Jump to content

How does the club want to determine when a car's VPI gets reviewed?


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Hurljohn said:

he fact that we have so many different winners is I pretty good indication we are not far off.

 

10000% agree! There are Boxsters winning at Miata tracks, Miatas winning at horsepower tracks, old cars win 24h races, FWD familly cars beats sports car, etc,etc,etc.

 

I think the overdogs are old strange cars with strange swaps that are lurking in the VPI list, no one is building them anyways because it's a PITA. (Something like the GBU if that would have been 500 real points).

 

(why did I sell my 21 gallon 280zx with a swap weight of 2600lbs and 150pts...mistake)

Edited by turbogrill
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:

 

Yeah I am thinking this process yields 5 cars to be reviewed, not 50.  But Troy has a good start on this, I think I'll plagiarize some of it and see what it looks like.

 

Seems like some good ideas floating.  It might be something that there would be a group of volunteers willing to help out on a review committee.  Outside of the TAC who are busy answering reviewing a gillion questions about stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MR2 Biohazard said:

Example an SC300, by the miracle of God, finally wins a race again, we all doubt it, but you never know.

 

You're right, it couldn't possibly win on it's own.  Gotta keep manipulating things now that I am on the BOD to get this wonderous platform back on top.  Keeping that NC down is at the top of my evil list.  Rubbing my palms together to figure out the next move......

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JDChristianson said:

Seems like some good ideas floating.  It might be something that there would be a group of volunteers willing to help out on a review committee.  Outside of the TAC who are busy answering reviewing a gillion questions about stuff.

 

Hmm, Competition Committee.  Might work.  Gives another way for club members to get involved.  Well as long as we don't let guys from Iowa on it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChampCar Staff
1 hour ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:

 

You're right, it couldn't possibly win on it's own.  Gotta keep manipulating things now that I am on the BOD to get this wonderous platform back on top.  Keeping that NC down is at the top of my evil list.  Rubbing my palms together to figure out the next move......

My thought was more on the stop crashing into people and blowing up engines, but ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChampCar Staff
9 minutes ago, DEE DEE said:

Yup,  more committee's is what this club needs.  

The first thing we need is an an oversight committee to review what committees we have, then create a creation committee so we do not have overlapping committees being created which would then fall onto the overlap committee and their main goal is to review committee procedures for the creation committee. This way everyone is reviewing everyone all the time and nothing will ever get done, just like the government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Without any finger-pointing or accusations, I believe we are starting to go down the rabbit hole where people serving on the TAC and/or BOD are being driven by their own bias. 

Just IMO...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Snorman said:

 

Without any finger-pointing or accusations, I believe we are starting to go down the rabbit hole where people serving on the TAC and/or BOD are being driven by their own bias. 

Just IMO...

 

Yeah it probably always has been and most likely always will, that's human nature.  That's why you have several people so that it balances out.  And hopefully some technical aspects to back up decision making and keeping it all out in the sunlight for all to see.  At least that's the way I see it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee
3 hours ago, Snorman said:

 

Without any finger-pointing or accusations, I believe we are starting to go down the rabbit hole where people serving on the TAC and/or BOD are being driven by their own bias. 

Just IMO...

The only way to prevent this is to hire people who don’t race as the BOD and/or the TAC.

 

it was easy when Chisek made all the decisions.  Sometimes you thought he was a genius, sometimes you thought he was a moron, but since he didn’t race he couldn’t be accused of bias.

 

now, if you don‚Äôt like a call, it‚Äôs pretty simple to just cry ‚Äúbias‚ÄĚ and there‚Äôs pretty much no defense for that.¬†

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Huggins said:

The only way to prevent this is to hire people who don’t race as the BOD and/or the TAC.

 

it was easy when Chisek made all the decisions.  Sometimes you thought he was a genius, sometimes you thought he was a moron, but since he didn’t race he couldn’t be accused of bias.

 

now, if you don‚Äôt like a call, it‚Äôs pretty simple to just cry ‚Äúbias‚ÄĚ and there‚Äôs pretty much no defense for that.¬†

All I can say about this is we need to do all we can to have an O-pile on the pointy end.... ūüėܬ†oh and a 1984 VW Rabbit GTI.... Lol

 

Edited by Timothy G. Elliott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChampCar Staff
3 hours ago, Chris Huggins said:

The only way to prevent this is to hire people who don’t race as the BOD and/or the TAC.

