Is this airdam legal for IT? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

jumbojimbo

02-02-2010, 05:35 PM

It's not clear if this answered the question and that's probably not an accident. Well played.

No way to know if the compliance of the radiator support panel and inner fender line attachment was considered or not. You'll have to build one to find out.

FACTS IN BRIEF
On January 1, 2009, Robert Moser submitted a request for Rules Interpretation asking for a ruling on the compliance of the spoiler/air
dam on his 1988 Honda CRX Si ITA relative to GCR 9.1.3.D.8.b. Pursuant to GCR 8.1.4., Ken Patterson, Chairman of the Stewards’
Program, appointed a Review Committee of Rick Mitchell, Bob Eddy, and Tom Brown, Chairman, who met, reviewed Mr. Moser’s submissions
and documentation, and spoke with Mr. Moser on several occasions. They concluded that the spoiler is non-compliant
because the spoiler/air dam is not mounted onto the body of the car, as mandated by 9.1.3.D.8.b.
Mr. Moser is appealing that decision to the Court.
DATES OF THE COURT
The Court of Appeals (COA) Dick Templeton, David Nokes, and Robert Horansky, Chairman, met on June 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2009 to
hear, review, and render a decision on the request.
DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED
1. Letter and supporting documentation from Mr. Moser requesting a Rules Interpretation, dated January 1, 2009.
2. Review Committee decision, dated May 18, 2009.
3. Appeal letter from Mr. Moser, dated May 28, 2009.
4. Appeal Notification, dated May 29, 2009.
5. Email statements from Bob Dowie, Club Racing Board Chairman, dated June 14 and June 24, 2009.
FINDINGS
In the original request, Mr. Moser sought “guidance regarding whether a ‘splitter’ design using two or more panels that attach to the
integrated bumper, the radiator support panel and inner fender liners, and that has openings in the horizontal plane between the integrated
bumper and vertical face of the splitter with free flow of air behind the face of the integrated bumper is legal on an IT car under
9.1.3.D.8.b.”
Multiple components may be joined to create an air dam, whose shape is unrestricted - thus allowing a “splitter” lip which must not
protrude beyond the body when viewed from above. The panel must be attached to the body or bumper cover (if the car is so
equipped), but no support may extend aft of the forward-most part of the front fender wheel opening. However, there may be no openings
in the horizontal plane between the integrated bumper and vertical face of the air dam (splitter) that allow the free flow of air.
Any openings in the air dam must be ducted to either the brakes or the oil cooler.
Mr. Moser’s design incorporates unducted openings, and is therefore non-compliant.
DECISION
The Court of Appeals upholds the determination of the Review Committee that the design is non-compliant; however, the basis for the
non-compliance is not the attachment design, but rather the presence of the unducted openings.
The Court of Appeals finds that Mr. Moser’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee, less the amount retained by SCCA, will be
returned.

seckerich

02-02-2010, 05:53 PM

Beat me to it Jim. The COA has settled this and I keep a copy in the log book.

jumbojimbo

02-02-2010, 06:51 PM

Settled? Which answer do you think they were giving?

a. Yes, the attachments are all good and the only problem is the openings.

b. The original ruling was based on the openings and we agree the openings are non-compliant and we ignore your request to rule on the attachment to the radiator support and fender liners.

joeg

02-02-2010, 06:56 PM

I agree with Jim--no answer.

JeffYoung

02-02-2010, 07:00 PM

Some of this leads to some strange interpretations/results.

Integrated bumper cars have a whole lot more options in attaching the splitter/air dam. And it all turns on whether the bumper has a plastic or rubber cover on it. Old Z cars with metal bumpers have to have the spoler attached to the body. I (and 2nd Gen RX7s) get a larger airdam that protrudes out futher and is able to attach to the "integrated bumper assembly."

I believe the rules say that the unit must attach to the 'body'... if that means the bumper cover (outer shell) or the unibody, only the CRB knows.

mossaidis

02-02-2010, 07:30 PM

I have a SPMS airdam as well for my EG. If it's similar to the EK kit, the attactment points include the bottom of the bumper cover for the airdam and the front lower side frames for the splitter. The airdam to the splitter is connected via 5-6 clips mounted on the top side of the splitter.

"A front spoiler/air dam is permitted. It shall not protrude beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above perpendicular to the ground, or aft of the forward most part of the front fender opening. This body outline does not include bumpers or bumper mounts. The spoiler/air dam shall be mounted to the body, and may extend no higher than four (4) inches above the horizontal centerline of the front wheel hubs. It shall not cover the normal grille opening(s) at the front of the car. Openings are permitted for the purposes of ducting air to the brakes, cooler, and radiator. Dealer installed or limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams/wings are prohibited. The spoiler shall have no support or reinforcement extending aft of the forward most part of the front fender wheel opening.

