2012 Rule Proposal for 348/355 Class

I am curious wether Delta Vee can rebuild the Mannesmann shocks original to the 360CH? I am preparing a car now that has a bad front shock and am waiting to see what happens here before making a decision about what to do.

 

I don't think that a package buy could be made economical. I have been working with VW for 2 years on packages for the Gti in World Challenge and were just starting to see results. Even with APR's backing. It's not a practical solution for so small a group.

 

Here is a nice article about Carol Hollfelder. Would be fantastic if she joined the series!

http://www.velocetoday.com/people/people_1.php

 

AGREED!!!!

 

This is not what we had in mind. A choice would not be given. I do not want this to be a money chasing train. If the cars are mod'ed prior to the series they will be penalized with weight, and the weight will be a penalty designed to even the car up. What you described is exactly what I want to avoid, and that is guys deciding to mod and take weight. Yes of course, you'd spend more for the performance. Exactly what I want to avoid. The weight for modified cars PRIOR to the rules will be on the heavy side. I want to discourage extra expense at ALL costs. The more modifications we allow the father these cars get apart, and the more money is a factory. Higher performance is not persuasive.

The object of the series will be the same as the factory challenge. Showroom stock racing. We will make allowances for cars to

 

We will make allowances for previously modified cars, so that everyone can compete.
There are not going to be rules that make everyone happy. The foundation of the series is a lower cost series. And if we need to police it to keep the cost down the money spent on this is an overall good.
The other major problem with allowing modifications is that someone new that wants to get into the series will have to spend a lot of money to on the car to be competitive. For example, in the 430 class a guy needs to buy a wing and splitter (11-14k), possibly an exhaust (6k), that's already 20k on top of the car. I don't want to add a 8k shock system. Yes it's faster, but at some point the modifications have to end. The wing and splitter are universally thought of as making evil handling cars easier to keep on track. Crash damage in a 360, and 430 is crippling. Therefore we are allowing this.

I see no serious safety or cost benefit to shocks. Although my ears are still open, as of now my vote on the board will be:

Shocks must remain stock. Exception: if your car was modified prior to the rule you may keep them but we will weight you. If your modified shocks wear out you must replace with stock shocks. You do not have the choice to modify and take weight.

I know we will not make everyone happy with the rules benefitting the stock cars. But we please understand this is not easy for the board and the backbone of the series is lowering costs to enter the series and lowering running costs. That has to be the main objective.

 

John, if you design the penalty properly why would you fear people deciding to take weight and make the mod? It seems highly unlikely that someone would spend extra money to make a mod that has no performance benefit and simply causes extra wear on tires and brakes.

The only way for you to ensure a level playing field is to give everyone the option. Set the penalty correctly and everyone will stay stock, just as you wish. Unfortunately, none of us have any experience or data to assess the proper weight penalty so the probability of getting this right is low. Making the problem worse is that your defending series champion is running Penskes, and if he stays in front next year everyone will wonder if it is the Penskes or skill. Allow each car to make the choice and this argument goes away and the issue will never be questioned. Take the question away and the series will be stronger for it.

 

I still don't see any argument that respects the cost issue. We cannot leave it open. The costs are too high. If the replacements were the same or cheaper then that would be different. The fact is they are three times more expensive. The reason for stock shocks is they are cheaper. Cheaper to buy, service and replace.

The reason we don't want to make it optional is because, we want to encourage the cars to stay stock.

You ask why we wouldn't make it optional if we put it proper weight on because everyone would choose stock. Yet you argue that we should make it optional because it's too hard to determine the proper weight and you yourself given the choice will chose to spend more and take the weight bc of the perceived benefit. That's why we don't want to make it optional to spend more money. We want to make a rule that you can't spend more. And we want a rule to deal with those that already spent it so they don't spend more. We wish they didn't spend more but we cant reverse time, we can only try to move back there.

We will have a pro determine weight.

 

Right now the series is young but it's exploding in popularity. What we decide now will determine how new cars are prepared, and we want cost and safety to be the controlling factors. If we stick to this principle and do our best to keep things even then we will be better for it.

There was no question this year about Jerome. His drives were flawless, speed, control, race craft, and nobody was close. The shocks or mods made no difference in the outcome. Next year will be more competitive, and the cars will be more even with weight and serious new guys coming in from the 430 factory challenge. The reality is we cannot design rules around the exceptions to the rule.

