Rules nerds wanted

[backformore]

I was looking at a car for sale in the classifieds, which is listed on ebay. I'm not sure if I believe the front camber plates would be legal and I'd like to get the opinion of some rules nerds.

The car is an 87 GTI. It is in the classifieds and has a link to eBay. Sorry I'm not talented enough to post the picture or a link here.

Well, I'll give the link a try



http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAP...TRK%3AMEWA%3AIT (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=4645425169&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT)

[RSTPerformance]

what about them would you say is illegal?

Raymond

[backformore]

Suspension Mounting Points
1. Cars equipped with MacPherson strut suspension may
decamber wheels by the use of eccentric bushings at
control arm pivot points, by the use of eccentric bushings
at the strut-to-bearing-carrier joint, and/or by use of
slotted adjusting plates at the top mounting point. If
slotted plates are used, they shall be located on existing
chassis structure and may not serve as a reinforcement
for that structure. [u]Material may be added or removed
from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation
of adjuster plate.

Would this constitute reinforcing the chassis structure?

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's really pushing it IMHO. Two ways to look at it:

1. It looks AWEFULLY reinforced to me - overdone, very overdone - so I ask why and would lean toward illegal.

2. Look at the last sentence of that rule. "Material may be added or removed from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation of adjuster plate." This is most certainly what the installer did. I would then have to argue (prove) it served as a reinforcement. I would lean toward legal if I thung my hat on this portion of the rule.
BUT

To me the most telling piece of info is in the ad itself.

"The camber plates are custom built and welded to the unibody by xxx - no one ever looks at them in person and doesn't comment on them."

Huh? Double Huh? Why mention it at all unless it's an issue?

Anyway, they sure look well made! Non-reversable in my little world however...

[JamesB]

actually looking very very long at that design, it looks like they raised the tower nearly 1" effectivly lowering the car 1". this would require less drop on a coil over or sleave leaving room before the bump stop (or the cost of a shortened strut.)

With that being said, does that then change a suspension pickup point or is that legal given the clause for camber plates?

[backformore]

Andy, you described the situation exactly as I would have. The non-reversible nature of it makes me a little leary. I don't want to kick everybodies butt and then get protested and disqualified!! Some would effectively argue that I need not worry, but....

I'd welcome any more opinions.

Thanks

[RSTPerformance]

My initial opinion based on the pictures.... (I realy need to see the car though) is that it is legal.

The comment: "Material may be added or removed from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation of adjuster plate" is working in his/her favor on this one I think. Somehow we we would need to prove that the material was unecessary, and that is probably not possible without seeing the car and talking to the person who installed the plates.

Thats just my quick opinion from looking at a picture...

Here is another question for you: My experience has shown that simply adding a camber (camber/caster) plate to the top of a strut tower without removing material actually does the same thing as building up the plate 1" or so, and generally material needs to be taken away in order to fit the plate and strut under the hood without it hitting. Thus I think that could be a "dead" issue in my mind, so if it was what other benefit does adding the material where it has been added help in the cars dynamics to make it better than someone elses car?

Raymond "Just curious" Blethen

[ddewhurst]

Please give me a break. :018: ALL OF US in IT racing need to start protesting many of the known ILLEGAL items because in the long term cleaning of the IT mess will prolong the future of low cost IT racing. & if the officals don't follow through to the written rule WE need to get rid of them.

Lets see now I need new camber plates. How about if I have just a one piece steel camber plate that is welded to the right side of the car,travels across & is welded to the left side of the car & then travels to the firewall & is welded to the firewall also. By one of the previous definitions posted my new camber plate woule be legal. B.S. all the way. Where dose it all stop.

I sent a couple of you guys pictures of the illegal Spec Miata & ITA Miata roll cage with the opinion of Jeremy. There are a bunch of these roll cages installed & in my judgement when the roll cages are protested the cars should be made ILLEGAL. If ya can't read rules, ya can't play race cars. By the way guys I received a FULL REFUND from the roll cage manufacture. If people are going to do monkey see monkey do they need to pay the price. ILLEGAL CAR.............. My Spec Miata project is on the shelf. I am back to building a ITA 2280 pound 1st gen RX-7 to replace the car that was totaled. I will protest the first ITA Miata I see in my race group with an illegal roll cage. I might even warn & explain to the owner before the race why his roll cage is illegal & that if he races I will protest his roll cage. His decision.

Same with this streched, tortured rule interperation that the fab/weld guy used to install the illegal welded camber plate. Is anyone going to give this fab guy credit for being one bright genious or shall we give him credit for being one big cheat.

Send Jeremy T. at SCCA Topeka a picture of the welded camber plate & ask for his thoughts/opinion.

[lateapex911]

Well, I have seen camber plates that mount above the stock location, effectively adding travel, as mentioned above, and nobody bats an eye.

This does fit the letter of the law...........

But the spirit is stretched, thats for sure.

However, the rules must be definitive about what constitutes the "edge", and this rule is not.

In this case, I fear it's a case of "If it says you can, you bloody well can"

If we don't like it, we need to adress how the rule is written, and make the new rule effective for cars with logbooks after XXXXXX date.

A protest would be, IMHO, a crap shoot. Some techs will roll their eyes and want to go to the beer party, others will toss the guy.

( A version of two opposite opinions occured when I went to get my car teched for it's initial logbook. I copied the rear support design of the car owned by the head of tech for a local region...same car as mine. But the tech guy who looked at it failed it and refused to issue a logbook based on those bars. So, I went and got the guy and the car I copied, who was at the event. Much discussion ensued...but they had already written it up in the logbook, and said, "What do you want us to do, scratch it out? It's written in ink!" So, instead of a messy logbook, their decision was to let his car stand, but I had to rip my bars out and reweld...all so that my logbook wouldn't be messy.
Needless to say, my thougts regarding certain tech inspectors was "What a bunch of morons".......)

I think things are better these days....but, judgement calls like this are just that..and reasonable men may differ.

[ddewhurst]

***Some techs will roll their eyes and want to go to the beer party, others will toss the guy.***

Jake, for you I'll repeat my previous message. ***ALL OF US in IT racing need to start protesting many of the known ILLEGAL items because in the long term cleaning of the IT mess will prolong the future of low cost IT racing. & if the officals don't follow through to the written rule WE need to get rid of them.***

Add liberal ITAC members to the officals list that we may need to get rid of.

Jake is my camber plate in the previous message legal ?

***Lets see now I need new camber plates. How about if I have a one piece steel camber plate that is welded to the right side of the car,travels across & is welded to the left side of the car & then travels to the firewall & is welded to the firewall is that camber plate legal ? By one of the previous definitions posted my new camber plate woule be legal.***

Please answer this question yes or no................ From your answer we can all decide if your a liberal ITAC member that needs to gotten rid of.

Let the rules cheating dirt bags step their game up & to Production or GT.

[lateapex911]

David, I think my post was pretty clear on my stance on the issues. Please submit your letter asking for my removal if you feel I fit in a category you deem unhealthy for the club. I am sure the ITAC will give it due consideration.

As to your hypothetical situation, I would imagine that such a set up would be ruled illegal under the "Serves an illegal purpose" clause, as it would be very easy to see and deduce.

[Bill Miller]

It's really pushing it IMHO. Two ways to look at it:

1. It looks AWEFULLY reinforced to me - overdone, very overdone - so I ask why and would lean toward illegal.

2. Look at the last sentence of that rule. "Material may be added or removed from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation of adjuster plate." This is most certainly what the installer did. I would then have to argue (prove) it served as a reinforcement. I would lean toward legal if I thung my hat on this portion of the rule.
BUT

To me the most telling piece of info is in the ad itself.

"The camber plates are custom built and welded to the unibody by xxx - no one ever looks at them in person and doesn't comment on them."

Huh? Double Huh? Why mention it at all unless it's an issue?

Anyway, they sure look well made! Non-reversable in my little world however...
[/b]


Andy,

If you read the way the rule is written, it says the plate may not serve as a reinforcement. It says nothing about what the permitted additional material may do. Given the way the rule is written, I don't see these plates being an issue. What I do see as an issue w/ that car, is the cage. Where are the rear stays for the main hoop? I don't think that X-brace satisfies the requirement for rear stays. I saw this car posted on VWVortex, and asked the seller if it had an SCCA log book.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

If you read the way the rule is written, it says the plate may not serve as a reinforcement. It says nothing about what the permitted additional material may do. Given the way the rule is written, I don't see these plates being an issue. What I do see as an issue w/ that car, is the cage. Where are the rear stays for the main hoop? I don't think that X-brace satisfies the requirement for rear stays. I saw this car posted on VWVortex, and asked the seller if it had an SCCA log book. [/b]



I am with you Bill. I just tried to show both sides of the potential issue. I would have to know a lot more about the 'stength' of the shock towers in order to formulate a true opinion. If this car (like some) had problems with shocks coming up through the towers, then that would certainly be 'reinforcement' IMHO.



AB

[ddewhurst]

***As to your hypothetical situation, I would imagine that such a set up would be ruled illegal under the "Serves an illegal purpose" clause, as it would be very easy to see and deduce.***

Jake, are you serious with your respones towards my firewall camber plate being illegal & the friken strengthing strut tower (ILLEGAL) camber weldment being legal. Whatever your drinking please change liquids because your sense of fairness is out of bounds. WHY ARE ALL OTHER CAMBER PLATES BOLT ON ITEMS ? ARE ALL THE OTHER CAMBER PLATE MANUFACTURES DUMB OR DO YOU THINK THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AS THE RULES ARE WRITTEN ?

