rules interpretations

Tim-

Thank you for your reply, It is Black and White and I think that it gets to what I am looking for for feedback in this post and I think Dick can also take something away from it in reguards to his initial question (if you read into it).

Thank you again, others???


Raymond
 
I think the rules are pretty good in their current form with a few exceptions (SBs, pistions, etc.) that could stand to be cleared up. Unless you want a rule book a 1000 pages long for just the IT portion, then there will always be interpretations of the rules. I think the time that would be spent on re-writing the rulebook could be better spent on other things.

I think reasonableness (is that really a word?) and intent should factor in when stewards or us racers (cause we're the ones that file a protest, right) interpret rules. There's a big difference IMO between no wiper stalk and illegal cams. One I could care less about, the other I would protest, but both are technically illegal. Exercise some common sense and just go racing. Otherwise you'll just sit around trying to figure out if that windshield wiper switch you just installed is legal or not.

David
 
It's not necessary for an inference-resistant ITCS to be longer than it is now. In fact, it should be shorter.

First - take out any and all references to things that we can NOT do. It is physically impossible to list everything that is prohibited and the the addition of "clarifying language" in response to questions, conflicts, or changing technology has only complicated things. The first principal should be reinforced - IIDSYCYC!! (emphasis mine).

The second important step is to get rid of wobbly language. The rules need to say exactly what the writers want them to say. The most common error is the addition of words. "Radio receiver" doesn't clarify "radio" - it redefines it.

Finally, when something needs changing - freaking change it. There's a tendency to just diddle around the edges - adding a word here, tweaking a sentence there, or worst of all just adding more text with the attendant chance of creating more conflicts. Thankfully, this response SEEMS to be changing, with the discontinuation of the "blackline" policy, of noting edits.

That's the rules, anyway.

Policy has to SUPPORT this effort though, including consistency in enforcement. It is terribly frustrating to me when I hear about stewards applying their own values to the rules, rather than just enforcing what they say.

K
 
I try to take the "just have fun and stay within the obvious intent of the rule" road when possible, but I have to admit that its sometimes hard.

I will never forget when I got my car logbooked. Two experienced stewards arguing over the rear tubes in my cage. It wasn't a safety issue, it was an IT legality issue.
Basically... What constitutes an "attachment point?"

Well, I thought I knew, and so did the 20 year SCCA experienced cage builder who built it. But apparently it wasn't as clear as we thought. Actually, its still not clear, since the folks involved in the debate never really reached a concensus.

I'm sure glad nobody ever protested it, because the result likely would have depended upon who was there with the forms in their hand.

Just food for thought.
I agree with both Greg and Kirk here. On the one hand, some of the rules are clear as mud, but on the other sometimes the intent is fairly obvious and folks are just using a bad faith twisting of the verbage.

At the end of the day, I guess the fact that we keep having these discussions demonstrates that something needs to be done. BUT... To Gregs point... Somebody will manage to torture the hell out of the new rules.
 
Kirk,

I think the policy support is going to be the largest obsticle. Just like we have drivers that apply their own value standards to the rule (as evidenced by David's wiper stalk comment), you will have stewards that will do the same thing.

Scott,

Interesting about the attachment point issue. The same thing happened when my old ITB car got its logbook. Had to actually pull out the GCR and show the steward that it said that you could attach as many tubes as you wanted to the mounting plate, and it was still one point. He kinda got his nose out of joint that someone would question him. On top of that, he didn't like to be proved wrong. He issued the logbook, but you could tell that he didn't want to.
 
Exact same issue on my car.

Is the attachment "point" anywhere on that plate? Or is it one point on that plate?
I've discovered that it depends upon who you ask.

Oh well... My latest batch of home brew will be ready to drink by VIR, and really, isn't that whats important?
 
...kinda got his nose out of joint that someone would question him. On top of that, he didn't like to be proved wrong.[/b]
Click to expand...
Exactly the kind of s**t that led me to volunteer to become a tech inspector. I groused to the regional chief of tech, he handed me a Scrutineer license application form, and it's been downhill from there...

