Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => Bonneville General Chat => Topic started by: Jonny Hotnuts on June 03, 2014, 08:41:21 PM
-
As some may know I was in a bit of a crash last SW. Subsequently during a "investigation" they found I did a few things wrong and decided to ban me from competition for 5 years. Well...its true I made some mistakes and while I have reasons for the things I legitimation did wrong, they were an error of judgment on my part. While I feel 5 years is EXTREMELY aggressive it is what it is. I am not implying that the ban isnt entirely justified, the problem is that the person(s) were so aggressive with looking for things I did wrong, about 98% of the things I was accused of doing were incorrect, unfair (*as in others that were in similar crashes were not judged under the same scrutiny) or complete fabrications (lies). As apposed to giving a guy the benefit out the doubt, asking my crew, (*the one crew member I had even felt threatened by an official during questioning and was not able to leave the area to pick me up from the hospital until finished with their aggressive and directed questioning) asking me about the items they took everything on a worst case basis and presented it as fact. They (some of the SCTA officials) even said a mean spirited joke about my crash. I dont know if they didnt care or assumed I would not find out about it but I did and it is very hurtful. I honestly believe (hope) that this was an isolated attitude but it again confirms my belief that it was the intent of the person doing the investigation to do whatever they could to justify punishment (*a few days after the meeting where I was banned I was called by a board member and they say "wow man, you must of really pissed someone off for them to come after you like that". Its was all laughs but in the back of my mind I was very much wondering exactly what I had done to get someone so worked up).
I had initially planned on appealing the ruling due to the item after item after item of things that were wrong about what I was accused of. (without going into massive detail it was things like:
My inertia switch was mis-wired. (*THIS WAS A CORRECTED AND SIGNED OFF ITEM FROM MY TECH INSPECTION.) I guess its the norm for an investigator to go to someones log and bring up items from the inspection as things that the driver did wrong??? What exactly did this corrected item have to do with my crash???
I had a broken weld, although I didnt find one I will assume there was we...lets see any car roll 25+ times at ~200mph and see if there is a broken weld somewhere. Exactly how was this wrongdoing on my part and brought up in a meeting to 'ban' me? The right thing to of done was to say "on your next build lets make sure your welds are all perfect, let me show you what we are looking for....." but no....I get another kick when I am down.
Ironically (*still in the Salt Lake Trauma) my 'crew of 1' said that they didnt like that my weld broke so cleanly on my king pin boss.....My reply to him was "I wonder if they knew that axle assembly came from SpeedWay Motors with the bosses already f-ing welded!" I knew at THIS point it was going to be a witch hunt. [I also remember a few years ago an H lakester whose boss separated exactly like mine....and their axle came from SWM......I wonder if they got banned because 'their' weld wasnt good too!
They also said that I 'purposely' mis routed my harness lap belt and said that I said "I did this because it was more comfortable". Well....this is a lie.....and if I find out who said this....you will be in for a significant confrontation of the highest order. This is an outright lie, I didnt know it was routed incorrectly.....YOUR LINE OFFICAL DIDNT CATCH IT I was unaware that it was like that up until a conversation with my crew chief a couple months ago. I also personally investigated HOW this happened. <Not that anyone was or is concerned what the truth really was but...It was a result of an inexperienced 'crew' (*inexperienced crew as in a 'photographer who we met at SW and was riding along for the day' because the 2 guys that were supposed to crew never showed, never called.) My father was going through a schedule of chemo and could not attend; my father is the one who had always buckled me in. I guess I should of trained the guy better that day....so I will accept that its my fault in the end. Again....saying I knew it was not routed correctly, did it on purpose and because it was more comfortable.....wow.....and F-YOU for lying.
(THIS IS JUST A COUPLE THINGS OF A UNREAL MASSIVE LIST OF SIMILAR ITEMS).
I was encouraged to appeal the ruling by a few of the board member who told me they knew some of the things being said were not correct/fair. As much as I appreciate the fact that they were supporting an appeal, these guys knew some of the things were not accurate....my thought is that:
-Why if you knew some of the things were being said were wrong, why didnt you stand up for someone that was not there to defend himself? Why wouldnt you taken a stand for someone that was down and needed your help when you KNEW some of the things were wrong?
-Why would I spend the 1000$+, time away from work and fam. and effort to appeal a decision when at least some of the member(s) would try SO hard to disparaged a hurt racer by going to the extents of an onslaught of accusations and other members, some knowing things were not all on the level, still followed along or didnt speak up in defense of a friend FOR THE CHANCE of getting a break among people so willing to drown a guy?!
I feel its a very sad situation where an organization of whom I stood up for, even when they themselves were disparaged by others including prominent racers held in high regards in the racing community now so easily turned against me for 'unknown' reasons. I had often 'wrote off' things I would hear about how the SCTA 'did this or that'. I must say however that over the last past few years I have seen and experienced what seem ever increasing examples of bulling type behavior from SCTA crew/officials to individual, especially to small teams with 'non traditional' vehicles and non club members.
I can only speculate on why the person took such an aggressive manor in coming after me. Maybe it is because of my unworldly handsome face, maybe it was because they didnt like my 'Hotnuts' name....whatever the reason was clearly I rubbed someone the wrong way and they felt they had to teach me a lesson. If someone does something wrong and they are punished for that, that is a give a take relationship. The moment that someone does something wrong, gets accused of things that they did AND didnt do, the person will always feel as if they were prosecuted under false pretenses.
I have decided NOT to appeal the SCTA 5 year ban. I feel I shouldnt have to defend myself over all of the false things I was accused of. The people that were conducting the investigation KNEW there intent was to justify punishment rather than give a guy a fair shake. I would rather wait 5 years then to beg for forgiveness for things I didnt do or were not the standard for what others are judged.
I made some mistakes, I will not try and make excuses but I did have reasons (not like anyone was ever concerned with my reasons, no one ever even gave me the curiosity to ask me if ANY of the things I was accused of were true). I will say that because of the large number of BS things I was wrongly accused of I will attest to my dying day that the SCTA banned me for things I DIDNT do.
At this point I would like to thank the people that supported me I will not name names but you know who you are. For the person(s) that felt it necessary to be so 'aggressive in investigating' what I did, to accomplish the goal of punishment, I only ask that you try in the future to overlook your personal feeling about an induvial/team and give people an equal and fair shake. There is no reason why ANYONE should be falsely accused or judged with higher scrutiny based on pre held ideas or notions. Its not right, not racer friendly and is not what the SCTA was in the past or should be.
Also...
