Final Zone 8 proposals

[Mike]

Between you 4/5 AM guys have you coordinated your resources and got involved with the rule making process?
Have you contacted other members on the RC or the Z8 presidents?
What was the response of each of the RC members?
What was the response of each of the Z8 presidents?
Hopefully they all agreed to review your issues.

I'd like to hear of some real progress.

[gulf911]

Despite the fighting, Dan C. may have come up with a stop gap solution, Dan, Curt and Johnny can run in KM?

Another solution - protest the 3.6l cars. According to the rules, the engine must be moved with ALL accesories and unmodified and I don't recall seeing A/C etc in the cars in order to use the engine swap rule. You may just win a protest and solve the problem if I understand the rules and apply legaleze to them. I may be missing something, but I think that might work?

Thanks Jad, its something to think about. But Tom and others have laid out why they can legally fit into AM. I will assist Tom in anyway I can on getting a solution for next year, and hopefully the rest of the AM gang will join in.

And thank you for your constructive post as well, its nice to see that instead of calling us whiner's, complainers, not Real Freinds, and my favorite, just shut up and not worry about the points.

[gulf911]

Between you 4/5 AM guys have you coordinated your resources and got involved with the rule making process?
Have you contacted other members on the RC or the Z8 presidents?
What was the response of each of the RC members?
What was the response of each of the Z8 presidents?
Hopefully they all agreed to review your issues.

I'd like to hear of some real progress.

Thanks Mike, but we have already admitted to assuming when we should have been doing. See Curts post on why we assumed. You would need to ask Steve and Tom to get those details on their submissions regarding the issue.

[Mike]

Dan I'd be sending emails or calling the RC members and presidents directly right now.
See if you can get a 13th hour review, don't give up.

[Red Rooster]

....After all of this I guess the only path open to the AM crowd is passive resistance. Stand up and take the beating like a man

Admirable Gary, and a tip 'o the cap to ya But I myself kinda already have taken the beating back in '05 when Roland's car was in AM. The only event where he didn't dominate was Spring. Mtn where his car broke a motor mount and he ended up driving Dave Q's. Orange FI class Jagermeister car in AM for timed runs.

I think the collective AM class experience from '05 with a well driven 3.6L car in the mix is a base cataylst for the discussion here.

[Jad]

Despite the fighting, Dan C. may have come up with a stop gap solution, Dan, Curt and Johnny can run in KM?

Another solution - protest the 3.6l cars. According to the rules, the engine must be moved with ALL accesories and unmodified and I don't recall seeing A/C etc in the cars in order to use the engine swap rule. You may just win a protest and solve the problem if I understand the rules and apply legaleze to them. I may be missing something, but I think that might work?

hmmm.... interesting Jad...

Funny thing tho, just suppose we do run in KM.... How nice are you going to be to us when a KP car out does a KM car...?? ...sounds like a set up to me

I like how you say 'when', not 'if' - you are learning Don't worry, I will be just as nice if I beat you in AM or KM, that is the kind of guy I am

[gulf911]

Dan I'd be sending emails or calling the RC members and presidents directly right now.
See if you can get a 13th hour review, don't give up.

The only RC member I can find is Richard Price, and well, that didn't go so well... I am looking for the Z8 rules page now.

This is what it says:

The open proposal period for 2007 is now over.

The comment period for 2007 is now over.

Oh well...next year then.

[gulf911]

Despite the fighting, Dan C. may have come up with a stop gap solution, Dan, Curt and Johnny can run in KM?

Another solution - protest the 3.6l cars. According to the rules, the engine must be moved with ALL accesories and unmodified and I don't recall seeing A/C etc in the cars in order to use the engine swap rule. You may just win a protest and solve the problem if I understand the rules and apply legaleze to them. I may be missing something, but I think that might work?

hmmm.... interesting Jad...

Funny thing tho, just suppose we do run in KM.... How nice are you going to be to us when a KP car out does a KM car...?? ...sounds like a set up to me

To me as well Johnny, Capt. Neptune is always thinking.....

