component removal

[grjones1]

Originally posted by grega:
Uh, GRJ, I do believe our boy was using what we here call "sarcasm"...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm

Grega,
Even sarcasm need have some regard to reason. And Grega, you really don't have to waste your time providing dictionary references. I am one of those people with whom lexicographers confer when they are assimilating their material.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 21, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 21, 2004).]

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
"Mounting plate" or "tube", the ITCS says by SS cage rules, and the SS cage rules say
"the forward part of the cage shall be mounted to the floor of the vehicle." And this refers to both welded[b/] and bolted cages, Bill.

But again, what you are ignoring is the fact that the mounting points of the cage are defined by the mounting plates.

Originally posted by grjones1:
And Geo don't get me wrong, I'm for your installation on this, but when I ask for a change in the name of safety and comfort, I expect the same consideration.

This did not require a rule change or special dispensation. It is legal within the current rules. No special consideration was required.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
You know as well as I the language permits inference by way of exclusion.

And I think this is the bone of contention. Others (including myself) will disagree with this reasoning.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
This did not require a rule change or special dispensation. It is legal within the current rules. No special consideration was required.

Then why did you have to confer with Kansas on the legality? And why do you think that 90% of current IT cars have their cage tubes running to plates on the floor? Because most of us read the rules that way, even when we knew it would be stonger if we ran the tube to the frame rail. Many of us didn't ask about the vertical plate, we did it anyway (before it was recognized) knowing it was essential to the strength of the cage. We didn't think anyone would accept an S-shaped plate as anything but twisting the rules.

It was indeed special dispensation for your application by way of a rules interpretation. And again I'm glad for you and anyone building a new car, but don't pretend that it was aceptable practice in the past before your use. It wasn't.

GRJ

 

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...with whom lexicographers confer when they are assimilating their material...GRJ</font>

Gesundheit! Hope it's not contagious...

As far as rollcage mounting goes, there's no question on Geo's legality. In fact, it's obviously legal, both by straight-up reads of the rules and by letters I've personally received in response to technical requests to SCCA National office. In those letters, it is explicitly stated that the 100 square-inch plate is considered a single mounting point, and any number of tubes can attach to that plate without increasing the number of mounting points. There are ZERO limitation or requriements in the regulations as to WHERE on that plate your rollcage tubes must mount.

If you think Geo's car is even close to being questionable, you'll have a coronary over mine: http://www.gatm.com/cars/nx2000/2003.html , middle of the page...)

That is, in fact, what most forward-thinking people are doing. There's nothing sneaky about it, and there's certainly nothing in the rules that states you shouldn't (or can't) maximize performance from required safety devices.

Jones, I know you enjoy your arguments on this board, but at some point you just gotta give up trying to argue with the whole Internet. It's becoming as tedious as some others...

I eagerly await your witty and argumentative reply.

Greg


[This message has been edited by grega (edited August 21, 2004).]

 

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Then why did you have to confer with Kansas on the legality?</font>

Because it's one of those "DUH!" moments when you look around and wonder "why in the hell doesn't EVERYONE do it this way?" You think it's so damn obvious that there MUST be something that YOU'RE missing, so you write a letter to the rulesmakers to verify that there's not something you're missing. Then you get the thumbs-up and do it, and have to deal with the folks with their heads in dark places accusing you of cheating.

The obvious and final answer to that question is that everyone has pretty much been copying everyone else's work for eternity, assuming that this was "the best" way to do it because they won the Regional championship for the last 27 years. Problem is that because of that success, no one has stepped back with an open mind to consider possible alternatives. It's called "Group Think" and usually results in someone with a fresh perspective coming and and producing "radical" changes to the environment. It can also be called "pulling your head out" and/or "thinking outside of the box.

But, hey, if you folks are comfortable with "the way things have always been" then I'm not one to stop you from changing...

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
And I think this is the bone of contention. Others (including myself) will disagree with this reasoning.

In this context, "reasoning" is not the issue, language is the issue. If my daughter asks, "May I go out tonight." And I answer "Is your room clean?" Her inference by all rights is that if her room is clean she can go out, even though I did not say, "You may go out." Can you see that?

