component removal

[slowguy]

OK -I know you all recommend not listenning to you or anyone else when it comes to rules and regs, "refer to the book"...that said I'd like advice.

I'm building an ITS 93 325i. The car comes with optional systems like an on board computer, cruise control, and heated electric seats for example.

So when it comes to removing said systems is it safe in the case of the seats for example to remove the wiring harness associated with the seats from the fusebox to the switches in the center console and down to each seat?

Thanks for any feedback.

[x-ring]

Well, with the warning that I'm probably not going to be the tech inspector in impound the day your car is protested (if it ever is, and I don't think you ever will be protested on your seats), and the further warning that the tech inspector doesn't make the final call on a car's legality, here goes: I've always read the rules such that if the good book says you can remove an item, you can remove all of the 'stuff' that makes the item work.

For example if you remove the radio, the radio power wire, connector, fuse, speakers, speaker wire and so forth can also come out.

YMMV.



------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

[planet6racing]

If a vehicle was offered by the manufacturer without said equipment (and as long as it is on the same spec line in the GCR), you can, as I understand it, use the update/backdate rule to remove/add optional equipment to your car. So, I think that you should be safe to remove these things as long as they offered a vehicle without them.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Knestis]

Not that it matters at impound but I concur with both of the above.

K

[slowguy]

So then it would seem that:

"Air bags shall be disarmed and may be removed."

means you can safely remove the computer, wiring and trigger units for the airbags. Is this a common interpretation of the rules?

Tyler

[Knestis]

Again, I think that is a sound assumption but it's not my call. I did it so I am either (a) okay, or (B) cheating.

K

[MMiskoe]

Does that then mean that when removing the AC system, you can safely 86 the blower, the ducting and all associated grilles, controls and widgets??

I'm not trying to be a pain, I have often wondered if this was a method of getting rid of most of the clutter under the dashboard.

[Knestis]

Now THAT I don't buy...

When I take out the ABS wiring and controller, I am simply putting it in the condition of a car that didn't come with that system in the first place.

Taking out parts that are associated with the ventilation system - were the car to not have AC - isn't the same thing to my mind. Others disagree on this point.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
When I take out the ABS wiring and controller, I am simply putting it in the condition of a car that didn't come with that system in the first place.

Didn't you make a case that your car only came with ABS or am I not remembering correctly?


------------------
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 slowguy:
So then it would seem that:

"Air bags shall be disarmed and may be removed."

means you can safely remove the computer, wiring and trigger units for the airbags. Is this a common interpretation of the rules?

Tyler



I would say only if a version of your car came without an airbag. Otherwise, I'd say it has to be there.

Required or allowed removal of certain components does not mean you can remove the wiring for these components (IMHO) unless these were optional components on your car or another car on the same spec line.


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

[Tak]

While the GCR says we can remove the A/C, it does not say we can remove the defroster, and specifically says the heater core must be in place.
Therein lies the pisser. It takes hours to get the damn evaporator out, and then you have to put the whole air distribution box back in...
Seriously though, you want to retain the blower and ducting--when it rains, the defroster is a godsend.
Tak
#29 ITA
SFR SCCA

[planet6racing]

We've already beat the HVAC thing to death (I know, I started it). It pretty much came down to 2 lines of thinking and each side wasn't going to give into the other. If you want to rehash that, lets bring back that other thread.

The same arguement used for the HVAC could be used for the airbag. I don't think either side will give on that issue, either. Now, if the airbag was optional for your model/year, then it's an easy answer...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[apr67]

Remove wires? I doubt it. And is it worth it?

Remove airbag, computer and sensors? Sure, that is how I would disarm it. I surely don't want the computer and sensors working and trying to ignite an airbag that isn't in the car.

Remove the Ventialtion system? No, the car came with a ventilation system regardless of wether it had AC or not. You COULD swap out to a heat only air box if the car came that way.

My 2cents.

[grjones1]

Originally posted by apr67:

Remove the Ventialtion system? No, the car came with a ventilation system regardless of wether it had AC or not. You COULD swap out to a heat only air box if the car came that way..

Don't forget, you can "make room" for a lower dash horizontal bar. And then there's the old "instrument" argument, but we wont go there.
GRJ

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Geo:
Didn't you make a case that your car only came with ABS or am I not remembering correctly?

You are not quite remembering correctly but my logic may still be hanging on the horns of an dilemma here...