 

it was easy when Chisek made all the decisions.  Sometimes you thought he was a genius, sometimes you thought he was a moron, but since he didn’t race he couldn’t be accused of bias.

 

now, if you don‚Äôt like a call, it‚Äôs pretty simple to just cry ‚Äúbias‚ÄĚ and there‚Äôs pretty much no defense for that.¬†

I do not agree there, though it can be difficult at times. Example, if a person requests the VPI on the E30 to be raised, when it comes to TAC you say nothing, do nothing, do not influence it at all and do not try to manipulate the result to benefit yourself or your team. You take yourself away from the situation and let the process flow. The TAC has very competent people on it and let them do their job.  When it goes the BOD you again, say nothing, do nothing, refrain from voting. If they ask your opinions or thoughts, you can give them, but you should not vote on the outcome of your own car. This might be hard because both you and Roger drive the same car on the same team so it would difficult, but that is how it should be to be fair and impartial. Now that might be the hardest thing to do, to step back, give up the power and let things falls as they may.

 

Hypothetical on the above situation- The good part, is if we adapt a VPI review process as stated and suggested by myself, is that it will be fair to all including yourself. If the VPI review happens, you can have all your data, you said you keep a lot, so you should be ready to defend your position with ease after recommendations are made and you appeal an increase. You should be able to appeal, just like the rest of us and defend your position or thoughts. With the data you keep on your own car and the field it should not be hard to get across our points of view.

 

On that same note, I do not think people that do not race in the series have enough perspective to be able to be on the TAC or the BOD and that would be a bad thing and much worse consequences.  There needs to be a balance of checks and balances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee

You are an enigma to me Troy...  I'm not sure if its narcissism or just bad judgement, doesn't really matter anyway.

 

As the TAC chairman, I request a review on a car.  In this case, it displeases you, so you cry fowl, call me a " D#$K"., say that "someone behind the scenes shouldn't be able to initiate a review", but then in the same post, you proceed to outline a requirement list of when a car can be eligible for review, which the car you are so upset about would meet most of your criteria for review....  

 

Furthermore, we have not one but two committee's for review of valuations.  We have one made up of technical experts, chosen by the BOD, who are supposed to be a club resource for technical info.  They can't make any decisions, only provide advice to the BOD.  The BOD are members elected by (a small subset of the membership) to make decisions for the club.  The BOD is made up of various members, none of which are "on the same team".   But your suggestion is that we need a third committee to decide if a car is eligible for review.  If committee 3 says yes, then it gets kicked to committee 2, which may or may not suggest a change, which then goes to committee 1, which may or may not listen to committee 2 and may or may not make a change. 

 

Lets back up and review (pun intended) why someone asking for a car to be reviewed is such a big deal anyway?   This happens multiple times per month via the Tech Desk.  Members write in asking for a VPI review or a new VPI.  (TAC and myself have been working very diligently to get through the backlog, and we are almost caught up).  Sometimes the member gets agreement from the TAC/BOD.  Sometimes the request is rejected.  There's a process for that.  If there is to be a change, there are specific written dates for which the change can occur.  New VPI's quarterly.  VPI changes annually.

 

Finally, I say the only way to eliminate bias is to hire outsiders, and you say "I disagree" and then go on to say pretty much that you agree its a challenging position to be in and that even if I abstain from discussions it would be difficult to eliminate the perception.  Do you just reject everything I post without comprehending it first?  

 

Let me be abundantly clear on the following:

I did not participate in the "review" discussion among the TAC.  I specifically noted this in a previous post.  I told the TAC exactly why I would not participate.  I believe I asked one question when I missed a detail, but for the most part I just took notes. 

 

For another example of how I have tried remain impartial, I did not "vote" on any of the petitions I submitted.  I 'abstained' unless the remaining BOD members were at a tie or requested my opinion.

 

The question this leads to, is that when is it OK for me to participate?  In your post you say I shouldn't participate in any E30 discussions.  Sure - Agreed, I think I stated that above also, that I specifically knew that I needed to be distant from any E30 or SC300 discussions.  Is there a criteria in your mind for when it is OK for me to participate in a discussion?  Only on cars that I haven't competed against?  Only on cars that aren't green? 