Scott, to your point, the rule says, basically, make the plate to the specified size, put in the mandatory tubes, and add whatever the hell you want to anyplace you want as long as it never attaches to the car except on those plates. IOW, add as many tubes to those plates as you want. - GA
 
add as many tubes to those plates as you want. - GA
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what we did.
And the first inspector that looked at it said "Thats not legal."
Then I said "Yes it is."
He said "No its not."
Then another tech guy said "Yes it is."
and so on...

Its a Blonde Ale, a strong one.
Greg can't have one unless he crawls out of his hole and comes to VIR next month.
 
Point 1-

To quote a famous IT philosopher, when you run into a problem like that, "In the SCCA, if you don't like the answer you get, ask someone else".....

I had some rear tube issues as well....one tech said, "That's the way it is on MY (RX7) car, another said, "You wouldn't have a logbook if I did the inspection!". I said, "Gulp!!! Can tech #1 sign my book?" and tech #2 said "Not on my watch, and THIS is MY watch!"

So I had to reweld, on a "fix for next race" waiver.

That kind of stuff really sucks.
But, as we can see, guys like GA and Dickita (cha cha cha, thanks Kirk!) are getting their hands dirty, so thats a good thing.

Point 2-

I think what Mr Blethen is getting at is that when faced with a car that has an illegal component, he has to hand out a penalty. Part of that penalty judgement is the competitors intent. There are cheats and there are cheats. If I am not mistaken, the Stewards book lists infractions, and the range of penalties that are attached. My understanding is that it is up to the Stewards to determine where in the possible range of penalties this particular infraction falls. Life in prison? Or death penalty?

Case in point, when the infamous Honda protest went down, the result was that the guy was running illegal high comp pistons, and had been for some time. Even set a track record on them. When the Steward in charge called me to give me the final results, the conversation went something like this:

Him: "The results of the piston investigation are in, and they are indeed non compliance parts, so he was disqualified from the race"
Me: "So they were high comp pistons?"
Him:"yup"
ME: "How long had he been running them?"
Him: "I don't know"
Me: " Did you ask him?"
Him: "No"
Me: "Why not"
Him: "Didn't think of it"

ya see, to me at least THAT is a critical bit of information, and I KNOW it is often asked way early in the process. Not this time though....

In this case, I was told the "The shame" should serve as punishment alone.

But to me, that guy needed to go buy a bunch of trophies for every guy he screwed out of one while he ran those parts.

So, good judgement is an important part of the process. The guidelines can only go so far. But good judgement, and a complete job must be done in fairness to everyone.

(I am glad to report that lots of folks really learned something on that protest, and changes have been made, and things have run much better since)
 
But you can't punish the guy for any more than he was found doing. So asking him how long they have been in there is irrelevant. Nice to know to make a few folks feel better, but irrelevant.

In fact, he can leave them in there. The next time someone protests him for illegal pistons, the fact that he's already been caught doing it doesn't matter either. No such thing as a second offense in the GCR.


And, I am an engineer too, an automotive one even. The reason I heard they were looking for engineers was to be able to figure out folks intent, that is the technical adavantage to doing various things. Not tech's job. Tech's job is: Read the rule. Did someone break it or not? Report findings to the Stewards.
 
But you can't punish the guy for any more than he was found doing. So asking him how long they have been in there is irrelevant. Nice to know to make a few folks feel better, but irrelevant.

In fact, he can leave them in there. The next time someone protests him for illegal pistons, the fact that he's already been caught doing it doesn't matter either. No such thing as a second offense in the GCR.
And, I am an engineer too, an automotive one even. The reason I heard they were looking for engineers was to be able to figure out folks intent, that is the technical adavantage to doing various things. Not tech's job. Tech's job is: Read the rule. Did someone break it or not? Report findings to the Stewards.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Tim,

It's my understanding that non-compliant parts are confiscated.
 
Not sure about that Bill. Doesn't matter. If they were taken, he could just put in another set. That wasn't my point. Gotta pull out the GCR again...
 
You guys are all missing an important part of this discussion, contributed by Scott:

A blonde ale? A kit, or your own recipe? :D :happy204:

I need to get off my duff and make some more if I expect to have any ready by the time the season resumes...
 
But the range of penalties is the key issue.

