Stacey Cook

[Mike Edwards]

Before this goes too far……Lets not forget that we are strong as a group and everyone will benefit if we support the series and ALL the tracks. The track owners should settle this in a meeting and not via this forum.

We have a great series sponsor and the best web page going. If this continues I see it all going away and that would be a shame!

Thanks
Mike Edwards

[Anonymous]

Brad,
Of the 150 participants at the annual meeting, how many of them were there for the CSC and how many of them were just the local IMI club racers that didn’t even participate in the CSC? I don’t even remember 150 drivers last year for the CSC. Statistics can always be skewed. You can’t preclude those individuals from voting for the CSC rules because they may participate this year, but it sounds like the weather was a big factor in who showed up and I’m assuming that there were still questions left on the table when the locals left. What is wrong with getting you, Doug, JB and Stacey together to hash out the rules? You don’t need any of the drivers present because whatever you 4 decide would more than likely please 90% of the drivers. You will never please us 10%er’s. 😆

I for one would really like to see what the Tag rules are going to be for 2004. I am trying to set my schedule for 2004 racing and may decide to buy a kart and leave it in Colorado just to race, but I’m not buying a motor until you guys decide the weights. If I remember correct from last year it was supposed to be Tagusa + 20 pounds.

[stacey cook]

JJW, If you look back there are alot of unresolved issue’s that people are not in agreement with. Weights, Tires etc. I to am a PARTICIPANT and believe both as a track owner and driver that we should all do what is in the best interest of the series and drivers. A select few should not decide the fate of all of us when it seems so many are not in agreement. I will follow, agree, commit, whatever to the guidelines and rules as long as it is what the majority of the drivers want. As you can tell that is not happening and people are frustrated. If you look back I was in favor of reducing the weight in the Senior/Hvy class to 395 because that is what every single driver in that class I talked to wanted except 1. That seemed like the best thing until I read the article that Doug referred all of us to by John denman. after that I changed my mind and feel like we should probably keep it at the 410. We all don’t always have to agree and thats ok but we should listen to ALL the information before making a decision. We should not draw a line in the sand and say this is how it is period. We should always look at ways to improve the series and make it better for everyone.

[Anonymous]

The article by John Denman is correct, and after some thought, I would not oppose the 410 lb weight. We ran it last year and it worked okay. There was some bitching by me (and others). It seemed that all of the front-runners had weight on their karts. Greg Augustine got bumped to the back of the field after qualifying at Steamboat because he was still at 395 from the rock Island. Dave & Patrick and Jim all went to the SuperNats. Stacy raced the Promoto in the G1 class. So there was/is many people that race SKUSA so the weight change can be justified.
But I agree that if we want large fields then we must try to include the heavier drivers. Doug & Brad you had a little more vision on this subject.
I would like to see 395 lbs but if it will allow more people to race then let it be 410. How about SKUSA + 10 = 405?

BUT! The tire spec needs to be 50 shore A or harder! That will include MG Yellow’s and the YHB’s. The YHB is the SKUSA tire. And will be completive (if not better than the MG Yellow) so we should be on these tires. Shops have them in stock. If a competitor wants to save money then the MG will be the tire to choose, Let’s face it if you want to have a chance then you will have new tires for each CSC race. The MG’s will allow many practice sessions before they become unusable. You could even run a club race on them. There is the cost savings, plus they only $1.56 more than YHC’s! The MG Yellow list for $167.26, the YHB list for $186.86 The YHC lists for $165.70 a set, which tire will give you more fun per dollar? All can be had for much cheaper if bought in volume!

I ran the MG’s all last year and what I am saying is the truth.
The current spec allows for 58 or harder. The only tire that is 58 is the YHC. Ask anyone if they would like to run 2 CSC events on the same set of YHC’s? Doug, did Greg race more than once on the same set last year?
The MG yellows will last longer than the harder YHC’s. How can the having to use YHC’s benefit the driver?