If anyone wants to dispute any of the things I am saying, you better be on your toes. I would not say the before mentioned items unless I had justification. Oh....and my 'chunk of concrete that was held in by a tow strap'....the SAME tow strap that held on my front axle? Well it was in there since LK told me I had to loose the 14" Goodyears. Subtract radius R7 from R13 you will get the height of my ballast brick as it was under the axle in a welded box when my axle center rose 6"! Yes I have pics of the build....from 4 years ago (another BS things I was accused of.....)
Again....no benefit of the doubt for me. Maybe the World Trade Center bombing, Global warming and AIDS is all my fault too! LOL
Sincerely,
Mr. Jonny Hotnuts
-
JNuts, good to see you completely recovered and seem to be back to your normal.... :roll:
Really glad that you made it through that wreck, the video was scary at best.
If you decide to appeal, I wish you luck and skill. 5 years is quite a ban... But it sure gives you a lot of time to finish the liner.
See ya on the salt, stop by and say hi.
-
I've lost that link, help a brother out!
Mike
-
Chris,
I don't have a dog in this fight, but will give you some words of wisdom for what ever they are worth.
Take down all of your videos on the internet.
Glad you survived that crash.
Tom G.
-
5 YEARS :-o Even THE 5 TALIBAN TER0RIST only have to be monitored for 1 yr in Qatar then free to fight again :? That's way over the top.
I wouldn't call an appeal '' begging'' but standing up for your self.
IT appears that some of the board members are having second thoughts.
Appeal it. 5 years is to long.
GOOD LUGK JL222 :cheers:
-
An old Texas sage once told me:
"A wise man makes peace with the Pharisee on the way to the Temple." :roll:
-
Glad to hear you are somewhat healed up.................It appears quite apparent that you are not a member of the "good old boys" club, and it is also quite apparent they don't like you.......Appeal? forget that....been there done that........one of the reasons we stopped racing with SCTA/BNI in 2003 and went with the "BUB"
Yes, they elected new "officials" but they are all part of the "good old boys" club and nothing ever changes for the better...
-
Jeez how a calm individual such as yourself could piss someone or a bunch of someones off is beyond my understanding. I really don't like it when any organization gets highhanded with a person participating in the program is overly punished for anything let alone something that could have taken your life. I was at SW but did not see your run. I am glad you survived and as those at the reunion said you ain't purple anymore. Barry
-
Hotnuts,
Although we are all, theoretically, capable of self-actualizing, most of us will not do so, or only to a limited degree. Maslow (1970) estimated that only two percent of people will reach the state of self actualization. He was particularly interested in the characteristics of people whom he considered to have achieved their potential as persons.
By studying 18 people he considered to be self-actualized (including Abraham Lincoln and Albert Einstein) Maslow (1970) identified 15 characteristics of a self-actualized person.
-
επΣσ :-D :cheers:
-
Self Actualized? Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer...
Yes but did you know there is a new level to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs?
(http://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/2cc8ac16-cb1f-11e3-aafe-12313d03353b-large.png)
:-D
-
Self Actualized? Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer...
Yes but did you know there is a new level to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs?
(http://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/2cc8ac16-cb1f-11e3-aafe-12313d03353b-large.png)
:-D
:cheers: Yes :cheers: I was searching for a follow 2 percent-er :cheers:
-
επΣσ :-D :cheers:
I'm "Smoke Jumpen" and needed someones help and my dead line is 10 June.
:cheers:You da man :cheers:
-
Self Actualized? Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer...
Yes but did you know there is a new level to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs?
(http://image-store.slidesharecdn.com/2cc8ac16-cb1f-11e3-aafe-12313d03353b-large.png)
:-D
If you have WIFI do you even need those other things? :-o :-D
-
Only when your "smoke jumpen" :cheers:
-
If you have WIFI do you even need those other things? :-o :-D
Hmmn. Self actualised in cyberspace........ :-D
I'm "Smoke Jumpen" and needed someones help and my dead line is 10 June.
:cheers:You da man :cheers:
Sounds like you're headin' for your own peak experience there Johnboy! :-P
PM Sent.....
-
When your a jumper you look every direction. you fix your problem or you die. I needed someone to check my work. i I am happy you had the interest and told me you will help. back to the FIRE I' buy you a beer when I'm done8-)
John
-
I would like to thanks EVERYONE for the support, emails and PMs, it means the world to me.
I never intended for this to be SCTA bashing. Lets look at this from the SCTA prospective:
Lets say we (the ones reading this) are SCTA board members in a meeting for disciplinary action against a racer.
Here comes a trusted official (the investigator in this case) laying out item after item of horrible things this person did.
Lets vote.......'no ban or 5 years' (NO OTHER CHOICE) <how do you like that for some inside info!
What do yo think you would vote?I doubt 10% of the board members could tell you what I looked like. I mean who is this 'Jonny Hotnuts' anyway!? Why would the board at large have any reason NOT to believe all the stuff that was being said by a fellow board member? Unless I had previous knowledge or insight I would of followed along and banned myself also shouting "f- him, throw'em to the wolves"!!!!
I have been angry with the SCTA for a long time....but its NOT the SCTA I should be angry with. It was the person accusing me and presenting all of the stuff as fact to the board. I will admit that I have some REAL mixed feelings about some of the board members who knew during or after, that some of the elements didnt exactly add up. Considering the circumstances if I were a board member and and had doubt or concerns about the validity of some accusations I would of said said something as apposed to doing nothing. I strive in all aspects of life to stand up for the little guy, unwilling or unable to stand up for themselves. If I were to be angry it would be that I feel that when I needed you, you werent there.
-And of course angry at the person who used emotion to compromise the integrity of my investigation. That person I am angry with.....no doubt.
I dont know who my accuser was, maybe its common knowledge who conducts disciplinary investigations but it is unbeknownst to me. It is easy to, behind closed doors, to make accusations about another....its quite another to do so in a public arena.
-I am calling my accuser out, here and now publicly. Stand up and say everything you accused me of is accurate and you know all of it was 100% fact. Tell me I was judged without pre held malice and equally as all other racers who fell in similar circumstance. I am giving you the opportunity to say this online vs a face to face without fear of retribution.....because,....If you had the balls to say it was fair and correct and we were face to face it would result in me getting a lifetime ban (*although then a ban would be justified, as would be my motivation.)
SO STAND AND DELIVER, IM CALLING YOU OUT. YOU CAN TALK TO THE BOARD BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND ACCUSE SOMEONE OF ALL THIS STUFF....say it now.
Chris, I don't have a dog in this fight, but will give you some words of wisdom for what ever they are worth. Take down all of your videos on the internet.Glad you survived that crash. Tom G.
Thanks TG, and I dont know what videos you would be referring to. I have an number of videos on facebook with 'balloons tied to my dog' and 'boy gets a carrot cone as apposed to ice cream as he expected' but not much more.
I wouldn't call an appeal '' begging'' but standing up for your self. IT appears that some of the board members are having second thoughts. Appeal it. 5 years is to long.