Jake, along with the rear stays thet support the main hoop issue Bill mentioned the friken "X" that supports the main hoop is not within bounds of the rules because the "X" is made of three tubes, not two tubes as the written rule specs. Also as an member of the ITAC do you beleive that the "X" suport of the main hoop delivers the same strength support to the main hoop for driver protection that the two single tubes offer if installed per the recomended illustration in the GCR ?

[Andy Bettencourt]

WHY ARE ALL OTHER CAMBER PLATES BOLT ON ITEMS ? ARE ALL THE OTHER CAMBER PLATE MANUFACTURES DUMB OR DO YOU THINK THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AS THE RULES ARE WRITTEN ?
[/b]



Dave,



I don't think that any 'off the shelf' camber plate manufacturers care all that much about IT rules. They care about selling products to dorks like me. Bolt on (with a little trimming with a grinder) is do-able. Welding and fabricating is much more. The market for a 'weld-up' kit is non-existant.



The question is what is it reinforcing. You decide...and a few less cups of coffee is your new prescription.



You seriousl about protesting peoples cages? :o



AB

[ShelbyRacer]

Suspension Mounting Points
1. Cars equipped with MacPherson strut suspension may
decamber wheels by the use of eccentric bushings at
control arm pivot points, by the use of eccentric bushings
at the strut-to-bearing-carrier joint, and/or by use of
slotted adjusting plates at the top mounting point. If
slotted plates are used, they shall be located on existing
chassis structure and may not serve as a reinforcement
for that structure. [u]Material may be added or removed
from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation
of adjuster plate.

Would this constitute reinforcing the chassis structure?
[/b]

Looking carefully at the rule noted above, I see something that always steered (no pun intended) my interpretation of the rule-

If slotted plates are used, they shall be located on existing chassis structure

This always meant to me that you remove as little material as possible from the stock strut tower top, and then attach the camber plate *to* the top where the original strut mount was.

Also, in that case, the new plate CLEARLY adds strength and rigidity (the definition of reinforcment) due to its new location, attachment to adjacent structural pieces with attachment methods that are superior to stock, and the fact that the plate itself is of thicker material.

Again, that's just my interpretation, and since I'm not going to be part of an SOM any time soon, it's worth about as much as it cost for me to post it here (probably less).

That being said, if I lost to that car, I'd write a paper on that and the roll cage rear braces... Nothing personal, but I'd just like to know how some other see it, and I'm pretty certain I'd find at least a few others who were curious enough to join in...

[gprodracer]

I have no dog in this hunt, except having formerly run in I.T. for 12 years. I don't have the current rules
in front of me, but they used to say, quite plainly, that the camber plates could not be permanant, or
welded in place. ( hence the sellers comment about no one saying anything about it.) After looking at the
modifications, I can't honestly see how anyone could even remotely see this as being legal in any form.
Back in the day there were several cars that were tossed ( and rightfully so!!) for the same thing. I don't
know Mr. Dewhurst from Adam, but I agree with him 100%, and think he should follow up on his Miata
cage issue. Just because "others are doing it" has never been an acceptable reason to bend the rules as
written. If you want something changed, get the rule re-written. I'm sure I'll have plenty of negative comments on this post, so have at it, but the rule says you can add material to "facillitate" adding camber
plates, not totally re-enforce the entire structure.
Let the flames begin!! :bash_1_:

Mark Larson
CFR member #164010

[lateapex911]

***As to your hypothetical situation, I would imagine that such a set up would be ruled illegal under the "Serves an illegal purpose" clause, as it would be very easy to see and deduce.***

Jake, are you serious with your respones towards my firewall camber plate being illegal & the friken strengthing strut tower (ILLEGAL) camber weldment being legal. Whatever your drinking please change liquids because your sense of fairness is out of bounds. WHY ARE ALL OTHER CAMBER PLATES BOLT ON ITEMS ? ARE ALL THE OTHER CAMBER PLATE MANUFACTURES DUMB OR DO YOU THINK THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AS THE RULES ARE WRITTEN ?

Jake, along with the rear stays thet support the main hoop issue Bill mentioned the friken "X" that supports the main hoop is not within bounds of the rules because the "X" is made of three tubes, not two tubes as the written rule specs. Also as an member of the ITAC do you beleive that the "X" suport of the main hoop delivers the same strength support to the main hoop for driver protection that the two single tubes offer if installed per the recomended illustration in the GCR ?
[/b]

David-

I'm drinking a Gatorade right now...I'm going for a run later.

This will be my last response to you on this issue. Read my posts again. They are clear. I am not a SOM, nor am I on the Appeals court...I am giving an opinion on what I think could happen in a protest.

No where have I stated what I want.......just an opinion on the result of a protest on the legality.

Go ahead....I'll wait..read my first post again. Oh never mind I'll quote myself.


.....But the spirit is stretched, thats for sure.

However, the rules must be definitive about what constitutes the "edge", and this rule is not.

In this case, I fear it's a case of "If it says you can, you bloody well can"

If we don't like it, we need to address how the rule is written, and make the new rule effective for cars with logbooks after XXXXXX date.

A protest would be, IMHO, a crap shoot. Some techs will roll their eyes and want to go to the beer party, others will toss the guy.[/b]

So the rule says you can add material. Which this guy did. Now the "reinforcement clause comes into play. He can say, "No, I just added that material to make sure the struts were actually attached to solid material. The top was too flimsy when it was clearanced. It doesn't strenghten the chassis itself measureably...prove it does".

As I said, it's a crap shoot at that point...in my opinion.


Now, if you don't like it, you should be constructive and proactive. Either formulate a well written and logical letter to the ITAC/CRB regarding what you feel is a gray area of the rues, requesting that clearer definitions be made....or, if you feel that it's flat illegal, and you want to make a point, follow up and find a way to protest that car.

Ok, the toilet needs cleaning, and that's more productive than going over the rear cage. Others have covered that just fine.

Cheers..........

[Bill Miller]

I have no dog in this hunt, except having formerly run in I.T. for 12 years. I don't have the current rules
in front of me, but they used to say, quite plainly, that the camber plates could not be permanant, or
welded in place. ( hence the sellers comment about no one saying anything about it.) After looking at the
modifications, I can't honestly see how anyone could even remotely see this as being legal in any form.
Back in the day there were several cars that were tossed ( and rightfully so!!) for the same thing. I don't
know Mr. Dewhurst from Adam, but I agree with him 100%, and think he should follow up on his Miata
cage issue. Just because "others are doing it" has never been an acceptable reason to bend the rules as
written. If you want something changed, get the rule re-written. I'm sure I'll have plenty of negative comments on this post, so have at it, but the rule says you can add material to "facillitate" adding camber
plates, not totally re-enforce the entire structure.
Let the flames begin!! :bash_1_:

Mark Larson
CFR member #164010
[/b]

Mark,

Several people have quoted the passage from the ITCS. There's nothing that restricts the method of attachment of the camber plates. The rule also says that you can remove or add material. Again, no limit on how much. I agree that the 'reinforcement' statement is confusing, but it only applies to the plate, not the material that you're allowed to add.

[bldn10]

I don't know what the top of a stock Golf tower looks like but do I gather that there has been about an inch extension added to the tower? If so, no way is that legal because it indeed changes the attachment point. I think the allowance to add or remove material simply means that you can enlarge the opening if necessary, drill holes, and/or e.g. level off the top for a flat plate if the top is too rounded. You can do it ONLY "to facilitate installation of the adjuster plate." You cannot bootstrap the rule by fabricating your own plate SO THAT it will be necessary to make otherwise illegal mods, especially if off-the-shelf plates are available that do not require such mods. Likewise, Bill, I do not think that the argument that, although the plate cannot serve as reinforcement, added material can, holds any water whatsoever. If A cannot do B, but you can add C solely to facilitate A, then C cannot do B either. Otherwise, a whole gamut of illegal stuff becomes legal. In this case I'd say that the plate is legal but the added material is not, so the whole thing is illegal. Nice fab though.

[Bill Miller]

I don't know what the top of a stock Golf tower looks like but do I gather that there has been about an inch extension added to the tower? If so, no way is that legal because it indeed changes the attachment point. I think the allowance to add or remove material simply means that you can enlarge the opening if necessary, drill holes, and/or e.g. level off the top for a flat plate if the top is too rounded. You can do it ONLY "to facilitate installation of the adjuster plate." You cannot bootstrap the rule by fabricating your own plate SO THAT it will be necessary to make otherwise illegal mods, especially if off-the-shelf plates are available that do not require such mods. Likewise, Bill, I do not think that the argument that, although the plate cannot serve as reinforcement, added material can, holds any water whatsoever. If A cannot do B, but you can add C solely to facilitate A, then C cannot do B either. Otherwise, a whole gamut of illegal stuff becomes legal. In this case I'd say that the plate is legal but the added material is not, so the whole thing is illegal. Nice fab though.
[/b]


Bill,

I'm ask big a proponent of IIDSYCYC as the next guy, but when it says that you can, you certainly can. It says that you can add material to the top of the strut tower to facilitate the installation of the adjuster plate. No limit on how much material you can add, or if you can only add enough material to make the plate level. BTW, 'leveling off' the plate changes the attachment point, if you're going to use that arguement.