NOTE: Integrated bumper assemblies are defined as those designs where an external non-metallic bumper cover completely encloses the primary energy-absorbing bumper and where this cover could be installed in its normal position with the underlying bumper removed. On cars with integrated bumpers, the front spoiler or airdam may be attached to the bumper cover."

"Body – All parts of the car licked by the air stream and situated above the

belly / floor with exception of the roll bar or cage. For Formula and Sports
Racing cars, further exceptions are those units definitely associated with
the function of the engine or transmission."

So, the SPMS kit is okay in attaching to the intergrated bumper cover. There is NO mention of being able to attach such a kit to the frame, since frame <> body. The rule does mention "no support or reinforcement extending aft of the forward most part of the front fender wheel opening." Given the last quoted stated, was the rule intented to allow have supports and reinforcements other than the body or bumper cover?

The SMSP kit does not include any openings, so the moser ruling does NOT apply specificially here. And yes I agree, the lack of ruling on attachment points leaves something to be desired... ugh.

I don't have a horse in this race since I have not installed my SPMS kit yet,
Mickey

Greg Amy

02-02-2010, 07:50 PM

There is NO mention of being able to attach such a kit to the frame, since frame <> body.
Ah, but therein lies the rub when it comes to rules writing: while "if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot" (IIDSYCTYC, or the 'I.T. Principle'), do note that equally as important is "if it says you can then you bloody well can!" (the 'Roffe Corollary')

A complete lack of a rule means that it's not allowed; in other words, within IIDSYCTYC I don't have to write a rule that states "you can't lighten the piston rods" or "you can't move the pickup points" or you can't replace the windshield with Lexan" because it's expressly prohibited by the opening paragraphs of the ruleset. However, the very moment I write that "something is allowed"I now have the responsibility to restrict that "something" in every way possible, lest it be wide open.

In other words, the very moment you read "A front spoiler/airdam is permitted." that "something" - in this case, the front spoiler/airdam - is WIDE F*****G OPEN, subject only to subsequent restrictions. It's no different than if we started the engine mod rules with "engine modifications are allowed" and then trying to restrict them solely within the IT ruleset.

As such, you can do whatever the hell you want to with a front spoiler/airdam, as long as you meet all subsequent restrictions. This is exactly how we ended up with splitters in Improved Touring, despite they, also, not being specifically allowed. And, I do believe the product in question meets this to a "t"...

Fun, ain't it? If you want more fun, do a search for something like "Greg's recommendations to the rules writers" on this forum.

GA, racing season starts minus less than two months, and counting...

Andy Bettencourt

02-02-2010, 08:19 PM

So the rule says it can be attached to the body and says the body is defined as parts of the car in the windstream not including bumpers or bumper mounts. Tells you how high and how low and how far back.

What's the question again?

JeffYoung

02-02-2010, 08:22 PM

Actually says "shall be" attached to the body. Mandatory.

Unless you gots an integrated bumper.

lateapex911

02-02-2010, 08:33 PM

Is an undertray licked by the airstream? A floor? of course they are. And it doesn't say you have to attach to the OUTside of the body...

Jeff, want me to design a compliant airdam/splitter for Rons Z that does everything that guys with integrated bumper covers can do? I can, it's easy.

JeffYoung

02-02-2010, 08:45 PM

More to it than that (I know you can run attachments to the body, etc.).

Look at the body of the rule. On a NON-integrated bumper car, the spoiler has to be within the bodyoutling of the car. That means on the old Z cars, your spoiler has to be "behind" -- completely -- the bumper assembly.

On "integrated bumper" cars, the spoiler can attach to the bumper cover and can extend out to it. We -- integrated bumper cars -- have a distinct and I suspect unintended advantage.

mossaidis

02-02-2010, 09:47 PM

For GA - "We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning"

So there, I think we have a verdict. As long as the splitter attaches to the frame, it is not IT legal. Even with the SPMS kit, you should be able to design a self-supporting splitter by just using the airdam and bumper cover.

Wondering which event will be GA's first in 2010 and when will JeffL pm me with 'STFU' cause I am sick of writing posts but not really,
Mickey

Greg Amy

02-02-2010, 10:04 PM

Actually says "shall be" attached to the body. Mandatory.

Jeff, show me the word "only".

And for Mickey: to follow your logic, show me where it says you can install a splitter.