This is a hard one for me brother,....
At this point I dont even know if I would accept a repeal of the ban, let it stand. What has changed really...'second thoughts'? Almost a year has transpired and multiple board meetings. If some were having 'second thoughts' maybe, just maybe someone with 'second thoughts' could of taken some stand no matter how slight. Where where you when I really needed a friend? Thanks for the 'second thoughts' but you had opportunities to do the right thing and allowed them to come to pass. By doing nothing, you elected to turn your back on me and no matter how disappointing this is....it is what it is. -I see the situation of knowing there were 'problems' with the investigation that would justify you having 'second thoughts' and doing nothing is in many respects worse than someone angry with me making false or misled statements. At least a person angry has motivation, maybe even justified anger (doesnt justify drowning someone, but...). A person that knows something is wrong and chooses to not support a friend in need.....well.....hummmmm.....
To me.....the ban sucks not because I dont entirely deserve to be punished, because I believe as many other do that it was not based on fair or correct elements...so what does that make it? But what is worse....is the fact that I truly felt let down by friends, the SCTA board and even my accuser who KNEW things werent exactly the way they should of been and chose to do nothing. Doing what you feel is right and doing the right thing even if may alienate you from your colleagues/friends to me is the most important attribute a person can have.
I must confess myself disappointed no board members past or present have stepped up and said anything on this thread, pro or con. Seems.....rather quite.....Maybe with the 700 views no board members were included?
-Tell me I'm wrong about anything I have said.
~JH
ALSO....
If anyone disputes ANYTHING I have said, wants to discuss elements I have disclosed, or just wants to have a friendly chat about the weather or other and wants to talk personally without being on this forum:
503-422-6575 <you can call that 24/7 or email
jonny_hotnuts@hotmail.com
Also note....
I have talked to several board members. EVEN WHEN ASKED I refused to reveal who gave me inside info and betray the trust of another; even if it was a benefit to my cause. I will not reveal names of anyone to another or publicly.
-
An old Texas sage once told me:
"A wise man makes peace with the Pharisee on the way to the Temple." rolleyes
-
JH, Thank You For Sharing your knowledge. You know what you want to say, but if both people can't speak the same language nothing can get accomplished :cheers:
IMHOP
Hope to have a beer or two with you soon :cheers:
a fellow 2 percenter
JB
-
Jonny, I do not know you personally, but we have exchanged emails where you helped me a lot with my engine. So thanks again for that. But just from your writing on here and other boards I can tell you are a good person. So when the SCTA bans you from their venue for 5 years based on an ANONYMOUS report from a person with dubious information and apparently malicious intent and will not allow you to defend yourself, I tend to side with you, rather than SCTA.
In America's courts, you get to face your accuser and defend yourself. Is SCTA setting themselves up as a Kangaroo Court and ignoring a citizens basic rights and freedoms?
I hope you do appeal the ban. You will open some eyes to the misinformation they have been given for sure. I have no idea who anyone is on the SCTA board, but there must be some honest persons on it.
Don
-
"I have no idea who anyone is on the SCTA board, but there must be some honest persons on it."
Look at the names in section 16 of your rule book, you might recognize some of them.
DW
-
Mr. Nuts,
While some of what you say may be true the real problem lies solely in your lap.
If you were not there to face the SCTA board with your side of the story you have no room to bitch here IMO. You could have used a local representative on your behalf or sent the board a letter stating your side of the story. This has been done many times before in this manner. You yourself said you made some mistakes. The people (more than one) who do investigations of accidents in land speed racing put a report together for the board, the insurance company's and potentially the lawyers. There is no grad scheme to "get johnny", but the things they found caused great concern, so much so that a new rule was added this year because of your "event"
I too am glad you recovered well after you accident. Hope you learned the rule book is there FOR YOU. And if you think you are smarter than the rules in the book, send in a rule change request form on the SCTA home page Before Sept 15th.
Best regards in your future racing endeavors.
By the way, I'm not a board member, just a poserracer.
-
"I have no idea who anyone is on the SCTA board, but there must be some honest persons on it."
Look at the names in section 16 of your rule book, you might recognize some of them.
DW
Maybe one of these honest persons will make a motion to revisit Jonny's 5 yr ban at the next board or rep meeting.
JL222
adding a few min later.
Jonny stick up for your self and send a letter to the board. All communications are supposed to be read at the meetings. We also need to hear SCTA'S side of the ban.
JL222
-
The rules are for everyone to make it as safe as can be for everyone :lol:
Everyone that has not Learned GREEK is the problem :-o
Your dear friend,
MASLOW
-
Why are you posting all this to a forum? What message do you think this sends when you cant even be bothered to send this to the SCTA Board? There seems to be much better ways of going about this.
-
DHA :?
-
a new rule was added this year because of your "event"
What rule is that?
-
There seems to be much better ways of going about this.An old Texas sage once told me:
"A wise man makes peace with the Pharisee on the way to the Temple."
rolleyes
-
a new rule was added this year because of your "event"
What rule is that?
1.A - Right at the beginning of the book Highlighted!
You have a new rule book right?
Corrected via Mr. Back, thanks. Dyslexic.....
-
There seems to be much better ways of going about this.An old Texas sage once told me:
"A wise man makes peace with the Pharisee on the way to the Temple." rolleyes
You mean like BOOTLICKER ? ECT...ECT
JL222
-
I believe you're talking about 1.A, page 10 in bold face.
-
a new rule was added this year because of your "event"
What rule is that?
A.1 - Right at the beginning of the book Highlighted!
You have a new rule book right?
I have a few, but none on me. Do you need a copy?
-
I believe you're talking about 1.A, page 10 in bold face.
That is always the first thing I do when getting a book each year is thumb through and read the bold print for that always indicates what has been added new from the previous years.
-
Jonny --
I have a hard time believing the credibility you put in second-hand information you put so much weight in regarding this matter.
I believe you could have been represented at the Board meeting. I know it’s in Southern California, but because of the nature and history of the beast, that’s where most of the Board members reside. I have brought two issues before the board in the last few years that have been decided in my favor. I had evidence of what I believed to be the truth, and had people that were familiar with board procedures present my case(s).
Probably, with my sterling personality, I was better off not being there. And after your complete recollection of what happened to you, without you being there to see and hear it, it’s possible that it might be beneficial for you to find someone to “champion” your cause.
We hear a lot about good ol’ boys. As in any volunteer organization, there are a few that do most of the work, attend most of the meetings, head most of the committees. It’s the same in Chamber of Commerces. Kiwanis, etc. And they all have the good ol’ boys. I’ve been around the SCTA for a few years and an SCTA club member for less than half that. But, you know what? -- The same ol’ good ol’ boys are not the same ol’ good ‘ol boys. There’s always a new crop -- doing the work and going to the meetings. And there’s still a lot of folks that want to tell them how to run their business, but won’t take the time and effort to become a (temporary -- they all are) good ol’ boy.
