Originally posted by BluSTi:
Ok, fun times were had, but I have two gripes, well, three.
1. The faster cars in the autocross should run first in the endurance. If they're going to make any attempt to "normalize" scores, then the faster autocross cars should drive on a clean track and the slower cars should get a track that has already been rubbered in. The way it works now, The slower cars are slow, and the faster cars are doubly (no not doubly, but you get my point) faster because there's more rubber on the track.
2. The cost report is a complete sham. This convoluted process of costing is a joke. Aside from flat-out lying on your cost report, the costs involved are absurd. Here's another idea, provide a MSRP for everything. If you don't have the MSRP, say, for a sponsored part, then a copy of whatever value your sponsor is claiming for their tax deduction. This way, the parts and their associated costs are all searchable and verifiable. Additionally, it removes the "sweetheart deals" that some teams are using.
3. Where were the recruiters? Maybe they hung out at UW the whole time, but in Fontana they were aggressive and numerous. This competition isn't about building a race car, and it isn't about a learning process. This competition is really about getting jobs. Specifically, getting jobs in the motorsport industry. I was really disappointed in the lack of recruiters I saw this year.
4. (I lied about there being 3 gripes, sue me.) If we finished 24th in the enduro, and there were 27 teams that finished overall, I feel that we shouldn't have gotten 30th. Yeah, I know why, with points etc, but there are three teams that didn't finish the race that beat us? How does that logic work? There should be either a penalty for not finishing, or a bonus for completion, but the last time I checked, you can't win if you don't cross the finish line, business presentations/cost reports/etc be damned.
Anyway, enough bitching, I have to finish my flow calcs for next year's undertray...