 

As a BOD member, the members who voted for me have "entrusted" me to participate in these discussions and make decisions in the club's best interest.  Sometimes the BOD makes decisions as a group.  Sometimes one of us makes a decision and presents it to the remainder for agreement.  Sometimes we agree that within certain boundaries, decisions can be made autonomously.  That's how committee's work, and how you get as much done as possible with a group of volunteers who meet once a month to discuss things.

 

I've tried very hard to be fair and impartial.  As you say, it is difficult.  Before Doc passed, there was the perception that half the board raced E30's.  Now the perception is that Rodger and I are conspiring against Troy.  

 

As my wife would say, "your not tequila, stop trying to make everyone troy  happy"

I'm gonna keep doing my best to do what I think is right.  In 2 years the club can decide if they think I did the right thing or not.  

For the next 6-8 months you don't have to worry about me racing anyways, I've got something more important to do.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chris Huggins said:

You are an enigma to me Troy...  I'm not sure if its narcissism or just bad judgement, doesn't really matter anyway.

 

 

 

  Can we get a poll added? 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only question is how are VPI numbers currently calculated or better yet how was the big table setup?  Formula?  It would be easier for some of us to know the magic first before recommending a change/update.  For myself I prefer a formula of sorts.  Lap times are not the best indicator for a specific cars performance capabilities.  To many variables.  Driver, tires, track layout, track conditions, car prep, etc.  Just because a team takes a car and preps it well, has experienced fast drivers, knows the track, sets car and team up around the track shouldn't penalize every other team with the same car.  If you want parity you will need to adjust performance of individual cars and teams.  Rewards weight, rate drivers and restrict multiple "platinum" drivers on teams, engine power restrictors, etc. Just thoughts from someone at the thick part of the spear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Technical Advisory Committee
Posted (edited)

For folks who weren't involved in ChampCar in the early days (ChumpCar), VPI values were derived directly from AIV values. AIV values were the top 10 lowest price values for your particular car. 

When Champ went to VPI, many of these needed adjustment, some still do.

There is no magic formula - TAC and several members have developed a few calculators to help, but discussions ensue and values are set based on a lot of the factors Chris mentioned above in this thread.

Or, at times in the past, the CEO has 'magically' pulled a number out of a hat and given it to a team as their VPI. Some of them have needed adjustment in the past. (edit: some still may...)

Even in it's 11th year, things are still evolving. 

Edited by mcoppola
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TimS said:

My only question is how are VPI numbers currently calculated or better yet how was the big table setup?  Formula?  

The same way the E30 swap weight was determined. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcoppola said:

For folks who weren't involved in ChampCar in the early days (ChumpCar), VPI values were derived directly from AIV values. AIV values were the top 10 lowest price values for your particular car. 

When Champ went to VPI, many of these needed adjustment, some still do.

There is no magic formula - TAC and several members have developed a few calculators to help, but discussions ensue and values are set based on a lot of the factors Chris mentioned above in this thread.

Or, at times in the past, the CEO has 'magically' pulled a number out of a hat and given it to a team as their VPI. Some of them have needed adjustment in the past. (edit: some still may...)

Even in it's 11th year, things are still evolving. 

 

Back in the transition from AIV to VPI it was based on AIV of the cars that already raced, some wild guesses, and lots of lobbying. Lots of people worked to get their cars value lowered, I know I did, it was a lot easier then, before the values became more set in stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mcoppola said:

For folks who weren't involved in ChampCar in the early days (ChumpCar), VPI values were derived directly from AIV values. AIV values were the top 10 lowest price values for your particular car. 

When Champ went to VPI, many of these needed adjustment, some still do.

There is no magic formula - TAC and several members have developed a few calculators to help, but discussions ensue and values are set based on a lot of the factors Chris mentioned above in this thread.

Or, at times in the past, the CEO has 'magically' pulled a number out of a hat and given it to a team as their VPI. Some of them have needed adjustment in the past. (edit: some still may...)

