Jump to content

2021 Board of Directors Annual Meeting - Virtual


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, petawawarace said:

What about double and triple pass rads?  They make a way bigger difference than the extra rows.  Yet there’s no rule on them.  

Usually, that is more of a situation of where the inlets and outlets are on the core.  If same side, it basically needs to be a 2 pass.  Opposite sides could be 1 pass or 3 pass.

 

From the experiences with my car, the number of passes doesn't make any difference when racing.  The high rpms and constant heat load means that the water movement through the rad doesn't really matter if it is in their longer.  Airflow is more important to support the delta t.

 

I still understand your point and I'm still thinking of ways this could be addressed better (other than just not doing anything)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

Usually, that is more of a situation of where the inlets and outlets are on the core.  If same side, it basically needs to be a 2 pass.  Opposite sides could be 1 pass or 3 pass.

 

From the experiences with my car, the number of passes doesn't make any difference when racing.  The high rpms and constant heat load means that the water movement through the rad doesn't really matter if it is in their longer.  Airflow is more important to support the delta t.

 

I still understand your point and I'm still thinking of ways this could be addressed better (other than just not doing anything)

A rule on the basic size and cost would do that. The size is what overwhelmingly controls the performance. The extra rows and number of passes etc make very minor differences.   The size would be very hard to enforce.  But the cost cap would be easier. 

 

Thats exactly what the petition was actually.  

 

Somehow they came up with this number of rows idea.  I’m not sure if it was the TAC or just the board that came up with it, but it wasn’t a member petition. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Huggins said:

 

The top one is for a M3.

 

Heres a stock 944 radiator for you.  You think this guy is upset he can buy a cheaper radiator now?

https://www.fcpeuro.com/products/porsche-radiator-944-924-11543003001#fitment

 

Heres a C4 rad for $300 thats now free

https://speedcooling.com/1984-1989-Corvette-C4-Aluminum-Radiator.html

 

Everything is so different across different models.  There's NEVER going to be a perfect rule that doesn't upset someone.  Impossible.

 

We can't stop you from going out and spending $1500 on a radiator.  You could have done that last year, you can do that this year.

You can also go spend $20k on a full motec setup, loom your harness with $10k worth of motorsport connectors, and pay a pit crew to come service your cars.  And you will still probably get beat by a crapbox that came to the track behind a 25 year old RV running a stock radiator.  

 

 

 

Man, this is funny, seeing it from the other side.  Normally I'm the guy bitching.  As Ed says, the irony stings my eyes.

 

C4 Post from above - " it's made with proven 2-rows of 1.0" tubes that is proven to out cool 3-row and 4-row radiators by a substantial amount. 

 

If you can run this, why does the rows matter? Why is it a 30 point difference? 

 

If you can cool any car that races this series with a 2 Row, why make guys that already have a 3 row purchased, buy a replacement? This adds cost for no reason! 

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

1 hour ago, petawawarace said:

It’s tough. Some rads that have caps on the top are easy. Others you need to look at very closely. Others use an extrusion that appears to be a single row but is actually 10+ smaller ones.  
 

Your right about the cooling. That’s why this doesn’t make sense.
 

The reason for multiple rows is so that they don’t balloon.  When they were all made of brass, as the rad got deeper, the tubes got wider and started to balloon. This restricted airflow after a while.  So they went with more tubes to stop that. With newer ones being made from aluminum, they are stronger, so a 2 row can be as wide as an older 4 row. Same basic cooling properties. 
 

Ive sent all this info to the BOD.  I would have expected the TAC to point some of that out, but it appears they didn’t.  

That’s very interesting and what you say about number of cores makes sense.

 

My guess is that the board or someone on the board had this thought about restricting the performance of radiators in some way “well we can’t just say radiators: free for all”, so they went about restricting them in some way, and they come from an era with brass radiators and it’s become ingrained that thicker radiators are better, and thicker requires more cores, and so we should restrict cores in order to somewhat limit the radiators. And what they should have done was restrict area or thickness or a combination of area and thickness if they really wanted to put a performance cap on them. And if they wanted to put a cost cap on it, rather than say “well, 2 core must be cheaper than 3 or 4, so let’s cap at 2” they should have said “well, we want to cap the cost in some way, so let’s actually put a $$ cost cap on them”.

 

Whatever the motive, this rule looks like another swing & miss from the board. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always just assumed the C&R I have sitting in storage was 3 or 4 core since it's about 3" thick. (C&R doesn't even mention "cores" in their descriptions) I'll have to look at it closer. Much closer as it doesn't have a fill.

