January 2009 Fastrack is out..

[JoshS]

Did everyone see the story about the rear spoiler protest on an ITA RX-7?

I've seen this car many times, but it never occurred to me to comment on the spoiler.

The owner, Chuck Koos, used the GCR section 9.1.3.8.b as justification for the spoiler. I can see why, although generally, it seems to be more about FRONT spoilers than rear.

Do you all think that there is an intent to allow aftermarket rear spoilers in IT? Does that allowance need to be clarified?

[Greg Amy]

Do you all think that there is an intent to allow aftermarket rear spoilers in IT?
No.


Does that allowance need to be clarified?No: he was found non-compliant. The process worked, right?

What I found far more troubling is what in the hell is K.P. Jones' problem with Mike Tearney? Someone wake up on the grumpy side of the bed...?

Link to Jan Fastrack:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/01/09-fastrack-jan.pdf

Josh, I hope you don't mind, I edited the topic name to be more generic so we can use this topic for all Fastrack discussions... - Greg

[JoshS]

No.

No: he was found non-compliant. The process worked, right?

Well, does the end justify the means?

He was found non-compliant not because he had a rear spoiler. He was found non-compliant because his rear spoiler was a dealer-installed or limited production part. Had he fabbed the thing up himself, it looks to me like the appeals committee wouldn't have had a problem with it.

[Greg Amy]

Had he fabbed the thing up himself, it looks to me like the appeals committee wouldn't have had a problem with it.
Not true: IIDSYCYC, right? Where does the ITCS allow a fabbed up rear spoiler? Or any rear spoiler for that matter, other than one that's original equipment (see last weekend's discussion (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25281) over "optional" versus "standard" equipment)?

The guy's base reasoning was flawed, he was protested, and the rear spoiler was found non-compliant. How he got to that conclusion is irrelevant, right?

[Greg Amy]

Am I reading correctly that rebuilding to service specs will be allowed in the Wreck Pinata next year? That's probably a good idea, recognizing the reality of the situation.

Loved the Beetle comment: "ITB – Move the Beetle to ITB (Conover). ITC is still alive."

"Classify the 70-72 Porsche 914-6 in ITA." Wow. A nice mid-engine 2-liter 6-banger in ITA at 2095 pounds...maybe Blake will rethink that ITB project...

Looks like Touring is going the way of Improved Touring 20 years ago, with removal of interiors...the creep was inevitable...

[JoshS]

Not true: IIDSYCYC, right? Where does the ITCS allow a fabbed up rear spoiler? Or any rear spoiler for that matter, other than one that's original equipment (see last weekend's discussion (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25281) over "optional" versus "standard" equipment)?

The guy's base reasoning was flawed, he was protested, and the rear spoiler was found non-compliant. How he got to that conclusion is irrelevant, right?
You're not wrong, and I generally agree that more words aren't good, but in this case I'll suggest we should REMOVE some words. Namely, these:

"Dealer installed, or limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams/wings are prohibited."

First of all, why are we talking about rear spoilers in the front spoiler section?

Second of all, why do we have to say that something is prohibited? IIDSYCYC, right?

It appears that the driver thought his rear spoiler was okay because it says that some rear spoilers are prohibited -- therefore, others must be okay, right? And it almost appears that the court of appeals agreed.

[JeffYoung]

Josh, just me, but I don't see an issue here.

1. Guy claimed this was part of a Mazda offered "IMSA Performance Package." CoA determined it was limited production and disallowed it. The right call.

2. Even if the driver tried to argue it was legal via negative implication -- limited production spoilers are disallowed -- he'd still lose because of, as Greg indicates, "if it doesn't say you can." No rule allows him to fab up a spoiler.

[Greg Amy]

Very good points, all, Josh.

I would suggest that in reading the minimal info that the appeal provided, that the protestee thought that his Mazda RX-7 aero kit was a legal option from the factory. This is terribly ironic, given that I mentioned this particular aero kit this very past weekend in that other thread (and I knew NOTHING of this protest/appeal, honest), and I'm almost 100% certain that this kit was THE reason for the verbiage in the ITCS you list above.

