More nationals info

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-20-2010, 05:51 PM
GlennCMC70

Quote:

Originally Posted by K Shaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by nasa-rm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennCMC70

Had DB been DQ'ed in a qual race, he would have been afforded the same option of resolving the infraction. There is also the ability to have all racers involved agree or disagree to allow.

If I could go back and do it again, I would LOVE to be DQ'ed in the qual race.

I was impounded once over the first 2 days, weight and my car was checked for safety items and what appeared to be chassis stiffening (they looked at the subframe rails. Wish the other item was found I would have taken that sucker out quick.

Last thing in the world is for me to be labeled a cheater (esp as a regional director). More importantly, how does this make Maximum Motorsports (strut tower bar) and my primary sponsor Hanksville (who built my cage) look? This is what I am more embarrassed about :oops:.

Rich was asking me about the STB and I told him I didnt think there was anything weird about it.

I would like to see pics.
09-20-2010, 06:10 PM
K Shaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennCMC70

Quote:

Originally Posted by K Shaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by nasa-rm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennCMC70

Had DB been DQ'ed in a qual race, he would have been afforded the same option of resolving the infraction. There is also the ability to have all racers involved agree or disagree to allow.

If I could go back and do it again, I would LOVE to be DQ'ed in the qual race.

I was impounded once over the first 2 days, weight and my car was checked for safety items and what appeared to be chassis stiffening (they looked at the subframe rails. Wish the other item was found I would have taken that sucker out quick.

Last thing in the world is for me to be labeled a cheater (esp as a regional director). More importantly, how does this make Maximum Motorsports (strut tower bar) and my primary sponsor Hanksville (who built my cage) look? This is what I am more embarrassed about :oops:.

Rich was asking me about the STB and I told him I didnt think there was anything weird about it.

I would like to see pics.

You could mosey on over to the Maximum motorsports web site and look for a STB for a 4.6 sn95 mustang. Cant help you on the cage mounting points.
09-20-2010, 06:27 PM
GlennCMC70

Wow, that site is not navigation friendly.
Post a link?
09-20-2010, 06:51 PM
michaelmosty

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennCMC70

Wow, that site is not navigation friendly.
Post a link?

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/st...roducts_id=600

No kidding. I had to click on chassis stiffening & bracing AND THEN strut towers AND THEN 96-97 Mustang. The nerve of them. :roll:

Hey D. Francis, I just got to give someone computer help. :D
You have taught me well master.
09-20-2010, 07:09 PM
Adam Ginsberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennCMC70

Your right, I wasnt there. I did however spend alot of time on the phone w/ Al over the last few days. Your were specifically mentioned as having a fix it ticket. My facts are straight, as they were presented to me.

Your "facts" are incorrect. There was no 'fix it ticket' noted in my logbook. You weren't there, so telling me what did or didn't happen doesn't work very well.

Quote:

Because Al told me so today.

So, let me say it again - there was no 'fix it ticket' noted in my logbook. The car passed each tech inspection, including the initial tech by Covini on Wednesday evening.

Unless, the "fix it" you are referring to was the missing car classifications and numbers on the front and back. Which was fixed Wednesday evening.

Is that the same as lexan windows?? Let's stay on point.

Quote:

But lets redirect back to Don's car. Care to respond to that?

No, I won't redirect back to Don's car - you are still obfuscating the real issue - naming a National Champ with lexan windows, and not a single CMC competitor was aware of this issue. Let's stay on point.

Quote:

I dont see it as a mistake. But rather a decition he made that likely differs from mine or yours. Its his to make. You are in no greater position to say he is wrong than I am to say he's not. You say I'm turing it around on you, but really I'm just offering a counter POV.

What you've been doing is pointing out various items that direct attention away from the real issue - a car was deemed the National Champion that has lexan windows, and not a single other CMC driver was made aware of Al's decision of a "fix it ticket".

Quote:

So I expect you will be calling for a DQ on Don as well, right? Fair is fair. He was allowed to run in a manner less than 100% legal.

Ok, I'll bite. Just so we're all on the same page - you are intimating that Don's missing dash plates are the exact same performance advantage as lexan windows?

Clearly, one could argue the weight difference. Let's see.....less than 1lb of sheet aluminum vs. two glass windows replaced with lexan. Same?

Quote:

I guess you think that is a right you have. Sorry to inform you, but it is not. Al makes that call.

