Any results from NOPI?

First topic message reminder :

just like the topic said.

I would still ike to know why Ralph as had nothing to say on this. If Ralph had a reason to make the ruling that this was legal why has he not came on and informed us of excalty why he made this decision.

If the boss man said its legal than how can it not be? Its his decision on the rules.

yes but arent we a governing body there is a r and e board in place i mean he can still tell them to shut up, but damm rules are rules and they get broke people get slapped look at atomic they been banned for 3 years now for breaking the rules just dont see how soemthing in writting called rules can be overlooked is all.

the no seats thing was to keep cargo vans out of stock, it was just worded poorly,imo.i fail to see how i took a drag car to a go-cart race! i ran 2 18s(same surface area as 3 15s or 6 12s) with 24 powermaster batts(easily fits in the 36" bed rule) and 8,yes only 8> pd 2000.1s if i recall most ps 3000+ guys ran 12 or more amps of this nature or 6 monster Gluteus Maximus amps. now can you fit all that in a crx? HELL NO! but in a mini, no problem. if you measure the usable space in a mini and the space i used in the van, i'll put money on it they are within 6" of each other and if thats the problem, i GAURANTY you i can fit it all without the extra 6 in.

charlesestes wrote:

the no seats thing was to keep cargo vans out of stock,

Forgetting for a second how much space you actually used. What's the difference in using a cargo van and using the van you used? Maybe I'm just missing something here, but it seems to me, in the way you used the van, they are almost exactly the same thing.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

TeamSpead-Kenny wrote:

Fields Marvin SPL STREET BEAT SB4 157.4

Some is getting louder i see!!!

What's up Kenny? I said before there is a number I'm chasing

i dont see how anyone can say the rules are poorly worded in this case.

before i post what the rule says, i will post what it says before you go into the rules, here it is.

"The rules set forth on this site shall be used by the USACI official(s) and/or judging staff at all USACI Outlaw SPL sanctioned events. It is the responsibility of such officials and staff to adhere to these rules to the best of their ability. In consideration of that, each competitor should read these rules and have a thorough understanding of their meaning when designing or improving a competition mobile audio system. The rules herein contained, supersede any and all previously written USACI Outlaw SPL, Advanced SQ or Basic SQ rules or guidelines. USACI reserves the right to make written amendments to these rules without prior written notification to its members. USACI will however, make every effort to notify active members via the Internet and/or by distributing any written changes during the registration process of a sanctioned USACI Outlaw contest. Internet notification will be via the Official USACI Web site at: www.soundoff.org."

so with that being said, the rule book should have been used in this case, as with any case, not just what the director feels like it (even if it is ralph as the judge, the rule book should still be used and followed unless it has chaged), and if the rules have changed, why was no one notified. charles you said a few weeks ago you were doinf a prostock vehicle, im sure you read the rules, and if you did you probably read the same thing we did, and if you did that you would see that according to the rules on the website, which we are supposed to use (not just change unless the HBG is going to let everyone know) then im sure you got the ok weeks ago to do this...so.... why wasnt everyone else notified the rules changed, if, in fact they did?


so anyways back to what i was originally going to say, this is what the book says

"Vans and SUV’s that are originally manufactured without rear seats cannot compete in the Stock division."

i dont see how that is poorly written, it says it black and white what the rule is


but another thing i would say on the vehicle used, i dont know of any handicapped vans that are made into handicapped vehicles from the factory, especially not late 80's caravans, maybe they do now, but as far as i know these types of vehicles come from the factory as a normal vehicle you would see on any car lot, but instead of going to the car lot they go straight to the aftermarket shop for the modifications, like taking out the rear seats, installing the whellchair ramp etc.

so my guess would be it did not come from the factory with no seats in it, that would have been done at the aftermarket shop.


another thing i would have a question about, there is no guidance in the rules, so i would have to ask, what about he side sliding passenger door, even if there were no rear passenger seats and they vehicle is in fact legal for stock, would'nt all parts of the system have to be behind this door?


but anyways, Ralph, if the rules have changed and these vans are now legal, please let us know like it sas in the rules that you will do in a timley matter (like last week or whenever you decided this was now legal) so we can get to building

chucky chucky hmmm you say your van has a lift on the rear end of it what year van is it man and the vin number i got a buddy that has carfax man lets get to the bottom of this cause this will prove all now ar you willing to put your money on that right thurrrrrrrr or not

kickerkevin im sure you going to be willing to run this one for me man with no issues can i get a oh hell yeah

charlesestes wrote:

the no seats thing was to keep cargo vans out of stock, it was just worded poorly,imo.i fail to see how i took a drag car to a go-cart race! i ran 2 18s(same surface area as 3 15s or 6 12s) with 24 powermaster batts(easily fits in the 36" bed rule) and 8,yes only 8> pd 2000.1s if i recall most ps 3000+ guys ran 12 or more amps of this nature or 6 monster Gluteus Maximus amps. now can you fit all that in a crx? HELL NO! but in a mini, no problem. if you measure the usable space in a mini and the space i used in the van, i'll put money on it they are within 6" of each other and if thats the problem, i GAURANTY you i can fit it all without the extra 6 in.

