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

On 10/11/2024 1:58 AM, Alan wrote:

On 2024-10-10 20:20, Tom Elam wrote:

On 10/10/2024 8:31 PM, 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"

>
Nope. When I wrote it, I didn't know about the SCCA's decision.
>

>
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.

>
And where have I said the penalty wasn't appropriate, Liarboy?
>

>
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.

>
And the only reason you now hold that position is that, /I/ had to explain that there is more to racing that speed on the track.
>
And your original position was that the Honda made me FASTER ON THE TRACK.
>

>
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.

>
I never said it couldn't go out and beat the Honda on a consistent basis, Liarboy.
>
I said it would COST more in money and time.
>

>
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.

>
Right back at ya, ashole.
>

>
You misspelled asshole
>
You bought the Honda because you can't afford to maintain a Kent in top racing form. It did make you faster.

 Not because it was inherently faster, asshole. (did I spell it right for you this time, Asshole?).
 The guy who holds the fastest time at Mission in an FF had a Kent, prepared by one of the two best FF Kent engine builders certainly in North America and probably in the world (Arnie Loyning) that was prepped by his brother-in-law's professional prep shop.
 I was fast because I'm that good.

LOL! How many Honda cars have competed at Mission? And, you make my point. It takes extensive and expensive prep for the Kent to even come close to the Honda. Anything less is not competitive. You were faster driving a Honda-powered car. I proved that some time back.
So answer my question. What are Honda engines not welcome at F1600 and the Brands Hatch events while SCCA welcomes the Kent at the Runoffs?