Always remember the base premise for I.T. is IIDSYCTYC. The inclusion of the verbiage is, at best, another example of words that should not be in there (we don't NEED to state what *isn't* allowed); at worst it's a poorly-placed declaration that could lead people in the Kirk ITCS Logic Fallacy: reading about something that is "not allowed" and therefore - sometimes reasonably - concluding that since XX is also not listed as "not allowed" then it must be allowed (e.g., splitters are legal because air dams are free and there's no further restriction within the physical spaces given).

But, to your point, in the case of this aero kit there's nothing in the rules that allow it, thus no reason for that verbiage to limit it.

I think the process worked this time, and it's awful tough to get me to agree to a rule change where the worst case to a poorly-worded rule wasn't realized (same as AB's discussion on the "snake" CAI and the word "primary".)

However, if one is to consider a "removal clarification" of a long-standing rule, one has to consider if it redundant or violates IIDSYCTYC. IOW, is it telling you cannot do something that is otherwise not allowed? I'd suggest that ANY rule stating you "can't" do something is redundant to IIDSYCTYC except in the context of a rule that says you "can" (e.g., we decide to ban spoilers within the context of airdam allowances). And, of course, it's important to vet that carefully, lest you end up allowing something that is currently not allowed.

Again, I believe the process worked this time, but I see your point. I'd want to think about it further, but I'd agree with you that this rule clarifies nothing, that its value was likely historical in context, and that its removal may serve no ulterior motives...but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I've thought through all the possiblities...

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is one of the 'dis-allowances' that I think has to stay...unless you add in a specific allowance that states that 'only standard production front and rear spoilers are allowed'. Is it easier to then clarify what isn't allowed - or define what 'standard production' is?

So we can eliminate the disallowance but we need to add something somewhere to clarify. This RX-7 guy may have bought that car new and remembered thinking it was a Mazda option or whatever.

[Z3_GoCar]

Did everyone see the story about the rear spoiler protest on an ITA RX-7?

I've seen this car many times, but it never occurred to me to comment on the spoiler.

The owner, Chuck Koos, used the GCR section 9.1.3.8.b as justification for the spoiler. I can see why, although generally, it seems to be more about FRONT spoilers than rear.

Do you all think that there is an intent to allow aftermarket rear spoilers in IT? Does that allowance need to be clarified?

I was there that day. Talking to Naji during my lunch break, he mentioned that he was going to protest Chuck, but that tech did it first. Personally, I wish they were allowed. But, I also understand the issues if this were to go through. Yeah, seperate the rear spoiler from the front and give it's own line.

[R2 Racing]

ITAC - nice work on changing the weight of the '88-91 DX in ITB and getting the ITS & ITR Prelude specs straightened out.


I find it interesting that they dropped the Acura Integra GSR from SSB to SSC. I also find it very interesting that they're going to allow T/SS cars to strip the interiors. That almost makes me want to go find a GSR. Almost.


edit - wait a minute, that allowance to strip your interior is only for T and not for SS, isn't it? Why would they do that?

[nj1266]

I was racing in ITA @ BW when all this happened. I alerted the officials to the illegal spoiler on the car after talking to many racers familiar with the RX-7. They told me that they have not seen an ITA RX-7 race with such a rear spoiler.

Before qualifying I alerted the chief tech official about the rule and spoiler and he agreed with me that it is indeed ilegal. After qualifying, the tech officials talked to Chuck Koos in my presence. He insisted that the rear spoiler is legal and that he will appeal the decision. His qualifying time was DQed.

Before the race I went to the SOM, paid $25 and filed a supporting protest and left. This was my first protest ever and I was not sure if the tech officials in the pits were going to followe through or not, so I filed my own. The next time I saw the SOM, he gave me my $25 and told me that Chuck will remove the spoiler and start from the tail end of the grid. It did not matter one bit, he still won the race. He was 3 seconds faster per lap than I was :eek:. He is a terrific driver with a far superior set-up to my SE-R.

About a week or two later, I got an e-mail from the COA notifying me of his protest. I, as well as the officials, expected him to lose the protest. The language of the rule is very clear.

I am glad that the COA gave him soem of his money back.

[nj1266]

I was there that day. Talking to Naji during my lunch break, he mentioned that he was going to protest Chuck, but that tech did it first. Personally, I wish they were allowed. But, I also understand the issues if this were to go through. Yeah, seperate the rear spoiler from the front and give it's own line.

Hi James. How is the BMW coming along? Will you be able to make it to Cal Speedway? I am having my suspension re-built and hope to get it back soon and get the car aligned before the race. Hope to see you there.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hi James. How is the BMW coming along? Will you be able to make it to Cal Speedway? I am having my suspension re-built and hope to get it back soon and get the car aligned before the race. Hope to see you there.

Hey Naji,

The motor's still in pieces, I think Cal Speedway is out. Even after I get the motor togeather I need to have the ECU retuned. I'm shooting for the end of Febrary to have it running again.

[chuck baader]

Greg, I know there are quite a few youngsters in IT that probably don't remember, but when I was in Germany, 69-71, the 914-6 had SIX cylinders. The 914-4 was the 4 cylinder car. Typo? Chuck

[Greg Amy]

G...the 914-6 had SIX cylinders. The 914-4 was the 4 cylinder car. Typo? Chuck
I'm not sure what you mean, Chuck: the 914-6 actually had a TWO LITER 6-cylinder engine (yup, dos litre)...as did the 911 of similar/earlier vintage (I think the 914-6 got the 911T engine?)...


This is one of the 'dis-allowances' that I think has to stay...unless you add in a specific allowance that states that 'only standard production front and rear spoilers are allowed'.
Andy, I'm not with you here. Are you trying to say that you believe removing this line would negate the ability to run "standard" and "optional" rear wings as per our thread of this past weekend? If so, I disagree: if we accept that standard and factory-option wings (and other equipment) are allowed, then this verbiage (that Josh references) above has no effect, and is redundant... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

If so, I disagree: if we accept that standard and factory-option wings (and other equipment) are allowed, then this verbiage (that Josh references) above has no effect, and is redundant... - GA

I think we are on the same page - but I think that SOMEPLACE, standard and optional has to be spelled out in order for us to use the laguage.

[Greg Amy]

...SOMEPLACE, standard and optional has to be spelled out in order for us to use the laguage.
I'm on record - and I truly believe - that rule changes for the sake of rule changes is, generally, counterproductive, disruptive, and can stir up the muck of possible unintended consequences. But, if you're willing to toss those suggestions up to the masses (at least here, and maybe the Sandbox) so that they be vetted, then I'm open-minded...

[Xian]

I'm not sure what you mean, Chuck: the 914-6 actually had a TWO LITER 6-cylinder engine (yup, dos litre)...as did the 911 of similar/earlier vintage (I think the 914-6 got the 911T engine?)...


I'm pretty sure Chuck was referring to how the new spec line for the 914-6 lists it as a 4cyl... on the Sandbox Jake already responded that it was a typo that was caught ahead of time but still managed to sneak thru.

[Greg Amy]

...the new spec line for the 914-6 lists it as a 4cyl...
Ding! missed that, thanks. - GA

[tom91ita]

...What I found far more troubling is what in the hell is K.P. Jones' problem with Mike Tearney? Someone wake up on the grumpy side of the bed...?

Link to Jan Fastrack:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/01/09-fastrack-jan.pdf



i thought that was very odd as well. i did not see anything in the appeal regarding weight of the car. i was wondering if it was major discrepancy from the required weight.

if i miss the weight because i cut it close on fuel and come in 5#'s light, i would expect to be tossed for qualifying and start at the back.

but if i came in 150#'s light because i "forgot" all my ballast, might that impact how much i am penalized?

[chuck baader]

Xian...bingo!!! Thanks...did not make myself clear enough. Chuck

[StephenB]

does anyone know what the DX had for weight before this change?
Why and or how did it get changed?

Thanks,
Stephen

[RSTPerformance]

Josh-

Sorry, I am with Greg on this one.



Loved the Beetle comment: "ITB – Move the Beetle to ITB (Conover). ITC is still alive."


Loved the comment, but I have to admit it is unprofessional and pathetic... Is it to hard to take a members request seriosly??? SAD, VERY SAD.



"Classify the 70-72 Porsche 914-6 in ITA." Wow. A nice mid-engine 2-liter 6-banger in ITA at 2095 pounds...maybe Blake will rethink that ITB project...


Very Cool!!! Always liked the 914's....



Looks like Touring is going the way of Improved Touring 20 years ago, with removal of interiors...the creep was inevitable...

Touring into IT, IT turning into Prod, and Prod turning into GT... Where will we be in 20 years???


Next issue, where are all the letters asking that all IT cars be run through the process???

Raymond

[JoshS]

Josh-

Sorry, I am with Greg on this one.

That's okay, I think you guys have me convinced (I was just asking before, I really didn't have an opinion.) If anything I would like to remove the mention of rear spoilers from the section about front spoilers, and otherwise leave it alone.

[spnkzss]

does anyone know what the DX had for weight before this change?
Why and or how did it get changed?

Thanks,
Stephen

2250 pre
2110 post

The reason is for some reason it was not run through the process even though it was suppose have gone through it as the process was "in place" when it got moved from A. There were requests to have it looked at and run through the process properly. It was and this is what it came up with.

[Knestis]

Yup. The DX weight was determined to have been an error.

And on the NB response - that's what the committee actually determined. Since that car could have been listed in either C (at its current weight, kinda fat) or B (at a weight that the ITAC wasn't - and still isn't - convinced it could make), the only rationale for the move would be if B were simply more attractive than C. I personally believe this to be the case but to move it would be to tell current ITC entrants that we were in essence abandoning their class by steering cars to a marginal listing (at a potentially unobtainable weight) another class, instead of where they actually fit. The point at which we are actively NOT listing new cars, we've consigned the class to its longterm fate. Doom.

I would way rather race a NB in B than C, and can see how a CMS customer would feel the same way. But you want us to look out for the entire category right? If we ever reach a point where we don't think C is viable - and I personally don't think that has to happen if we list some new cars - we should be honest, give it the bad news, and "unplug the machine" officially, rather than letting it linger in hospice.

K

[Xian]

Ding! missed that, thanks. - GA

No worries. :)

Personally, the 914-6 looks like it should be exceptionally fast at that weight (150# lighter than the CRXen and something like 500# lighter than the Integra's). Power should be relatively modest but torque should be good with 2.0 liters of displacement. Aero should be good, brakes are big, and the balance should be near perfect. The trick, as has been pointed out, is finding one of the 1800 imported and converting it to race duty...

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 914 got +50 for mid engine and +50 for HUGE brakes. 25% power multiplier.

[Greg Amy]

The trick, as has been pointed out, is finding one of the 1800 imported and converting it to race duty...

The 914 got +50 for mid engine and +50 for HUGE brakes. 25% power multiplier.
Great little car.

Actually though, Christian, all you need is a 914-4 and a rusted-out 1969 911T donor (you need the drivetrain, 5-bolt hubs, brakes, front suspension, and probably a few other things I forgot...)

I "assume" the ITAC is "assuming" that the 914-6 GT is excluded from the spec line, due to either engine specs and/or "limited production" rule? The GT got the 2.2-liter and the large fender flares, and would need a later "T" drivetrain. It would be a PITA to find the fender parts to transplant over, though.

[JeffYoung]

From a 914-6 GT website:

Many of the parts used on the GT were developed specifically for the 914 while other were race proven components that had been used on some of Porsche's great race cars such as the 904, 906, 908 and 911. Fewer than 50 GT packaged equipted cars were assembled by the Porsche factory however 400 GT kits were produced and made available for dealers and customers to turn their 914-6 into a GT racer.

I'd never heard of the thing. Probably should be specifically excluded on the spec line.

[Xian]

Great little car.

Actually though, Christian, all you need is a 914-4 and a rusted-out 1969 911T donor (you need the drivetrain, 5-bolt hubs, brakes, front suspension, and probably a few other things I forgot...)

I'm not an aircooled Porsche expert but, according to Blake, there are lots of model specific parts/brackets/components that can only be sourced from a 914-6 chassis. The VIN rule requires the new car to be identical and indistinguishable from the original model... doing this is going to be nigh on impossible in this case.

edit:
Jake also supplied the same info about chassis specific parts... VIN swap on this car is going to take a donor 914-6.

