component removal
- Thread starter slowguy
- Start date
Now, this is just downright slander, if anyone said this, tell me who and I'll call him a liar to his face and meet him at dawn with crossed sabres. And when you sink to this kind of gossip to make your point, you are of the same ilk. I especially don't like you Bill, you are not only stupid, you have no character.
And if you don't like it, I'll be at the Double. And Bill, better bring an army.
GRJ
Guys - THIS IS THE INTERNET.
It is NOT the real world and to get this worked up about something is an indication that we may have completely lost our perspective.
Arguing issues here is a valuable process. Hyperbole, sarcasm, ranting and raving - all can contribute to our understanding of complex, contextual questions.
Arguing about how someone argues is pointless. It shifts focus to the degree that the medium loses value and becomes a waste of bandwidth.
Aguing about how you are going to take matters into a parking lot in West Virginia is more than a little troubling.
Can we raise the level of discourse back up at least ONE level? Please?
K
EDIT - the new visitor to this site who started the strand went out to work on his car 75 posts ago. Or ran screaming.
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 22, 2004).]
It is NOT the real world and to get this worked up about something is an indication that we may have completely lost our perspective.
Arguing issues here is a valuable process. Hyperbole, sarcasm, ranting and raving - all can contribute to our understanding of complex, contextual questions.
Arguing about how someone argues is pointless. It shifts focus to the degree that the medium loses value and becomes a waste of bandwidth.
Aguing about how you are going to take matters into a parking lot in West Virginia is more than a little troubling.
Can we raise the level of discourse back up at least ONE level? Please?
K
EDIT - the new visitor to this site who started the strand went out to work on his car 75 posts ago. Or ran screaming.
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 22, 2004).]
K,
Hyperbole, sarcasm, ranting, and raving are one thing, downright lies are something else.
I apologize to you for losing my temper once again, but not to a mob who must alter the truth to overcome their own imperceptibility. I again am trying to give up my participation on the forum, I just can't walk away from a fight when lies are being perpetrated.
GRJ
Hyperbole, sarcasm, ranting, and raving are one thing, downright lies are something else.
I apologize to you for losing my temper once again, but not to a mob who must alter the truth to overcome their own imperceptibility. I again am trying to give up my participation on the forum, I just can't walk away from a fight when lies are being perpetrated.
GRJ
Tell ya what, GR: instead of us tryin' to sort this out West Virginia wedding-style (boozin', fightin', and lynchin'), let's sort this out as adults.
I am registered for the Labor Day double Regional at Summit Point. How about you find someone in ITS that you're friends with, and let's - cooperatively - protest my rollcage. We'll find a day/time that will cause the minimum of disruption in our schedules (and/or risk of missing sessions) and we'll put it to the Technical Scrutineers to decide. I definitely want to do this as as a formal protest, because not only will it settle it in a form of "case law" but it will give me the opportunity to run it up the Appeal Court flagpole for a decision by National if necessary.
But wait, there's more.
If my cage is found to be illegal, then you will get your protest fee refunded. However, should my cage be found to be legal I will reimburse you half of your lost protest fee. This is a way, of sorts, for you to put MY money where YOUR mouth is.
The only wrench in this mess is that my buddy Jeff has priority on my one-car trailer. We had hoped to have found a two-car by now, but it hasn't happened. However, if you agree to my proposal I will renew my search for one to buy, borrow, beg, or rent within the next two weeks.
Whadya say, GR? Are ya wid me, or are ya agin' me?
Greg
I am registered for the Labor Day double Regional at Summit Point. How about you find someone in ITS that you're friends with, and let's - cooperatively - protest my rollcage. We'll find a day/time that will cause the minimum of disruption in our schedules (and/or risk of missing sessions) and we'll put it to the Technical Scrutineers to decide. I definitely want to do this as as a formal protest, because not only will it settle it in a form of "case law" but it will give me the opportunity to run it up the Appeal Court flagpole for a decision by National if necessary.
