VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:11:52 07/25/06 Tue
Author: Bill Meredith
Author Host/IP: kcpgw-vip1.kcp.com / 198.62.69.76
Subject: Rules Proposals

About one week before the big rules meeting at the Nationals. Have we all made our thoughts and wishes CLEAR to OUR elected officials about the proposals?

I am guilty of not discussing my thoughts with Richard or Dean, but I think they know where I stand if they have paid attention to the NMMA message board and I plan to talk to Richard this weekend.

The BIG vote will be the combining of the A-Class and Multi as well as the proposal to open the engine rules in the Non-Wing and Resticted class. You had better make your thoughts clear!

I personally like the idea of combining the A and Multi Class as long as we implement a single element 10ft wing rule with 48" sideboards, a 50 durometer RR tire and a 12" RR wheel width rule. I wouldn't mind seeing the hard LR tire rule carried into this class and we for sure DON'T want to change the 48" maximum rear tread width. No 636cc engines - there is only ONE manufacturer making the 636 engine (Kawasaki), don't fall into this trap!

As far as opening the engine rules in the Restrictor Class - NOT A GOOD IDEA unless we retain a claim rule! My thoughts are: small horsepower gains on these restricted engines means MUCH more than an unrestriced engine because the restricted cars are HOOKED UP (think Daytona & Talladega)! If you open the engine rules you will see mad money being spent to gain small amounts of power. I say - if you don't think we can tech a "stock" engine, then allow "open" engines, but implement a $500 claim/exchange rule where the claimer and claimee exchange engines and money. Also, the restrictors should have NO NOSE WINGS and a maximum 10" wide RR Wheel!!!!

Another BIG vote is to allow 54" sideboard wings in the Multi Class --- THIS IS BAD with a capital B!!! These wings cost about $100 more than a 48" sideboard wing and will cost you additional money by hooking the cars up more (more horsepower)--- DON'T ALLOW THESE WINGS, they are BAD for the sport!! Look, I build wings and I can sell you all 54" sideboard wings for $360 next year and make good money - BUT IT IS BAD FOR THE LONG TERM HEALTH OF THIS SPORT!!!!!! so please do not allow this to happen - they will do nothing but COST everyone money in the long run!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.