I was arguing the position of the Acura GS-R (ABS only). The Golf/GTI 2.0 is offered without ABS, so I can personally take advantage of the up-/back-date rule.

Now, I DID take out the airbag controller and dash wiring harness. I've probably just become rules NERD protest bait. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

EDIT - Dilemmas have horns, enigmas have antlers.


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 17, 2004).]

[MMiskoe]

Cripes. I didn't mean to stir the hornet's nest. Sorry about that. Thanks for the input though.

This does point out another aspect worth mentioning - it is nice to see people interested enough in keeping inline w/ the rules to publicly ask for clarification instead of just doing what they feel like. Afterall, if there was no regaurd for the rules it would Can-Am at a regional level. Isn't that what ITE is?

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I was arguing the position of the Acura GS-R (ABS only). The Golf/GTI 2.0 is offered without ABS, so I can personally take advantage of the up-/back-date rule.

OK, I couldn't remember. So many arguments here to keep track of. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Originally posted by Knestis:
[B]Now, I DID take out the airbag controller and dash wiring harness. I've probably just become rules NERD protest bait. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Can you protest yourself? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
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 MMiskoe:
Cripes. I didn't mean to stir the hornet's nest. Sorry about that.

Actually, this sort of discussion can be quite useful provided it doesn't become a Holy War. People can learn from such discussion all the time.


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

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Geo:
Can you protest yourself? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


I can but my Mom said I'd go blind.

K

[slowguy]

Originally posted by MMiskoe:
This does point out another aspect worth mentioning - it is nice to see people interested enough in keeping inline w/ the rules to publicly ask for clarification instead of just doing what they feel like.

In my case credit that to inexperience I guess ; )

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I can but my Mom said I'd go blind.

You probably hid your rulebook under the mattress and snuck peeks at it late at night, didn't you? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
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 Knestis:
I can but my Mom said I'd go blind.

K

That's only when your "dainty bits" are involved.
GRJ http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
That's only when your "dainty bits" are involved.
GRJ http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gifKirk...you gonna let this guy call your bits "dainty"???


http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

[grjones1]

GRJ http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif[/b][/QUOTE]Kirk...you gonna let this guy call your bits "dainty"???
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
[/B][/QUOTE]

I was only using K's own words. He knows. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

[lateapex911]

I do too...thats why the http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif was included.

Cheers

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

[Knestis]

Knowing one's own limitations makes it possible to compensate for them in other ways.

K

[Marcus Miller]

somewhat back on topic (and I apologize for not having my GCR infront of me)

Can we relocate heater controls?
I am thinking of converting my Pro7 car into an ITA car, but have gutted the interior. I still have most of the pieces, but I designed my knee bar such that it runs right in front of the heater control spot in the center console. Would that qualify for removal based on safety equipment poitioning?
A dash picture is here:
http://images.miller-motorsports.com/engin...ne/PICT0115.JPG (http://images.miller-motorsports.com/engine/PICT0115.JPG)

I was thinking if I have to lug around a heater core, blower motor, etc it might as well work....

M.

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Marcus Miller:
Can we relocate heater controls?
Would that qualify for removal based on safety equipment poitioning?

M.
Marcus,
Here I believe are the rules that are supposed to answer your questions and why simple answers are not available.
ITCS 3. e. "Air conditioning systems may be removed in whole or in part.
g. Heater core and hoses shall not be removed. ..."
And 9.c. "Gauges and instruments may be added, replaced, or removed. They may be installed in the original instrument(s) location using a mounting plate(s), or any other location using a secure method of attachment. Other than modifications made
to mount instruments and provide for roll cage installation, the remainder of the dash “board” or panel shall remain intact. Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are permitted."

These all appear to be "limiting" statements, but actually open the door for interpretation with the "other than" statements which allow removal of components when they are in the way of cage bars or even new instruments or other safety equipment. Where it says "heater core shall not be removed," most people assume you can remove the heater box as long as you retain the core, i.e., if you had to retain the heater box, it would say "box" instead of "core".

Those of us who read the rules with a half-full glass interpret the "instrument" business and allowance for safety items to permit us to remove things from under the dash to make room for our changes. Those with half-empty glasses strictly adhere to leaving things in unless the item is specifically mentioned as removable.

I beleive, because your knee bar needs the space, your controls and box can be moved or removed, whichever you like. But there are those who will disagree.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Knowing one's own limitations makes it possible to compensate for them in other ways.

