Chuck,
Again, even if the performance were on par ...
Why the heck would someone wanting to enter the class go and buy a
cool-looking race car with wings, only to be forced to remove the wings? What
is the interest in that car over a FF1600?
I was under the impression that the goal of this proposal was to raise
participation levels in CM. Is that the goal? If so, I dont' think that an
FF2000 without wings is likely to attract people who aren't also attracted to
FF1600.
So I must be misunderstanding the goal of the proposal. What was the goal
again?
Josh
----- Original Message -----
From: Voboril, Chuck
To: Josh Sirota ; Tom Saunders ; Gary Godula
Cc: Jim and Rose Ann Garry ; Andy Hollis ; Bill Gendron ; Bill Smiley ; Bob
Woods ; Bruce Dickey ; CHARLES J VOBORIL ; Charlie Mathews ; CM ; Colan Arnold
; Craig Carr ; Dan Cole ; Doug Gill ; Eric Jones ; Kenny Baker ; Mark Sirota ;
peter calhoun ; Pruett, Christopher (CK) ; Sam & Greg Scharnberg ; Stuart
Lumpkin
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: RE: CM F2000
To the FF2000/FF16000 Beer, Chowder and Marching Society,
I believe we (The MAC) have made an error by not presenting pertinent
comparison data up front before asking for input.
I still believe that the MAC thought this out pretty well.
Forgetting now, but I may have been one of the first to embrace this idea.
We all ('cept Mark) seemed to believe it was a good idea when all the info
was in front of us.
Evidently, there are a lot of people jumping to conclusions because of the
road race performance abilities of a FF2000.
Downforce and absolute HP mean everything in that venue.
Just a few days ago, I was looking closely at a bunch of FF2000's and
FF1600's side by side at a local shop.
The FF2000 has:
1) Slightly less to about equal tire footprint per pound of weight.
- 2) A higher C.G. ( Cortina motor in FF1600 is smaller and lighter, esp.
on top even w/out Al. head)
-4) More weight bias to rear
5) About equal width.
-6) Significantly more mass
The minuses are generally (but maybe not always) detractions to Solo
performance.
Is there any attribute that indicates a FF2000 should be any
quicker than a FF1600 in a transient oriented, non-downforce environment?
Just to make sure, we suggested leaving wings off.
I just got the imprsssion from Gary Godula's letter that if the wings were
left off, he doesn't give it much of a chance.
I have thought about the possibility of someone somehow
getting more footprint with cantilever tires for a FF2000.
1) The cantilever approach would probably already be used on FF2000 cars if
it really bought anything...
2) I strongly suspect that the cantilever approach to wider rubber loses its
effectiveness quickly as the loading from static Mass and downforce of the
car goes up.
(Substituting rubber sidewall for metal makes for a pretty flexible rim)
For example...Look at how much better Pro-Atlantic 15" rim dia tires work
than 13"'s.
3) Maybe there is something left to be had in no-downforce environment with
cantilevers, but the extra mass is still a factor.
(you won't get as much additional useable increased footprint as a lighter
FF1600 does)
Tommy, what does a disinterested (expert) observer like Dr. Bob Woods have
to say about FF2000 in C-mod?
Be sure NOT to mention to him that maybe the fastest B-mod cars ought to
lightened up a bit and put in SAE :-)
Maybe we missed something here.
Are we all wet?
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Sirota [mailto:josh@sirota.org]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 12:40 PM
To: Tom Saunders; Gary Godula
Cc: Jim and Rose Ann Garry; Andy Hollis; Bill Gendron; Bill Smiley; Bob
Woods; Bruce Dickey; CHARLES J VOBORIL; Charlie Mathews; CM; Colan Arnold;
Craig Carr; Dan Cole; Doug Gill; Eric Jones; Kenny Baker; Mark Sirota; peter
calhoun; Pruett, Christopher (CK); Sam & Greg Scharnberg; Stuart Lumpkin;
Voboril, Chuck
Subject: Re: CM F2000
What is it Tommy, are you afraid of those FF2000s kicking your ass in BM?
:-)
Seriously, I'm not a fan of restrictors and huge weight penalties to try
to produce equality. These sorts of things just produce bastard cars.
Especially considering that the proposal in Fastrack calls for removing the
wings.
Personally, if I were to get into the class again, and the options were:
FF1600 (as today)
S2000 (as today)
FF2000 without wings and with restrictors/weight
I can't imagine wanting to do the third one, unless the restrictors and
weight penalties were such that I thought it would still have an advantage.
Why do you think this would increase CM class entries?
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Saunders
To: Gary Godula
Cc: Jim and Rose Ann Garry ; Andy Hollis ; Bill Gendron ; Bill Smiley ;
Bob Woods ; Bruce Dickey ; CHARLES J VOBORIL ; Charlie Mathews ; CM ; Colan
Arnold ; Craig Carr ; Dan Cole ; Doug Gill ; Eric Jones ; Josh Sirota ; Kenny
Baker ; Mark Sirota ; peter calhoun ; Pruett, Christopher (CK) ; Sam & Greg
Scharnberg ; Stuart Lumpkin ; Voboril, Chuck
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 11:10 AM
Subject: CM F2000
Gary
Don't over react! Think about it, the 2000 fits.
Frame and suspension are the same, in some cases, exactly.
Power easily fixed with restrictor plate, conservatively.
CM has turned the corner, beginning to decline. Check numbers. FF has
been in decline for years.
S2000 has not been overwhelming in CM, even with hp and downforce
advantage. They look big, because of body, but wb/track essentially the
same.
F2000 is healthy. We will also have to address FSCCA soon, another
version of F2000, which should also land in CM, restricted.
IMHO, the stock F2000 wings/diffusers have little effect in Solo 2 and
could be left on, countered by restrictor.
The idea is to not allow F2000 to have a chance to dominate CM, adjust
restrictions with experience.
It just makes sence. We need to look to the future. I think it could
work extremely well, if applied conservatively and intelligently...
Tommy
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/autox-cm
|