rules interpretations

Does the technical bulletin changing the bushing definition and clarifying the method that can be used to install them mean that the CRB felt that the strict interpretations discussed in the SB thread were tortured rather than reasonable.

If an alternant steering wheel can be fitted is it reasonable to say it can be welded. Is it a tortured interpretation to say in cannot?

Can an interpretation be tortured by being to strict or can that word only be used when one is stretching the rules?

Was Phil right? :o
 
Does the technical bulletin changing the bushing definition and clarifying the method that can be used to install them...[/b]
Click to expand...
I found it interesting that the ITAC/CRB chose to change both, as the glossary definition would have been sufficient on its own.

...mean that the CRB felt that the strict interpretations discussed in the SB thread were tortured rather than reasonable.[/b]
Click to expand...
I wasn't a fly on the wall in that conference, and the conferees don't like to talk, but the scuttlebutt is that the change was more as a result of a "cat's already out of the bag" situation rather than a 'clarification of intent'.

Word had gotten out that I and a few other people (who shall remain nameless unless they choose to speak up) were deep into the process of preparing a well-thought-out GCR 13.9 request on this issue. We had it written with points of view from both sides and we had the $250 collected (thanks to all that contributed!). In my opinion, it was a hell of a well-done document and everyone that chose to participate in this process should be commended. Unfortunately, the very day that I was about to drop it in FedEx I got word that someone else on this forum had short-circuited this process by emailing a specific request to allow SBs and that it was coming up for discussion with the CRB that day (or something close like that). We quickly submitted our positions for consideration of the CRB but unfortunately it was too late.

When I learned of this I was pretty well steamed.

So, due to someone's impatience, the question of "what was the true meaning and intent of that rule" will always remain unanswered, with each side firmly believing they were right. Today, it's moot.

If an alternant steering wheel can be fitted is it reasonable to say it can be welded. Is it a tortured interpretation to say in cannot?[/b]
Click to expand...
If we were to accept the premise that a strict interpretation on one particular point is considered tortured (and I personally do not), we cannot logically accept the premise that any strict interpretations are tortured. If we do that, then logically all strict interpretations are tortured and thus the rule that says I cannot move a suspension pickup point is really not a hard and fast rule.

I'm game for that, but I really don't think we wanna go there...

Can an interpretation be tortured by being to strict or can that word only be used when one is stretching the rules?[/b]
Click to expand...
Apparently, that depends on what your definition of the word "is" is, Dick...
 
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.[/b]
Click to expand...

How often in life do things just end up working its own way out? And how many times did this person's engine blow up after this incident? I know I had a big smile as I saw the thing smoke on the side of the track. Think of it this way Jake, without that piston the engine just couldn't run properly and caused tons of damage. See what you guys did? :D
 
I found it interesting that the ITAC/CRB chose to change both, as the glossary definition would have been sufficient on its own.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I was suprised as well. while I was on the side that thought the bearings were okay, when i bought my car it had tack welds which I fixed as my reading was that the weld were a modification that was not allowed.

Word had gotten out that I and a few other people (who shall remain nameless unless they choose to speak up) were deep into the process of preparing a well-thought-out GCR 13.9 request on this issue....

When I learned of this I was pretty well steamed.
[/b]
Click to expand...
While I am personely happy that there was not a ruling that made what I believe was a legal modification to my car illegal it would have been interesting to see the process work out.

If we were to accept the premise that a strict interpretation on one particular point is considered tortured (and I personally do not), we cannot logically accept the premise that any strict interpretations are tortured. If we do that, then logically all strict interpretations are tortured and thus the rule that says I cannot move a suspension pickup point is really not a hard and fast rule.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I think that is a stretch Greg. I see a difference between moving a pick up point and the method of attachment of a replacement steering wheel.
 
I see a difference between...[/b]
Click to expand...
That's the point, Dick: You may see the difference. I may see the difference. And we very well may disagree! But, when we have a set of rules that become varous shades of gray depending on someone's viewpoint, experience, and their mood of the day, then we really have no rules. Absent the detailed inclusion of the intent of each and every rule, the only thing we have left is the words and the stated philosophy of the class, and the latter has proven to be pointless. As it's been illustrated time and time again, those words either mean what they say (despite possibly not saying what they mean)...or they don't.

In the end we have folks stuffing MoTecs into stock ECU housings, spherical bearings being defined as bushings (and welded, drilled, and/or bolted into place), replacement steering wheels morphing into steering shaft modifications, BMW drivers reinforcing weak areas of their cars, air dams sprouting splitters, and so forth and so on. I may sound like the fatalist, but when the words mean whatever it is you need them to mean, then they mean nothing.

As a case in point, read through the SB and bushings "clarifications" and let your mind go wild on the possibilities. Feel free to stick your face underneath my car sometime later in the year and let's talk about "shades of gray", viewpoints, differing opinions, too-strict 'tortured' interpretations, and so forth.

Remember: once the box is opened, there is no going back... - GA
 
You do, Dick - but who's to say that someone won't come along next month who doesn't, pushing the envelope just a little bit further?

The cat's-out-of-the-bag approach is a huge contributor to industrial-strength creep. Continuing the same example Greg put out there, if 100 IT entrants all moved their suspension mounting points, and nobody did anything about it for a couple of years, that could very easily become a de facto interpretation and get handled the same way, by decision makers reluctant to make their own lives difficult by making an unpopular decision.

