enginerd Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 This recent pair of rulebook updates (window film / X-bar clarification) were published, and it looks like both of them will be revised. This is obviously a situation we would like to avoid. A logical solution to this would be to form a small committee of detail oriented members (engineers / grammar nerds / etc.) to proofread any new changes to the rulebook to make sure that the new rule or rule change is being clearly and completely conveyed. The committee wouldn't make or change any rules, they would just make sure that the wording and intent of any new change is clear and professional. With this extra layer, once a rule is released it won't need to be re-released a week later. Those are my thoughts... I decided it would be more productive to come up with a potential solution than just sit back and say "the wording in that new rule is unclear!" 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogtired Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 I'm sure Mike and Crew would welcome volunteers. ... All day, every day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xph Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 maybe we just have the board approve the rule changes before they are published... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDChristianson Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 Not a bad idea. I do think you're truly optimistic that a rule can be worded in such a way that it's clear to everyone. And seriously nothing personal but the engineering profession isn't really know for their communication skills. There are exceptions.....:) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Team Infiniti Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, JDChristianson said: a rule can be worded in such a way that it's clear to everyone Never can happen When there is advantage to misreading a rule some folks install "clarity filters" on themselves to suit personal needs, when caught they cry "vague" Edited April 13, 2017 by Team Infiniti 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee Chris Huggins Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 I volunteer. There needs to be a committee as indicated though - helps avoid the interpreting or wording to suit personal needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee mcoppola Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 29 minutes ago, JDChristianson said: Not a bad idea. I do think you're truly optimistic that a rule can be worded in such a way that it's clear to everyone. And seriously nothing personal but the engineering profession isn't really know for their communication skills. There are exceptions.....:) I respectfully disagree with this. I also would volunteer to be on the review and/or writing committee. I don't mean to blow smoke up my behind, but as we speak, a portion of my job is writing Technical instruction manuals for processes and procedures that are performed by our mechanics and technicians to do their jobs safely and efficiently. Having a mechanical and engineering understanding of the procedure (or rule in this case), and articulating it in a way that is not misconstrued are key factors in preparing comprehensive instruction manuals and rule sets. @enginerd This sounds like a great idea to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindspin311 Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 I thought there was a committee.... EVERYONE ON CHUMP STAFF? How do these changes go through Mike, the Regional directors, Board of Directors, the guy "writing" the rule, the guy typing up the update, the guy publishing the update.... BUT SOMEHOW THEY FORGOT TO PUT THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE RULE IN THE MOST RECENT RULESET. Because the guy hasn't actually written the rule.. How the crap did we publish a "new rule", then somehow admit that the rule hasn't been written yet? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Race Control chisek Posted April 13, 2017 Race Control Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 10 hours ago, enginerd said: This recent pair of rulebook updates (window film / X-bar clarification) were published, and it looks like both of them will be revised. Not sure where you got this impression, but the rule updates were discussed by Phil and I, written and published. They are done. If someone has a question on any rule, they are encouraged to email tech or myself and request a clarification, as has always been the policy. And you are correct that the entire staff does discuss these things and review them before publication. In many cases, we even toss it out in front of a few teams for feedback as well. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDChristianson Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 Wow people need to chill. The end of the world is not hanging on this. @mcoppola I knew I was treading thin ice there. 1st I did say there are exceptions. 2nd I think it a good idea. 3rd I still think it's optimistic. I'd volunteer to help as well. (Even though I only have a lowly Finance and business background and I think calculus may be the work of the devil.). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewheelerZ Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 1 minute ago, JDChristianson said: Wow people need to chill. The end of the world is not hanging on this. @mcoppola I knew I was treading thin ice there. 1st I did say there are exceptions. 2nd I think it a good idea. 3rd I still think it's optimistic. I'd volunteer to help as well. (Even though I only have a lowly Finance and business background and I think calculus may be the work of the devil.). Nah, that's not thin ice. Its just that truth hurts sometimes! Disclaimer: Im an engineer, but not one of the technical/complex formula type, all I do is move rocks from one place to another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee mcoppola Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 @JDChristianson Wow, sorry if my post came across the wrong way... I didn't take your comments as being offensive at all, I think you were spot on about some engineers, and you left the caveat "there are exceptions". I smiled as I read yours, and my post was made in a "happily constructive manner" to offer assistance if needed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee mcoppola Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, chisek said: Not sure where you got this impression, but the rule updates were discussed by Phil and I, written and published. They are done. If someone has a question on any rule, they are encouraged to email tech or myself and request a clarification, as has always been the policy. And you are correct that the entire staff does discuss these things and review them before publication. In many cases, we even toss it out in front of a few teams for feedback as well. Thanks for the feedback Mike @chisek but the gusset rule is still extremely vague. Phil's drawing (below), or a description of his interpretation of an acceptable gusset, as specified below, should be included to inform readers what type of gusset is required. Edited April 13, 2017 by mcoppola 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee Chris Huggins Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 ^ Also, As discussed before, those gussets are really in the wrong place to reinforce the weak intersection of those two bars. They need to be Top and Bottom to do what you are indicating you want done. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee Andrew D Johnson Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, JDChristianson said: Wow people need to chill. The end of the world is not hanging on this. This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee mcoppola Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 9 minutes ago, Huggy said: ^ Also, As discussed before, those gussets are really in the wrong place to reinforce the weak intersection of those two bars. They need to be Top and Bottom to do what you are indicating you want done. Like this... (Thanks Huggy, for agreeing with my thinking in the X bar thread.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mender Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 Nice cage, and oh look, there's room for a 22 gallon fuel cell on the other side of the car ... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee mcoppola Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 ^^^LOL - just LOL.... (knew you'd recognize this car...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogtired Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 1 hour ago, thewheelerZ said: Nah, that's not thin ice. Its just that truth hurts sometimes! Disclaimer: Im an engineer, but not one of the technical/complex formula type, all I do is move rocks from one place to another. You drive a gravel train? Sweet! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enginerd Posted April 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, mcoppola said: Thanks for the feedback Mike @chisek but the gusset rule is still extremely vague. Phil's drawing (below), or a description of his interpretation of an acceptable gusset, as specified below, should be included to inform readers what type of gusset is required. Exactly! The new rule simply states that X-design with gussets is OK. But it completely misses one aspect of what Phil was talking about: That if you have two complete bars which make an X shape, you don't need gussets! (shown in the picture) It also doesn't say anything about the gussets themselves. I don't think a 2sq. in. piece of triangular 1/8" steel will be approved as a door bar gusset (Phil's drawing specifies 6" long gussets). 1 hour ago, chisek said: Not sure where you got this impression, but the rule updates were discussed by Phil and I, written and published. They are done. If someone has a question on any rule, they are encouraged to email tech or myself and request a clarification, as has always been the policy. This is the part that I take issue with. The rulebook should be written clearly enough that this is not the "go to" response. I acknowledge that there will always be some questions which aren't covered and writing a rulebook to cover every possible scenario would be impractical. But this particular rule falls well short of being "sufficiently detailed". Edited April 13, 2017 by enginerd 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee mcoppola Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 Darn I can't put another like on the 2nd (edited) part of this post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hi_Im_Will Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 11 hours ago, enginerd said: This recent pair of rulebook updates (window film / X-bar clarification) were published, and it looks like both of them will be revised. This is obviously a situation we would like to avoid. A logical solution to this would be to form a small committee of detail oriented members (engineers / grammar nerds / etc.) to proofread any new changes to the rulebook to make sure that the new rule or rule change is being clearly and completely conveyed. The committee wouldn't make or change any rules, they would just make sure that the wording and intent of any new change is clear and professional. With this extra layer, once a rule is released it won't need to be re-released a week later. Those are my thoughts... I decided it would be more productive to come up with a potential solution than just sit back and say "the wording in that new rule is unclear!" Problem with recruiting engineers is EVERY engineer thinks they are a fantastic technical writer, but most are not. Actually, I think technical writing is one of those things where 85+% of people (engineer or not) firmly believe they are above average. Even within industry, there are frequently disputes over SOWs - especially when they're written in a rush. You should see some of the unintelligible crap written into those documents that suppliers/management will invariably try to "re-interpret" in their favor. And of course the writer always thinks the thing is crystal clear. Even using a commitee style writing has issues, as one loud "writer" who doesn't know what they're doing can easily muddy the whole doc. The good writers come up with something concise, then loudguy disagrees, and everybody else just gives in and tries to make loudguy's writing "clear enough". It's a miserable process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee Andrew D Johnson Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, Hi_Im_Will said: Problem with recruiting engineers is EVERY engineer thinks they are a fantastic technical writer, but most are not. I guess I am not an engineer then, as I am not a good technical writer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Advisory Committee mcoppola Posted April 13, 2017 Technical Advisory Committee Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 3 hours ago, mcoppola said: I don't mean to blow smoke up my behind, but as we speak, a portion of my job is writing Technical instruction manuals for processes and procedures that are performed by our mechanics and technicians to do their jobs safely and efficiently. 24 minutes ago, Hi_Im_Will said: Problem with recruiting engineers is EVERY engineer thinks they are a fantastic technical writer, but most are not. Actually, I think technical writing is one of those things where 85+% of people (engineer or not) firmly believe they are above average. ..,one loud "writer" who doesn't know what they're doing.,,, Whatchyou talkin about Will(is)?!!?!! I AM good! Ain't I talkin loud enough fo you to unnerstann???? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDChristianson Posted April 13, 2017 Report Share Posted April 13, 2017 hey I watch Big Bang, I know how you engineers are 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.