Even in it's 11th year, things are still evolving. 


so the real answer is no formula to balance the potential performance Of all cars on the VPI¬†just the benevolent dictator felt this was appropriate and if someone looked to have an advantage the ‚Äúgroup effort‚ÄĚ ‚Äúfixed it‚ÄĚ. Best to work on formula and forget ‚Äútweaking the current system‚ÄĚ. ¬†I see how it got here but not the best spot to be now.¬†
I will state that I love the racing and racers in Champcar.  I don’t need a revamp of anything but I see other folks frustration when nothing adds up realistically. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While y'all were arguing over the VPI of NCs, I've been busy making mine faster.

 

The problem seems to be there are almost no examples of ChampCars built to the limit of the rules and driven at 10/10ths. Maybe Troy's Bio 2.0 and the Riley-built Corvette are examples? Given the tremendous variation in builds and driver skill, outliers should be expect. They don't necessarily suggest VPI needs adjustment, though the extreme amount of work required to build something like Bio 2.0 might call other parts of the ruleset into question.

 

A truly maxed-out ChampCar is probably faster than a WRL GP1 car.

Eventually I think you guys will need a formula-driven system based on easily quantifiable attributes: measured weight, estimated power (if you measure it everyone cheats), drivetrain layout, tires, suspension type, etc.

Also, Troy's NC is going to be slow. If he races it against us we'll give him a good whompin'.

Edited by Grant
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grant said:

The problem seems to be there are almost no examples of ChampCars built to the limit of the rules

 

Seems like a lot of work :)

I guess this means keeping 60% of the car so mega light weight, 0pts suspension by modifying ad reuse suspension components, blue print engine with "home porting", etc, etc.

 

Probably easier to build a good spec MX-5 than a mega chumpcar.

 

>estimated power (if you measure it everyone cheats)

So are you saying that WRL dynos are bogus? (lots of NCs are GP3, even are heavy NC is GP2 so that could explain that).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ChampCar Staff
On 8/14/2021 at 9:22 PM, Chris Huggins said:

You are an enigma to me Troy...  I'm not sure if its narcissism or just bad judgement, doesn't really matter anyway.

 

As the TAC chairman, I request a review on a car.  In this case, it displeases you, so you cry fowl, call me a " D#$K"., say that "someone behind the scenes shouldn't be able to initiate a review", but then in the same post, you proceed to outline a requirement list of when a car can be eligible for review, which the car you are so upset about would meet most of your criteria for review....  

 

Furthermore, we have not one but two committee's for review of valuations.  We have one made up of technical experts, chosen by the BOD, who are supposed to be a club resource for technical info.  They can't make any decisions, only provide advice to the BOD.  The BOD are members elected by (a small subset of the membership) to make decisions for the club.  The BOD is made up of various members, none of which are "on the same team".   But your suggestion is that we need a third committee to decide if a car is eligible for review.  If committee 3 says yes, then it gets kicked to committee 2, which may or may not suggest a change, which then goes to committee 1, which may or may not listen to committee 2 and may or may not make a change. 

 

Lets back up and review (pun intended) why someone asking for a car to be reviewed is such a big deal anyway?   This happens multiple times per month via the Tech Desk.  Members write in asking for a VPI review or a new VPI.  (TAC and myself have been working very diligently to get through the backlog, and we are almost caught up).  Sometimes the member gets agreement from the TAC/BOD.  Sometimes the request is rejected.  There's a process for that.  If there is to be a change, there are specific written dates for which the change can occur.  New VPI's quarterly.  VPI changes annually.

 

Finally, I say the only way to eliminate bias is to hire outsiders, and you say "I disagree" and then go on to say pretty much that you agree its a challenging position to be in and that even if I abstain from discussions it would be difficult to eliminate the perception.  Do you just reject everything I post without comprehending it first?  

 

Let me be abundantly clear on the following:

I did not participate in the "review" discussion among the TAC.  I specifically noted this in a previous post.  I told the TAC exactly why I would not participate.  I believe I asked one question when I missed a detail, but for the most part I just took notes. 

 

For another example of how I have tried remain impartial, I did not "vote" on any of the petitions I submitted.  I 'abstained' unless the remaining BOD members were at a tie or requested my opinion.

 

The question this leads to, is that when is it OK for me to participate?  In your post you say I shouldn't participate in any E30 discussions.  Sure - Agreed, I think I stated that above also, that I specifically knew that I needed to be distant from any E30 or SC300 discussions.  Is there a criteria in your mind for when it is OK for me to participate in a discussion?  Only on cars that I haven't competed against?  Only on cars that aren't green? 