Stan
-
Well here is my 2 cents and an opinion I know is not unique but not voiced outside of a few friends talking in a quiet corner.
If you look at Little League Baseball, Pop Warner Football, Bowling Leagues, Pool tournments, NHRA SCCA and I could go on, you will find a FEW people in some kind of authority that seem to go out of their way to make themselves important, stand out or heard over the rest of the group
I find 99% of these people have a spouse, children, boss or other person that dominates them and their playing Cop, Official, Inspector of what have you makes them feel important so they push their self importance way past what is needed and they will not take another persons opinion as they are the BOSS.
You can say this is not true in our HOBBY but just look with an open mind and wide open ears at the next meet and you will see it in plain site within all groups of people
-
What is Johnny supposed to learn over the next five years or so?.
This is a long time and I think he's already learned something from his mistake whatever that was.
The ban yes, the duration no.
He's no Michael Vick and look at the punishment.
-
So decisions should include the people looking in, not participating in helping run the event, but feel because they observe some of it, they should have a voice in it?
Have you ever thought that they're the ones that keep the events going? They need to poll the observers?
Because . . . ?
-
1.A
TECHNICAL INSPECTION:
added new last paragraph
Under penalty of disqualification, expulsion or permanent ban, no modifications (additions, deletions, or changes)
are permitted to either vehicle equipment or driver/rider gear after passing Technical Inspection unless coordinated
with the Event Director and Chief Technical Inspector. This includes any changes in vehicle condition due to
breakdowns or failures, flat or damaged tires, spins, fires or any other reason. It is the entrant or driver/rider's
responsibility to resubmit the vehicle to tech inspection for approval of any changes
This rule
G
-
Well here is my 2 cents and an opinion I know is not unique but not voiced outside of a few friends talking in a quiet corner.
I find 99% of these people have a spouse, children, boss or other person that dominates them and their playing Cop, Official, Inspector of what have you makes them feel important so they push their self importance way past what is needed and they will not take another persons opinion as they are the BOSS.
jh333 you hit the nail on the head, but it bent it a little IMHO it is only 98% of these people :-o now we just have to get the 2% solve the equation 8-)
grumm------you have a great day, thanks for all your support
-
I have a hard time believing the credibility you put in second-hand information you put so much weight in regarding this matter.
Second hand info = a number of board members past and present and my crew chief. I am also ASKING for anyone to dispute what I am saying (its been quite).
I believe you could have been represented at the Board meeting. I know it’s in Southern California, but because of the nature and history of the beast, that’s where most of the Board members reside. I have brought two issues before the board in the last few years that have been decided in my favor. I had evidence of what I believed to be the truth, and had people that were familiar with board procedures present my case(s).
Probably, with my sterling personality, I was better off not being there. And after your complete recollection of what happened to you, without you being there to see and hear it, it’s possible that it might be beneficial for you to find someone to “champion” your cause.
We hear a lot about good ol’ boys. As in any volunteer organization, there are a few that do most of the work, attend most of the meetings, head most of the committees. It’s the same in Chamber of Commerces. Kiwanis, etc. And they all have the good ol’ boys. I’ve been around the SCTA for a few years and an SCTA club member for less than half that. But, you know what? -- The same ol’ good ol’ boys are not the same ol’ good ‘ol boys. There’s always a new crop -- doing the work and going to the meetings. And there’s still a lot of folks that want to tell them how to run their business, but won’t take the time and effort to become a (temporary -- they all are) good ol’ boy.
Stan
My intent is not to garner support for a cause, I have basically thrown in the towel regarding 'appealing'. I was supported in my initial inquiry of appealing this, and maybe if I lived closer things would feel different about giving the appeal up. I also feel I shouldnt have to beg for the board to do/done the right thing (I keep going on about this....)
I dont know anything about the 'good ole boy' deal. I am sure there is some level of this but I dont know anything about it. The LAST thing I wanted to do is to come off like a well known anti SCTA spokesman like someone else we all know (FR) and drone on with mindless babble about how evil the SCTA is. I had an issue, I got f-ed, I opted to not to appeal for a number of reasons....its over. I could of appealed, maybe they would of reconsidered....but I choose not to appeal (<again feeling like I shouldnt have to).
-I dont know any 'bad' people on the board. I have liked everyone I have met or spoke to.....I dont know who it was that came after me. I hope for the best for them too (*they need it).
Ideally I would only like the acknowledgement from a board member publicly that things were.....well....ya know. I wont hold my breath for this however. My vindication in some respects is the fact that I suspect NO board member past or present will acknowledge the inconsistencies and say so on this forum. Their lack of response speaks volumes......because, lets face it....if I was really guilty of all thing things they said I did, someone would say I was.
The reason I can accept this ban is my friends here, people (*not all but some) at large who read this, including some board members will know that my was not entirely deserved (or as harsh)....I am OK with that. I may not like being banned, but this is just how it rolls sometimes (like 15-20 times)<attempt of joke.
I am done discussing this or explaining things unless someone has any questions or comments worth answering. I have said what I needed to say, people read it including I suspect a few board members. Again....I dont want to be in a prop category and I wont hold my breath for the SCTA to do the right thing.....but no hard feelings....and I will greet you all as friends. (*unless I find out who the SOB was that threw me under the bus) < another joke, I would hug him too).
Again.....
I am not saying I didnt mess up, I am NOT saying I dont deserve to be banned. While it was REALLY harsh I did make mistakes. The PROBLEM is that it wasnt just the 'mistakes' I was banned for.....it was the five hundred other items that were thrown on for good measure. The other stuff was crap....it was wrong, not fair and shouldnt of been presented as fact....because it wasnt. AND DONT YOU DARE SAY MY BAN WAS JUST FOR THE COUPLE OF THINGS THEY 'KNOW' I DID. IF the other items brought to the table didnt matter they shouldnt of been said. PERIOD.
~JH
-
....My vindication in some respects is the fact that I suspect NO board member past or present will acknowledge the inconsistencies and say so on this forum. Their lack of response speaks volumes......
They never have and probably never will and they are totally right to take that direction. Issues like this should be dealt with at SCTA meetings not on here, especially if you haven't exhausted that route.
I'm not saying what they did is right or wrong, but saying you should of gone there first and not expected this approach to produce any results.
Look forward to seeing you race again at some point,
Sumner
-
"it was the five hundred other items that were thrown on for good measure."
500? -- That's real credible.