K
And oh how many of us (that's first person plural) need to compensate.
GRJ http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

[Geo]

Relocate controls?

OK, since opinions are being offered, here's mine....

As already stated, if the cage gets in the way, sure. In my case (and other cars as well) the HVAC controls are in the center console. Since I can lose the console, I must be able to relocate the controls.

I personally find the argument for removing the heater box extremely weak. No where does it say you can remove the heater box except if it interferes with the cage. That's my personal interpretation. Personally, I wouldn't race without it.

Have you run a race in the rain? My last rain race I had a perfectly clear windshield. I started from the very back due to no qualifying time (lost time in tech and putting on the rain set-up). I passed the pole sitter in the first turn, first lap (off the track). Talked with him later and found out he couldn't see a thing through his windshield. He barely passed me on the last lap. He was in ITE with a Porsche 951 (944 turbo). I pointed him by. Why hold him up, right? Well, I probably could have held him off for position. See, it was the last lap with 4 corners to go, if I hadn't slowed to let him by before the next corner, he probably would have lost the opportunity. Had I known it was the last lap, I wouldn't have given him a break. The moral of the story is a defroster can make a HUGE difference in the rain. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


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

[GT240sx]

The rules seem to be pretty clear on component removal due to interference with the installation of safety equipment... mainly the roll cage.

Lets say one of those components that interefered with the roll cage was the blower for the HVAC system. It can be removed to make way for the roll cage but you lose your defrost.

Would it then be legal to add a fan to blow air through the rest of the defrost ducting that was not interferring with the roll cage if the need for defrost occured?

------------------
Russell White
'85 Toyota Supra
ready for ITS in 8 months....maybe

[This message has been edited by GT240sx (edited August 19, 2004).]

[slowguy]

Originally posted by Geo:
The moral of the story is a defroster can make a HUGE difference in the rain. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Great point - for that reason I think i'll keep the AC functional - that'll serve as a great excuse for brining up the rear on those hot days at Road Atlanta. ; )

[Knestis]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ... Where it says \"heater core shall not be removed,\" most people assume you can remove the heater box as long as you retain the core, i.e., if you had to retain the heater box, it would say \"box\" instead of \"core\". ...</font>

Most people are wrong then. Those specific "thou shalt not remove" statements are the worst possible stoopid move that has ever been perpetrated on club racers by the ITCS, for exactly the reason GRJones describes.

Point of historical significance. The clause requiring the core to stay was added after some people decided that it was a "radiator" and therefore could be modified or replace (as in, replaced by air). That was never the intent of the rule allowing radiator replacement but rather than fixing the wording of the radiator allowance, the core retention piece was added. Two badly written rules do not make one well written one.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 19, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

I've always thought the cage/instrument allowance clause left things wide open. There's nothing that dictates where you put the cross bar(s), should you elect to include them. You could locate them so as to pretty much require the complete dash removal.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I've always thought the cage/instrument allowance clause left things wide open. There's nothing that dictates where you put the cross bar(s), should you elect to include them. You could locate them so as to pretty much require the complete dash removal.



I don't know why it would be wide open. And I cannot remotely imagine any cage that would required the entire dash to be removed.

http://home.earthlink.net/~geo31/Cage/Cage18.jpg


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

[Bill Miller]

Just requires a little out-of-the-box thinking George.

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

[Knestis]

I've pointed this out before but it's been a long time: A rule that says the dashboard may be modified to allow installation of a rollcage tube is very different than installing a rollcage tube to rationalize massive removal of the dash - or any otherwise required component.

K

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I don't believe that removing massive amounts of the dash is w/in the spirt of the rules, but the way they are currently written, it would be legal.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Just requires a little out-of-the-box thinking George.



Not to start anything, but it sounds more like it requires out-of-the-rulebook thinking.


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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo:
Not to start anything, but it sounds more like it requires out-of-the-rulebook thinking.





If you're not trying to start anything George, don't!

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

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Just requires a little out-of-the-box thinking George.


while I understand bill's point that a defencable position can be argued, I am struck with the thought that out of the box thinking may equal tortured interpretation.
dick patullo

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Two badly written rules do not make one well written one.K
.]

