bar to give people enough warning to make it legal for the next race year.  The BCCR would need to be updated as soon as the decision was made.   If I wouldn't have seen on the forum that the tech committee is giving points for an aluminum surge tank it would have put my VPI over 500 and started me a lap down at Gingerman. 

 

All of the supplemental rules for each race state to read the BCCR but nothing regarding the Champcar Tech Desk (rule book #2).   I would also recommend that the supps encourage members to reread the BCCR before every race so that updates that coming down the pipeline are seen.    

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 477
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We actually will be addressing a couple of technical issues.  This is why we release the rules before they become effective.  The wisdom of the masses has us reconsidering a few things.  We appreciate

Why cant we just get rid of points for anything that makes the car more reliable but doesn’t make it any faster.     Lets say my cars vpi is 500pts.  I want to put a better radiator on it to

Just wanted to add a note to address a few things I have seen come up already.   As the Tech Writer, the fact that the tech desk is not updated at this time is 100% on me, and I apologize fo

Posted Images

Just now, Bill Strong said:

email board@champcar.org since only a couple of the BOD members use social media.
This way your words are reaching the bod.

 

multiple emails sent over past couple months.... never got a response.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bill Strong said:

email board@champcar.org since only a couple of the BOD members use social media.
This way your words are reaching the bod.

I think all the BOD should check in on social media so they can get a better feel on what everyone is thinking and suggesting.  It's not that scary!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

This wasn't an issue until Riley showed up with one.  Why make a new ruling because 1 team asked for it?

 

It's a pretty simple answer isn't it?  Multiple rules were changed or attempted to be changed for 1 team.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

 

This wasn't an issue until Riley showed up with one.  Why make a new ruling because 1 team asked for it?

In B4 the gaslighting:

 

”alternators have been free for years!”

”tons of teams use these alternators, you just haven’t seen them or haven’t asked if they are free”

”you should have asked, you can’t just assume that a non-OE part adds points (pay no attention to that rule behind the curtain that says there is no such thing as a free part)”

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

In B4 the gaslighting:

 

”alternators have been free for years!”

”tons of teams use these alternators, you just haven’t seen them or haven’t asked if they are free”

”you should have asked, you can’t just assume that a non-OE part adds points (pay no attention to that rule behind the curtain that says there is no such thing as a free part)”

 

dont forget that Tech has been posting on facebook now that a complete IRS swap has always been 25 points and they raised it to 50 when rileys car came out 🙄

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hotrod said:

I think all the BOD should check in on social media so they can get a better feel on what everyone is thinking and suggesting.  It's not that scary!

Yep, they don’t have to respond but they could certainly read and see what is being talked about.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, karman1970 said:

Nope. That was a new rule within the last couple years.  For a long time it was simply 2x.  Not sure what it was before that.  Probably a point for every dollar over stock replacement cost.

 

So:

 

Pre 2017:  If 2x then maybe free, a wilwood caliper is $138

Post 2017: Free as long as wilwood

 

I guess you could do other brands than wilwood in 2021. Two piece rotors are free, that I agree is more free stuff and more $$$

 

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

 

dont forget that Tech has been posting on facebook now that a complete IRS swap has always been 25 points and they raised it to 50 when rileys car came out 🙄

 

That is actually hilarious as they've posted on this forum stating that it's always been 50.   They can't keep their made rules straight. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, turbogrill said:

 

So:

 

Pre 2017:  If 2x then maybe free, a wilwood caliper is $138

Post 2017: Free as long as wilwood

 

I guess you could do other brands than wilwood in 2021. Two piece rotors are free, that I agree is more free stuff and more $$$

 

The reason wilwood was specifically called out in the rules is because they are a sponser.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm reporting how the board voted and why.  I personally never considered it such a big advantage that people would be upset by it.  Please write a petition for next year.  And yes, this crap all came up because of Riley.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MoparBoyy said:

 

dont forget that Tech has been posting on facebook now that a complete IRS swap has always been 25 points and they raised it to 50 when rileys car came out 🙄

That has been changed by the board so it's valued by component.  I reminded Ray and Jay of this.  Tech will be interesting at RA, too bad I won't be there.

 

5 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

The reason wilwood was specifically called out in the rules is because they are a sponser.

That is corrected for 2021.    

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

I personally never considered it such a big advantage that people would be upset by it.

It is a very small advantage. It isn’t the magnitude of the advantage that upsets people. The ChampCar rulebook has always stated (with documented exceptions), and the precedent all along has been: is it stock? 
Y —-> no points

N —-> points 

 

It’s an extremely simple line in the sand and “it isn’t a big advantage” is a really stupid reason to cross that line. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jer said:

Okay, I'm reporting how the board voted and why.  I personally never considered it such a big advantage that people would be upset by it.  Please write a petition for next year.  And yes, this crap all came up because of Riley.  

Thanks Jerry!

 

The problem isn't alternator per se.  Its because a team basically asked for something for free and it was just handed to them.  

 

Why do we need to write a petition for something that wasn't petitioned to go into the rules?  Why c ant we just follow the bccr?

 

I didn't think rules could be made up (unless safety) without a petition.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Thanks Jerry!

 

The problem isn't alternator per se.  Its because a team basically asked for something for free and it was just handed to them.  

 

Why do we need to write a petition for something that wasn't petitioned to go into the rules?  Why c ant we just follow the bccr?

 

I didn't think rules could be made up (unless safety) without a petition.

Correct.  It was an oops. It can just be fixed.   No need to petition 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
2 hours ago, hcsi99 said:

I feel that if it's not in the BCCR then it shouldn't be an enforced rule.  The aluminum surge tank being points has been around as long as aluminum flywheels being points and that new ruling (flywheels are open) made it into the BCCR but nothing regarding the surge tanks? 

 

Here's an idea.  If the tech committee comes up with a new rule or some kind of points adder there is at least 1 full quarter of a calendar years notices to the members, maybe a section that can updated as needed in the BCCR that has new rules or upcoming rules and the dates that they take effect.  They did this with the addition of the dash bar to give people enough warning to make it legal for the next race year.  The BCCR would need to be updated as soon as the decision was made.   If I wouldn't have seen on the forum that the tech committee is giving points for an aluminum surge tank it would have put my VPI over 500 and started me a lap down at Gingerman. 

 

All of the supplemental rules for each race state to read the BCCR but nothing regarding the Champcar Tech Desk (rule book #2).   I would also recommend that the supps encourage members to reread the BCCR before every race so that updates that coming down the pipeline are seen.    

 

 

 

See my response below.

 

1 hour ago, enginerd said:

It is a very small advantage. It isn’t the magnitude of the advantage that upsets people. The ChampCar rulebook has always stated (with documented exceptions), and the precedent all along has been: is it stock? 
Y —-> no points

N —-> points 

 

It’s an extremely simple line in the sand and “it isn’t a big advantage” is a really stupid reason to cross that line. 

 

This is the way that I think and the way that I vote in regards to items when petitions come up.  The VPI is set and the FPV is there so that teams can choose how they want to build their car.

 

 

1 hour ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Thanks Jerry!

 

The problem isn't alternator per se.  Its because a team basically asked for something for free and it was just handed to them.  

 

Why do we need to write a petition for something that wasn't petitioned to go into the rules?  Why c ant we just follow the bccr?

 

I didn't think rules could be made up (unless safety) without a petition.

 

So I think everyone forgets that Tech has the ability to assign points per the BCCR.  These are interpretations.  As I mentioned before earlier in this thread that the Tech Desk was created so there were no more emails going through the system and there was a check and balance with TAC, BOD, and Tech being on the same page.  

 

Here is what the BCCR states:

 

4.4. NON FIXED POINT VALUE PARTS 4.4.1. ALL non-stock components, parts, assemblies, or systems MUST be declared to Tech Inspection, noted in the vehicle Logbook, and declared and accounted for in the total points of the vehicle. 4.4.2. There is NO SUCH THING as a free part, every part of a vehicle has a value. Parts not covered elsewhere in the rules will be assigned a point value by ChampCar Tech. 4.4.3. Any vehicle found with missing (groundoff) or tampered part numbers on any part or component will be immediately re-classified as EC. 4.4.4. All point values assigned by Tech Inspection will be considered valid until ChampCar’s Board of Directors assigns a fixed point value.

 

So Tech has the ability to assign any value until it is voted on by the BOD.  I brought up the coolant overflow item and it wasn't added to the BCCR as a carry over from the Tech Desk.  I would have to look back to see if we had votes on it or not, but I thought it needed to be addressed to put in the BCCR.  Any item that is points or was allowed in the series due to an interpretation should be voted on by the BOD so then it can go into the BCCR.  
 

I will also bring this topic back up that I started last year:

 

 

Now we are an organization.  We need to do a better job all around and we have faults.  We all have day jobs except for two people in this company (Mike and Bill) as they do this full time.  Remember our tech inspectors are all volunteers.  Our event directors have other full times jobs.  We are doing this to provide great racing and be the best amateur series out there to help feed the drug of racing.  I am here to help make the organization better and try to continue to have parity within this organization. 