While I don't think those kinds of strut tops are necessarily w/in the spirit of the rules, I do believe that they fit the letter w/o any kind of strained or tortured interpretation. Again, this is my opinion, and YMMV.

[Greg Amy]

You detractors are thinking far too simplistically. You think THAT'S illegal? Hah! I think there's a lot more area for improvement; the ideas going through my head in regards to this simple little "problem" are pretty impressive.

Bottom line, this mod is not only legal, it hasn't gone far enough. If someone were to protest this they would have their ass handed to them on a plate (minus the $25 fee, thankyouverymuch.)

Open your mind! It's a whole new world out there, kids, and it's been codified (psst: think spherical bearings as bushings...). This is just the beginning...

[gprodracer]

Greg, and others,

Please God, tell me you are joking! The rule clearly states that you can add material, not remove and
entirely replace the top of the strut tower, to say nothing of the reinforcement issue. See Dvaid Dewhursts,
and Shelbyracers comments from before. By your logic, then Davids idea of building a camber plate, and running it to the firewall, and back to the other strut tower constitutes a "legal" mod.. "it doesn't say how much, or little material I can use to mount my 1" steel camber plates, so I used enough to attach it to the other tower!!!" You CAN"T be serious....CAN YOU???
I am all for building a car to the limit of the rules, but for all the $$ invested in that strut tower, I would have bought the bolt in kind, and spent the rest getting seat time to improve my skills. Again, I'm don't claim to be any more of an "expert" than any of you people, but it's this kind of "interpretation" that has given I.T. a bad reputation. I'd protest that car in a second (if it beat me) because there is no doubt in my mind that Topeka would toss it out. I'd love to see some examples of motor modifications that people think are legal.
What a riot that would be.
O.K....off my little soap box.
Mark
CFR member #164010

[Greg Amy]

...tell me you are joking![/b]

Nope. The jokes ended a couple of months ago. As I noted, the paradigm has completely changed. It USED to be "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't". The unwritten rule is now "if it says you can, then you bloody well can, and you best exploit that to its full potential."

Don't worry, you'll be numbed to it soon. I am; we have succumbed, and are working to turn it to our own advantages.

Kinda fun, actually.


You CAN"T be serious....CAN YOU???[/b]

Oh, yeah!


...there is no doubt in my mind that Topeka would toss it out.[/b]

Kinda cute isn't he? Precious, so innocent...

[gprodracer]

Greg,

Clearly there is much more going on here than I am aware of. There were some obvious issues between other posters, and officials earlier in this thread. Let me state that my opinion was not directed at you, or anyone else, and was not intended to offend anyone personally. I have moved to Production, and race in I.T. every now and then, so I am not aware of the "climate" of the class on a daily basis. We all see and "interpret" things differently, so maybe I am too "out of the loop" to pass judgement, but as an "old" man of 44, I still call 'em as I see 'em. The "cheating" issue has been going on long before I joined our club, but we used to be able to go to that competitor, tell them not to come back with that car until it was legal, and that would take care of the problem. It seems that things have changed since then..( 6 years or so ago).
Sorry if I offended anyone.
Good luck, and good racing to all of you!

Resistance is futile....... :unsure:

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010

[Z3_GoCar]

Mark,

I suspect that Greg is still psychologically realing from his initial crusade :cavallo: aginst spherical bearings as suspension bushings. This may be in-spite of the fact that Greg's found something new in his suspension. :happy204: So I suspect there's some recent history that your missing.

Greg,

Keep :cavallo: to victory, and chill and :birra: Congratulations on your string of victories.

James

[Knestis]

Seriously. Be careful what you ask for - or words to that effect...

It's not about cheating anymore. It's about a shift in paradigm and we deserve - collectively - everything we get from here on out. Every little allowance that gets made, either in terms of the codified rules or the way they get defined in parctice, tips us just that little bit further.

What will the spot/tack/whatever welds on those bushings look like, after they've evolved for 10 years? Whee!

K

[Greg Amy]

This may be in-spite of the fact that Greg's found something new in his suspension.[/b]

Nah, I wouldn't take advantage of that...would I? :023:


Congratulations on your string of victories.[/b]

Thanks, man! I'm sure it's totally unrelated... B)

[lateapex911]

Greg,

Clearly there is much more going on here than I am aware of. There were some obvious issues between other posters, and officials earlier in this thread.
Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010
[/b]


I looked to see who the official was...hmmm...didn't see one. maybe you're talking about me. I'm not really an official. My role on the ITAC is to aid in the guidance of the category. THe ITAC does occasionally, write a rule, or attempt to clarify a rule. But we're not officials in the sense that we decide innocence and guilt...

As to the "issues", I'm at wits end.myself, LOL.

I think the question here isn't going to be answered effectively, because much information as to the specifics is missing...

And...
maybe the REAL question shouldn't be IS this legal, but SHOULD it be legal?

[JLawton]

Mark,
Don't take Greg's comments personal. He was around in the begining of IT when guys would slap a car together and go racing. Now people have a lot more invested in their cars and the need to win overpowers common sense when it comes to the rules. Guys are trying to push the rules interpretations waaaaay too far. Forgive his sarcasm. And no, he still doesn't have spherical bearings in his car........Dummy!!

As I have said in the past, if Kirk and Greg decide to turn to the dark side, we're all in trouble!!

[zracre]

I have seen worse...I would call it an interpretation of the rule...It does not look welded on the fender side though. If so many have a problem with it, send in your request for a rules clarification instead of :dead_horse: the way the rule is written you need to prove it is NOT legal by whatever means...

[Jeremy Billiel]

Jeff - I think we should sneak into Greg's trailer one of these days and replace his "bushings" with "bearings." Oh and for good measure lets make sure to add a nice long "tack weld" to hold those suckers in!

:rolleyes: :lol:

Jeremy- Who is just playing with Greg...

[bldn10]

Bill. there IS a limit to how much material you can add - you can only add enough to be able to properly install a plate. That may be a little or a lot.

"BTW, 'leveling off' the plate changes the attachment point, if you're going to use that arguement."

No, I don't think so. Obviously a plate that rests on top of the tower is legal and does not constitute a change in attachment point despite the fact that the point has been raised by the thickness of the plate. But what if you set your plate on top of the tower and the tower is rounded so that the plate is "high centered?" That's what I mean - you can build up a "foundation" so that the plate will have support all around. The attachment point remains where it would be had the tower been flat. Legal. Thinking about the one pictured, it is possible that that is all they did, in which case I'd say it is legal. But it appears that they went beyond that and significantly raised the tower. Indeed, the plate itself is not even flat. If the plate rests entirely on the added material rather than the being "located on existing chassis structure," it is illegal.

I ask all of you not to give up on sane interpretation of the Rules - if enough of us show that we are fed up w/ the situation, I think something can happen. After the SB rule change [Oh, excuse me, I mean Technical Bulletin], I appealed to SCCA's legal counsel on rules drafting and interpretation and I gathered that he was sympathetic. I think at some point he might step in and perhaps give a little seminar to the staff in Topeka on how rules should be interpreted. They obviously need some professional guidance.

[Bill Miller]

Greg, and others,

Please God, tell me you are joking! The rule clearly states that you can add material, not remove and
entirely replace the top of the strut tower, to say nothing of the reinforcement issue. See Dvaid Dewhursts,
and Shelbyracers comments from before. By your logic, then Davids idea of building a camber plate, and running it to the firewall, and back to the other strut tower constitutes a "legal" mod.. "it doesn't say how much, or little material I can use to mount my 1" steel camber plates, so I used enough to attach it to the other tower!!!" You CAN"T be serious....CAN YOU???
I am all for building a car to the limit of the rules, but for all the $$ invested in that strut tower, I would have bought the bolt in kind, and spent the rest getting seat time to improve my skills. Again, I'm don't claim to be any more of an "expert" than any of you people, but it's this kind of "interpretation" that has given I.T. a bad reputation. I'd protest that car in a second (if it beat me) because there is no doubt in my mind that Topeka would toss it out. I'd love to see some examples of motor modifications that people think are legal.
What a riot that would be.
O.K....off my little soap box.
Mark
CFR member #164010
[/b]


Mark,

I suggest that you take a stroll around the paddock at the next race you're at, and look at some of the IT cars. I'm willing to bet that you'll find several w/ similar designs to the one that's the subject of this discussion. That should give you plenty of opportunity to protest somebody's car.

And while I appreciate David's thoughts, his idea gets tossed on the 'performing a prohibited function' clause, provided there's a lower strut brace. You can't attach a strut brace to the fire wall.

[Bill Miller]

Bill. there IS a limit to how much material you can add - you can only add enough to be able to properly install a plate. That may be a little or a lot.

"BTW, 'leveling off' the plate changes the attachment point, if you're going to use that arguement."

No, I don't think so. Obviously a plate that rests on top of the tower is legal and does not constitute a change in attachment point despite the fact that the point has been raised by the thickness of the plate. But what if you set your plate on top of the tower and the tower is rounded so that the plate is "high centered?" That's what I mean - you can build up a "foundation" so that the plate will have support all around. The attachment point remains where it would be had the tower been flat. Legal. Thinking about the one pictured, it is possible that that is all they did, in which case I'd say it is legal. But it appears that they went beyond that and significantly raised the tower. Indeed, the plate itself is not even flat. If the plate rests entirely on the added material rather than the being "located on existing chassis structure," it is illegal.

