RichardP Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 no mention of tear downs in the rules set. What? Where did you get that? This isn't CMC. Oh wait, even CMC took out that wording... Richard P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallmosty Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 no mention of tear downs in the rules set. Isn't this the same as our rules, "If they don't say you can't... then you can." That gives the officials the ability to teardown since they don't say they won't.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_tone Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Are you guys really this thick to not understand why this type of rule/checkout/enforcement is a bad idea? Let me clarify what I am saying. I am not opposed to testing backlash or whatever metric you want to come up with, but you must have a tolerance or range for what is allowed and what is outside of the specification. That gives competitors something to build to and reference. Without that it is a totally subjective test based on your idea of "whole bunch more". Do you not understand that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Without that it is a totally subjective test based on your idea of "whole bunch more". I hope one day that I'm fast enough to even get tech'd that closely, let alone be fast enough for someone to want to tear the car down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I hope one day that I'm fast enough to even get tech'd that closely, let alone be fast enough for someone to want to tear the car down. Some of us are which is the cause for the paranoia! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff F Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Are you guys really this thick to not understand why this type of rule/checkout/enforcement is a bad idea? Let me clarify what I am saying. I am not opposed to testing backlash or whatever metric you want to come up with, but you must have a tolerance or range for what is allowed and what is outside of the specification. That gives competitors something to build to and reference. Without that it is a totally subjective test based on your idea of "whole bunch more". Do you not understand that? Apparently YOU are too thick to understand. We are talking about evaluating a parameter that is not specified in the rules in order to decide if it is worthwhile to measure a parameter that is specified in the rules. The first parameter is simply used to decide if further evaluation is needed, not to determine compliance. Here are some examples: -If a car in the field is able to significantly out-accelerate every other car in the field, that would be basis to put the car on the dyno, regardless of finishing position. There is no specification for acceleration, but it is a good indication of power and torque. -If a car has tires that visibly stick out of the fenders compared to other cars of the same bodystyle, that would be good basis to measure the track width. There is no specification for "looks like the tires stick out a lot", but there is a specification for track width. -If a car rolls across the scales with a very low front weight % comapred to similar cars, that would be good basis to check for a non-legal aluminum engine block or more than the allowed amount of ballast. There is no specification for front weight %, but there are engine block and ballast rules. I'm all for more rule enforcement in the series, but I would much rather submit to a quick external check than have a transmission torn down for no reason. If the external check shows something is fishy, then go ahead and tear into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_tone Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I'm all for more rule enforcement in the series, but I would much rather submit to a quick external check than have a transmission torn down for no reason. If the external check shows something is fishy, then go ahead and tear into it. Jeff, that's the point. Give me a range on what is allowed for backlash in the transmission before you tear it apart. That external check should not be 100% subjective. You're smarter than this, use common sense. With as many versions of the common transmissions that are used you can't go by "a whole bunch more" as previously stated by the guy that was doing the technical inspection. This series need to give that individual the tools to ensure compliance, his subjectivity is not way to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Common sense here says the difference between syncro and dog ring slop will be significant enough. Just a quick test, no biggie, don't sweat it. jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff F Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Jeff, that's the point. Give me a range on what is allowed for backlash in the transmission before you tear it apart. That external check should not be 100% subjective. You're smarter than this, use common sense. That's ridiculous. If I give you a backlash spec, you'll just build a dog ring tranny that meets it. If you can't accept that rules enforcement, and especially a check that is simply used to warrant further inspection, is somewhat subjective then perhaps we should do the quick check on everybody else and go straight to the teardown for you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.