component removal

Jake, you are too fast for me. I thought I had edited it out before anyone could have seen it, and therefore it would not have been controversial. But you did the same thing a few posts ago: "Ohhhh...nevermind...."
But I guess if I change my mind it's not OK.
Click to expand...

This needs no comment, as it speaks for itself.

Now, on to the important subject, David!!! I met him last year at the June Sprints. In fact, we went and watched a couple of races from the carousel stands. He's a great guy!!


Jake, email me off-list.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
***He's a great guy!!***

Thanks Bill

Darn, now I owe Gregg & Bill beer. Not a big deal for haveing a couple nice guys supporting "a great stand-up guy".
biggrin.gif


See ya all someplace
wink.gif

David
 
Tom, the sharp straight angles that you see are the boundaries of the multi-angle plate that is wrapped around and welded to the stock strut tower. If you were to remove that multi-angle plate and lay it flat, its total area would be less than 100 square inches (I think it's actually 98, to accomodate welds). We thought we might be able to take advantage of the strut rule allowing mods for McPherson struts to add more, but we chose not to push it (plus, we really don't need it.)

The side facing the camera of the middle of the laid-out plate, and its edge are bent and wrapped around the strut.

All three tubes that you mention are welded to this multi-angle plate. Any cross bracing that we do from here will also attach to either these tubes or that plate.

Make sense?

Greg
 
I was thinking about this at work today, and I came to the conclusion that the term best fitting David is "tongue in cheek", with a dose of unpredictabilty. I have always wanted to meet him face to face.

David, why not come to Atlanta for the ARRCs?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by grjones1:

Jake, you are too fast for me. I thought I had edited it out before anyone could have seen it, and therefore it would not have been controversial. But you did the same thing a few posts ago: "Ohhhh...nevermind...."
But I guess if I change my mind it's not OK.

.....And yet I am bombarded with false paraphrases of what I said. The frustration here is that you misquote and misparaphrase and misinterpret comments in order to degrade the speaker.....

GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 24, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 24, 2004).]
Click to expand...

Yes, sir, I did indeed withdraw a post. I did it to avoid beating a dead horse. But since you asked, here is the gist of it:


This is the quote (which you just referred to as being misquoted) from your judgement of Gregs cage:
That's not forward thinking or "twisting" that's downright cheating!
GRJ
Click to expand...

Thats the exact sentence, no edits.

Just for fun, when someone is in the act of cheating....are they a cheater?? Unless you define a "cheater" as some one is a repeat offender, there is no way that one who is cheating is not a cheater...One who commits murder is always referred to as a "Murderer", and is so for the rest of his life. Tense has no effect on the label.

I submit that you are weaseling and backpedaling, if you are saying that we are twisting your words. Murdering the language and logic, as it were......

A better approach would have been something on the order of..."I'm sorry I flew off the handle...I reacted without confirming.... the picture didn't show clearly that the plate wrapped around," or something along those lines, IMO.

And talking about ethics...I consider guys like Greg and Geo, and yes, even Bill, to be friends...but regardless, I have issues when I see someone being slandered unfairly. I consider your comments to Greg to be just that.

Some loose details....you state that the "plate rule" as you call it, went into effect in 2001, I have a 2000 GCR handy and it reads the same as it does now. Further, when I built my cage in '97, I did the same thing, after reading the book, and considered it to be easily legal, no twisting or stretching, just factual reading.

Frankly, whether you formed your accusation as a question or a supposition to Bill is of little interest or value to me, it was very insulting, and completely out of line.




(Edits for grammer and spelling, and now code stuff)


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 24, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 24, 2004).]
 
***the term best fitting David is "tongue in cheek", with a dose of unpredictabilty.***

I like that Jake.
wink.gif


***I have always wanted to meet him face to face.***

Maybe this year, maybe next year at the ARRC or someplace else.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
Thanks Jake!

You know Robert, I'm beginning to believe the comment about you not reading the rules. You're flat out wrong about the cage/plate rules. But I doubt that you have the sack to admit that, just like you don't have the sack to stand behind your comments. I will give you this though, your use of situational ethics, rhetoric, and rationalization are most impressive. And while you may not have explicitly used the word 'cheater', you said that what someone did was cheating. Why don't you re-read your own comments on inference. Like when I asked you what the most recent version of the GCR that you owned was.

