145 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

I shared a 95 1st year with a friend, I know what Rons talking about on the 4:10 on certain tracks

Tom, great post.

After all, why would anyone devote valuable parity review time to prevent a disadvantage right?

I know the higher ups have thick skin, but comments like this just make me want to say kiss

[Jamz14]

Johnny,

Why would that comment be found offensive? I am not making fun of the amount of time people devote to looking at rules. I am using that fact to ensure that the current 4:10 rule does not change, and that it is not worth peoples time to change it. You know as well as I do that rules can and have changed midseason. I want to make sure that if I devote the time and money to testing a possible advantage, that that advantage is not then taken away just because it is easier to write a rule change than it is to evaluate a rule change. Best way I know how to do that is to remind people of the same arguments that have been given to me for not looking at parity issues mid season.

The rules are done. Wish I could have the option at championships. But I don't,and I don't expect that to change.

Almost everyone has said that parity is not an issue. So be it!!!!!!! But don't expect me to forget that when there is talk of changing an option for a particular year. Let it be and I will let it be.

[Johnny D]

Johnny,

Why would that comment be found offensive? I am not making fun of the amount of time people devote to looking at rules. I am using that fact to ensure that the current 4:10 rule does not change, and that it is not worth peoples time to change it. You know as well as I do that rules can and have changed midseason. I want to make sure that if I devote the time and money to testing a possible advantage, that that advantage is not then taken away just because it is easier to write a rule change than it is to evaluate a rule change. Best way I know how to do that is to remind people of the same arguments that have been given to me for not looking at parity issues mid season.

The rules are done. Wish I could have the option at championships. But I don't,and I don't expect that to change.

Almost everyone has said that parity is not an issue. So be it!!!!!!! But don't expect me to forget that when there is talk of changing an option for a particular year. Let it be and I will let it be.

I don't really want to get into this with you, I shouldn't of said anything, but...
John said they weren't going to be any changes.
IMO, If you wanted it to stay the way it is I wouldn't say anything to remind them.
He's part of the reason we are as close as we are.

You asked if that is correct by saying "right? "
I'll just say I don't agree.
J~

[Jim Drago]

I think the answer is the new rule set adjustments were established with the 4:30 gear set in the 1.8. Having all cars on the same gear ratio when the new rules were established. Allowing the 1.8 to use the 4:10 at the non-championship races allows those that don't want to upgrade to save the expense of doing so. At some point I would guess the 4:10 will not be allowed at any level.

Posts like the one you are responding to will make that happen sooner than later The 4:10 was left for those trying to save money and not change to the 4:30 as you suggested.

[Tom Sager]

I still think the move to a 4:30 for the 1.8 was more positive than negative but banging off the rev limiter or shifting when others don't is a pain. All being on 4:30 does make the cars more "the same" in most circumstances. Conversely there are tracks where the 4:10 gave the 1.8 a little edge over the '99 because it could use 2nd or 3rd gear when the '99 is in 3rd or 4th or 5th for that matter. The 1.8 and '99 rev limiter are so close (100 RPM) it barely matters. The 1.6 gets a little advantage with longer legs in each gear.

[Bench Racer]

The 1.6 gets a little advantage with longer legs in each gear.

To make up for the less torque on the short end. That "P" word keeps coming to mind.