rules interpretations

dickita15

dickita15

New member
What is reasonable, what is tortured?

Some of the recent threads have caused me to think lately. Where do you draw the line?

Over the years I have had quite a few opportunities to have a chat with Club Racing Board members past and present and sometimes the subject of a particular IT rule would come up. It occurs to me now that many of the opinions I heard were more relaxed in interpretation of rules that the letter of the rule I tend to work with. As one small example I was whining to a now former CRB member in the paddock one day about side marker lights. The darn things fall off my all the time even with out hitting anything. I commented that I wished the rules did not require me to keep replacing them. I was told if “I squinted at the rules real hard I could make a case for removing them”. On my car they are imbedded in the side molding trim that is removable. Hmm. As I think back I have had more than a few conversations like this.

Now I am not looking to discuss this rule just using it as an example. Before a few years ago there was no active ITAC. The CRB did most all of any consideration concerning IT rules, And they certainly did not have the time to think about IT rules as much as current IT rules nerds, and I count myself in this group, do now. What if the originators did not have such an absolute view of the letter of the rules? What if they thought “reasonable” was implied in the way rules were interpreted.

What if not being able to remove your speakers when you are allowed to remove your radio is the tortured interpretation?

What if not being able to weld a steering wheel release to the column when any wheel can be substituted is a tortured interpretation?

What if we are not applying a standard of “reasonable” when we hold the rules to every letter, even if that was not the intent? What if Phil was right?
 
What is reasonable, what is tortured?What if the originators did not have such an absolute view of the letter of the rules? What if they thought “reasonable” was implied in the way rules were interpreted.[/b]
Click to expand...

The IT rules were penned a long time ago, realtively speaking in race time.

Who were these mythical originators? What were they thinking? What were their intentions?

Who knows.

I've not been around all that long but I've been around long enough to see the "not in intent of IT rules" and "not in the spirt of IT" card played in defense of keeping, or removing, a particular rule depending on the case.

Maybe it is time to do as Kirk suggested on another thread - pen some new IT rules for the here and now. Then the intent and rules can be well defined and made extremely clear.

Ron
 
I agree with Ron, it is time for a rewrite. The rules we use now were not written for the cars we use now. Look at the air cleaner/intake rule, or the ECU rule as examples.
As the complexity of the cars continues to grow, the cost of repair will also grow. There are many things that could be considered that would even out the fields and reduce costs at the same time.
You will always have those who will spend thousands to do it the expensive way, but as long as the rule allows me to do it the cheap way, I don't care. It just has to be the same for all.
And no, that does not make it at all like Production. If I wanted to race a 35 year old Midget I would be on that site.
 
And no, that does not make it at all like Production. If I wanted to race a 35 year old Midget I would be on that site.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Amen. I forgot the most common response (to be fair it is getting more rare):

"If you want to do XYZ then go race Prod".

No, I don't want to race a spridget either, but I wouldn't mind racing a nice 300z, E36 M3, or some other "modern" sports car in IT.

R
 
Dick-

When looking at "reasonableness," I have learned a lot this past year as a Steward... I think that this year as a Steward I will look at things a lot more closely as in "Reasonableness." However when looking at Reasonableness you also need to look at intent.

If the intent is to just get your car on the track easier/cheaper and NOT to have a "performance" advantage that is one thing, however if your intent is to have a performance advantage then a severe line needs to be drawn.

I am not saying that if you had some sort of reasonableness that you would not get a penalty for being illigal based on my interpretatoin of the rules, however I will say that I support intent as a very important part of determining the appropriate penalty.

Example 1: I would probably support a ruling that said your speakers are illigal (I am not saying they are, I have not even looked it up in the GCR, I am just using your example). This might earn you a fine not to exceed $99 (hopefully closer to $1.00) which would not cary any points on your license.

Example 2: If it was determined that those pistons we all debated about were illigal, and you put them into your engine to get a performance advantage (wich you probably got), then yI will support a decision to disqualify you, wich carries 4 points on your license.

Raymond "I hope this seems fair to the "reasonable" people out thier here more importantly to have fun" Blethen
 
No, I don't want to race a spridget either, but I wouldn't mind racing a nice 300z, E36 M3, or some other "modern" sports car in IT.
[/b]
Click to expand...

You do realize of course that those cars came out 15 years ago or more? Does this constitue modern?

And if you really want to race a more modern car, you could always ditch the Jensen or the 260Z. ;)

I'm not trying to attack you Ron, but I find your comments kind of ironic.
 
I suggest those cars because they are modern and are accessable to most IT racers due to price and availability. They also exceed the performance envelope for ITS, but I and some others are writing and working on that issue.

Ironic, maybe, but a man is allowed to change as he learns isn't he? (debatable, some SCCA folk are distinctly rooted in the era they entered racing) I've found some aspects of messing around with the Spec Miatas somewhat appealing - cheap and easy parts, fairly easy to work on car, and more importantly, a "modern" car that simply doesn't need attention every second outing. Sort of makes a weekend enjoyable.

