Re: OT: For those who still don't get that the Honda doesn't offer an advantage...

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. The cause of so few Kents at this level of competition is that all things considered they are not competitive. If the Kent is, all things considered, a more competitive engine than the Honda, there would be a lot more entered. The Runoffs FF engine market has for years been dominated by Honda. Prove me wrong.
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. I'm looking at FF engine choices. Can the Kent compete straight-up against the Honda? Interesting question, no?
In fact, in 2011 SCCA established Formula 1600, limited to the Kent engine cars. These cars are eligible for FF races too. Do they show up at Runoffs? Yes. Likely only the best do that. Did any show up this year? Just one. So why do we now have a class limited to the Kent? Why not just one class?
In fact, over in England the Brands Hatch Formula Ford Festival is restricted to Kent engines. https://www.brandshatch.co.uk/2024/october/formula-ford-festival
Why is that? Why not allow Honda engines to compete too? What are they afraid of?