 

As a bonus it has a built in oil cooler. (Yes, I know. Points)

 

Wasn't able to use it before as it's around a $800 rad according to their site.

 

And yes, this was a way to try and limit performance. "If you can't cool that high power motor it isn't going to race."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chris Huggins said:

 

The top one is for a M3.

 

Heres a stock 944 radiator for you.  You think this guy is upset he can buy a cheaper radiator now?

https://www.fcpeuro.com/products/porsche-radiator-944-924-11543003001#fitment

 

Heres a C4 rad for $300 thats now free

https://speedcooling.com/1984-1989-Corvette-C4-Aluminum-Radiator.html

 

Everything is so different across different models.  There's NEVER going to be a perfect rule that doesn't upset someone.  Impossible.

 

We can't stop you from going out and spending $1500 on a radiator.  You could have done that last year, you can do that this year.

You can also go spend $20k on a full motec setup, loom your harness with $10k worth of motorsport connectors, and pay a pit crew to come service your cars.  And you will still probably get beat by a crapbox that came to the track behind a 25 year old RV running a stock radiator.  

 

 

 

Man, this is funny, seeing it from the other side.  Normally I'm the guy bitching.  As Ed says, the irony stings my eyes.

 

Heres a stock 944 radiator for you.  You think this guy is upset he can buy a cheaper radiator now?

https://www.fcpeuro.com/products/porsche-radiator-944-924-11543003001#fitment
 

When we built the 2nd 944 we put our back-up used OE radiator in it because I couldn’t justify buying a new one at that price(and I couldn’t afford the points for aftermarket) than bought an E-bay aluminum one as a backup for $175. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So back on tires....

 

It seems to me that the board should be able to agree that its in the mission statement to be an affordable race series.

 

It also seems that they could agree that using 3000 to 5000 bucks in a weekend on tires is not consistent with the mission statement.

 

There will ,as so gently stated earlier by a Board member, never be a perfect rule.  I think I'm missing something on how we have an imperfect limit on radiators but not one on tire spending limits.  

 

It'll all be ok, we're going to go have fun this weekend at Autobahn, but I think it would be good to get out ahead of this issue.   Dumping this on race directors to somehow shame a team that is using a truck load of tires seems odd. 

 

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JDChristianson said:

So back on tires....

 

It seems to me that the board should be able to agree that its in the mission statement to be an affordable race series.

 

It also seems that they could agree that using 3000 to 5000 bucks in a weekend on tires is not consistent with the mission statement.

 

There will ,as so gently stated earlier by a Board member, never be a perfect rule.  I think I'm missing something on how we have an imperfect limit on radiators but not one on tire spending limits.  

 

It'll all be ok, we're going to go have fun this weekend at Autobahn, but I think it would be good to get out ahead of this issue.   Dumping this on race directors to somehow shame a team that is using a truck load of tires seems odd. 

Just quoting because it’s on the same topic and I’m echoing Jeff’s idea on perfection. 
 

Imperfection isn’t a reason to not do something. Yes, the case where you flat spot 4 RS4s and then get penalized for changing them is possible. But how often does this happen? Just because it happened once to Bruce Mills doesn’t mean it is a common occurrence. Also the penalty I proposed (in comments to the board) was +1 minute for exceeding a ‘one tire per stop’ rule. It is pretty unlikely that you will get all 4 changed and refuel within a 5 minute stop anyway so you may not even see the penalty!! 
I think that this rule would meet the board’s goals with a tire rule 99% of the time, and that 1% shouldn’t be enough to throw out the idea and say “well we couldn’t find a rule that satisfied everyone, oh well, no changes”. I highly doubt the board thinks that the current (and persisting) rule meets the board’s stated goals 99%.

Edited by enginerd
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we also not forget that the free brake petition was by a now board member that is custom making these kits for e30's that was not legal under the 2x rule?

 

Sometimes making hard decisions that are controversial test those of us that we elect to be leaders.. I know I will remember this latest meeting when it comes to voting next cycle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, enginerd said:

Just quoting because it’s on the same topic and I’m echoing Jeff’s idea on perfection. 
 

 It is pretty unlikely that you will get all 4 changed and refuel within a 5 minute stop anyway so you may not even see the penalty!! 

