[Scott Roberts]

Not only that but show me where I said KRE in my posts where I aired my issues with the block. I was mad at Steve. Last time I checked, steve didn't own any part of KRE. I had a problem with K&M which did exsist at the time. Never had a problem with KRE until they sued me. How is it some one can sue me on someone elses behalf??? As you say.......... thats very interesting isn't it.

[johnta1]

P Dude was asking about the post, and that quote came from the recent court document.
No lawyer here. Just reading and pasting the truth.

The question you want answers to I think is in the hands of the court not me.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Drunk'nInjun

Not only that but show me where I said KRE in my posts where I aired my issues with the block. I was mad at Steve. Last time I checked, steve didn't own any part of KRE. I had a problem with K&M which did exsist at the time. Never had a problem with KRE until they sued me. How is it some one can sue me on someone elses behalf??? As you say.......... thats very interesting isn't it.

Probably because at the time the block was sold to you, the one party was not a registered business in Ohio while the party filing the suit was. Another thing not mentioned, although it is probably irrelevant to the jurisdiction appeal, is that the plaintiff in the suit was not registered in Ohio as a LLC during the time of the block sale.

[baron_]

Only two points from me.

1.
I think a lot of people read too much into the PY involvement.
Simple: Would you want your forums becoming a part of costly litigation that could potentially erode your valuable time and energy? Allowing people to post litigeous comments (slander or libel) is probably not what Ccass wants these forums used for. Nor does he want to deal with subpoenas requesting records or documents or an employee being called in to offer evidence...or any of that jazz.

2.
Seems like a lot of people see KRE defending itself as blasphemy. Unwisely and poorly defending itself against a defective product might be a horrible act. Defending itself against libel or slander that goes beyond their defective product is an entirely different matter. Seems as though the court will decide which it was, and I'll decide after the decision of a judge that has lots more information than any of us (unless Drunk'n would like to post the full details)

And on the point of the lawsuit. You can't sue on someone elses behalf, normally. You'd have no damages, no standing. But I thought this was about libel/slander defamation? I'm guessing KRE thinks that improper, unreliable, downright lies were posted about its product or service...going well beyond a review or facts of the product/service and trying to purposely harm KRE. That's illegal, if so...and would merit the defense we see

[cgeise]

I have tryed to post to this twice now - and get kicked off - whats the deal ???

[Scott Roberts]

Originally Posted by baron_

Only two points from me.

1.
I think a lot of people read too much into the PY involvement.
Simple: Would you want your forums becoming a part of costly litigation that could potentially erode your valuable time and energy? Allowing people to post litigeous comments (slander or libel) is probably not what Ccass wants these forums used for. Nor does he want to deal with subpoenas requesting records or documents or an employee being called in to offer evidence...or any of that jazz.

2.
Seems like a lot of people see KRE defending itself as blasphemy. Unwisely and poorly defending itself against a defective product might be a horrible act. Defending itself against libel or slander that goes beyond their defective product is an entirely different matter. Seems as though the court will decide which it was, and I'll decide after the decision of a judge that has lots more information than any of us (unless Drunk'n would like to post the full details)

And on the point of the lawsuit. You can't sue on someone elses behalf, normally. You'd have no damages, no standing. But I thought this was about libel/slander defamation? I'm guessing KRE thinks that improper, unreliable, downright lies were posted about its product or service...going well beyond a review or facts of the product/service and trying to purposely harm KRE. That's illegal, if so...and would merit the defense we see

Libel is making an knowingly false statement about another, is it not?? Kre doesn't manufacturer that block K&M does. Truth is an absolute defence in America. I refered to Steve in most of my posts never KRE. Its not my fault they weren't structure properly was it. K&M claimed to be the manufacturer of the block ,KRE just sold them, correct? Do you think I just got up one morning and said" I think I will make up a bunch of stuff today inorder to bash KRE"????? I'll say it again, I didn't have a problem with KRE untill they sued me. Wonder what the damages are for bringing a frivilous law suit against another?

What other details would you like??

[Overkillphil]

Ken, the answer is no. Just like I would not have been stupid enough to buy the original IA block.

[Skip Fix]

Chris let me state this again, slowly for you-a Pontiac cast block #557 can do fine at 400 hp(got one on the engine stand) or a different one crack though the mains(pictures documented here on PY).Same iron, same casting same HP range. A different Pontiac 400 block casting with thicker main webs can push 600 HP+ and not fail.Was it the extra main webbing or the steel 4 bolt mains they added that made it stronger or both,why was one of the "weak" blocks able to handle 400 hp and the other not? Same cast iron -different block design!! Which block design(Pontiac or just any block) do you want Brinell specs for and at what HP do you want it to fail? Does a 6 bolt/cross bolted main block have more design strength and handle more HP with weaker iron than a 2 bolt main one-you'd have to do tests of each one, but I'd bet there would be a difference-that's part of where the design variability comes in. Does a softer aluminum block that has extra strengths add in the picture? What are you getting at.