Ron
 
If the intent is to just get your car on the track easier/cheaper and NOT to have a "performance" advantage that is one thing, however if your intent is to have a performance advantage then a severe line needs to be drawn.[/b]
Click to expand...


Please qoute for me the section of the GCR where something that is considered a performance gain is more illegal than something that is interpreted not to be.

I understand what your saying, but I hear that something is ok because it isn't a performance gain WAY too often. Things are legal or thay are not. Justifying things as non-performance gain is just justifying cheating, plain and simple.


Oh yeah, as to the original topic. A simple letter to request the removal of the speakers, or perhaps audio system, would fix the issue. And it would take less typing than this post...
 
Maybe it is time to...pen some new IT rules for the here and now.[/b]
Click to expand...

And this illustrates a lot of the problem. The problem is not the rules, the problem is the people reading the rules. The only thing non-modern in the IT category rules is an assumed attitude of common sense, something we are lacking today.

I've been around this category for a long time. Since the very first IT race someone has always looked for a way to twist the rules to their own advantage. However, I see a distinct difference - at least in my perception - of how IT rules are being read. "Back then" everyone pretty much agreed that the rules mean something common, something that 90% of the readers would accept without question; today everyone is looking for a "hook" to be able to do what they want to do while still being able to point to the rulebook and state, "See, it says right there, if you turn the book sideways and twist your tongue while holding your coffee in your right hand, that I can do this." And the rest of us go, "Oh yeah, I see that now."

To illustrate this, how many "rules interpretations" within the last few years have you heard/read about and said "oh yeah, I didn't see that before"? What does that indicate to you? Shall I name some of the forum bugaboos (e.g., Motec, SBs, splitters, wheel diameters, air intakes, oversize pistons, and so forth?) Do you REALLY think that a complete rewrite of the rules, describing in excrutiating verbiage the intent and details of each rule, will really stop this from happening? HAH! All it will do is increase the word count and provide even more opportunity for creative interpretation.

The real solution is for the category participants as a whole to change our collective attitudes, and that means no longer rewarding "creative interpretation" and b-slapping all these loopholes into the ground. But, as we've discussed ad nauseum it just ain't gonna happen, so we're stuck.

Each time I think I understand the philosophy of the class and the intent of the rules, I get surprised at a new twist on the book. A lot of the things we have been a complete surprise to me. To the positive, being on this forum has allowed me to learn some pretty creative stuff that I would have never figured out on my own...maybe that's the problem?

I feel sorry for anyone going at it alone.
 
:happy204: Good post Greg!! This topic got me thinking of all the silly things we need to do in IT...but it seems more and more neccesary. If you allow short shifters, XYZ company will come up with an all titanium linkage that will make your tranny shift 100 times faster for just $1999.00...or solid motor mounts...easy to find for the VW group and Honda group...but what about everyone else? We need to just leave the rule slicing and dicing alone and go by them...if there is a simple one that does not go with the times, then write a letter and get it changed. If enough people see that it is a silly rule, it will change. The people in the rules department seem to be doing alot of changes now, so sit tight and see what happens. If you post on here how stupid XYZ rule is and haven't written a letter to anyone, you are being lazy and do not know the process well enough to open your pie hole :blink: Read the rules, apply your thinking then re-read the rules. simple. If it is still a silly rule then rally people together here for a letter writing drive. Good luck!
 
While I agree with what Greg and Evan are saying for the most part, the reason for a re-write is to avaiod issues like the SB's and piston debates.

The book is flawed when you can have 2 people, from two (or more) generations of drivers, have them read the same rule and come up with two different answers. One can't say, "This was the way it was inended when they wrote the rule" while the other says, "Ya but that isn't what the rules says". (Trying to seperate creative interpretations here)

Times change, cars change, parts change, everything changes. I don't advocate a 100% re-write, but I do think the ITCS could use a nice clean up on some of the conflicting issues.

You will see that on pistons and SB's over the next month or two, based on member requests, not on a procative approach.

AB
 
While I agree with what Greg and Evan are saying for the most part, the reason for a re-write is to avaiod issues like the SB's and piston debates.

The book is flawed when you can have 2 people, from two (or more) generations of drivers, have them read the same rule and come up with two different answers. One can't say, "This was the way it was inended when they wrote the rule" while the other says, "Ya but that isn't what the rules says". (Trying to seperate creative interpretations here)

[/b]
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter that I was trying to verbalize. And Greg got part of it too about "feeling sorry for anyone going it alone". It is a tough road for a new racer to hoe alone due to all the various definitions.

Hate to use the SB example since it was so tied up in debate, but when I read that IT rule 1.5 years ago I thought to myself "okay, looks like I can use some delrin or something to stiffen up my suspension and maybe reduce the number of times I replace bushings over the life of the car". And that was about all I thought about that.

A guy brought up in a racing family with would probably have an entire different perspective on that rule.

Some clean up and simplification of rules could be done for sure, as well as a modern defintion of intent.

I am sort of hoping to include an "intent" with my ITU proposal as well, which I hope to get completed with Jeff in the next week or so. We've got 22 unique cars, 32 counting varitions of each, and maybe a couple more to add. It'll be rough, but at least it is something to write up and send in.

