Sign In
Create Account
You might want to stop with the ad hominem snide remarks in every post then.
Todd, I thought I did that. I thought I removed all those from the last post when I asked for peace.
Not that it is important for this conversation (meaning I understand your point and actually agree with your view on Dynos. Meaning I understand you are not looking for them to be the be all and end all for tech); you dont need track maps or large boards to activate a GPS switch. All you need to do is to determine that the car is not in motion or is in motion. As matter of fact you don't even need a GPS sensor to do it. You can do a simple switch on the hood being up, ETC ETC just like you have pointed out. GPS switching or G sensors or other non manual sensors are nice though in that the switch itself can be hidden and isn't manually controlled. You can post onboard and not see someone flipping a switch, ETC.
I think the middle ground approach works just as well at the regional level. I also think that it is sad that the impression is that everyone at the regional level can and do cheat all they want and that is ok because it is regional. The impression that regional cars are more cheated up than majors cars. With a structured tech program that meets the goals that Drago and others are asking for, I see no reason why that isn't appropriate at the regional level as well. The people here are smart. They can figure out a way to address both concerns; 1. The need to give competitors confidence that the cars are equal in general 2. The need to keep people that race for fun and have no desire to cheat or to spend extra time and money tearing down a car on a weekend they want to have fun.
As example, was it really necessary to tear every component of the running gear out of the teched cars at the runoffs if in fact they had been inspected to a program all through out the year? Could it not just have been gearboxes as example? Could it notjhave been just gear boxes if the heads were looked at at a different race, shocks at another and for a curve ball the whatever checked two race weekends in a row? Can that be done without moving to sealed engines? I think part of Jims point was that a problem arises and we go to fix it, the fix generates other problems that were anticipated. So we swing from fix to fix depending on which side you fall on the issue for that particular event. And that maybe a structured program would be better instead of fixing the problem de jour without considering that a different set of problems will arise and we will apply a crude fix to that problem and then the cycle starting all over again. I believe he is advocating a simple and structured program with the cost spread across all competitors. I have suggested something similar with a couple differences.
But I think it important to first consider the goals that we are trying to fix. I think the 2 outline points above do that. They correctly define the problem at hand. And if we design a solution to account for both at the same time, and a willingness to make corrections to it as we go, we will come up with a good compromise instead of fixing one point this week, and then the next point the following weekend. A knee jerk response of sealed motors and an over reliance on Dynos is not the solution in my opinion. The dyno seems like a good tool in a suite of tools including a structured program. The sealed motor suggestion well; IMO people know not what they are asking for with that. And in that I have a bit of experience as I come from a sealed motor class.
Just my long winded opinions.
Back to top
Report