I don't think that's a stretch at all, based on my experiences.

K
 
Here is my take on the SB decision. Jake or Darin can correct me....

This came up on our agenda from a letter. We discussed the rule and, just like this site, we had a difference of opinion on what was allowed. To make a long story short, we agreed that the rule needed to be cleaned up - but we needed to understand what the CRB INTENDED the rule to mean.

To make a long story short, it was decided that SB's were going to be allowed. Some will cal lthis creep, some will call it a clarification to the accepted norm, some will call it both.

When we decided to allow them specifically, we realized that the cost of a LEGAL installation is very expensive. Tack welding them IS a modification to the control arm - so the process needed to be looked at. The specific wording is in there to allow this simple, inexpensive way to do this without having to drop major coin (one would think this type of thinking could apply to ECU's) on a custom, outsourced set-up. If we want it to be legal, let's make it easy, but not open up the door to other issues.

I think we have done that.

AB

You do, Dick - but who's to say that someone won't come along next month who doesn't, pushing the envelope just a little bit further?

The cat's-out-of-the-bag approach is a huge contributor to industrial-strength creep. Continuing the same example Greg put out there, if 100 IT entrants all moved their suspension mounting points, and nobody did anything about it for a couple of years, that could very easily become a de facto interpretation and get handled the same way, by decision makers reluctant to make their own lives difficult by making an unpopular decision.

I don't think that's a stretch at all, based on my experiences.

K [/b]
Click to expand...

While I agree with you on the generic creep comment, your suspension pick-up point example is a huge stretch. What rule would you be reading in the GREY that you would be running with? Just because people are doing it doesn't mean it has to be accepted as legal. The piston and SB issues are ones of two distinct camps not agreeing on the intent and the written. The new wording you will see will make it clear what is allowed.

AB
 
Despite all the coverage of the winter games, I am as afraid of slippery slopes as just about anyone. I do however the comparison between the suspension pickup points and the steering wheel attachment is flawed. In the former you are doing a prohibited function. In the latter the rules says you can replace the steering wheel and does not discuss method of attachment. You are contending that it cannot be welded because if it does not say you can, you can’t.

The rule says I may replace the steering wheel. Is it not reasonable to use any common method of attachment?
 
As I wrote above, Dick: it's apparently come down to what the definition of the word "is" is... - GA
 
To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes:

[b]"We need an education in the obvious more than an investigation of the obscure."[/b]


I had no idea he raced cars!!!


R
 
As I wrote above, Dick: it's apparently come down to what the definition of the word "is" is... - GA
[/b]
Click to expand...
well thank you Greg for repeating yourself but in this context I have no idea what you mean by that. :rolleyes:
 
It means the same exact thing that it did when those words were made immortal that fateful day: I can make the rules read any damn thing I want to fit my purpose or personal agenda.

Said differently: there are no rules, do whatever you want (or whatever you think you can get away with.)

Rob, that Holmes' quote is a classic, and perfectly applicable.
 
well Greg I guess i understand now you seem to have disgust with me for asking the question but I am no closer to getting an answer.
 
If the question is, "The rule says I may replace the steering wheel. Is it not reasonable to use any common method of attachment?" then I thought the answer was obvious; the answer, of course, is "no" it is not reasonable.

For if anything that is allowed to be "replaced" leaves the method of attachment open to one's definition of "common", or if "material" can be anything including 'air' (and including dimensions and function), and if the acceptance of a set of words is open to interpretation and expectation of the reader, then - again - there are no rules. These particular examples become nothing more than the beginning of the end towards rules anarchy.

If this is true, that anything allowed to be replaced can be done so in any manner desired and that any material change is wide open, then I have a lot more work to do this year to design, build, and prep this IT race car. The mind boggles with the possibilities... - GA
 
thank you Greg, I now understand your perspective better.

anyone else? [/b]
Click to expand...

King Richard,

I will take a stab. If I understand your question, you want to know if it is ok to weld the steering wheel to a factory column?



My first inclination is to say no. When you are allowed to 'replace' something with something else, that allowance refers to the part itself. Changing it's method of attachment is not legal IMHO.



Why anyone would want to weld the steering wheel into the car is beyond me. If you are talking about welding the wheel to an adapter 'hub' that then bolted to the column by the factory means/design, I would say that your hub/steering wheel was all one steering wheel from Patullo Motorsports and legal under the allowance for any wheel.


Am I making ANY sense?

AB
 
Here is my take on the SB decision. Jake or Darin can correct me....

This came up on our agenda from a letter. We discussed the rule and, just like this site, we had a difference of opinion on what was allowed. To make a long story short, we agreed that the rule needed to be cleaned up - but we needed to understand what the CRB INTENDED the rule to mean.


AB
[/b]
Click to expand...

My recollection of the discussion was that SBs were fine in the eye of the CRB. They didn't have an issue with them then, and they don't now. Of course, at that point in time, SBs were not as widespread and as easy to get, and the "dual purpose" nature of the category caused many to not even think of such a change.

I was a bit surprised by their comments that tack welding was okie dokey, which many of us felt was completely against the rules. But the thoughts were that allowing tack welds would save a lot of money and headaches, and were in keeping with category philosophy on those counts.

My impression from the discussion though, was that it was NOT a case of "Well everybody's doing it so we might as well allow it"...

My 2 cents....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top