rules interpretations

[Bill Miller]

What about glue I was asked, and I said, not a modification. Nope...wrong there, I was told certain glues bond molecularly. And that modifies the part. (Or something to that effect). There was discussion on that and the definition of "modify", too.
[/b]

Not trying to be a PITA Jake, but so does rust (modify the part that is, as well as act as 'glue' or a 'weld' )

 

[lateapex911]

David, fine, thanks for the well reasoned response.

You say it's wrong, it's bad, and you scoff at the reasoning and fall back sreaming "Creep, creeep"!....but, that's really not an answer.

I laid out reasons, and logic.

WHY do you ignore, or scoff at those? Give examples....specifics ......convince me logically that it is what you say it is.

I know you have the background to avoid "the sky is falling" arguements. Let's get to your issues, and "Creep"can't be one of them, nor should any reference to Prod.

In other words, what are the costs, and how do they outweigh the benefits, in your eyes.???

 

[Knestis]

...I wonder if the over a thou price on the rear arm mods is one of the factors that scares people off? Big savings on that car. Of course the rule isn't written for one car...it's just an example that popped into my head....it should benefit many others....faster builds, less expense, less time under the car, but no actual performance gain compared to the earlier rule.

I see the danger, but I also see the benefits. A tough call, but I think there is a good case for it.
[/b]

...but the same argument for the use of an identical earlier bodyshell to build a 1990 ITA GTI 16v doesn't hold up, because of the VIN requirement rule?



I'm going to agree - without qualifications this time - with Geo's point that rules in one category just don't bear on the others. In an ideal world, it would be nice if they did (as DD suggested), but the system in place just doesn't allow for that. Should they? Yes. Do they? Nope - not in the least.

K

 

[zracre]

Here is my new question to the group (forgive me Dick):

Is it possible that all of these creative interpretations manifest themselves in our environment because nobody every protests? Just because I think the welding is outside the rules doesn't mean I would EVER protest such an item because it does not allow that driver to beat me unfairly...is that the root cause of all this evil? If it is, other organizations seeminly avoid this by policing the cars and drivers proactively, not retroactivly - or simply relying on its drivers to do it for them. And given our volunteer-based organization, I fail to see how we can move away from this environment.

Is this the best we can ever do?

AB
[/b]

Bingo! we should stop if this much thought energy was put into the protest process by everyone, there would not be so many illegal cars out there...I think to general members, it is a difficult and touchy subject. All the regions should do some compliance checks...I see 28 officials on this weekends list for sebring. that does not include all the people involved flagging corners, registration, and many other positions that are needed. we have 5 assistant chief stewards and one chief steward in charge of tech. If we as members request additional spot checks in impound...maybe we can get somewhere. there are enough people to do something about it. I dont know how it works in other divisions, but here there seems to be no checking of anything but weight in IT and only for the top 3 or 4. I am tired of silly arguements and banter and I shall step away now. Yes people cheat. Some call it bending the rules and I agree that maybe some things on our cars may be non compliant to the letter of the rules like QR steering hubs, but that is not going to win you a race. High compression, illegal pistons, cams swapped from same car different year and spec line, wild sounding race cams, valve springs, porting, nitrous (it has been done...seen it!) are all things people try to slip by because X racer has alot of dough and Y racer seems to think they need to cheat to keep up and assumes they are cheating too. Tired of it. The point of this long boring rant is that we need to come up with a better method of compliance checks.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Bingo! we should stop if this much thought energy was put into the protest process by everyone, there would not be so many illegal cars out there...I think to general members, it is a difficult and touchy subject. All the regions should do some compliance checks...I see 28 officials on this weekends list for sebring. that does not include all the people involved flagging corners, registration, and many other positions that are needed. we have 5 assistant chief stewards and one chief steward in charge of tech. If we as members request additional spot checks in impound...maybe we can get somewhere. there are enough people to do something about it. I dont know how it works in other divisions, but here there seems to be no checking of anything but weight in IT and only for the top 3 or 4. I am tired of silly arguements and banter and I shall step away now. Yes people cheat. Some call it bending the rules and I agree that maybe some things on our cars may be non compliant to the letter of the rules like QR steering hubs, but that is not going to win you a race. High compression, illegal pistons, cams swapped from same car different year and spec line, wild sounding race cams, valve springs, porting, nitrous (it has been done...seen it!) are all things people try to slip by because X racer has alot of dough and Y racer seems to think they need to cheat to keep up and assumes they are cheating too. Tired of it. The point of this long boring rant is that we need to come up with a better method of compliance checks.
[/b]

