I would just like to address some things that have happened lately and explain my position on them. I have been accused of having some kind of behind the scene agenda with the rules concerning TSM. This is NOT true.
I have not talked to a single G.S.C.A official about TSM issues. There has not been any contact via e-mail or phone conversations. Because most TSM racers have been a customer of mine in the past, I have at my finger tips every single name and phone number of every TSM participant that has participated in TSM at the GS.Nats since it’s inception in 2002. Because of my business of course I talk to them all year. Have I called a single person to rally the troops? No. Have I talked to anyone concerning TSM rules? Really only one lately but after the closing of the rule change deadline of which I informed him that any of his suggestions or positions can only be addressed in 2007. With this being said, me having a personal agenda concerning the rules is just absurd. Is discussing the rules illegal? Is it illegal before or after the deadline? Is telling a fellow TSM competitor that has an opinion about intercoolers that he should have the right to submit this opinion for consideration not allowed? I really don’t understand the accusations. I have my opionions, but with this issue they are irrelevant at this point.
The truth, some of you seem to be on a witch hunt. You have to blame someone for rule clarifications that did not seem to be 100% beneficial toward a select few.
If there is no “person” on a crusade to modify the rules, how could this have happened?
Let me try and explain for those few of you that seem to be so narrow sighted. The TSM class has been wildly successful. What is the definition of successful? The answer is participation. It has had the most participation of any class. Why have there been so many participants up to this point? Because the class was evenly matched. Half of the 24 car field was within a half of a second in e.t. and the e.t. That defined the class was at an achievable performance level. This meant that it could have been anyone’s day to shine. This is what made it so enticing. Until recently there were no mega dollar cars with unlimited budgets running outrageous untouchable E.T.s Although this is exciting to read about and to watch this performance at it’s most extreme level it will absolutely kill the class and what makes the class so enticing to participate in.
Luckily there are a few people in higher up places (I don’t mean me by any means) that can see beyond the hood of one car. They are concerned with where this class is going and where the competitive performance level is going to be set. Some people view it as “they are always trying to slow us down”. This is not really the issue; they want the most participation and a closer field, that is what makes a class fun to race, exciting to watch and enticing for future participants.
If there is one incident that stands out that contributed the most on the decision of what to do with distributors it would have to be last years nationals. During peer tech there was quite a controversy of wither or not this part was legal. It appeared that everything possible was done to try and somehow disqualify it, not necessarily the car or person, from competition. (Although I agreed but I was not behind the scrutiny) It was concluded that there really was a loophole and there was not a rule against it so it has to be allowed. It would have to be addressed in next year’s rules. This very car that was the focus of the commotion easily qualified way beyond the rest of the field and easily slaughtered the class. Was the distributor solely to blame? Not entirely but as a result a few other cars have deemed it absolutely necessary to make this modification. Since it was the center of peer tech controversy and this car’s performance was so superior to the rest of the field why wouldn’t you think that this issue would be addressed? That is just common sense. Would the ruling have been differently based solely on the performance of this car? Of course. There is always a consequence to any car in any sanctioned racing event that has an advantage over the rest of the competitors, if these advantages are not addressed they are ultimately the demise of the class or sanction. Looking at the facts behind this yes there was one car that contributed to most to the decision of what to do with the distributor…..
There are some things that really need to be addressed. The main one is TSM rule submittal and evaluation protocol. There is not a standardized way of submitting rule changes and having participants (all of the participants) contribute to each and every ruling. Posting one post on one bulletin board under the subtitle of the Indy race is NOT acceptable. I do not have the answer to how to do this but it really needs to be addressed. I don’t know exactly when the deadline for the proposed new rules has to be made by but I personally feel that it should be at the end of the previous year. I think this should also be discussed by all.
I will only discuss this on a professional level. Any name calling, unwarrented personal attacks on me or my bussiness will not be tolerated.
I have not talked to a single G.S.C.A official about TSM issues. There has not been any contact via e-mail or phone conversations. Because most TSM racers have been a customer of mine in the past, I have at my finger tips every single name and phone number of every TSM participant that has participated in TSM at the GS.Nats since it’s inception in 2002. Because of my business of course I talk to them all year. Have I called a single person to rally the troops? No. Have I talked to anyone concerning TSM rules? Really only one lately but after the closing of the rule change deadline of which I informed him that any of his suggestions or positions can only be addressed in 2007. With this being said, me having a personal agenda concerning the rules is just absurd. Is discussing the rules illegal? Is it illegal before or after the deadline? Is telling a fellow TSM competitor that has an opinion about intercoolers that he should have the right to submit this opinion for consideration not allowed? I really don’t understand the accusations. I have my opionions, but with this issue they are irrelevant at this point.
The truth, some of you seem to be on a witch hunt. You have to blame someone for rule clarifications that did not seem to be 100% beneficial toward a select few.
If there is no “person” on a crusade to modify the rules, how could this have happened?
Let me try and explain for those few of you that seem to be so narrow sighted. The TSM class has been wildly successful. What is the definition of successful? The answer is participation. It has had the most participation of any class. Why have there been so many participants up to this point? Because the class was evenly matched. Half of the 24 car field was within a half of a second in e.t. and the e.t. That defined the class was at an achievable performance level. This meant that it could have been anyone’s day to shine. This is what made it so enticing. Until recently there were no mega dollar cars with unlimited budgets running outrageous untouchable E.T.s Although this is exciting to read about and to watch this performance at it’s most extreme level it will absolutely kill the class and what makes the class so enticing to participate in.
Luckily there are a few people in higher up places (I don’t mean me by any means) that can see beyond the hood of one car. They are concerned with where this class is going and where the competitive performance level is going to be set. Some people view it as “they are always trying to slow us down”. This is not really the issue; they want the most participation and a closer field, that is what makes a class fun to race, exciting to watch and enticing for future participants.
If there is one incident that stands out that contributed the most on the decision of what to do with distributors it would have to be last years nationals. During peer tech there was quite a controversy of wither or not this part was legal. It appeared that everything possible was done to try and somehow disqualify it, not necessarily the car or person, from competition. (Although I agreed but I was not behind the scrutiny) It was concluded that there really was a loophole and there was not a rule against it so it has to be allowed. It would have to be addressed in next year’s rules. This very car that was the focus of the commotion easily qualified way beyond the rest of the field and easily slaughtered the class. Was the distributor solely to blame? Not entirely but as a result a few other cars have deemed it absolutely necessary to make this modification. Since it was the center of peer tech controversy and this car’s performance was so superior to the rest of the field why wouldn’t you think that this issue would be addressed? That is just common sense. Would the ruling have been differently based solely on the performance of this car? Of course. There is always a consequence to any car in any sanctioned racing event that has an advantage over the rest of the competitors, if these advantages are not addressed they are ultimately the demise of the class or sanction. Looking at the facts behind this yes there was one car that contributed to most to the decision of what to do with the distributor…..
There are some things that really need to be addressed. The main one is TSM rule submittal and evaluation protocol. There is not a standardized way of submitting rule changes and having participants (all of the participants) contribute to each and every ruling. Posting one post on one bulletin board under the subtitle of the Indy race is NOT acceptable. I do not have the answer to how to do this but it really needs to be addressed. I don’t know exactly when the deadline for the proposed new rules has to be made by but I personally feel that it should be at the end of the previous year. I think this should also be discussed by all.
I will only discuss this on a professional level. Any name calling, unwarrented personal attacks on me or my bussiness will not be tolerated.
