rules interpretations

[dickita15]

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?

[pfcs]

I'd be flabbergasted.

[Knestis]

Just got home from a lovely weekend of not caring. Won't start now. :)

K

[Ron Earp]

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]

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

[Renaultfool]

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.

[Ron Earp]

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]

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

[RSTPerformance]

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

[Geo]

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]

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.

[Ron Earp]

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

[tderonne]

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]


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...

[Greg Amy]

Maybe it is time to...pen some new IT rules for the here and now.[/b]

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.

[zracre]

: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!

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

[Ron Earp]

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]

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

[dickita15]

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?

[bldn10]

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.

[zracre]

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...

[RSTPerformance]

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

[tderonne]

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]


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.

[planet6racing]

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!!!

[RSTPerformance]

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

[DavidM]

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

[Knestis]

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

[Catch22]

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.

[Bill Miller]

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.

[Catch22]

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?

[Greg Amy]

...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]
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

[Catch22]

add as many tubes to those plates as you want. - GA
[/b]

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.

[lateapex911]

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)

[Bill Miller]

Hey Jake, refresh my memory about that Honda protest. When those pistons were found to be non-compliant, were they confiscated?

[tderonne]

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.

[Bill Miller]

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]

Tim,

It's my understanding that non-compliant parts are confiscated.

[tderonne]

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...

[planet6racing]

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...

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

[gran racing]

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]

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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There is a very true statement that gets used on another board:

"Teardown Legal"

Think about it.

AB

[RSTPerformance]

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]

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

[JamesB]

you know I wondered about that myself. Well they always said time is money.

[lateapex911]

Hey Jake, refresh my memory about that Honda protest. When those pistons were found to be non-compliant, were they confiscated?
[/b]

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]

I imagine the finacial aspect is to dissuade you and me from overusing the system and tying up HQ with needless requests.

[Bill Miller]

Thanks Jake. Did you get any explanation as to why the non-compliant pistons were not confiscated?

[lateapex911]

LOL....no, that was the LEAST of my concerns at the time....

[Bill Miller]

LOL....no, that was the LEAST of my concerns at the time....
[/b]


Yeah, I can sure see that!

[dickita15]

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

[Greg Amy]

Does the technical bulletin changing the bushing definition and clarifying the method that can be used to install them...[/b]
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]
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]
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]
Apparently, that depends on what your definition of the word "is" is, Dick...

[gran racing]

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]

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

[dickita15]

I found it interesting that the ITAC/CRB chose to change both, as the glossary definition would have been sufficient on its own.
[/b]

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]
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]

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.

[Greg Amy]

I see a difference between...[/b]
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

[Knestis]

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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]

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

[dickita15]

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?

[Greg Amy]

As I wrote above, Dick: it's apparently come down to what the definition of the word "is" is... - GA

[Doc Bro]

To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes:

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


I had no idea he raced cars!!!


R

[dickita15]

As I wrote above, Dick: it's apparently come down to what the definition of the word "is" is... - GA
[/b]
well thank you Greg for repeating yourself but in this context I have no idea what you mean by that. :rolleyes:

[Greg Amy]

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.

[dickita15]

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.

[Greg Amy]

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

[dickita15]

thank you Greg, I now understand your perspective better.

anyone else?

[Andy Bettencourt]

thank you Greg, I now understand your perspective better.

anyone else? [/b]

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

[lateapex911]

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]

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....

[tom91ita]

snip...The rule says I may replace the steering wheel. Is it not reasonable to use any common method of attachment?
[/b]

i am afraid i am on the side that says that we can attach the steering wheel any way we want to.

the rule states "Any steering wheel except wood rimmed types may be used."

This is NOT the same as "The steering wheel may be replaced."

I think it is a tortured interpretation to say that it means that the method of attachment must be the same or they would have said "Any steering wheel except wood rimmed types may be used providing it uses the original attachment method."

not all steering wheels have the same attachment means and since i can use "Any", i can attach it 'any' way i need to.

regrets, tom

[ddewhurst]

***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.***

Jake, is this the same group of people that let the costs of Production cars get out of control with their incremental CREEP ? :dead_horse:


Dick, I just installed a new steering wheel & BOLT ON Q.D. to my Spec Miata. :cavallo:

[Joe Harlan]

9. Driver/Passenger Compartment - Trunk
............
b. Any steering wheel except wood rimmed types may be used.
Any shift knob may be used.[/b]

I am still looking for the part that says a quick release is legal?

I do agree that when the original rules for this kind of stuff was written it was probably never considered that half of thise stuff would even be considered either pro or con... rough call.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I wonder if some of the same logic used for valve guides and steering wheels were applied to the 'shift knobs may be replaced' would get you a shiny new short shifter? :bash_1_:


the rule states "Any steering wheel except wood rimmed types may be used."

This is NOT the same as "The steering wheel may be replaced."[/b]

I fail to see the difference.

AB

[tom91ita]

snip..

I fail to see the difference.

AB
[/b]

somethings are implied whether we want to accept it or admit it.

i wasn't speaking about replacing the steering column only the means of fastening the steering wheel to it. if someone wants to weld a metal shift knob to the shift linkage, that should be fine. or even glue it or bolt it or pin it.