If I ask, "May I remove the heater?" in a context where we are discussing component removal. And you answer simply, "The core must remain in place." Then I assume as long as the core is in place, I can remove the heater box. That's not a stretch, that's language.

If the rule says the "the cage must attach to the floor," and you say the cage is attached to the mounting plate and the mounting plate is attached to the floor so the cage is attached to the floor." Why then as long as I have a plate attached to any location I can place a component anywhere I choose as long as it's attached to the plate. Great, now I know how I can gain more negative camber- simply move my lower arm mounting points outward, attach them to a plate that reaches to the original mounting point and they will be considered to be attached to the original mounting points. Why didn't I think of that before? (Maybe because others might see it as cheating.)
Do you see how your arguments run? Your twisting is OK, my twisting is disagreeable. It's a two-way street guys. Or at least it's supposed to be.

I'm beginning to think, it's not what you know, but who you know.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 21, 2004).]

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by grega:
Gesundheit! Hope it's not contagious...
_________________________________________
It's obviously not contagious.
GRJ
________________________________________
If you think Geo's car is even close to being questionable, you'll have a coronary over mine: That is, in fact, what most forward-thinking people are doing. There's nothing sneaky about it, and there's certainly nothing in the rules that states you shouldn't (or can't) maximize performance from required safety devices.
Greg

You are correct, please explain how that horizontal bar across the rear shock towers is legal- it's not attached to the aft struts or any other part of the cage as far as I can see. That's not forward thinking or "twisting" that's downright cheating!
And if you call that erector set forward thinking, I call it superfluous addition of unnecessary weight. Stiffen your chassis as much as you like, I'll maintain my power to weight through clean, safe, and legal design.

And if we were not forward thinking, we would have never added the vertical plates on the floor mounts before anyone said we could.

Quit patting yourselves on your own backs.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 21, 2004).]

 

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...please explain how that horizontal bar across the rear shock towers is legal...</font>

Easy: it's attached to the 100 square-inch plate that I wrapped around the strut tower to reinforce said tower to provide an acceptable and strong mounting point for my cage braces (and to use to my performance advantage). Cross-bracing that whole area is on our winter agenda. Remember, the rules state any number of additional braces are allowed, as long as they attach to the legal plates. And, yes, we keep the patterns with us at all time so anyone on request (or demand) can measure them to verify we meet the area rule...

As to my "erector set" adding superfluous unecessary weight? Guess what: I'm under legal weight and have to add it to meet minimums! I used to run the spare tire in the car before we built the rear swaybar (http://www.gatm.com/cars/nx2000/swaybar.html - that ought to cause you yet ANOTHER coronary). What better place to add weight than to the rollcage for safety and chassis rigidity?

Read the rules, GR, and read what they say, not what you EXPECT them to say. Don't assume that they are the same as they were in 1969.

Look, I'm happy for you that you enjoy racing, but you're driving a car that no one in their right mind even remotely considers an enthusiast's car, let alone a race car (yes, I'm sure there's an Internet enthusiasts group for it, and I'm sure both members are happy) in a class that's been farting dust for nearly a decade. You're complaining about new cars going into your class and you're complaining about fresh "interpretations" of the rules, and you're pretty much complaining over just about any proposed change. It's not a matter of getting over patting ourselves on the back, it's a matter of you accepting that change is inevitable, whether it's by overt rules changes or by fresh ideas and insights.

I'm 40 years old and have been racing SCCA since the mid-80's, and you're making me feel like I'm young and just starting out!

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grega:
...in a class that's been farting dust for nearly a decade.

Easily the funniest thing I have heard in a while!

AB



------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by grega:

Here you go attacking my poor little Fiesta again. I don't know what you have against that car other than it proves it can run with more exotic equipment and if I roll it into a little ball, I still have enough money to get my girls through college. But you spend your money on more cage tubing and put that extra weight as far from the center of gravity as posssible while you stiffen your chassis. That's really smart.

And if that car is still underweight, somebody did a losy job of establishing its legal race weight.