But wait, there's more.
If my cage is found to be illegal, then you will get your protest fee refunded. However, should my cage be found to be legal I will reimburse you half of your lost protest fee. This is a way, of sorts, for you to put MY money where YOUR mouth is.
The only wrench in this mess is that my buddy Jeff has priority on my one-car trailer. We had hoped to have found a two-car by now, but it hasn't happened. However, if you agree to my proposal I will renew my search for one to buy, borrow, beg, or rent within the next two weeks.
Whadya say, GR? Are ya wid me, or are ya agin' me?
Greg
Alright Greg, I'll try to sort this out. What I've tried to convey here is that I really don't care what you do to your cage. If it's safer, again more power to you. And even if it allows you to stiffen your chassis, I really don't think the advantage you gain from that extra stiffness is equal to putting weight high and outward from your Cg, but that's your business, it's your car.
My point was that I could find arguments against your use of the rules to accomplish that stiffening. For example, we are supposedly limited to an 8-point cage, your use of the "plate rule' permits you to spread that plate to the degree that in essence you have created a 10-point cage(which in essence must take into account the tubes in contact with the plate, rather than tied to each other). And it's really impossible to tell from your photgraph especially since you've painted the tower red and the bars black, that your aft mounting plates on the shock towers wrap around the towers. But again, I don't care (especially since I did the same thing to my towers 3 years ago to a lesser degree, except that my horizontal is tied to the aft struts). The point is, one can stretch loosely written rules to a logical, or even illogical, extreme and cause a great deal of harm to a category. For example, do you not agree that if I used the bushing rule to install a 6-inch eccentric to essentially alter my locating point, you would not raise an eyebrow? Probably legal, but not really in the spirit of the rule.
OK now, why was I trying to make these points? I was arguing that removing the heater box was legal according to the rules as written. And people said I was wrong (their priviledge) but their arguments were dressed in the hypothetical argument I created concerning the cages. And I was just trying to show how kinds of arguments can be used in both directions. And I took it a step further by trying to show where I thought the plate business would lead: to the same kind of madness that has put the Production category out of reach by most club racers (and allowed rear-wheel drive mini coopers).
Then I am treated to attacks on my Fiesta and misrepresentatios of what I said and then some kind of statement I was supposed to have made regarding my use of the GCR. I'm in favor of safer cages and safety in general as I tried to show in my request for safer hubs on another string, again an argument shot down in the same way I argued against the legality of your cage. I say again, I have no intention of formally protesting your cage, I'm for your cage, except to the degree that its extreme inventiveness may set harmful precedence in the category. Do you understand?
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 22, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 22, 2004).]
No, Robert, not at all. I don't understand you at all.
In general, I've found your arguments to be illogical and argumentative, many seemingly simply for the sake of argument itself. I've also found many of your positions indefensible, but seemingly defended simply for the sake of not considering alternate possibilities. In short, I've found you to be very stubborn. However, be that as it may, when you start calling people outright cheaters, you move past the point of illogical arguments.
Let's get a few terms straight here. First, as you mentioned, there's the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules. The letter of the rules is what the rules say: you can do this, you cannot do that. The spirit of the rules is that the mindset and basis when the rules were created.
Because this mindset and basis is not provided to the rules readers, either by overt inclusions or by covert meeting notes, the rules readers are left with nothing more than supposition as to what is behind it. The philosophy of the class can go a long way to assisting one in deciding this, but like trying to interpret a shade of color, determining the spirit of the rules is open to varying points of view. Rulesmakers tend to intentionally leave this gray areain place in order to simultaneously encourage innovation while reigning in excessiveness.
Here's the decisive point that you must agree on: when someone breaks the letter of the rules, they are CHEATING. When someone does something you did not expect or consider, is still within the letter of the rules but may not be within the spirit of the rules, that is considered INNOVATION. You may not agree with that innovation, but you CANNOT accuse someone of cheating.