-
1.A
TECHNICAL INSPECTION:
added new last paragraph
Under penalty of disqualification, expulsion or permanent ban, no modifications (additions, deletions, or changes)
are permitted to either vehicle equipment or driver/rider gear after passing Technical Inspection unless coordinated
with the Event Director and Chief Technical Inspector. This includes any changes in vehicle condition due to
breakdowns or failures, flat or damaged tires, spins, fires or any other reason. It is the entrant or driver/rider's
responsibility to resubmit the vehicle to tech inspection for approval of any changes
This rule
G
Okay, but this rule was not put into place until after JH's accident.
If Jonny is being punished for a rule ex post facto, that is clearly unfair.
But is this new rule a reaction to Jonny's accident?
Jon, I'm neither accusing you of being reckless, nor of building an unsafe vehicle. Conversely, I'm not going to accept speculation as to possible motivations by others for what, on its face, seems to be an unusually stiff penalty.
If you indeed think you're being wronged, you owe it to yourself to challenge the decision.
A parallel -
I fight EVERY SINGLE SPEEDING TICKET I GET. I've won ~75%. 2 of those tickets were 200 miles away from home. None of them were an easy fight.
The moral?
You can't lose a loser!
But if you give up on yourself, you can't blame the cops.
-
HN, why don't you put a copy of what was written in your Log book regarding the incident.That would help people understand.
-
You mean like BOOTLICKER ? ECT...ECT :-o
JL222 LOL YEP that is what I am a BOOTLICKER but there are others who just might disagree with you!
lol sorta like the old Jim Croche: sp song:
about spiten into the wind and tugging on superman's cape
This guy isn't interested in anything but trying to suck us in on his
"woe is me" BS and try to put the SCTA in a bad light!!
or he has NO IDEA of how things get done in the real world ---what he has done and is doing is only going to cause more grief----for himself and for other racers ----ie the new rule
In todays POLITICAL climate this type of stuff could easily lead to none of us getting to race on "DRY LAKES" wherever they may be
-
I think that Jim Croche song analogy is the very opposite of the point you were trying to make. Bad, Bad Leroy Brown got his ass kicked by the guy who was just trying to stand up for himself and his girl.
Unless you really are saying that everyone should just kowtow to the man and never question anything. SCTA is Bad Leroy Brown and racers should just supplicate themselves?
Don
-
:cheers:
-
I was a d- for airing this out. I apologize to all.
It doesnt matter if everything was correct in the investigation, the bigger picture is that there WERE things incorrect. If one thing was wrong it was still wrong. That is enough for me and it was my fault.
Slim....
If you could make this whole thread go away.....
I'll go hide my head for a while.
~JH
-
JH, Please look how fast things come under control when we all can speak the same language :cheers:
This is an important issue SAFETY :cheers:
-
Sorry to hear about this Johnny, hope the time flies by and we see you on the salt soon. 5 years is an absolute joke IMO!
-
JH one of the things Lawyers learn---never ask a question that you do not know the answer to---.
I would never take anything to the board that either I hadn't off the record had talks with members or had someone else feel them out; and as someone already has suggested..
What with the little quote:
"Make peace with the Pharisees, on the way to the Temple" says to me:
do your work before the "Board Meeting"
SCTA is a unique org. several different clubs each with a with a long and
Proud history that must continue to try to function as one.
know how where you stand with each member
work to identify and resolve as many issues as you can with each board
member privately.
My old car had " scta board meeting issues" that I had to work through.
I wasn't banned but there were some that were advocating it.
Before I started my new car I "bootlicked" as some may think: by identifying areas of concern by different SCTA members who are the go to guys for different parts of a car, Some are on the board, some are not.
After doing all of that, you are still going to have some issues with a new car until you and your new creation have a "track record"---how do the 2 of you perform out on the race track.
It smarts when your new baby is not loved by all, that you are asked to address things that may not be in the rules. I would rather have something I am asked to change and have some negotiation room, than end up with a hard and fast rules.
We racers have been living with "------- and may be barred from further competition at the discretion of the SCTA CONTEST BOARD" for a long time---I have lived with the fear of what you are experiencing now.
This is what we will always live with, or we will become NASCAR, NHRA or LEDGEND cars-----LONG LIVE THE CONTEST BOARD----learn to interact with the members. I encourage you to get input on the construction of your new car, find your champions, learn what the "CAPE ISSUES" are for those who are your road blocks----- and ----TRY TO ADDRESS THEM.
If you work at opening doors and building bridges as you build your new car; when it is done, what has been said and done in the past may have a chance to be water under the bridge and be forgiven and forgotten.
This assumes you have built a new car in less that 5 years and now have a need to petition the board for a reconsideration.
YMMV
good luck and enjoy your build ---look forward to seeing you with it on the salt
-
:cheers:
Sparky,
Smoke Jumper over & out :cheers:
-
If you work at opening doors and building bridges as you build your new car; when it is done, what has been said and done in the past may have a chance to be water under the bridge and be forgiven and forgotten.
This assumes you have built a new car in less that 5 years and now have a need to petition the board for a reconsideration.
YMMV
good luck and enjoy your build ---look forward to seeing you with it on the salt
The big picture for me and the reason I brought this to this forum was it is in some respect me waving the white flag and giving up the appeal idea.
It took a long time to come to this but after long consideration and overwhelming circumstances I feel it isnt a fight but more so a defeat.
Most people involved with LSR came into it from a background of family or friends. Many of the people involved are members of clubs or have been involved long enough to have some history. I on the other hand started by myself and am not affiliated with any of the clubs....no clubs in Oregon that I know of.....
I have always had what I thought was a 'thick skin' but there was something about my situation that always really bothered (hurt) me. After my crash literally hundreds of people, many I had never met or heard of sent me a well wish on FB, PM, LR.COM, Email or other. Not one person from the SCTA representing themselves or themselves and the board took the time to say "that was a nasty crash, glad you are OK", or "On behalf of myself and the SCTA we are glad you are OK". Clearly this isnt a requirement but it would of been nice. Some of these people I have known for years. I know I shouldnt of been bothered by this, but I do ask myself if I was a board member and a person was involved in an incident, especially if I knew them....I would of taken the time.
I say this because this was another element that made me feel hopeless. Try and put yourselves in my shoes:
-Its just me, I have no club, no history, no one to go to (*except THIS forum).
-I feel the board doesnt care. I feel very abandoned by the majority. Some (not all) made me feel as if I was bothering them when trying to get the appeal going.
-I am a million miles away (figuratively) but clearly its not a situation where I am close. I might as well be a million miles away.
-I feel the board was really heavy handed and unfair about a number of accusations, like they wanted me gone. The grand scheme is that I feel they wanted me to go away.
"Make peace with the Pharisees, on the way to the Temple
It sounds nice, but I dont even know who the Pharisees is, how to make peace, what to make peace about and where I would need to go to make the peace. Its just me, only me against the entire SCTA in a long distance battle with overwhelming odds and no allies.