 

As a BOD member, the members who voted for me have "entrusted" me to participate in these discussions and make decisions in the club's best interest.  Sometimes the BOD makes decisions as a group.  Sometimes one of us makes a decision and presents it to the remainder for agreement.  Sometimes we agree that within certain boundaries, decisions can be made autonomously.  That's how committee's work, and how you get as much done as possible with a group of volunteers who meet once a month to discuss things.

 

I've tried very hard to be fair and impartial.  As you say, it is difficult.  Before Doc passed, there was the perception that half the board raced E30's.  Now the perception is that Rodger and I are conspiring against Troy.  

 

As my wife would say, "your not tequila, stop trying to make everyone troy  happy"

I'm gonna keep doing my best to do what I think is right.  In 2 years the club can decide if they think I did the right thing or not.  

For the next 6-8 months you don't have to worry about me racing anyways, I've got something more important to do.

 

 

 

 

I have been pondering to respond at all at this point as it is actually really upsetting to me at this point on many levels.

Do I think you should request a VPI increase on a direct competitor right after that beat you which will eliminate them from the series. You are dang right I think that is wrong and many others are seeing that also for what it is. You trying to say I am narcissistic or just using bad judgement is simply trying to make me look bad to deflect what you have done. Nice try.

 

On when and why cars are reviewed, why not have a defined process? I would not mind being reviewed, if all others similar are reviewed as that is fair. I would like a heads up that the review is happening, that is fair. I would like to be able to appeal and be part of the process if needed, that is fair. I think all that is fair. I would not like a total blindside of hey, guess what, your VPI just went from 400 to 500 and now the car you are building is totally F-ed and you are done. That is not cool. You have not said you like the process proposed, maybe simply because I came up with it, or maybe because it takes control away from you, but since you did not say you like it then it has me thinking you do not.

 

When did I ever say we need a new committee to review VPI's? Someone suggested that and I joked about having committees on committees, which easily infers that I do not think we need it. We have the TAC, the purpose of the TAC is to review VPI and rules and make SUGGESTIONS to the board that can be impartial and have suggested weight compared to a single member. No new committee is need, a new process, sure thing.

 

This is was it looks like from my member point of view. You maybe say foul and think different, but this is the reality of perception for a lot of us.  You got beat at VIR N, maybe the first time a heads up race in the last 3 years as your finishing record is better than any in Champcar, kudos to you, and you want to keep it that way. I submitted to TAC to differentiate the NC1 to the NC2/3 and evaluate it different and lower it by 25 points as it really does have a lot of endurance differences (NC2/3 = oil cooler, forged internals, better valve springs, higher rpm, better ABS, better Aero, ect). It got denied, though at the track your response in person was, Heck no, not with the woopin it gave me/us at VIR and you did not seem happy. Then at CMP the same team beat beat you again, kindoff, in Dangers car and was faster than you in your own car with used RS4 tires vs their Coppers, but lets just ignore that fact as it does not help your argument. Then you personally bring it to the TAC right after that race, not a member, admit you bring all your own data in to get it evaluated higher. Then bring this to the board to get evaluated. On the Board you are in charge of the TAC/TECH/Rules so your suggestions and opinions should hold value, weight and persuasion as a person of authority on this. 

 

Now, what is really odd is the majority of the TAC is the same that were on there a year ago when they reviewed the Miata NC when it was 500 points and recommended it go down to 400 points are there and now magically you say you want it to go to like 480-500, or close to that.

 

Lets sum that up.  VIR N you got beat, CMP again, right after you bring up to TAC to review the VPI of your direct competitor that beat you. You are in charge of TAC, you bring all your own data on your direct competition, on why the value should be raised, suggest 480-500, bring that the BOD meeting and try to push that through (no known results yet). At 480-500 it will basically get rid of all 18 teams/cars in Champcar with that platform. You win the VPI increase and get to keep winning races. You can see where the abuse of power perception is coming from?  

 

On the "I did not participate in the "review"" statement. Ummm, yah no. You initiated it all and gave data to lead the discussion in the direction you wanted.  You admitted in a prior post that you brought it up to TAC and brought your own data on the car to get it reviewed. You also brought in a Mazda expert to get even more data on the possible potential of the vehicle to get even more ammunition to eliminate it from the field.