[Greg Amy]

The VIN rule requires the new car to be identical and indistinguishable from the original model... doing this is going to be nigh on impossible in this case.
Yeah, but...policing it is ALSO going to be nigh on impossible... I'm not saying someone would cheat with the car - hell, you could drop a 2.4 engine in this thing and no one's going to be able to tell - but without the VIN rule it wouldn't keep me up at night knowing I built a 914-6 from a 914-4 and a 911T, effectively making a 914-6 for all intents and purposes.

Jeff, the GT is effectively excluded due to engine specs. And, the fender flares are gonna be hard to hide... :)

[JeffYoung]

Got it - it's a 2.2, so the engine specs are different.

[lateapex911]

The 914 -6 GT isn't excluded because it isn't listed. The 914-6 IS listed. Engines and tons of stuff are different.

The engine in a 914-6 is the 901-03. It's the same engine found, as Greg stated, in a 69 911T. 110 whopping horsepower. Low compression, air cooled, small carbs and tight manifolds, it just won't run past 6700 or so. The 25% is a standard gain that this car will be hard pressed to hit. It can possibly hit that, but as always, it should need a full build to get there.

A 914 -6 differs, chassis-wise, from a 914-4 in a lot of significant ways. To be totally legal, it's a lot of work. Many of the items have no bearing on the competivness or performance of the car. Going half assed is an option for those who aren't concerned with outright legality, and who run in more "local" areas where such things aren't frowned on, but, anyone who does an ounce of research can spot the differences easily.

As always, it's not the concern of the ITAC whether something is easy to police or not. The book is littered with examples of easy cheats that are impossible to find, if nobody is willing to find them. As in, "Write the paper".

Gregs example of the displacement increase is as easy, or easier to discover on a 911 /914 as on any engine.

All in all, I wish it were easier to get this particular car on the track, bit it is what it is. Competitors in the NE should be on the lookout for one next spring.

[Greg Amy]

Competitors in the NE should be on the lookout for one next spring.
Tease!!!

(Obviously, someone requested it, otherwise it wouldn't have come up for consideration. But I didn't figure it would be so close to home...)

[ekim952522000]

Thank you ITAC for fixing the preludes =)

[MMiskoe]

As soon as I read the 914-6 thing I instantly wondered if a converted 914-4 would be allowed. The differences are huge overall, but for what we do they are quite limited for those that actually make a difference. To do it per the IT book you would need a 914-6 donor car. There are just too many little parts that didn't come from any other source. But if impound looked the other way at things like the 914-6 had the ignition key on the left side of the dash, it is not so hard to make the change.

If you talk to any diehard 914 fan, they'll say that the last 914 on the face of the earth will die its death on the racetrack.

[Knestis]

... But if impound looked the other way at things like the 914-6 had the ignition key on the left side of the dash, it is not so hard to make the change.
...

The RX7 rear wing issue notwithstanding, it's OUR responsibility to enforce our rules.

K

[Fastfred92]

As soon as I read the 914-6 thing I instantly wondered if a converted 914-4 would be allowed. The differences are huge overall,

Correct me if I am wrong but outside the bulkhead engine mount (easy to duplicate), oil tank holes and mount, ignition / steering, bolt on suspension, electric washer bottle, hand throttle, some linkage, shifter, and some trim parts there is little different between 914 chassis from early 4 cylinder cars? I have played with 914's for 20 plus years and looks to me as easy a swap (except $$$) as any CRX, Rabbit etc..

[bamfp]

The transmission is unique to the 914-6. It has a completely different rear transmission housing and it is not like the tail shifter or side shifter transmissions. It also has a bracket on the bellhousing that is not on the 4 cylinder trans.

[ChuckKoos]

This is one of the 'dis-allowances' that I think has to stay...unless you add in a specific allowance that states that 'only standard production front and rear spoilers are allowed'. Is it easier to then clarify what isn't allowed - or define what 'standard production' is?

So we can eliminate the disallowance but we need to add something somewhere to clarify. This RX-7 guy may have bought that car new and remembered thinking it was a Mazda option or whatever.

There seems to be a considerable amount of conjecture about what I was thinking so let me help set the record straight. I'm sure it won't do any good but I'll feel better. :happy204:

It's not a question about whether or not this was a Mazda option, there's very clear evidence that it was. Please refer to section 5180A-1 of the 81-83 Mazda parts manual and you will see this spoiler, part # FA16-51-960B. It's also in the 84-85 manual. The question is, are optional parts that aren't explicitly spelled out in the GCR allowed on our cars? (For those in a hurry, based on the COA, the answer is no)

Here's the background. About four years ago in the CalClub region some RX7 drivers in the Pro7 class (which uses IT rules plus some restrictions) decided to put the factory spoiler on their car. It was protested and the drivers presented basically the same information I did, I.E. copies of the 81-83 and 84-84 parts manual showing the spoiler. Additionally a copy of a Mazda sales brochure with a picture of the car with an installed spoiler was provided. The SCCA Chief of Tech found the spoiler to be legal. A couple years later a Spec-RX7 driver went through the same process and Jo Ann Jensen of the Arizona region also deemed the spoiler to be legal. Given this precedent I felt confident in installing the spoiler on my ITA RX7.

As stated above, the Chief of Tech was "alerted" to the fact that my car had a spoiler. Please note that this is the very same Chief of Tech who found the spoiler legal a few years ago. He told me I had to remove it because it was a limited production spoiler. I argued that limited production means that a finite number of something is produced and once these are made, no more are available. Because the spoiler was in the Mazda parts manual for 1981, 82, 83, 84 and 1985 and available over the parts counter of any Mazda dealer up until a few years ago it didn't seem to meet any reasonable definition of the term limited production that I could understand. He disagreed and said that if the spoiler wasn't installed on every RX7 made it was a limited production item. This sounded like an option to me, not a limited production piece.

A protest was filed by another driver. The officials decided that it was NOT a limited production spoiler but that it WAS a dealer installed option. HUH? I filed an appeal because no one from the SCCA side was able to provide me with a definition of the terms "limited production" or "dealer installed". So as you have read, the COA did another 180 and have disagreed with the CalClub stewards and now say the spoiler was a limited production unit because it was part of the IMSA package. Yes it was, but it was also available outside of the IMSA package.

Anyway, I took the spoiler off and went half a second faster so what do I have to complain about? :smilie_pokal:

I don't think you can remove the rule because if the intent is to not allow optional equipment, you have to say that. And BTW, there are lots of IT cars out there with optional spoilers on them.

But I think if what the SCCA wants to say is no optional spoilers, then please say that, because even after this whole process I still don't know what these terms mean.

Go ahead, someone give me a definitive definition of "dealer installed" that everyone agrees with.:D

So it appears that the answer is, no optional rear spoilers. All you 2nd gen RX7 drivers out there taking note?

[JoshS]

Hi Chuck, thanks for clarifying. It was nice meeting you when you came up north this year.

I think the rule is very confusing myself. There appear to be three different issues at play, and they have all combined to confuse both competitors and officials:

1) Optional equipment: my personal belief is that the intent is that any FACTORY-INSTALLED options are allowed, anywhere on the car. Other optional equipment sold through the dealer network doesn't qualify in my opinion. However, I think your evidence is faulty -- just because an item is in the parts books doesn't mean that it was ever factory-installed. I can show lots of BMW parts in the official document that was sold ONLY through the dealer parts counters and never installed from the factory. So from this point of view, I don't think you and the other RX-7s had a leg to stand on, and that the officials who allowed them in the past were fleeced by all of that extra wording about limited production and whatnot.

2) Front-end equipment vs. rear-end equipment: the whole rule in question is about front spoilers. Why there is any mention of rear spoilers in that paragraph is beyond me. It further confused the officials. If the words "rear spoiler" weren't there I think they would have looked at the whole case differently.

3) Limited-production: I believe the intent is to allow aftermarket front spoilers (or, see #1 above, any factory-installed equipment.) Why a factory-installed limited-production front spoiler would be disallowed when an aftermarket copy of it would be fine doesn't make any sense. Yet more words that should be removed.