"If it says you can, you bloody well can."

mossaidis

02-02-2010, 10:59 PM

OK, I will roll with this...

Air Dam – An air control device at the lower front of a car, intended to divert some of the air which would normally pass under the car when the car is in motion.

Spoiler – A panel attached to the body of a car at the front or rear, intended to alter the airflow around or under that end of the car when in motion.

No definition for splitter...even though it's mentioned all over GTCS and STCS when referring to the extension of splitters beyond the outline of the car. In this case, I would agrue that a splitter functions as a air dam/spolier and needs no further explanation.

JeffYoung

02-03-2010, 12:22 AM

True, but...

1. Rule allows airdams in certain dimensions. Says you "can" have one.

2. Rule does not say you can attach it anywhere.

3. Rule DOES say you (a) "shall" attach it to the body and (b) can't attach it to the bumper unless you have an integrated bumper. In the absence of you "you can," this for me anyway defines what you can do and anything else in the way of attachment is not permitted.

Not to get argumentative, but I think you'd lose a protest if you had your spoiler/splitter attached to anything other than the body, or the integrated bumper cover if you have one.

Jeff, show me the word "only".

And for Mickey: to follow your logic, show me where it says you can install a splitter.

"If it says you can, you bloody well can."

jumbojimbo

02-03-2010, 12:43 AM

Is an undertray licked by the airstream? A floor? of course they are. And it doesn't say you have to attach to the OUTside of the body....

The body is by gcr definition the OUTSIDE of the car. There is no outside and underside of the "body".

Definition of body says ABOVE the floor pan, well, I'm too lazy to look it up again for the exact wording, but clearly the floor pan can not be above itself. So even though the undertray and floorpan might be in licked by the airstream, they are not part of the body. You can't claim the entire unibody is the body. The body is clearly intended to be the outside shell of the car that was painted to look pretty or get Armor-all'd. Not the grungy bits under the car that hold it together.

Oh, and that would seem to exclude the radiator support which makes the COA ruling so oddly unenlightening.

The part that drives me nuts about the GCR is that it is not clear on cars with integrated bumpers if the wording about attaching to bumper cover is IN ADDITION TO or INSTEAD OF the the attachment to the body. And the COA ruling seems to be designed specifically to not answer that question.

lateapex911

02-03-2010, 01:48 AM

The body is by gcr definition the OUTSIDE of the car. There is no outside and underside of the "body".

Definition of body says ABOVE the floor pan, well, I'm too lazy to look it up again for the exact wording, but clearly the floor pan can not be above itself. So even though the undertray and floorpan might be in licked by the airstream, they are not part of the body. You can't claim the entire unibody is the body. The body is clearly intended to be the outside shell of the car that was painted to look pretty or get Armor-all'd. Not the grungy bits under the car that hold it together.

Oh, and that would seem to exclude the radiator support which makes the COA ruling so oddly unenlightening.

The part that drives me nuts about the GCR is that it is not clear on cars with integrated bumpers if the wording about attaching to bumper cover is IN ADDITION TO or INSTEAD OF the the attachment to the body. And the COA ruling seems to be designed specifically to not answer that question.

Good point on the floor wording. ANything ABOVE the florpan licked by the airstream is fair game though.

Regarding the mounting. Say I wish to make a nice light splitter, and it needs support at it's mid span. And the most effective splitter would use all the dimensions available in the rules, which puts the area needing support at, oh, say, the bottom of the radiator, or even further back. Tough to attach it to the body in such a location, most would think, right? Not really. I'd weld a tab to the underside of say a header panel (like on oh, say a CRX) and suspend with a cable. Or a thin rod if that seemed better.

Z3_GoCar

02-03-2010, 02:32 AM

What about the rules related to the exhaust exit:

Any exhaust header and exhaust system may be used. Exhaust
shall exit behind the driver, and shall be directed away from
the car body. Original exhaust system heat shields may be
removed. A suitable muffler may be necessary to meet sound
control requirements.

Let's see behind the driver, directed away from the car body. Down is away from the car body.

Greg Amy

02-03-2010, 08:04 AM

Sorry, you guys can parse the rules all you want, but my position is how these rules have been commonly interpreted for the last quarter-century.

There's a lot of aspects of these quarter-century-old rules that were originally written for cars long before current chassis/body designs, and long before current racing technology was available at the amateur level (I suspect this rule is as constantly-argued as the IT-going-National rule...which, I see, we're arguing again). I agree that a lot of the aspects of these rules are not within what I perceive as their original intent, and let's not forget that I was racing Improved Touring when these rules were written and doing so in cars using old chassis/body/amateur racing technology (as was Kirk). So if you want to argue the original intent of the Constitu...uh, the airdam rules, bring it on.

But as we use the Internet to more efficiently argue about this, let's not forget how 25 years of case law...uh, de facto rules interpretations has changed and exploited the commonly-accepted usage. In the latter case, we now have splitters, undertrays, and mountings that that do not attach *only* to the "body" of the car, none of which are explicitly allowed within the general reading of the rules. We arrived to this point by one simple way, and that's via the Roffe Corrolary as I described above (and, along with suspension sphericals - which were recently explicitly codified into the rules even though its proponents argued that the rules allowed them - are perfect examples of why I spend time to write such things as the "How to Write a Rule (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779)" topic. Words mean things.)

This horse is loooong out of the barn, and trying to argue it back in is pointless, punitive, and has no positive value. Arguing frame brackets back in the barn is also arguing back splitters and undertrays, and leaves us open to arguments of inconsistency of application and effect in regard to body types designed since the 1980's (e.g., integrated bumpers versus detached bumpers.) You really want to take on that?

If you disagree with all this, feel free to drop $25 on any of my cars next time you're at the track; each of them will use frame-, engine, or radiator-support brackets to suspend, secure, and/or stiffen any aftermarket airdam I choose to install.

Dog. It's sleeping. Let it lie.

GA

On edit: James, all my cars use a center-dump downward-pointing exhaust, roughly mid-chassis, center of car, behind driver, pointing down. It's common.

spnkzss

02-03-2010, 10:46 AM

Man I love winter and stirring the pot. :p

mossaidis

02-03-2010, 07:05 PM

^^ me too. :)

GA - (Disclaimer: I have not read you're rules posting yet, but will tonight) you are an example for many of us, so pls set the example. So what you are saying is, the rules are not representative, in this area, of what we can do. So there's an understanding that I am not aware of, i.e. a gentleman's agreement?

Greg Amy

02-03-2010, 08:37 PM

So there's an understanding that I am not aware of, i.e. a gentleman's agreement?
No, no, no, not at all! I do NOT approve of "gentleman's agreements", I read the rules exactly as they're stated.

Read that link from above and maybe you'll see.

- GA

lateapex911

02-03-2010, 09:19 PM

Yea, I thought that would be your response, Greg. Add me to the "gentleman's agreements blow big donkeys dick club" roster.

Rules are rules, words have definitions. If the definitions and the order of the word says you can do something, then it's fair game. Intent is something for the writers to worry about.

Hoof Hearted

02-03-2010, 11:04 PM

I've been trolling the site for a few months, bought an el-cheapo IT car cuz I wanted an "inexpensive" place to race. I've read about how the rules are the rules and the intent of IT racing "was" to drive your car to the track, pound around and drive it home... ...that's obviously so far out the barn door.

I have not turned a wheel on an asphalt track yet, so I'll don my hand-me-down, Pyrotect snowmobile driving suit while typing... ...people are arguing about where or how you can attach a splitler (or if it's even legal), yet the rules allow for a hopped-up program in the engine management system (but you must retain the car's windshield washer reservoir??)... ...how and why did that rule change come into effect?????????? The rules massages seem to be tilting, listing, avalanching towards "newer" cars and making the veteran cars less likely to gain access to the pointy end of the grid.

I've got a lot to learn so ignore this post if I'm We Todd Did... ...I'll shut up now and keep reading.

Andy Bettencourt

02-04-2010, 12:11 AM

Still not getting it. Maybe too late for me tonight.

Air Dam/Spoiler shall be attached to the body. (shall: will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.)
Body defined
Aft and height restrictions given

Radiator support, frame, etc explicitly not allowed as they are not 'licked by the airstream'. Don't see how you win that protest.

lateapex911

02-04-2010, 12:23 AM

yea, the ECU rule came about in fits and starts. When the cars were first classed, the ECU guys often compared the carb guys ability to change jets and alter timing, and they had, maybe a distributor. An adjustable fuel regulator exists in the rules, but of course, soon chips were being altered. The PTB felt it was undetectable, and as some guys couldn't flash the chips and some could, it wasn't fair across the board. So, an effort to even things up occurred, to let extra boards be piggy backed, etc, and the "Anything goes as long as it fits in the original box and connects to the original harness with no other modifications" rule was born. Fortune tellers had it easy.

NOW it became a REAL have and have not: The guys with boxes of certain sizes could fit an entire MoTec system in there. They needed large cash stashes too, of course. Those without either the cash or the space were now "have nots".

