After DQ's changes made to official SK and LLM feature event finishes at Fall Final

openwheelracer · Admin/Mod/Eyewitness

After DQ's changes made to official SK and LLM feature event finishes at Fall Final

afohlin · Car Owner

Im not suprised at all that Ken was DQ'd. Thompson cars aren't legal at Stafford and vice-versa. I wish all 3 CT tracks could come up with general SK rules so that cars will be legal everywhere.

openwheelracer · Admin/Mod/Eyewitness

I have mixed feelings about the entire situation with #05 SK. I know it states in the rule book that ultimately a race team is responsible to make sure their car conforms to the track rules, and the #05 team I would assume knew that they didn't, by running heads that are not approved for the SK division untill the 2008 season at Stafford, but are approved for competition at Thompson.

Now that being said Stafford knew the #05 team was a Thompson car, and perhaps after the tech issues a few weeks back with the #88 car of Coby also a Thompson legal car, the Stafford officials should have teched the #05 car on Friday during practice day to try an avoid what happen Sun instead of allowing them to compete the entire weekend and take away a potential qualifying spot from another team.

Date: Tue Oct 2 21:15:29 2007

ow i agree. with all the to do around the 88 one would figure that some time over the course of the weekend that the 05 would have been noticed, questioned and or tech'd.

maybe they thought it didnt have a chance to finish on the podium and they wouldnt bother turning the car away? barry had driven another car there in the past (less of a car with poor performance) and i wonder if sms thought this recent would run similar?

afohlin · Car Owner

If they knew it was illegal he probably would have finished 6th. Last year at Thompson when Woody had to drive his Stafford car he was told to not finish in the top 5 or he would be DQ'd. They might have been oblivious to that rule. Definately would have liked to see another car in the field if theres was illegal.

Also, the 88 had a completely Stafford legal motor. Not the Thompson motor.

Date: Wed Oct 3 13:14:53 2007

i think the 88 issue could have been avoided if officials checked before the feature. or if they invited officials to tech the car before the feaure at stafford. everyone knew it was a originally a thompson car and it might have been easier if either the officials or the team acted before the feature instead of the big to do afterwards.

what on a sk makes them illgeal at thompson? i wasnt aware of a problem going from sms to thompson.

afohlin · Car Owner

There are a few rules that I know of. Thompson allows heads that Stafford won't allow until '08. Also, Thompson allows intakes that Stafford doesn't. I've heard that Thompson cars can have about a 50hp advantage to a Stafford car. Not sure about Stafford cars at Thompson, but I know that Stafford cars can run sheet metal in the engine bay, and thats not allowed at Thompson.

Date: Wed Oct 3 19:52:08 2007

thompson also allows a lighter crank than sms.

afohlin · Car Owner

I thought Thompsons cranks were 50 lbs, whats Staffords?

openwheelracer · Admin/Mod/Eyewitness

Stafford SK crankshaft weight rule from SMS site:

Minimum crankshaft weights are Chevrolet engines 50 lb., Ford and Chrysler 54 lb.

Thompson SK crankshaft weight rule according to TIS site:

MINIMUM CRANKSHAFT WEIGHT FOR GM IS 50 LBS. MOPAR AND FORD MINIMUM CRANKSHAFT WEIGHT IS 54 LBS.

Date: Mon Oct 8 15:55:59 2007

interesting to know the facts instead of the theory.

if the crank weight rule is the same, why did sms want to pull the pan on the 99 during tech?

openwheelracer · Admin/Mod/Eyewitness

I have also heard that Thompson allows a light crank, but when I read the rules off the website ( What I read I copy and pasted above) it didn't show that, and usually if there is a rule change after the rules have been printed out they will highlight the change and add it in.

Maybe Thompson just didn't do this I'm not really sure, I haven't been involved with a weekly race team at Thompson for several seasons so I'm a little out of the loop on what goes on there.

afohlin · Car Owner

Crank rules are the same. Tommy Farrell raced his Wall car at Mod Mania with a 38 pound crank instead of a 50 and everyone was complaining that he would be way faster, which he wasn't.

They wanted to pull the pan off of the 88 just to be jerks and make them do more work than the should have.

openwheelracer · Admin/Mod/Eyewitness

This is a cool little, almost off season discussion we have goin here.

I re read the crankshaft rules a little closer for both tracks and the difference between the two is Thompson allows the rod journals on the crankshaft to be drilled to obtain the minimum (50 lb) weight, Stafford does not allow this.

Now drilling anything is "lightening" it, so even though the crankshaft still must weigh 50lbs at Thompson for an SK engine it is "lighter" per say.

