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).]
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks