Battery question

I repeat... IMO, this rule is so grey it's silly.

For those who haven't read it, the rule is quoted in post #4 above, so I won't bother to repeat it here. But what does it say... and not say?

- Weight - Must be similar. It is very obvious that you can buy a battery of just about any weight that suits you, even if it is the same form factor as the original (and that's not a requirement, BTW). There has to be a number here to be meaningful... "similar" doesn't hack it.

- Amp-hour capacity - Must be similar. Ditto.

- Appearance/Form - No limitation. As noted above, there is no requirement for the battery to even look "similar" to the original.

- Type - No limitation. It can be wet cell, dry cell, gel cell, nickel-metal-hydride, or what have you. Doesn't matter.

- Size - No limitation. The fact that the battery must be "...fitted in the standard location" might (I repeat might) make a larger battery impossible to fit in some cases. But smaller? You bet... it can be as small as you like, provided it meets the "similar" weight and amp-hour criteria, both of which which are meaningless from the start.

Silly rule.
 
Please don't read if you don't favor my posts. <_<

This battery rule is no different than the air duct/hose rule that was chanded two years ago. The rules writers steped on their dingis AGAIN. The 2000 ITCS rule was straight forward.

"Any battery of the same type, size, and voltage as the original may be used, provided it is fitted in the standard location."

Plaese don't anyone come across with one of the few specials like someone did in a previous post about a marine type container that don't fit. Some cars may need special attention & a note in thir log book.
 
My request is for any battery mounted in the stock location. I had been planing to request this for some time and already discussed it with Marshall Lytle. It's a seldom enforced and often violated rule. My favorite cheat is an empty "display battery" case with a lawn tractor battery mounted inside. I've seen this done several times.

Charlie Broring
 
Please don't read if you don't favor my posts. <_<

This battery rule is no different than the air duct/hose rule that was chanded two years ago. The rules writers steped on their dingis AGAIN. The 2000 ITCS rule was straight forward.

"Any battery of the same type, size, and voltage as the original may be used, provided it is fitted in the standard location."

[/b]
Click to expand...

What year did this change? I like this old wording.
 
The battery rule was changed with the 2005 GCR.

I tend to agree with Charlie... just make the battery size and type free and get it over with. The current rule is almost there already, but the way it is written can obviously lead to a fair amount of confusion as to what is legal and what ain't.

The pre-2005 rule may have been better in some respects, but (and here is where Charlie and I would disagree) it legally allowed the "display" battery described above - notice the complete lack of requirements for weight or amp-hour capacity. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the 2005 rule change was an attempt to plug that hole. Unfortunately, the size and type requirements disappeared in the process, so it could be called a step backwards from a rule clarity standpoint.

FWIW, I bought (ironically between the 2004 and 2005 seasons) an ITB car that had a stock appearing 15 lb display/motorcycle battery setup. A truly stock battery, in the case of the 142E, is in the 35 lb neighborhood. I was flabbergasted when I saw the corner weight changes generated as I changed out the battery from the former to the latter. The Volvo has the battery weight cantilevered forward of the LF wheel, precisely the wrong place to add weight. (Unless you're running ovals excusively :D .)
 
The pre-2005 rule may have been better in some respects, but (and here is where Charlie and I would disagree) it legally allowed the "display" battery described above - notice the complete lack of requirements for weight or amp-hour capacity. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the 2005 rule change was an attempt to plug that hole. Unfortunately, the size and type requirements disappeared in the process, so it could be called a step backwards from a rule clarity standpoint.

[/b]
Click to expand...

If the rules USED to say 'type, size, and voltage as the original', I fail to see how the 'display' battery is legal. Does size not encompass weight? Does type not encompass amps? If we need this type of stuff spelled out, our rulebooks needs to grow 10-fold.
 
If the rules USED to say 'type, size, and voltage as the original', I fail to see how the 'display' battery is legal. Does size not encompass weight? Does type not encompass amps? If we need this type of stuff spelled out, our rulebooks needs to grow 10-fold.

[/b]
Click to expand...

No. Size does not encompass weight, and type does not encompass amps. For proof, take a look at the weight and amperage spreads noted in the postings above, even for "stock" batteries.

Actually, this probably gets back to the same old argument - in Improved Touring, we don't need more rules, we need fewer. One could argue that if the battery rule weren't there at all, there would be less confusion about the allowance.
 
No. Size does not encompass weight, and type does not encompass amps. For proof, take a look at the weight and amperage spreads noted in the postings above, even for "stock" batteries.

Actually, this probably gets back to the same old argument - in Improved Touring, we don't need more rules, we need fewer. One could argue that if the battery rule weren't there at all, there would be less confusion about the allowance.

[/b]
Click to expand...
I disagree. What does the info above have to do with the term 'size' and 'type'? From the Dictionary:

a : physical magnitude, extent, or bulk : relative or proportionate dimensions b : relative aggregate amount or number c : considerable proportions
e : one of a series of graduated measures especially of manufactured articles (as of clothing) conventionally identified by numbers or letters

If I told you your box of rocks had to be the same SIZE and TYPE as my box of rocks, by definition, it WOULD have to be dimentionally the same. If we eliminated the battery verbage alltogether, only the OEM battery would be allowed, no? YMMV. Seems simple to me.
 
Got it. So.... all 205/50-15 tires weigh exactly the same, right? :D [/b]
Click to expand...
How is that applicable? What requirements are there that they HAVE to? 'Size' in that respect - as you know - is generically used for width, aspect ratio and diameter. You can bet I know the weight of my tires.

We can agree to disagree but I stick by the literal definition of the word 'size' if you are going to tell me that other rule wasn't good enough.
 