I ask all of you not to give up on sane interpretation of the Rules - if enough of us show that we are fed up w/ the situation, I think something can happen. After the SB rule change [Oh, excuse me, I mean Technical Bulletin], I appealed to SCCA's legal counsel on rules drafting and interpretation and I gathered that he was sympathetic. I think at some point he might step in and perhaps give a little seminar to the staff in Topeka on how rules should be interpreted. They obviously need some professional guidance.
[/b]


We'll have to agree to disagree Bill. There's no restriction on the amount of material you can remove from, or add to the top of the strut tower to facilitate the installation of the plate. You use a subjective clause in your arguement 'significantly raised the tower'. Nothing in the rules that addresses it. If it says you can add or remove material from the top of the strut tower, you damn well can.

In your example of the 'high centered plate', you say that it's legal to build a foundation around it, to rest the flat plate on. Now, you're allowed to remove material from the top of the strut tower, which you would have to do if you wanted to get the travel needed to adjust the camber of the strut, via the plate. So now, you've removed the material that the plate was 'high centered' on, therefore having it no longer contact any of the original structure. In one parapgraph you say it's legal to do something, but in the next you say that what you claim is legal, is actually illegal.

We may not like the rule, or what it allows, but what's shown in that picture meets the letter of the rules. If that's not what you think we should be allowed to do (somebody else alluded to this earlier), then work to get it changed.

[ddewhurst]

***And while I appreciate David's thoughts, his idea gets tossed on the 'performing a prohibited function' clause, provided there's a lower strut brace. You can't attach a strut brace to the fire wall.***

Bill, please give me a friken break. There is no rule that spec's that I shall not weld my camber plate to the firewall. Just like you clame there is nothing illegal about using a weldment camber plate. :wacko:

On the subject of the original camber plate picture , are you trying to tell me that the average know nothing Joe blow don't know that BSI with their 1/4 to 3/8 inch weldment camber plate is strengthing the strut tower/strut mounting location. You & Jake drinking :birra: the same stuff ?

[Bill Miller]

***And while I appreciate David's thoughts, his idea gets tossed on the 'performing a prohibited function' clause, provided there's a lower strut brace. You can't attach a strut brace to the fire wall.***

Bill, please give me a friken break. There is no rule that spec's that I shall not weld my camber plate to the firewall. Just like you clame there is nothing illegal about using a weldment camber plate. :wacko:

On the subject of the original camber plate picture , are you trying to tell me that the average know nothing Joe blow don't know that BSI with their 1/4 to 3/8 inch weldment camber plate is strengthing the strut tower/strut mounting location. You & Jake drinking :birra: the same stuff ?
[/b]


Actually David, there is a rule that says where you will mount your camber plate.


Cars equipped with MacPherson strut suspension may
decamber wheels by the use of eccentric bushings at
control arm pivot points, by the use of eccentric bushings
at the strut-to-bearing-carrier joint, and/or by use of
slotted adjusting plates at the top mounting point. If
slotted plates are used, they shall be located on existing
chassis structure and may not serve as a reinforcement
for that structure. Material may be added or removed
from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation
of adjuster plate.[/b]

Seems pretty clear where you can mount them. The firewall is hardly the top of the mounting point. And let's be realistic here. By your issue w/ 1/4" or 3/8" welded camber plates strengthening (reinforcing) the tower/mounting location, you can claim that ANY camber plate that is a heavier gauge metal than the stock strut tower sheet metal is stregthening the tower/mounting location. That will hold for the bolt-in ones as well. By that definition, pretty much every camber plate out there is illegal.

Like I said, we may not like the rule, and may not think that it fits the intent of IT, but when they tell you that you can do something, you bloody well can. If you don't like it, pay your $250 and get a ruling, or asked to have the rule changed.

Maybe Stan or Bob (or one of the other CRB members) will comment.

[ddewhurst]

Bill, ya think the BSI guy is the only person that can read a rule book or do ya think the BSI guy is just trying the system. No one will argue that a hand held camber plate that is bolted to the strut tower is not a camber plate no matter how thick it is. & NO a hand held 3/8 inch bolt on camber plate WILL NOT strengthen the strut tower location or the strut tower as will the weldment that BSI calls a camber plate. Do ya want me to go into detail ? Bill, your a rather educated person & it is amazing that you'll argue to support BSI. Do they by chance do work on grocery getters on a regular basis.

Mark Coffin, do you care to add your 2 cents on the camber plate ?

Bill, my welded camber is welded to the top of the strut towers ;) & it's also welded to the firewall. :D The friken S.B. rule has opened things up quite a bit. As Greg & K. stated it's a whle new game. :023: There are some off the shelf S.B. assemblys for the front of a 1st gen RX-7 that don't require welding.

[gprodracer]

Boy, do some people get testy when another OPINION gets voiced! :(
Bill Miller, I have no clue who you are either, but your "walk thru the paddock so you can find cars to protest" quote is priceless! When you don't have a logical, intelligent argument to present, lets try to attack the others with (lame) attempts to make him look bad. I personally used to love it when people protested me, so I could prove them wrong (you could ask Fowler from OPM, or Stu from BSI about those days.. hell, back then people from Denver would come and do random checks on the top four in each class..Funny how about 60% of us ALWAYS passed thru the teardowns, while many an illegal part went home to Denver). So, to respond to your comment about several cars with the same plate set up, please see my comment about "just because everyone else is doing it, does not make it legal!!" So yes, I would spend my $25 to see what Topeka has to say about it. We can all take words out of context to try to prove our point.
Jake, my apologies for calling you an "official". I just knew that there was more going on than I was aware of, and didn't want this discussion, to get personal. The bottom line for me as the rule is written, is that you are only allowed to remove enough material as to "facillitate the installation of the camber plates.. conversely, you are only allowed to "add" material to fascillitate the installation also, (IE add a tab so the bolt holes line up). The example shown was way beyond how the rule is written in its present form.
I've made my last points, but I'll monitor this thread for the humor and sarcasm factors.
Again there are more personal issues going on here that I know (or care to know about) , so I don't want to get dragged into. :bash_1_:
I haven't taken any of this personally, just stated my opinion, but if you want to make it personal, feel free to PM me.. I'm not hard to find.
Evan, how was Sebring last weekend..Good turnout??

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am a little sick of the SB issue being thrown around as some sort of pandoras box. The rule was grey and the CRB told us what the intent was, and we suggested reworking the rule. They took the suggestion. We wanted it to be a 'if it says you can, then you bloody well can' issue instead of two polarized sides.

As far as the tack welding - it was decided that if you are going to allow it, then why make it cost prohibitive to do it? No other function may be served. Get creative and get protested. Simple. It's your money.

A camber plate welded to the strut tower AND to the firewall is CLEARLY reinforcing the chassis. CLEARLY.
AB

[ryotko]

The bottom line for me as the rule is written, is that you are only allowed to remove enough material as to "facillitate the installation of the camber plates.. conversely, you are only allowed to "add" material to fascillitate the installation also, (IE add a tab so the bolt holes line up). The example shown was way beyond how the rule is written in its present form.
[/b]

Take a look at the images below. The first is of a non nodified (other than being cut out of the car) VW A2 strut tower. The second is a tower that has had material removed to facillitate installation of a camber plate. The picture in the auction listing looks to be that material was added to put the plate at the same level as the upper most part of the stock tower. How is this illegal? Forget about opinions for a minute and take a look at all 3 images.

Stock strut tower...
http://home.comcast.net/~bob.yotko/bs/DSCN1984_resize.jpg

Modifird tower...
http://home.comcast.net/~bob.yotko/bs/DSCN1985_resize.jpg

I do think it kind of sucks that a car that's at auction is being dragged though the mud.

-Bob

[Bill Miller]

Boy, do some people get testy when another OPINION gets voiced! :(
Bill Miller, I have no clue who you are either, but your "walk thru the paddock so you can find cars to protest" quote is priceless! When you don't have a logical, intelligent argument to present, lets try to attack the others with (lame) attempts to make him look bad. I personally used to love it when people protested me, so I could prove them wrong (you could ask Fowler from OPM, or Stu from BSI about those days.. hell, back then people from Denver would come and do random checks on the top four in each class..Funny how about 60% of us ALWAYS passed thru the teardowns, while many an illegal part went home to Denver). So, to respond to your comment about several cars with the same plate set up, please see my comment about "just because everyone else is doing it, does not make it legal!!" So yes, I would spend my $25 to see what Topeka has to say about it. We can all take words out of context to try to prove our point.
Jake, my apologies for calling you an "official". I just knew that there was more going on than I was aware of, and didn't want this discussion, to get personal. The bottom line for me as the rule is written, is that you are only allowed to remove enough material as to "facillitate the installation of the camber plates.. conversely, you are only allowed to "add" material to fascillitate the installation also, (IE add a tab so the bolt holes line up). The example shown was way beyond how the rule is written in its present form.
I've made my last points, but I'll monitor this thread for the humor and sarcasm factors.
Again there are more personal issues going on here that I know (or care to know about) , so I don't want to get dragged into. :bash_1_:
I haven't taken any of this personally, just stated my opinion, but if you want to make it personal, feel free to PM me.. I'm not hard to find.
Evan, how was Sebring last weekend..Good turnout??