You cannot even BLAME someone for doing so. Do you want to blame someone in that case? Then blame the rulesmakers for their lack of innovative imagination. But, don't blame the competitors. Frankly, I really doubt the competitors are even interested in hearing you (or me) bitch about it.
For example, I do not believe that spherical suspension bearing are within the spirit or philosophy of Improved Touring, but are very much so legal. I do not believe that Motec engine management systems in stock unmodified ECU housing using stock unmodified wiring harness are within the spirit of the Improved Touring rules, but they're most definitely legal. I believe that removing the heater box and leaving the core is outside both the spirit and the letter of the rules, but I also think that eliminating the heater and defrost system is a bad idea and a performance DISadvantage anyway. There may be a LOT of things that I think are not within the spirit of the rules that are legal, and you'll find me looking at them going "hot damn I wish I'd thought of that", and "hot damn I wish the rulesmakers had thought of that" but you will NOT see me calling them cheaters. Innovators, yes; cheaters, no.
As to my and Geo's rollcage, I absolutely do not even see a conflict with the SPIRIT of the rules in any shape, way, fashion, or form. These cages not only meet the letter of the rules but the spirit as well. The plates are of legal size, the number of tubes attaching to those legal plates are legal, and the very fact that the rules ENCOURAGE multi-angle plates extending to vertical sections, with no limit to where on the plates the tubes attach, CLEARLY makes the cages within the spirit of the rules. To put it flat on the table, the ONLY person you can possibly blame for your lack of agreement is yourself for not having the imagination and open mind to see the possibilities past what has been done for the last 25 years of Showroom Stock bolt-in cages. You may disagree with that assertion, but I'd contend that you review what others think about your position before you accuse the rest of the board for being out of line. How's the old saw go? "If you look around and you think you're the only sane person in the room...?"
Finally, you don't know me, and you certainly don't know my car, or you would not be jumping the illogical conclusions that you are. First, the rear suspension and chassis of the Nissan B13 has to be one of the worst modern-day designs; before my rollgage I could reach under the rear fender, move the shock body, and see the FLEXING of strut tower. Thus, knowing that I had to make this rear suspension work, it was IMPERATIVE that I strengthen the rear chassis. What better - and legal - way to do it than rollcage design? Second, you are no doubt well aware that front-wheel drive cars benefit greatly from increased rear weight transfer, thus the reason for a humongous rear swaybar; and third, you are no doubt aware the weight balance on any front-wheel drive car is horridly front-biased, thus any weight that can be moved to the rear is important. I cannot think of any better place to that weight than farther behind and lower than any part of the OEM chassis, such as where we placed the heavy rear swaybar. Fourth, the legal weight on my car is over 50 pounds MORE than its stock curb weight; I *hardly* think anyone make any stupid errors when classifying it. Once again, you can chalk that success up to the hard work and innovation of our team in both cleaning up the car to the rules' extent *and* fabricating an optimum rollcage design balancing weight, safety, and strength. Should I be castigated for our efforts?
Finally, you will have to take my word for it that all those tubes attach to legal-sized and -placed steel plates, unless you're willing to either work with me to protest it through the system and/or find me and see for yourself.
These - at worst - are called innovations. At best they are taking the rules at face value and designing your car appropriately. And I fail to see how such innovations even remotely result in tube-frame Mini Coopers.
Since you have rejected our date with destiny, we will have to simply agree to disagree. If you change your mind and wish to have an arbitrary third party resolve this issue, feel free to contact me.
Greg
Greg,
I think you would be suprised and probably disappointed in knowing how similar our thinking is at times. But as far as "illogical" and "stubborn," I think we're both guilty as charged at times.
You still appear to ignore what I say to make your point. I said it was impossible to detect from the photograph, that you had a plate around the shock tower. And if that tube is not attached to the plate it would be cheating. That's the way it looked. And I didn't say you were a cheater, I said that tube as perceived was cheating (there is a difference).
Now if you want to compare installations at Summit, I'll be glad to converse with you, but I have never stated that I was interested in protesting your cage or even that I didn't agree with the safety aspects, in fact I said over and over I agreed with your treatment. How can you misinterpret that?
Perhaps because you are not as old as I, you cannot appreciate the transition Production has undergone and how that transition occured, but that's another matter.
BTW, I too, use a very large rear bar(I think probably befitting a 5.0 mustang). Sorry we don't "hit it off." We probably would have enjoyed each other's company.
GRJ
And my cage was designed in 1991, with vertical plates coming up from the floor plates to the frame rails. The difference is we put the tube to the "floor" (as the GCR said we must), not to the frame rail. It didn't take a genuis to conclude that floor panels were not stong enough to withstand big impacts. Even someone as "llogical" as I could see that, but running plates all over the chassis and tying in the bars wherever we liked was a different matter. It's legal now as substantiated, but it will lead to other less favorable circumstances. But you take over Jake, I'll race as legal as possible and watch you smart guys make the same mistakes they made 25 years ago. Us old fogeys who resist all changes have that prerogative and satisfaction.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 22, 2004).]
Tim Hollister
New member
Prod lurker here with a minor correction. To the best of my knowledge, rear wheel drive Mini's are not allowed in Production however they are allowed the the GT category. (Note -- not denying a certain amount of "madness" in the Prod category!)
Tim
(BTW, this system is starting to read like the Prod Board does sometimes! Have great day! <grin> )
------------------
Tim Hollister
Waterford, MI
Bill Miller
New member
Robert,
I qualified that statement by both asking you to correct it, and stating that it was second-hand information. But I guess you missed that part, kind of like how you missed the excerpts from the GCR about multi-angle plates, and mounting to vertical surfaces.
Here's a simple question for you. What's the most recent version of the GCR that you own?
/edit/
As far as your personal insults, I just consider the source, and could care less. And I'll be at the dbl at Summit Point over Labor Day. If you feel there's something that you have to say to me in person, by all means, come and find me.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited August 22, 2004).]
Bill Miller
New member
Just figured I'd save this.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Not correct. The rear-drive allowance came to the lower GT classes after the "stock car" revolution in TransAm in the mid-1980s, a few years after the demise of the Sedan classes. TransAm technology and rules philosophy, getting away from the "ship in a bottle" cage construction, went to GT1 first.
The same philosophy of using off-the-shelf technology - like quick-change 3rd members - subsequently got applied to the other GT classes in the name of cost savings, since the relatively open FWD gearboxes allowed in GT were proving to be VERY expensive.
Of course, none of this made it any less expensive to build a competitive GT car.
K
Well gee, Bill, since I am competing in the 2004 MARRS Series, I guess I own a 2004 GCR as required in the GCR, have you read it?
And I didn't miss a thing about rollbar installation, as I said my point had to do with what looked like a standalone horizontal across the shock towers and strectching the rules. You failed to read that too.
And exactly what was your remark on my not reading the GCR supposed to accomplish other than an attempt to start a totally untrue reflection on my attitude towards the rules.
And save this too (Is that supposed to frighten me?) I've said what I have to say. The next move is yours.
GRJ
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Ohhhh...nevermind....
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 22, 2004).]
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 22, 2004).]
Bill Miller
New member
Well Robert, your 'point' was actually about tubes mounted on rocker boxes, and vertical plates.
You made this comment about George's cage, making it pretty clear that you either didn't read, or didn't understand the rules. But I did read your comment about Greg's cage. I also read the line where you flat out called him a cheater. You get all up in arms because I share what I've heard from others about you, but you have no problem calling someone a cheater when you don't really have a clue.
And no Robert, I'm not trying to 'frighten' you, I was simply keeping a record of what you posted, should you choose to edit it out.
BTW, please cite the section of the GCR that requires a competitor to own a copy.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608