If you are in a round about way asking was the MR1s that had stouter main webbing,solid lifter valley steel main caps and studs with soft cast iron going to be more prone to fail-who knows! Several were recalled and replaced by KRE/K&M, so KRE might have even thought there was a "potential" issue. So even with a beefier design but cast iron softer than factory blocks they were recalled,so maybe K&M, KRE can answer that. Seems like you have an idea enlighten us. Would the recall have happened if the one involvd here had not been part of a suit -who knows, but later ones were

I also believe there was one that failed in the mains that had pictures posted here,not sure the HP it was built to.Spidel's. OMTs that was replaced in the recall had a picture of what looked liek a crack starting. So what else do you need Chris.

"Same goes with an engine block. You can have an excellent design for the intended HP level that's 3 times (or greater) than what the OEM block was ever designed for, but if you use an inferior material to cast it with, it's all for naught." Brian understood the analogy.

This thread was initially about jurisdiction for the "defamation" portion-we've all seen plenty of trials jockey for jurisdictions in the media,the lawyers wil have to sort that out. The only thing I read was ruled on was that. The rest still needs to be decided.

Johnta1 still seems you are skirting the main question-did final honing change all those other dimensions?? If there wasn't an issue with the cast iron why was there a recall(and the recall was noted by other PY members) and why did KRE not tell them to go jump as they did this first block's owner?

"I think the whole point of 'this post' is that (And correct me if I'm wrong)

#1: The case is going to be tried in Ohio not Virginia. Which is what was contested and tried to be thrown out?
#2: That the block received was delivered to a customer below standards advertised at that time claimed by the consumer?
#3: That work done after receiving the block never affected the integrity of the block as claimed by the other party?
#4: That at the time all consumer wanted was the block replaced or refunded because block did not meet standards posted by the seller?
#5: Seller claims in court documents that work done affected the initial integrity of the block and all claims are null and void?

Any of this wrong?"

I think that is it in a summary, most of which John.Chris and Maurice have not addressed,and won't.

[fastgto]

I think that is it in a summary, most of which John.Chris and Maurice have not addressed,and won't.[/QUOTE]


Hmmmm.

[Chris Roach]

Skip,
First off, understand me, I am in no way defending anyone or anything in any of my posts.

I only asked a simple question of how the standards are set to deem a given brinell # acceptable or not! That's it, period!

All responses seem to revolve around OEM standard and anything less than that is assumed to be junk. That's fine. I'm just trying to narrow it down to a more technical discussion on how that is derived.

I'm no idiot, and agree with most everything you and others have said. But most is just theories or assumptions.

I'm done, cause I may be a bit guilting of taking the orignal post off topic.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Chris Roach

Skip,
First off, understand me, I am in no way defending anyone or anything in any of my posts.

I only asked a simple question of how the standards are set to deem a given brinell # acceptable or not! That's it, period!

All responses seem to revolve around OEM standard and anything less than that is assumed to be junk. That's fine. I'm just trying to narrow it down to a more technical discussion on how that is derived.

I'm no idiot, and agree with most everything you and others have said. But most is just theories or assumptions.

I'm done, cause I may be a bit guilting of taking the orignal post off topic.

Would you agree that a block designed for higher HP applications than an OEM block that has a Brinell reading that's much lower than an OEM block would be unacceptable?

[baron_]

Originally Posted by Drunk'nInjun

Not only that but show me where I said KRE in my posts where I aired my issues with the block. I was mad at Steve. Last time I checked, steve didn't own any part of KRE. I had a problem with K&M which did exsist at the time. Never had a problem with KRE until they sued me. How is it some one can sue me on someone elses behalf??? As you say.......... thats very interesting isn't it.

Then what are they suing you for, drunk'n? I apologize if you've stated it in the past and I skimmed over the dozens of pages of silly posts
They've got to have a cause of action....usually in the first few paragraphs of the complaint
Yes, truth is a defense. But if you embelished on facts, exaggerated....among other issues...

I went to law school in Ohio - I know a fair amount about their jurisdictional requirements.

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by Overkillphil

Ken, the answer is no. Just like I would not have been stupid enough to buy the original IA block.

Don't be hatin. Bwahahahahahahaha.

I have a IA 1 block I have been running for a few years. No issues. I have built 3 of them No issues. I had one IA1 block I picked up at Butlers memorial weekend race back then. It had a DEFECT that propably would never have affected the power thrown to it. But plainly seen.