Well Evan, We need good rules to enforce. I believe there are a few on the ITAC working toward that. Take the SB deal to start. The general thinking of most every racer I have talked to on this is that they meet the definition of a bushing and while maybe not the intent they are in use through out the racing community. I think the new rule is clear and allows them to be installed in the most cost effective way. Now Chicken little would say we are headed toward custom control arms but there is no way you can make that stretch from a tack weld.
The stupid steering wheel discussion should not even be able to happen. If you want to allow a welded QR or even steeering wheel adapter then say so.
My concern is when some of our rules writers put blinders on and think that looking at the meaning of other rules has no place in considering how to A: apply our rule and B: look for a possible solution to a problem with our rule, I believe this kind of thinking will leave us with poorly written poorly thought out and uneforcable rules.
Having done this for a few years I can tell you that pistons cams springs are all big concerns. But the fact is the guy that runs the short shifter put it out there to draw your attention away from the illegal engine parts he is running. Because it costs money we as drivers take the lazy way and bust him for his shifter and never go after the part that's illegal.

 

[Geo]

The stupid steering wheel discussion should not even be able to happen. If you want to allow a welded QR or even steeering wheel adapter then say so. [/b]

This I agree with.

My concern is when some of our rules writers put blinders on and think that looking at the meaning of other rules has no place in considering how to A: apply our rule and B: look for a possible solution to a problem with our rule, I believe this kind of thinking will leave us with poorly written poorly thought out and uneforcable rules.[/b]

I'm sure this is thinly veiled attack on me. For some reason you don't like me Joe, but I'm OK with that. For the record, when it comes to writing a rule, I agree that looking at other category specs for good and bad examples of how to address something is a good idea. I pretty much said as much long ago in this thread, but I'm sure you read right over it. We will continue to have to disagree about using other category specs for interpreting rules however.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

We will continue to have to disagree about using other category specs for interpreting rules however.
[/b]

I wrote this in another post but never got a comment.

Is it not the least bit interesting that other categories specicially allow quick releases and spherical bearings, but IT doesn't?[/b]

I do not think it is unreasonable to think that sphericals were not legal...but let's say you think it could go either way...then you look at another class (governed by the same body - the CRB - and by the same IIDSYCYC rule) and it specifically allows them - isn't it logical to ASSuME something from that?

It would be a bullet point in a protest I filed for sure. "If they meant for them to be legal, they would have spelled it out, like they did in this class, and this class, and this class..."

I am not debating the SB's and QR's specifically, just the reality of using the GCR to it's fullest extent.

AB

 

[Knestis]

I'd buy that, Andy - IF the same people were making the detail decisions for all categories. I might be wrong but I'm having a hard time picturing the CRB and BoD reconciling any differences between a proposed IT rule change and possible conflicts with other category regs...

I don't know about anyone else, but my comments in these conversations are NOT about cheating. They are about the substance of the rules and I'm afraid that any time we conflate the issues - rules clarity and cheating - we get distracted. For example (I might get to do the horse, here), part of the argument against repealing the VIN requirement was couched in terms of people cheating, which I think may have clouded subsequent consideration of the option.

Rules do not stop cheaters: Enforcement of rules stops cheaters.

K

 

[Bill Miller]

Rules do not stop cheaters: Enforcement of rules stops cheaters.

K
[/b]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

No more calls please, we have a winner!