"Dead pedal/foot rest and heel stop may be added." presumably in the driver's foot well and not in the back of the car correct? :018:

"Two way radios are permitted." both the installation and use, correct? the radios can be connected to power from the car, right? :018:

ballast must be removable to be weighed and be attached with a minimum of two bolts, etc. how about tack-welding the ballast in like the spherical "bearings" because the tack welds can be cut with a grinder.

why not just weld the ballast in completely? now its the level of difficulty to remove that we could debate.

any DOT tire is permitted. can i change tire pressures from stock? can i use pure nitrogen instead of air? :018:

there has to be some sense of reasonableness on our side and some of it is self-policing through the use of community norms that develop even through the use of these forums, etc..

tom :birra:

[Joe Harlan]

Tom, While I agree in part I ask again can you point me to the spot that says quick release hubs are legal? I know in other classes it specifically allows them?

[zracre]

This is silly!

ITCS-13 9. b. Any steering wheel except wood trimmed types may be used. Any shift knob may be used.

puh leeze! If the steering wheel is a quick release type and requires a hub adapter to be welded on, c'mon dude! Its a steering wheel and safety item for some in smaller cars. This is CLUB RACING...that is rule torture! there is no performance advantage and it says you can replace the wheel. The wheel attaches with a bolt. Hardware is open. Bolt replaced with a blob of weld. Ha!!

[Knestis]

The point at which "tortured interpretation" became a synonym for "strict interpretation" is the point at which we went completely 'round the bend.

If I can weld a little on my steering shaft and A-arms, can I weld a little more? Can I weld a lot? Can I put some metal on that arm, other than wire? It's the same thing, only easier. Can I grind before I weld? Gotta have a clean surface. Can I cut a little? Can I cut a little more?

Sure. Okay, I guess. It IS the same thing. Of course! Hmm - don't see why not. Sure - what the heck.

Can I put back some metal that I cut off? Cool - here's my hand-fabricated, custom A-arm.

That some of us don't even THINK that can happen is an indication that we haven't been paying attention. We think of TransAm now in terms of handmade, ground-up cars but when the series started it wasn't a hell of a long way from what IT is now. Reinforced suspension components became lightened components, which got "interpreted" into lightened-away, reinforced air components = custom bits.

LEARN from our past mistakes.

K

[tderonne]

Where does this "if it isn't a performance advantage it's ok" logic come from?

Certainly not the GCR.
GCR 13.4:
In the event a car is found in non-compliance, a claim that the non-compliant item(s) offer no performance advantage shall have no influence on any ruling.





And while I'm being a picky.

Why does everyone think fasteners are open?

They aren't. At least not everywhere. "Hardware items" are free in three areas: reciprocating engines, trans/final drive, and suspension mounting points.

Sure no one's going to loss a race because of a non-stock fender bolt, but per the GCR they could.

[zracre]

If I can weld a little on my steering shaft and A-arms, can I weld a little more? Can I weld a lot? Can I put some metal on that arm, other than wire? It's the same thing, only easier. Can I grind before I weld? Gotta have a clean surface. Can I cut a little? Can I cut a little more?

Sure. Okay, I guess. It IS the same thing. Of course! Hmm - don't see why not. Sure - what the heck.

Can I put back some metal that I cut off? Cool - here's my hand-fabricated, custom A-arm.



K
[/b]


you can only weld alittle on your a arms if it is a factory authorised repair...like the BMW's! otherwise you are cheating. It says you can replace steering wheel. If you want to weld your a arms to your frame, go for it im sure no one will protest that (they may laugh some though). If you cut grind and weld alittle you will have non stockk parts. Not the same thing as putting a quick release wheel on. If you cut weld grind and lighten any part, other than whats outlined, its illegal. if you reinforce your chassis beyond FACTORY repair, illegal. It is common sense what can and can't be done for the most part but im all for clarifying some stuff as it confuses people into random wandering the streets...

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is silly!

ITCS-13 9. b. Any steering wheel except wood trimmed types may be used. Any shift knob may be used.

puh leeze! If the steering wheel is a quick release type and requires a hub adapter to be welded on, c'mon dude! Its a steering wheel and safety item for some in smaller cars. This is CLUB RACING...that is rule torture! there is no performance advantage and it says you can replace the wheel. The wheel attaches with a bolt. Hardware is open. Bolt replaced with a blob of weld. Ha!! [/b]

And we have proven Dick's first post. Some are torturers because they EXTEND the rules, and some are torturers because they read a strict interpretation.

I didn't think I was a torturer, but I am! An "Strict Torturer" (ST) I will call myself.

AB
"The first step to a full recovery is knowing you have a problem...'

[tom91ita]

Tom, While I agree in part I ask again can you point me to the spot that says quick release hubs are legal? I know in other classes it specifically allows them?
[/b]

Joe, honestly, I can't but I can show you steering wheels that are attached with quick release hubs.

I maintain that it is implied because if I can use "Any" steering wheel, I can use those that are attached with quick release hubs.

I don't mean to sound like a smart aleck, but can anyone show me where we can use air pressures outside the car's recommended ranges? I can't find it anywhere nor can I find where we can use pure nitrogen. I can't even find where it says I am allowed to get in the car. :018:

If the media used to inflate the tire is "free" then can I use water and sand to inflate my spare? Does it have to be the OEM spacesaver spare? Can my spare "tire" be metal?