But just to clarify, again most of the people I run with including myself and within general agreement run with a heater core and no box. I'll say it again: limited modifications withstanding, we are afterall driving "race cars," not street prepared autocrossers.
And those having defrost problems should probably use Rain-X.
GRJ

[grjones1]

grjones1
Originally posted by Geo:


George,
Your cage appears to be chromemoly, really nice. But I always thought the horizontal dash bar was used to protect your legs and to keep a motor from coming through to crush the driver in a head on. Yours appears a little high to accomplish that purpose? And that's a very interesting base plate. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vertical plates to the frame rail, but the SS cage spec says the bar is supposed to be mounted to the "floor" not to the frame rail. Don't be offended, I'm just asking for my own edification.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
grjones1 George,
Your cage appears to be chromemoly, really nice. But I always thought the horizontal dash bar was used to protect your legs and to keep a motor from coming through to crush the driver in a head on. Yours appears a little high to accomplish that purpose? And that's a very interesting base plate. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vertical plates to the frame rail, but the SS cage spec says the bar is supposed to be mounted to the "floor" not to the frame rail. Don't be offended, I'm just asking for my own edification.
GRJ

Actually, the cage is 1020. Thanks for the kind words though.

The dash bar IMHO is to keep the forward portion of the cage collapsing in a side collision. If the engine were to come through the firewall, I doubt a cage tube will stop it. I placed it where I did to protect my legs. A lot of 944 owners put the tube below the dash creating a kneecapper. My knees will be virtually in contact with the lower dash as it is. I would have put it behind the dash, but there is no room.

As for the mounting plate, it's made the way it is to meet the rules. The plate can be any shape and it is attached to the floor and the forward tube is attached to the plate, and thus the floor by definition. Sounds tortured, but I cleared it with Topeka first. Besides, the 944 rocker is many times stronger than the thin floor that flexes as I walk on it.


------------------
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:

As for the mounting plate, it's made the way it is to meet the rules. The plate can be any shape and it is attached to the floor and the forward tube is attached to the plate, and thus the floor by definition. Sounds tortured, but I cleared it with Topeka first. Besides, the 944 rocker is many times stronger than the thin floor that flexes as I walk on it.


George,
More power to you, but that tube-to-plate-to-floor business is the same kind of ruling that allowed repositioning of suspension mounting points in Production. If you are old enough to remember back that far.
As far as thin floors, that's why we reinforce the base plate with bottom and vetical plates to the frame rail.
But hey, if the bar keeps the car away from your body, I'm all for it. But it appears as if some "rules creep" is ongoing. Pardon my concerns. (And if .95 thou cold rolled can't keep the motor off my torso, I'll be dead from fright anyway.) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
G. Robert

[Knestis]

Originally posted by grjones1:
But just to clarify, again most of the people I run with including myself and within general agreement run with a heater core and no box. ...

This is the result of people doing what the other guy/gal is doing rather than following the rulebook. This happens everywhere and might ultimately be traced to one or two tech people having variant opinion about a particular rule.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by grjones1:
George,
More power to you, but that tube-to-plate-to-floor business is the same kind of ruling that allowed repositioning of suspension mounting points in Production. If you are old enough to remember back that far.

Until I got involved with crewing in IT a few years back I was not intimately familiar with any of the rules specifics, so no, I don't know. Basically, I asked for dispensation from Topeka and the response that came back was what you see in the photo. Actually, it makes sense given the fact the tube only needs to attach to the plate, anywhere on the plate. The mounting to the floor is defined by the plate on the floor.

But, I understand your point.


Originally posted by grjones1:
As far as thin floors, that's why we reinforce the base plate with bottom and vetical plates to the frame rail.

Understood. Very disconcerting though anyway.


Originally posted by grjones1:
But hey, if the bar keeps the car away from your body, I'm all for it.

And that, as you have surmised, was the major reason behind that placement. The 944 has such a wide rocker (2") that placing the tube all the way to the floor would place it right next to my leg. The 944 cockpit is cramped, especially for a moose like me. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Originally posted by grjones1:
(And if .95 thou cold rolled can't keep the motor off my torso, I'll be dead from fright anyway.) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Well, that's kind of my point. If the engine makes its way through the firewall, it will make its way through the tube (and of course the driver). http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


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

[Mike Spencer]

Originally posted by grjones1:
...ITCS 3. e. "Air conditioning systems may be removed in whole or in part.
g. Heater core and hoses shall not be removed. ..."

Back to the Heater side of this for a moment (please).