We changed tires 3 times at Watkins Glen with simple hand tools, fueled 15 gals, cleaned windshield, changed drivers in 4 minutes with a crew that  never worked  before  together on this car and first time fueler.  It can be done not a big deal if your organized.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DEE DEE said:

We changed tires 3 times at Watkins Glen with simple hand tools, fueled 15 gals, cleaned windshield, changed drivers in 4 minutes with a crew that  never worked  before  together on this car and first time fueler.  It can be done not a big deal if your organized.

All 4?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee
11 hours ago, hotchkis23 said:

Did we also not forget that the free brake petition was by a now board member that is custom making these kits for e30's that was not legal under the 2x rule?

 

Sometimes making hard decisions that are controversial test those of us that we elect to be leaders.. I know I will remember this latest meeting when it comes to voting next cycle.

Ok Aaron.  I shouldn't even answer you on this (again, we have been over this before), but that pissed me off.

 

You obviously have the opinion that I'm a scumbag who is looking for some angle to make mega profits off of E30 brakes or going to gain a massive advantage and win every race with one arm behind my back. 

 

I don't know how you can be so friendly in person yet still harbor this ill-will towards me.  You couldn't be more wrong, and your poorly masked accusation is pretty hurtful in all honesty.

 

If you think I'm a scumbag and doing the wrong things, PLEASE don't vote for me.  I can live with that, and I'd expect no less.   Same goes for Bandit.  

 

Lets set some of the accusation straight:

Stock Caliper (NOT Carrier, JUST THE CALPER) = $308  (price from FCP, like the second google result)

Wilwood Caliper = $230 (summit racing)

 

E30 Rotor = $49 (price from FCP again)

Wilwood Rotor = 44 (summit racing again)

 

So tell me again how it wasn't legal under 2x? 

 

Do I need to remind you that I wasn't even ON the board when that petition got submitted?  NOR was I on the board when it got passed.  Give me poop for stuff that happened THIS time around, fine.  

 

 

I've been pretty damn open to anyone who has asked.  I've responded to everyone who has PM'ed me or emailed me or facebooked me.  Emails to board@champcar will be answered too, they are being reviewed as a group (doing things via committee takes time).

 

 

The proof is in the hours of work I put into this club, both before and after being elected.  The proof will be in the hours of work ahead of me between now and September to get the 2022 bccr ready.

 

We all knew the tires rule was going to be a major issue.  

The radiator and rain light ones were a bit less expected, and we are going to review the comments on these.  

 

I'm gonna go back to preparing for CMP.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

We all don't see the hours you guys put in to make this series the way it is. I can understand your frustration and can sympathize.  But at the end of the day,  Champcar is a business and the members are the customers.  If customers are not happy with the product, it really doesn't matter how much time is put in.  As a member, I find it extremely frustrating that we vote on a petition, give feedback, and then the rule that comes out is completely different.  I can think of 3 recent incidences where rules were changed and made official, the membership had major issues with it, it was changed and corrected. But it created a huge headache all because the rule had major issues that the BOD didn't pick up on.   

 

Many of the things being discussed here are things that you seemed to want to correct. Yet your now finding it "funny from the other side".  Perhaps going back and reading your thread "Huggy for BOD 2020" would be a good refresher. 

 

Just spit balling here, and I know that some in the organization have a sour opinion of the forums, but there's a wealth of  knowledge here.  The 2021 Radiator, 2021 Flywheel/SFI, and the 2022 Radiator debacles would have been helped greatly if the knowledge and expertise on here would have been taken into account before the rules were officially changed. Perhaps a forum section where proposed changes to rules can be made by the BOD, and feedback from the members would be warranted.  It doesn't mean that what the forum says is gospel. Its been pretty evident that the BOD doesn't have all of the information when they make some of these decisions.  (disclaimer: I don't expect them to know everything) Getting more information before making the changes may avoid some of these headaches for all.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.5% of the population commented on the petitions. Seems to me that 98.5% of members like how things are going. The forum is an extreme vocal minority. As is Facebook. No rule will ever be 100% perfect. The tire thing is blown out of proportion. The radiator thing can probably be worked around with some additional Google-fu. Though, I do agree the rules is a bit weird and could have been better executed.

 

For every 1 forum member claiming the sky is falling, CCES are morons, and BoD members are cheating, there's like 200 guys who don't care and are just happy to race. If the rules are that crappy, go to another series. I stay here because I don't want to dodge Porsche Cup cars for my entire stint.

Edited by mindspin311
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...