Is APBA "Arachnephobic"??
 

•Fines: Team Spiderman $750; Douglas Skater $7,500;
•25-point deduction from current national point standings;
•250 lb. weight penalty;
•etc., etc., etc.

The recent penalties imposed on Team Spiderman and Skater for the changes made to the boat (i.e. strakes) seem completely unfair. I know for a fact that the changes were made AFTER verbal authorization by Andrew Corn and that the changes were also submitted in writing (in fairness, I’m not sure that they were submitted EXACTLY on time, but that’s not the issue here). Regardless, with some familiarity of Peter’s boat-building history, it’s clearly a homologation issue ($$) that APBA has with Skater. Take a good look around the Super Vee class: Lucas Oil is clearly not the same boat it once was; Ettore is a “42”, but measures 39 after they shortened the transom; and then there’s Donzi – when Jack Carmody died, APBA said there could no longer be twin canopies, so how did Donzi get homologated with their F16’s? (Hmmm … could it be because they are the title sponsor??) These are just a few examples.

I’m also curious as to why the fine isn’t Skater’s alone? Why is Team Spiderman being fined as well?

Just doesn’t make sense to me … but then, I’m just a ‘chick’ ;)

Or ...
 

... is it "Arachnophobic"?? :confused:

arachnophobic or arachnophia per the spell checker

Thanks, MO ;)

Duchess, contrary to your accusations and insinuations, you will find there is no conspiracy against any team or favoritism toward any team from this office, past, present or in the future.

1) You will never find "anyone with any creditability" that will tell you “ I” have ever verbally authorized any changes to any registered boat......ever...... regardless of person, class or station in life. It is “untrue” that I authorized any change to the “Spiderman” verbally. Anyone that has told you contrary has compromised their own creditability.

2) You will also find that I have never authorized or approved any changes by any manufacture or owner to any homologated boat without written application and drawings.

3) You can find the below clipping in the 2003 APBA Offshore Technical Rules that deals with hull changes.

Hull Bottoms –

The approved hull bottoms must be identical to those produced from a manufacturer’s production line mold with no changes allowed unless approved in writing by CRE. Subject to the requirements set forth below, an owner or manufacturer may upgrade the bottom of a pre-existing boat bottom design to new factory standards that have been approved through the homologation process. These upgrades must be precise so as to allow the updated hull to fit into the new factory molds. No backdating is allowed without the written permission of APBA. All such change requests must be submitted in writing at least 60 days prior to competition with the precise measurements to CRE.


4) Existing boats that are not homologated by a manufacture in the Super Vee class are legal under the "non-conforming boats" 2003 APBA Technical Rules and have registered accordingly. I have included the clipping from the rules for you convenience.

Non-conforming Boats (“Grandfathering”)

Pre-Existing canopied boats registered in any year from 1997 –2002 Super Vee, Super Vee Light, Outlaw A or Outlaw B Classes, may be approved for competition in 2002 – 2005 provided that the owner submits a written request for approval and said request is approved by APBA, in it’s sole and absolute discretion, at least 30 days prior to competition. Notwithstanding the foregoing, these boats shall not be eligible for competition beyond the 2005 season unless they comply with these rules. Registered equipment ownership changes will be allowed on approved, registered and currently competing non-conforming boats. Hulls and decks racing under this "grandfather rule", which become lost or destroyed, must be replaced by equipment that meets the then current rules for Super Vee.


6) Furthermore your insinuations of granting an allowance for any competitor, manufacture or sponsor are also untrue. With regards to canopies as you have described I have included that section of the rules for your convenience.

Canopies –

Compliance with Lavin Guidelines - All Super Cats constructed after January 1, 2001 must use canopy safety systems that comply with the latest Mark Lavin Foundation R.R.C./E.R.C. Cockpit Guidelines.(“Lavin Guidelines”). It shall be the sole responsibility of the owner of the race boat to maintain a copy of the applicable Lavin Guidelines. Further, all Super Cats constructed after January 1, 2002 must have canopies located in the center of the boat. Boats with canopies located in the sponson will not be approved for competition.


Andrew Corn
Certified Racing Equipment, Inc. (CRE)

ya ya ya same old bull

No, those are called rules. They come from a rule book.

The funny thing about APBA is they expect racers to follow the rules and somehow it always catches people by surprise when they get caught not following the rules.

Weight Penalty? (250lb)
I though that weight was not used as a PENALTY ? I understood
that weight was only used as a tool for competitive equality! In other word if one manufacture hull was faster another's weight
would be added to maintain comparable speeds ?

Hey, "ACORN" ... are you NUTS?
 

First of all, you must not be familiar with the female beast, or you would know that condescending to us just makes us more defensive. The truth is that bantering turns me on! So here we go …

I’ve followed the circuit for a long time, and after reading through the ‘blah, blah, blah’ of your post, let’s just get real here for a minute about there being no “favoritism toward any team from [your] office past, present …”. For your convenience, let me point out just a couple of examples to the contrary:

1) At last year’s World’s, Donzi’s F2 (again ,TITLE SPONSORS) were caught with illegal props, per a direct quote from Mike Tomlinson. The props were Hering blades welded on a Mercury hub – very illegal. Yes, the APBA gave them a 15-minute penalty, but GAVE THEM BACK THEIR PROPS. According to the “rulebook”, weren’t the props to have been confiscated??

2) In 1999, Formula’s F2 (382) REMOVED the strakes on their boat, and the APBA allowed them to race anyway, as long as they wrote a letter stating that all boats from then on would not have the strakes. Note there was no fine involved, nor was there a 250-lb. “penalty” imposed. This is basically the same situation that Skater is in right now, except that Skater ADDED the strakes, and in addition to prior written submission of their changes, Skater also furnished you with a notice that they will continue to have strakes on all boats from there on out. Interesting that Formula was TITLE SPONSOR that year.

And what IS the deal with the 250-lb. penalty? Out of what hat did THAT get pulled? Maybe Skater should fork out some cash and become a title sponsor in order to be competitive in the APBA? And while they’re at it, they can buy me a new tiara!!!;)

Duchess: I know I'm not the most popular on this hear board, but I got to tell ya, But the moderaters would probabaly move it or delete it...But good info.....

No problem ...
 

I have a feeling this post is about to be 'poofed' ... I'm pretty sure I'm not so popular with the 'God's' about now, but I'm just stating the facts ... and I have MORE if need be!!!

Don't MESS with royalty, baby!!:hothead:

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

APBA, Blah,Blah,Blah,etc...

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

Hey, Brian -

If Vortec is so good, why do you need 200 rpm's more than Mercury and there are Super V racers switching from Vortec's motors to Mercury's?

Oh, and by the way ...
 

Brian -

At the Marathon driver's meeting, didn't Michael say he was having a race in Orange Beach, Alabama? Maybe you shouldn't believe all you hear - ??

Just a 'chick' stating the facts ...

Calling ACORN!!!???
 

Hey, you really never answered my questions from the previous post. Hopefully, I'll have mail in the morning, but for now this 'chick' is heading out to continue to dig my hole ... down to your level.

Good night, nutty boy! Big hugs!

Hey, "Brainiac"
 

I wouldn't enter any spelling bees in the near future if I were you, but I won't hold your ignorance against you, as you obviously know NOTHING about 'royalty', sweetie.

"duchess (duch'is) n. 1. the wife or widow of a duke 2. a woman who has the rank of a duke and rules a duchy."

(Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition).

It's not that Jacki, Mike.

Would the real Jaci Traver (ex-driver for Twisted Chyx) please stand up. Oh, right, that's me.

Hey, Guys. There's been some insinuation that "Duchess" is me, as well as many phone calls I've received. Well, it's not. Anybody who knows me would realize that the preceding dialog is not my style. I must say I'm a bit annoyed the identity was not corrected until Ryan popped in. Thanks, Stickerboy.

I have as much respect for Mr. Welling's ability to set up a race boat as I do Mr. Allweiss' and the officials' difficult decisions to continue to advance the sport.

I don't know enough about the history and viewpoint from each side to pass judgment; nor would I on this type of forum.

Good day.

Sorry I sound cranky -- I've had 5 hours in a car to stew about it.

I don't know who Duchess is either but if she really is a girl, she's got one hell of a hard on.

A pre-op Duchess?

Whfooo....Glad I don't have that one under my belt !!!! Geeezee....we don't need this sh*t. Steve, Hope the rain didn't sting too much....and the beer is always here. Dave

I would like to give a big round of applause to APBA for sticking to their guns each time things like this come up.So many times in other series you see the big wigs stomp their feet and scream until they eventually get their way.The past few years have been vastly different with APBA and every team can be confident there will be fairness at every level.
Keep up the good work.

Re-direct ...
 

... to the thread entitled "Douglas GM - Skater 399v - Ref Thread "Is APBA Arachnophobic?"

Speaks volumes ...

Peace.