vpnwiz Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 mrc24x nailed what I found when I looked really close at things as well The bottom line is what is the intent of the rule? that is an excellent question Wait... why does the intent of this simple statement: 16) Alteration of ball joints/dive angles +2 matter in any way, shape or form? It is a simple IF/THEN. IF you modify your ball joints or dive angles, you THEN add 2 points to your total. No intent necessary. I believe it really is that simple... and Rule 10 does not come into play in this debate at ALL because ball joints are called out separately in Rule 16. If it was put in there just for S2000's, well that sucks. But I've had to take a few parts off my car too to be able to stay in D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrie Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I stated my case. Which is an argument I present for most double wishbone FWD cars. However, I just realized this is for an S2000. S2000 already have camber adjuster on the bottom control arm from the factory. Why do you need the upper ball joint as well? The argument of just for camber adjustment do not hold here, as you already have camber adjuster on the lower control arm. I know camber adjustment is not as easy, but.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Pat, understanding the INTENT can help us understand why things were written that way, and if they were INTENDED to cover things differently than how they currently are an adjustment to them may be necessary. No one is saying the current wording covers things differently, duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 On the other hand, an SLA suspension, as has been mentioned previously, is inherently superior to a MacPhereson design, and allowing additional static camber for the McStrut cars simply allows for a level playing field. that is already assessed in the base classifications and how points on modifications are assigned - shouldn't be charging people twice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor57 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I have changed my mind. I now think think that this is a great idea. I will be using rule 10 to swap in an independent rear suspension from a cobra. I am only doing so, to get "simple camber adjustment" in back. Besides it isn't really going to do that much to help out handling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I have changed my mind. I now think think that this is a great idea. I will be using rule 10 to swap in an independent rear suspension from a cobra. I am only doing so, to get "simple camber adjustment" in back. Besides it isn't really going to do that much to help out handling. a more fair characertization is allowing you do use caster/camber plates points free... oh wait, thats already done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrie Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I have changed my mind. I now think think that this is a great idea. I will be using rule 10 to swap in an independent rear suspension from a cobra. I am only doing so, to get "simple camber adjustment" in back. Besides it isn't really going to do that much to help out handling. This is what I call a non-constructive argument. It is do-able if you don't change any suspension pick up points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpnwiz Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Pat, understanding the INTENT can help us understand why things were written that way, and if they were INTENDED to cover things differently than how they currently are an adjustment to them may be necessary. No one is saying the current wording covers things differently, duh. But Ken, your statements are mutually exclusive. You agree that it's a clear rule to start with so how do you end up with if it was possibly intended to mean something else it should be adjusted? As written how could it ever be intended to mean something else??? Ball joints +2. "I have adjustable ball joints but I don't think I should take points for them." The ink in the rulebook is written in black. "No, it's dark grey". WTF. Some people will argue about anything (myself included ) but this is kind of a dead horse here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Since you aren't getting it let me rephrase - be sure to you know, read, ok? I'm not questioning the clarity of the wording or the following clarifying ruling by Greg. Once you read every little word it is pretty clear how things must be handled. Those parts are +2, done, move on. Instead, what I'm trying to get a read on here is if the intent is parrallel with the result. If they aren't, then a revision might be needed to the rules in question so that the two are brought back in line. With the way race tires are charged - 1/3 to 1/2 a class - it seems to me that the adjustments to your setup to properly use them (alignment) may be included. Thus it would make sense to not charge people twice for a method that simply allows those alignment changes. What you do have to watch out for is to not allow the barn door too far open to allow people to do other things beyond the simple methods. Not everyone will agree on where that line is, but right now I think the line is just a smidge too tight. Greg may not agree, and thats cool - he's in charge, I'm not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpnwiz Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Instead, what I'm trying to get a read on here is if the intent is parrallel with the result. If they aren't, then a revision might be needed to the rules in question so that the two are brought back in line. Oh GAWD, not this again. We might as well be discussing staggered tire sizes... And I DO get it. The intent of that rule is to add +2 for ball joints. The result is adding 2 points to your total. An S2000 won TTC nationally last year, so IMO if they are the key beneficiaries of this rule then I think it's right where it needs to be. That's as parallel as it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 :facepalm: go look up the word intent will you? Did you have a big fat bowl of retard flakes this morning? (I say that in jest, mostly). Beyond that we're arguing semantics... - PS, I didn't know TT and/or PT handed out "lead trophies" like other clubs do, but I guess I was wrong Shouldn't punish a car for being well driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric J. Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Feel the love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 one more PS: what you missed in that whole staggered tire size bs (understandably so if you didn't read closely, I don't think Greg caught it either) was an attempt to understand what factors are and are not considered when assigning base classes and weights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32EVOIX Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 :facepalm: go look up the word intent will you? Did you have a big fat bowl of retard flakes this morning? (I say that in jest, mostly). Beyond that we're arguing semantics... - PS, I didn't know TT and/or PT handed out "lead trophies" like other clubs do, but I guess I was wrong Shouldn't punish a car for being well driven. He does not get it Ken, we have gone over this intent thing on several threads. It is impossible to write rules that do not leave an opening to interpretation. As I have mentioned before any rule can be challenged and with some valid points of argument, I might add. It is easy just ask any lawyer. That is why we have one persona that makes those decisions, like it or not (the only point that Pat and I agree). Pat, unbelievably I do see your point and surely understand it, I don’t agree with it, but understand it. I sure hope that someone with an axe to grind doesn’t teck your car with your standards, I do believe you would get your ass in a pickle. Oh and Ken it is just a matter of minutes before he starts calling me names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZELISE Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Wow, I am realy in bad shape then. I can only get -0.9 degrees front camber with my simple camber adjustment of removing shims. And, I run staggered tire sizes. Ken wrote: "Find another way for camber - I'm sure you can find some offset bushings or slot something to get what you need with a little bit of effort and then everyone will be (mostly) happy." I would love to hear how this falls within the rules. If it does, then I will slot my suspension pick up points and get a bunch more camber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpnwiz Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Beyond that we're arguing semantics... PS, I didn't know TT and/or PT handed out "lead trophies" like other clubs do, but I guess I was wrong This ball joint argument is only semantics. And that's it, because the rule is clear! Plus I thought you kept all the lead trophies in the trunk of your MR2 and that's why you are so slow!! HAHAHA j/k man Ken wrote: "Find another way for camber - I'm sure you can find some offset bushings or slot something to get what you need with a little bit of effort and then everyone will be (mostly) happy." I would love to hear how this falls within the rules. If it does, then I will slot my suspension pick up points and get a bunch more camber. Offset bushings are legal! Read the rules And there ARE other ways to get camber. I've heard some of the Spec Miata guys "accidentally" dropping their A-arms in a press and tweaking them to get more... just saying. There are ways to do it. Now that is of course not legal in a spec class, but would a tweaked OEM A-arm in PT be legal? I really don't know! Jimmy my car can be teched any time. You forget I am the only person before Nationals who scanned my points sheet and posted it here for everyone to see and comment. Sure didn't see you doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Ken wrote: "Find another way for camber - I'm sure you can find some offset bushings or slot something to get what you need with a little bit of effort and then everyone will be (mostly) happy." free mod #10 baby - read it, live it, love it. I'm using "crash bolts" right now at the knuckle-to-strut junction, though in TTE/PTE trim with the addition of coilovers I am planning on using both those and caster/camber plates together since it'll be a little lower and need a bit more range than the bolts or plates alone can hit. Pat - the scanned sheet is all well and good, but it means little until you've got a car in front of you to check it against. I've posted my points setup many times as well fwiw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32EVOIX Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Jimmy my car can be teched any time. You forget I am the only person before Nationals who scanned my points sheet and posted it here for everyone to see and comment. Sure didn't see you doing that. Well that was admirable of you but without looking at the car that doesn’t mean much now does it? I actually had several people look at my car with form in hand and continue to do so at every event. But lets not get away from the point