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010
[/b]


Who's getting testy Mark? You state that what you view as 'creative interpretation' is giving IT a bad rep. You further go on to say that you'd protest the car in question (but only if it beat you), and are sure that it would get tossed. I simply suggested that if you were so anxious to stop 'creative interpretation' from giving IT a bad rap, and were willing to protest someone, that you'd get plenty of opportunity to do it, from a simple stroll through the paddock. I don't see how I'm attacking you, or trying to make you look bad. I just suggested that if you're that passionate about it, and it appears that you are from your statement, that there will be lots of opportunity to try and validate your position. I really fail to see how that's trying to make you look bad. However, if you're so concerned about how 'creative interpretation' gives IT a bad rep., why wouldn't you protest an illegal car, regardless of where it finished, relative to your position? Being illegal only matters if they finish ahead of you? BTW, $25 doesn't get you a Topeka ruling, either $250 does, or going through the whole protest/appeal process does.

Bob,

Thanks for posting those images, I hope it clears things up for a lot of people in this thread.

David,

I could care less who's plates those are, BSI's or anybody else's. I am not making a case for their legaility because they're Stu's plates, I'm making a case for their legality because I believe the design to be w/in the limits of the rules. And Andy's right, you weld it to the fire wall, and you've refinforced the chassis.

[gprodracer]

Bob,UHHH, again, you're joking right??

If the new camber plate was bolted directly to the top of the strut tower, I could see (partially) your point of view. Since I looked at the photos again,please do the same and explain to me how the top of the camber plate is now even with the top of the fender.. Is the plate 2" thick?, or did they add extra (read: unecessary) material that is entirely structural reinforcement for the strut tower? The word "facillitate" means to make easier, not re-design, and entirely rebuild. I know that I am slightly "old school" but the original intent of IT was to slightly modify street cars to make them safer, and yet more "racy" than SS classes. They used to have to be street legal as well.
Back to all my original point, you might want to look at the photo of the car in question with the view from under the strut.. it shows that the entire top of the strut tower has been removed, unlike your photo that shows the correct amount of material that should have been removed to legally install a camber plate. If they wanted to keep the same height of the crown of the strut mounting point, I would think that a plate about 1" in diameter would have been sufficient, not 4" larger all the way around.
As for "leaving opinions out". The original post asked for them.
BTW, No one is dragging the car thru the mud, the post had questions about it's legality, the rest of us just answered the questions. The builders are friends, and fellow competitors of mine, and I have never had any issues with them in the 14 years I have competed with them. This isn't that complicated, this is a chat board of opinions. Sorry to have ruffled any feathers!

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010

[Bill Miller]

Bob,UHHH, again, you're joking right??

If the new camber plate was bolted directly to the top of the strut tower, I could see (partially) your point of view. Since I looked at the photos again,please do the same and explain to me how the top of the camber plate is now even with the top of the fender.. Is the plate 2" thick?, or did they add extra (read: unecessary) material that is entirely structural reinforcement for the strut tower? The word "facillitate" means to make easier, not re-design, and entirely rebuild. I know that I am slightly "old school" but the original intent of IT was to slightly modify street cars to make them safer, and yet more "racy" than SS classes. They used to have to be street legal as well.
Back to all my original point, you might want to look at the photo of the car in question with the view from under the strut.. it shows that the entire top of the strut tower has been removed, unlike your photo that shows the correct amount of material that should have been removed to legally install a camber plate. If they wanted to keep the same height of the crown of the strut mounting point, I would think that a plate about 1" in diameter would have been sufficient, not 4" larger all the way around.
As for "leaving opinions out". The original post asked for them.
BTW, No one is dragging the car thru the mud, the post had questions about it's legality, the rest of us just answered the questions. The builders are friends, and fellow competitors of mine, and I have never had any issues with them in the 14 years I have competed with them. This isn't that complicated, this is a chat board of opinions. Sorry to have ruffled any feathers!

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010
[/b]


Mark, now you're just being silly. A 1" diameter camber plate? Yeah, that MIGHT be big enough to hold the upper bearing, but you sure wouldn't have any adjustment. Since Stu's a friend of yours, why don't you ask him how many people w/ his camber plates have been protested for them, and how many of those have been found illegal? You've staed a couple of times that you're not up on the current IT rules. Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch for you to state so matter-of-factly that something's illegal, when you yourself admit that you're not up on the current state of the rules?

[ryotko]

...and explain to me how the top of the camber plate is now even with the top of the fender.. Is the plate 2" thick?
[/b]

Mark,

The below photo clearly illustrates that on a stock A2 VW the top of the strut tower, at centerline, is level with the top of the fender flange. Same as the car that's for sale.

Now how is laying the CP on top of the stock tower and adding material between the plate and the lower portion of the tower illegal?

As for opening up the hole, who determines what the correct amount to remove is? The rules don't.

-Bob

http://home.comcast.net/~bob.yotko/bs/DSCN1992_resize.jpg

[backformore]

Since I started this thread, I'll make one more post. First, thank you to the people who provided their intelligent and considered opinions. I wish someone had posted the pictures of the A1 strut tower earlier. It helps to explain (to me) why the camber plates were done the way they were.

For the record, I was not trying to drag anything through anything, I just wanted to know where people stood before I spent my money. I happen to live in a region with pretty strict interpretation of the rules.

It's a moot point to me at this point. Someone else bought the car. Congrats to the seller and the buyer. I hope they enjoy it.

[gprodracer]

Bill,

Since my comments were directed to Bob, Your reply was uhhh...not asked for?? Since you needed to reply,
I stand corrected, as my typo stated that a 1" plate was acceptable. I meant that a plate 1" larger than the
stock strut opening would have been adaquate to install a slotted camber plate. As for the "how many times have they been protested" question... does that make them legal since they haven't been protested?? And yes, I have only protested someone "officially" once when they kicked my ass with a monster cam, that allowed them to have a 8500 rpm redline, and cost me a SEDIV championship. If their illegal mods don't cost me points towards a championship that I'm competing for' then the other times I have seen blatently illegal mods, a simple chat with the competitor has resolved the problem.
Moving on... I have only stated that " in my opinion" the mods to the strut towers were illegal.. Stop putting words in my mouth to prove your point please. I am passionate about our club, and the direction that it takes on certain issues. We are all members, and all of our votes on these issues count equally on how we should approach our "HOBBY".
I love this sport, and if I get my ass kicked by a better driver, then I will try to become a better driver! If I get beat by someone who can interpret the rules and get the court to agree with him, I will accept that too, but I will feel good that I drove my best, and the rules were decided by the people that protest the loudest!
Good Luck, and good racing in all that you do!!

Mark P. Larson
#83 G Prod. #164010

[gprodracer]

O K, Thank you for a photo that has made me re-consider my position on this subject without attacking my intelligence. Again, I have never had a problem with someones forward thinking ideas, just the tortured stretching of the written word. I will contemplate your ideas, and discuss their merits soon.
Thanks for your fresh imput!!
Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010 :happy204:

[ddewhurst]

***The rule was grey and the CRB told us what the intent was***

Andy, some people may buy this ^ $hit but not me. Intent today or intent when the rule was written.

Please name the person who is on the CRB who said the intent is or please name the person who back tracked to find someone who was on the CRB when the rule was originally written for the true meaning of the rule.

I may be old but I sure as hell ain't grey & as I talk the talk I also walk the walk. Or I dig out the facts so that I may walk the walk. ;) The word intent makes me sick because it's a cover all for those who maybe don't have the facts.

All said with :D :D :D

[lateapex911]

Better be careful Andy, or you'll get accused of drinking the same juice that Dewhurst has accused myself, and Miller of..;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me rephrase then. We went to the CRB and asked them what they wanted the rule to be. They said SB's are allowed as bushings. We rewrote the rule for their consideration to clear things up. They accepted it.

Case closed.



AB

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

Since my comments were directed to Bob, Your reply was uhhh...not asked for?? Since you needed to reply,
I stand corrected, as my typo stated that a 1" plate was acceptable. I meant that a 1" plate larger than the
stock strut opening would have been adaquate to install a slotted camber plate. As for the "how many times have they been protested" question... does that make them legal since they haven't been protested??
Moving on... I have only stated that " in my opinion" the mods to the strut towers were illegal.. Stop putting words in my mouth to prove your point please. I am passionate about our club, and the direction that it takes on certain issues. We are all members, and all of our votes on these issues count equally on how we should approach our "HOBBY".
I love this sport, and if I get my ass kicked by abetter driver, then I will try to become a better driver! If I get beat by someone who can interpret the rules and get the court to agree with him, i will accept that too, but I will feel good that I drove my best, and the rules were decided by the people that protest the loudest!
Good Luck, and good racing in all that you do!!

Mark P. Larson
#83 G Prod. #164010
[/b]

Mark,

This is an open message forum, you post something here, it's open for comments for anyone else that is allowed to post here. If you don't want unsolicited comments, perhaps you shouldn't post here? If you look at the pictures Bob put up (thanks again Bob), and look at the picture of the car's camber plate, you'll see that the camber plate is ~1" larger than the opening in the strut tower after you cut the bell off the top.

And talk about putting words in somebody's mouth! I didn't say that they were legal if they weren't protested. What I said was, how many had been protested and found illegal. I asked that because you said you were friends w/ Stu, someone that's sold who knows how many sets of plates like that. I think it's a safe bet that if people had used them, been protested, and found non-compliant, not only would he (Stu) have heard about them, but so would the rest of the IT community. I was only suggesting that you go to a good source for some information on the subject.