Jake's right, you're a weasel. Wait, I shouldn't insult weasels like that!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Gregg, if I came from a metro area that manufactured a drinking refreshment other than beer I would have suggested that refreshment.

Now that I'm thinking about the subject of a drinking refreshment I think there is a spring water bottler in the area.

Your choice
biggrin.gif

David
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Thats the exact sentence, no edits.

Just for fun, when someone is in the act of cheating....are they a cheater?? Unless you define a "cheater" as some one is a repeat offender, there is no way that one who is cheating is not a cheater...One who commits murder is always referred to as a "Murderer", and is so for the rest of his life. Tense has no effect on the label.
[b ]
____________________________________________
Murder, beyond the legalistic definition, means to "slay wantonly". A soldier involved in a battle slays wantonly (believe me, this I know about) but most of us do not consider a soldier wantonly slaying his enemy in self defense and in defense of his country a "murderer".
If I refer to an an act as "cheating," in this case if the installation of the rear horizontal bar had not been welded to a plate (as it appeared in the photograph and evidently as perceived by others on this post also), that installation according to the rules as written would have been "cheating." Until such time, I have proven or George or Greg has disproven (as they have) that the installation as perceived was not "cheating" the act "defeats the purpose or blunts the effects" of a rule and is "cheating". I didn't even know who had installed the bar so the fabrication that I was calling Greg or George a "cheater" is by your own supposition, not mine. If I refer to an act, without even knowing the actual perpetrator or the circumstances of his participation in the act, I am not necessarily refering to an individual, that is your distortion.
GRJ[b ]
__________________________________________
I submit that you are weaseling and backpedaling, if you are saying that we are twisting your words. Murdering the language and logic, as it were......

A better approach would have been something on the order of..."I'm sorry I flew off the handle...I reacted without confirming.... the picture didn't show clearly that the plate wrapped around," or something along those lines, IMO.
_________________________________________
If only you were so careful with your own comments!?
GRJ
_____________________________________________
Some loose details....you state that the "plate rule" as you call it, went into effect in 2001, I have a 2000 GCR handy and it reads the same as it does now. Further, when I built my cage in '97, I did the same thing, after reading the book, and considered it to be easily legal, no twisting or stretching, just factual reading.
_____________________________________________
You are correct. I am wrong. However, I beleive prior rules disallowed the practice. Note the 1/95 exemption. I know the installation would have been questioned in the past, as I stated.
GRJ
_____________________________________________

Frankly, whether you formed your accusation as a question or a supposition to Bill is of little interest or value to me, it was very insulting, and completely out of line.
(Edits for grammer and spelling, and now code stuff)
Click to expand...
________________________________________
As far as my edited comment to Bill which was for those who must know: "Bill, Do you drink or take drugs?" -
Which is an old lawyer's trick of asking a two-edged sword question. I posted it and decided it was in poor taste and 30 seconds later decided to erase it. That's a great deal different from having posted something, having it discussed and then extracting it (which I consider to be shameless). And your own harping on the thing indicates to me a rather sick infatuation with tempests in a teapot. And of course Bill has never exercised insulting my character through innuendo, for which of course I can't expect you to find fault, that might be fair.

Now please, I don't wish to bore other participants on this forum any longer. Leave me out of this and I will refrain from further comment. If Bill has further issues, he knows where to find me.

The "Weasel"

George,
I say this only out of concern for your safety. You may want to consider a larger washer between your lap belt eye bolt and that vey thin floor.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 25, 2004).]
 
At the risk of perpetuating this pissing match (which I *really* don't want to do) I know the the basis for the 01/95 plate exclusion rule.

The 100sq-in plate rules has been around as long as welded-in cages have; IT originally started in 1984 with bolt-in cages. Prior to 1995 there were no limitations on the shape of the 100 square-inch plate. You could make it as fat or as thin as you wanted. As a result, there were instances where innovative fabricators actually made a very thin 100sq-in stiffening plates welded to the body rocker frame, and attached their rollcage tubes to it, calling them cage mounting plates. You could do it on such that you connected all eight legs together, making one HELL of a frame stiffener running the length of the car. It was LEGAL but it was outside the spirit of the rules.

