In a message dated 1/23/99 11:56:19 AM Central Standard Time, qre-
shadow@juno.com writes:
> Rick, you don't seem to understand, or maybe accept, that any alteration
> to a GCR formula only brings the need for more alterations and then
> more.... History tells us that this is what happens when you start down
> that road because no one is ever satisfied. Someone always wants more, or
> less for that matter. When does it stop, when we run out of money or
> ideas, or is it when we reach the current stage of the SVee relative to
> the FVee?
>
> You want us to buy smaller tires, the rims that'll work with those tires,
> rains and then if we race our cars, we'd also have to have a second set
> too? All of this and there is no proof that any of this will solve your
> perceived problem. You still haven't convinced us that "parity" doesn't
> exist.
>
> You pass over the comments made months ago to this specific issue;
> F440/500s do not have what most would call a suspension. Therefore, some
> manufacturers have designed in certain specific wheel dimensions and tire
> sizes in order for their chassis to work as planned. Certainly, wheels
> and tires can be changed simply by depleting bank accounts. But what new
> modifications would have to be made to bring the cars back to where they
> were so that everything works as designed? Would they be legal
> modifications? Nobody knows. Guess work. And so it starts.......
>
> I believe it reasonable to say that most feel that the future of this
> class is in the F440/500 cars, not in the SVee. Growth in FMod is
> fundamentally based upon money(little) and easy access to legal cars.
> FVees have to go through some relatively extensive expense laden
> alterations to bring them up to SVee specs. F440/500s don't have that
> problem now. They can go from racing right into Solo II(if they are 500s,
> a carburetor mod is necessary). Therefore, why would we, or SCCA for that
> matter, want to increase the cost to us or potential new drivers of
> F440/500 cars by requiring modifications to "old" race cars as they come
> down from racing to Solo II? Why would SCCA want to force unneeded
> expense to de-modify, .....de-modify a Mod car? Why would SCCA want to
> increase the cost of what now is probably the least expensive car and
> most easily entered Mod class that they have? Just doesn't make much
> sense and such as move would be detrimental to FMod's growth.
>
> FMod should try to emulate CMod to be successful and trouble free. Stay
> with the GCR Formula.
>
> Art
Hi Art,
Well we're back at it again. Can you believe it?
Really - I do understand and accept the alteration thing. However, it's my
understanding that alterations on the Solo version of the F5 have already
begun (but openly admit not being an expert on F5s). It's because of mine
acceptance (and other SV guys) of no alterations to the F5 that have caused us
to kicked around returning to DM or even creating a VMod class. The winning
DM time and the fastest Vee were VERY close (I think about 0.002 sec) at the
last couple of Nationals. Whether there would be enough SV participation to
create a VM class I believe is doubtful. Personnally, I'd support a move back
to DM. Unfortunately for the SVs, everyone in FM has had such strong and
diverse opinions that no progress has been made at making FM work for both car
classes. I just hope something works out soon.
Keep in touch...
Rick McClure
|