jjsprt92 (Offline)
#2
10/28/07 2:20 AM
When ever they say cost savings,it cost the little guy just that much more
tonyj (Offline)
#4
10/28/07 8:06 AM
I like the idea of limiting what a driver can adjust as the race unfolds. In fact, I'm not too sure that getting rid of the wing sliders wouldn't be a good idea as well....definitely makes the cost of a new wing less! I think the harder tires, & limiting cockpit adjustable devices are a step in the right direction, as winged cars are locked down too much as it is.
Tony Johnson
Blackduce (Offline)
#6
10/28/07 10:00 AM
Still missed the boat. Cut the tire width in half and that will control engine costs.
Lynn
Pine (Offline)
#9
10/28/07 10:50 AM
#3= Restricter plate sprint car racing :thumbsdown: Thats called 358/360's in MOST area's.
cecil98 (Offline)
#10
10/28/07 10:57 AM
What's the answer? In some cases, you just can't do nothing. You have to try but, in most cases you naysayers are right about how cost saving rules wind up costing more because, whenever you restrict something, it causes big bucks to go into research, development and testing to make the restricted part perform better. It's much cheaper to buy something with a bigger hole in it (i.e. injectors or cylinder bore) than it is to try and make something with a smaller hole in it perform as well as the part with the bigger hole. case in point is the IRL N/A motor formula. They started at 4.0 litre then had to drop to 3.5L and finally down to 3.0L because the HP kept climbing. They did eventually go back to the 3.5L because of adding the road courses (barf!!! puke!!!). I do believe that unhooking the cars is a better and cheaper route to take than trying to restrict motors. However, when it comes right down to it, it's tough to beat money no matter what the rules are. Fresh tires and equipment beats Worn almost everytime.