Im gonna have to disagree again. It all sounds good when you list it out, now lets look at it:



That is no means gonna fit in a mini and a crx could park in there. I know its not the same amps and batts but its not that big of a difference. I think another valid point (brought to our attention by Chad) and probably the most interesting made is how is there a box in front of the side door? You cant lay down the seat of an SUV and put a box behind the b pillar (even if it was a factory modified handicap equipped SUV ) But you can in this van. Simple as it gets how is this install in this van any different than what it would be in any other caravan? Well its not and I cant even really call it a loophole, just another mistake by Usaci that ends up with more money in their pocket.

man great points in deed


my offer stand vin# and we will car fax but oh yeah i need to take it out the van myself

Navi wrote:

charlesestes wrote:

the no seats thing was to keep cargo vans out of stock, it was just worded poorly,imo.i fail to see how i took a drag car to a go-cart race! i ran 2 18s(same surface area as 3 15s or 6 12s) with 24 powermaster batts(easily fits in the 36" bed rule) and 8,yes only 8> pd 2000.1s if i recall most ps 3000+ guys ran 12 or more amps of this nature or 6 monster Gluteus Maximus amps. now can you fit all that in a crx? HELL NO! but in a mini, no problem. if you measure the usable space in a mini and the space i used in the van, i'll put money on it they are within 6" of each other and if thats the problem, i GAURANTY you i can fit it all without the extra 6 in.

Im gonna have to disagree again. It all sounds good when you list it out, now lets look at it:



That is no means gonna fit in a mini and a crx could park in there. I know its not the same amps and batts but its not that big of a difference. I think another valid point (brought to our attention by Chad) and probably the most interesting made is how is there a box in front of the side door? You cant lay down the seat of an SUV and put a box behind the b pillar (even if it was a factory modified handicap equipped SUV ) But you can in this van. Simple as it gets how is this install in this van any different than what it would be in any other caravan? Well its not and I cant even really call it a loophole, just another mistake by Usaci that ends up with more money in their pocket.

Agreed, the part I changed to bold says it all....

my batts and amps dont pass the wheel well scott and i could've used even less room by double stacking the batts and turning the amps. what exactly is everyone scared of? if you guys want to keep quoting the rules how about we pick apart the "box below the window rule" or " the box cannot block ANY windows. every crx out there has the back window blocked by there box. yes, according to honda that lower rear GLASS is a window. i did this just to see how many people cried, and got even more than i expected,lol. if it hurts everyones feelings that bad i wont run the van anymore. i just wanted to show that there are other vehicles that fit all the "exceptions" usaci allows to the rules. i will help ralph out on this one though and say that i didnt point out a specific vehicle when the question was asked.i.e. i did not tell him i was going to use a handicap van.the question was , "can i use a passenger van in ps. if it didnt come with rear seats?" the answer was yes, if you can find 1, but i dont think they were ever sold wo rear seats." when you buy a vehicle for this, chad is correct. you buy the van from the dealership and it is sent to an aftermarket company where the lift is installed. but when you order the van it can be ordered wo any rear seats from the factory because it is going directly from the dealership to the aftermarket company. you dont just roll up and buy a van off the lot for handicap, they are usually ordered.

My box is below the rear window. Yes the bottom window. Has I'm sure almost everybody else is. You have 15 in to stay below that window. If it did come from the Factory like that then the Vin number should show this. It makes no Diff to me. I don't run pro stock. And in no way do I blame you for running the van. You where allowed to run it buy a Judge. No way your fault.

no you actually only have about 12 if i recall. 15 is to stay below the front window line. im talking about the rear hatch glass that has the dot matrix on it, not the hatch window. and why is it you can remove the backseats in a mini, but not fold up the rear seats in a full size? usaci has very strange rules sometimes which seem to cater to certain vehicles, but not others.

charlesestes wrote:

no you actually only have about 12 if i recall. 15 is to stay below the front window line. im talking about the rear hatch glass that has the dot matrix on it, not the hatch window. and why is it you can remove the backseats in a mini, but not fold up the rear seats in a full size? usaci has very strange rules sometimes which seem to cater to certain vehicles, but not others.

actually all crx boxes are required to be below that vertical window in the back of the hatch.......i believe max height with panels and such is 14.5 inch. that is why you can not stand a 15 upright firing forward if that glass didnt matter then we could run 15's firing forward cause next window line is 16 or 17 inchs

I've seen people in brand x run a 15 and stay below the allowed window line of the side windows, I've never seen a rex stay below the verticle window that Charles in refering to.

im almost positive its sposed to be below that window he is refering to

all of are rexs are below the window line he is refering to, cause we always thought that was the rule. if its not. some one please tell me.