Technology changes of course, and now there are multitudes of cheap systems available, many with files already out there to start with. So, the rule was recently opened up all the way. It really had to be, as many stock modern cars have very invasive ECUs that limit RPM in certain gears, limit speed to 100, manage ABS and go into limp mode if the sensors aren't reporting etc etc.

Times change and we can't lock the rules down to 1995 levels. The ITAC is aware of the situation, and DOES take all things into account when classing cars. Old and new are often seen competing together. You have an ITB car. If you race in the NE, you will face these top level drivers/cars: Ken H with his BMW 2002 (74?), Dave Gran in his 87 Prelude, and Tristian Herbert in a Golf III. Each represents different levels of engine management, yet each run at or under track records..the SAME track records.

Greg Amy

02-04-2010, 08:04 AM

Air Dam/Spoiler shall be attached to the body. (shall: will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.)
Rules do not state it must "only" be attached to the body. As long as it's attached in some way to the body (whatever definition you care to use for that) it's legal.

The Roffe Corollary.

Don't see how you win that protestThere is no protest on this issue. Never has been, as far as I know. And I'm willing to wager there likely never will be.

On edit: If, however, someone were to decide to get a bug up their ass and try to make a point by protesting this (and/or trying to change the rule), and should they protest anyone besides me, I'd be glad to spend my own time and money to assist in the offense. In fact, if someone really wants to protest it, I'll be glad to accept that challenge with no avarice toward the person doing it.

JLawton

02-04-2010, 08:18 AM

...people are arguing about where or how you can attach a splitler (or if it's even legal), yet the rules allow for a hopped-up program in the engine management system (but you must retain the car's windshield washer reservoir??)... ...how and why did that rule change come into effect?????????? The rules massages seem to be tilting, listing, avalanching towards "newer" cars and making the veteran cars less likely to gain access to the pointy end of the grid.

.

Welcome to the world of IT. LOL Don't let the seemingly crazy rules discourage you however. For the most part you will see a lot of diversity in cars that are all very competitive. Unless you are going to run a spec class (and even those rules get debated and hacked) you'll see this in any class.

spnkzss

02-04-2010, 09:11 AM

On edit: If, however, someone were to decide to get a bug up their ass and try to make a point by protesting this (and/or trying to change the rule), and should they protest anyone besides me, I'd be glad to spend my own time and money to assist in the offense. In fact, if someone really wants to protest it, I'll be glad to accept that challenge with no avarice toward the person doing it.

That actually sounds like fun. If I win will you write a book and give me the first copy signed? :D

I actually first have to care, to protest it. :shrug:

Andy Bettencourt

02-04-2010, 09:24 AM

I actually first have to care, to protest it. :shrug:

And this is part of the problem, right? None of us really gives a crap about how someone attatches their air dam unless it clearly creates a performance issue.

I disagree with Greg's reading of the rule. You MAY attach one and IF you do, it SHALL be attached to the body.

(and for the newbies who keep popping up, don't get all worried about the silly season. The atmosphere at the track is a total 180 - literally in Lawton's case :D)

spnkzss

02-04-2010, 09:33 AM

And this is part of the problem, right? None of us really gives a crap about how someone attatches their air dam unless it clearly creates a performance issue.

I disagree with Greg's reading of the rule. You MAY attach one and IF you do, it SHALL be attached to the body.

(and for the newbies who keep popping up, don't get all worried about the silly season. The atmosphere at the track is a total 180 - literally in Lawton's case :D)

Agreed that that is part of the problem, BUT, if being married and having a kid has taught me anything, you MUST pick your battles. :p

FWIW, I agree with Andy. AT LEAST in a Honda stand point, cause that's all I "think" I "know".

Edit: I also agree with Andy for the newbies.

StephenB

02-04-2010, 10:21 AM

Ah, but therein lies the rub when it comes to rules writing: while "if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot" (IIDSYCTYC, or the 'I.T. Principle'), do note that equally as important is "if it says you can then you bloody well can!" (the 'Roffe Corollary')

A complete lack of a rule means that it's not allowed; in other words, within IIDSYCTYC I don't have to write a rule that states "you can't lighten the piston rods" or "you can't move the pickup points" or you can't replace the windshield with Lexan" because it's expressly prohibited by the opening paragraphs of the ruleset. However, the very moment I write that "something is allowed"I now have the responsibility to restrict that "something" in every way possible, lest it be wide open.

In other words, the very moment you read "A front spoiler/airdam is permitted." that "something" - in this case, the front spoiler/airdam - is WIDE F*****G OPEN, subject only to subsequent restrictions. It's no different than if we started the engine mod rules with "engine modifications are allowed" and then trying to restrict them solely within the IT ruleset.