Being a newbie, I'm asking a lot of questions lately. Both here on the site and elsewhere. When talking about the heater hoses, a friend who also races IT7 told me to get a "new" GCR. The hoses were now removable. I didn't remember that being the case, and ended up e-mailing him the same passage quoted above.

My question is, was this ever even contemplated? He's not arguing with the facts. It's just that he would have bet money that I was wrong. Wondering where that might have come from....


------------------
Mike Spencer
NC Region
ITA/7 RX-7 #60
1990 RX-7 Convertible (street car)

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Mike Spencer:
Back to the Heater side of this for a moment (please).

The hoses were now removable. I didn't remember that being the case, and ended up e-mailing him the same passage quoted above.


Mike, as far as I can read, "heater hoses and cores must remain intact." Unless some new Fastrack has come out contrarily.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
This is the result of people doing what the other guy/gal is doing rather than following the rulebook. This happens everywhere and might ultimately be traced to one or two tech people having variant opinion about a particular rule.
K

K, if George can run his rollbar tube to the floor by way of an S plate, we can certainly read the ITCS literally: heater "cores" must remain intact.

My feeling is at times as long as it suits one person's purposes, the rules can be interpreted, while at other times, we must adhere to the "letter". Got to be one way or the other: If an interpretation is considered sound, it can be accepted. But, I'm with you on having the rules clearly written initially (as I've said before.)

GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


George,
This is all academic; however, again I'll go so far as to say attaching the tube by way of the plate evenually leads to attaching the suspension by way of the plate and that eventually leads to rear wheel drive mini coopers, if you know what I mean.
GRJ

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Mike, as far as I can read, "heater hoses and cores must remain intact." Unless some new Fastrack has come out contrarily.
GRJ

Nothing here has changed... You can "plug" the hoses, but they must still be in place and connected...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Bill Miller]

Dick,

I agree that some could argue S&T, but the point I was making, was that the rule was pretty open. But you saw that


A lot of 944 owners put the tube below the dash creating a kneecapper. My knees will be virtually in contact with the lower dash as it is. I would have put it behind the dash, but there is no room.


Not if you removed more of the dash!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

As far as George's design goes, I like and support (and feel that it's totally w/in the rules) to wrap the rocker boxes like that. Much better than just a floor mount. Anyone that doesn't take full advantage of the mounting plate rules is leaving something on the table.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Anyone that doesn't take full advantage of the mounting plate rules is leaving something on the table.


And it is afterall a "safety and comfort" issue, and of course there is no additional chassis stiffness, so no mechanical advantage is achieved, so we can make allowances. (My how the worm turns.) Sorry guys, sometimes I just can't let it go.
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]

[Knestis]

Okay - let me get this straight. The fact that the book says the core must remain means I can remove the heater box, right?

Excellent.

So I can logically - and completely within the rules - install an add-on 6th gear kit to my gearbox because, "no alteration of of the stock transmission gear ratios" is allowed. I'll leave the original 1st through 5th stock of course since it's required that I do so but the absence of any prohibition of my kit allows me to install it.

I can't believe how silly I've been. Now, I just have to make sure that all of the other kids are doing it and it's all good...

K

[Geo]

GRJ, I realize you're trying to make a point, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.

The attachment points are defined in the GCR and/or ITCS by the mounting plate. Any any number of tubes may mount anywhere on these plates. So per the book what I've done is specifically allowed and... (I haven't written this in a long time) If it says you can, you bloody well can.

The error you are making (and I suspect know this) is that you are defining the mounting point by the tube when the rules define it by the mounting plate.


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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by grjones1:
And it is afterall a "safety and comfort" issue, and of course there is no additional chassis stiffness, so no mechanical advantage is achieved, so we can make allowances. (My how the worm turns.) Sorry guys, sometimes I just can't let it go.
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 20, 2004).]

Robert,

Those are the rules as written. It says plates can be 100 in^2, and can be multi-angle. IIRC, the only specific comments about floor mounting are for bolt-in cages (bleah!) requiring backing plates.

Why wouldn't you want to take as much advantage of the rules as possible? If you can do it w/ in the rules, and increase chassis stiffness, more power to you for a better design. I know that's the way the cage in my old ITB Rabbit GTI was built!

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - let me get this straight. The fact that the book says the core must remain means I can remove the heater box, right?
K

K,
If you keep this up, I'm going to demand a rescindment of your PhD. Your analogy fails of course because nowhere in the ITCS is their a context in which the transmission is under consideration for removal. And the rule to which you refer is discussing change to gear ratios not to addition or subtraction of gears. And we're not talking about adding a heater (or a gear) we're talking about what components may be removed. You know as well as I the language permits inference by way of exclusion. If the writers of the rule intended that the box be retained, they would have said "heater" or "heater box" and probably "all its components." Why would they have used the word "core" if they did not intend core and only core. I don't say "crankshaft" if I mean "engine" and I don't say "gear" if I mean "transmission". And yes if the rule said I "must retain the fifth gear ratio," I would assume I could change 1st through 4th. Because that's, by nature of the language, what the statement implies.

[Greg Amy]

Uh, GRJ, I do believe our boy was using what we here call "sarcasm"...

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
GRJ, The attachment points are defined in the GCR and/or ITCS by the mounting plate. Any any number of tubes may mount anywhere on these plates. So per the book what I've done is specifically allowed and... (I haven't written this in a long time) If it says you can, you bloody well can.

The error you are making (and I suspect know this) is that you are defining the mounting point by the tube when the rules define it by the mounting plate.


"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 [b]welded[b/] and bolted cages, Bill.
And guys yes I understand and appreciate your interpretation and I agree, but what I'm saying is this same interpretation was granted to suspension mounting points in the Production rules which eventually resulted in totally free suspensions and skyrocketed the cost of racing in Production. And when I argue a safety issue you throw the same argument back at me: "rules creep" and "cost escalation", etc. I just want you to see that when it fits your purpose, you say one thing, when it fits someone else's situation, no interpretation is allowed. Let's just try to be even-handed.

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.
G

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

[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 [b]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.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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 (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[grjones1]

[quote]Originally posted by grega:
[B]
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:
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://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.
B) 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. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


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).]

[Knestis]

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/exting.jpg

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/harness.jpg

[grjones1]

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.
[/B]
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

[Knestis]

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).]

[grjones1]

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

[Greg Amy]

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

[grjones1]

This is a way, of sorts, for you to put MY money where YOUR mouth is.
Whadya say, GR? Are ya wid me, or are ya agin' me?Greg[/B]

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).]

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Do you understand?</font>

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by grega:
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.
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

[grjones1]

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.
[/B]

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]

Originally posted by grjones1:
...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).

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Tim Hollister:
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> )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the minis were still in C or D Sedan when Huffaker's mini was allowed rear wheel drive. And I guess I considered the sedan classes as "Production." Thanks.
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 22, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by grjones1:
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.


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[/B]

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]

Originally posted by grjones1:

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.

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[/b]


Just figured I'd save this.


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

[Knestis]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the minis were still in C or D Sedan when Huffaker's mini was allowed rear wheel drive. ...</font>

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
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.



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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Knestis:
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
Thanks for clearing me up on that K, and you too Tim. It's not senility, it's saturation.
I will, however, stand by my observation of the "rules creep" desolation of the "modified" National categories.

GRJ

[dickita15]

Originally posted by grega:
let's sort this out as adults..... and we'll put it to the Technical Scrutineers to decide.

ah yes scruitineers at dawn (g)

[lateapex911]

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).]

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Arguing about how someone argues is pointless.

K,

Are you trying to argue about how we argue? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Seriously, you appear to have the patience of Job.

I am about ready to run screaming, all the new guys must have about 500 posts ago.


------------------
Daryl DeArman

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by grjones1:
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

Well Robert, your 'point' was actually about tubes mounted on rocker boxes, and vertical plates.
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.



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

[grjones1]

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.
[/B]
___________________________________________
I realize what a distant leap of logic this is for you, Bill, but try to follow:
Every year's GCR supercedes the previous year. The GCR states that one must be familiar with the GCR. All events are exercised under the current GCR, and we must follow the rules within that GCR. I believe it is then reasonable to state that in order to meet these requirements one needs to possess a current 2004 GCR.

And only someone with your lack of character would think of editing out a statement found to be controversial. The same kind of character that produces heresay he has yet to prove, to cast aspersions on someone else's character.

Why don't you trot out to your back fence and gossip with the little old lady next door. You probably would derive a great deal of satisfaction from that practice.

And the "plate" rules related to rollbars did not come into effect until after 2001, so Greg's bar would have been illegal "in the past," as I stated. And the plate rule does in effect eradicate the 8-point rule. But I don't expect you to be able to follow that string either.
GRJ

[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? Please don't respond with the Rally answer. Second question is why would someone with your race experience be using a hand held bottle ?

