"Mark J. Andy" wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Mark Sirota wrote:
> > I continue to be befuddled about why there's such an uproar about this
> > stuff. Those people driving cars like this have a solution -- get
> > together and get the manufacturer to issue a TSB authorizing the
> > modification.
> >
> > If subframe connectors are so commonplace on Mustangs and Camarobirds,
> > start a letter writing campaign in those circles, and write to the
> > manufacturer, not to the SEB.
> >
> > If there are such reliability problems, then it's a manufacturer
> > problem, not an SCCA problem. Complain to the right people!
>
> So in these situations, which typically won't show up on the street
> because you're not at high rpm a lot, aren't handling at the limit, and
> don't have sticky DOT racing tires, you contend that a manufacturer will
> listen to a small number of people?
Okay, wait a second. Allegedly everyone in the world with a Mustang
already has subframe connectors, because on the street, the cars fall
apart without them. So the SCCA needs to allow them because all of
these existing street cars have no place to play.
Isn't *that* the issue? If everyone and their mother already has
subframe connectors on their Mustang, clearly that's enough people to
get the manufacturer to listen. If the aftermarket for this particular
part, which is only for longevity, is so large, then the manufacturer
has many more than a few autocrossers to listen to.
I can't believe I'm participating in the subframe discussion again.
Josh
>
> You're full of crap. I've spoken to the regional Chrysler rep about the
> neon motor mounts. His response was that they only regularly fail when
> the car is raced and said that supporting that use wasn't the point of
> TSBs. They know the problem exists, and they know it only affects 1% or
> whatever of their customers who are purposely using their product in a
> manner it wasn't designed for.
>
> So the obvious answer is to change something that ONLY APPLIES TO THE
> AFFECTED PEOPLE. That's the SCCA rules, unless I'm missing something.
> Yes, it means that we'd have to make an 'allowed modification list' with
> entries on a per car basis. That list doesn't have to be big, doesn't
> have to be difficult to manage, and could still satisfy 90% of the
> problems out there.
>
> Perhaps you could let those people who these problems affect and aren't
> befuddled do something that's good for them and doesn't affect you one
> way or another?
>
> Mark
|