Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinion

[Art A.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Todd, I've been there and done that, so you will see when I make a statement on an issue like this it WILL be followed with: Of course it's just my opinion!

Art

[Earl G.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Todd,

You have an evil mind, hehe.

If this thread or the posts on this board are still around or arhived, I would think a discover motion might be in order or maybe a subpoena (and guess who to), to provide any and all discussions regarding tires. Now that is just MHO.

Earl

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Oh it will be around. I sometimes spend time searching the archives myself - treasure trove of info. In fact I stumbled across threads that took nearly identical turns to the topic of this exact thread - the paradox of original tires, new brake hoses and driving.... Merely search for words like 'tires' and 'paradox' and 'safety' ... I'm not the first to note this but this is the first dedicated thread I have found.

This forum is regularly archived and available for ANYONE to peruse w/ no special permissions needed. Any spambot or lawyer can slither among them as much as they like. Thankfully our email addresses are NOT available!

[Todd H 26112]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

An interesting variety of opinions here regarding potential liability, if any.

In reading thru the messages, I seem to see two basic recurring themes or positions:

1) Common sense prevents this from being an issue therefore there is no potential risk or issue to NCRS regarding the practices encouraged thru the judging manuals. It's not realistic to protect ourselves from idiocy.

2) Judging guidelines should at least be 'considered' by NCRS decision makers from this perspective with respect to tires as safety equipment. In some cases, common sense is not always a sufficient defense in and of itself.

My take is that most of us tend to think of ourselves as having common sense and good judgment. But it seems like there is always one person and in an organization of 15,000 active members... what are the odds? And in the case of an unfortunate accident it only takes one. And the victim doesn't even have to be an NCRS member. It could be one of the millions of people NCRS members share the roadways with.

I also increasingly have a perception that any organizations putting themselves in positions to make SPECIFIC tire recomendations to a large group and encouraging specific behavior(s) regarding tires 'could', at the very least, be in a position of increased exposure. Particularly so in the wake of the recent Ford-Firestone drama and subsequently increased governmental and media scrutiny on the subject. I'm not saying it is so or will be. Merely it 'could' be an issue.

---

On another note I have received numerous personal off-board emails from folks. The general message I'll pass on from those messages is that folks seem to agree that the current manual(s) do indeed allow for an interpretive 'exposure' to what can be considered 'best-practices' and that this is an excellent topic worthy of consideration and discussion.

---

And finally, at this point I thought I'd share the following with folks...

In an ongoing dialogue offline, several folks seem interested in discussing some creative approaches and have rolled around a concept w/ me (I'm not the best person for this as I'm no judging expert! thus am passing it on) about a possible alternate approach to avoid safety exposures, genuinely encourage the safe driving of these vehicles while preserving originality. It suggests that cars which receive a 'mileage credit' may have a different type of scoring emphasis regarding tires from a car that does not receive mileage credit. It may not go as far as the existing radical free-pass for brake hoses but it would help alleviate a potential existing paradox. Several have suggested that perhaps a formula could exist that would grant equitable credit for 'original' or original-like tires on non mileage credit cars and 'roadworthy' tires on mileage-credit cars. That is, the greater emphasis is on originality in the one case and condition in the other case. The formula would be one that gives no specific strategic points advantage to either approach. In the case of mileage credit there would be explicit encouragement for operating a vehicle safely. An idea some have bounced off me...

Since I understand at least one discussion participant is eager to ascribe personal motives to me - let me add that I have none other than a desire to never see anyone hurt in an accident or my membership dues to go up one iota. Since I do not have my vehicles judged it is of no personal interest to me at that level either. Nor am I in the tire business in any way shape fashion or form. I do recognize that reproduction tire options do exist and I would like to see these options preserved, maintained and valued and perhaps quality and safety improved but of course all in a safe manner.

===

Further thoughts... opinions, insights, $0.02 worth or what have you?

[Bill Braun 33186]

Not much...

to do tonight, Todd?

Just to show you what a nice guy I am (someone who will protect you from all the big bad legal parasites), I'll take (all) your car(s) off you for the price of a $5 million dollar umbrella policy and buy you a tricycle.

Deal?