Remember, the required plate thickness is a MINIMUM. Chew on that for a little while.

Here's a very good example of how the LETTER of the rules was met while violating the SPIRIT. When realized (and I don't recall the actions behind the discovery) it was clarified in the rules, with the LETTER LEGAL cars allowed to continue. Effective 01/95 the sides of the plates could not be less than 2 inches or greater than 12, with existing cars grandfathered in.

I suggest that if my or George's cage were found to violate the spirit of the rules while meeting the letter, I have no doubt the same actions will be taken. The only way this will happen, however, is through the protest and appeals process.

Greg

(Edit: typos)

[This message has been edited by grega (edited August 25, 2004).]
 
Greg,
Thanks.

Just in case it came across that way,I wasn't questioning the legality of your cage. Based upon the most of this thread, I can understand how it might look like I was. I wanted to get the details because it looked like a damn good idea and I want to take a closer look at my cage and see if I might benefit. like I said before, I've seen legal cage design similar to George's before and your application is like his.

Thanks again for the clarification.
(This thread has gotten way out of hand.)
Tom
 
Originally posted by grjones1:
George,
I say this only out of concern for your safety. You may want to consider a larger washer between your lap belt eye bolt and that vey thin floor.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've been contemplating exactly what I'm going to do (and I need to come to a final decision very quickly since I expect to paint soon). I've thought about just bolting in the eyes with a very large washer as you suggest. I've thought about welding a plate to screw into. However, my concern about welding a plate is welding thick stock to the thin floor.

What do y'all good folks think? I've been leaning towards bolting in with large washer.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
I have a question for Kirk the experienced racer. Why with all your experience would you mount a hand held fire bottle on the passengers side of the race car?...
Click to expand...

NOT because I think I'm "all that" but simply because I'm a dork, I completely missed this post in the strand above. (Hence my confusion about Jake's segue, mentioned earlier.)

Because in my experience, the likelihood of an actual car fire in an IT car with a stock fuel tank, fuel injection, and no weird underhood stuff going on is very low. That is, as in "my car."

My role, were that eventuality to actually occur against the statistical odds, is to get the hell out of the car. I am operating on the reasonable premise that on a road course, I am not likely to be very far from actual help and if I'm not in any condition to get out, I won't be in any condition to push a fire system button.

If (when?) I rally the car, I will do so ONLY with a fire system since it is unlikely that there will be corner workers within eyeball distance.

Make no mistake here that cost is a factor, as is the fact that Halon systems are getting harder and harder to find. (I don't have much faith in some of the alternatives.) I put extra $$ into the cage and new parts - passive safety. I decided that an Isaac system was a more important safety purchase, considering a real analysis of risk, than would be a fire system at this point.

I also use a real four-layer suit (of my own design), a two-layer skirt on a closed-face helmet that I run with the visor down, and full Nomex two-layer gloves. I worked in the safety equipment business for several years and am completely comfortable with my decisions...

...I confess however that I continue to be dumbfounded by people who spend the $$ on a good fire system but insist on using an open helmet or run without a balaclava. Bad economies, to my mind.

FWIW

K

EDIT - because some might think that there isn't such thing, a "4-layer suit" is comprised of (1) an outer layer of Nomex III (color and sacraficial layer), (2) a layer of PBI/Kevlar (flame barrier), (3) Nomex batting (thermal insulation), and (4) a 4-oz. Nomex lining (for an additional air layer and to hold the batting together). Retail price would have been in excess of $1200.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 25, 2004).]
 
Greg-

Interesting comment regarding the plates adding stiffness to the chassis.

So, as an example, if the plate needed to be 100 sq inches, it could be 1 x99, or 2 x 49, right? And if it were 2 x 49, it could have a bend lengthwise, right? And be fitted along the rocker? And if the car was short, that same plate COULD have two bars attached, say the main hoop and the forward downtube?? Would that have counted as ONE attachemnt point? If so, the possibilities are interesting....