Dick replaced it on the spot. No questions asked.

Great customer service by Dick at Indian Adventures. Now he's retired livin the good life.

[Skip Fix]

OK Chris sorry if I over reacted. On the general question of what Brinell/grade cast iron is needed for what HP. I think there are probably too many variables in individual motors to give a definitive answer, just look at the 557 block example. Although after seeing the ones here that have cracked I'm sure not going to put my new 4" crank in when I freshen that motor! Probably pull off the RAIV heads too,off looking for an earlier one with thicker webs. Pontiac even used a different lifter valley on the SD and RAV blocks, so different areas also affect failure.

Did that owner have a good tune or did they let it detonate(sure you can run 70cc heads on pump gas) or have other issues that were not right on.

Shoot we still debate here when you need 4 bolt caps over 2 bolt, steel caps vs nodular caps,bolts vs studs. Does a cast crank flex more and stress the mains more? So I'd bet there are too many variables. You would almost need the exact same block cast in different irons to eliminate a different casting as a variable,then the rest of the short block identical too.

Probably the SAE have strength tests for various irons and then the OE engineers use stress models to figure what is the best, then the bean counters look at what is Ok for the cheapest. Since probably(just guessing) the iron used the difference between various grades for low numbers isn't that different so for OE racing blocks and aftermarket racing blocks they just build a little extra margin in. Like using the "good" ARP bolts in the Eagle rods vs the good "plain" ARP bolts. Maybe Tom V can give some insight into design of blocks, but we are taking this off track.

[johnta1]

"I think the whole point of 'this post' is that (And correct me if I'm wrong)

The real answer to that question is he wanted to stir sh|t up.
It has nothing to do with the law suit, KRE block or anything.

Now if you asked your question on what the original lawsuit is about that would be different.

[Scott Roberts]

Originally Posted by baron_

Then what are they suing you for, drunk'n? I apologize if you've stated it in the past and I skimmed over the dozens of pages of silly posts
They've got to have a cause of action....usually in the first few paragraphs of the complaint
Yes, truth is a defense. But if you embelished on facts, exaggerated....among other issues...

I went to law school in Ohio - I know a fair amount about their jurisdictional requirements.

Well 4 judges can't agree (2 for/ 2 against) so maybe you could help them out. Its not over yet as far as where it will be heard. It was reversed once. It could be reversed again
Cause of action?????????? I could lie, cover my tracks and sue you for pointing out the obvious if it pissed me off.

[baron_]

and that cause of action is?
It's a defamation of character suit? or libel or slander or all?

There a copy of the complaint somewhere?
It'll have a dozen....maybe 30 allegations that would tell a lot of the story

[Chris Roach]

Originally Posted by Brian Baker

Would you agree that a block designed for higher HP applications than an OEM block that has a Brinell reading that's much lower than an OEM block would be unacceptable?

Only if it was proven to fail.

If that same block was proven to support its intended use, as designed, would it still be unacceptable?

See my point yet?

Originally Posted by Skip Fix

On the general question of what Brinell/grade cast iron is needed for what HP. I think there are probably too many variables in individual motors to give a definitive answer

Now your on to me!

I'll say it once more, we all know the smaller the brinell # the softer the cast, but at what point does it become an issue?

Cheers guys, its been fun, but I need to get in the garage before it becomes winter again.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by baron_

Then what are they suing you for, drunk'n? I apologize if you've stated it in the past and I skimmed over the dozens of pages of silly posts
They've got to have a cause of action....usually in the first few paragraphs of the complaint
Yes, truth is a defense. But if you embelished on facts, exaggerated....among other issues...

I went to law school in Ohio - I know a fair amount about their jurisdictional requirements.

You went to law school in Ohio but you can't figure out why the plaintiff is who they are instead of the other party? Go back and read my response in post #103.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Chris Roach

Only if it was proven to fail.

If that same block was proven to support its intended use, as designed, would it still be unacceptable?

See my point yet?

I'll say it once more, we all know the smaller the brinell # the softer the cast, but at what point does it become an issue?

No, I don't see your point, because you have no empirical evidence to back it up, it's just a supposition. The Spidel's, now they have some empirical evidence. It becomes an issue when, as in the Spidel's experience, torquing down the cylinder heads on a block that is too soft causes the deck surface to raise around the head fasteners, causing improper gasket crush due to the uneven raised surfaces of the deck, and the inadequate clamping force from the inaccurate torque reading on the wrench caused by the deck lifting...AND THIS IS ALL BEFORE THE ENGINE HAS BEEN FIRED AND IS MAKING ANY HORSEPOWER.