So who needs TCP?

disclaimers of warranty and limitations of liability

Opentracker said:
warning.jpg


Would this work? I bet it would scare off a few folks.


John

I like the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability found on products like the Happy Fun Ball.


Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children should avoid
prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball.

Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.

Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which if exposed due to rupture
should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.

Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.

Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs:

* Itching

* Vertigo

* Dizziness

* Tingling in extremities

* Loss of balance or coordination

* Slurred speech

* Temporary blindness

* Profuse Sweating

or

* Heart palpitations

If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter
and cover head.

Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin.

When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special container
and kept under refrigeration.

Failure to do so relieves the makers of Happy Fun Ball, Wacky Products
Incorporated, and its parent company, Global Chemical Unlimited, of
any and all liability.

Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an unknown glowing substance which
fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.

Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is
also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Happy Fun Ball comes with a lifetime guarantee.
 
  • Sponsors (?)


Here is where I found it. It's on a Watts Likage from Evolution Motorsports. I made my own Watts Linkage for the early cars. I could make up a few of those if the lawyers will let me do it, I only make them for ours and friends cars now. I do sell some of the roller bearing perches I make but that is limited also. I don't want go through a ring of fire to share what I have learned about racing these cars.

The disclaimer on our Coffee maker is a page long.

John
 
bnickel said:
man you 2 guys (john and gram) should get together on some of this stuff, i'd bet that you guys could up with some stuff that would blow tcp's stuff out of the water


It sounds like they already have the front and rear suspensions worked out between themselves. Throw in some subframe connectors and they just about have a company.
 
I dropped all my parts off to the powdercoaters today,(spent all day yesterday in the recliner with flash burned eyes...that will teach me to weld without the helmet) and he said he would have everything done for me by the 18th.

Opentracker, I understand what you're saying. However my view point on all this, is to just get it done and see what happens. Our parts will have the disclaimer, we will get insurance, and go for it.

Gram
 
My favorite disclaimer ever is on mouth pieces I buy for my boxers:

"warning boxing is a contact sport" FREAKIN DUH!
"Improper use could cause injury" HEY NUMB NUTS IT'S BOXING PROPER USE CAN CAUSE INJURY.

What kind of a world have we come to when you have to explain to people that they might get hit boxing.
 
eric n said:
My favorite disclaimer ever is on mouth pieces I buy for my boxers:

"warning boxing is a contact sport" FREAKIN DUH!
"Improper use could cause injury" HEY NUMB NUTS IT'S BOXING PROPER USE CAN CAUSE INJURY.

What kind of a world have we come to when you have to explain to people that they might get hit boxing.

You live in Cali, why aren't you used to this?
 
eric n said:
My favorite disclaimer ever is on mouth pieces I buy for my boxers:

"warning boxing is a contact sport" FREAKIN DUH!
"Improper use could cause injury" HEY NUMB NUTS IT'S BOXING PROPER USE CAN CAUSE INJURY.

What kind of a world have we come to when you have to explain to people that they might get hit boxing.
Ask the lawyers, they have been screwing the world up for years and the result is no personal responsibility or common sense are expected anymore. If you don't consider every possible use/misuse of something and make sure that you explain it very carefully to every idiot in the world then some lawyer is going to find a moron who batantly misused a product and because you would never have thought anyone, even someone with an IQ of 10, would ever try something so STUPID and you did not forewarn them then you are going to be sued for everything you own.
 
dolfan87 said:
If I am remebering correctly, the only difference in the Granada spindles is the tie rod ends. Ball joints are the same yes?

If the geometery is the same on the Mustang/Granada spindles, then I see no problem with using them.

jerry s, thank you for that post. You have provided some great information, and it's much appreciated.

87


I do remember something from quite a while back about the Global West arms NOT working with Granada spindles. The problem, IIRC, was ball joint bind. Might be something to check out.
 
Ronstang said:
Ask the lawyers, they have been screwing the world up for years and the result is no personal responsibility or common sense are expected anymore.

Personally, I blame the juries. Lawyers don't decide a case or make an award of damages. They only make the arguments for or against a particular position. Then a jury of everyday, salt of the earth, people, decide which side is right and determines the award of damages if any.
 
jerry S said:
Personally, I blame the juries. Lawyers don't decide a case or make an award of damages. They only make the arguments for or against a particular position. Then a jury of everyday, salt of the earth, people, decide which side is right and determines the award of damages if any.
That's a cop out and you know it. Lawyers push all the stupid lawsuits and considering that you guys are taught to win not to be "right" it is no wonder that the direction things are heading is bleak.
 
Ronstang said:
That's a cop out and you know it. Lawyers push all the stupid lawsuits and considering that you guys are taught to win not to be "right" it is no wonder that the direction things are heading is bleak.
Juries, yes.. Lawyers, yes I agree with that too. Or you could blame the government, for being in the lawyers' pocket and refusing to pass tort reform.

There's plenty of blame to go around. :notnice:
 
Ronstang said:
That's a cop out and you know it. Lawyers push all the stupid lawsuits and considering that you guys are taught to win not to be "right" it is no wonder that the direction things are heading is bleak.

an extrapolation of your argument would be that the blame for murder lies with the gun and not the killer.
 
Ronstang said:
That's a cop out and you know it. Lawyers push all the stupid lawsuits and considering that you guys are taught to win not to be "right" it is no wonder that the direction things are heading is bleak.

He's right. The problem is that people do not want the personal resposibilities freedom entails: they simply seek a just master. Lawyers are simply the means to the end, but they can't make the decisions for the juries.
 
Hack said:
Juries, yes.. Lawyers, yes I agree with that too. Or you could blame the government, for being in the lawyers' pocket and refusing to pass tort reform.

There's plenty of blame to go around. :notnice:

You think lawyers are gonna lawyer against lawyers? Most politicians are lawyers and they love the little game called the "Litigation Lottery" because it keeps all the scumbags (lawyers) with cash in their pocket.
 
gp001 said:
You think lawyers are gonna lawyer against lawyers? Most politicians are lawyers and they love the little game called the "Litigation Lottery" because it keeps all the scumbags (lawyers) with cash in their pocket.
Sorry, but I have to continue the OT rant. I am excited about the suspension, though. :D

I think part of the problem is also that the general public has an entitlement mentality, and many people dream about winning the litigation lottery themselves. So the public really doesn't put any pressure on government to fix things.

It's really sad how many small and even larger companies have been sued out of existance. Big tobacco and the firearm companies look to be next. :nonono:
 
dolfan87 said:
We did not lower the upper arm. While doing the initial mock up, and cycling the suspension, we found no reason to do it. It is (lowering the arm) intended to introduce more negative camber throughout the cycle, but with the upper arm shortened, we had an almost ideal camber curve leaving the arm where it was.

Ball joint angles were acceptable for us both dropped out and bottomed out. Everything looks good for now, just have to get the thing tested out.

87
What year mustang did you do the mock up on ?
 
Fresh meat Cliff

dolfan87 said:
We did not lower the upper arm. While doing the initial mock up, and cycling the suspension, we found no reason to do it. It is (lowering the arm) intended to introduce more negative camber throughout the cycle, but with the upper arm shortened, we had an almost ideal camber curve leaving the arm where it was.

Ball joint angles were acceptable for us both dropped out and bottomed out. Everything looks good for now, just have to get the thing tested out.

87
What year mustang did you do the mock up on ?