I think everyone would pretty much agree that the #79 with Fearn in it, and the #8 with Bennett in it were "field fillers" used to boost the car count to help Pitkats chances in the National standings.

Fearn turned some very quick times in the features but ran in the back, Bennett turned some impressive times in practice but then would take the green an park it.

Was this part of an "agreement" between the track an said competitors, we'll let you run but dont finish in tech? Was that also the "deal" with the #88 and they didn't comply?

Now I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, or claim to know whether the #88 had a Thompson legal motor in that night or not but it just seemed to me once Coby went from the role of a possible "field filler" to front runner the officials were on his case.

Date: Tue Oct 9 23:06:22 2007

nice find in the rules.

if you drill the rod journals it will reduce the rotating mass in the best possible location. in a completely unrealistic and theoretical scenario: if you could have 49 of the 50 pound in the centerline you would lose no energy by trying to rotate the outer mass. i know its not physically possible to do that but trying to show an example as extreme. the more you weight reduce at the outer diameter of the throw the "better". i say "better" because what i am not sure of is whether its better to spend the energy to get the crank up to rotating speed quickly (light rod journals) or its better to have the journal section be heavier for internia as the heavier rotating mass on the outer diameter will tend to keep the crank spinning and will "down rev" slower. even though the rules do allow the crank to be physically different i am curious to know whether its better to rev quicker or have more interia. i would guess the rpm fluctuation in a "thompson" crank is more. maybe the longer straight aways and or higher banking at thompson make the quick reving less drag crank better and at sms the amount of time at peak rpm doesnt make the drilled crank better. no clue, just wondering.

as far as tech on the 88, i would say 50/50 between the team and stafford. if the team had a legal crank it could have been offered for inspection at a more reasonable hour than the 11 pm or so finish time that night. the track could have also said, if you run it (a known thompson car) we will tech it. not so sure the team and the officials have a historically pleasant relationship and maybe both were trying to be inflexible to the other.

any other theories quick reving vs more interia? obviously a thompson legal crank cant be called lighter than a sms crank. but its fair to call it different .... and illegal.

afohlin · Car Owner

At Thompson i know Todd Ceravolo runs a marginally heavier crank becuase he says the extra rotating weight helps him get into the corner. Being able to drill holes where you want is definately an advantage. The officials should have teched the car before the feature, plain and simple.

I think the team may have a sour taste in the mouth after the DQ at the begining of the season for having the 1x1 aluminum spoiler brace flush with the top of the spoiler, instead of 1" down like the rules state. That spoiler was on the car for the past 8 years with no penelties. Too add to that the protest procedure wasn't followed properly, mostly due to the fact that nobody knew how to handle a protest. Woody lost the SK as well as the National Championship becuase of that penelty. Also they confiscated Woody's tach towards the end of the season after he won five straight races. Then they when tech wanted to do a comprehensive tech on a fifth place car, they decided to refuse tech.

Date: Wed Oct 10 22:03:45 2007

the spolier was a tough break. any truth to what i heard, that 52 team was asked before the feature to change the flange?

not saying who's right or wrong in this case but unfortunately there is no democratic or juidicial process when it comes to tech. even if they have missed it for years once they "notice" it and the team is on notice it needs to be changed because ......... officials always have the last word. love it or hate it, right or wrong its hard to beat city hall.

afohlin · Car Owner

To my knowledge, what happened is that after the heat race on Saturday tech officials told the 52 team that they had to trim down their front splitter (which they did) and to move that spoiler brace down. With the feature the next day they decided they would take the fine if they finished in the top 5 and have it fixed for next week. But, a certain driver someow knew that tech told the team to change that piece and that they wouldn't have it fixed in time for the feature. After the feature Sunday he filed a protest which resulted in the DQ. This driver didn't even end up running the full season.

Date: Thu Oct 11 22:35:29 2007

i will also bet that certain driver wasnt man enough to fess up to being a rat.

not too many guys ran a partial season so i have a pretty good idea who likes cheese.

too bad it had to happen.

Date: Sat Oct 13 08:45:03 2007

Regardless of the "rat", the fact of the matter is the spoiler was not legal. If tech told them to change it on Saturday and the feature was on Sunday why not change it? How long would that have taken? Not very long. So, that one incident and "rat" did not cause the National Championship. I agree it was a chicken**** move to protest that, but shame on the 52 for not fixing the spoiler.

Date: Sat Oct 13 10:09:34 2007

the 52 should have obeyed tech, no doubt about it.

the rat should have minded his own business. the flange wasnt giving a
performance enhancement and i have to ask myself, in this case, what would motivate a person to protest confused