This all makes a guy feel like he was defeated before he had a chance to start.
~JH
-
I'll go hide my head for a while.
~JH
Jonny, I really don't think you need to hide your head, and you're only defeated if you walk away.
I'll admit, I'm not up to speed on all the issues with your unfortunate event last August - I'm thankful to see you on your feet.
You shared quite a bit of what you did on the Fiat with us here, and you took your vision and created a unique and competitive vehicle. You've come up with some tough solutions to incorporate rule changes and safety improvements into what I KNOW is an impossibly small vehicle to work on.
Go through the other build diaries and scroll backwards. Take a look at all of the folks who start off with the highest hopes and sincerest intentions - and never got the project out of the garage. If there are 100 builds started, only one makes it out.
You're a 1 percenter - Be proud of that.
It's going to take a while to put together another car - we both know that.
I'd get started on the next car, stay in touch with your tech folks in the SCTA, and build the fastest, safest car you know how. It's probably going to take the better part of the 5 years, anyway. Try to build some trust with them, and I think it's likely you'll see some reciprocity on their part.
Here's how I'm looking at it - When your cattle escape and eat the neighbors corn, it doesn't matter whose fence gave loose - the fence just needs to be mended - and it shouldn't stop you from raising cattle.
Chris Conrad
-
Chris you get it ---but one still owes the guy for the corn the cows ate--
JH, Chris is correct---one can try to learn from ones mistakes and go on with LIFE or hang dog, woe is me, cry in your beer---the only ones that helps is the guys that write and sing "BEER JOINT BLUES" C&W songs
--are you an aspiring singer?
other than some decent advice none of this helps you if you want to race again
MY advise --- STOP DIGGING--- the hole it is already 5 years deep
-
JNuts, most of us here understand and feel your pain... read the whole thread again and don't ask for it to be erased... yes you may have Fiated up... none of us are privy to how bad the SCTA thinks it was... but....
I know the mistakes I made, they didn't cause my accident and neither did yours. I will never race a car again without knowing the things I didn't investigate on our car... I will make changes in sequences, not physical changes in equipment sequences... I will never assume that a car that is going straight and requiring little driver input will keep doing that.
Every run is an opportunity to crash or not... and everyone needs to think of it that way.
We took a cautious approach to racing the liner because we didn't build it from scratch. We made changes every year to improve how it drove and had it to the point that Jon was going to jump in and drive the next pass. So just remember any pass can go to Subaru.
Safety is paramount, the rulebook is trying to keep you safe, not inconvenience you, just because a car that has never displayed bad behavior does not mean under some conditions it wont.
I agree with Sparky... open some dialog with the SCTA, discuss your issue as calmly as you can... go back to work on your new car, I'll bet you will get to race when it is ready.
Again glad you are back to your normal :-D :cheers:
-
Chris you get it ---but one still owes the guy for the corn the cows ate--
I suspect that the ban is the payment - but I also suspect that once the fervor cools down, if handled properly, a tuition reduction request might fall upon more receptive ears.
-
depends on the activity----fabricating cars and building bridges :-)
excavating and writing songs :oops:
-
Another aspect should be discussed. What do the rules say about or what is the process whan an Inspector or three make a mistake ? Do you ban them for 5 years, take away their inspection authority, put them up in front of the the board to be chastized.
We all know the inspectors look the other way at some cars with obivious rule infractions and get the microscope out for others.
Guess i'm up to 4 cents now .
-
JH-
First, my best wishes for your full recovery.
Second, for those of us who would like to learn from this, can you tell us about your acknowledged mistake?
-
We all know the inspectors look the other way at some cars with obivious rule infractions and get the microscope out for others.
I dont "know" this at all. I don't know of any cars with obvious safety issues that are allowed to race. Maybe you are referring to class legality issues? if that's the case then inspectors don't check for that, only impound does. you can be class illegal and hot lap at Bonneville and nobody would/should care. That only matters when you want to certify a record.
Another aspect should be discussed. What do the rules say about or what is the process whan an Inspector or three make a mistake ? Do you ban them for 5 years, take away their inspection authority, put them up in front of the the board to be chastized.
If you think the SCTA Inspector, therefor the SCTA itself, should be responsible for an unsafe vehicle then the smartest thing the SCTA could do when a competitor presents an unsafe vehicle, and the SCTA believes that competitor will continue to present unsafe vehicles, would be to ban that competitor for life. Because I guarantee you if I were the SCTA and was responsible for someone elses car then I would not let anyone race anything that wasn't 100%, absolutely, gold plated, FEA analyzed, professional engineer certified, crash tested, PERFECT. I would NEVER let a person weld their own chassis. Never let anyone design their own ANYTHING. Is that what you want?
If an inspector isnt doing his/her job then they need to move on, or be moved on, but it's the entrants responsibility to make a safe car. If you figure you are just going to throw some crap together and see it you can talk it through tech then you are in for a bad time and it cant be blamed on the tech inspector.
BTW, none of the above is directed at Hotnuts, I don't know what inspection issues he is talking about, it is a response to jh333's post.
-
jhNUTS,
Thank YOU for having the BALLS to start this thread. People think because they have $$$$$$ or can sue the crap out of someone ect. the can Land Speed RACE.
The most importation thing my daddy ever taught me was "never argue with your mother". I if you do you should know "when it is going to happen again'". "That will be the next word out of your mouth after the last thing she told you".
JN, You are not alone. We all at LR.com can and will support you.
Just look back starting a day or two how many RACERS from around the world have been posting GOOD info. that will save SOMEONES LIFE. For every person that has posted(SSS could tell you the number of people that have read this in the last three days).
To all my racing family PLEASE BE SAFEJNuts, most of us here understand and feel your pain... read the whole thread again and don't ask for it to be erased... yes you may have Fiated up... none of us are privy to how bad the SCTA thinks it was... but....
I know the mistakes I made, they didn't cause my accident and neither did yours. I will never race a car again without knowing the things I didn't investigate on our car... I will make changes in sequences, not physical changes in equipment sequences... I will never assume that a car that is going straight and requiring little driver input will keep doing that.
Every run is an opportunity to crash or not... and everyone needs to think of it that way.
We took a cautious approach to racing the liner because we didn't build it from scratch. We made changes every year to improve how it drove and had it to the point that Jon was going to jump in and drive the next pass. So just remember any pass can go to Subaru.
Safety is paramount, the rulebook is trying to keep you safe, not inconvenience you, just because a car that has never displayed bad behavior does not mean under some conditions it wont.
I agree with Sparky... open some dialog with the SCTA, discuss your issue as calmly as you can... go back to work on your new car, I'll bet you will get to race when it is ready.