[ddewhurst]

Thank you Andy, I kind of figured your drink was from a different bottle. ;)

[ddewhurst]

***you weld it to the fire wall, and you've refinforced the chassis.***

Bill, I really like your situational interpretation of the the rule to suit yourself. :wacko:

"If sloted plates are used, they shall be located on the existing structure and may not serve as a reinforcement for that structure."

So from your interpretation of the rule my welding to the firewall has reinforced the chassis but your weldment for the suposed camber plate does "not serve as a reinforcement for that structure". For that sttructure, for that structure, for that structure..................... :018:

What part of the bottom of the bottle don't you understand ? Oh, Im sorry. What part of the rule don't you understand ?

Nuff said by me. ;)

[gprodracer]

Bill,

Well, we must agree to disagree. Please read my post slowly, so there is no confusion on my statements. I never said that Stu's plates were illegal by SCCA standards (other than stating that they are "in MY OPINION"), I said that just because there are many others like them out there, doesn't make them legal, just that the officials in Topeka have not seen the pictures, and have not made a ruling on that specific "interpretation" of the rule as it is currently written. One last suggestion to think about... Look at the picture with the crown cut off the top of the tower, and the outline of the camber plate is traced out on top. My interpretation is that they have removed all the material they needed to at that point, to "facillitate" (make easier) the installation of the plate. Lay the plate flat on the top of the tower, drill thru both to match up the bolts, and bolt it all together! BTW, where does it state that you can weld the plate in place? The mod in question has removed the entire top of the strut tower, not just the bell as you have stated. Lastly, you keep bringing up the fact that i caled Stu a "friend". The statement was "friend and fellow competitor". We have raced together for many years, and he has kicked my ass many times, but I have beat him a few times as well. I would loan him anything I had on my trailer to keep his car running, and he would do the same for me, but we don't exchange Christmas cards. My statements were purely to show that I have no axe to grind against him, or his operation.
OK, I have stated my position on this matter too many times :dead_horse:
This has gone from a legality question to questioning everyones personal motivation about their opinions.
I will continue to state my opinions for the good of OUR CLUB!
Mark Larson
#83 G Production
Member #164010

[Greg Amy]

Let me rephrase then. We went to the CRB and asked them what they wanted the rule to be...[/b]

That I will accept, as opposed to "this was the intent of the rule all along since 1984 when the rule was written, especially given the original codified 'dual-purpose capable of being registered' philosophy' and we just changed the wording of the rules to reflect that". So then we agree: while it may have not been the original intent of the suspension bushings rule, it is the desire of the current CRB for this to be legal, thus the rule was changed, both de facto and de jure.

Fine. Case closed.

So, how does this now go to the discussion at hand, in regards to VW upper strut towers? Simply put: whereas the original intent of the camber plate rule may not have encompassed such additions of material as is described by the illustrations above, the letter of the rule certainly does. Further, given that the letter of rules has, both in practice and in code, taken precedence over the intent (original or current desires) it is incumbent upon the competitiors to stretch the letter of the rules to the breaking point, until such time that one is protested or specifically dis/allowed via rule change. This is the process by which spherical bearings (along with many other items over the last few years) have become legal.

If I read the letter of the rules and partner it to the new over-riding philosophy of "if it says you can, you bloody well can" then it is patently obvious that the allowance on these mounts supercedes any nebulous restriction and the plates are legal. The only way I can find these illegal is if I went to the (now) "old school Greg" idea that the root philosophy of the class trumps any tortured interpretation of the letter of the rules (an archaic rule that has never been challenged, let alone upheld.)

Bottom line: the letter of the rules counts, not the philosophy. If you don't like the letter of the rules, too bad; take your best shot at getting them changed. Witness the 15" wheels fiasco among many others in these last three years...

By the way, folks have been doing this to IT Volkswagens for literally decades now. I saw the first one way back in the mid-1980's... - GA

[ggnagy]

I don't know VW suspesions from adam, but I am looking at that picture in the ad, and comparing it to the stock strut on the top of page three here. Is it the photograph angle, or is the top of the strut further aft of that bracket than on the "stock" strut tower? If it is, I would think the pickup relocation to change caster would be the nit to pick.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

Well, we must agree to disagree. Please read my post slowly, so there is no confusion on my statements. I never said that Stu's plates were illegal by SCCA standards (other than stating that they are "in MY OPINION"), I said that just because there are many others like them out there, doesn't make them legal, just that the officials in Topeka have not seen the pictures, and have not made a ruling on that specific "interpretation" of the rule as it is currently written. One last suggestion to think about... Look at the picture with the crown cut off the top of the tower, and the outline of the camber plate is traced out on top. My interpretation is that they have removed all the material they needed to at that point, to "facillitate" (make easier) the installation of the plate. Lay the plate flat on the top of the tower, drill thru both to match up the bolts, and bolt it all together! BTW, where does it state that you can weld the plate in place? The mod in question has removed the entire top of the strut tower, not just the bell as you have stated. Lastly, you keep bringing up the fact that i caled Stu a "friend". The statement was "friend and fellow competitor". We have raced together for many years, and he has kicked my ass many times, but I have beat him a few times as well. I would loan him anything I had on my trailer to keep his car running, and he would do the same for me, but we don't exchange Christmas cards. My statements were purely to show that I have no axe to grind against him, or his operation.
OK, I have stated my position on this matter too many times :dead_horse:
This has gone from a legality question to questioning everyones personal motivation about their opinions.
I will continue to state my opinions for the good of OUR CLUB!
Mark Larson
#83 G Production
Member #164010
[/b]

Mark,

Back pedal all you want. You talked about 'creative interpretation' giving the club a bad rep. Then you state matter-of-factly that you're confident that that design (which just happens to be a set of Stu's plates) would get tossed. And how do you know that nobody in Topeka has seen pictures of that design? That's one of the reasons why I suggested that you speak w/ Stu.

Let's talk about your suggestion to just bolt the plate to the top of the strut tower. If you do that, you actually change the mounting point of the strut by lowering it. But, that's not the real issue. The rule says that not only are you allowed to removed material, you're allowed to add it as well. If that's what it takes to get the camber plate back to the original location of the strut mounting point, then you're certainly allowed to do it, the way the rule is currently written. And where does it say that you can weld it? Right there where it says that you can add material. You are allowed to add material, the method of attachment is not specified, which means that it's left up to the builder to decide how they want to. You can bolt it or weld it, your choice. Hell, you can use duct tape and chewing gum if you want! That's the beauty of a specific allowance, once it says you can do something, and doesn't put any further restrictions on how you do it, you get to make your own choices.

And now I see you're back peddaling about your relationship w/ Stu. YOU said he was a friend of yours. You also said he was a fellow competitor. I'm not sure why you bring up the issue of Christmas cards, as it is certainly not germane to the discussion. As an aside, I have several friends that I don't exchange Christmas cards with. From your subsequent comments, the only conclusion that I can draw is that have somewhat over-stated your relationship w/ Stu. No big deal, doesn't really make a bit of difference to me.

David,

As I said earlier, unless you use a camber plate that's the same gauge metal as the OEM strut tower top, you're strengthing the strut tower top. Is adding the additional vertical material to support the plate a 'reinforcement'? That's really hard to say. I can see where people could make an arguement both ways. Certainly would seem to create issues w/ the internal consistency of the rule. But, that's never happened before! The rule says you're allowed to add a plate. It also says that the plate may not serve as a reinforcement for the chassis. It also says that you can remove as well as add material, to facilitate the installation of the plate. This is clearly a case where you can have different interpretations, and that reasonable people can disagree. Has nothing to do w/ kool-aid.

[gprodracer]

Bill,

What is your obsession with how well I know Stu Brumer? What does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Once again (why do I have to keep repeating myself to you?) I mentioned that I know him and raced against him to show that my opinion on the legality of the camber plate install was in no way an attempt to throw him, or his company under the bus. So again, instead of trying to belittle me as to my relationships with car builders in the Southeast, try sticking to the subject at hand. If you are so worried that I "overstated" my relationship with him, get your own facts straight, and get a life. As for the Topeka comment, it is still my opinion that that modification is illegal as the rule is written. How do I know that they haven't seen it, and deemed it legal, how do you know they have? Pure conjecture on both our parts. My feeling is that if they had seen the same pics that we have, there probably would have been a clarification in how the rule is written.
Since this thread has seemed to deteriorate into a discusion of how well I know Stu, and your insistance that I am now "backpedaling", I'm bored and must go to work.
Have fun!
Mark Larson
CFR #164010

[bldn10]

"There's no restriction on the amount of material you can remove from, or add to the top of the strut tower to facilitate the installation of the plate. You use a subjective clause in your arguement 'significantly raised the tower'. Nothing in the rules that addresses it. If it says you can add or remove material from the top of the strut tower, you damn well can."

Bill (Miller), did I not say that the amount that could be added or removed could be a little or a lot? Yes, I did - there is no express, quantitative amount - the restriction is on the necessity to add or remove in order to facilitate installation of the plate! I.e. if your tower is of such configuration that the only way you can install a plate is to cut the top off, or add 5 pounds of steel, it is legal to do so. On the other hand, if you only need to level off the top but you go beyond that and essentially rebuild the tower, it is illegal.

Yes, there is some subjectivity to it and that cannot be avoided; if you can't accept that then you are always going to have trouble w/ interpretation of rules (and not just these rules). The way you deal w/ the subjective element is by establishing principles for interpretation and then applying those principles consistently. The SCCA has done a poor job of that - too much ad hoc tampering - and that is why I advocate that COA opinions be precedential - so we can establish such principles of interpretation. One principle is that you have to read ALL of the rule together so that it is internally consistent. Your notion that because the sentence dealing w/ added or removed material does not contain the express prohibition on chassis reinforcement as does the preceding sentence, means that that prohibition does not apply to the added or removed material, is, w/ all due respect, utterly wrong because it sets up an absurdity. Let's take the extreme situation for sake of discussion where the tower is completely level and all you have to do is drill 4 holes and bolt it on. Do you still say you can add or remove material? I suspect not. Why not? Because no material needs to be added or removed to facilitate installation of the plate. Stepping back a notch, what if all you have to do is cut a 1/4" collar off [as is the case w/ the 2nd gen. RX-7] - do you really think that opens the door to cutting the top of the tower off and welding on a new one? Surely not. But, if you are going to be consistent in your argument, you would have to take that position.

My characterization of the pictured installation as having "significantly raised the tower" was simply to make this not a close case for purposes of discussion. By "significant" I mean clearly more than that absolutely necessary to install the plate. There is no inconsistency in the way I have analyzed this.

" Now, you're allowed to remove material from the top of the strut tower, which you would have to do if you wanted to get the travel needed to adjust the camber of the strut, via the plate."

Now you are being inconsistent. Where does it say anything about changing the amount of travel? My opinion is that the attachment point has to be in the same plane as stock plus the thickness of the plate.

Looking at the stock tower I now see the dilemma presented by this car. One thing we still need to know is where is the pivot point - at the top of the collar or the top of the tower? If the former, you can cut the collar off but then have you have lowered the attachment point and lost stock travel. In that case I think clearly a plate on top of the collar is legal - the attachment point would be in the stock plane plus plate. But then you have the "high centered" situation. Obviously, you would have to do something to establish a flat plane at the level of the collar to bolt the plate to. Or, alternatively, you could build a "foundation" around the top of the tower to the level of the collar and attach a plate to it. Apparently that is what they did. If that is all they did, I think it is legal. But if they unnecessarily cut the collar or entire top off, or extended the "foundation" further down the sides than necessary, or raised the plate above the stock level, I think there is a problem. On the other hand, if the pivot point is below the collar at the level of the top of the tower, then I think Mark is right and cutting the collar off and bolting (or welding) on your plate is all that is necessary and, thus, all that is allowed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

All I care about is that washer bottle!!!



http://i24.ebayimg.com/05/i/07/4c/82/6d_1.JPG



:P

[Doc Bro]

Wow,

I just plugged through this debate. Veeeeerry interesting and intense.

I learned one thing:

Clinton really did believe he...."didn't have sexual relations with that girl......."

This interpretation thing is CRAZZZZY!!

IMO

R

ps. I'm scared of the new Greg.....

[planet6racing]

Andy,

Don't forget about the ECU and the SIR. Oh, and the rear wiper on an Integra!

:dead_horse:

[Knestis]

Sorry kids. When you say, "Material may be added or removed...", I can do any damn thing I want - as long as it "facilitates" my installation of my strut plates.

The "old school" Trans Am (not really old, the '70s-80s version) discovered that "lighten and reinforce" extended logically to "lighten completely away and build from scratch." The only thing that kept me from having more fun with this is that I was still a NERD when I sent the new car off for paint.

Did I mention, WHEE?

K

[RacerBill]

:D I'm still waiting for a definition of what a 'total opening' is... not a total of two openings but 'two total openings'! :D :D :D

Andy: I'll show you my water bottle if you show me your's!!! :happy204:

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

What is your obsession with how well I know Stu Brumer? What does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Once again (why do I have to keep repeating myself to you?) I mentioned that I know him and raced against him to show that my opinion on the legality of the camber plate install was in no way an attempt to throw him, or his company under the bus. So again, instead of trying to belittle me as to my relationships with car builders in the Southeast, try sticking to the subject at hand. If you are so worried that I "overstated" my relationship with him, get your own facts straight, and get a life. As for the Topeka comment, it is still my opinion that that modification is illegal as the rule is written. How do I know that they haven't seen it, and deemed it legal, how do you know they have? Pure conjecture on both our parts. My feeling is that if they had seen the same pics that we have, there probably would have been a clarification in how the rule is written.
Since this thread has seemed to deteriorate into a discusion of how well I know Stu, and your insistance that I am now "backpedaling", I'm bored and must go to work.
Have fun!
Mark Larson
CFR #164010
[/b]

Mark,

I'm not trying to belittle you at all, but don't get pissed when you shoot your mouth off, and someone calls you on it. And please tell me what facts I need to get straight. You're the one that said that the people in Topeka haven't seen the pictures. I never said they did or they didn't. Since you claimed to be friends (and competitors) w/ one of the well known providers of the items in question, I figured that you had a way to get some of this cleared up. So, I haven't conjectured anything. BTW, for someone that said that this wasn't a personal thing, you sure do like to get personal about it.

Bill (Denton),

We're certainly in agreement that the SCCA does a poor job of writing rules. Do I think this rule is poorly written? You better believe I do. But, given that's what the rule is, like Kirk, Greg, and others have said, it's up to the competitor to squeeze everything out of it they can, while remaining legal.

And how am I being inconsistent w.r.t. travel? The rule says that you can decamber cars by means of sloted plates at the top of the strut tower. To the best of my knowledge, none of the cars eligible for IT come w/ those stock. Therefore, the stock upper travel limit is zero, as you can't make camber adjustments at the top of the strut tower. When you're given the allowance to make adjustments at the top, via camber plates, there is no limit on how much you can adjust them. So, if I want my camber plates to give me -10* of camber, I can remove material from the top of the strut tower to facilitate the installation of a plate that gives me that much travel.

I also agree that you can only remove or add material to the top of the strut tower, and not down the sides.

[JLawton]

I gotta agree with Rob, you guys are taking this waaay to seriously.

So you have different opinions. No need to get testy...............

[bldn10]

I noticed that in my previous post I said "former" when I meant "latter" - I apologize and hope you caught it.

K, I assume you are being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I appreciate the sarcasm, but some people reading this may not realize you aren't really serious. If you are serious, then to those people I implore: pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! You cannot by any stretch of the imagination use Trans Am or any pro series as a precedent or example for interpreting SCCA amateur rules, especially in a class like IT in which limited prep is the stated philosophy. As I clearly stated back then, I think the SB solution was a huge error and a bastardization of our rules, and I do not think it should be used as precedent. Rather, I think it should stand in testimony of what we DO NOT want. The fact that you are taking it and running w/ it is exactly why it was wrong. Let's try to keep the wrongs at a minimum.

Bill (Miller), excuse me if I misunderstood but I thought the reference to "travel" meant vertical travel not horizontal. I.e. raising the pivot point would give you more suspension travel (bump) and, thus, is an illegal function w/ regard to material added or removed solely to facilitate a camber plate. I agree w/ you that there is no express restriction on the amount of decambering. However, staying consistent, and acknowledging the subjective element, I would say that if you created a plate ostensibly to allow 10 deg. of decambering - more than you would ever want to use - and it reinforced the chassis or raised the pivot point, or did something else illegal, I would view the decamber purpose as a subterfuge and conclude that the illegal function outweighs the theoretical legal purpose, and the installation is illegal. Using a previous hypothetical, I suppose you could make a plate that would allow so much caster adjustment that the plate would indeed extend all the way to the firewall. :wacko: Clearly illegal although no express prohibition of it. Same thing w/ your 10 deg.

So where is the pivot point on that VW?

[Bill Miller]

Bill (Denton),

We're pretty much on the same page. The top pivot point of the strut is about where the top of that hat is. There's a bearing that's part of the upper mount, that is inside that hat.

[Geo]

Bill. there IS a limit to how much material you can add - you can only add enough to be able to properly install a plate.
[/b]

Please quote this from the ITCS.




...the restriction is on the necessity to add or remove in order to facilitate installation of the plate![/b]

Again, please quote this from the ITCS.


I'm a firm believer in "if it doesn't say you can, you can't."

But....

I'm the one who coined the expression "if is says you can, you bloody well can." It's simply a corollary of the first expression (if it doesn't say you can.....).

If it says you can and doesn't place restrictions on how, well, you figure it out.

[Knestis]

...K, I assume you are being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I appreciate the sarcasm, but some people reading this may not realize you aren't really serious. If you are serious, then to those people I implore: pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! You cannot by any stretch of the imagination use Trans Am or any pro series as a precedent or example for interpreting SCCA amateur rules, especially in a class like IT in which limited prep is the stated philosophy. As I clearly stated back then, I think the SB solution was a huge error and a bastardization of our rules, and I do not think it should be used as precedent. Rather, I think it should stand in testimony of what we DO NOT want. The fact that you are taking it and running w/ it is exactly why it was wrong. Let's try to keep the wrongs at a minimum. ...[/b]

I'm not kidding in the least but understand WHAT I am saying.

I'm not suggesting that a wildly liberal interpretation SHOULD be applied. I've spent years (like 20 of them) arguing a pretty strict, conservative view of what is allowed by the ITCS. I'm merely suggesting that this is where the tide seems to be taking us and, having tired myself out trying to fight what seems to be the dominant paradigm, I've quit swimming against it.