[ttweed]

Despite the fighting, Dan C. may have come up with a stop gap solution, Dan, Curt and Johnny can run in KM?

If all the other AM cars moved up in class to run in KM, and I was Christy, left in AM with no competition, I would move up to KM also, rendering this solution null and void. Anyway, when and if someone builds a fully optimized KM car, no AM car would want to be in that class either.

Another solution - protest the 3.6l cars. According to the rules, the engine must be moved with ALL accesories and unmodified...

Unfortunately, Jad, the Carrera under discussion does NOT use the stock engine swap rule and could not be protested successfully using this argument. It takes full points for a modified 3.2 engine (displacement change, heads, cam, induction, etc.) and is still able to stay under 54 points and qualify legally in AM.

TT

[ttweed]

Tom: you think I'm off base for finding similaritiy between steroids and purpose buitl cars? Well, it's a free country. You can think what you want. I can think what I want. That you dont' like the comparison to steroids and other less-than-sportsmanlike conduct isn't too terribly surprising to me.

Dan,
I just cannot let this idiotic, insulting statement stand. I was trying to leave it alone and just walk away from the keyboard, but I can't. How can you possibly equate explicit violations of sporting rules like steroid abuse to a "purpose built" car? One is a blatant violation of the rules, the other is working completely within the rules to optimize results. There is no comparison--ethically, morally or legally! If you think that it is "less-than-sportsmanlike conduct" to build a car that is optimized to win, you are in the wrong sport. The entire history and current activity of motorsports, amateur and pro, in every sanctioning body from SCCA to NASCAR to F1 is involved with doing just that--building the fastest car possible, with the greatest chance of winning, within a given set of rules! Individuals and teams push the limits and grey areas of the rules all the time, and the rules are revised and improved to level competition as a result. That is the nature of the game.

Afterall, you're the guy building the car that is going to sweep all the cars in a class it isn't intended for.

I am building an optimized FP car. If I am able to move up in class and defeat the GP cars, either the GP cars are not fully optimized or there is something wrong with our classification scheme. I am not demonstrating unsportsmanlike conduct by doing this, it is completely legal within the current rules. Was Jimmy Clark "unsportsmanlike" when he dominated the Indy 500 in 1965 with a mid-engine car?

What I may be able to demonstrate is that our rules are flawed. If you disagree with the spirit of such a demonstration because it impacts you negatively, then fine, say that, but please do not try to impugn my character or integrity in a public forum with such baseless, ill-conceived arguments and insults. If what you meant to say was that my actions would not be in the spirit of "friendly competition" than I could agree with that. I am exploiting a rule to prove a point. I am not using the "move-up" rule in the spirit it was intended, which was for a competitor who has no competition in a class to move up to a class that does have competition. "Desperate times require desperate measures," as they say.

I'll have a cold beer waiting for you at the end of the day.

Thanks anyway, but I do not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverages, as a general rule.

TT

[993Panzer]

Tom,

I have to agree with you about "Purpose Built" cars. Porsche has been doing this for years. They read the rules, figure out how to build a dominate car and dominate a series until the rules commitee changes the rules to outlaw thier car. Look at the 917's both FIA endurance and Can Am. Other Porsches that were "Purpose Built" for other endurance, rally and road racing series. And i think most Porsche owners are proud of Porche's racing record.

My 2 cents on "Purpose Built" cars.

I sympathize with the AM guys and hope t hey can get some changes in for next year.

[Gary Burch]

What I may be able to demonstrate is that our rules are flawed. If you disagree with the spirit of such a demonstration because it impacts you negatively, then fine, say that, but please do not try to impugn my character or integrity in a public forum with such baseless, ill-conceived arguments and insults. If what you meant to say was that my actions would not be in the spirit of "friendly competition" than I could agree with that.

It only took us 7 pages to get to character assasination...

[Curt]

I sympathize with the AM guys and hope they can get some changes in for next year.

Thanks Dave.

[Curt]

It only took us 7 pages to get to character assasination...

I'd say the character assassination started on page 5. That Tom was able to wait this long and respond to it with such restraint says alot about Tom.