We have to try to weight the modified cars. That's a given. We have no choice if we want to limit mods. And so putting on weight is not 100% perfect. That's why we will need to lean on the high side for modifications. If we do that no one should question. We want to control the amount of modified cars in the field, that's why we will weight the cars and make a rule that you can only have non compliant cars on a case by case basis. We want to limit them. Leaving it open as I said will increase costs.

Like I said we will not all 100% agree. I just want to make it more affordable. This is especially true for the 355 class. The rules need to encourage keeping running costs low in 355 class and others.

It's not an easy decision, just know we are trying.

 

These are valid points for the 360/430, but after a season of racing the cars hard I can see that yes there is a performance advantage, yet I am not convinced the costs of the investment are a net savings or that they make the cars demonstrably more stable. There were many times at several tracks that I was big time frustrated that I could do simple adjustments to make my car handle better. (at several tracks the 430 pushes like a pig: homestead). And I was frustrated I could go faster. Yet I kept thinking at homestead : all of the 430 from the factory challenge will have only one marque series to run next year: the FCRA. Every week we have new 430 guys coming into the series. Several guys are selling these 430s and going to 458 and many people are buying them to enter the series. And I kept thinking, do I want to add $30,000 in prep costs for these guys to come and be competitive? No, I don't. The wing and splitter is already 14k, then exhaust 6k, that 20k, already a tough pill to swallow. If we don't reel it in we will kill entires. So I'd prefer not to have it, for the good of the series.

 

But, my thoughts are my own. And I will allow the board to make the decision with impute from all of you. This series is all of ours, not me or one lesson or interest. That's what makes the FCRA different. The drivers are the guys that right the checks and they will make the decisions. That what, in my opinion, has made the FCRA so successful and why it is set up for success.

Just everyone keep you eye on the end game. The end game is after safety we need ton look after costs. We are racing Ferraris and the excitement that comes from that is expensive. There are cheaper and more professional series. This is not that. This is a series that sacrifices a few competition things (like giving each other room), so that we can all afford to race a Ferrari.

 

One thing that I think we are forgetting in this discussion is that there is nor substitute for cubes and talent. Since there is nothing we can do or want to do about the power of these cars, the fact is that talent will usually rule. Gains will be had from set up, shocks, bars and springs. But even things like brake pad material can make a big difference too. So using John's basis of doing what is least expensive for at least next year establishes a basis for managing the series for minimizing cost, maximizing the return on talent and staying away from dubious post race tech reviews. I learned my appreciation of this sport in the era of Moss Clark et al and saw how talent won before technology. Let's get 10 starters in 355 and see if it still makes sense in 13 to stay with stock.

John, I posted the DeltaVee web reference as they had done my shocks last year. I will say for reference here that it took 3 weeks from despatch to return. And that w over the Winter. I suspect that if just 3 of us were to dump 12 shocks on Rob mid season, the turn around could be months as he has a by active Pro Sport business that requires him to travel; and he seems to be a sole proprieter.

 

I think the first thing on which we need to agree is the whole point of the FCRA. I believe the goal is to provide a fun, safe, non-contact, affordable one mark racing series that allows us to compete at a wide variety of tracks and to develop friendships.

Ultimately the intent is a competition of drivers, not machines. Therefore I would say equality trumps maximum mechanical performance. If we were racing against Porsche, BMW, Corvette, etc I would be the first one, as a professional Mechanical Engineer, pushing for state of the art technology in these cars.

If we all drop $50k in making the cars a little faster and more balanced then we're just back to an equal test of drivers. The ultimate winner of that game is the parts supplier. We could have just drawn the line at a finite number of mods and used that money to send our kids to college.

IMHO I support aero, steel brakes, exhaust, minimum weights including driver, and that's about it. Weight penalties for already installed ECUs, adjustable shocks, etc.
After more than a decade with Challenge cars, I’ve never had as much fun as the 2011 FCRA season. I know we can figure this out with good attitudes and perspective.

 

I have 3 way adjustable Penskes on my car.

IMO, coming from formula cars and sports racers, the 430C is a big, heavy car with not enough front tire, designed for no aero and Pirellis. It shows its street car origins more than the Porsche Cup Cars, IMO. It's a car that loves the big tracks more than tight tracks like Homestead and Monticello.