The strut tower example parallels almost perfectly the TransAm suspension arm historical precedent. It's not the word of the rules that activates the policies that they represent: it is their interpretation and enforcement. The trend in the last year has been clearly toward pushing the envelope and the examples pictured there are all entirely within the letter of the rule. They are NOT within a conservative interpretation of that rule and are equally not a true pushing of the limits of the letter of the rule.

Seriously. It is not a stretch to picture some really outstanding changes in that area. And others.

K

[bldn10]

"there IS a limit to how much material you can add - you can only add enough to be able to properly install a plate."

"Please quote this from the ITCS."

"...the restriction is on the necessity to add or remove in order to facilitate installation of the plate!"

"Again, please quote this from the ITCS."

George, I'm not going to waste a lot of your and my time on the principles of construction of statutory/ contractual/rule language because it is not something most people give a hoot about. They'd rather just (either superficially or tortuously, whichever is more expedient) read into the language what they want it to mean and that's it. There are plenty of legal treatises on the topic as well as hundreds of reported decisions. As I have already stated, and you evidently ignored or reject, you have to read the rule in its entirety and the interpretation needs to be internally consistent and avoid absurdities or the omission of any language.

17.1.4.D.5.d.1 states that

1. "cars equipped with McPherson strut suspension may decamber wheels by the use of ...
2. slotted adjusting plates at the top mounting point ...
3. located on existing chassis structure
4. and may not serve as a reinforcement for that structure."

So, right there you have the basic principle of the rule: you can install a camber plate but it cannot reinforce the chassis structure. [To the extent that ANY plate installation might provide SOME reinforcement, the rule is not absolute.] It is just common sense that the rule encompasses the plate as installed.

5. "Material may be added or removed from the top of the stut tower TO FACILITATE INSTALLATION of the adjuster plate." (emphasis added)

Thus, the sole legal purpose of adding or removing material is to facilitate installation of the plate. If you can properly and easily install the plate w/o any addition or removal, you can't add or remove any. Do you at least agree so far? The corollary to that is that you can only add or remove so much as is necessary to facilitate installation of the plate. Anything more is not done "to facilitate installation of the adjuster plate" - it is done for some other reason. As an example, you can modify (remove material) from the dash board "to provide for roll cage installation," so, if you have to notch it out a bit for the front down tubes, does that mean that the amount of modification you can then make is unlimited? Of course not. I think that answers both your questions.

I suppose you interpret the rule as follows: "You can install a camber plate and if you can do so w/o adding or removing any material, the plate may not serve as chassis reinforcement. However, if you have a plate that arguably requires that some material be added or removed, the amount of material added or removed is unrestricted and material may be added for the purpose of chassis reinforcement." Does that make sense to anyone? Is that a reasonable interpretation of the Rule? Is it not diametrically opposed to the clear intent of the Rule? It is w/o doubt an absurdity.

I hate to break this news but you simply cannot interpret a rule by picking it apart line by line, word by word, and applying a strictly literal construction. Life would be much simpler for all of us but it just ain't that way. If you think the GCR or the IRS Code is too long now, think of what it would be if every sentence or phrase had to contain every restriction or limitation contained in every other sentence or phrase. :o

"I'm a firm believer in "if it doesn't say you can, you can't. But.... I'm the one who coined the expression 'if is says you can, you bloody well can.' It's simply a corollary of the first expression (if it doesn't say you can.....)."

George, the construction you put on this Rule IS NOT an application of your corollary! What you are really saying is "if it doesn't say you can't, you can." The Rule in question only says that you can add or remove material to facilitate installation of the plate. It does NOT say that you can do it to reinforce the chassis or for any other reason. But you are saying that, because it does not expressly state that you cannot add or remove to reinforce, you can. I have figured it out - based on 3 years of study and 16 years of practice. How 'bout you? My construction is the way a court of law would look at it and I hope the SCCA COA would look at it the same way.

[Bill Miller]

5. "Material may be added or removed from the top of the stut tower TO FACILITATE INSTALLATION of the adjuster plate." (emphasis added)

Thus, the sole legal purpose of adding or removing material is to facilitate installation of the plate. If you can properly and easily install the plate w/o any addition or removal, you can't add or remove any. [/b]

Sorry Bill, but that's not what the rule says.

From Webster's

Facilitate (v) To make easier.

There's nothing in the rule that says you can only remove or add material if you have to. It says you can do it to make the installation easier. That leaves it up to a pretty subjective interpretation.

[Knestis]

I'd like to add, for Bill D. - I am totally sympathetic to your position. I've spent a lot of time and burned up a bunch of bandwidth making what I thought were well-considered arguments, that moved forward from the same propositions as yours. For what it might be worth.

K

[CDS]

Sorry Bill, but that's not what the rule says.

From Webster's

Facilitate (v) To make easier.

There's nothing in the rule that says you can only remove or add material if you have to. It says you can do it to make the installation easier. That leaves it up to a pretty subjective interpretation.
[/b]

I mainly just lurk here, but I feel compelled to weigh in on this. Surely you are not serious with this interpretation. If you are, then I submit it would make it easier for my camber plate installation to remove every bit of material attached to the top of my strut tower and replace it with a BMW 325. Your interpretation gives the phrase "to facilitate installation of the adjuster plate" no meaning, and you could just end the sentence with "material may be added or removed from the top of the strut tower." However, as Bill D. pointed out, a basic legal principle of statutory or contract interpretation is to give meaning to all words. Therefore you have to read the "facilitation" phrase as a limitation on the ability to add or remove material. If not, then what do these words mean and why were they made a part of the rule?

[gprodracer]

CDS,

Sadly, that is the type of interpretation that seems to be going on. As you have read, this has been going on
for days. My disconnect for this would be: for all the people arguing the "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" or the "if it says you can, then you can" positions... It doesn't say you can..anywhere in the rule, so in my opinion, you can't.. period. For the "if it says you can" crowd...it doesn't say you can either..period. Either that, or I'm replcing my Nissan strut tower with an Audi LMP...
Sitting back now to watch the replies fly!
Mark

[Geo]

George, the construction you put on this Rule IS NOT an application of your corollary! What you are really saying is "if it doesn't say you can't, you can." The Rule in question only says that you can add or remove material to facilitate installation of the plate. It does NOT say that you can do it to reinforce the chassis or for any other reason. But you are saying that, because it does not expressly state that you cannot add or remove to reinforce, you can. I have figured it out - based on 3 years of study and 16 years of practice. How 'bout you? My construction is the way a court of law would look at it and I hope the SCCA COA would look at it the same way.
[/b]

We'll have to disagree. And quite frankly, I'm glad I don't have to bring a lawyer to go racing. Sorry.

The book says I can. I can.

I don't see how the camber plate in question reinforces anything or performs any otherwise illegal function.

[Bill Miller]

Craig and Mark,

That's where the whole "strained and tortured interpretation" clause comes in.

[Knestis]

...but until the limit is defined by enforcement through the protest/appeal process, there is no limit. Nothing is strained until the COA says it's strained but it rarely even gets to the point where they are put on the spot to answer the question.

K

[bldn10]

"I don't see how the camber plate in question reinforces anything or performs any otherwise illegal function."

Well George, I think everyone here except you thinks that it DOES reinforce the strut tower - the issue is whether it does it illegally. However, if you will review one of my previous posts I said that if the stock pivot point is at the top of the "hat," and Bill (Miller) says that it is (and I, unlike you, defer to others in their areas of expertise), then building a support for the plate at the top is legal because you are entitled (if not required) to maintain the stock attachment point. They may have gone beyond what was absolutely necessary but, just looking at the photos, I cannot say that for sure.

K, re the COA, the problem is that COA opinions are NOT precedential - so, strictly speaking, even a decision in a particular appeal would not definitively resolve the question. Frankly, I think this Rule is not badly written and I have no problem at all reaching the interpretation I have. I don't think it needs clarification - I just think we need for people to stop w/ all this pseudo-clever, devil's-advocate, spurious interpretation and seek the intent of any rule in the context of the IT philosophy. The former is a fun intellectual endeavor but it should not be confused w/ REAL rules construction. Some of you seem to think that if you can come up w/ ANY argument based on the language of the rule, that means that the rule is unclear and cannot be used against you. That is B.S. There are people sitting in jail cells today who tried to educate judges w/ clever, facially logical arguments why no one HAS to pay federal income taxes. :wacko:

[Knestis]

...I just think we need for people to stop w/ all this pseudo-clever, devil's-advocate, spurious interpretation and seek the intent of any rule in the context of the IT philosophy. ... :wacko:[/b]

...and when the culture of the Club becomes such that this will work, I'll get back on the NERD wagon. Until then, if you come up with a magic wand to make it happen, wave away. :)

K

[lateapex911]

Seems to me that this car is probably legal, or gray at best. The stock tower structure is odd, and the solution seems in line...but it is definately something I can see reasonable men disagreeing on.

The rule needs to be written in such a way as to be efffective across a large range of physical realities...and allow enough freedom so that any group of cars that have a certain "Type" of structure are not excluded for a solution.

On the other hand..........leaving the rule open leads to simple stretching of the allowance by people who don't understand the goal and intent going in, or who flat out want to take advantage.

Alls fair in love and war, right??

Well, the system is larger than the rulebook, and to truely define what can and can not happen per car, it needs to be tested. That means a protest, and an appeal, or a paid for rules inquiry.

But we as competitors stop short, and decide to render judgements of our own. It's human nature...but we shouldn't complain until the system has had a chance to work.