"The pre-2005 rule may have been better in some respects, but (and here is where Charlie and I would disagree) it legally allowed the "display" battery described above - notice the complete lack of requirements for weight or amp-hour capacity. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the 2005 rule change was an attempt to plug that hole. Unfortunately, the size and type requirements disappeared in the process, so it could be called a step backwards from a rule clarity standpoint."



Well, I'm going to suggest to you that the "battery" is the thing that stores the current, and if you have a smaller battery that stores all the current hidden inside a case from a battery of same "type, size, and voltage as the original" that itself stores nothing but the battery inside, it's the latter one that should be subject to the rule. And it is illegal. I doubt that the rule was changed to plug a nonexistent hole.



I suspect that either some people were having a hard time finding exact equivalent batteries or the CRB just wanted to give more purchase options w/i and among battery types, and the rule was eased up to allow for reasonably close (i.e. "similar") replacements. Indeed, the present rule expressly speaks of batteries "of alternate manufacture." It also replaces the criteria of "type, size, and voltage" w/ "amp-hour capacity and weight." To me this implies that "size" in the old rule was intended to encompass weight and not just spatial dimensions. While I think that there was NO intent to make alternate batteries performance-enhancing options, you guys are, of course,right that that does open the door to use that imprecision to advantage, as small as it may be.


I don't have a problem w/ the rule as it is but I would also not oppose opening it up despite the fact that it would be classic rules creep (same-similar-any) and another tiny step away from the Class Philosophy.
 
The rule does need to be clarified and size has absolutely nothing to do with weight unless you live in a world where everything has the same density. Obviously, that is not the case here on Earth or in battery cases as well.

Type may denote amperage, but I do not know what the definition of type is as in "Type 51" mentioned in an earlier post. But, I will shortly... <_<

Currrently, my RX7 came with an Optima battery that slightly overhangs the tray, could probably crank my F-250 6.0 diesel in a pinch and weighs a freakin' ton. On the other hand, I can practically turn that rotary over with my bare hands. Something ain't right there...
 
"The rule does need to be clarified and size has absolutely nothing to do with weight unless you live in a world where everything has the same density. Obviously, that is not the case here on Earth or in battery cases as well."



Webster: size = bigness



Coach #1: "My tight end is bigger than yours."



Coach #2: "How big is he?"



Coach #1: "6-5, 280."



Anyway, Tom, you should know that the SCCA is indeed an alternate universe. :D



But, really, I think it is stretching it to say that a rule that states: "Any battery of

the same type, size, and voltage as the original" was meant to open the door to ANY weight as long as it was the same type and voltage. Why would anyone care about spatial dimensions when it is weight that counts in racing? For mere appearance sake? I don't think so. It is a mistake to assume that all lawmakers, including if not especially those in Washington and Topeka, always use words in their most precise way. E.g. the fact that "size" may not connote weight in physics does not mean that it didn't in the old rule.
 
But, really, I think it is stretching it to say that a rule that states: "Any battery of the same type, size, and voltage as the original" was meant to open the door to ANY weight as long as it was the same type and voltage. Why would anyone care about spatial dimensions when it is weight that counts in racing? For mere appearance sake? I don't think so.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
How is that applicable? What requirements are there that they HAVE to? 'Size' in that respect - as you know - is generically used for width, aspect ratio and diameter. You can bet I know the weight of my tires.

We can agree to disagree but I stick by the literal definition of the word 'size' if you are going to tell me that other rule wasn't good enough.
[/b]
Click to expand...

How about a better example... how about a "size 24F" battery? 24F is a typical example of the BCI (Battery Council International) size specification for OEM-equivalent replacement batteries, that set of specifications being used by auto manufacturers and battery builders alike. AFAIK, the BCI spec for that battery makes no mention of a minimum weight, even though they go into great detail about size requirements. I'd bet the European EN, German DIN, and Japanese JIS guidelines are the same way... no min weight spec.

Now if this doesn't spell out what we mean by battery "size" I don't know what will. We aren't talking rocks, we aren't talking tires, we aren't talking generic definitions, we're talking batteries. My point is, you can indeed have an OEM equivalent battery, same size as defined by battery and automobile builders, and have widely varying weights. Once more - take a look at the earlier posts in this thread for concrete (pun intended :D ) examples.
 
How about a better example... how about a "size 24F" battery? 24F is a typical example of the BCI (Battery Council International) size specification for OEM-equivalent replacement batteries, that set of specifications being used by auto manufacturers and battery builders alike. AFAIK, the BCI spec for that battery makes no mention of a minimum weight, even though they go into great detail about size requirements. I'd bet the European EN, German DIN, and Japanese JIS guidelines are the same way... no min weight spec.

Now if this doesn't spell out what we mean by battery "size" I don't know what will. We aren't talking rocks, we aren't talking tires, we aren't talking generic definitions, we're talking batteries. My point is, you can indeed have an OEM equivalent battery, same size as defined by battery and automobile builders, and have widely varying weights. Once more - take a look at the earlier posts in this thread for concrete (pun intended :D ) examples.

[/b]
Click to expand...

And I am with you 100%. I see it reasonable to use 'battery' standards for 'type'. However, for someone to say that you can put a mini battery inside a standard box and call it legal is beyond me. Using the same battery type like your 24F example is EXACTLY what the SCCA had in mind when they allowed somthing other than OEM units.
 
The best rule is no rule. The current rule is so vague as to be almost no rule. I've never seen any effort to enforce even the older more restrictive rule. It doesn't cost any money or take much effort to fit the smallest cheapest lightest battery, so it's not really rule creep. Really small batteries will introduce reliability issues so if a competitor gets carried away with small and light then he will pay that price for it.

Worry about safety Worry about illegal motors. Don't waste time worrying about batteries.

Charlie Broring
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top