As such, you can do whatever the hell you want to with a front spoiler/airdam, as long as you meet all subsequent restrictions. This is exactly how we ended up with splitters in Improved Touring, despite they, also, not being specifically allowed. And, I do believe the product in question meets this to a "t"...

Fun, ain't it? If you want more fun, do a search for something like "Greg's recommendations to the rules writers" on this forum.

GA, racing season starts minus less than two months, and counting...

Really Greg? Honestly the last person here that I thought would ever stretch the rules this far. I would not agree that the rules are written to allow you to attach your Spoiler to anything other than what it "shall" attach to per the rules. I will put a letter together for the CRB and maybe they can post a clarification for 2011.

Interesting,
Stephen

Greg Amy

02-04-2010, 10:59 AM

Really Greg? Honestly the last person here that I thought would ever stretch the rules this far.
"Stretching the rules"? Really? "Stretching the rules"? Are you feakin' kidding me?!?

- Given the old rules for suspension bushings - before the CRB unilaterally changed the rule to match what people were doing - how in the hell did we come up with spherical bearings in control arms?

- Given the old rules for ECUs - before the ITAC/CRB changed the rules to match what people were doing - how in the hell did we come up with adding additional sensors, such as a MAP sensors, in these "factory housing" ECUs and added vacuum lines from the intake manifold, into the car, and through screw holes in the case to feed this newly-installed sensor?

- And, given the current rules for "air dams and splitters" - which, as of this point have not yet been changed to match what people are doing - how in the hell did we come up with aerodynamic splitters and undertrays?

And you accuse *me* of stretching the rules on freaking mounting brackets?!?!?

These are but three examples of the hypocrisy being displayed in this thread and others like it. Words mean things, and if rules are to be "interpreted" - instead of simply read - for what they were intended to be, then that must apply across the board, not just against what you like and what you don't like. Just because YOU didn't read the rules for what they say, not with using your pre-conceived assumptions to read what you THINK they say, don't accuse me of stretching the rules.

It's historically been made patently clear by the Improved Touring racing community - and codified by the ITAC and CRB in subsequent rules changes to reflect reality - that these rules are to be read for what they SAY and not for what they may possibly have MEANT when written. "Intention" is not part of the rules, nor is it even available to the competitor to disseminate; words are.

"Stretching the rules"? Hardly.

GA

Andy Bettencourt

02-04-2010, 11:35 AM

I will agree with one main point Greg makes. He isn't 'stretching' per se, he is applying what he thinks he is reading. Some read it different.

lateapex911

02-04-2010, 12:00 PM

Andy Bettencourt

02-04-2010, 12:13 PM

It's the old "Perceived intent" vs "strict reading of the actual words" debate.

It says, the Airdam shall be attached to the body.

It could also say, the airdam shall only be attached to the body.

But it doesn't.

And to me, it doesn't have to. If the word was 'may' then I would agree.

#1 The airdam may be attached to the body.
#2 The airdam may only be attached to the body.

'The airdam shall be attached to the body' is #2 the way I read it.

So now what will happen is that someone will ask for a clarification (as what happened with SB as bushings). What SHOULD happen is that the CRB would review their intent when the rule was written and adjust accordingly. Could be as simple as the addition of the word 'only'.

Now if they cave in (like they did with SB's) and clarify the rule to anything other than the original intent......

lateapex911

02-04-2010, 12:20 PM

And to me, it doesn't have to. If the word was 'may' then I would agree.

#1 The airdam may be attached to the body.
#2 The airdam may only be attached to the body.

'The airdam shall be attached to the body' is #2 the way I read it.

So now what will happen is that someone will ask for a clarification (as what happened with SB as bushings). What SHOULD happen is that the CRB would review their intent when the rule was written and adjust accordingly. Could be as simple as the addition of the word 'only'.

Now if they cave in (like they did with SB's) and clarify the rule to anything other than the original intent......

yea, but is there anyone ON the CRB that was around when the rule was originally drafted? That wording hasn't been changed for a long time, if memory serves. Not that there are notes or documentation to check.....

For the ITAC/CRB it will boil down to:
-Do we do what we think/guess/ thought the intent was, or
-Do we support it as written because that's what people have been building to for what, 10 or 15 years??

From OUR point of view, it's "tough crap if you built to the rules, Undo your work and do it this way" if the former is chosen. Unless you were conservative and built to your perception of the intent.