The FCRA is using a Hoosier tire with a completely different design than the Pirelli, and aero that though it may be crude at least provides some healthy drag! Allowing changes in shocks may help with tire degradation and, frankly, the biggest cost issue facing the FCRA IMO is tire cost rather than car mods. Tire rules and marking can stop guys from going out every session on stickers, but won't stop the tires from wearing out. If you make the tires harder to prolong their life, you'll slow the cars down and change their handling characteristics. All this can be addressed to some extent through shocks.

Making shocks free adds to the mental challenge of setup. Again, coming from formula cars and sports racers, thats a big part of the fun. A lot goes on off the track. Paul, I disagree with you about getting back to zero, as you assume everyone will get to the same setup. People won't even have the same valving.

IMO Allowing shock changes isn't going to keep anyone out. To the contrary, in every series I've seen, drivers like to improve their cars over time, it's part of the fun and it tends to be viewed as enhancing the car's value. Few drivers enter a class with a fuly optimized car. Dumbing the cars down is what hurts a series, SCCA hasn't learned that yet. I think the 430C is going to be a lot more fun to drive at certain tight US tracks if it allows some adaptability.

There's an underlying safety component to the shock issue as well. I think we all might agree that aero makes the car more stable. The next time you're at a high speed track - we did this at the Glen - run the car in back to back sessions with and without aero. Interesting experiment. The same justification exists for allowing adjustable shocks. The stock shocks give you a hammer whether you need a hammer or a screwdriver. I think a car adapted to the situation at hand, rain, a tight track, a bumpy mess like Sebring, etc., is a safer car.

Could go on, but that's probably enough. If you really want a stock series, then let's put the cars back to full stock and strictly scrutineer them. If you're going to allow some mods and have a target budget in mind, then please choose shocks, which have a profound effect on use and enjoyment of the car, over exhaust or headers.

FCRA has made good decisions pretty consistently. I think the shocks decision is very important for cost, safety, fun, and the quality of the show the series puts on. Thanks.

 

I honestly agree with everything that has been said, I simply question the ability to fairly assess and enforce a weight penalty for anything other than horsepower, which can be easily managed by maintaining a hp/wt ratio.

For example, I know I have immediately gained 1.5 seconds per lap when moving from a stock, non adjustable system to an adjustable one. In another test I gained an additional 1.5 seconds by working with a private coach who helped me optimally set up adjustable shocks. So in my opinion, there are 3 seconds to be gained from non-adjustable to adjustable to adjustable that have been set-up with precision. And that's with Moton Club Sports, never mind the ability to set-up fast and slow rebound/compression seperately like you can with Penskes.

How much weight is 3 seconds worth? A full tank of gas is about 150 lbs. I can easily achieve times within 0.8 seconds on a full tank versus a near empty one. Further evidence comes from the various Pro series than use 'awards weight'. There are some cars running around with more than 100 lbs of awards weight and their times went from a few tenths better to a few tenths worse than the competition.

So are we talking about 400-500 lbs of ballast to offset adjustable shocks? Where are you going to safely put that much weight in the car? I am certain you won't require that much weight, which led to my earlier comment that I would choose shocks plus the penalty any day of the week. You'd have to get somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 lbs before I reconsider that position. And anything less than 200 lbs is a joke, its not much more than a tank of gas.

If you would like a safety reason, adjustable shocks give you the ability to dial in a softer set-up in the rain. One less wreck will pay for shocks for the entire field.

I entered the series knowing there wasn't a level playing field and I'm OK with that. I'll have fun regardless and will get behind whatever is decided. I just think it would be more fun if everyone had a chance to compete with the same equipment as the guys out in front.

 

One more thought and then I will shut up on the topic. And this comment is not about any individual rule but simply about having two sets of rules within a class instead of allowing all drivers to have the same options, which is where John seems to be headed. Let me throw a few 'what-ifs' by you:

If I put the same Penskes in my car that Onofrio is running and put in the same ballast penalty, will I be banned from the Series for modding a previously entered car? Or will I be moved to the 360 class because my mod was made after I ran the final event in 2011? If the latter, does it make sense that two identically equipped cars would run in two different classes? (I would NEVER do this, I will adhere to the spirit and letter of the law, but the Board needs to consider this scenario as a possible outcome of two different rule sets)

If I am a new driver preparing to enter the series I would certainly learn about the 'grandfathered' mod rule before sending in my application. At that point, don't I have the ability to mod my car first before applying and then declare I am eligible for the modification/ballast provision for previously altered cars? As described thus far, I see two different rule sets - one for 2011 entries that have been modded + new cars that still have the option to choose and another rule set for stock cars than ran in 2011 and are stuck with that configuration. Is this scenario the best outcome for the series?

Are we allowing thoughts of newer 430 cars entering the field cloud our thoughts on the rules for the 355 class? With only 109 built, there are probably no more than 35 of these cars in the United States. Now consider that these cars are roughly 15 years old and have not been run under stock rules in about 12 years. It would seem to me that there is a much higher ratio of modded cars in this class than any other (due to age) and no matter what the numbers are very small in either case. Do we really think that keeping things stock in the 355 class is going to result in increased participation when there are probably only a handful of stock cars available to recruit and probably an equal number of modded cars to recruit?

Some data to support my theory that 355 cars are modded at a higher rate, here is what I know about the current field (If not mentioned, I have no clue about the config):

C. Cohen - Stock, Lay - Stock, Onofrio - shocks and exhaust, Greg - ECU and fuel pressure, R. Cohen - lightweight panels, McKenzie - modded, Fatigati - exhaust

It just seems to me that the horse has left the barn when it comes to this class.

Just some food for thought. I've said my peace, at this point I only ask for a quick remedy so that I can prepare the car under the rules we'll run by.

 

John, Rob has a point here. As you have written on numerous occasions, the series is about gentleman racers. But this concept has a number of interpretations and Rob has experience that few of us can share. He owns a home on the main straight of a private track. This gives him opportunities to explore the implications of changes he makes in a relatively controlled environment as often as every weekend if he so wishes. So what he is saying is that by allowing any car(s) to exclusively have a competitive advantage, one must assume the driver can and will exploit it to its best advantage, we are inviting a domination of the series that weight alone cannot offset. That Onofrio went to Daytona the weekend before we raced to "test" is an opportunity to set up those Penskes to take advantage in areas where none of us could offer anything in response. So even though the spirit of these events is that we arrive and drive, the fact is if anyone is handed the tools to arrive and drive better than anyone else can, then surely we should expect that to be fully and not partially exploited? This then undoes the very reason why we are seeking a lowest common denominator.

 

I dont know of any accurate way to establish a weight penalty for non-stock shocks. Even with back to back testing, you really just have to make something up. And yes, of course, if there's a grandfather rule, then we'll game the system to try to determine whether stock or Penske plus weight is faster for our situation.

 

There has always been ways of circumventing rules in any form of motorsports. In 1997 I was given a set of shocks to install in a 355 Challenge car that shall remain nameless. The shocks appeared to be bone stock but had just arrived from a specialist in Italy.
Although they were stock in appearance they were extensively modified internally at a cost of $15K (1997). Some forms of racing have "claiming" rules where competitors can purchase components from other cars for if fixed price. It keeps guys from spending $15K on shocks if someone can claim them for $4K? I am sure John would not be excited about policing this but it is a reasonable way to control modifications.
This is a tough subject, both sides make some very valid points.

 

And you are not alone. Just look at the weight variables that SCCA and GrandAm throw at anyone appearing to dominate. Usually in multiples of 50 lbs. And to add insult to injury the penalized car gets to put the ballast where it serves their corner weight best often mitigating the penalty! I still think that for the 2012 season we either have to go stock suspension, engine and a minimum weight or expect to enjoy and pay for an impound tech post race for all to see and comment. That includes Onofrio and whether or not someone wants to custom build their Bilsteins or blueprint their engine. At the end of the day there will be talent on the podium with the risk that some of it got there by $$$ alone.

Hey what's new: I cannot think of a single event I have participated since the 70s that h not seen this phenomenon at the end.

 

I hear all of the arguments. I just have one main concern, cost. That is the main obstacle to the series. Not competition, not the unevenness of the cars. It's cost.

There are a lot of other racing venues. Competition is important but it is sacrificed in this series to meet our goals.

Please trust I've done a lot of homework on creating a successful challenge series and I have a good handle on what works or not. The main obstacle is running costs, and the main draw is an economical way to race a Ferrari.

And allowing free shocks in all classes increases the cost.

The idea is to heavily penalize cars with weight. This can be done, and we will lean towards the heavy side for modified cars and benefit cars that are cheaper to run.

I want to discourage anything that makes the running and prep cars more expensive. Yes the 355 class is a problem bc of modifications, but I want to give stock cars the edge.

Right now we are talking about shocks. If you already have them them we will deal with it. If you ate about to replace them, thank us for saving you money and trust that we will do the best we can to weight the modified cars.

Bottom line is regardless of what details come up with, we will weight the cars that are modified. I don't see us allowing all of these modifications on the grounds that we can't control it and bc the cars are faster.

If you have a modified car, but a bolt in for weight.

Right now for the $1,600 vs 5k option on the 355, I say it's a no brainier. We will find a way to even it up. If we cannot protect the guy who wants to control costs, then the foundations of the FCRA are out the window. Whatever we decide the cars in a specification that is cheaper to run should have the edge. That extra $3,500 is best spent on a coach.

I'm only one vote, but my vote is no shocks allowed and a grandfather weight to respect guys that have already done it. There are other board members that may feel different.

 

I have no dog in this fight, just an interested observer with a substantial database on both the car and the driver as competition variables.

I applaud John's vision and execution in founding the series and trust the board will continue in the same vein. I agree with most of what Paul P has to say and what WCH has to say, both drivers having substantial competition experience in a variety of venues.

jakermc, your learning curve has been steep, and my opinion is that a substantial portion of the improvement that you've noted is primarily from your improvement as a driver.

My information and data on these cars (and hundreds of others) does not support that level of delta due to the change in a) adjustable suspensions (I assume you mean infinite ride height adjustment or camber changes outside of the normal stock range, not change of pickup point or suspension arm geometry) and b) changes across the typical range of shock adjustment in two-way or four-way adjustable valving. See article here: http://farnorthracing.com/autocross_secrets23.html

As a matter of fact, a majority of the drivers adopting the more adjustable shocks don't bother to match the valving to the spring rate, vehicle weight or even establish a baseline valving that is within a range that allows the external adjustment to operate within the proper range.

While established professionals operating at the highest level may very well be able to competently and with supporting data properly adjust shocks, I know of no instance where the adoption of anything other than adjustments in both the shocks and the suspension to optimize the use, performance and longevity of the tire have resulted in a significant performance improvement. Let's make sure you're looking at the big picture!

Lastly, to your point of competing "with the same equipment as the guys out front," I have spent all year as the data guy and driver coach for the Spec: Race Atom series at VIR, with all 20+ cars having the same terminal velocity (within 1 mph at 130 mph), three different rates of springs (with a spread of 200 lbs/in deflection), separate bump and rebound adjustment (+ or- 10 total clicks each corner, bump AND rebound), and I can assure you that "the guys out front" are driving at a different level than a majority of the field. Same car=20+ seconds lap time difference in the field over a 2:10 second lap.

Setting up shocks really addresses several issues, first and foremost driver comfort and confidence. More confidence=less slowing for the corners, less slowing for the corners (and getting a lumbering F-car pointed in the right direction FIRST)=faster lap times.

Secondary benefits include better tire life, traction and a more stable platform.

Downside is that few drivers adjust them properly and fewer still gather objective data to support their "butt dyno," most of which are notoriously inaccurate. I have seen Penske, Ohlins and Moton owners go slower after the change to those shock packages...

I KNOW for a fact that there is no F-car that cannot be driven faster by somebody else, and for that reason, no attempted parity of something as subjectively evaluated as shock adjustment is likely going to make a mid-pack runner one of the "fast guys." YMMV.

 

Peter:

I agree with you that the mid pack guys are not going to be up front with the leaders by shocks. However in the 430 class the competition is close. The top third of the field is separated by 1.5 seconds between the modified cars (exhaust/headers/chip/shock/some with lightened materials) and the stock ones with just wings and splitters. We have gotten to a point were consensus is that the combined differences in horsepower, torque, weight, and handling are potentially making up the difference with drivers with similar skill levels. At this level, modifications make the difference. No one doubts this.

