Is APBA "Arachnephobic"??
06-06-2003, 09:11 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Number 1 does not concern the duties of my office. (CRE) You would need to direct your complaint or comment to the proper APBA Offshore official or violations board that handled that situation for an explanation.
Number 2 was before CRE's existence and is probably one of the many reasons it was formed and I'm not sure what compliance with todays rules have to do with an incident in 1999.
Your assumption that there was prior application or “notification” is untrue and again I will state that your source(s) have at the very minimum compromised their creditability. Your first post indicates that you were not sure that “it was done EXACTLY on time”. Neither statement is true with regards to this incident, there was no application, only after the fact admissions and notifications.
The rules are clear, "application" for manufactures 60 days prior to competition and "Any request for changes to the original mold (including inserts) or to boats produced from the mold must be submitted in writing to CRE and approved by CRE in writing prior to the change and at least 30 days prior to competition."
No where in the rules have I found a statement that notification vs application and approval of a change to an existing boat is a criteria to make a legal change.
1999 was a long time ago and I would say more than a few things have improved, including better enforcement of rules. I'm sure that rules enforcement will get better in the future as well.
Number 3 answer is that APBA Offshore officials impose penalties, CRE inspects, certifies, keeps records, investigates violations and makes reports of findings with recommendations. It (CRE) has no vote in accessing any penalties and does not benefit. However, I will tell you that it is not the first time that boats making "unauthorized changes" have been accessed weight penalties by this sanctioning body.
Your initial post of "fact" made an untrue statement of something that I "personally" was supposed to have done while insinuating that this office is or I’m less than creditable because it or I consider who the situation involves and I have or intentionally overlooked or approved certain homologation criteria disingenuously.
I would submit that you are more than just a mere fan as you hold out or try to portray on this board because you have facts, albeit a bit skewed by your resource, beyond the normal fans general knowledge or anything that has been posted in public, in fact, I believe the penalties were sent by Certified Mail to the parties involved and have not been released by APBA Offshore or CRE pending written notification.
I have no problem enlighting or steering you in the right direction on anything that has to do with this office and how it operates, or this incident, but you have to keep the subject to things that are done by this office (CRE).
For answers to other situations or decisions, either prior to my association or that have to do with APBA officials, you will have to address those parties at the next race that you attend.
Do try to find a better and unbiased source for your information because it makes you appear to have an agenda to smear CRE, APBA Offshore or myself with inuendo and misrepresetation for a rules violation that was dealt with properly. I doubt that is your intention.
Andrew Corn
Certified Racing Equipment, Inc.
Edited (corrected spelling mistakes)
Number 2 was before CRE's existence and is probably one of the many reasons it was formed and I'm not sure what compliance with todays rules have to do with an incident in 1999.
Your assumption that there was prior application or “notification” is untrue and again I will state that your source(s) have at the very minimum compromised their creditability. Your first post indicates that you were not sure that “it was done EXACTLY on time”. Neither statement is true with regards to this incident, there was no application, only after the fact admissions and notifications.
The rules are clear, "application" for manufactures 60 days prior to competition and "Any request for changes to the original mold (including inserts) or to boats produced from the mold must be submitted in writing to CRE and approved by CRE in writing prior to the change and at least 30 days prior to competition."
No where in the rules have I found a statement that notification vs application and approval of a change to an existing boat is a criteria to make a legal change.
1999 was a long time ago and I would say more than a few things have improved, including better enforcement of rules. I'm sure that rules enforcement will get better in the future as well.
Number 3 answer is that APBA Offshore officials impose penalties, CRE inspects, certifies, keeps records, investigates violations and makes reports of findings with recommendations. It (CRE) has no vote in accessing any penalties and does not benefit. However, I will tell you that it is not the first time that boats making "unauthorized changes" have been accessed weight penalties by this sanctioning body.
Your initial post of "fact" made an untrue statement of something that I "personally" was supposed to have done while insinuating that this office is or I’m less than creditable because it or I consider who the situation involves and I have or intentionally overlooked or approved certain homologation criteria disingenuously.
I would submit that you are more than just a mere fan as you hold out or try to portray on this board because you have facts, albeit a bit skewed by your resource, beyond the normal fans general knowledge or anything that has been posted in public, in fact, I believe the penalties were sent by Certified Mail to the parties involved and have not been released by APBA Offshore or CRE pending written notification.
I have no problem enlighting or steering you in the right direction on anything that has to do with this office and how it operates, or this incident, but you have to keep the subject to things that are done by this office (CRE).
For answers to other situations or decisions, either prior to my association or that have to do with APBA officials, you will have to address those parties at the next race that you attend.
Do try to find a better and unbiased source for your information because it makes you appear to have an agenda to smear CRE, APBA Offshore or myself with inuendo and misrepresetation for a rules violation that was dealt with properly. I doubt that is your intention.
Andrew Corn
Certified Racing Equipment, Inc.
Edited (corrected spelling mistakes)
Last edited by acorn1225; 06-06-2003 at 09:31 PM.
06-06-2003, 09:19 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
PS: Board doesn't need to poof, Duchess is the only other one that can poof it.
I don't see anything at this time that is a problem. These are old issues that have been dealt with properly or the process corrected. No sanctioning body or organization is without controversy or mistakes. It's how they handle the mistakes and improve the process that is important for the future.
Andrew Corn
Certified Racing Equipment, Inc.
I don't see anything at this time that is a problem. These are old issues that have been dealt with properly or the process corrected. No sanctioning body or organization is without controversy or mistakes. It's how they handle the mistakes and improve the process that is important for the future.
Andrew Corn
Certified Racing Equipment, Inc.
06-07-2003, 10:45 AM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
More info, please, ACORN? (Where's my 'nutcracker'?)
ACORN:
Thanks very much for enlightening me with your perspective … much appreciated. You are absolutely right – it is NOT my intention to ‘smear’ CRE or APBA Offshore, and if you’re taking this ‘personally’, I’m sorry for your interpretation. It’s simple, really:
1) I was under the impression that you were the one who assessed the fines/penalties, as you (a member of CRE) were the author of, and signed, the certified letter sent to the “Gentlemen”. If you would be so kind as to let me know who WAS in charge of imposing these fines/penalties, I will direct my inquiries to the appropriate party.
2) In your letter to the “Gentlemen”, you said that “… these most recent violations come in the wake of numerous prior violations that have resulted in written and verbal warnings that APBA Offshore rules must be followed or there will be consequences.” What ARE the prior violations by Spiderman? WHY is Spiderman being penalized for a homologation infraction, which should be a Douglas Skater responsibility? I don’t get it.
3) What ARE the prior violations by Douglas Skater?
4) You mentioned in your post that this “ … is not the first time that boats making ‘unauthorized changes’ have been assessed weight penalties by this sanctioning body.” Who WERE the other boats and when were these ‘penalties’ imposed?
Thank you in advance, ACORN, for your cooperation in providing me with this information.
Thanks very much for enlightening me with your perspective … much appreciated. You are absolutely right – it is NOT my intention to ‘smear’ CRE or APBA Offshore, and if you’re taking this ‘personally’, I’m sorry for your interpretation. It’s simple, really:
1) I was under the impression that you were the one who assessed the fines/penalties, as you (a member of CRE) were the author of, and signed, the certified letter sent to the “Gentlemen”. If you would be so kind as to let me know who WAS in charge of imposing these fines/penalties, I will direct my inquiries to the appropriate party.
2) In your letter to the “Gentlemen”, you said that “… these most recent violations come in the wake of numerous prior violations that have resulted in written and verbal warnings that APBA Offshore rules must be followed or there will be consequences.” What ARE the prior violations by Spiderman? WHY is Spiderman being penalized for a homologation infraction, which should be a Douglas Skater responsibility? I don’t get it.
3) What ARE the prior violations by Douglas Skater?
4) You mentioned in your post that this “ … is not the first time that boats making ‘unauthorized changes’ have been assessed weight penalties by this sanctioning body.” Who WERE the other boats and when were these ‘penalties’ imposed?
Thank you in advance, ACORN, for your cooperation in providing me with this information.
06-07-2003, 01:30 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
NO cheating by Harwich Concrete, they purchased a boat that already had the weight penalty.
The illegal shortened fuel tanks were modified by the factory and the weight penalty was so that the owners would not have to bear the cost of replacement. The weight was calculated and placed at a specific location in the boat to compensate for the tank changes.
Andrew Corn
Certified Racing Equipment, Inc.
The illegal shortened fuel tanks were modified by the factory and the weight penalty was so that the owners would not have to bear the cost of replacement. The weight was calculated and placed at a specific location in the boat to compensate for the tank changes.
Andrew Corn
Certified Racing Equipment, Inc.
06-07-2003, 04:25 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
ACORN:
Thank you for APBA Offshore’s telephone number. I’ll give them a call on Monday.
1) “The usual board is comprised of, but not limited to, the Competition Director, Chief Referee, Chief Inspector, and President of APBA Offshore, LLC.” It’s interesting that the Chief Referee and Chief Inspector knew nothing of these fines/penalties until they received copy of the certified letter via email. Speaking of the Competition Director (Steve Miklos), how fair is it to the other racers that he has a panel in his boat, including green, yellow and red lights (corresponding to flags) for “test purposes”? In addition, he ran Vortec motors for a whole year (again, ‘testing’) and mandated that everybody else run spec motors; then the next year, he changed the motor configuration to a Vortec motor – he had a jump on the whole class for a year! Is it fair that he is ‘testing’ and going for national points too?
2) Yes, Spiderman is responsible for the boat, and it seems as if you were notified properly. Let’s face it … the change worked, because the boat runs SAFELY compared to its run at the Worlds. The boat was NOT safe at the Worlds; the added strakes allowed the boat to be driven at a safer speed … isn’t safety APBA’s priority?
3) I still feel that the financial penalty imposed doesn’t make sense for all the testing, time and effort that Team Spiderman/Douglas Skater had to put into the boat.
4) Weight penalty – You say that Jack Carmody’s boat was penalized 275 lbs. because he removed the extension boxes. Pier 57 shortened their fuel tanks, therefore putting weight into their boat (100 lbs.). Well, Spiderman ADDED the strakes, so shouldn’t they be allowed LESS weight?
In regard to your - I must say, again, condescending - quote, “Somehow I don’t think that understanding this issue was your original intention”, maybe you should stop trying to figure me out, personally, and just answer the questions as best you can. I may be a ‘chick’ and even “closely associated” with the team/manufacturer, but that’s beside the point. Believe it or not, there are ‘chicks’ out here who actually understand the sport and the politics related to the sport. I am not AT ALL trying to, as you put it, “discredit the system, along with the people involved in this public forum”. It’s called FREE SPEECH, ACORN. It’s an open forum. If the “Gods” want to ‘poof’ it, so be it, but until then, I’ll speak the facts as I know them to be. Of course, you and yours are entitled to the same, and I encourage you to do so for the full understanding of this entire forum.
Peace.
Thank you for APBA Offshore’s telephone number. I’ll give them a call on Monday.
1) “The usual board is comprised of, but not limited to, the Competition Director, Chief Referee, Chief Inspector, and President of APBA Offshore, LLC.” It’s interesting that the Chief Referee and Chief Inspector knew nothing of these fines/penalties until they received copy of the certified letter via email. Speaking of the Competition Director (Steve Miklos), how fair is it to the other racers that he has a panel in his boat, including green, yellow and red lights (corresponding to flags) for “test purposes”? In addition, he ran Vortec motors for a whole year (again, ‘testing’) and mandated that everybody else run spec motors; then the next year, he changed the motor configuration to a Vortec motor – he had a jump on the whole class for a year! Is it fair that he is ‘testing’ and going for national points too?
2) Yes, Spiderman is responsible for the boat, and it seems as if you were notified properly. Let’s face it … the change worked, because the boat runs SAFELY compared to its run at the Worlds. The boat was NOT safe at the Worlds; the added strakes allowed the boat to be driven at a safer speed … isn’t safety APBA’s priority?
3) I still feel that the financial penalty imposed doesn’t make sense for all the testing, time and effort that Team Spiderman/Douglas Skater had to put into the boat.
4) Weight penalty – You say that Jack Carmody’s boat was penalized 275 lbs. because he removed the extension boxes. Pier 57 shortened their fuel tanks, therefore putting weight into their boat (100 lbs.). Well, Spiderman ADDED the strakes, so shouldn’t they be allowed LESS weight?
In regard to your - I must say, again, condescending - quote, “Somehow I don’t think that understanding this issue was your original intention”, maybe you should stop trying to figure me out, personally, and just answer the questions as best you can. I may be a ‘chick’ and even “closely associated” with the team/manufacturer, but that’s beside the point. Believe it or not, there are ‘chicks’ out here who actually understand the sport and the politics related to the sport. I am not AT ALL trying to, as you put it, “discredit the system, along with the people involved in this public forum”. It’s called FREE SPEECH, ACORN. It’s an open forum. If the “Gods” want to ‘poof’ it, so be it, but until then, I’ll speak the facts as I know them to be. Of course, you and yours are entitled to the same, and I encourage you to do so for the full understanding of this entire forum.
Peace.
06-07-2003, 10:40 PM
#18
Registered
Platinum Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lake Lanier - N. Georgia
Posts: 6,307
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Duchess:
OK My turn - now you're giving Miklos a hard time? Yes Steve did test the GM / Vortec engine (1) year before the class SVL was officially a class. Steve was instrumental in bringing GM on board with APBA Offshore and he should be applauded. Ray Delaney's Fury / Phantom was definitely very competitive last year - he would of won The Worlds if he didn't have an unfortunate spin out( I saw no frown on Ray's face at the awards banquet either with that GM / Vortec contingency check in his hand). I guess if Steve had brought GM Vortec on board and not tested the engine for a year and it was a dog - you would be on here complaining that nobody stepped up to the plate and tested the motor before it was introduced in the class! Why don't you post your name? Brian Hollis
OK My turn - now you're giving Miklos a hard time? Yes Steve did test the GM / Vortec engine (1) year before the class SVL was officially a class. Steve was instrumental in bringing GM on board with APBA Offshore and he should be applauded. Ray Delaney's Fury / Phantom was definitely very competitive last year - he would of won The Worlds if he didn't have an unfortunate spin out( I saw no frown on Ray's face at the awards banquet either with that GM / Vortec contingency check in his hand). I guess if Steve had brought GM Vortec on board and not tested the engine for a year and it was a dog - you would be on here complaining that nobody stepped up to the plate and tested the motor before it was introduced in the class! Why don't you post your name? Brian Hollis