Again glad you are back to your normal :-D :cheers:
-
That would be 1790 views as of this posting. :cheers:
-
JR 529 said "...you can be class illegal and hot lap at Bonneville and nobody would/should care. That only matters when you want to certify a record."
Boy, I guess i should be racing cars and not bikes. Last year I was in inspection with my ZX12 motorcycle that was plumbed for running nitrous. There wasn't a bottle attached - and neither was the plumbing complete enough to let me spray if I put on said bottle. A solenoid in the line was quire obviously missing. I was planing to register the bike in a gas class - just because that was what I figured I'd do. No particular reason, and no intention or hope of making it into impound in any way, shape, or form no matter what class I ran in. And so I told the inspectors - that I wasn't going to take the bike to impound no matter what - when I was informed that I wouldn't be allowed to get an "inspected" sticker when the bike had and of the nitrous plumbing on it -- lines, bottle, wiring. I could run if I chose -- but only if I ran in fuel class.
That told me that at least some inspectors DO check for class legality. It wasn't just them letting me know that I wouldn't make it through impound if I tried it. I wouldn't be allowed to race if I registered as a gas bike.
Dang, I shoulda chosen cars. :?
-
Inspectors are not told to inspect for class compliance -- but a lot of them know much about that, above what they need to know about their "safety" inspection.
I think it's a good thing that an inspector would advise a competitor about class compliance. We spend all year getting ready for the premier event, and can possibly qualify for a record, and even back it up -- and have our effort voided.
If I was competing in a certain class and an inspector called it to my attention that I wasn't in compliance (not his job), I'd think (after thinking it over) he was doing me a favor.
Stan
(I guess I'm becoming the Company Man)
-
JR 529 said "...you can be class illegal and hot lap at Bonneville and nobody would/should care. That only matters when you want to certify a record."
Boy, I guess i should be racing cars and not bikes. Last year I was in inspection with my ZX12 motorcycle that was plumbed for running nitrous. There wasn't a bottle attached - and neither was the plumbing complete enough to let me spray if I put on said bottle. A solenoid in the line was quire obviously missing. I was planing to register the bike in a gas class - just because that was what I figured I'd do. No particular reason, and no intention or hope of making it into impound in any way, shape, or form no matter what class I ran in. And so I told the inspectors - that I wasn't going to take the bike to impound no matter what - when I was informed that I wouldn't be allowed to get an "inspected" sticker when the bike had and of the nitrous plumbing on it -- lines, bottle, wiring. I could run if I chose -- but only if I ran in fuel class.
That told me that at least some inspectors DO check for class legality. It wasn't just them letting me know that I wouldn't make it through impound if I tried it. I wouldn't be allowed to race if I registered as a gas bike.
Dang, I shoulda chosen cars. :?
Slim, Cars are always the better option. especially roadsters, you know that by now. :cheers:
The issue I was addressing in my post was whether "cars with obvious rule infractions" are allowed to run and I said i don't believe so, but allowed that maybe he was referring to class certification issues rather than safety issues and that that could, and does, happen all the time. especially on the car side.
(I guess I'm becoming the Company Man)
Yeah Stan, whats up? you are usually the one shooting the flaming arrows. You feelin OK?
-
I was a d- for airing this out. I apologize to all.
It doesnt matter if everything was correct in the investigation, the bigger picture is that there WERE things incorrect. If one thing was wrong it was still wrong. That is enough for me and it was my fault.
Slim....
If you could make this whole thread go away.....
I'll go hide my head for a while.
~JH
JH,
I feel your pain. These forums are great, but putting our thoughts on them in anger usually provokes regret because we think we are just talking to our good friends and we find out that there are just as many if not more people out there that just want to feed us to the wolves!
"Don't try to fight city hall", " he who has the gold rules", "the old boys club makes the rules", " don't argue with your mother" are all good clichés for your experience. I've been there and done that to no avail. Got sh*t upon just like you for trying to keep our Vintage TT on track in N.S. when the "good old boys" club (which were really the young modern bike racers) wanted to dispose of it and succeeded!
Luckily, man in general has a short memory, and all will be forgotten in time ("time heals all wounds and wounds all heels".) My advice is to stay low under the radar, start planning your next car, build it and get back on the horse that threw you. We (those who really care) will support you 100%
Tom
-
Glad to see you are getting well and are feisty again. My feelings are "this could happen to me!" Egad.
-
Slim, bike inspectors are different than car inspectors... look at the bike rules... they say you cannot have N20 equipment on a bike that runs gas class.... want to guess why :?
too easy to put on and take off. While not a safety thing you might notice that the bike guys are the same in impound and inspection... not necessarily so for the cars...
-
You mean like BOOTLICKER ? ECT...ECT :-o
JL222 LOL YEP that is what I am a BOOTLICKER but there are others who just might disagree with you!
lol sorta like the old Jim Croche: sp song:
about spiten into the wind and tugging on superman's cape
This guy isn't interested in anything but trying to suck us in on his
"woe is me" BS and try to put the SCTA in a bad light!!
or he has NO IDEA of how things get done in the real world ---what he has done and is doing is only going to cause more grief----for himself and for other racers ----ie the new rule
In todays POLITICAL climate this type of stuff could easily lead to none of us getting to race on "DRY LAKES" wherever they may be
Sparky your Pharisee quote implied that JH should lick some boots, not that you do. But your actions don't match your Jefferson quote.
If you worried about standing up to the SCTA you certainly will not stand up to a corrupt Govn.
Looking up Pharisee, one source said Jesus fought them ''tooth and nail''
JL222
-
To JR529 , I suggest you fully read or reread my post.
No where does the word safe, safer, safest, safety or any other word that might be used instead of safe show up in any of my writings. I can put words in my mouth but please don't you try to.
-
:cheers: Thanks to JHotnuts this could save someones life :cheers:
-
JL you may imply what you wish---my point was if you are interested---know where you stand BEFORE you get to the BOARD ruling on your apeal case---
FIVE years would most likely put me out of racing at my age. It is a lot more important to me to get to run by finding out what the issues are, than to just pull some ones chain in some self righteous moment, over my interpretation of the rule book.
At the rate JH is going he will do all five and have a huge problem getting through tech unless he repairs some bridges and builds a D--M good car.
My motivation was and is ---for HIM to increase is odds of getting on the salt earlier. I see nothing he has posted so far that would help his efforts of trying to get back to the salt and race sooner than the 5 years.
Also for ALL to understand that our actions can lead to rules like "The JH Rule"
I do not know other that hearsay what happened---but it must have been pretty dang bad for him to not tell us what he did and for an all encompassing catch all rule to make it into the rule book! This "JH Rule" should scare us all!!!!
-
Sparky Bill.....VERY good post!!!!
