Pacecar Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 (edited) Message deleted, since I worded it so that it was completely misunderstood by the responder. My point was that the OctoberFAST LM rules were diverging (not allowing hybrid combinations), not moving towards a common set of rules. - Larry Bendele Edited September 29, 2005 by Pacecar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 [edited out by Nick Holt, 9/28/05] Sorry that I completely misunderstood your post, Larry. I have edited out my response to match yours. Nick Holt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp17 Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 (edited) Larry: I appreciate your comments and did not misunderstand your intentions at all. In that same spirit, from my prespective, the rules that SAS LM and TSRS ran under in the Twin 50's seemed, from a results standpoint, to favor the SAS rules car. How much of that is attributable to home track advantage vs. actual inequalities would make for an excellent discussion but the results speak for themselves. My guess is that the finishing order from those 5 races had something to do with the decided upon rules for the Oktoberfast event. jp Edited September 29, 2005 by jp17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 Larry: I appreciate your comments and did not misunderstand your intentions at all. In that same spirit, from my prespective, the rules that SAS LM and TSRS ran under in the Twin 50's seemed, from a results standpoint, to favor the SAS rules car. How much of that is attributable to home track advantage vs. actual inequalities would make for an excellent discussion but the results speak for themselves. My guess is that the finishing order from those 5 races had something to do with the decided upon rules for the Oktoberfast event. jp JP, The common post-season rules were a product of a joint collaboration of decision-makers folks from THR, SAS, USRA and TSRS with input from CCMS. If the rules favor one car over another it was not intentional. There will always be perceptions that a particular set of rules favors one sort of car or another no matter how noble the intentions of the rules makers. At least the tracks and touring series are headed towards common ground rather than trying to cut each other's throat with rules that make it impossible or very difficult to race at other venues. Nick Holt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp17 Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 My point exacly Nick. It is great that everyone seems to be working together for the common good. jp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ups88john Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 as long as we dont have to try and stuff 125lbs on the car just race its ok with me. big john Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modracer Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 Instead of worrying about all the different rules, why cant the rules be simple for all classes. Give each class a specific tire. Whatever motor they decide to run let them. There will be no tech so someone couldnt say someone else was cheating. One would only have to worry about the weight of the cars instead of whats inside of the motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusty_rusty Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 now thats funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.