IIDSYCYC

[Quickshoe]

This clause seems to come up fairly often.

However, what about this?

ITCS 17.1.4.B "...other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of gaining any competitive advantage "
(emphasis mine)

-and-

ITCS 17.1.4.D"...Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein"
(emphasis mine)

The GCR defines modify as: "to change a component by reworking, but not by replacing"

So, if one was to remove (not modify) a part that doesn't yield a competitive advantage, wouldn't that be okay?



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited January 24, 2004).]

[Knestis]

I've tried to make this point before but wonder if it resonates for anyone besides me...

I would argue that, if a racer makes a change (in this case, removes a part), he/she is doing so because at the very least it is perceived as affording a competitive advantage.

Whether or not it does so is sometimes questionable but to spend resources (time, money) making a change and then argue that it doens't provide a competitive advantage seems completely disingenuous to me.

But okay, I'll bite: Someone give an example of a part that can be removed from an IT car that, such that by doing so, some competitive advantage is not gained - no matter how small.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
ITCS 17.1.4.D"...Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein"
(emphasis mine)

The GCR defines modify as: "to change a component by reworking, but not by replacing"

I personally think your interpretation is strained. I read modifications to mean modifications to the car. As such, removing components would qualify as modifying the car.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Quickshoe]

Kirk,

I would tend to agree with you that racers, in general, aren't going to expend any effort if it isn't going to yield some advantage.

I know. Removing some widget that is just along for the ride allows me to add some extra cage structure or ballast down low. But what IF my car is overweight with the minimum cage structure and zero ballast? I remove the widget and make no other changes. What competitive advantage do I have over the guy at minimum weight with the extra cage structure and ballast?

Geo,

Strained???? That seems a little harsh. I am quoting from the book. I didn't interpret anything. The book specifically says "component" not "car".

[Banzai240]

Isn't removing ANYTHING from the car going to make it lighter?

Even if the weight removal is infintesimal... that's still a "competitive advantage" in my book... However insignificant the advantage might be...

[Joe Harlan]

We weigh with driver? we have a minimum weight to meet. How is removing weight a competitive advantage? as long as you meet the minimum.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
We weigh with driver? we have a minimum weight to meet. How is removing weight a competitive advantage? as long as you meet the minimum.

Not to take this discussion too far down this path, but as you've always told me... it's all where you put the weight.

If I take weight off the top, and put it on the bottom... it helps for a "moment"... so to speak...

My point wasn't that I care one way or the other as to whether or not you take whatever off your car, but rather that just about ANYTHING you do beyond the rules could be argued successfully as being a "competitive advantage"...

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo:
I personally think your interpretation is strained. I read modifications to mean modifications to the car. As such, removing components would qualify as modifying the car.

George,

It really doesn't matter what you read modification to mean, what Quickshoe posted was the definition from the GCR Glossary. There's no 'interpretation' [sic] to be strained



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Knestis]

Yeahbut...

"Competitive Advantage" isn't listed in the GCR glossary so we have no choice but to define it for the sake of this discussion: If Darin can remove weight from one place on the car (irrespective of whether he meets the minimum or not), has his competitive position improved compared to his competition, relative to where he was before the change?

K

[Joe Harlan]

Kirk, I would say that if Darin legally moved weight on the chassis regardless of meeting his minimum. He made the car more competitive but not necessarily gained a competitive advantange. If the modification was legal then it is open to anyone. where is the advantage?

[Jake]

Ok, I’ll bite (I wanna play too!)

I’ve taken everything off my MR2 that I possibly can and am still overweight (I weigh 180lbs). If I remove the washer bottle, I’ll still be way overweight. You could argue that I am redistributing weight because I’m removing weight from the front of the car and adding weight to the ballast in the driver’s seat. However, this is not a competitive advantage because it works against balancing my already rear-heavy car.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Geo,

Strained???? That seems a little harsh. I am quoting from the book. I didn't interpret anything. The book specifically says "component" not "car".

OK, let's back up for a moment. Where in your quote from the GCR does it refer to "components?" I'll requote here:

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
ITCS 17.1.4.D"...Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein"
(emphasis mine)

Now let me quote the entire section:

"17.1.4.D: The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function."

