"Pointless Rules" and BS - State Your Case Here!

[Ben Wilson]

Originally Posted by legend

the pointless rule that's shirting me today - I can't believe that they make companies put out bloody stupid disclaimers like "serving suggestion". FFS, its so bloody obvious that the corflakes box does not contain fresh milk and a bowl and strawberries. Do they really need to put that on there.

Next time you buy a bag of ice, have a look at the bag. It has nutritional information and a use by date on it....

[MATNESmotorsports]

Originally Posted by rowdytoot

so just to **** them now I take the lid off before I go through, wait for them to pull me up, put the lid back on for them, and then go " so, what happens if it falls off again when I walk over there..."

if you have an old cassette tape, bung it in ya pocket before you go through the check..........suddenly 10 tuff looking blokes appear and usher you away


MATT

[Ausrally]

This thread is about pointless rules that pertain to rallying. Franky i am not sure what ARCom, CAMS or anyone else can do to deal with airport scanners.

Come on you blokes back on track.....

[MATNESmotorsports]

sorry dallas but we are just useing CAMS rules as a guide to posting in here

what is good for the goose is good for the gander

MATT

[Brendan Mulhearn]

The requirement that a nav has to have a NAV licence to jump in the car with you. Doesn't do much for getting new blood into the sport. If it is a CAMS rally then your wanna be NAV has to commit $150 (more?) for a years licence just to try it out..BS. If only you could have someone new jump in to the nav seat for a stage just to see if they like it...possibility for some (lots?) of new blood into the sport.

[legend]

If I take 100 envelopes to the Post office and ask them to charge the postage to my postage account they tell me they can't accept them unless they are franked. But if I pay on credit card, they can accept them.

how does the method of payment affect whether or not their sorters can handle it?

now that's a pointless rule.

[truessman]

Here's a fine example... to CAMS' credit it was rectified fairly quickly..

Friend of mine is a regular club event competitor and has been working up to rallies (a few novice intro rallies under his belt). Sounds like the sort we need to attract!?
Organises a log book inspection.
Has log book rejected because the roll cage "doesn't comply" (was told it req extra bars) - cage was 6 point, single diag, with intrusion bars..
Points out according to 2010 CAMS Manual "yes it does"
Is told the Manual is wrong, the roll cage requirements have changed.
"But it complies with the manual"
"Doesn't matter - manual's wrong"
Inspector will not sign off log book application.
Required intervention from CAMS to straighten out logbook inspector.
Log book signed off

Shouldn't have happened in the first place though (thanks captain obvious!)...

Disclaimer - OK so this is a third party's (mine) account of what happened, but I'm pretty happy the facts are correct and got them from the horses mouth...

[J Payne]

Originally Posted by Jme

A biggest BS rule is turbo restrictors. a) they add to cost b) they serve no real purpose. c) they are rarely/never checked.

Damm right!! restrictors in a rallycar!?? Who thought of that sh t??
Feels like some do gooder has my car by the balls!!!!!

Harness rules!!! Out of date???????
Yet the ones in my 25 year old road car... Good to go....

[Marcus]

[quote=Brendan Mulhearn;236738]The requirement that a nav has to have a NAV licence to jump in the car with you. Doesn't do much for getting new blood into the sport. If it is a CAMS rally then your wanna be NAV has to commit $150 (more?) for a years licence just to try it out..BS. If only you could have someone new jump in to the nav seat for a stage just to see if they like it...possibility for some (lots?) of new blood into the sport.[/QUOTE

Yes, this. Nav licences have utterly NO reason to be like they are. It should be a simple pay the cash ($50-75 maximum), you get licence, you are away having fun. NO more.

Damm right!! restrictors in a rallycar!?? Who thought of that sh t??
Feels like some do gooder has my car by the balls!!!!!

You can kinda see the reasoning - stop 500 hp monsters with all ability to put every scrap to the ground from leaving the roads when they cant stop.

But the way they are doing it is wrong and the fact that those kinds of cars arent going to be built anyway. If you are seriosuly concerned they will, just insist on standard turbos, standard engines and a standard intake. There's only so much you can do under those circumstances but that's still going to be cheaper and the cars will still have more fun.

It's sad my old Forester XT on a dirt roads can well and truly outblast my STI easily. Sure the Forester takes a lot longer to stop and the 04 XT was an absurdly quick wagon..... but the point stands.

While a RWD will have traction issues and kill tyres with big hp, it's not like a well set up RWD with big hp is also going to reach big speeds. Hell, a ratty RX2 I had was pulling 7000 rpm in 5th, which equalled 220 kph, why is this not a concern?