Ron
 
While it is easy to say a rewrite would clear up some issues, I am not sure it would change much. I think maybe we would still have a range of interpretations with any new wording.

I really think that the radio speaker example or the steering wheel example are interesting cases. If I understand the facts Kirk, who obviously to me at least takes the rule seriously and has spent time reading and understanding them, has always assumed from his perception of the rules that the speakers could be removed. Upon a very strict reread of the ITCS he now see that may not be true.

Is the removal of the speakers when the rule says radios may be removed or replaced reasonable. Is it possible that saying they must stay is the tortured interpretation.

We usually use the term “tortured interpretation” in the context of allowing additional modifications but what if the strictest interpretations, such as saying the speakers must stay is actually the tortured one?
 
I have been advocating a re-write or at least an evaluation and clean-up of the Rules for some time, and I generally agree w/ Greg's statement.

"Is the removal of the speakers when the rule says radios may be removed or replaced reasonable. Is it possible that saying they must stay is the tortured interpretation."

This serves as an example of the initial question. Before I went back and looked at the Rule I was thinking that if it said that the "radio" could be removed, then speakers would be included as part of the "complete assembly." But the Rule does not say "radio" - it says "radio receivers." That is a horse of a different color, very specific, and applying a "reasonable" interpretation, does not include speakers. That is not tortured - that is simply reading the Rule simply. A more difficult question, and this implicates the change in "radios" since the Rule was written, is whether a tape deck or CD changer can be removed. (not to mention drop-down TV screen!) What about OEM remote amps? Independent support for the proposition that speakers in the dash cannot be removed is 9.c: "Other than modifications made to mount instruments and provide for roll cage installation, the remainder of the dash 'board' or panel shall remain intact." Of course, if the speakers interfere w/ a cage tube, they can be removed under this Rule. And if the rear speakers were located in the rear shelf, which can be removed, obviously the speakers go w/ it. But otherwise, it looks to me like speakers cannot be removed as a matter of course. Put this one on the list for re-write.
 
I think re-writing the rules would open a big can of worms...maybe the comittee can just re-read the rules and clarify those types of things...the basic rules of IT are really good (we wouldnt be here if they were not) just a few silly things are there to make veterans and newbies argue about interpretation. The radio rule is silly and should be re-worded...the steering hub adapter should be added...im sure there are many more, so start writing proper interpretations for the questionable stuff...makes life easier in impound for non-compliance. You gotta leave one wierd one in there though so we can argue about it here...life would be boring without at least one silly rule!!! New cars with new technologies are going to just be harder to deal with if we dont get proactive on the rules...
 
Dick and others-

Rethinking my post I think I was not clear....

I think it is tourturing the rule when looking at how reasonable the current rules are in reguards to somehting such as the speaker rule. The rules on speakers should/could be left alone unless we (the drivers) are really interested in tourturing the rule... for what? did I beat kirk because I removed my speakers and he didn't??? come on...

Now we all witnessed that "Reasonable" arguments could be used for and against SB or oversized pistons. These sort of issues I do not feel as we (the drivers) are tourturing the GCR if we asked for clarification as these issues would be a reason that I was able to beat kirk because as we all know kirk is a rules nerd and follows the "safe" way of doing things... (ok that line was just to show that we are still smiling).

But in all seriouseness I do think we should work to eliminate reasonable arguments for performance gaining issues, however non performance gaining issues should not be tourtured, its not worth the valuable time it takes to debate at a rule making level.

This is my thought from a drivers standpoint.... Should it be from a Stewards standpoint when reviewing protests? I am VERY curious as to how you (the drivers) would want the stewards to react to what I see as two different types of issues.

Raymond "seperating driving from stewarding" Blethen
 
This is my thought from a drivers standpoint.... Should it be from a Stewards standpoint when reviewing protests? I am VERY curious as to how you (the drivers) would want the stewards to react to what I see as two different types of issues.

[/b]
Click to expand...


To the stewards there should not be two types of rules, ones that can be broken because they have nothing to do with performance and those that can't. Stewards don't know every car and every thing that can be done to them. Just because removing the speakers isn't a great gain on your car, don't asume it isn't on mine.

I heard once that they need more engineers in tech to sort through details like this. I say almost the opposite, fewer engineers, more lawyer types. Folks who would just read the rules and determine whether or not they are followed.
 
HEY!! What are you saying about we engineers? The lawyers are the trouble makers. They're the ones with their Thesaurus' and dictionaries out, determining alternate meanings for words just so they can help people see things their way. We engineers, on the other hand, see everything as either black or white... :D

But, seriously, I do aerospace qualification testing for a living. Even reading it in the same manner I read the qualification specs in, it is pretty easy to come up with multiple interpretations of the rules. I'd be happy to volunteer at tech (heck, that and T&S are really the only things I haven't volunteered at yet. Oh, and registration. Dang, I guess I need to work harder this year!) and read the rule, then look at someone's interpretation of it and discuss it with them.

The biggest problem is the people that don't read the rule book first. I couldn't believe my students in the Driver's School last year. It seemed as though none of them had read the GCR!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top