IT Motor Mounts, please send in your yes votes to the CRB

[jhooten]

Just extend the door bar 0.0001" into the door cavity and you can gut the door. Not that hard to understand

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

[trhoppe]

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

edit: You know, I was going to post how sort of ignorant you were, then I thought "he really must be trying to make another joke if he thinks anyone gives a shit about spirit of the rules in the tech shed" so I edited my post

-Tom
who has been there, and won, more then once

[lateapex911]

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

You'll be protesting my car, and we'll be sending that one as far up the flagpole as it has to go. The rule is written in English, and I happen to understand that language.

It's my thinking that the Stewards can read too, and I doubt they want to risk their spotless record on a losing case, but, I'd be happy to take it to the COA.

Not only that, but there's isn't one good reason that can be cited for why my cars door bars are "wrong", beyond what the rulebook says.

[jhooten]

Well Jake that is what the appeal process is for. If you want to play fast and loose with the rules and try to claim your door bars extend into the door by .0001" that is your gamble. The paint may, the bar does not.

I suggest a review of GCR 1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying
the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically
cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall
not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are
mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.

Claiming a bar extends in the door by only breaking the plane by .0001" is straining to the breaking point.

[lateapex911]

I think the term .001" or whatever is a euphemism for the term "barely"...I've got actual steel within the door side of the door plane. It meets the words of the rule. Maybe not the "intent" as you see it though.

[jhooten]

The claim in this thread was .0001.

[lateapex911]

And you took that literally? Beside trying to define the actual plane of the door and what constitutes "In" and not in...oh, ..whatever. ;0

[tom91ita]

And you took that literally? Beside trying to define the actual plane of the door and what constitutes "In" and not in...oh, ..whatever. ;0

and where is the plane of the door? where the interior crap was? where the metal was (since it has now been removed)? or do i draw a line between where the metal is still at top and bottom?

my first "nascar" bar only had one bend in it and then went to the front A pillar bar.

i suppose i could have just welded a stub to go out into the door a bit and break the plane that way.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well Jake that is what the appeal process is for. If you want to play fast and loose with the rules and try to claim your door bars extend into the door by .0001" that is your gamble. The paint may, the bar does not.

I can't wait to fight a protest for crappy driving by saying that my 'paint' hit him, not the 'car'.

LOL

I hope the ITAC can figure out a way to allow alternate motor, tranny and diff mounts without creating issues. Sometimes I wish we could publish intent.

[EV]

Come through the post race impound and I'll write it up and let the stewards decide if it is compliant with the spirit of the rule.

Is this guy really a sphincter, or is he kidding?