This is club racing and although I am not for the wild west, we need to have reasonableness ourselves. I say it is reasonable to use a Q.R. hub because I can use "Any" steering wheel. With as restrictive as the cars can be with door bars, the better bucket seats, the HANS systems, etc., etc., I wouldn't be surprised that in 1-2 years quick release hubs will be mandated as safety equipment.

then we'll have something new to discuss! :024:

tom

[Greg Amy]

I remember, way back in the old daze of 1999, when I decided to consider coming back to Improved Touring. I had not built an IT car since the mid- to late-80's, back when IT was only a few years old. The rules themselves hadn't really changed much; it was pretty much the same stuff with minor details in areas such as safety (e.g., welded rollcages), prep, (e.g., interiors all removed), and philosophy (e.g., no more intent for dual-purpose and no longer required to be capable of being registered.)

Then I went to the track and looked at the cars.

Boy, was I shocked at some of the things I saw. I still saw most of the field filled with "backyard" cars, those built in some guy's garage, displacing the Family Truckster, being worked on between diaper changes and taking the kids to football practice, being pulled on cheap single-axle trailers behind the Truckster. However, there was an inkling of the things to come: high-tech cars with serious suspensions (coilover spring conversions, remote reservoir shocks, megabuck seats and safety equipment), seriously expensive wheels and tires, enclosed trailers being pulled by expensive diesel trucks. I also saw some items of prep that caused me to wonder how it could be legal (e.g., splitters). I thought to myself these were either folks with too much money and time and didn't figure they could cut it in National racing, or this category was well on its way to being well out of reach of the folks it was originally intended.

Within the last 5 years, this situation has spiralled out of control. Coupled with the increasing number of megaprep efforts of several major players, discussions such as the intent and legality of rules is quickly making Improved Touring less and less attractive, even to me. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, if I were to start over I seriously doubt I would build an IT car, and discussions like the one in this thread making it even less attractive. Why spend all this time, money, and effort in order to simply try to keep up with a ruleset that is in effect constantly changing? How is it that one can build a good car - at any level - and expect to be able to keep up with competitors that are constantly re-interpreting the rules via loopholes and tortured verbiage? Sit back and REALLY THINK about the defacto and dejure rules changes we've experienced just in the last five years! Think about all the different mods and prep that have become legal either a specific change in the rules or by someone creatively interpreting the status quo acceptance of what those rules mean. It's pretty absurd when you think about it.

Frankly, if we keep this up (or tolerate it, or do not fight it) then I honestly believe the future of Improved Touring is no longer attractive to me. For less money, time, and effort I can buy, build, and prep one of the soon-to-be-new class Touring 3 or 4 cars which will require a lot of prep but significantly less options in mods, plus the rules will be enforced with a vengeance. Even if I only race it on a regional level, at least I'm working on a somewhat stable and level playing field. This is something that I've personally been giving serious consideration, and discussions like the above do nothing to dissuade me.

Guys, if this was 1999 and I was reading this board, I'd avoid IT like the plague. Seriously.

I think a lot of you enjoy the challenge of finding loopholes through which to jump; I certainly enjoy the mental exercise. But by doing so we're setting ourselves up for significant failure.

I'm going to step back away from the keyboard for a while, 'cause this board is driving me nuts. The "what ifs" and "could we" and "how about this" just makes me ill as to the future prospects. I'll pop in and read every once in a while, but for the short term I'm going to put my fingers in my ears, go "la la la la la I'm not listening to you" and hope that when I return y'all have gotten it all out of your system and the world is back to normal...

[Doc Bro]

Hey I just got a killer deal on spherical spaker bearings if anyone is in............. :happy204:



I'll go back to my O.W. Holmes quote;

"We need an education in the obvious more than an investigation of the obscure"




And by the way....It amazes me that in Jake's post the CRB allowed tack welds of SB's to save costs to the competitor.......please tell me this is not the same CRB the thought MOTEC was good for the class.

UHHH....Split Personalty issue????



Let's keep it fun and attainable for the masses; the two are not mutually exclusive!!

R

[Joe Harlan]

3. Any steering wheel and wheel quick release mechanism
complying with GCR Section 11.2.1.U., may be used.[/b]

Tom this is from the Prod section


b. Steering Wheel
1. Any steering wheel and wheel quick release mechanism
complying with GCR Section 11.2.1.U., may be used.
Refer to Section D.5.e.2., of these rules for additional
steering specifications.[/b]
This is from GT

Again applying common sense one could say that a QR is spelled out in these classes and with a spec to top it off. So I fail to see how we make the common sense jump to them being allowed in IT. Not trying to be a smart a** either but no where does it say QR is legal. I believe it should but I currently don't believe it does and we currently don't install them in my shop.

[Greg Amy]

...where does it say QR is legal.[/b]
It doesn't have to, Joe.

This steering wheel argument is just plain stupid, the kind of s**t that really pisses me off.

Any steering wheel can used; that means that you unbolt the factory steering wheel from your car in whatever manner the service manual specifies. Then whatever you now have in your hand can be replaced with anything else, in the same manner that the service manual specifies (if your FSM says to reweld the steering wheel back on, then freakin' knock yourself out.)

So, you buy an appropriate steering wheel adapter and BOLT IT TO THE STEERING COLUMN USING THE SAME HARDWARE; it's legal. Then anything outside of that is legal too, 'cause it's all part of the replacement of the steering wheel. Hell, if you want to use a pair of vicegrips (Planet6Grips - copyrighted) and it bolts to the column, have at it. Most reasonable people will buy a Momo or Grant or Pep Boys steering wheel to bolt onto the adapter, and many will bolt a quick release hub in betwen the adapter and wheel.

It's all legal, and - MORE IMPORTANTLY - it's all within the philosophy of the class.

You want to find something legal to the rules but outside the philosophy of the class? How about if I bolt (or WELD!) on an extension with a u-joint, then a shaft extension, then a steering quickener http://www.speed-shop.net/stockcarproducts/steer4.htm). I'll build a structure to support it that bolts (or welds!) onto the car somewhere. Now, not only do I have a faster ratio steering, but I can extend the steering such that I can move my driver's seat back and down a good foot or more, moving my CG around to my advantage quite a bit (good thing I'm 200# and have long legs!) Hell, since I an mod the car to isntall safety equipment, maybe I'll beat the crap out of the exhaust tunnel (since I'm using a side-exit exhaust) and move it even more! Hey, I can do pedal pads, right? KEWL! I'll make those pads REALLY THICK that way I can REALLY move the stuff around!

Hey, "it meets the rules" don't it??? Sure it does! But if you think it meets the philosophy, you're an idiot.

And you think these ideas stop at the steering wheel? You think there aren't a hell of a lot of ideas using just the words and ignoring the intent and philosophy...?

I'm seriously trying to get outta here, but I seem to be afflicted with advancing stages the "Andy Bettencourt disease"...

[tom91ita]

Joe,

Thanks for the references. I mean that sincerely. I was honestly not aware of those items spelled out.

Which sort of goes back to this history thing with regards to who knows what & when in the IT rules.

It would never have occurred to me that to understand the IT rules, I needed to study the GT and Prod rules.

This supports Greg's contention to stay away from IT I suppose, because we apparently cannot know what to do by reading the rules sections associated with our class. We have to study the other groups and know what rulings went what way in the past for them also.

I hate this crap. I am honestly trying to have a good, safe, legal car that is prepared to the limits of my ability and compromised by my budget. When you see many cars prepared in a certain manner and you look at the rules and say, "oh, I see why" and then get burned, that will not help the sport either.

it's not like a hub is something you can't see like an aluminum flywheel and high compression pistons. it is an open statement that this is how i've understood the rules.

so the concensus on this board is that the rule actually means "Any steering wheel that is attached in the original manner and without a quick release hub."?

Tom

[Joe Harlan]

Greg, you can save your pissed off stuff for somebody else. I agree they should eb allowed in the fashion you stated or even welded cause its a cheaper fix. I was using the steering wheel argument as a point that our rules all of them should be common.If the QR is allowed it should read the same in all classes for that section. then there is no guessing. I build a lot of cars and i reference every class for an understanding of how we get there from here. I see rule that allows a steering wheel to be replaced but I don't see the QR section thatis spelled out in other classes I couldn't make the jump to putting them in my cars. It's kinda like the passenger seat rule. It allows you to remove the stock one but you'd be busted with a racing seat over there for track rides at lunch time. Stupid? Yep! but that our rules sometimes.

[Matt Rowe]

so the concensus on this board is that the rule actually means "Any steering wheel that is attached in the original manner and without a quick release hub."?
[/b]
Tom, not only is the consensus reached here not worth anything, but I would say we are not at a consensus of any kind.

I have real problems with the notion of other rules sets being used to define our own. A couple of things to consider:

First, the ITAC has utterly no control over Prod, GT, SS and so on. If they make a change to their rules it can not/should not effect the legality of an IT car. In this case, using Joe's logic if prod and GT removed the specific reference to QR hubs that would suddenly change IT. It can be difficult enough when the ITAC can only advise the CRB on IT issues, why open the door to the reasoning that a decision in another class changes to legality in our own?

Second, there is no guarantee that the different groups (prod, gt, it and so on) ever looked at each others rule on a given matter before putting pen to paper. The logic of saying that if IT had intended QR hubs than they would have written it the way prod does if flawed. By trying and interpret a rule in IT based of another class is trying to read intent into the rule. What if the ITAC is the first to write a rule and when prod writes something similar the wording is different? Should that change the legality in IT?

Finally to Greg, while I can understand your frustration I don't think running a competitive T3 or T4 is going realistically be cheaper than a competive ITA car. And then you have to factor in the car of the month consideration in Touring where IT tends to be much more stable. Just take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard and maybe you'll remember why this is supposed to be fun. :D

[Joe Harlan]

Tom, not only is the consensus reached here not worth anything, but I would say we are not at a consensus of any kind.

I have real problems with the notion of other rules sets being used to define our own. A couple of things to consider:

First, the ITAC has utterly no control over Prod, GT, SS and so on. If they make a change to their rules it can not/should not effect the legality of an IT car. In this case, using Joe's logic if prod and GT removed the specific reference to QR hubs that would suddenly change IT. It can be difficult enough when the ITAC can only advise the CRB on IT issues, why open the door to the reasoning that a decision in another class changes to legality in our own?

Second, there is no guarantee that the different groups (prod, gt, it and so on) ever looked at each others rule on a given matter before putting pen to paper. The logic of saying that if IT had intended QR hubs than they would have written it the way prod does if flawed. By trying and interpret a rule in IT based of another class is trying to read intent into the rule. What if the ITAC is the first to write a rule and when prod writes something similar the wording is different? Should that change the legality in IT?

Finally to Greg, while I can understand your frustration I don't think running a competitive T3 or T4 is going realistically be cheaper than a competive ITA car. And then you have to factor in the car of the month consideration in Touring where IT tends to be much more stable. Just take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard and maybe you'll remember why this is supposed to be fun. :D
[/b]

Matt, you can believe that comparing is flawed logic but using that logic I have been proved right more than i have been proved wrong.

Greg I do agree that an adapter that bolts on like a stock steering wheel would be legal. Again guys I could care less. I was sharing how i get to reading certain things like this and trying to help. Maybe I am to conservative but that shouldn't be an issue.

Touring will not be cheaper and I promise it is way more frustrating than any other cars I have done.



edit: added SS/T rule

27. Aftermarket steering wheels, and their required mounting
modifications, are permitted.

[Andy Bettencourt]

so the concensus on this board is that the rule actually means "Any steering wheel that is attached in the original manner and without a quick release hub."?

Tom [/b]

Not me. Remove your steering wheel and replace it with another one. That new one could have a quick release...I just think that when you are allowed to replace something, the intent is to use the same method of attachment.

But that's the ST in me.

AB

[Geo]

1. Rules from one category have no impact on another. They can't. Talk about chaos.

2. If you believe a bolt-on QR is legal I don't see how you can claim a weld-on is illegal. Method of attachment is not spelled out in the rules. If a rule specifically allows something, but does not limit how you do it, IMHO it's the wild west - anything goes. I actually think it was Kirk who put that in my brain some 3 or 4 years ago.

The rules say I can use any steering wheel with the only limitation being no wooden steering wheels. So, let's say I want to use a 57 Chevy wheel on my E36 Bimmer just because I really like 57 Chevy steering wheels for some reason. Since the rules say any steering wheel, I say I can weld the 57 Chevy wheel to the E36 steering shaft. No modifier to the rule tells me I cannot. So IMHO attachment method is not an issue. The only issue is whether QRs are allowed or not and whether you consider them part of the way you attach the steering wheel.

If it says you can, you bloody well can within the further limitations given on how you can. In the case of this specific rule, there is NO limitation on how.

A few years ago I suggested the use of a Case Book for stews and techs. I still think this would be an outstanding tool. It's a way to deal with obsure interpretations w/o having to write a rule book the size of the Encyclopedia Britanica.

That's my personal view of this battle field.

[ddewhurst]

***Again applying common sense one could say that a QR is spelled out in these classes and with a spec to top it off. So I fail to see how we make the common sense jump to them being allowed in IT.***

IMHJ a few people need to step back & ask themselves with some of Joe's common sense why the Q.R. is used with the ANY steering wheel RULE in any class. It sure as HELL ain't so that the owner can spend a couple hundred extra bucks on a Q.R. so his car don't look like joe's. Joe, tell me YOU can get in an ITA Miata without a Q.R. Better yet tell me you can get out of an ITA Miata in a hurry because of FIRE without a Q.R.

Why was/is the Q.R. implemented ?

The ONLY reason I implemented a bolt on Q.R. on my Miata is so that I can get in & out of the friken car. I was not into wasting $$$ on a Q.R. & steering wheel if I didn't need them.

[Joe Harlan]

Wow, remember the first thought here was about welding a QR spud . You guys are raggin at the wrong guy. I believe they are fine and should be allowed.

Geo, to say other rules sets have no bearing completely scares me that you have anything to doing with the construction of rules. Our rule says Steering wheels are free nothing more. It is pretty obvious that this has been a problem in other classes The stated rules and intent are much clearer in those cases. My point is if we want all these classes to be able to weld a spud to the shaft and allow a QR then all the classes should use the same wording to get there.

David, Yes I can get in and out of a SM without removing the wheel. The difference is I am only a fat middle aged dude you just a fat old man.......(kidding my friend)


Consistency is the key to making these things work.

[Geo]

Geo, to say other rules sets have no bearing completely scares me that you have anything to doing with the construction of rules. Our rule says Steering wheels are free nothing more. It is pretty obvious that this has been a problem in other classes The stated rules and intent are much clearer in those cases. My point is if we want all these classes to be able to weld a spud to the shaft and allow a QR then all the classes should use the same wording to get there.

[/b]

Sorry I scare you.

Having rules from one category affect another category is asking for chaos. It would scare me if I had to worry about what is written in another category spec to determine what is legal in IT. I race in IT and only worry about IT. Sure we may reference other category specs from time to time when we are writing a rule, but whatever is written in one category spec does not and should not affect the interpretation on another.

Using wording from another category spec can be useful for consistency in rule writing, and that I agree. It would certainly be nice to have consistency. But, at the current time under the current organization of the CRB and the advisory committees, I don't see rules written in one category spec being changed because the advisory committee of another category addressed an issue differently. I understand where you are going with this and I assure you I think more consistency would be a good thing, but there is nothing to assure it at this time.

[edit] Please note that where rules from one category affect another at this time, the rules in one category spec will specifically reference the other category spec.

[Joe Harlan]

Sorry I scare you.

Having rules from one category affect another category is asking for chaos. It would scare me if I had to worry about what is written in another category spec to determine what is legal in IT. I race in IT and only worry about IT. Sure we may reference other category specs from time to time when we are writing a rule, but whatever is written in one category spec does not and should not affect the interpretation on another.

Using wording from another category spec can be useful for consistency in rule writing, and that I agree. It would certainly be nice to have consistency. But, at the current time under the current organization of the CRB and the advisory committees, I don't see rules written in one category spec being changed because the advisory committee of another category addressed an issue differently. I understand where you are going with this and I assure you I think more consistency would be a good thing, but there is nothing to assure it at this time.

[edit] Please note that where rules from one category affect another at this time, the rules in one category spec will specifically reference the other category spec.
[/b]




Geo, I am not saying that we will apply the other classes rule. What I am saying is. If I protest your welded steering what ever it will be on the if it doesn't say you can rule. If it was to be allowed then it would have been spelled out and the fact that other catagories use a rule that allows this modification would confirm that there was no intent to allow this. I believe the court would have to say. The steering wheel is legal(any) but the attachment is not(welding) and the QR performs a function that is not specifically allowed in this rule. Again I could care less about any of it. How about you consider this a request to clean up the wording and bring it inline with other classes.

edit: Also Geo consider the SS rules I believe is a recent add to allow aftermarket wheels, there was a time when you had to use the stock seats. Our rules came from a SS basis and this may just be a left over from those days. Most all other catagories spell out that mods needed to fit free wheel are allowed. Now that I am sure I have seriouly pissed GA off i will go work on a car.

[Matt Rowe]

Geo, I am not saying that we will apply the other classes rule. What I am saying is. If I protest your welded steering what ever it will be on the if it doesn't say you can rule. If it was to be allowed then it would have been spelled out and the fact that other catagories use a rule that allows this modification would confirm that there was no intent to allow this. I believe the court would have to say. [/b]
Joe you used that naughty "i" word when talking about a ruling. As near as I can tell the only thing worse than reading intent into a rule is trying read intent based on a rule from another class. It opens the door to drastic changes in the allowed modifications without any direct control by the ITAC. Do you really think the CRB researches the effect of a rules change in one class on every other class? No, of course not, so why should we interpret the book that way?



edit: Also Geo consider the SS rules I believe is a recent add to allow aftermarket wheels, there was a time when you had to use the stock seats. Our rules came from a SS basis and this may just be a left over from those days. Most all other catagories spell out that mods needed to fit free wheel are allowed. Now that I am sure I have seriouly pissed GA off i will go work on a car.
[/b]
Along the same lines and just for arguments sake say the steering wheel rule in IT dates back to the original rules set. Furthermore the intent was to allow QR wheels so that fat old guys :) could cram themselves into festivas or whatever. At the time SS had no rules about steering wheels. Now jump forward ten years and suppose SS adds a rule about allowing alternate steering wheels but doesn't mention QR. By your interpretation the intent of the rule has just changed and thos fat old guys can no longer get in their cars. Now apply this to every rule across every category and we have anarachy. We already have enough to argue about with IT rules, do we need to drag SS, Touring, Prod, GT, AS, SM, FC, FF, FV, F500, FA, CSR, DSR, S2000, FSCCA, CF into this. And you think Greg Amy is tired of rules debates now? :D

[Joe Harlan]

Joe you used that naughty "i" word when talking about a ruling. As near as I can tell the only thing worse than reading intent into a rule is trying read intent based on a rule from another class. It opens the door to drastic changes in the allowed modifications without any direct control by the ITAC. Do you really think the CRB researches the effect of a rules change in one class on every other class? No, of course not, so why should we interpret the book that way?
Along the same lines and just for arguments sake say the steering wheel rule in IT dates back to the original rules set. Furthermore the intent was to allow QR wheels so that fat old guys :) could cram themselves into festivas or whatever. At the time SS had no rules about steering wheels. Now jump forward ten years and suppose SS adds a rule about allowing alternate steering wheels but doesn't mention QR. By your interpretation the intent of the rule has just changed and thos fat old guys can no longer get in their cars. Now apply this to every rule across every category and we have anarachy. We already have enough to argue about with IT rules, do we need to drag SS, Touring, Prod, GT, AS, SM, FC, FF, FV, F500, FA, CSR, DSR, S2000, FSCCA, CF into this. And you think Greg Amy is tired of rules debates now? :D
[/b]


Matt, As a stew you know I would have to go above you and the COA will rule on what is written. What is written says the steering wheel maybe replaced and that's all it says bud. No where can you show me a QR may be added. Fix the rule. Make it a rule that allows the car to go from SS to GT without any issue. I am not afraid to look at the Intent of any rule when you can clearly look around and say the intent needs to be changed or the words need to be fixed.

[lateapex911]

***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.***

Jake, is this the same group of people that let the costs of Production cars get out of control with their incremental CREEP ? :dead_horse:

[/b]

Dave, am I correct in reading that you are very unsatisfied with the results?

If so, why?

Let's say that the rule existed that allowed material change. Now, I don't have to remind you that the actions of an SB can be closely emulated using several materials, such as Delrin, but the expense of designing, and prototyping such parts is significantly more than merely installing a set of SBs.

And offset Delrin versions are as easy as centered ones, fab away.

So, the new rule really changes little, except it shortens the time spent under the car, and leaves more money in your pocket for gas to get to the track.

Show me how I have this confused, and what the downside is. I understand that changing rules can be bad, and can be called "creep"...but I don't think that the negative conotation fits in this case.

Show me otherwise if I misunderstood your post.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1. Rules from one category have no impact on another. They can't. Talk about chaos.

2. If you believe a bolt-on QR is legal I don't see how you can claim a weld-on is illegal. Method of attachment is not spelled out in the rules. If a rule specifically allows something, but does not limit how you do it, IMHO it's the wild west - anything goes. I actually think it was Kirk who put that in my brain some 3 or 4 years ago.
That's my personal view of this battle field.
[/b]

1. I disagree Geo. The CRB governs the rules across all categories. I think it reasonable to look to how the wording in other categories describe what you are trying to do. Is it not the least bit interesting that other categories specicially allow quick releases and sphrerical bearings, but IT doesn't?

2. I DO believe QR's are legal, but for the same reason that (before this new clarification) I think that the installation of SB's as bushings must NOT include a tack-weld (because it is a modification of the suspension), I think that welding the QR to the column would be a modification to the said column - and where does it say you can do that?

Again, I always err on the side of (what *I* perceive to be) legality. I have said that this will probably be the downfall to my Miata project...give a little no problem...give a lot of 'littles' could be the difference at the highest levels.

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

[Geo]

Andy, you don't knwo that welding is outside the rules. You have no right to say that it is. It may be your interpretation, but it's only that.

Remember, reasonable people may disagree. I don't believe attachment method is regulated in the ITCS. That said, I don't see where QRs are specifically allowed, so that IMHO comes down to interpretation. But as long as I can use any steering wheel (except wooden), and there is no limitation on installation method, I say I can weld.

IMHO if QRs are legal, method of attachment doesn't matter. Also, if QRs are illegal, method of attachment doesn't matter.

Regarding other category specs, I personally think it ludicrous to think you must read other category specs to interpret legallity of an item unless it's specifically spelled out. As an IT racer I should NEVER have to be concerned about any other category spec but the ITCS.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you don't knwo that welding is outside the rules. You have no right to say that it is. It may be your interpretation, but it's only that.

[/b]

George,

Where did I say anything other that "I think" or "I do believe"?



AB

[ddewhurst]

Joe, first off I'll bet this ol man weighs less per inch of height that a fat middle aged dude from Oregon city, OR. Ya didn't answer my question in the other post middle aged dude. Why has the Q.D. connect came into play at the get go ?

Dude, this p.m. I made & applied a FOM manufacture logo for my steering wheel & a FOM manufacture logo for my bolt on Q.D. Then I tack welded the steering wheel to the bolt on Q.D. & now BINGO I have an any steering wheel. Have a :birra: on that legal deal.

***Consistency is the key to making these things work.***

This ^ is copied from Joe & I also beleive in consistency through out all the class rules.

The roll cage side protection in Fastrack for March response to the looser FOM Dewhurst was a deal where I requested that the IT side protection rule be the same exact written words as the Production roll cage side protection rule so that the transission from IT to Production would be simpler. We can't have consistency because some people can not read the rules as they are written. Write another letter, not on your life. Topeka can't read.

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$$ off the least number of high rollers. BUT, the Topeka response is at least consistent because with more of these kind of response IT will have consistently traveled the same route that Production has. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, but during repair I will be under the car a shorter amount of time & have more money for gas to the track. :wacko: Please give me a break. Oh I'm sorry I was reading the party line.

Within the next couple days I'll start a new thread on IT/SM/SS roll cage side hoops passing through the dash & I'll ask some questions about what can & can not be modified during the implementation process.

[Knestis]

I agree with Geo that any system of attachment of the free steering wheel is acceptable. It's the modification of the steering shaft that makes the weld-on option a non-starter in my eyes - a move for which there is NO allowance in the rules. "Easy" makes NO difference (unless I missed that clause in the ITCS). Neither does "cheaper" - ditto. Clamp it on, glue it on, or stick it on there with a big ol' neodymium magnet. Just be able to demostrate that the shaft has not been altered.

We are SO going to regret the "spot weld" allowance on the A-arms, before too long. Seriously. That is a blindingly bad horse of an idea, that's now well and truly out of the barn door. A week ago, I think that even the pro-SB crowd agreed that we couldn't change the arm to faciliate installation of the not-a-bushing. Now? We can weld. When "spot" starts to grow and requires a glossary definition and a thread all its own, we're one little step closer. Can I use more than one spot weld? 20? A huge number of spot welds that almost touch one another around the periphery of the bearing shell? Twice that many, that actually touch one-another? Can I put a spot weld between the bearing and another piece of steel, that is subsequently spot welded to the arm?

WHY is this dynamic so hard for people to accept as possible? Is it because you actually WANT the IT rules to become more lenient - to allow you to make more and more changes to your cars?

K

[Geo]

George,

Where did I say anything other that "I think" or "I do believe"?



AB
[/b]

Oh geez, I'm truly sorry Andy. A clear case of reading too quickly. DOH.

[Joe Harlan]

Why has the Q.D. connect came into play at the get go ?[/b]

David my friend please read the whole thread, I got sucked into a stupid argument that has no real meaning other than our rules blow.


Geo, you have far less right to say that welding is legal than Andy has to say it isn't. No where in that stupid rule does it say you can weld it. At least Andy can use the IIDSYC rule what do you have on your side? You my not care to read other class rules but here is the facts they have meaning and they will come into play in a protest. I think that as a ITAC member you should not be so quick to discount the writing and meaning of other class rules, You just may learn something from them. It is obvious to me in reading them that there is a reason SS spelled out means of attachment is open.