Finally, a short comment. I regret getting involved it the earlier diatrabes. On reflection it probably did little good, which is a shame. My overwhelming motivation though, was not to play in the teapot, or debate common word definitions, but rather to rebutt the comments that I felt were unfair to guys I respect.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
<Hijack in progress>

Kirk, one safety nerd to another;

Not trying to beat you up over it, just asking you to take another look at it.
Please.

Originally posted by Knestis:
...the likelihood of an actual car fire in an IT car...is very low.

I would agree 100%, odds are very low. However, IF it does happen you have probably suffered a pretty severe impact. Therefore, you may not be in good enough condition to remove yourself from the car and/or the car may not be in good enough shape for you to easily egress.

My role, were that eventuality to actually occur against the statistical odds, is to get the hell out of the car.

Again, I agree, if I can get out, I am gone, the car can burn.

operating on the reasonable premise that on a road course, I am not likely to be very far from actual help and if I'm not in any condition to get out, I won't be in any condition to push a fire system button.

I don't know about that. I think it is false security. We see 5,6,10 or more corner stations. They come up pretty quick when we are driving around the track. Let us assume that the fire is due to an incident and not a mechanical failure issue. (I believe IF the unlikely event of a fire is to occur in an IT car, it is more likely because of a severe crash, not a mechanical issue) You won't have the option of driving to a corner station. They will have to get to you. Even with the really good safety stuff you have (assume it is somewhere around the 3.2A/10-20 range. You have about 20-30 seconds, right? Most of us are probably lucky to have 20. That may sound like a long time, but I guarentee you that if you are a 1/4 mile from the closest corner worker with a bottle, they will not get to you in that time, you and your safety equipment will be on your own. How fast do you think a corner worker could run a 1/4 mile while carrying a 20# extinguisher? 1 1/2-2 minutes at the very least and then probably wouldn't have the strength to pull the pin. Further, it takes a lot more effort to climb out of a car than it does to push/pull a button. If you are alive and 'stuck' that halon system might just buy you 15-20 seconds before you even need to use that suit.

If (when?) I rally the car, I will do so ONLY with a fire system since it is unlikely that there will be corner workers within eyeball distance.

True, but the next car on stage is likely to be +/- 1 minute before they are on scene. Probably just as quick, if not quicker than the corner worker at a road race.

Make no mistake here that cost is a factor, as is the fact that Halon systems are getting harder and harder to find. (I don't have much faith in some of the alternatives.) I put extra $$ into the cage and new parts - passive safety. I decided that an Isaac system was a more important safety purchase, considering a real analysis of risk, than would be a fire system at this point.

True, you are more likely to need an ISAAC than a Halon system. But remember the consequence of not having either can be permanent. If anything the fire will be much more painful!

I confess however that I continue to be dumbfounded by people who spend the $$ on a good fire system but insist on using an open helmet or run without a balaclava. Bad economies, to my mind.

Me too! Just don't stop with the hand held. Just like all the other safety equipment we purchase we hope to never need them. The chances are low, but the consequences too high. Halon systems aren't that expensive (even cheaper if you never activate them).



------------------
Daryl DeArman
Click to expand...
 
***how many fires actually get started...with something UNDER the car. (Dry grass is a favorite, I myself have found the need to grab, bail and spray, saving myself a big fire and a big mess.***

***I've had very similar situations. I would indeed still have a handheld in my car with an onboard system, and have in the past.***

***Your both just playing CYA for each other just like the Production folks.***

CYA would be Cover Your A$$ Jake. Kirk, it's ok to live by what you beleive. You beleive in experience & statistical odds. I also beleive in the same but I going o throw Murphy into the equation. Sooner or latter Murphy will beat the experience & statistical odds.

Years ago Herk received very serious burns over much of his body at the Milwaukee mile. Had seen him many times at tracks after the fact. I Karted with a young stud (he 16 at the time in the early 90's) who a couple years ago had a fire situation in a oval car. The still very young man has some stubs where his fingurs used to be. This kind of stuff makes me cry.

Many of the readers on this site viewed Jr. in the left cost race in a bucks up car on a road course. Murphy got him.

Kirk, I am not pi$$ed I just get all out of sorts when reasonable people take a serious SHORT CUT.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top