Tom,
Even though the way you first wrote it did leave open a slight possibility
of misunderstanding, I knew exactly what you meant the first time. I truly
hate to see a guy feel like he's done something wrong when he has not!
It's very clear that when and if the TAC inspectors don't find enough
evidence to authenticate a particular car, they will just say so and walk
away from it -- end of story. It's also very clear that the TAC registry is
not meant to list unverifiable or questionable cars in any way. I think the
potential liability issues such a (thankfully nonexistent) list would cause
would be quite astounding in today's highly litigious society. I think that
the way they've been doing TACs is a very fair and safe way to do it. Of
course, I realize that opinions like mine are like a certain body part
(everybody has one). Cheers. Mauro
On 3/23/10 1:46 AM, "Thomas Witt" <atwittsend@verizon.net> wrote:
> My apology to anyone in the TAC community if my words appeared to
> misrepresented the group.
>
>>>> In the end it could be possible that they may not issue a TAC sticker yet
>>>> not define the car as an "Alger."<<<
>
> I did not intend to imply that TAC declared cars as Algers. I was merely
> trying to differentiate a real Tiger that might not show enough evidence (if
> even possible) to receive a TAC sticker from an Alpine with Tiger parts that
> is commonly known by the term "Alger." To that end I had initially used the
> word "declare" in place of "define." On my second read through before I hit
> Send, I changed it to "define" in hopes of not giving the wrong impression.
>
>>>> I believe their primary intention is to disqualify cars that are
>>>> obviously Alpines with transferred Tiger parts.<<<
>
> In the same way the inverse of "disqualify cars that are obviously Alpines
> with transferred Tiger parts" means that only Tigers received the TAC
> sticker.
>
> We all have different ways of saying the same thing. I'm married. Ask the
> man who knows. :-)
>
> Tom W.
> I believe their primary intention is to disqualify cars that are
> obviously Alpines with transferred Tiger parts. In the end it could be
> possible that they may not issue a TAC sticker yet not define the car as an
> "Alger."
>
> For the umpteenth time, No one in the TAC community ever labels anything
> with it's certification other than Tigers. The failing of a TAC inspection
> in no way brands the vehicle as an "Alger" or any other "thing". There are
> other considerations, but body panels, floor panels, etc. are not normally
> reasons for TAC rejection. Be aware that attempting to convert an early
> Tiger into a MkII for its potential increase in value, is also not viewed as
> an appropriate "repair".
>
>
> Tom Hall
> ModTiger Engineering LLC
> www.tigerengineering.net
> _______________________________________________
> Tigers@autox.team.net
> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage:
> http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/tigers/m_dangelo@verizon.net
_______________________________________________
Tigers@autox.team.net
Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
|