 

[ddewhurst]

***Jake, you are correct that I didn't like the any Bushing material response from Topeka. For the rum dumbs that don't understand this kind of response from Topeka it is so those in Topeka pi$$ off the least number of high rollers. ***

That my friend is pretty self explanatory.

The horse drawn Spherical bearing was small when it left the barn, it has grown to large to fit back through the same barn door without knocking the barn down. Cost & all the other filler material you have used is just that, FILLER.

The same as the horse drawn Production main hoop diagonal has strayed to far from being staked to the main hoop at both ends of the diagonal that if the strayed end were brought back to the main hoop the barn would get knocked down.

The is out of the barn & the least issue causing effect is to leave the alone. Alone equals change the rule to suit the

Jake, you & the partial party may not put logic to my scoff at your presented logic but I am here to tell YOU that I been through several letters with reference to writting roll cage letters clearification & they have all been punted by the party & one of you friends who was the leader of the party. Next time your near the N.E. #4 car tell me him sitting under the main hoop is legal. Hell no it's not legal but NO ONE is going to challenge a several time National champ. He stands maybe 6' 3" & sure we all wouldlike to move some weight towards the rear but lets do the weight move in a legal method. The same guy wanted LP motors in a FP car & he got it. I was at the tent meeting when he made his request. Duh, I ain't smart enough to play politics but I sure as hell can smell politics & view the politics with the Spherical bearing & with trhe Production car main hoop diagonal. POLITICS............................... If ya don't see the politics it's very sad.

 

[lateapex911]

Ooookaaayyyy David.

Well, I guess you can color me naive'...I know, very sad. So sorry.

Still no idea about your angle and the 04 car and so on. But also not sure it is really relevant to the SB issue.

But you DID address the SB comments, so thanks for that.

Listen, I was on the the SB con call...I missed the "filler" part...or maybe I missed the "politics" you refer to.

Either way, it's going to be something we'll have to agree to disagree on. I presented my points, and you made yours.

My last comment, is that I disagree that this was a ruling to satisfy the "high rollers" as you put it.

 

[Joe Harlan]

This I agree with.
I'm sure this is thinly veiled attack on me. For some reason you don't like me Joe, but I'm OK with that. For the record, when it comes to writing a rule, I agree that looking at other category specs for good and bad examples of how to address something is a good idea. I pretty much said as much long ago in this thread, but I'm sure you read right over it. We will continue to have to disagree about using other category specs for interpreting rules however.
[/b]

Well Geo, I have no reason to dislike you, We have never met. I don't agree with your take on some things but that is far different than dislike. You can also be sure that there was no veiled attack on you as most people no if I attack I have enough sack to just point a finger straight on. My comments were general and I stand behind them. As a person that is currently working inside the process I expect you and any other ITAC,CRB or ADHOC member to stop talking long enough to look at the argument and facts being presented. As I have stated you can't use a rule from another class to enforce a rule but i will promise you it can be used as part of a clarification in a protest. You could have just as easy said our rule is kinda unclear and offered a clarification, Instead you choose to draw a line in the sand with this BS idea that because you say welding is fine it must be. I am fine if it turns out to be legal but just put it in the dam book and look at the other rules to see how to make it flow together.

 

[Renaultfool]

ITCS page 1 states under letter B. Intent ............."Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage."

If your stock suspension arm bushings were welded in, then weld in your SBs. If your stock steering wheel was welded on, then weld on your alternate one.

If it specifically says you cannot, as it clearly states under letter B quoted above, then you cannot.

Section D, 9, b says that you can use any steering wheel except wood, but does not "specifically" allow you to modify the steering shaft (welding on a QR), so you cannot.
Section D, 5, d, 1,2,3 all say you can use alternate shims or eccentric bushings, but no where does it "specifically" say you can modify the suspension arm to use them (welding them in), so you cannot.
Section D, 9, c says that you can add, replace, or remove guages and instruments, but it does not "specifically" allow for you to modify the wiring harness or substitute for the factory sending units to simplify your installation so you cannot.
Section D, 1, a, 6 goes on to specifically prohibit wiring harness alteration and addition of sensors for fuel injected cars, so they are now twice eliminated, so you cannot.

