Ballast added in the roll cage main hoop and called "master kill switch plate" has been ruled illegal by SCCA appeals court. In SowDiv we have ruled the plate can be no larger than 4 x 6 x 3/16 inches.
Printable View
Ballast added in the roll cage main hoop and called "master kill switch plate" has been ruled illegal by SCCA appeals court. In SowDiv we have ruled the plate can be no larger than 4 x 6 x 3/16 inches.
Jay
I am trying to figure out what the signifigance is with this on the Improved Touring website.
Since the Spec Miata guys have made it very clear that their rules are not based on the ITCS.
If I am missing part of the picture please enlighten me.
cheers
dave parker
wdcr ITC#97
Seems to me that the ruling could lead to a maximum plate thickness for other areas of the cage as well. No more free placement of ballast in the cage with 3/4" thick pads.
I personally think that its a BS rule, but I never saw the plate in question... If it was a 6" long x 2" thick piece of steel tack welded in 2 spots then that's a safety issue, but does there need to be a rule on it?
------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg
Izzy's Custom Cages
I just thought it was a 'Jeopardy' answer, looking for the appropriate question.
Where is Alex Trebek ?
And the question is:
"Show us an example of 'Forum Lexdixia'"
http://www.specmiata.com/ubb/ultimatebb.ph...pic/2/2380.html
The animosity here, sheesh.
Anway, the point that IT racers might want to consider is it would be just as illegal in an IT car. At least that is how I read it, as this was an allowed part (switch) performing a non-allowed purpose (ballast).
But we don't have any specifics. Are the plates 4" x 4" by 4"? And if so, is their any question if that is just asking for trouble?
I don't have my book handy (Another way of saying I'm too lazy to look it up) But isn't there already a rule about items doing something illegal under the gise of being something legal? Like the old 5 pound "fuel pump bracket"
The problem with these kinds of decisions is determining intent. Just about any allowed modification can perform an unintended function; the key is determining how aggregious that unintended function is alongside the intent. Some call it clever, some call it cheating; I say tomayto, you say tomahto.
I don't necessarily agree with the appeals decision (it's an inverse-Pandora's box that we probably don't want to get to) but I understand the ruling.
X-Zachery.Quote:
Originally posted by GregAmy:
The problem with these kinds of decisions is determining intent. Just about any allowed modification can perform an unintended function
The poster child of this issue: Tow hooks.
Tow hooks need to be strong. They're there for yanking the car around, right ? Soooo...anyone with half a brain can put 15-20 lbs. of steel where it will do the most good. Who's to say it isn't necessary ? Prove it.
APR67 - Animosity ? Hardly. Confusion, based on a lack of context, maybe. Not animosity.
The rules apply across the board. I am responsible in SowDiv for the SM class. If you don't like the rules write the competition board and have the rules changed. [email protected]. We enforce the rules and are trying to get the class ready to go national next year. The only complaints here are from the people who have put hidden ballast throughout their cars. The people with legal cars don't complain.
Jay, I realize that you simply copied and pasted your last post here from what you posted on SM.com, but you are saying that people here on IT.com are complaining about this and that they have illegal cars. I don't think either of these statements can be concluded from this thread.
Maybe you want to be more aware of the target audience.
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
Why did I click on that link???!!!!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Not to speak for Jay, but connect the dots.
Would this be legal in IT? I don't think so, it voilates the same rule (an allowed can't perform the function of a disallowed mod).
So the fact that some SM's had this done means it is possible that:
Some IT cars may have seen it, thought it was a cool idea, and done the same.
OR
Some IT cars had it first and the SM guys copied it.
Regardless, its something that I would think drivers would want to be aware of.
Prehaps not.
Hell, I can hide ballast better than tacking it high up on the rollcage as a kill switch bracket
------------------
Thomas Benham
What rule are you enforcing? There is no such rule in my rulebook.Quote:
Originally posted by Jay Wright:
The rules apply across the board. I am responsible in SowDiv for the SM class. If you don't like the rules write the competition board and have the rules changed. [email protected]. We enforce the rules and are trying to get the class ready to go national next year. The only complaints here are from the people who have put hidden ballast throughout their cars. The people with legal cars don't complain.
------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series
You run SCCA, you run their rules.
Al. You might want to look closer.
Ballast is not legal, and you can not use an allowed modification to perform a disallowed mod.
So if I choose to build my cage with tubing larger than the minimum spec, is that illegal? It also performs the function of adding weight.
What if my fire extinguisher is larger than the minimum size-illegal too?
------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series
Al, we all choose to race with the rules that exist. Shooting the messenger isn't going to change the rules.
Writing letters might.
Even the rules NERD is with Al and Greg on this one. If the "prohibited function" is simply haveing mass, there's no way in hell that some arbitrary degree of indiscretion on this front can be decided to be illegal, when a gram less might not be.
If an inch-thick bracket is overkill, is 1/2" okay? 1/4? .060? Do we need to do a load analysis to demonstrate that we have built it right at Colin Chapman's idea of the minimum size necessary to keep said part from falling off? Or falling off for a while?
There is NO way to enforce this kind of approach that doesn't leave individuals with too much discretion to decide when enough is enough.
Now, if I fill the downtubes at the back of my cage with lead shot, there's no defensible basis so the math is easy. An ITC entrant in my old region had a flywheel and a big ol' pile of discarded wheel weights in his passenger door, behind the door card. Loose.
Now, THAT is ballast (hidden) http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 18, 2005).]
The real problem I have with this is not the ruling itself, it's the absolute lack of rules enforcement consistency within the SCCA.
Let's be real here: the apparent intent of using the hugo-mongo kill switch bracket instead of a simple .060 or so steel plate was for ballast. The reasoning behind it was because it was a (very poor) way of getting around the silly pointless ballast placement rules. Jay (et al) perceived an action in conflict with the "intent rule" and acted on it. Fine.
Their basis for ruling the kill switch bracket illegal is tenuous within the current attitude of Club Racing, but as I said above I understand it. Frankly - possibly surprisingly - I'm OK with it! I truly believe we need a lot more heavy-handed enforcement of the rules, a lot more bitch-slapping of folks that are flaunting the spirit of the rules. The problem I do have is that Jay (et al) are a mere ISLAND in this vast SCCA ocean, and this type of enforcement does nothing to discourage further flaunting, epecially nothing in areas outside of the Southwest Division.
Aggregrious examples of this flaunting include spherical bearings and MoTec ignition systems. I just concluded an antagonistic private email exchange with someone who insisted that spherical bearings "could have been" within the original rulesmakers' intents when the "bushing material is unrestricted" was written. BULLSHIT! This rule was written in 1984 when spherical bearing cartridges were not even used on all-out race production-based cars, let alone those designed to be dual-purpose cars. To argue otherwise is a cop-out. Then we have to hear about the poor pityful folks that have already done it because they thought it was legal, and how unfair it would be to them. TOUGH SHIT. You took a chance by flaunting the rules, and you lost. Get over it.
So we allow (nay, ENCOURAGE) spherical bearing suspensions, yet we disqualify someone for a 1/2-inch thick kill switch bracket?
How about Motec? Anyone want to try and argue with me that Motec ignition systems, stuffed into a stock ECU harness and designed to fit a stock wiring harness, "could have been" within the original rulesmakers' intent when the ECU rule was written? BULLSHIT! Motec is certainly within the LETTER of the rules, but it's obvious to any reasonable person that it's not within the spirit. Yep, the rulesmaker blew it when they wrote the rules, but we all know better.
Yet we slap someone that made a larger-than-expected kill switch bracket?
I'm ALL FOR heavy-handed common sense rules enforcements. It's something that has been lacking in SCCA Club racing from long before Jay and I were racing IT and Showroom Stock in Texas in the 80's (Jay, remember Ed Gerkey's ITA Rabbit GTi with the Super Vee engine stuffed in it? Man, did that thing sound nice on the oval at TWS!!) But if we're going to do something like this *it has to be done RIGHT, and it has to be done ACROSS THE BOARD*. None of this cherry-picking of what classes get it, and where it happens. If we're going to do this, we're going to do it such that anyone that tries to flaunt the spirit of the rules will be punished. The alternative is to continue letting folks flaunt the spirit rules with abandon just because they found a loophole in the letter of the rules.
Don't even bother trying to suck me into an argument about who gets to decide what's common sense and what's the spirit of the rules. I'm not interested in word games; that's what got us where we are today.
Your club, your choice. - GA
[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited March 18, 2005).]
An interesting column over at Speedtv.com on cheating
http://www.speedtv.com/commentary/15703/
It's regarding NASCAR, but I think some valid ideas are made towards the end of the article.
Well, there's the problem. The 55lbs. of old wheel weights go inside the spare tire, which is still (legally) strapped down in the trunk.Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
An ITC entrant in my old region had a flywheel and a big ol' pile of discarded wheel weights in his passenger door, behind the door card. Loose.