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

[planet6racing]

OK, two things just because I stumbled in (and it's Monday).

1) A competitor is not required to own the GCR. He/she must have access to one, but need not own one (and, you'd think that the SCCA would require you to own one just to get more of your money!).

2) If your downtube comes down next to a vertical surface (say the frame rail) and your mounting plate DOES NOT attach to the vertical rail, you are illegal. The rule reads (as stated on page 2) that the mounting plate SHALL attach to the vertical surface whenever possible.

I'm going to stumble back out now.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[grjones1]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
OK, two things just because I stumbled in (and it's Monday).

1) A competitor is not required to own the GCR. He/she must have access to one, but need not own one (and, you'd think that the SCCA would require you to own one just to get more of your money!).

2) If your downtube comes down next to a vertical surface (say the frame rail) and your mounting plate DOES NOT attach to the vertical rail, you are illegal. The rule reads (as stated on page 2) that the mounting plate SHALL attach to the vertical surface whenever possible.

I'm going to stumble back out now.


OK, other Bill, "own," have access to, whatever. (You guys can sure nitpick on the most innocuous issues.)
And you wouldn't be illegal if it were not "possible" to attach a plate to the vertical surface, according to how the rule is stated. (BTW, my tubes mount to a floor plate and a vertical plate.)
GRJ

[lateapex911]

I'll take a crack here... (relax GRJ!) I bet Kirk has thought about how many fires actually get started...with something UNDER the car. (Dry grass is a favorite, say after a spin, when there was a little fuel sloshed, and the car won't restart)

I myself have found the need to grab, bail and spray, saving myself a big fire and a big mess.

Ideally, I think a hand held AND a system bottle (ooo cool, movable ballast!) is the way to go.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 23, 2004).]

[Knestis]

I totally missed your segue there, Jake but 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.

At the PCRRC years ago, I put out a carb fire on an RS Scirocco that a friend was driving, with his 2.5# Halon "auxillary" bottle. I beat the pit/grid person to the punch by about 15 feet - she was bearing down on the project with 30# of Purple K that would have ruined our weekend...

K

PS - that should be Halon 1211 - NOT 1301 - because it is more directional when it squirts.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited August 23, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

And the "plate" rules related to rollbars did not come into effect until after 2001, so Greg's bar would have been illegal "in the past," as I stated. And the plate rule does in effect eradicate the 8-point rule. But I don't expect you to be able to follow that string either.


Wrong on both counts Robert. And the 'special dispensation comment of yours was in reference to George's cage, which happens to be in a car that's currently under construction.

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

[ddewhurst]

Jake & Kirk, I am sure the hand held rule was put in place so that people like the two of you could put out grass fires. Your both just playing CYA for each other just like the Production folks. I hope that neither of you have a quick/serious fire within your cars because I have viewed fried hand flesh because of a fire within the cockpit.

If you two would quit spining off track you wouldn't be having grass fires to put out. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

[lateapex911]

Always entertaining David!

CYA????? ya lost me pal! Anyway, did I say that I did or did not have a system bottle?

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 23, 2004).]

[Knestis]

I can never figure out how to take David.

K

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I can never figure out how to take David.

K

Yea...but that's part of the fun...a little head scratching!

Better than some I've seen .... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 23, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Pass.

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

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

[gsbaker]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">\"I can never figure out how to take David.\"</font> and


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">\"Yea...but that's part of the fun...a little head scratching!\"</font>

Kirk and Jake,

I've met David and he's a stand-up guy. You guys would like him, even if you can't figure him out on the board. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Hey David,

Will these fellows still have a chance to meet you at the ARRC?

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Pass.

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

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

Now THIS is interesting......

"Pass"????

GRJ, this is what you said up the thread..

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And only someone with your lack of character would think of editing out a statement found to be controversial. </font>

Now, I DID read what you wrote originally, (to Bill) and my eyes bugged out when I read it. I would indeed call it controversial. I won't repeat it here......

It's this sort of behavior, and slanderous comments that gets you the reactions you seem to get.

I AM glad to see though that you finally figured out that it WASN'T proper...but your timing was poor...still, a step in the right direction I suppose.....

And Gregg, yes, that was my point...I like David, and find him to be a stand up guy, but need to think sometimes while reading his posts...not a bad scenario!