This is what the rules say. Using the literal interpretation would not allow for a lot of the alternate instrumentation currently in use, and would not allow for any welding alteration of any componant.

The rules as written would not allow most of the cars now running to be legal. There is no way to bend the rule or interpretation for a lot of stuff currently being done when the rule originally quoted uses the word "specifically".
Now do we fix the cars, or do we fix the rules?
My vote is to rewrite the rules.
Carl

Edit: Hadn't seen the March Fastrack yet. I guess it is time to break out our MIGs.

 

[RacerBill]

ITAC 17.1.4.B "no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given
vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining
any competitive advantage."


"for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage"

There's a statement that adds a lot of fog to the rules. If I weld a hub to my steeering column in order to my myself out of a burning car faster, what competitive advantage is that?

But who determines whether a alteration is "for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage"?

 

[lateapex911]

Well, I would say it can not be seen as a competitive advantage, as it gives no added speed to the car, either through physics or improved driver interface that wasn't already present.

The rule allows alternate wheels. My alternate wheel could consist of an adapter hub that bolts to the column, correct? That's legal, right? OK, competitve advantage gained via an allowable mod.

Now, I feel the wheel needs to be closer...add a bolt in spcer, or swap for a different adapter and bolt away. Still legal.

Now, I decide I need easier egress, so I swap my spacer for a quick disconnect. Still legal.

Uh oh...can't find one that bolts on, so I get out the welder.

Still legal...no competitve advantage has been gained that didn't already exist legally.

I can't comprehend how now I too, have tossed my hat into THIS one, LOL.....

 

[tom91ita]

"17.31. TOWING EYES
snip....The required tow eyes must be strong enough to tow the car from a
hazard such as a gravel trap."

today on the road i found this tow eye as seen at:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/tom91ita/det...re2.jpg&.src=ph

this looks exactly like what i have seen on the front of newer ford pickups.

now it needs to be mounted securely to the car. if i use 1/32" plate it will not be strong enough. 2" plate will be too much. do i use 3/16" plate since it is the same as the backing plate for the rollcage?

the toweye weighs over 4#. if i use 1# to attach it it will not be "strong enough" but if i use 100#'s it will be strong enough but protested because it is a competitive advantage.

this is where the rules become difficult to discern what is acceptable and what is not. if i beat you, it is unfair and if i am a perpetual backmarker, all is forgiven.

i am going to install what i think is acceptable knowing full well that others <strike>may</strike> will find it unacceptable.

tom

 

[Doc Bro]

The thing that drives me crazy about all of this stuff is it's like a Seagull Management technique.

I'll explain Seagull management:

* Fly in, sh!t all over everything, fly away!!*


Its application to IT:

A guy get's a notion, writes a letter, get's approval, and we're all left to clean it up for seasons to come. Make no mistake these changes will be exploited!!

I agree with Kirk- It'll be fun to see pages and pages on the definition of tack welds.

R

 

[Geo]

Well Geo, I have no reason to dislike you, We have never met. I don't agree with your take on some things but that is far different than dislike. You can also be sure that there was no veiled attack on you as most people no if I attack I have enough sack to just point a finger straight on. My comments were general and I stand behind them. As a person that is currently working inside the process I expect you and any other ITAC,CRB or ADHOC member to stop talking long enough to look at the argument and facts being presented. As I have stated you can't use a rule from another class to enforce a rule but i will promise you it can be used as part of a clarification in a protest. You could have just as easy said our rule is kinda unclear and offered a clarification, Instead you choose to draw a line in the sand with this BS idea that because you say welding is fine it must be. I am fine if it turns out to be legal but just put it in the dam book and look at the other rules to see how to make it flow together.
[/b]

OK Joe, thanks. I appreciate the clarification. Perhaps timing of your last couple of posts just made it seem that way.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on some matters. As the GRC states: "Reasonable people may disagree."