And shocks help the handling of the car. Is it 2 seconds? no. Does it help the driver go faster? yes, of course it does. Can a driver with better skills than the driver with shocks make up the difference? yes. If i spent another $18,000.00 on my car to give it more torque, horsepower, handing, and less weight, would i be a 1-1.5 seconds faster. Probably. Do i want to spend another $18,000.00 to do this, no. Should every person coming into the series have to spend $40-$50k on the car to get it even? No.

Its more proper i have the money for drivers lessons from you and would make up the gap. There should be no argument for modifications based on performance. Isn't a stock Ferrari challenge car fast enough? You think you've reached the limit? No you haven't.

But there needs to be a similar yardstick. And I want the yardstick to be one that respect frugality as far as the car is concerned.

The argument for allowing modifications because they don't make much of a difference is a hollow argument. If it doesn't make much difference thank us when we save you the money by outlawing it.

I

The problem is that it is an advantage and it's expensive. And I want to eliminate both.

The cars are not even. For 90% of the grid in the FCRA it makes no difference to the outcome. However, to the 5% there is doubts. And as the series matures next year which it will we have a big influx of drivers who may care.

If the shocks, chips, headers, exhaust and lightened materials make little difference in the drivers, neither will weight.

The key is Ferrari racing is prohibitively expensive and that's our goal.

I am not trying to control comments, I'm only suggesting that the advice and arguments needs to focus on the cost devil. That's the killer.

For those that may be upset with the modification limitation, I have a secret for you and a place to spend money on a performance edge: Peter "pro coach". A weekend with him is good for two seconds a lap.

 

Peter:

I agree with you that the mid pack guys are not going to be up front with the leaders by shocks. However in the 430 class the competition is close. The top third of the field is separated by 1-1.5 seconds between the modified cars (exhaust/headers/chip/shock/some with lightened materials) and the stock ones with just wings and splitters. We have gotten to a point were consensus is that the combined differences in horsepower, torque, weight, and handling are potentially making up the difference with drivers with similar skill levels. At this level, modifications make the difference. No one doubts this.

And shocks help the handling of the car. Is it 2 seconds? no. Does it help the driver go faster? yes, of course it does. Can a driver with better skills than the driver with shocks make up the difference? yes. I could spend the $8,000 shock modification on drivers lessons from you and would make up the gap, I am sure

The problem is that it is an advantage and it's expensive. And I want to eliminate both.

The cars are not even. For 90% of the grid in the FCRA it makes no difference to the outcome. However, to the 5% there is doubts. And as the series matures next year which it will we have a big influx of drivers who may care.

If the shocks, chips, headers, exhaust and lightened materials make little difference in the drivers, neither will weight.

The key is Ferrari racing is prohibitively expensive and that's our goal.

I am not trying to control comments, I'm only suggesting that the advice and arguments needs to focus on the cost devil. That's the killer.

For those that may be upset with the modification limitation, I have a secret for you and a place to spend money on a performance edge: Peter "pro coach". A weekend with him is good for two seconds a lap.

 

I have no idea what to make of this post. Sorry if you misinterpreted my comments as a midpack guy hoping shocks will take me to the next level. I've actually been at this racing thing for a little while now with a regional championship and a couple of track records on my resume. I have placed well and even beaten the guys who were on the podium at Nationals this year, though I did not make the trip myself. I am one of the guys up front so I guess I am doing something different also. But my learning curve is not as steep as described. I don't have the natural ability of some and instead I have to work long and hard and get my set-up right in order to be quick.

I agree that the value of the shocks is the set-up and I always work with a pro coach on the set-up, utilizing data and multiple test days. Long term I would like to learn to do it myself, so having an adjustable system gives me more opportunity to learn and develop as a driver when I am away from the coach. The gains I mentioned is by following exactly the prodecure you describe, so maybe my experiences are closer to yours than you realize. I am not just talking about bolting on new parts.

The problem I have with the suggested rule is that it makes no logical sense:

Statement 1: Keeping costs down is most important (agreed and understood)
Statement 2: We will weight the modded cars enough to favor the stock ones
Statement 3: Drivers currently in stock cars can not accept a mod and a penalty

John, if you are convinced about statement 2 being done correctly, why do you need statement 3? Who in their right mind is going to spend money to go slower? Statement 3 is only necessary if you fail to get Statement 2 right, so is that what you are really trying to protect against?

Please help me understand why Statement 3 is so important to you if you also believe in Statement 2?