David Dewhurst":26z2bb8q said:
Let's cut threw the chase for the 2015 Runoffs F Production. Watching live qualifying, it seemed to be those with reasonable straight line speed did ok provided they could drive the infield segment quickly. IIRC the guy that won qualifying and the race also had the quickest infield segment during qualifying.
Thanks Dave, I appreciate those comments. I also completed four passes on the banking, while being passed four times on the banking, including an even 1-1 record against Huffaker's Midget. On the last lap, the leader bobbled out of the chicane, the 2nd place car was forced to go to the lead too early, and they both fanned out to give me a perfect tow. Despite that, it took an even more perfect sequence of other random events throughout that race for me to even have a chance on the last lap. I fully admit that, because yeah, that's exactly what happened. But I also couldn't be more proud of how my car performed from flag to flag, the drive I put in to get that chance, and the effort we (my Dad, my Wife, my buddy Sam, and I) put into making a great car.
RICK HAYNES":26z2bb8q said:
I expect criticisms but to be accused of being " constantly engrossed in thinly-veiled concerted efforts to feed and protect your own interests, are firmly resistant to any changes or ideas that aren't your own, and go out of your way to publicly bad-mouth whenever possible", from some one that has raced a car at the top end of the motor limit while the runoffs have been at tracks for 6 of the last 7 years that reward that type of advantage seems grossly self serving. and a statement like "But just know this, those actions cause far more harm to this category and Club Racing in general than whatever perceived issue is being rallied against". sounds to me more like , "The way it is now has been good to me and I don't want it changed".
Could also be from someone who was actually there watching it happen without blinders on. Sargis' Spitfire could've won 4/4 Runoffs at Road America he attended, had some bad circumstances not gone his way, instead winning "only" 2/4. A Midget and a Lotus were the class of the field at Laguna. The top-10 in qualifying at Daytona featured seven different classifications (including a Midget, a MG-A, and a MG-B), none of which were put into production by their manufacturers post-1990, and a Midget would've won had it not cut a tire, rewarded for being a great combination of car and driver who also ran the cleanest race, like it's supposed to happen. Intermixed with these above examples, during that same referenced period, the Miata (both roadster & hard-top), the Integra, the Fiat 124, the Datsun 1600, the Lotus 7, and several others have also proven to be viable podium contenders. None of this is based on feeling, or conjecture, or my hope of how I'd like it to be. It's just fact of what actually happened.
I wasn't at Laguna because in the 10 months prior to it I got married, took a new job 1400-miles away from home, bought a new house, and basically had no money and no vacation time for racing that year. I would've loved to have been there, to see how I stacked up against the best at an iconic track and have a ton of fun with my friends.
I can't wait for Mid-Ohio. It's going to be a great race, full of quick, diverse cars and drivers, on a great track. Could something small and British win? Yeah, one very well could, just like what was shown at the three previous venues. But if Sargis winning at Road America in a Spitfire (x2), a Saurino winning at Laguna in a Midget, and Huffaker being real competitive at Daytona apparently couldn't make the nay-sayers happy, then why would I expect that to? In fact, I'm failing to realize why I'm even bothering to argue this.
Bill Blust":26z2bb8q said:
...lets stay on the HP issue with LBC cars...LBC 1275 LP cars in HP (cars like Ron Bartell's) are no longer competitive...give the 1275 LP better compression and valve lift to compete on par with them.
FWIW, I rallied for that exact idea amongst the PAC, yet adjustments were decided upon that put more weight onto most the rest of the class instead, creating even bigger weight disparities, yet the same power deficiencies. I understand the argument against it, that it would force people to crack open their perfectly good 1275cc LP engines and re-build them to different specs, while also pretty much admitting that the full-prep 948cc FP engine is being passed by. But the argument for it would bring those limited-prep cars closer to the front of the existing field, make the field race together in a more similar fashion, give the 948cc racers a viable classification for their existing chassis with a much cheaper and more reliable 1275cc drivetrain, and quite possibly make the field bigger by bringing some other chassis' out to play again. IMO, that was a sacrifice enough people would be willing to make. Not enough people agreed with me though, and that's ok, because it's certainly a debatable topic. Unfortunately though, if the discussion here is any indication, those changes haven't been enough to make the LBC racers happy, and I can tell you that it also made it less desirable to build one of the newer cars as well. The conversion of my ITB '93 Civic to HP has since halted, in favor of STL.