IMHO this section refers to modifications to the cars. You seem to be trying to apply it to individual components and this would indeed possibly create a different interpretation, but one I think would be dead wrong. No were in that section does it mention modification to componenets. Further, it seems clear to me it is refering to modifications to the cars, especially since it's in the very first part of the ITCS just before talking about permitted modifications to the cars.

[edit]The rule mentions "component/modification," but this is not the same language as "modified component." The "/" would most commonly be interpreted as "and/or."
[/edit]
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited January 25, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

Where is it guaranteed that all cars can actually acheive min weight? Not in the GCR.

I'm 100% with Kirk on this one. If a part is removed it can have many effects, such as lower overall weight, "freeing up" weight so it can be placed in another position, increasing reliability, and so on. It's a competitive advantage to somebody

Semantics can be argued until we're all blue in the face, but if it were to ever be protested, I'm sure the rules makers eyes would roll.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Quickshoe]

Geo,

My quote from the definition of modify from the GCR says component not car.

[ddewhurst]

***Posted per Geo***

***"17.1.4.D: The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function."

***IMHO this section refers to modifications to the cars.***

***No were in that section does it mention modification to componenets.***

Geo, please read the following slowly.

17.1.4.D.a. Carb parts

17.1.4.D.b. Fuel pumps/fuel filters

17.1.4.D.c. Air cleaners

17.1.4.D.d. Emission control parts

17.1.4.D. Need I continue ? These are components all under the rule you quoted 17.1.4.D. & within the rule the written words tell you what modifications you can make & other words tell you of modifications you can not make to components. Granted the written words do not tell you all of the modifications you can not make the original part of the rule tells you that.

Continue the Fun
David

[erlrich]

[B]IMHO this section refers to modifications to the cars. You seem to be trying to apply it to individual components and this would indeed possibly create a different interpretation, but one I think would be dead wrong. No were in that section does it mention modification to componenets. Further, it seems clear to me it is refering to modifications to the cars, especially since it's in the very first part of the ITCS just before talking about permitted modifications to the cars.
B]

Can I play, can I play (he says, with hand up).

IMHO the argument about whether 'modifications' refers to the car or its components is totally irrelevant. Since a car is simply a conglomeration of components, a modification to the car must by default result from a modification to one of its components; conversely any modification of a component must result in a modification to the car. And, since the writers of the GCR were nice enough to define the term modify for us (as noted above), said definition specifically stating "change a component by reworking", I can't see how removing a part could possibly be considered a modification.

I think the relevant discussion here revolves around the meaning of the term 'competitive advantage'. If you believe it means making your car more competitive than it was before the part was removed, then removing any part must result in a competitive advantage. If, on the other hand, you believe it means giving your car an advantage that no other car has, then removing a part just to save weight would not necessarily result in a competitive advantage. The flaw with the second interpretation is, IMO, that you would be opening up a whole slew of parts that could be removed just to save weight, which I don't believe was the intent of the rules.

Wow, this is way more fun than any of the logic courses I had to take!


------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process

[ddewhurst]

Earl, you play nice. Next time don't ask just jump in & play.

Have Fun
David

[Geo]

Originally posted by erlrich:
IMHO the argument about whether 'modifications' refers to the car or its components is totally irrelevant. Since a car is simply a conglomeration of components, a modification to the car must by default result from a modification to one of its components; conversely any modification of a component must result in a modification to the car. And, since the writers of the GCR were nice enough to define the term modify for us (as noted above), said definition specifically stating "change a component by reworking", I can't see how removing a part could possibly be considered a modification.

Pretty tortured.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Quickshoe]

Earl,

Sounds logical to me.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I like to think that I can read the rules, as written, and remain unemotional and logical about them.

If they don't want the components removed why not say:

"...can not be disabled, altered or removed."

Why did they add "...for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage" unless it was possible to do so without obtaining a competitive advantage?

[Knestis]

Because the rules move forward from an assumption that the cars are prepared to showroom stock rules - that everything is expected to be there as delivered from the factory unless otherwise specified.

Tortured as in "damp basements and electric wires..."

K