Bill 33186

[Bill Braun 33186]

Further thoughts? Yeah...

I'm gonna drop the ragtop, fire up the 427 and go for a drive. Legal parasites be damned!



Bill 33186

[Todd H 26112]

Actions or Words? Was: Further thoughts?...

"...fire up the 427 and go for a drive. Legal parasites be damned!"

So are you going to put your money where your mouth is and damn the legal parasites by doing this drive on 35 year old original tires in your show of solidarity?

[John M.]

Re: Further thoughts? Yeah...

Gentelmen,
Am I the only one who thinks that this is the silliest discussion to take place on this board since Scott Dixon? we are sitting around debating wether NCRS has any liability because they give no point deduct for original tires, and are extending that to mean that NCRS encourages people to drive on 45 year old tires! You want to talk about liability? Let's talk about NCRS encouraging us to drive an overpowered, under braked, fiberglass bodied, ancient technology, death trap! I am with John Hinkley 100% on this issue. What the hell has hapened to people being responsible for their own actions. The same thought process that would have NCRS modify their position on original tires for judging, would have the goverment legislate that all ladders should be sold with integrated safety nets in case you fall off, and require that all automobiles be built of several feet thick blocks of energy asorbing foam! There are those stupid individuals out there who will thwart even the most dilligent attempt to protect them from their own stupidity, and this should be only considered as "culling the herd". If we get to where we completely protect these people, they will continue to procreate until the world is full of nothing but stupid people! Unfortunately, they are gaining an upper hand as it is!

Regards, John McGraw

[Patrick H.]

Re: Further thoughts? Yeah...

John,

Since Scott Dixon??? You're getting low here. Well, someone else on the board is currently asking for a weight of a car.... Yellow Freight anyone?

Yes, I think it's silly. I said it right away - NCRS actually allows you to make up points BY DRIVING ON ANY TIRE YOU PLEASE to make up for any points you may have lost for that fact or any other. I even tried to make light of the discussion, but Todd didn't see it and it apparently backfired.

In a nutshell, I have figured out that it takes just over 33 miles of driving to make up for having correct branded service replacement tires of the "accepted" size (16 point loss) and about 133 miles to overcome the total loss of tire points if you have the wrong brand and the wrong size (60 point loss). If anyone wants to double check my math, please do so.

Make your choices.

Patrick

[Earl G.]

Re: Further thoughts? Yeah...

Patrick & John,

I think the two of you missed the point Todd was making. It is not about stupid people doing stupid things, that is a given. It is a matter of implied intent documented in the JG. We do live in a legal society and such things are real, ie. Pat do you carry malpractice insurance and why, same same. IMHO

Earl

[Patrick H.]

Re: Further thoughts? Yeah...

"Implied intent"

If I read this right, are you suggesting that if the manual stated explicitly:

"Don't be a dumb sh*t and drive on 30 (or 40 or 50) year old vintage tires to our meets. Please use modern street radials for your drive, and feel free to change tires and rims at the Judging Event Location without loss of mileage or Judging Credits"

it would be more reasonable?

Patrick

[John H.]

Re: Vintage Corvettes, Tires & Safety: Your Opinio

Bill -

I've always had a problem expressing my true feelings.....

[Earl G.]

Yup, it would CYA *NM*

[John M.]

Re: Further thoughts? Yeah...

Earl,
I did not miss the point of this string, but you obviously missed the point of my post. If an argument can be made that NCRS encourages driving on old rotten tires (and I dont think any such conclusion could be drawn by a reasonalbe person), then this is the least of their problems. NCRS actively encourages us to drive what is arguably one of the most dangerous cars in the world! I would agree that litigation has run amok in our society and is in danger of destroying the very essence of what has made this country great, personal reward for your accomplishments and personal responsibility for your mistakes!

Regards, John McGraw

[Jack H.]

Implied intent?????????

That issue is so gossamer, it's laughable. Tell me ANY NCRS (a private club) event you can attend with executing a BOLDFACE hold harmless agreement. The entire issue here (subtilities as to how many legal angels can dance on the head of a pin, in what court, under what jurisdiction) is made a mote point by club policy requiring members to sign away their legal recourse rights....