On 10/12/24 7:36 AM, Tom Elam wrote:
> On 10/11/2024 2:17 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-10-10 17:46, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-10 13:30, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>> On 10/10/2024 12:44 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-10-10 03:25, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/9/2024 11:13 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-09 19:28, Tom Elam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/4/2024 7:20 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-02 11:29, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ...ON THE TRACK:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> At the SCCA National Runoffs this year at Road America in
>>>>>>>>>> Wisconsin:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fastest qualifier so far IS an FF Honda at 2:22.552.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But second fastest is a FF Ford just .181 behind at 2:22.733.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/
>>>>>>>>>> downloads/000/073/365/
>>>>>>>>>> FF%20Runoffs2024%20Qual%202%20Provisional.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And that's not even remotely a new Formula F chassis! The
>>>>>>>>>> Swift DB6 chassis dates from 1991...that's 43 years ago!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So why is the field mostly Hondas?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because (as I've explained before) time and money spent
>>>>>>>>>> maintaining a Formula F Kent in top shape can be spent on more
>>>>>>>>>> profitable things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, gee, what do you know?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "uncompetitive" Kent...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...won the 2024 SCCA National Runoffs in Formula F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who'd have thought it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/
>>>>>>>> downloads/000/073/541/ FF%20Runoffs2024%20Race%20Official.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The # 5 car, the Kent, finished 8th in the official results, 1st
>>>>>>>> in Provisional Results
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Position changed per: Car 5 - Moved behind #81 per SOM - GCR
>>>>>>>> 6.11.1.D,
>>>>>>>> Appendix P.5. Must have cheated to get moved down that far.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the 5 car was the only Kent in the race.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's extra hilarious is that they literally listed the rule
>>>>>>> infraction involved...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...but you just went with, "must have cheated".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was a passing infraction, I looked it up. That is cheating. You
>>>>>> said he "won the 2024 SCCA National Runoffs in Formula F" the when
>>>>>> confronted with the truth changed it to "could have won", Liarboy.
>>>>>> So typical of you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your implication was clearly that the only reason he could have
>>>>> been leading the race was that he cheated. The SCCA ruled that he
>>>>> moved to aggressively to defend his position, and having seen the
>>>>> video, that's certainly true. But your claim has always been that
>>>>> the Ford can't be competitive with the Honda and there's no way
>>>>> that can be true if a Ford can be in the lead on the last lap of
>>>>> the race.
>>>>>
>>>>> And never said "could have won" anywhere, Liarboy.
>>>>
>>>> You flat out lied when you said "The "uncompetitive" Kent
>>>> won the 2024 SCCA National Runoffs in Formula F"
>>>>
>>>> If you had said that a single Kent was competitive in this one race
>>>> I would have agreed. But no, you said the Kent WON the race. That is
>>>> not true. He broke a rule by aggressively blocking another driver.
>>>> Had he not done so he might have not placed first in the provisional
>>>> standings. In other words, he cheated the other driver out of an
>>>> opportunity to pass and was appropriately penalized. Had he followed
>>>> the rules he very likely would not have even won a provisional first.
>>>>
>>>> Now, in a larger sense, is the Kent competitive? No. There have been
>>>> VERY few Kents entered in the Runoffs for many years. If they were
>>>> competitive on performance and cost there would be more. If the Kent
>>>> was a better engine overall on performance and cost the Kent would
>>>> dominate. Even you agree. After all you bought a Honda-powered car,
>>>> Liarboy.
>>>>
>>>> You stated "Because (as I've explained before) time and money spent
>>>> maintaining a Formula F Kent in top shape can be spent on more
>>>> profitable things." You admit here that the Kent is not competitive
>>>> when considering the overall metrics. Why spend the money on the
>>>> Kent when it can't go out and beat the Honda on a consistent basis?
>>>> YOU said that. THAT is why the Kent is so scarce in the Runoffs.
>>>>
>>>> In an even larger sense you show in this instance that you are more
>>>> than willing to bend facts to make yourself look good. Major traits
>>>> of a narcissistic hypocrite. Of course, another trait of the
>>>> narcissistic hypocrite is that you can never admit being wrong, or
>>>> that the other person who disagrees with you is right. Such people
>>>> are also totally blind to their disorder.
>>>
>>> Just for absolute clarity, Liarboy:
>>>
>>> I posted about the Runoffs win at 16:20PDT on October 4...
>>>
>>> ...and the official results weren't posted until 17:00 (Wisconsin
>>> time presumably)...
>>>
>>> ...on October 5.
>>>
>>> Just another example of your careful understanding of the situation,
>>> hmmm?
>>
>> <crickets.wav>
>
> Competition weeds out the weak - individuals, companies, entire species,
> and race car engines. HH has confused cause and effect.

Nope.

> The cause of so
> few Kents at this level of competition is that all things considered
> they are not competitive.

But there are still Kents present in the final elimination rounds, which
indicates that they *are* competitive on the track: "cause & effect".

> If the Kent is, all things considered, a more
> competitive engine than the Honda, there would be a lot more entered.

Incorrect: the correct statement is that if Kents were more
advantageous on the track, then more teams would be willing to pay the
higher off-track maintenance costs to run Kents, and Kents would be
dominant in the finals.

> The Runoffs FF engine market has for years been dominated by Honda.
> Prove me wrong.

No need to: the _effect_ of there being any Kents in the finals is
*because* they're competitive on the track. Similarly, the *cause* of
there being few Kents overall is because they have the effect of being
higher overhead off . the . track !

>
> Alan, you were in such a rush to brag about that outcome you did not
> even wait for the official results. Then after they were posted you
> never corrected your post. Liar either way. Yes, it was a case of
> cheating. That driver was not allowing faster cars to pass. Do you
> understand that the fact that he had to do that meant under the rules he
> illegally placed first? Or that other cars were faster?
>
> I never claimed that a Kent can't win a race.

In effect, yes you did.

> I'm looking at FF engine
> choices. Can the Kent compete straight-up against the Honda? Interesting
> question, no?

Yes, as already proven by there being Kents in the finals, plus how a
Kent came very close to winning outright this year, which came down to a
ruling on driving style: such rulings invariably have interpretational
gray areas.

For example, see NASCAR's race tonight, where the officials threw a
yellow < 15 milliseconds before the then-race leader crossed the line
for the white flag, and then ruled that this sub-human-perception timing
difference meant that the race leader had failed to lock in the win,
even though the official rule is that the race leader merely has to
*see* the white flag - but tonight, the rule was changed to also require
that the leader's car cross the line too before the yellow comes on.

-hh