I see Greg's oint here. The rule ALLOWS an airdam that fits in this XYZ envelope of dimensional requirements, and allows it to be attached, obviously. It goes on to state that ONE attachment SHALL be to the body, and there is no upward limit. And there are no other limits placed. Roffe Corollary, Classic example.

Greg Amy

02-04-2010, 01:11 PM

If the word was 'may' then I would agree.
Well, if it had the word "may", as in "the airdam 'may' be attached to the body..." then there would be ZERO requirement to even TOUCH the body of the car. The key here, the whole reason most people are unconcerned about this bracketry, is a lack of the word "only".

And, of course, even with the word "only" in there it can still be done, with just a little more work and just a little more "cleverly".

'The airdam shall be attached to the body' is #2 the way I read it.Chief Steward: "Mr. Amy, the rules state the airdam "shall" be attached to the body of the car. Is it so on your car?"
Mr. Amy: "Yes, sir, it is most definitely attached to the body of the car. You can clearly see it over there (pointing toward car)."
Chief Steward: "Mr. Bettencourt believes it can ONLY be attached to the body of the car."
Mr. Amy: "Yes, sir, that may very well be his belief, but the rules don't stipulate that."

What SHOULD happen is that the CRB would review their intent when the rule was written and adjust accordingly.So, let's go there. Let's not forget that within the framework of 1984 - and, remember, I was racing I.T. back then - the "intent" of the original rules would not include splitters and undertrays; those items were SO far out of the realm of thought in amateur racing as to never be considered. Nope, within the context of 1984 "airdams" and "spoilers" were simply two different ways of describing downward/vertical extensions of the front of the car, intended solely to divert air around to the sides of the car.

You want help in writing a rule to restrict this situation solely to the context of 1984, you let me know. I can probably do it in a couple of sentences. Maybe three.

But really, when it comes down to it who really the F cares if someone is using brackets to hold up the undertray?? Who got this burr up under their saddle? Why do we even care? I can tell you why *I* am arguing it: it's been proven time and time again that debates such as this suddenly and auto-magically* end up with rules changes to match what Those in Power wish it to be. So while that possibility may changed given recent events, I want those reading this to clearly understand where we are, how we got here, and what they'll be doing to reality if they try that again.

GA

*One example: a few years ago there was a similar spirited argument in regard to the use of spherical cassettes/bearings being used as "alternate material bushings" in suspensions. I strongly felt that this not only violated the letter of the rules, but clearly the spirit as well. As a result, I organized, co-wrote, and collected funds for the issue to be submitted to the SCCA for technical review under the "Compliance Review" process, GCR 8.1.4 in the current GCR, the proper way for issues such as this to be resolved per our Club charter and regulations.

After spending much of my time on this issue, just as I was about to submit this for a formal and public review, I received a call from someone "in the know" telling me that I would be wasting my time, that the CRB had auto-magically and suddenly decided at their last meeting to formally re-write the suspension bushings rule to explicitly allow spherical bearings as suspension bushings in Improved Touring. This rule change - oops, sorry, clarification - was put through Fastrack with no user feedback, as a Technical Bulletin; it's what we have today.

Imagine that; what a really strange coincidence!

Ever since then I've accepted that this is now how "we" do business, and acted accordingly. - ga

Andy Bettencourt

02-04-2010, 01:58 PM

Chief Steward: "Mr. Amy, the rules state the airdam "shall" be attached to the body of the car. Is it so on your car?"
Mr. Amy: "Yes, sir, it is most definitely attached to the body of the car. You can clearly see it over there (pointing toward car)."
Chief Steward: "Mr. Bettencourt believes it can ONLY be attached to the body of the car."
Mr. Amy: "Yes, sir, that may very well be his belief, but the rules don't stipulate that."

Simply your opinion Greg. I believe, as do a few on here, that SHALL is a fine word to describe a singular allowance. Our debate is in the meaning of the word shall, and I believe the definition supports my assessment. It would be up to the CS to agree or disagree. There is certainly room for debate.

But really, when it comes down to it who really the F cares if someone is using brackets to hold up the undertray?? Who got this burr up under their saddle? Why do we even care? I can tell you why *I* am arguing it: it's been proven time and time again that debates such as this suddenly and auto-magically* end up with rules changes to match what Those in Power wish it to be. So while that possibility may changed given recent events, I want those reading this to clearly understand where we are, how we got here, and what they'll be doing to reality if they try that again.

Nobody. But when you trot your interpretation out as law, it's fair to take on the debate.