I have even heard the hearsay of what happened here in Wilmington and why the JH rule was created!
Gregg
-
I guess I don't see the purpose of this whole thread.
This may not be a popular view, but this thread is a complete waste of bandwidth. This should have been handled with the SCTA, not here, IMHO
Until a ALL of the FACTS are honestly revealed, this is nothing more than what the title states-dirty laundry
JH, I'm very happy that you are ok after the crash!
Good luck with your current build.
-
Buddy, that cuts to the chase----this should have been handled---off the record-- then attempt to get a modification---this is nothing but crying in ones beer and woe is me BS
---the SCTA is not going to respond other than Dan saying the "Current Board" is in the Rule book --- JH just doesn't get it---nearly everyone who has raced at a few events could tell a story ----
But thank God and the SCTA--- the volunteers come back ---and nearly all of us return until we just can't---
I had a delightful visit just yesterday with an 82 year young racer ( one of the earlier 2 club members) who having to come to grips with he may have run his last race---the body just will not respond to his commands anymore. I only hope my checkbook and body wait that long to give up!!!!!!!!!!!! He is planning on being at speed week without his car!!
Here is to this wonderful "SICK ADDICTION" and the PASSION we all seem to suffer from and the SCTA that enables us to do it! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
JR 529 said "...you can be class illegal and hot lap at Bonneville and nobody would/should care. That only matters when you want to certify a record."
Boy, I guess i should be racing cars and not bikes. Last year I was in inspection with my ZX12 motorcycle that was plumbed for running nitrous. There wasn't a bottle attached - and neither was the plumbing complete enough to let me spray if I put on said bottle. A solenoid in the line was quire obviously missing. I was planing to register the bike in a gas class - just because that was what I figured I'd do. No particular reason, and no intention or hope of making it into impound in any way, shape, or form no matter what class I ran in. And so I told the inspectors - that I wasn't going to take the bike to impound no matter what - when I was informed that I wouldn't be allowed to get an "inspected" sticker when the bike had and of the nitrous plumbing on it -- lines, bottle, wiring. I could run if I chose -- but only if I ran in fuel class.
That told me that at least some inspectors DO check for class legality. It wasn't just them letting me know that I wouldn't make it through impound if I tried it. I wouldn't be allowed to race if I registered as a gas bike.
Dang, I shoulda chosen cars. :?
Now Slim, that wouldn't have been about class compliance. It would've related to rule 7.B.21.
G
-
To JR529 , I suggest you fully read or reread my post.
No where does the word safe, safer, safest, safety or any other word that might be used instead of safe show up in any of my writings. I can put words in my mouth but please don't you try to.
We all know the inspectors look the other way at some cars with obivious rule infractions and get the microscope out for others.
Sorry, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Inspectors only check safety items, that's why I assumed you were talking about safety issues. If you are talking about class legalities then that's Record Certification (different from tech inspection) and Dan Warner, the specific committees and the racers (protest) themselves police that area. If you know of a car that was getting certified and you believe it was not in compliance with the rules then what official did you tell about it? If nobody then why not?
-
JR 529 said "...you can be class illegal and hot lap at Bonneville and nobody would/should care. That only matters when you want to certify a record."
Boy, I guess i should be racing cars and not bikes. Last year I was in inspection with my ZX12 motorcycle that was plumbed for running nitrous. There wasn't a bottle attached - and neither was the plumbing complete enough to let me spray if I put on said bottle. A solenoid in the line was quire obviously missing. I was planing to register the bike in a gas class - just because that was what I figured I'd do. No particular reason, and no intention or hope of making it into impound in any way, shape, or form no matter what class I ran in. And so I told the inspectors - that I wasn't going to take the bike to impound no matter what - when I was informed that I wouldn't be allowed to get an "inspected" sticker when the bike had and of the nitrous plumbing on it -- lines, bottle, wiring. I could run if I chose -- but only if I ran in fuel class.
That told me that at least some inspectors DO check for class legality. It wasn't just them letting me know that I wouldn't make it through impound if I tried it. I wouldn't be allowed to race if I registered as a gas bike.
Dang, I shoulda chosen cars. :?
Now Slim, that wouldn't have been about class compliance. It would've related to rule 7.B.21.
G
Yep, you are right. That's a M/C specific rule. The car rule says just the bottles have to be removed (rule 3.I.2)
-
Am I the only one that finds it ironic, and somewhat disturbing, that so many ambiguous allegations are directed at our volunteers, yet those complaining don't step up and themselves get involved?
Just sayin'............
-
I do not know other that hearsay what happened---but it must have been pretty dang bad for him to not tell us what he did and for an all encompassing catch all rule to make it into the rule book! This "JH Rule" should scare us all!!!!
At one point I was hellbent on proving that I didnt do what they accused me of. I was going to roll down there with all the stuff that would of shown that I was innocent of at least that ('that' as in what the rule was generated from). Now, as apposed to showing pics, or getting people that knew the deal to say so, it is likely just better for me to admit to whatever they say, dont argue with them, say I am sorry and learned a lesson.
~JH
-
Thank you JH
I am sorry guys but this seems like a great time to end this thing!!!
-
Things we learned from this thread...
If you have an axe to grind, you will grind it at every opportunity... (I know I do and this is not necessarily directed at JNuts, we should all think about this...)
If you do not talk to the SCTA, they will act without your input.
Everybody wants racing to be safe... it is not, but we should stay on task and try to keep it as safe as we can and still race. Everybody has to do their part.
Think before you change anything after tech inspection
If you do alter your car after tech, even if you don't think it matters, maybe you better check with tech.
You can crash even if you don't think you will... for no apparent reason
The SCTA is not perfect, but it is our sanctioning body, work with it or don't race.
I will not lock this thread, as suggested, but if Jon wants to I will not argue... although I am sure there is more we learned here than I thought of.
-
I locked this thread own my own--- my decision MINE alone
If Jon as owner or another moderator want to unlock it--- will not hurt my feelings at all. This seem like a good place to stop beating on OUR BELOVED SPORT---we are all losing!
Lets let this thing scab over and try to heal before PERMANENT damage is done!!
-
Lock the thread? No, I won't do that. I do think that we've chewed on the subject pretty thoroughly but don't want to stifle someone that hasn't yet had his chance to let us know his feelings. I'd just as soon that the thread went away because it's now old news, though. When I thought that Sparky had locked it -- I was fine with it.
So -- why not let us get back to racing? We've had a good amount of opportunity to listen, read, talk, and mostly think about a serious situation that might affect any or all of us. Do that - and tell us how your new tuneup will get you down the racetrack faster than so-and-so's unusual way of adjusting the exhaust deflectors.
After all -- we're racers, not legislators. Let them do the endless talking. :cheers: