Nurburgring Re Do or Local Events it s up to you

[Herrsss]

Did the VOA organization donate and how was that money or time or whatever utilized during this endeavor?

Tony,

The VOA donated $2500 in exchange for several live and silent auction items that were sold at NVE3. The proceeds from those auction items exceeded the cost of that investment and earned money for the club.

Prior to making the donation it was presented to the board who then approved it. It would have been odd if the only active Viper Club decided not to help in this effort.

What happened after that is just a matter of unfortunate circumstances between those two parties and the club is not going to get involved impugning or supporting either party. This is not the direction the club would have wanted us to go if it was our event but the two parties need to decide for themselves.

Beth

[TrackAire]

Now that's a docket I'd be interested in reading. What the hell...

Some subcontractors are good at screwing you....obviously these two were pros.

[Loud]

Would love to see an actual in depth accounting of how and where all the money raised for this track record attempt/ego trip/international vacation for lucky few was spent.

Now, this would clear a lot of other unanswered questions, but I doubt it’ll ever be released.

[chris1992]

Not to muddy the waters, but I noticed something today while watching the Nurburgring lap record. Do the ACR’s run a taller rear end than the other models? Or was this done for the Ring attempt?

I pulled the following shift points from the video linked below;

2nd to 3rd: 173kph (106mph)
3rd to 4th: 227kph (142mph)
4th to 5th: 263kph (164mph)

[Scott_in_fl]

Always fun to watch that video. Cars looked amazing in that natural element, sounded awesome, and seemed to carry some great corner speeds. Would have been nice though if that front tire profile was not so "rubber band" thin.

[Arizona Vipers]

Not to muddy the waters, but I noticed something today while watching the Nurburgring lap record. Do the ACR’s run a taller rear end than the other models? Or was this done for the Ring attempt?

I pulled the following shift points from the video linked below;

2nd to 3rd: 173kph (106mph)
3rd to 4th: 227kph (142mph)
4th to 5th: 263kph (164mph)

Can you see the RPM's as well?

[chris1992]

Can you see the RPM's as well?

Not too clearly. He banged the rev limiter at 277kph (173mph) in 4th gear here. The needle looks to be around 6400rpm.

Attachment 45381
A8351BC6-EA0B-4349-8AB4-DAA1A8EE28F5.jpg

[RedTanRT/10]

Not to muddy the waters, but I noticed something today while watching the Nurburgring lap record. Do the ACR’s run a taller rear end than the other models? Or was this done for the Ring attempt?

I pulled the following shift points from the video linked below;

2nd to 3rd: 173kph (106mph)
3rd to 4th: 227kph (142mph)
4th to 5th: 263kph (164mph)

Chris, speedometers usually read anywhere from 1.5% to 3% high. The speeds in your post are 15%-19% higher. I can't explain the difference and didn't look at the dash like you did. If your numbers are accurate then a lower numerically diff or an ECU flash which raises the max RPM could be the answer?

Here's a speed in gear chart for a '14 TA. These are from a test probably using a VBox, not the dash speedo. I think the 1st 4 ratio's are the same as an ACR

speed in gear viper.png

[chris1992]

Chris, speedometers usually read anywhere from 1.5% to 3% high. The speeds in your post are 15%-19% higher. I can't explain the difference and didn't look at the dash like you did. If your numbers are accurate then a lower numerically diff or an ECU flash which raises the max RPM could be the answer?

Here's a speed in gear chart for a '14 TA. These are from a test probably using a VBox, not the dash speedo. I think the 1st 4 ratio's are the same as an ACR

speed in gear viper.png

The rev limiter doesn’t look like it was touched from the naked eye, but it does seem like a taller rear gear was thrown in.

Also to note: I was basing the shift points off the GPS speed indicated above the lap time.

The video below does a better job showing the dash readout, which indicates a slightly lower speed than the GPS.

[chris1992]

The car looks to be reading 167kph (104mph) at the top of 2nd here.

5DC6EDC2-B7B8-4B28-BEBC-072E6A241979.jpgA820BD66-2B34-4073-BF67-D1ACCF30CF01.jpg

[Arizona Vipers]

The car looks to be reading 167kph (104mph) at the top of 2nd here.

If that's the case then the redline has to be a lot higher. That would make more sense than them changing the diff gears...

[SRT_BluByU]

L]that picture looks right at 6400rpm redline

[ClayR]

I recently saw the posts by Clay Robbins on this thread. I would like to give those who are interested my opinion on the dispute and point to the facts.
Our efforts to set the world record at the Nurburgring with a Viper ACR took a year of planning and over $600,000 in cars, parts, and cash. Some of the money was raised by selling sponsorships on the cars. There were several large sponsors, like Kumho Tire and The Viper Exchange / BJ Motors and numerous smaller sponsors. We hired a photographer to take pictures that we could use to entice sponsorships or for publication in magazines, etc. Each sponsor contract was negotiated to either include photographs taken by our photographer or not. Anyone could have gone to the track at their own expense and taken all the pictures they wanted. The agreement with Mr. Robbins was specific. At first, he requested a license for all of the photographs we hired, but in the end, for the money he was willing to spend, he accepted a license for ONE picture. When I learned that he was using at least a dozen of our photographs, some of which were used for the promotion of his dealership on its website and in posts, I contacted him and politely asked him to stop. His response was F. U. He told me if we took any action to enforce our agreement, he was going to “flame” me on the forums and tell people that our effort was a fraud. Only then did I have a lawsuit drafted. I tried one more time to resolve the infringement with him, sending him a copy of the lawsuit and telling him that if he didn’t stop, I would file the suit. He again, knowing that he was using all the pictures but only had a license to ONE picture, continued to use them. So I filed the suit.
Mr. Robbins suggests the lawsuit was frivolous. The litigation is public record. The judge in this case, Judge Teeter, was appointed by President Trump to the Kansas federal court and practiced intellectual property law (which includes patent, trademark and copyright law) prior to being on the bench. Mr. Robbins’ lawyers argued that Mr. Robbins did not copy our photographs and had a license to all of the photographs he used. Mr. Robbins’ lawyers claimed the agreements were “backdated” and invalid. Mr. Robbins’ lawyers claimed we didn’t own the photographs. Mr. Robbins’ lawyers claimed his use was “fair.” The judge considered all of these arguments and rejected them. The judge found Mr. Robbins infringed our copyrights to more than a dozen photographs. How were our claims frivolous or “baseless” when the judge found in our favor and found Mr. Robbins and his company infringers?
The primary issues that remained were willfulness and damages (which the constitution says must be decided by a jury). Mr. Robbins faced the possibility that his infringement would be deemed willful, which (under the Copyright Act) exposed his company and him personally to more than a million dollars in statutory damages and the payment of our legal fees. We did not reach-out to him to settle immediately before the trial. After the finding of infringement and the rejection of so many of his defenses, his insurance company reached-out to us. Robbins tried to tell you that his insurance company was just trying to get rid of this as a nuisance claim. Tell me, what insurance company settles for $285,0000 unless they see the possibility of damages in excess of the settlement figure? In my opinion insurance companies fight to the bitter end unless they are confident that their insured was clearly in the wrong.
As far as the $285,000 goes, $140,000 went to legal expenses and another $40,000 went to taxes. I went on these boards and asked everybody (go back and check) whether they wanted the remaining money to be spent on local Viper events or another attempt at the Ring. The responses were all over the place and some of them bordered on hostile. Several members thought that I should give the money to charity, so that’s what I did.
As to the claim that the car was in some way modified improperly, that’s the reason that “Road & Track” and “Bridge to Gantry” were present as independent third-party observers. We never hid the fact that various modifications were made for safety. I am stunned at the things that are brought up on this board such as Dick Winkles had a computer attached to the ECU. In the 21-minute video, you may have heard Dominic Farnbacher talking to a crew member after a failed attempt. The fasten seat belt warning was dinging in the background. Dick Winkles was trying to find a way to shut it off. He also had to trouble shoot various issues with o2 sensors, etc. One thing that Mr. Robbins was straightforward about -- his promise to “flame” me and tell everybody that the entire effort was a fraud.
Finally, those who were either there or followed it closely know that I had put a year of time into organizing the attempt as well as putting in thousands of dollars of my own money. I did not personally make a dime on the effort or the litigation. I worked tirelessly to make this happen. For others to ANONYMOUSLY malign me on this thread without knowing the facts is most disappointing. As an aside, before this attempt, there were people who derided Viper Exchange for giving us 2 cars to use. Those people said that VE would sell the cars for huge money and that it wasn’t motivated by good intent. Instead, one of those cars came back in a coffin, valueless. Huge money had to be spent to make it sellable. I wonder how much VE made on that car?
I appreciate all the support that many in the community have given me and ask that if you think Mr. Robbin’s description of events is accurate, that you read the filings from the federal lawsuit online and make your own decision. In my opinion it could all have been avoided if Mr. Robbins honored the deal he negotiated at the outset, or even if when confronted prior to the lawsuit he agreed to pay a license fee.

I'm not going to reply point by point but, BULLSHIT. I'm just glad you agreed to not having a non disclosure agreement. I am happy to read most of these responses. This ordeal really shook my faith in people. A lot of you know me and know what I am about and I appreciate it.

[ClayR]

A lot of people sue on principles. But principles get very expensive according to my attorney.

I use to bring this up when we would argue over a commission. My father told me, "you can't spend principle. This was not about principle because Mr. Oasis doesn't really have any in my humble opinion."

[ClayR]

You missed the part where his attorney charged $2,500/hour, with a 10 hour minimum haha

Richard, my lawyer, graduated #1 in his Harvard law class. He didn't want to settle but not for the money, he wanted to pay a small sum that was reasonable. Insurance companies unilaterally make decisions like this. They did the day before trial was to start. My lawyer got $250,000 for the case and he had another lawyer help him for at least a year.

[Ronin47]

I'm not going to reply point by point but, BULLSHIT. I'm just glad you agreed to not having a non disclosure agreement. I am happy to read most of these responses. This ordeal really shook my faith in people. A lot of you know me and know what I am about and I appreciate it.

Just out of curiosity since you brought this thread back from the dead. Did Oasis ask you to stop using the pics before he decided to sue you?

[FrankBarba]

Keep us informed ClayR.

[Mark1107]

Im on Clays side. Fuk the other party. Just like all of the Facebook bullshit over sensitive gen 3 betas the truth hurts. I can’t believe our club distanced itself from Facebook.

[viperBase1]

... I can’t believe our club distanced itself from Facebook.

Read their "Terms & Conditions" and Privacy Policy ..completely nutso. (IMO)

[Fatboy 18]

This thread is as bad as all VCA Chris Marshal stuff. There are No Winners here. What I can say personally is I will never respond to a crowd Go Fund me project again. The whole thing stinks.

[13COBRA]

Richard, my lawyer, graduated #1 in his Harvard law class. He didn't want to settle but not for the money, he wanted to pay a small sum that was reasonable. Insurance companies unilaterally make decisions like this. They did the day before trial was to start. My lawyer got $250,000 for the case and he had another lawyer help him for at least a year.

Who's Richard? lol

[ViperGeorge]

Read their "Terms & Conditions" and Privacy Policy ..completely nutso. (IMO)

Personally I don't use any of those platforms, never have, never will. They are all biased to the far left. Have you seen what they are doing to Parlar? Everyone should drop them and we should get rid of section 230. Maybe then the internet will be a fair platform. JMO

[commandomatt]

Personally I don't use any of those platforms, never have, never will. They are all biased to the far left. Have you seen what they are doing to Parlar? Everyone should drop them and we should get rid of section 230. Maybe then the internet will be a fair platform. JMO

They are trying to criminalize being a conservative. Our new administration will see to that they get the support they need.

[StrokerAce]

Personally I don't use any of those platforms, never have, never will. They are all biased to the far left. Have you seen what they are doing to Parlar? Everyone should drop them and we should get rid of section 230. Maybe then the internet will be a fair platform. JMO

This.

[Russ Oasis]

I note that Mr. Robbins is again trying to "flame me" on this board. Will will repost my reply from July, for those who may have missed it.
(Originally posted in July of 2020)
I recently saw the posts by Clay Robbins on this thread. I would like to give those who are interested my opinion on the dispute and point to the facts.
Our efforts to set the world record at the Nurburgring with a Viper ACR took a year of planning and over $600,000 in cars, parts, and cash. Some of the money was raised by selling sponsorships on the cars. There were several large sponsors, like Kumho Tire and The Viper Exchange / BJ Motors and numerous smaller sponsors. We hired a photographer to take pictures that we could use to entice sponsorships or for publication in magazines, etc. Each sponsor contract was negotiated to either include photographs taken by our photographer or not. Anyone could have gone to the track at their own expense and taken all the pictures they wanted. The agreement with Mr. Robbins was specific. At first, he requested a license for all of the photographs we hired, but in the end, for the money he was willing to spend, he accepted a license for ONE picture. When I learned that he was using at least a dozen of our photographs, some of which were used for the promotion of his dealership on its website and in posts, I contacted him and politely asked him to stop. His response was F. U. He told me if we took any action to enforce our agreement, he was going to “flame” me on the forums and tell people that our effort was a fraud. Only then did I have a lawsuit drafted. I tried one more time to resolve the infringement with him, sending him a copy of the lawsuit and telling him that if he didn’t stop, I would file the suit. He again, knowing that he was using all the pictures but only had a license to ONE picture, continued to use them. So I filed the suit.
Mr. Robbins suggests the lawsuit was frivolous. The litigation is public record. The judge in this case, Judge Teeter, was appointed by President Trump to the Kansas federal court and practiced intellectual property law (which includes patent, trademark and copyright law) prior to being on the bench. Mr. Robbins’ lawyers argued that Mr. Robbins did not copy our photographs and had a license to all of the photographs he used. Mr. Robbins’ lawyers claimed the agreements were “backdated” and invalid. Mr. Robbins’ lawyers claimed we didn’t own the photographs. Mr. Robbins’ lawyers claimed his use was “fair.” The judge considered all of these arguments and rejected them. The judge found Mr. Robbins infringed our copyrights to more than a dozen photographs. How were our claims frivolous or “baseless” when the judge found in our favor and found Mr. Robbins and his company infringers?
The primary issues that remained were willfulness and damages (which the constitution says must be decided by a jury). Mr. Robbins faced the possibility that his infringement would be deemed willful, which (under the Copyright Act) exposed his company and him personally to more than a million dollars in statutory damages and the payment of our legal fees. We did not reach-out to him to settle immediately before the trial. After the finding of infringement and the rejection of so many of his defenses, his insurance company reached-out to us. Robbins tried to tell you that his insurance company was just trying to get rid of this as a nuisance claim. Tell me, what insurance company settles for $285,0000 unless they see the possibility of damages in excess of the settlement figure? In my opinion insurance companies fight to the bitter end unless they are confident that their insured was clearly in the wrong.
As far as the $285,000 goes, $140,000 went to legal expenses and another $40,000 went to taxes. I went on these boards and asked everybody (go back and check) whether they wanted the remaining money to be spent on local Viper events or another attempt at the Ring. The responses were all over the place and some of them bordered on hostile. Several members thought that I should give the money to charity, so that’s what I did.
As to the claim that the car was in some way modified improperly, that’s the reason that “Road & Track” and “Bridge to Gantry” were present as independent third-party observers. We never hid the fact that various modifications were made for safety. I am stunned at the things that are brought up on this board such as Dick Winkles had a computer attached to the ECU. In the 21-minute video, you may have heard Dominic Farnbacher talking to a crew member after a failed attempt. The fasten seat belt warning was dinging in the background. Dick Winkles was trying to find a way to shut it off. He also had to trouble shoot various issues with o2 sensors, etc. One thing that Mr. Robbins was straightforward about -- his promise to “flame” me and tell everybody that the entire effort was a fraud.
Finally, those who were either there or followed it closely know that I had put a year of time into organizing the attempt as well as putting in thousands of dollars of my own money. I did not personally make a dime on the effort or the litigation. I worked tirelessly to make this happen. For others to ANONYMOUSLY malign me on this thread without knowing the facts is most disappointing. As an aside, before this attempt, there were people who derided Viper Exchange for giving us 2 cars to use. Those people said that VE would sell the cars for huge money and that it wasn’t motivated by good intent. Instead, one of those cars came back in a coffin, valueless. Huge money had to be spent to make it sellable. I wonder how much VE made on that car?
I appreciate all the support that many in the community have given me and ask that if you think Mr. Robbin’s description of events is accurate, that you read the filings from the federal lawsuit online and make your own decision. You'll find it here: https://casetext.com/case/viper-nurb...ins-motor-co-3
In my opinion it could all have been avoided if Mr. Robbins honored the deal he negotiated at the outset, or even if when confronted prior to the lawsuit he agreed to pay a license fee.