Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: November FasTrack is out

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    Interesting SM proposed changes. Give 'em inch, and all that...? Interesting how such seemingly pointless items as the plastic bump spacers hae to be spec'd to +/- 0.01" ... Sorry, kids, you brought it on yourselves. And the R888 tire from now on? Not surprising, I suppose.
    This happened because the 90-97 cars are now allowed a "99+" upper shock mounts. In order for them to fit and be equal, they specified some paramters.

    And the Court of Appeals on the ITB Alfa? WITF was that guy thinking? 'I've been running for four years this way, and other cars race this way, too!' is not even CLOSE to a reason to appeal. I'm pleased to see his appeal fee was retained...what a tool. Well done, Mr. Bitterman, we need more like you.
    Here, here. +1.
    [/quote]
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Nesbitt View Post
    Negative interpretations (ie. the proposed gizmo is not compliant), such as the one in the current Fastrack are published in order to save others from making the same error.
    Or....when someone is aware of something that somebody else is doing that they don't feel is compliant and want to get some kind of clarification prior to an expensive protest. Get the interpretation, have it published.

    The creative interpreter may decide to become compliant without any further action required. If he doesn't, your protest should be more likely to stick.

    As far as how quickly things CAN move. Take a look at the FF wheels bit. That came up on Monday at the RubOffs.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    Can't blame the board for that - it's still in the ITAC.
    K
    Wow. I had no idea.

    I think it was submitted in January of 2008, with drafts/emails about it circulating among the ITAC in November/December of 2007. Have to check notes.

    Ron

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Cumming, GA, USA
    Posts
    425

    Default

    Am I the only one that's, um, disturbed by the COA case referenced as William Emery vs. SOM (08-17-NE)?

    Mr. Emery admitted that he continued around the course and came upon red flags at several corners prior to coming to a stop.

    That's pretty scary, both as a corner worker and as a driver. If the 'net weren't busy from the incident triggering the red flag condition, it'd sure as hell be burning up with this! I have to wonder how many stopped cars he passed while negotiating "several corners" of red flags.

    When the red flag flies, the risk of having first responders in harm's way goes way up. I'd hate to have to dodge someone doing this crap while I'm tring to extract a driver, or suppress a fire while someone while someone else extracts him.

    While I agree with most of the COA's "reworked" punishment, I wish they'd have required him to attend driver's school again.
    Doug "Lefty" Franklin
    NutDriver Racing
    ITA/IT7 RX-7 and SPU Baby Grand
    Flagging & Communication
    SEDiv/AtlRegion

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI, USA
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Yes, that was pretty scary to hear about... wasn't there etc, but sounded like that guy was really in over his head from the description of the event! I agree, driver's school sounds like a bare acceptable minimum!
    Vaughan Scott
    Detroit Region #280052
    '79 924 #77 ITB
    #65 Hidari Firefly P2
    www.vaughanscott.com

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •