more thoughts on wheels

Bill, are you implying that 7" wide wheels may not give a benefit over 6" wide wheels? You must be joking. Also, please try to research stuff a little better before you mislead people about things like tire availabilty.

If fact, speaking of research, why don't one of you open a thread asking ITB/C drivers if they would support increasing wheel widths to 7". I was going to do it myslef, but I wouldn't want to misrepresent your stance.
 
Originally posted by Jake:
You people really need to learn how to research stuff on the net.
Click to expand...

Hey Jake,
Thanks for the information... "Perhaps we could do without the wise-cracks..."

(Who can name the movie??
wink.gif
)

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 21, 2004).]
 
I would support a rule that allowed widths of 7" across the board, but it would be a lonely fight.
Click to expand...

I don't know Darin, but that sure looks like you said what you would do re: a rule that would allow everyone to run a 7" wheel.


Jake,

I stated when I originally posted that data that it came from the TireRack site. Not trying to 'mislead' anyone. And as far as the other sizes being here later, I'll believe it when I see it. Remember the G-Force fiasco a couple of years ago?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I don't know Darin, but that sure looks like you said what you would do re: a rule that would allow everyone to run a 7" wheel.
Click to expand...

Yup... if that turns out to be an option that makes sense, I will...

BUT, if it turns out to be something that doesn't make sense... I'm still open to changing that stance.

Point is, is that I don't have my head burried in the sand here and I'm not just taking a position and blindly defending it. I'm open to discussing this until it comes time to actually make a decision, which isn't now... so let's keep talking about it. How about we focus on the topic, and less on trying to pin me into a corner...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 22, 2004).]
 
K - interesting and timely.

However, that's the 5th time in the last two years that a manufacturer promised a limited production of an inexpensive 14x7 wheel in 4x100. I hope that this time it pans out.
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Yup... if that turns out to be an option that makes sense, I will...

BUT, if it turns out to be something that doesn't make sense... I'm still open to changing that stance.

Point is, is that I don't have my head burried in the sand here and I'm not just taking a position and blindly defending it. I'm open to discussing this until it comes time to actually make a decision, which isn't now... so let's keep talking about it. How about we focus on the topic, and less on trying to pin me into a corner...
Click to expand...

I'll give you credit (yet again), you're turning into quite the politician.
rolleyes.gif


And, I'm not trying to pin you into a corner. If you don't like people taking you at your word, you should think about choosing your words a bit more carefully. This is hardly the first time you've said something, only to backpeddle on it.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Bill, it was perfectly clear what Darin meant. I think you're doing a good job at being a polotition by taking a sound bite out of a logical argument and trying to twist it.

I also would be in favor of a 7" wide rule for B/C if that is in fact what the majority of B/C drivers wanted. Let's start a poll and see what the membership wants.

In fact my first choice would be to open up wheel choice by allowing any diameter for each class. However, I think Darin's proposal is the least disruptive and most fair idea that solves the problem at hand.
 
Darin, are ya into selective reading or selective responses ?

****Is "rules creep" REALLY why Production is where is is today? I say NO...****

Darin, if your going to stick to what you say then please tell me if the following items are CREEP within the GCR/PCS.

Darin, your response options are YES or NO.

A. A system of head restraint 4 to 6 inches behind the trailing edge of the main hoop.

B. The bridge roll cage from Flordia with the side hoops passing through holes in the hood terminating someplace under the hood.

C. Main hoop diagonals with one end attached to the main hoop & the other end attached to the rear spring perch.

Items A, B & C are all items which have CREEPED into Production cars & are illegal untill someone uses a strained & or tortured interpertation of the GCR/PCS. The same $hit WILL HAPPEN in IT once the gates open.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
It's off topic and you didn't ask me but I'll have an opinion anyway. You're not the boss of me.
smile.gif


My working definition of "rules creep" is when the rulesmakers - and rules enforcers - incrementally give stuff away in the name of micro-level logic, having lost sight of the bigger picture.

One way this works is when each little change might have a completely reasonable rationale but the SUM of those changes over time tips the total change way past the paradigm in place when the rules were created. Comparing IT cars of 1984 with those of 2004, removal of headliners, aluminum door panels, trim removal, and a bunch of other allowances fall into this subcategory.

Another mechanism is in force when entrants push the envelope of interpretation a little and are allowed to - equally incrementally if not more so - shove the operative definition of what is legal beyond not only what the rules "intended" but what they actually say. I think this is the case with the examples cited above (EDIT - that D. cited above) but importantly, this is not the fault of the people writing the rules. We all take responsibility in this case because we are our own enforcement mechanism. Now, if I protest a wacky cage and then appeal a finding that it is legal, the issue may end up back with the same group of stakeholders who wrote the rule but it's always impressive to me how few of these questions get to that point.

Finally, it might be the case that some creep is the result of increased availability, decreased cost - or likely both - of emerging technology. It sounds funny now but spherical bearings fall into this category, as do 'real' coilover suspension systems (sleeves or not).

The short answer might be, "yes - those MIGHT become examples of rules creep, if they are allowed to become standard practice and de facto legal."

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited January 22, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Darin, are ya into selective reading or selective responses ?
Click to expand...

Yes David, I have had selective responses this week, because I'm about to enter a conference call with the CRB and there are priority issues to deal with.

To give you my quick answer to your question... NO, none of the examples you posted are what I would consider "rules creep", becuase the written rules did not ALLOW them to exist. What you are describing here is "interpretation creep", where people have decided to twist and mangle what the CCR/PCS states and use their interpretation to their own advantage.

I have no input or control over what Production does with their rules, so this really should be taken up with them. If they don't want to enforce their own rule package, that's their problem.

We will, however, do our best to learn from their "mistakes" and try our best to avoid going down that road.

Bottom line, however, is that if the rules don't adjust to meet changing demands, the class WILL go the way of Production...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 22, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 22, 2004).]
 
****My working definition of "rules creep" is when the rulesmakers - and rules enforcers - incrementally give stuff away in the name of micro-level logic, having lost sight of the bigger picture.****

Kirk, we agree on one thing. I will even describe micro-level logic as not wanting to cause alienation with the GOOD OL BOYS.
wink.gif
& all three of the items I mentioned are with reference to three of the GOOD OL BOYS. All three of the items are safety items relative to the roll cage.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
****Posted by Darin****

****To give you my quick answer to your question... NO, none of the examples you posted are what I would consider "rules creep", becuase the written rules did not ALLOW them to exist. What you are describing here is "interpretation creep", where people have decided to twist and mangle what the CCR/PCS states and use their interpretation to their own advantage.****

A quote by someone else....
wink.gif


Language is a treacherous thing...and generally more dangerous than race cars.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Language is a treacherous thing...and generally more dangerous than race cars.
Click to expand...

It's not the language that is dangerous, it's those applying/interpreting it that cause all the problems...

Unless, of course, someone drops a GCR on your head... THAT could be dangerous...
tongue.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Darin, please step away from the word games & answer the following question.

When I read GCR rule 18.1.2 my understanding of the rule is that the integral or non-integral headrest construction and or implementation location is the creation of a system of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the drivers head/helmet from striking the underside of the main hoop.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is correct please confirm.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is not correct please provide your understanding of the rule.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Darin, please step away from the word games & answer the following question.

When I read GCR rule 18.1.2 my understanding of the rule is that the integral or non-integral headrest construction and or implementation location is the creation of a system of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the drivers head/helmet from striking the underside of the main hoop.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is correct please confirm.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is not correct please provide your understanding of the rule.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
Click to expand...

1. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Do you always jump into other's conversations with totally random thoughts?

2. Darin didn't write the rule. In fact, it's not even Darin's job to interpret this rule (other than for himself as a racer).

3. If you have a technical question about the rules, I strongly suggest you write to the appropriate person or board. The SCCA has two technical people on staff for club racing for answering questions just like this.

4. If you have another question or point here, it's not clear at all.


------------------
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:
If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is correct please confirm.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is not correct please provide your understanding of the rule.
Click to expand...

David,
I haven't the power to "comfirm" that your understanding is "correct"... That would be the job of the BoD or CRB or CoA or some other ruling authority...

I can, however, offer that I understand the rule to be exactly as it reads...

GCR 18.1.2.
"A System of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the driver's head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles"
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear... (don't panic guys... he's referring to Production rules, not IT rules... well, not yet anyhow...)

What does this have to do with IT and WHAT kind of verbal trap are you trying to set me up for here???
confused.gif
Why do I have a feeling the next set of questions deal with a bunch of 30+ year-old cars with drivers who sit in the drop-top stowage area and directly UNDER their main hoop???

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 23, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Geo:
1. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Do you always jump into other's conversations with totally random thoughts?

2. Darin didn't write the rule. In fact, it's not even Darin's job to interpret this rule (other than for himself as a racer).

3. If you have a technical question about the rules, I strongly suggest you write to the appropriate person or board. The SCCA has two technical people on staff for club racing for answering questions just like this.

4. If you have another question or point here, it's not clear at all.
Click to expand...


Watch it David, it's the forum police!!!
biggrin.gif



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Geo, you the cop on the Rules & Reg wheels thread ? I copied a sentence from another poster & suggested what was going to happen to Improved Touring if people continue CREEPING the rules.

The copied sentence:

***If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.***

Then I suggested:

***Some of you need to read this several times & maybe you will get the point because the guys in Production didn't understand the same info back in the 50's & 60's. We are today where they were in the 50's & 60's. Ya want continious CHANGES/CREEPING step up to the plate & build a car for production.***

Then a couple of your pals commented & I responded. Did you jump in their stuff for responding ? Can't jump in their stuff because a couple of the WHEEL poster are on the ITAC. You bet I took the subject on a tangent off someone elses posted sentence.

Geo, for your benifit I did write the Comp Board on the head restraint issue & they responded that the roll cage padding as spected is ok. The freken rule says nothing about roll cage padding.

***Posted by Darin***

***It's pretty clear... (don't panic guys... he's referring to Production rules, not IT rules... well, not yet anyhow...)***

Darin, the rule is the same for IT as the rule is for Production. & if the rule has CREEPED (which it has CREEPED because Tech
inspectors do not understand the rules & or don't care about SAFETY rules. If I can take a 2 by 4 & whack 2 roll cage tubes on a IT or Production car & your head at the same time the roll cage is not SAFE.) in Production it will also CREEP in IT.

***Why do I have a feeling the next set of questions deal with a bunch of 30+ year-old cars with drivers who sit in the drop-top stowage area and directly UNDER their main hoop???***

It was/is going no further Darin. The drop top 30 year old stuff you describe above is ILLEGAL.

The point is head restraints are ILLEGAL when intergal or non-intergal head restraints allow the helmeted head to strike the underside of the main hoop of the roll cage for either IT cars & or Production cars.

Being that you like to present your understanding of rules I simply asked you a question as a person & not as a ITAC member.

Bill, those boys in Texas continiously CREEP the Spec-7 rules. That's why they have the fastest Spec-7's in the country.
biggrin.gif


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