I personally don't consider being called "Sherlock" a compliment either. Yet, I haven't resorted to name calling in return.

[Dan Chambers]

Tom Tweed:

First: allow me to apologize if my statements were interpreted as a direct insult to you personally. I did not intend to single you out for insult or accusation. The statements were intended to reflect my recollection of my past experiences in the competitive world, not accuse you directly of any baselss or illegal act. It had nothing to do with you directly; maybe a recollection of my past feelings, but not anger or angst directed at you personally. Again I apologize. Also, the statement about taking unfair advantage was not targeted at any one person. Point of fact: the term "anyone" was used. This includes all those "builders" in AM class (or any other class for that matter) who may unfairly use the rules to crush other drivers in AM, GP, KP, etc. I should have made that more clear. I failed to clarify that point. Again, I'm sorry. To clarify, here is the quote I posted verbatum:

I think anyone who purpose-builds a vehicle to compete unfairly in a class above the base-class of the original car is pressing the limits in a somewhat unsportsman-like way.

There is no reference to any one person here. If you took it personally, I regret that. I used the term "I think" to express the fact that it's what I thought. (And I always thought the forum was a place to express feelings and thoughts...)

Now, that's just me. I knew guys in high school that took steroids in football and basketball. I new guys that had their surfing competitor's surfboards stolen the night before a competition. Yes, these kinds of "advantages" happen.

Again, There is no reference to any one person here. I used this as an example of unsportsman-like conduct.

That's up to those whose conscience is..... well .... where it is. It's not how I play the game. That's just the way I think. I play for the thrill, not the ribbon or trophy. Others can spend their money and do what they will. At the end of the day, I'll share a beer, a great story, and a smile with everyone there. That - to me - is the spirit of competition and good, clean, fair sportsmanship.

This entire section is simply a view of mine on how I, indiviually, compete. It has nothing to do with accusing anyone by name or inference. If you read it as such, I'm sorry for that. These are statements of how I play. Again, sorry if you interpreted this as acusatory. That was not my intent, and I failed to deliver my concepts cleary.

As to an "E" class for 944's; I'd personally endorse it as a 944 driver, as long as the 911's are excluded from the class (with the notorious "bump-up" in exception). Play hard, play fair, no body hurt.

And so here I even agree with you that we need a more equal or even classification system. I'm not accusing here, I'm agreeing, and offering support. Was that wrong to do? No.... I don't think so.

These are just my opinions.

Probably the most important statement I made that may have been missed. I was attempting to provoke thought on the issue by offering my opinions, not hurling insults. As Edward Abbey used to say: "I don't write nicey, nicey books to make peole feel good. I write to provoke thought, and help people find their own opinions about the things that matter." I obviously failed. I guess I have a very long way to go. Obviously I provoked more than thought. Sorry!

I wish to state for the record, publicly, that I have nothing but respect for Mr. Tweed and his inumerable contibutions to the club over the years. As Mr. Copp pointed out, Tom has contributed greatly to the PCA-SDR, and we can all learn much from his efforts and experiences. He was one of the many great Instructors who coached me through the learning process of competitive driving when I joined PCASDR, and his talents as driver and competitor are legandary throughout the competitive driving world. That I have had the priveledge of competing (and always losing) to him has been to my benefit. That he has found the "spot" that provokes me to jerk-knee verbal reactions is a testament to his ability to play and excel at "the mental game" as well. You're good, Tom. Very good. I confess I underestimated you in many arenas.

I would like nothing better than to see the competitive program at PCASDR work cohesively and in the spirit of good, clean, fun. To that end, I will be happy to help in the rules program where ever I can. If it's establishing a limit on the HP or engine size of AM (like the National committee does), I'll help there. If there's enough interest in developng an E class for 944's, I can contribute. I want to emphasize that to me it's the spirit of cooporation and hard work that gets things done.

So, let's all shake hands, roll up our sleeves and get to work in maintaining the best driving program in the country without divisiveness.

Sincerely,
Dan Chambers