*One example: a few years ago there was a similar spirited argument in regard to the use of spherical cassettes/bearings being used as "alternate material bushings" in suspensions. I strongly felt that this not only violated the letter of the rules, but clearly the spirit as well. As a result, I organized, co-wrote, and collected funds for the issue to be submitted to the SCCA for technical review under the "Compliance Review" process, GCR 8.1.4 in the current GCR, the proper way for issues such as this to be resolved per our Club charter and regulations.

After spending much of my time on this issue, just as I was about to submit this for a formal and public review, I received a call from someone "in the know" telling me that I would be wasting my time, that the CRB had auto-magically and suddenly decided at their last meeting to formally re-write the suspension bushings rule to explicitly allow spherical bearings as suspension bushings in Improved Touring. This rule change - oops, sorry, clarification - was put through Fastrack with no user feedback, as a Technical Bulletin; it's what we have today.

Imagine that; what a really strange coincidence!

Ever since then I've accepted that this is now how "we" do business, and acted accordingly. - ga

You will remember that I was with you 100% on your interpretation of that rule. While you were doing that 'work', someone wrote in and asked for a clarification. The CRB asked the ITAC our opinion. What we did was ask THEM what the original intent was so we could help them write a better rule. Amazingly, the CRB said that yes, they didn't care what suspension bushings were made of. I found it hard to believe that was true, but we clarified it per their 'intent'.

Could happen here too. The point is if you want to leave something the way it is, don't poke it. It may not end up the way you want. We all know that.

Greg Amy

02-04-2010, 02:36 PM

...SHALL is a fine word to describe a singular allowance. Our debate is in the meaning of the word shall
No need to debate the word; read GCR 1.2.3. Show me this "singular allowance".

And the procedures that the CRB took in attempting to "clarify" the suspension bushings rule - asking the ITAC for their interpretations, unilaterally changing the rule to fit their own desires, and doing so without membership feedback and BoD approval - are all clear violations of the GCR.

GA

Ron Earp

02-04-2010, 07:15 PM

Radiator support, frame, etc explicitly not allowed as they are not 'licked by the airstream'. Don't see how you win that protest.

Define "licked by airstream".

I submit that if you hang a standard aero streamer off the inside fender and monitor the action with a video camera while at speed you will indeed find it moved by the airstream. The streamer will also be moved if mounted to the inside of the fender, the edge of the fender, the lip of the fender, off the front of the car, off the bumper, and so on.

I might "know what they mean" when they wrote the definition, but if the definition of "the body" is the part that isn't the floor pan and is "licked by the airstream", well.......that is fairly WFO.

Z3_GoCar

02-04-2010, 11:26 PM

Dog. It's sleeping. Let it lie.

GA

On edit: James, all my cars use a center-dump downward-pointing exhaust, roughly mid-chassis, center of car, behind driver, pointing down. It's common.

Greg,

So does mine. My point is that by this rule the underbody is still considered the body.

tderonne

02-05-2010, 12:34 PM

I need to look a bit more. Was this proposed change in the December FasTrack adopted?

The existing glossary definitions related to bodywork do not apply well in all car categories. The proposed changes
applied to all cars. [The FF bodywork revisions below depend on these glossary entries.]
Item 11. Effective 1/1/10: Change Glossary B entries as follows:
Body: All parts of the car licked by the air stream and situated above the belly-pan/floor with exception of the roll bar or cage.
For Formula and Sports Racing cars, further exceptions are those units definitely associated with the function of the engine or
transmission.See Bodywork.
Body Panel: A replaceable section of the body.
Bodywork: See Body All external panels that encase the frame, driver, engine, transmission, radiators, suspension pickup points,
etc. Bodywork includes panels below the floor pan, and the bottoms of any side pods.

(Strikethrough font didn't work, the underlined portions replace the strikethrough)

Answering my own post. If I am reading the huge December FasTrack correctly, Item 11 was withdrawn. Adopted or not, it suggests the CRB doesn't like the current definition of body. I wouldn't be surprised to see another attempt at a new definition.

jimmyc

02-06-2010, 09:35 PM

Yes, Special Projects splitters/air-dams are IT/HC legal. They are within the vertical body line of the car, do not go below the wheel rim, and only go back as far as the fender opening; the three things needed to be legal. That's what they were designed for.

I wouldn't be so sure.

The EG kit was designed for a car that runs 17" wheels and a 235/45/17.

You put that kit on a EG with 15" or 14 or 13" wheels and its LOW.

How do i know.. i attempted to put the kit on my car, at a high ride height it was still stupid low.

He was supposed to be coming out with a new version, but.... I wouldn't wait. Shit takes him FOREVER.

Add to that the kit is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, quick release for the EG. It's a BTCH to even install.