here. Here is a hypothetical, let us say you have an off and damage your front bumper, in your haste to repair it you do not notice that there is a piece of duct tape or other repair material, at a perpendicular angle to the bumper. If I understand your “no nonsense interpretation of the rules” you are DQ for an undeclared canard. Intent is part of the rules PERIOD and MUST be a factor in determining the legality of the vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrc24x Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 ...Intent is part of the rules PERIOD and MUST be a factor in determining the legality of the vehicle. I agree. The intent of the rule is highlighted in my previous post. +2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpnwiz Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Now that's just funny coming from you. I posted my sheet before Nationals and invited people to come over and inspect my car while at the track. Not one person took me up on it. But I threw everything out there for everyone to see... unlike some. I did not post that to get a pat on the back. I think we should have an online database of people's points sheets. That would be good. And I am a stickler for the rules, you're right. I've raced brand new RX-8's and Civic Si's all the way to old RX-7's and Z cars and we ALL end up within bare seconds of each other! That's why. The competition works when the cars are classed correctly to the rules. BTW I would address your hypothetical situation thusly: if your duct tape was applied symmetrically on both sides and thickly enough on the bumper to create downforce then you're dang right I would give it points. I know something about duct tape on the bumper myself... still have tons of it on there. But I have yet to fashion a canard (or an adjustable ball joint) out of racers tape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99V6Chick Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 a big fat bowl of retard flakes *snicker* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 ...Intent is part of the rules PERIOD and MUST be a factor in determining the legality of the vehicleI agree. The intent of the rule is highlighted in my previous post. +2 did you write the rule? no. so you don't know thats what was intended, you're just speculating just like the rest of us. the RESULT is +2, sure. bit of a nit-picky distinction, but a necessary one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32EVOIX Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I think we should have an online database of people's points sheets. That would be good. Agreed, we are in the process of doing that down here in Florida. I don’t know what good it will do without looking at the car but it is something. And I am a stickler for the rules, you're right. I've raced brand new RX-8's and Civic Si's all the way to old RX-7's and Z cars and we ALL end up within bare seconds of each other! That's why. The competition works when the cars are classed correctly to the rules. I don’t think it is the rules that make you guys run that close to each other. Rather, the fact that most people are close in talent level. The problems begin when someone like Aaron shows up with superior talent and lays a couple of seconds on your asses you all start crawling like cockroaches to find something wrong with their car. I personally think that is pathetic. BTW I would address your hypothetical situation thusly: if your duct tape was applied symmetrically on both sides and thickly enough on the bumper to create downforce then you're dang right I would give it points. I know something about duct tape on the bumper myself... still have tons of it on there. But I have yet to fashion a canard (or an adjustable ball joint) out of racers tape. Nobody is trying to make canards out of duct tape Patrick! You are missing the point that s^$t happens and mistakes are made, that is all, without the intent to cheat, deceive or with any blatant disregard for the rules. In this situation as in many intent must play a role in the decision making, which by the way does not rest with us loud mouths on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
32EVOIX Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 One other thing I forgot to mention. With so many cars out there it is impossible to know every little tid-bit about each car. We all forget that the rules are made in general terms to catch most not all possibilities. There are many things that I disagree with Greg about in my car but that is life, if I have a question I ask him via email he gives me his ruling and that is it. His game, his rules. That being said, I do believe that some situations must be looked at most closely, my opinion off course, which again means nothing in someone else’s court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrc24x Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 ...Intent is part of the rules PERIOD and MUST be a factor in determining the legality of the vehicleI agree. The intent of the rule is highlighted in my previous post. +2 did you write the rule? no. so you don't know thats what was intended, you're just speculating just like the rest of us. the RESULT is +2, sure. bit of a nit-picky distinction, but a necessary one. You are correct. I did not write the rule. However, if the rules state....(once again) 16) Alteration of ball joints/dive angles +2 Then add 2 points. The intent of the rule is to add 2 freakin points if you don't have OEM ball joints..............no wonder Greg locks these threads. 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.