[Bill Miller]

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.[/b]

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head Andy. This is a case where self-policing doesn't work. It's because some things, while a violation of the written rules, are deemed to have no impact on the performance of the car. Plenty of people thump their chest and talk about chicken-shit protests and settling things 'on the track' (by driving, not by intentionally hitting someone). We need an independent organization w/ no vested interest, to enforce the rules. IMO, that's what the stewards should be doing. Problem is, you've got stewards who are friends w/ or related to drivers. Even worse, you've got some stewards that have an axe to grind w/ some drivers.

Just like we have an objective process for classifying and spec'ing cars, we need an objective process to police the cars, and apply the rules. I actually like the new rule about checking things in impound.

I do agree though, we'll never change the culture that we have.

[Geo]

Geo, you have far less right to say that welding is legal than Andy has to say it isn't. No where in that stupid rule does it say you can weld it. At least Andy can use the IIDSYC rule what do you have on your side? [/b]

The fact that the rule allows any steering wheel with the only restriction give being no wooden wheels. There is NO restriction given on mounting method. We'll just have to disagree.



You my not care to read other class rules but here is the facts they have meaning and they will come into play in a protest. I think that as a ITAC member you should not be so quick to discount the writing and meaning of other class rules, You just may learn something from them. It is obvious to me in reading them that there is a reason SS spelled out means of attachment is open.
[/b]

Joe, what I'm saying is that you CANNOT use rules written in other category specs to justify ANY position in the ITCS. They are independent of each other.

I absolutely CANNOT believe any point made in protest or appeal based upon language in a different category spec would not be summarily thrown out.


[edit] The text below was in response to another related discussion and was meant as a separate reply, but the new software lumped everything together.

Bill and Andy, I cannot say I disagree with you about varying interpretations being due to the lack of protests.

Your comments seem to suggest to me you think it's because people think they can get away with it. I'm sure that happens in every category, including at the Runoffs. However, when protests are made and appeals filed, legality becomes established. IMHO it's less a matter of getting away with something than it is simple getting a bloody ruling.

[lateapex911]

You know Kirk, when the discussion on the SBs happened, lots of views came out.

First, the historical view of the CRB, (the ruling body, as opposed to the ITAC which is the advisory body.... as you know, but perhaps others don't) was that SBs were fine. I think most of us on the con call from the ITAC were on that side of the fence.

Now, I know that at least 5 of us on the ITAC felt that any modification of the the arms or mounts was flat not legal. And I commented that most of the guys I knwe were under the same operating procedure.

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.

Ok....I started thinking about tack welds and I asked, "then what about somebody welding a plate on one side as a "retainer" that also happens to reinforce an A arm"? Not legal, clearly any tech inspector would know thats more than a tack weld was the reply. A definition of a "tack weld" was suggested, but defining it in such a way as to fit all the possible applications is pretty tricky. And lets not forget, certain "Cassettes" could be made to strenghten the part they attach too as well, but agin, they will run afoul of the prohibited function clause.

Back to the past for a second.

13 years ago, I had these tricky little Delrin things that replicated SBs on my RX-7. They certainly fit the rule as written, but they sure weren't easy to make, and in the event of damage, to repair or replace either. But according to my investigation at the time (a call to a friend on the CRB) they were legal, and they were as effective as SBs.

7 years later, my new car had SBs, held in place via some lathe turned spacers and bits, and sure enough, I lost one at the Glen quite a while ago. Dave Gran and I walked the track and found a couple parts of the whole assembly, but the tricky part was gone. So I tried to replace it. Nope....no longer made that way. Solution? Buy TWO new ones...complete setups, that is..actually 4 (two ends ea.) at a cost of hundreds, or find a machine shop and have the bit custom made. (I know, you pick your horse....)

Point of both of those items is that the actions of a SB were in place and legal, from the begining of the rule's writing..

Back to the present.....Even with that in mind, I tried to poke holes in the tack weld arguement, but the prevailing thought was that SBs were fine, and making competitors waste tons of money fabricating parts to replicate what a simple tack weld does was not in the best interests of the category.

I certainly see the point about a tack weld growing to a series of welds then to a seam, then to a reinforced gusset, and it is a reasonable concern.

But, the clause of performing an illegal function is there to stop that. Now, I hear the arguement that another load has been placed on the competitors back to police, and tech can't be trusted to make a good call, and so on, but I also hear the arguement that thousands of dollars won't be spent making widgets and cassettes and spacer devices to hold the SBs in place.

A few examples come to mind right away. A great ITA car that isn't built as often as you might think it should be is the 240SX. The rep on that car is that it is a tough, and expensive build, and it's kind of an all or nothing deal. If you don't do the rear suspension right, you have big problems. 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.

[ddewhurst]

Jake, your :dead_horse: & in some peoples view not sounding so good.

[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' :mad1: )

[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?

:unsure:

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 :dead_horse: 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 :dead_horse: 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! :happy204: :023: ;)

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

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 (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/tom91ita/detail?.dir=8d83&.dnm=54b8re2.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&#39;s like a Seagull Management technique.

I&#39;ll explain Seagull management:

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


Its application to IT:

A guy get&#39;s a notion, writes a letter, get&#39;s approval, and we&#39;re all left to clean it up for seasons to come. Make no mistake these changes will be exploited!!

I agree with Kirk- It&#39;ll be fun to see pages and pages on the definition of tack welds. :018:

R

[Geo]

Well Geo, I have no reason to dislike you, We have never met. I don&#39;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&#39;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&#39;ll just have to agree to disagree on some matters. As the GRC states: "Reasonable people may disagree."