Bummer about the DQ. I think ultimately the right call was made (because I have yet to see evidence that your rear spoiler was ever factory-installed equipment), but the decision was reached for all of the wrong reasons.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chuck,

Thanks again for the comment. I do not think the spoiler is legal. Is there any documentatition you have that shows it as part of a FACTORY model or package? Could you order it new and have it delivered from Japan like you were running it?

All of the 2nd gen spoilers you see on track were STANDARD as part of models like the GTU, GXL, Sport, GTUs etc.

Dealer installed options are just that. Installed at the dealer and not legal. The latest thing to do in the industry is 'port' installation. Part of a FACTORY order that is installed in transit for economies of scale. I don't hesitate to say that the IMSA package (or whatever the details are) was not part of a model you could order.

Just because its in a parts manual doesn't make it a standard or factory option. There are PLENTY of cool things that Mazda offers today for the RX-8 that fall under the same umbrella. Carbon fiber interior bits, Drift-style rear wings, MAZDASPEED front bumper covers, etc. These are all in parts books...but are not available on the RX-8 from the factory. They are dealer installed options.

My litmus test is finding original documentation of one on a model you could order and have delivered to your dealer.

Here is a pic of the MAZDASPEED front bumper cover. Specifically legal in Grand Am cup. A dealer installed option (or seperate part you can order from Mazda) but something the was NEVER available on a production car. Under your theory, I would think you would think this was legal to run in IT?

[Knestis]

FWIW, my take on all of this is that it only reinforces the first principle that the protest-appeal process, difficult as it may be, is the only way we enforce the rules. They are the Judiciary to the ITAC/Board's Legislative branch.

Until the US Supreme Court makes a ruling on something, a law can be interpreted differently. Until the COA decides - ditto. If I based a business or legal action in WV on a state court ruling in Maine, I'd run the risk of falling afoul of the local law.

Now, internal inconsistencies by individuals is what we call in my office a "management issue" - not one of policy or procedure.

K

[GKR_17]

-- just because an item is in the parts books doesn't mean that it was ever factory-installed. I can show lots of BMW parts in the official document that was sold ONLY through the dealer parts counters and never installed from the factory.

Just think of all the fun Dinan goodies you could run...

[tderonne]

FWIW, my take on all of this is that it only reinforces the first principle that the protest-appeal process, difficult as it may be, is the only way we enforce the rules. They are the Judiciary to the ITAC/Board's Legislative branch.

Until the US Supreme Court makes a ruling on something, a law can be interpreted differently. Until the COA decides - ditto. If I based a business or legal action in WV on a state court ruling in Maine, I'd run the risk of falling afoul of the local law.

Now, internal inconsistencies by individuals is what we call in my office a "management issue" - not one of policy or procedure.

K

But you're back to square one when the new GCR comes out. The US Supreme Court analogy would only apply if they rewrote the Constitution every year.

Page III of the GCR:
"Effective January 1st, of each year, all editions of the SCCA General Competition Rules and all Court of Appeals rulings are superseded by the following SCCA General Competition Rules."

[Dave Gomberg]

But you're back to square one when the new GCR comes out. The US Supreme Court analogy would only apply if they rewrote the Constitution every year.

Page III of the GCR:
"Effective January 1st, of each year, all editions of the SCCA General Competition Rules and all Court of Appeals rulings are superseded by the following SCCA General Competition Rules."
While that is true on its face, in practice the CoA asks for CRB input on technical matters these days. Once their decision is made, the CRB looks at whether a change to the rules is necessary or desirable.

Dave

[Knestis]

But you're back to square one when the new GCR comes out. The US Supreme Court analogy would only apply if they rewrote the Constitution every year.

Page III of the GCR:
"Effective January 1st, of each year, all editions of the SCCA General Competition Rules and all Court of Appeals rulings are superseded by the following SCCA General Competition Rules."

...and I used to think that was absolutely awful but the more I noodle over it, the more I understand why that's the case. While at face value, two protests going to appeal might seem similar (say, about rear spoilers) but the details of each case may be quite different, supported by unique evidence. I don't necessarily think it's right [EDIT - that particular clause of the GCR] how it is but I can understand the rationale.

K