 

This is the exact reason I came up with a vpi review process to fair to all and have definitive timelines of what and when it should be done. This process will remove you from the process of initiation to add vpi points to your direct competitors as you see fit whenever you want, all year long. I tried to come up with a fair process for all to be known, which seems to be well received by people that post and even Roger, who is on the BOD. Could this new process get me reviewed at some point, I sure hope so as I want to do well, but will get all others reviewed the same and be fair.

 

BTW- I do not vote on my own petitions unless a tie, what? I hope people see that for what it is. So if a vote is going to fail anyway, even with your no vote you do not vote. If a vote is going to pass, even with your pass you do not vote. You only vote in a tie, which is voting anyway. So if a vote is 2 yes and 4 no, your yes or no does not matter. If a vote is 2 no and 4 yes you vote would not matter.  If a vote is 3 to 3 then you vote the way you want to break the tie. That is like voting the entire time anyway as you are only voting if your vote matters.

 

On the votes I would know that if meeting notes are public or the votes were made public, which was asked by myself and many other members months ago and we have yet to see anything on it. I think I asked end of May/Early June, requested it multiple times and still nothing. Maybe I missed it and it is out there. On those, you say you abstained but only voted in a Tie, how did those go? If it was me, if it was a tie and a yes would benefit me I would say I could not vote as it would be impartial to benefit me so we need to pass on that one, but hey, that is me. If we actually had the vote results we would know.

 

On hiring outsiders, I do say no. We have had a system in place for a while that has worked, most of the time and we continue to tweak that with adjustments to evolve as time goes on and to try to stay ahead of things to stay alive as a business. I do not think outsiders will be able to understand it as well as all of us. In saying that if would be clear if we know what you did and did not vote on, but that has been kept such a secret the perception is not there.  Easy fix, keep notes, -example - the E30 should get a free skid plate purposed. I would like to know how you voted on that and notes on your opinions on it. Personally, I am OK with it, same as an accusump, but if you put that petition through, got opinions form the members, let others on the BOD talk and vote on it and if it passes, great, if not, fine. If we knew and had the notes that that actually happened then great, but again, we have nothing.

 

You say the members voted me in and entrusted you to make decisions on their behalf. I voted for you and so did many many others. I did not agree with all your rule ideas, but that is fine, as I saw you passion as the key there for me.  I really looked up to you as and engineer, team principle and driver. What you do with the E30 is amazing. How you drive is truly impressive. I had a secret little bro crush on you as admiration.  As a person that voted for you I expect you to have the best interest of the organization and lead the organization and all the members in the right direction. Right now, it sure does look like you have the best interest of yourself and your team in mind and do not care about the members, me being one of them that voted for you. The decisions you have made on the Miata NC has shown me that you are trying to influence a decision to get rid of a direct competitor and in doing so are going to gravely hurt the other 18 Miata NC teams and that is what your true intent looks like. It sure looks like you are trying to get rid of one team, and in doing so, will get rid of 18 teams. To me, if you are looking out for the members you would not be trying to get rid of 18 teams. I am really regretting my vote for you now.

 

On the out to get Troy. I do not think that Roger it out to get me at all. I think you are out to get the Nemesis team because they beat you heads up. I disagree with you and also a strong personality so we have differences of opinion and clash. I respected you and was fine, but have an issue with what you have done here.

BTW-Congrats on the new kid coming and getting out of free practice as Vettel says, they can be amazing fun. I looked at people with kids as crazy until I have two now and could not be happier and I hope you have healthy and happy kids also. It will certainly change you in a good way as it did me.  I would suggest to have two as I love how my two interact and have each other, but afraid you might disagree to just disagree. Though look up the Baby Whisper book as it really helped us when they were little and simple makes sense and make our life so much easier.

Chip- I already broke the dang car and fried the PDM because I did not control the PWM Alt correctly, spiked the voltage and now it is in for repair with no eta on when it can get fixed or cost. I am out of money so who knows when I will have the money to get another pdm to fix it. We will see as it is close. Also, it will not be as fast at Nemesis at all. I Can not afford to run the tires he does, plus I am not close to his driving skills. I can admit when someone is that much better than me and my ego is big, but not so big to not accept that.

  • Like 2
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...