 

Feel free to reach out to me at any time to discuss any further. 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the last person to believe, much less start, anything that might remotely be considered a conspiracy theory, but I'm honestly starting to wonder if Bill Riley is in the ear of certain board members saying things like - You know, I've been racing for a long time, and if you want this series to grow, you need to start doing X, Y, and Z, where X, Y, and Z include things like "allow greater build flexibility" and/or "increase the opportunity for sponsors to get their parts on the cars."

 

And I can see how, coming from a guy like Bill, that might sound compelling, particularly if you just received a guided tour of the Riley shop as part of the "tech inspection."

 

I feel crazy even typing that, but it's about the only thing I can come up with that makes any sense for why the board would decide to make some of these "free part" changes. If they think a more open rule set is the future of the series because it brings in big names, and they have dreams of becoming the next IMSA or whatever, all I can say is good luck, it won't be with my money. 

 

(Bill - If you're reading this know that I admire and respect your work and am really excited to have you in the series! I hope I'm wrong about what I said above - I'm not trying to start rumors or question your integrity, but if I'm even a little close, please think carefully about how you are using your considerable (and well-earned) influence to effect policy in our series.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gavro said:

I'm the last person to believe, much less start, anything that might remotely be considered a conspiracy theory, but I'm honestly starting to wonder if Bill Riley is in the ear of certain board members saying things like - You know, I've been racing for a long time, and if you want this series to grow, you need to start doing X, Y, and Z, where X, Y, and Z include things like "allow greater build flexibility" and/or "increase the opportunity for sponsors to get their parts on the cars."

 

And I can see how, coming from a guy like Bill, that might sound compelling, particularly if you just received a guided tour of the Riley shop as part of the "tech inspection."

 

I feel crazy even typing that, but it's about the only thing I can come up with that makes any sense for why the board would decide to make some of these "free part" changes. If they think a more open rule set is the future of the series because it brings in big names, and they have dreams of becoming the next IMSA or whatever, all I can say is good luck, it won't be with my money. 

 

(Bill - If you're reading this know that I admire and respect your work and am really excited to have you in the series! I hope I'm wrong about what I said above - I'm not trying to start rumors or question your integrity, but if I'm even a little close, please think carefully about how you are using your considerable (and well-earned) influence to effect policy in our series.)

 

 

I can tell you for fact, that this is not the case. 
Bill has been involved with ChampCar from the early days. In fact he was one of the first Board of Directors.
He know the rules, and how to stretch them as far as he can. Does he go over that moving line? That's up to tech to say.
But I can assure you, there is nothing going on in the background that would help Jim Matthews Good Bad and Ugly Corvette. Jim is the owner of the car. Bill Riley and crew are the builders, crew, and racers in the car. Jim Owns and pays the bills.

 

https://www.driverdb.com/drivers/jim-matthews/

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bill Strong said:

 

 

I can tell you for fact, that this is not the case. 
Bill has been involved with ChampCar from the early days. In fact he was one of the first Board of Directors.
He know the rules, and how to stretch them as far as he can. Does he go over that moving line? That's up to tech to say.
But I can assure you, there is nothing going on in the background that would help Jim Matthews Good Bad and Ugly Corvette. Jim is the owner of the car. Bill Riley and crew are the builders, crew, and racers in the car. Jim Owns and pays the bills.

 

 

 

Bill - I appreciate the quick response. Thank you. Glad to hear this is the case.

 

I am still left shaking my head wondering how a majority of the board voted to "free the alternators."

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

 

I am still left shaking my head wondering how a majority of the board voted to "free the alternators."

 

There has never been a charge for alternators or starters. 
Until someone posted it to the tech Desk.
Hell, I used a non-Toyota MR2 starter and Alternator for years, even asked about it. Keeps the costs down when I can use cheap GM or Jspec ebay stuff. 

an alternator or starter (unless you have an automatic?) has never won or lost a race in our series. 

As some in our company are saying quietly, some of you are taking the fun out of this hobby. All this just to win a bit of metal and no money. I agree .
 

My opinion.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, gavro said:

 

Bill - I appreciate the quick response. Thank you. Glad to hear this is the case.

 

I am still left shaking my head wondering how a majority of the board voted to "free the alternators."


With all due respect I wouldn't be so quick to dispel your concern, however, I don't put the complete onus on Riley.
 

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...