USAC Racing Forum
November 28, 2014, 11:48:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: anything new with tenn and cummings  (Read 11518 times)
phaster
Rookie
*
Posts: 30


« on: December 31, 2009, 05:02:55 PM »

Can't wait to see
Logged
lawsonracing
Veteran
**
Posts: 67



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2010, 09:59:07 AM »

an evaulation spread sheet was sent out to members the other day.
Logged

Lawson Ingold Racing
Sponsors: Mercedes Benz of Buckhead Performance Center, Sport Map ECU, Imhoff Eye Care; Altus Health Care; G-Force Racing
PBCorreaRN
Rookie
*
Posts: 27



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2010, 11:18:18 AM »

Just an FYI, on the NCQMA homepage there is audio from our December meeting.... Something those that are in limbo may want to listen to.....
Logged
miketsmith
Feature Winner
***
Posts: 136


« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2010, 09:47:45 PM »

Hey Lawson, how did the vote go last night at Cummings?

Thanks,
Mike
Logged
GAQMRacers
Rookie
*
Posts: 39


« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2010, 10:13:46 PM »

Mike -- There wasn't a vote (AGAIN)!!! The latest and greatest is -- they're going to have a QMA person come talk on 2/20 and vote at their first race on 2/27. Why are they waiting that long? My guess is because by then, all the other tracks will have their schedules posted and they will then say it's too late to change -- regardless of what the membership votes. They OBVIOUSLY don't want the membership to vote because they KNOW how it'll go.

BTW -- the spreadsheet was a NO BRAINER!!! All roads lead to USAC but they don't want to travel down the road!!!!
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 10:35:58 PM by GAQMRacers » Logged
Toeknee
Veteran
**
Posts: 59


That's My Boy!


« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2010, 10:18:57 AM »

Hey GAQMRacers, what spreadsheet? I am looking for as much info as possible as I am reviewing both organizations to prepare for the future. I listened to the NC audio and participate in this forum to gain knowledge.....knowledge is power!
Logged

Tony Lofton
Driver: Bubba #5
Lofton Family Racin'
GAQMRacers
Rookie
*
Posts: 39


« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2010, 10:31:50 AM »

I'd gladly send it to you but our club says it's for our eyes only....don't really know why because it was a fact find mission they were on.
Logged
Swartz
Feature Winner
***
Posts: 200


« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2010, 10:50:04 AM »

It is probably easier for them to look at your clubs work to fulfill Ziggy's promise to "look over the fence" than try to get past their own biases and take a subjective look. I think they should work on things like having a rule that limits you to a "single crankshaft" before they move to other issues. Again I ask, why does Tony have to work out QMA's issues on the USAC forum?
Logged
miketsmith
Feature Winner
***
Posts: 136


« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2010, 03:35:19 PM »

In the end, it doesn't matter to me who does and doesn't go either way. We are going to race at many different tracks this summer and will have to race whatever it is sanctioned. We are prepared either way. There are good people in both organizations but there are a few in each that brings out the negative. As for NGQMA, I see them being ran as a dictatorship. It is obviously their intent to extend their members vote for USAC as someone said to say it is too late for this year. Speaking for myself at MAQMA and not the rest of the members, we are going forward with our track as if they do not exist for our schedule. We have a points championship here that I think when announced will bring in many cars each race to contend for the prizes, 2nd to none. We have a good board and the members are responding by attending our monthly meetings. We are going to promote our track as well as USAC at many different venues. Everyone have a nice day.

Thanks,
Mike
Logged
ezoner
Veteran
**
Posts: 70


« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2010, 05:37:55 PM »

Swartz --  OK  you said to ask questions?  What do you mean by run a single crankshaft?Huh??
Logged
Swartz
Feature Winner
***
Posts: 200


« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2010, 05:46:05 PM »

Many years ago a rule was put in place to eliminate multi part crank shafts. I'm told to keep the high dollar bike engines out. It was supposed to read "single piece crankshaft" the rule in the book, however, says "single crankshaft". It gets brought up every year and never gets changed. One of many.
Logged
ezoner
Veteran
**
Posts: 70


« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2010, 11:27:03 AM »

Ok -- that seems a little nit picky.   Don't the rules dictate what components can vary from the factory shipment?  If so, I really don't see that as a big issue, there are much bigger issues.
Logged
Swartz
Feature Winner
***
Posts: 200


« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2010, 11:42:27 AM »

What it addresses is 3 or 2 piece, usualy titanium, crankshafts with roller bearings that can cost thousands of dollars in the AA class.
Logged
ezoner
Veteran
**
Posts: 70


« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2010, 12:30:58 PM »

Thanks --  understand now
Logged
phaster
Rookie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2010, 12:36:38 PM »

You guys can fight somewhere else the fact is either tenn and cummings want change and a fresh slate or they want the same ol thing a fiffty year track record of diffrent agendas and as caldwell has shown even the rcp process for qma fails and that is the members only voice for change if they don't like the rcps than they can loss them as in the case this year so region 3 has no chance at change so there for metro and ncqma decides to try something diffrent and this thread was started because many people would love for these clubs to be on board and show qma that there are other options and we the members are not scared to that the steps needed to preserve and grow  our clubs our members and the racing our kids love
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!