If you were protested for a missing washer bottle, found illegal, I would hope you got a "illegal - fix by next event, no penalty"

If you were found with illegal pistons, I would hope you got "Z"
If you were found AGAIN with illegal pistons, I would hope you get "Z" x 2
If you were found for a 3rd time with illegal pistons, I would hope you get booted fo good.

AB
 
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 intended when they wrote the rule" while the other says, "Ya but that isn't what the rules says". (Trying to separate creative interpretations here) [/b]
Click to expand...

Well said. I certainly agree that the rules need to be simplified. While its great that many of us here read and in general understand the GCR now, was that always the case? Most of us agree that IT is a great place for people to start their racing career. The GCR should be written in a way to make achieving this as easy as possible. We need to remember that we’re not all engineers, lawyers, or even have a technical background. When I first received my GCR a few years ago, I looked at it and thought WTF? There were items that I just didn’t understand (and I’m not talking about trying to stretch the rules). Call me stupid but there are many people that had/have the same reaction. By all means I’m not saying that the rules shouldn’t require effort and thought, but if that is done, a person should have an understanding if things are legal or not. From there it is up to the person to make a decision if they abide by the rules or not.

Even now I have a tough time determining if some items are legal or not. Related to what Andy said, a few things that I questioned I sought clarification from others and obtained differing opinions. One answer I received is it has gone through the ARRC tech shed several times, which we all know doesn’t mean it is truly legal. This brings us to a place Ray has talked about in the past – what is the next step? Who can we turn to in order to determine if it is actually legal or not? Based on past discussions the only way is to get protested, then move that protest on up the ladder. Ooops! Getting just a bit off topic here…

Basically what I’m getting at is I most definitely agree that the GCR could use some improvements. One important step to make it meet its goals (be user friendly even to new racers) should include involving new people to racing on the project to obtain their input. Maybe even obtain input from people outside of racing to obtain their opinion. All too often we take our knowledge and understanding of the rules for granted. Damn that is one intimidating rulebook when first looking at it.
 
All too often we take our knowledge and understanding of the rules for granted. Damn that is one intimidating rulebook when first looking at it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Dave-

Off topic, but good point

Also off topic, but I wanted to clarify a FYI: You might not like this process, but you can pay $250.00 to get a rule clarification, it is section 13.9 of your GCR. (While I like the 13.9 I don't like that it costs you money, and I am not impressed that I/we can not go to Tech before an event such as the ARRC to get a clarification at least for that one event).

Raymond "Now lets get back on topic dave!!! :024: " Blethen
 
Hey Jake, refresh my memory about that Honda protest. When those pistons were found to be non-compliant, were they confiscated?
[/b]
Click to expand...

No. IIRC, they were not. We required a compression measurement, and stock components, in unmodified condition, where stock measurements were not available. The throttle body, for instance, had no measurement in the shop manual, so we required a proper part number, and no signs of alteration.

But they were unable to perform a compression test as agreed upon, and pronounced it in compliance, based on the observations of no undue decking or head shaving. But the pistons were improper, and when asked, the owner stated that they were non Honda replacement parts. My eyebrows raised.

A Steward, who arrived on the second day, oversaw the procedure as an observer, and snapped some digital pictures of the pistons. While the protest commitee green lighted the compression, I insisted that that conclusion could not be made without knowing the measurements and volumes of the pistons. So, the picture was taken and compared with a stock part ordered from a Honda dealer by a Honda technician, who agreed, that there was no comparision. (I was later reminded that a casual observer noticed the obviously illegal pistons IN the car, form the beyond the cordoned off area where the teardown was conducted. so it wasn't a tough call)

In the end, actually at the end of the teardown, all parts were returned and he left, exceprt for the cam which was sent to Kansas.

Dave-

Off topic, but good point

Also off topic, but I wanted to clarify a FYI: You might not like this process, but you can pay $250.00 to get a rule clarification, it is section 13.9 of your GCR. (While I like the 13.9 I don't like that it costs you money, and I am not impressed that I/we can not go to Tech before an event such as the ARRC to get a clarification at least for that one event).

Raymond "Now lets get back on topic dave!!! :024: " Blethen
[/b]
Click to expand...

I imagine the finacial aspect is to dissuade you and me from overusing the system and tying up HQ with needless requests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top