crg86
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by crg86 on Dec 3, 2009 10:46:11 GMT 12
this man is doing a job for free, if you do not like his rulings you can via your rep ask for a stewards ruling or you can go to the tech committite via speedway NZ to ask for a ruling. name calling or sore losers do nothing for this sport respect the man you do not have to like him, and yes he made a ruling against my draughters carbut did I bag him no! live for the sport well said, the car is outside the current spec, he has let it run but is asking for further clarifaction from above, i do not see the problem here?, did you want him to ban the car from running if he thinks its outside the rules? , because in my opinion that would be worse, rules will always be interpreted in different ways by different people, he has not exactly been heavy handed in applying the rules because the car is still running is it not? The car is not well outside the current spec. If it was why did it pass green sheeting? ? And the little hitler told brad that the car was i quote " unsafe" funny how everyone else that has looked at the car said its fine. Paul LeCren, Tim Clark, Bill Clarkson, Shane Alache, Streety, Lawrence Baker etc the list goes on. come on people
|
|
|
Post by bikeboy on Dec 3, 2009 10:56:58 GMT 12
The rulebook via interpretation is an ever evolving beast and long may evolution be championed. The constant interpretation and re-interpretation of the SNZ rule book is a symptom of a poorly written rule book and nothing else. A well written rule book that does require constant interpretation will not prevent evolution of race car design cf NASCAR, F1, V8 supercars etc. if you follow nascar formula 1 and v8 supercars you would know there was different interpretaions this rules this year between teams and protests that went with it, and it got to the point where one team warned in Nascar that they were getting to close to the edge, www.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/cup/10/02/jjohnson.mmartin.warnings.kansas/story_single.htmlMotorsport has always had the technical aspects and people pushing rules and boundarys, its called innovation,
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 3, 2009 11:04:31 GMT 12
crg86 , you do your argument and credibility no good at all by referring to the snz person in demeaning terms .
You are also misquoting which perhaps suggests you have a closed mind on the subject , perhaps you are more involved than you have alluded to . Either way the demeaning terminology must stop .
|
|
|
Post by japsuper on Dec 3, 2009 11:18:53 GMT 12
Mod 46c hit this one right on, these problems are merely a sympton of poorly put together rules................ Honestly, the 5 pages of rules or thereabouts that most classes have, are a joke. Very open to different interpretations, yet the interpretation of one individual in SNZ often is law.
Dont get me started on technical commitees that are often full of car builders, chassis importers and others who have financial vested interests in the class................
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on Dec 3, 2009 11:24:18 GMT 12
talking about Tech committees mod46c, you are on the modified one. Has there actually been a meeting called yet by the chairman (Peter Kuriger) since the AGM months ago??
Has the committee actually discussed any issues??
I am assuming no which is a surprise given the recent trial confirmations!
Any real point in having a tech committee??
|
|
|
Post by mod46c on Dec 3, 2009 11:43:34 GMT 12
talking about Tech committees mod46c, you are on the modified one. Has there actually been a meeting called yet by the chairman (Peter Kuriger) since the AGM months ago?? No Has the committee actually discussed any issues?? Yes, in the process of discussing fuel tanks as per the October directors minutes.
|
|
crg86
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by crg86 on Dec 3, 2009 11:45:20 GMT 12
I was present when the SNZ official said it was unsafe.
I have an open mind on the situation but how can the design of a t.q be deemed unsafe when it is used in a sprint car which is heavier and travels faster? yes the cage is bigger i realise that.
|
|
|
Post by mod46c on Dec 3, 2009 11:46:44 GMT 12
The constant interpretation and re-interpretation of the SNZ rule book is a symptom of a poorly written rule book and nothing else. A well written rule book that does require constant interpretation will not prevent evolution of race car design cf NASCAR, F1, V8 supercars etc. if you follow nascar formula 1 and v8 supercars you would know there was different interpretaions this rules this year between teams and protests that went with it, and it got to the point where one team warned in Nascar that they were getting to close to the edge, www.nascar.com/2009/news/headlines/cup/10/02/jjohnson.mmartin.warnings.kansas/story_single.htmlMotorsport has always had the technical aspects and people pushing rules and boundarys, its called innovation, Um but according to above article 'But ultimately the vehicles were legal, according to NASCAR, and later returned to the team'. Would the same outcome have occurred under SNZ rules, especially when SNZ rarely define tolerances anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on Dec 3, 2009 11:47:42 GMT 12
talking about Tech committees mod46c, you are on the modified one. Has there actually been a meeting called yet by the chairman (Peter Kuriger) since the AGM months ago?? No Has the committee actually discussed any issues?? Yes, in the process of discussing fuel tanks as per the October directors minutes. If you haven't had a meeting how can you be discussing fuel tanks??
|
|
|
Post by mod46c on Dec 3, 2009 11:54:18 GMT 12
No Yes, in the process of discussing fuel tanks as per the October directors minutes. If you haven't had a meeting how can you be discussing fuel tanks?? We do have email outside of Auckland you know.
|
|
|
Post by bradcurtin on Dec 3, 2009 12:00:18 GMT 12
Hi all, my name is Brad Curtin and I am the owner Driver of the car in mention. I didn't realise it was guna create such a stir around the place. I realise it is a hot topic around speedway but if it could die down on places like this I would be greatly appreciated. As I would like the decission to be unbiest and fair. I am sure the decission will not be made litely. At the end of the day we all are here for the great of the sport. I would hate for someone to say something to make them swing either way on there decission .
Yes I feel my car is built with great construction and is as safe if not safer than any other car in the field, I will defend it to the end but will have to live with the decission that is made. So if we could have possitives about the car and no fighting that would be great hey I think it looks good with great signage and paint job.
Thanks All Brad Curtin TQ 51
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on Dec 3, 2009 12:33:29 GMT 12
If you haven't had a meeting how can you be discussing fuel tanks?? We do have email outside of Auckland you know. LOL! Things are improving down South then!
|
|
crg86
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by crg86 on Dec 3, 2009 13:04:53 GMT 12
Must say brad that your car does look great and agree with you 100% bout it perhaps being safer than amything else out there. Must also say that the goes very well on the track. Big ups to Carl and you for making a great car. Will be watching ya with high hopes i feel you have already proved the car not can but will run at the front of the field.
|
|