Al notified all the CMC2 drivers that a CMC2 car didn't meet the track width rule by 1/8". He left it up to the drivers to decide. He wasn't consistent in letting the CMC driver's make the same decision. He didn't even let us know there was a car with lexan windows.

Quote:

I dont think you should be, never said it. But reporting to impound was required to maintain a legal status. You did not, but was given a place above Rob and Dave, not DFL.

My car was on a tow hook. It's finishing position, prior to the DQ's, was 7th. You need to read the CCR's (section 17.1) - top 4 are required to go to impound, unless the driver is unsure of his/her's finishing position (I was well aware of my finishing position). There is nothing in the 2010 National SUPPS about a towed vehicle required to go to impound, so the CCR's are our guide in this case.

Driver's meeting announcements by the Group Race Director supersede the CCR's, and the SUPPS. There was no mention in the driver's meeting of a vehicle being required to go to impound if it's on a tow hook. As such, I followed the CCR's. Was I required to go to impound? Not according to the CCR's.

Rob and Dave have DQ's, are not DFL as they do not get a finishing position. My finishing position, given I was a race starter, and they were DQ'd, was DFL. In this case, 5th. According to the CCR's, not required to go to impound.

But, we're getting off point again.

Quote:

Ya know, my car has had non-OEM window tint on it since the day it was built. Should I send back my National Champ awards?

Window tint the same as lexan windows?? Again, obfuscating the real issue at hand. Let's stay on point.

Quote:

Your being a poor sport at this point.

Wow - I'm being a poor sport. For being dissatisfied about a car with lexan windows being named the 2010 National Champion.

Glenn - are are defending an indefensible position, and using tactics that draw attention away from the real issue. I'm staying on point.

Clearly, without a doubt, I'm wrong.
09-20-2010, 07:14 PM
BryanL

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitchntx

You know Dave ... you are a class act.

Not so much worried about yourself as you are those around you.

Refreshing ... makes me want to move to RMR ...

Great. Sounds like we have a even trade of mitch for David or will we have to sweeten the deal?
09-20-2010, 07:26 PM
mitchntx

Adam ... good luck on this one. The wagons are obviously circled. You are wrong because Glenn said Al said so.

Quote:

7.6.2 One bolt in stay rod may be fitted between the upper front strut towers and between each strut tower
and the firewall, as long as the firewall attachment point is not within 18" of a roll cage attachment point on
the other side of the firewall.

So those "fingers" that attach to the firewall are with 18" of where a knee bar attaches to the cage?

Quote:

a roll cage attachment point on the other side of the firewall

That tells me where cage bars intersect not where a knee bar runs. If its where the knee bar runs, ANY 3 point or 4 point is illegal.

And if that's the case, why set a racer up for failure?

Say ....

Quote:

One bolt in, 2 point stay rod may be fitted between the upper front strut towers.

The rest of that rule is jibberish.
09-20-2010, 07:29 PM
marshall_mosty

I'm just wondering how long it took GL and AG to link together all the quotes, counter-quotes, and quotes of quotes....

I don't have that much time in my day to put all that together...
09-20-2010, 07:35 PM
RichardP

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitchntx

Quote:

7.6.2 One bolt in stay rod may be fitted between the upper front strut towers and between each strut tower
and the firewall, as long as the firewall attachment point is not within 18" of a roll cage attachment point on
the other side of the firewall.

So those "fingers" that attach to the firewall are with 18" of where a knee bar attaches to the cage?

Quote:

a roll cage attachment point on the other side of the firewall

The cage had bars going from the A-pillar down tubes forward to the foot well/firewall for foot protection (fully legal). The car also had a strut tower brace mounted in the engine compartment (also fully legal). The distance on the firewall from the foot protection tube to the strut tower mount was less than 18" (not legal).

Richard P.
09-20-2010, 07:35 PM
mitchntx

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardP

The cage had bars going from the A-pillar down tubes forward to the foot well/firewall for foot protection (fully legal). The car also had a strut tower brace mounted in the engine compartment (also fully legal). The distance on the firewall from the foot protection tube to the strut tower mount was less than 18" (not legal).

Richard P.

Got it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshall_mosty

I'm just wondering how long it took GL and AG to link together all the quotes, counter-quotes, and quotes of quotes....

I don't have that much time in my day to put all that together...

GL AG AF TC DO DG DB BFD SFM GTFOH .... does any one have a line-up card?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page