"Neither the enclosure nor any devices affixed to the enclosure may protrude above the bottom of the side or
rear glass panels." thats outta the USACi rule book

exactly correct timmay and judges are strict on that one for sure


if a van has mounting holes for the seat then guess what it is a passenger van thats that a cargo would come with no such mounting holes at all like i stated that vin number will clear this all up


everytime someone has a valid point we are all scared of the van no such luck we are wanting that fare and level playing feild we hear about with the amps you team protests all the time that will give the ones you run a challenge nothing


so this is just that in a differant light man thats all.

now drag on ther other hand says Lowest point of the windows in the drivers and passenger doors

Last time I asked, the back hatch dotted glass was not considered a window again, but that was last year, and or more then a month ago...it has probably changed 4 times since then if it is legal or not. I know my box for finals was below it just to be safe. I would be pissed to get all the way to finals and get told it was illigal

If in doubt build below!

I'm sorry but this says it all to me

"Vans and SUV’s that are originally manufactured without rear seats cannot compete in the Stock division."

Charles...this is not your fault....it was in the hands of Ralph and in my opinion he made a mistake. Now could we please here something from him on this.

Theres no need for a reply on this.

We all know ALL equipment has to be behind the B pillar.
On a van this would be the sliding or folding side door.
That is the rule no discussion necessary on that. The van is Mod.

As for the window line and rex's....myself, bruce, jeff, jeff, mike, and every other person running a rex at finals for the last 2 years has had their subs/box BELOW the rear window line. My box was 14.75 and was still a good .5" from the window.


This issue is ridiculous, if that pic is of a system that ran in stock.. then the judge who approved it was blind and/or has no clue of our rules, or more than likely the judge didnt see the system and was unaware of the box placement.

Forget about all the seats and bullcrap cargo jargon bla bla bla, the box cant be in front of the door pillar, in any vehicle.

actually what im getting from this now everyone is that the ruling for him to run the van was before the show that ralph was not at, and when the jusge said something about it the old speed dial came out meaning raloh has never seen the van at all.

great way to sway this in yuor favor if you ask me am i wrong Charlse is this in fact the way this went down.

Shame on the judge for not inspecting a vehicle on a world record run and realizing this....thats the part that perturbs me lol. I dont want to speak for anyone else but my guess is Jimbo would not have allowed that vehicle in pro stock at a show he were judging. I know I wouldn't have but then again I'm not the HBG either.

As far as the CRX window line, everyone including Hughes/Sisco were under the back window. You can fit 9917's under that window if you use a very shallow box and keep it where the cubby is. I had a box that was about 14 tall resting on a board that was 1/2'' thick with 2.5'' thick of amps underneath it and remained under the back window.

I'd just like to hear a say on this because if No wall van's can play in Pro Stock I know what my next vehicle will be

Does it really matter though?, Charles said he wouldnt run it in stock again anyways.

well on the crx rear vertical window, i know in the past some people said it was not a window, but my take on it has always been, is it glass? can you see through it? (in its original form of course) then it's a window.

my boxes have always been below it as well, 13.5"

It should matter, because if he doesn't someone else will. This issue needs to be ended now. Once again, nothing against Charles at all. I say if they allow it then by all means go for it. My issue is with them allowing it, when its clearly stated otherwise. Who was the judge at this event?

I specifically remember hearing in the past from some of the head judges at finals that the "Well, Ralph said...." doesn't apply unless Ralph is there or is contacted and he does say and its in compliance with his rulebook. Thats how things should be handled. People tend to get caught up in the moment...judging lacks consistency, not only in SQ but in SPL as well.

There is a post in the judges forum about judge training. I think that should seriously be considered for both SQ and SPL. There should be a judging clinic set up in each region listed on the USACi website and a team of trainers should attend each regions event to teach how things will be. Once this is set, everyone follows it. If anyone is caught not following it there should be consequences. Its called a checks and balances system. It works pretty well for most companies and this country as a whole. Its worth looking into to say the least.