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

[grjones1]

I AM glad to see though that you finally figured out that it WASN'T proper...but your timing was poor...still, a step in the right direction I suppose.....

[/B]
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.

Why is it that anyone beleives he can address someone anyway he likes, and not expect the same treatment. When I lash out in anger, as I did with the VW thing, I expect and deserve the same treatment. But not when I'm simply trying to make a point without insulting anyone. I am not the only one on this forum who has suggested that someone's interpretation of a rule was in his opinion "cheating." I didn't call anyone a "cheater". I simply perceived what I saw in a photograph as not according to the rules. 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, and then you get all excited when the speaker retaliates in kind. You have repeatedly ridiculed my car and you don't expect me to find fault with yours? Come on. This is no way to run a circus.
You call my behavior in question but I strike back when people attack me. Again, it's a two-way street. Don't insult me, I won't insult you. I will be as caustic as you.
At least I base my comments on what I read someone saying and not on some hogwash that someone was supposed to have said about someone. I'm surprised that your own ethics wouldn't find fault with that kind of behavior. And afterall, Jake, it was in the form of a question and not an assertion, but you may pass it on if you like. I decided it wasn't worth the effort.

Gee, I said I was going to give up on this forum. Why am I still torturing myself? I apologize once again to those who do not deserve to have to put up with this sort of ranting. I go away now.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 24, 2004).]

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

[ddewhurst]

***Will these fellows still have a chance to meet you at the ARRC?***

Gregg, maybe, if I live through a week at the Runoffs. That is a long a$$ed drive into the cold mountains of Peach country. I would enjoy watching the cars flat a$$ haul around that track. Sounds like a fast place.

Hey Gregg, thanks for the favorable comment. (stand-up guy) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

David

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
...I would enjoy watching the cars flat a$$ haul around that track. Sounds like a fast place.

Hey Gregg, thanks for the favorable comment. (stand-up guy) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

David

Anytime, sir.

You would like RA South, as some call it. I've been on RA North and RA South and they are both great, just different.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[Tom Donnelly]

grega,

I was looking at the pics on your site. And I'm asking for educational reasons only.

My bracing for the rear strut towers is similar to yours except the tube between the towers connects between the two downtubes that hit the towers on each side. You know, just move your brace up on to the downtubes instead of the tower.

Those three tubes (one up, one down (both angled) and one across), are they mounted to plates on the strut towers? You may have already stated this but I really would rather not pick though this thread. Its hard to tell from the photo, can't see the welds.

The lower mounts on my car are similar too, mine are half on the rocker and partially on the floor.

And I've seen designs like Geo's and assumed it was legal, for what thats worth.

Tom

[Knestis]

http://www.gatm.com/cars/nx2000/images/rollcage/DCP_4724.JPG

K

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

[Bill Miller]

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.

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

[Tom Donnelly]

Yep, thats the picture I'm asking about. The front of the strut tower looks squared off like there is a plate welded in front that makes a 90 degree bend towards the back.

But the side facing the camera is painted red so it blends and the weld marks aren't so clear. I know that that tube wouldn't do much good welded straight to the tower without a plate, on my Datsun you could just about punch a hole in the metal with your finger its so thin.

Tom

[ddewhurst]

***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". http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

See ya all someplace http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

[Greg Amy]

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

[lateapex911]

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]

[lateapex911]

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).]

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


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).]

[ddewhurst]

***the term best fitting David is "tongue in cheek", with a dose of unpredictabilty.***

I like that Jake. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/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 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake, email me off-list.



OK, I feel stupid...but how do I email you??

My email is below if you prefer not to broadcast yours...



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

[Bill Miller]

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

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Darn, now I owe Gregg & Bill beer....

Hmmm, beer.

Gregg

[ddewhurst]

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 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif
David

[grjones1]

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, [b] 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.

____________________________________________
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)

________________________________________
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).]

[Greg Amy]

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).]

[Tom Donnelly]

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

[Geo]

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.

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

[Knestis]

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?...

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).]

[lateapex911]

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]

[Knestis]

That's exactly the kind of thinking that led to the "not be less than 2 inches or greater than 12" rule.

K

[Quickshoe]

<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.

[quote]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

[Knestis]

Thanks, D. I DO appreciate the concern and understand the spirit in which it is made.

K

[ddewhurst]

***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 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David