[Anonymous]

Although I am not directly involved in the ongoing weight/tire debate, I will offer a few suggestions that might have been overlooked at some point.

What makes for great racing i.e. FUN?

EQUALITY between motors, weights, tires, driver abilities, etc…..

Since there is a limited number of racers in the state, compromises must be made in an attempt to make everything equal and INCLUSIVE. I can personally tell you that it is a lot more fun to race with 20 karts in your class than 2 or 3. To be inclusive, a compromise must be made with WEIGHT to achieve EQUALITY. I would much rather be the guy that has to bolt on 40lbs to make weight (to race EQUALLY with MORE people) than the guy that cannot make min. weight no matter what he does. As far as tires are concerned, I have always been a fan of spec. tires. That way, EQUALITY can been achieved at the very least in regard to tires.

Finally, ask yourselves the following question(s):

How proud of yourself would you be if you just beat a guy with a 20lb weight disadvantage that he could do nothing about? Or a guy that has on harder tires? Or a guy that just stuck a motor?

[Doug Welch]

Graeme

I have 5 boxes of used YHC from this past year. (Worthless now that both boys are on YHB). All of them have one race on them and all of them could do one or two more. Of course I ran a new set every weekend as I wanted to run up front. If you run yellows, you will buy new tires for every race weeknd if you want to run up front. New tires are good for a couple of tenths over used tires and if you need every thenth, you put on new tires regardless of the life left in your old tires.

Costs are not a concern for those who want to run in the front, we spend what ever we have to in order to get there. It is not guys like us that I’m concerned about. No matter what the rules, no matter what the costs, we will be in front because we will do what ever we have to to stay there. But the guys on a more limited budget, the guys who can barely afford to get a new set of tires every other weekend, that is the guy who benifits from a hard tire rule. It is that guy who gives us grids of 15 + racers and its that guy who makes the event sucessful. It is that guy who we should be most concerned about.

I will offer this, if the 410 weight stays, I would support letting the tire spec for the heavy/old class only drop to 50. :cheers:

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your reply Stacey. I appreciate your comments in support of the CSC competition. I look forward to racing in Grand Junction next year. I can only conclude that, on February 20, 2004, the final “official” rules were not published-as that was my original question. I will patiently wait (still need to decide on an engine package). Since there are unresolved issues, I still believe the track owners and Doug are now in possession of the facts necessary to conclude any pending issues.
On a positive note, I think this forum, besides the many other matters that are discussed, can be used successfully in preparation for our next year’s CSC meeting. I see CSC and the Colorado Karter, as many others do including yourself, as something very positive in the Colorado karting scene. We are all aware that CSC is still evolving, and is make significant strides. Maybe next year, we could integrate The Colorado Karter and the newsletter, into this matter earlier. I think we could publish an advance CSC agenda, publish proposed CSC rules for public comment, and establish a method of voting that recognizes that CSC participants are all over the State of Colorado, and may not be able to make the meeting. Thanks. jjw

[Anonymous]

@Doug Welch wrote:

I will offer this, if the 410 weight stays, I would support letting the tire spec for the heavy/old class only drop to 50. :cheers:

That is okay for me, it will work, and it will be just like last year.

I think most people will find this fair; it is a shame that took this long.
Lets get these kinds of problems out in the open early so all have a chance to weigh in on the outcome.

This forum IS a good place to discuss/decide important issues. There is a written record of all that is said, allows participants time to digest the issues, and reaches a lot of people. It can be used to set a preliminary agenda befor any meetings.

I am glad nobody caught my math skills in the last post! I had enough time to change it before someone blasted me! 😀 I guess my math skills on par with my spelling!

[Greg Johnson]

Doug. I will gladly relieve you of those 5 boxes of worthless YHC tires. Since I race the Briggs class I can use those tires……….and still run up front!!! Thanks

[Rodney Ebersole]

Me too, Me too.

[Joe Rosse]

Doug,

My sons racing Jr 1 and Tag Jr. will be more than happy to help you “recycle” those YHCs!! :sun:

[Author]

Posts