Ed, you got it backwards, the rears need the help because there's more weight carried in the rear, Q feels the front is pretty darn good as is, but whatever.. CR
edward capullo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Art -- I spoke with Q on this subject back in August. His opinion at the time was that he wasn't completely sold on the idea. I asked about my Invader ie: doing the shock puck deal for next season and he said that he might do the fronts but leave the rears alone as he felt I would be bouncing too much if I remember correctly. I have only run the car at Lime Rock and NHIS and never autocrossed it. So far I have not found any great movement either up/down or sideways. (unless I hit the curbs) I guess it would be silly to confront Bob at Lime Rock if my own chassis builder is against the change. Come to think of it Q told me a couple of weeks ago that he will be at the NARRC event so maybe I will speak to him again. Ed Capullo >From: "Art" >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: >Subject: RE: [F500] Re: F500 - Longer Suspension Puck Change Denied >Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:18:08 -0400 > >John, > >If it was Mike, that would be for him to say. But, as far as your comment >of >alluding to some performance issue or other gain being the reason, I think >that would be erroneous. Any benefit coming out approving a new puck >configuration would be available to anyone, QRE wouldn't be restricted from >adding that perceived benefit :-). I should also remind you that Mike has >been very forthcoming to soloists and racers alike on setups. He has >demonstrated in the past his willingness to answer any question on his cars >(although not by computer :-) )and would have no reason to ask for >rejection >of this proposal to gain some advantage. > >As I mentioned in my email, I have knowledge of the basis for that letter, >and it was a concern for safety and the potential for lack of control >issues >since the addition of the bigger pucks was the only thing requested to be >approved. Again, from my perspective, I would have opted for testing along >the lines that Jay has done before approving this request with only a hope >that it will do as promised. But that's just me :-). > >Art > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John >Whitling >Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 10:57 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [F500] Re: F500 - Longer Suspension Puck Change Denied > >Art >Are you saying that it was Mike? If a very successful tuner/builder is on >top now I can understand why he might not want to see things change. > >Art wrote: > > >Jim, > > > >If the individual in question was Mike Quadrini, he is certainly > >entitled to his opinion and writing that opinion to the BOD. Further, > >as I have found in some of your other posts, your information as to > >what is and what isn't is lacking. Mike Quadrini has certainly > >participated and driven his cars at speed in races throughout the > >northeast. And if he is the premiere manufacturer in the northeast as > >suggested, one that in the reality has produced many, many championship > >cars with his knowledge and design, I would think his opinion would be > >noticed. One voice, one vote but noticed nonetheless. If you have a > >problem with the BOD giving a knowledgeable manufacturer more credence > >then the "landside of drivers", then you have a problem with the BOD, > >not trying to degrade the experience of the possible writer of the >letter. > > > >>From what I have found out about that "infamous" email is that the > >>safety > >issue and the possibility of "avoid(ing) pogo stick bouncing" down the > >track was the basis of the request for a re-evaluation of the puck >request. > >Although our cars do have a cracking frame issue and should be > >constantly reviewed, I would suggest that if your issue is only a > >safety issue as you suggest in your situation, it might be better > >addressed to the SEB/MAC then to try and get the racing group to do >something for your immediate problem: > >rough parking lots. > > > >The suspension on our cars is an issue but from my perspective, it > >would be better to have real results to base an opinion on rather then > >just jumping on a "fix" that may or may not solve a problem and may in > >fact, cause more of a problem. Jay has suggested that he does have some > >testing results and I await his information before I start going down a > >path that will just cost more money or make things worse. > > > >Art > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:58 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [F500] Re: F500 - Longer Suspension Puck Change Denied > > > >Larry, > >He is in the minority and if he is who I suspect that he is (Mike > >Quadrini, the NE car maker referred to earlier), this person has never > >ever driven a F440/500 in competition much less had a suspension > >failure at speed so he is NOT the one to listen to. Besides, he is >outvoted by a landslide of > >drivers. Remember that this is a SAFETY issue so considering a >carmaker's > >input as overriding puts the BOD at risk. Many drivers have commented > >over many years of continuously looking for metal cracks so that they > >can avoid a horrific failure at speed simply because the rubber puck > >does not have sufficient compliance to reduce the shock to the chassis. > >We are still looking for a better way of dampening in order to avoid pogo >stick bouncing. > > > >Jim > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:18 AM > >Subject: Re: F500 - Longer Suspension Puck Change Denied > > > > > >I was not at the meeting due to an unavoidable committment, but I was > >told that one major builder of F 500 cars spoke out against the move. > > > > > >Larry Dent > > > > > >On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > BOD, > >I have just heard that this change was turned down even though there > >were over 42 drivers in favor of this improvement. I have been running > >F440/500's since 1982 and I have had multiple suspension failures at > >all four corners over these many years where the supporting metal has > >broken completely with one particular rear failure at speed that lifted > >the rear of the car 4 feet in the air (I was looking straight down at > >the road!). My heart, needless to say, stopped momentarily; to say > >that this kind of failure at speed is a SAFETY issue and you DENY > >IMPROVING the suspension just stuns and flabbergasts me. I was there > >in 1983 when the rubber puck suspension rule was first written in as a > >SAFETY item. Were any of you around then and remember this? Do you > >also remember during the discussions for this rule that the puck > >dimensions of 1" thick and 2" diameter were considered only a starting > >point - to be reviewed periodically for the appropriateness only to be >forgotten about ! > > all these 20 years until now - we are human and do forget! I urge you > >to immediately reconsider your vote, remember that this is a SAFETY > >issue and vote your conscience to help the F500 community. And last, > >do you want to risk going on record denying this safety improvement > >when a suspension point metal failure at 125 mph seriously hurts or even >kills a F500 driver? > > > >I await your response not your acknowledgement of receipt. > > > >Jim Murphy > >3R93012 > > > > > >Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and > >security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from > >across the web, free AOL Mail and more. > > > > > >= > >[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name >of --------------------------------- Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out. ________________________________ FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 _________________________________ _______________________________________________ F500 mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change options please visit: http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500 *** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