And what you've said here is as misrepresentative of anything I have ever said as anyone could come up with. I'm not against change, I'm against thoughtless change- change for change sake don't get it!
And if you think you are youthful and forward thinking because you don't question things, you are only fooling yourself. Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

Evidently, you missed my remark on the Mini Cooper altogether - because you can't see or haven't seen what thoughtless rule interpretation can do to a category, you don't understand that Production classes used to be production-based, just like IT- affordable and competitive. And when people like you with their overly imaginative interpretations began twisting things to the limit we wound up with tube-frame prototypes that no one but the local millionaires could afford. Been to a National lately? Two to three car classes Whoppee.

You may not consider my Fiesta an "enthusiast's car" because you are like so many other people whose ideas are based on appearance rather than reality. Yeah, I enjoy racing because of the old adage, "when the green flag drops, the BS stops." And if I finish in front of you, whether its because I out drove you or my car was better than your car, it doesn't matter - that day I was better than you. You see how honest that is, how completely real without any "appearance" crap. So yeah, I love racing because it's truth in the end, not like the crap I read from you guys. Thank God.
You've convinced me, I no longer wish to participate in this forum, I don't think I like the people I'm dealing with. Don't bother to say hello if you are ever at Summit Point, I'll be talking to real racers.

G. Robert Jones



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 21, 2004).]

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:

Easily the funniest thing I have heard in a while!

AB
I'm glad you find it amusing, Andy, now I know the quality and attitude of the people on the ITAC.

Good Luck.

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
That's not forward thinking or "twisting" that's downright cheating!
And if you call that erector set forward thinking, I call it superfluous addition of unnecessary weight. Stiffen your chassis as much as you like, I'll maintain my power to weight through clean, safe, and legal design.

GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 21, 2004).]

I'll say this for you GRJ, you are never afraid to stick your neck in a noose, and then hand the trapdoor rope to the person you attack!

Geos cage is SO legal, it's hilarious that you have issues with it. The plate clearly attaches to the floor! Duh! And anyway, define "floor"....pehaps the actual metal sheet forming the floor wraps upward where it laps some rocker metal. Where does the floor, as defined by the rulebook, stop? I submit that if the cage plate touches any part of the metal of the floor sheet, it's legal...and Geos plate clearly does. The rules are clear here, and it would be stupid to just mount the plate to the floor. The assembly is soooooo much stronger and safer on the vertical section.

Please, please protest me (mine is the same) so we can get it run through the appeals procedure to establish some precedence if you think we're all a bunch of cheaters.

And Greg's car...that was funny...but he covered that already. For a self proclaimed smart guy, you sure set yourself up....and Greg's response was pretty polite considering your acerbic and slanderous comments.

Have you ever considered changing your approach? Perhaps instead of just calling him a cheater, you might inquire as to the details of the installation, then judge?

Finally, regarding the whole silly core issue, remember that the rule book is based on the IIDSYCYC logic, and the box needs to stay as a result. While I agree that the specific mention of the core is an unfortunate bit of rules writing, (and needs clarification, ok, ITAC guys? want a letter?)it doesn't remove the basic premise of the rule book.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 21, 2004).]

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:

I'm glad you find it amusing, Andy, now I know the quality and attitude of the people on the ITAC.

Good Luck.

Hey. I found the term 'farting dust' amusing...are you OK with that?

YIKES!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited August 21, 2004).]

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
The assembly is soooooo much stronger and safer on the vertical section.

One more shot, Jake, how many times in this string have I referenced the necessity of attaching a vertical plate? Read for a change or better yet learn to read, you might become as smart as you think you are.

And Jake, I don't protest people, I just find a way to beat them. Try it sometime, you might enjoy it more than listening to your own lack of wit.
That's it, I'm gone. I get more real intellectual stimulation from my nine-year- old. She can read and understand what she reads.
GRJ

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
And Jake, I don't protest people, I just find a way to beat them. Try it sometime, you might enjoy it more than listening to your own lack of wit.
That's it, I'm gone. I get more real intellectual stimulation from my nine-year- old. She can read and understand what she reads.
GRJ

Okey Dokey...I'll start trying to beat people. Good idea.

Point being that if you think Geo is illegal, and Greg too, it would be more appropriate to either learn how to read yourself, or protest them and get it cleared up through the system.

Slamming them on the net doesn't cut it for me.




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

 

[Bill Miller]

17.1.4.D.10.a.
All cars shall have a roll cage installed. The cage shall meet GCR Sect. 18, requirements for SS cage configuration, tubing size, and material except as provided for in these rules. (emphasis mine)

17.1.4.D.10.a.1.A.3

Whenever possible, mounting plates shall extend onto a vertical section of the structure (such as a rocker box). (emphasis mine)

17.1.4.D.10.a.1.A.4

The mounting plate may be multi-angled... (again, my emphasis)

Note: The above are exceprts from the '02 GCR/ITCS, as it was what I had handy. Section numbers may or may not have changed in subsequent issues.

Robert,

It's pretty well spelled out that attachment to a part of the chassis, other than just the floor pan, is not only legal, but preferred.

As Jake (or was it Greg?) said, read what's in the rules, not what you want them to say. And ask the folks around here, you don't see me 'picking and choosing' which rules you can and can't interpret.

And, correct me if I'm wrong (I heard this from another MARRS competitor), that you've stated (almost boasted) that you don't read the GCR.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Then why did you have to confer with Kansas on the legality?

Because:

A) I wasn't sure about its legality.
I didn't want to make assumptions about what would be legal.
c) In case it wasn't legal I would have liked dispensation.

The answer came back that it's legal. No other consideration required.

Originally posted by grjones1:
And why do you think that 90% of current IT cars have their cage tubes running to plates on the floor?

That's not myfault. I cannot help it if people didn't bother to write to Topeka (or Denver) for clarification.

Originally posted by grjones1:
It was indeed special dispensation for your application by way of a rules interpretation. And again I'm glad for you and anyone building a new car, but don't pretend that it was aceptable practice in the past before your use. It wasn't.

Says you. Topeka disagrees. I'll go with Topeka.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Bill Miller]

It was indeed special dispensation for your application by way of a rules interpretation. And again I'm glad for you and anyone building a new car, but don't pretend that it was aceptable practice in the past before your use. It wasn't.

I meant to comment on this before. My old ITB car was built in '00, and had its log book issued in the WDCR. The mounting plates for the forward tubes wrapped the rocker boxes, and there were no questions aaat all about the legality. Robert, this is your region, are you saying the WDCR tech people don't know the rules? IIRC, it was Ron Skidmore that issued the log book.

You make wild claims like this w/o any backup, and it just makes you look foolish. Kinda like the "90% of the IT cars out there" comment.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Then why did you have to confer with Kansas on the legality? And why do you think that 90% of current IT cars have their cage tubes running to plates on the floor? Because most of us read the rules that way, even when we knew it would be stonger if we ran the tube to the frame rail. Many of us didn't ask about the vertical plate, we did it anyway (before it was recognized) knowing it was essential to the strength of the cage. We didn't think anyone would accept an S-shaped plate as anything but twisting the rules.
It was indeed special dispensation for your application by way of a rules interpretation. And again I'm glad for you and anyone building a new car, but don't pretend that it was aceptable practice in the past before your use. It wasn't.

GRJ

At first I was going to edit your quote, but now that I read it carefully, I think not.

Why do I think 90% of IT cars have plates on the floor?? I'll tell you why. (And I don't agree with the 90% number)....because there are a lot of cars out there with bolt in cages, or cars that were built as cheaply as possible, or, to be honest, cars that are just peices of crapola. The masses eat at McDonalds...does that mean it's good food? Popularity is NOT the sign of quality.

But now your statement gets really weird. You say that nobody does it but those twisting the rules, and you find fault in them (Geo, Greg), but then you go on to say you did it anyway? Choose a side! So it's twisting the rules, but thats cool and you did it because its stronger?????

Well, it aint twisting the rules, it IS 100%legal, and my car, which was built in '97, has the same rocker/floor plate scenario.

So, as far as I'm concerned, and many others who can read, it WAS acceptable practice 7 YEARS before Geo wrote for his clarification!
How can you say it is acceptable now, but not then, if there wasn't a rule change at the same time?? Logic man, where is it?????

Honestly, you're not stopping at making yourself look foolish, as Bill pointed out here, you're going way beyond.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 22, 2004).]