Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: ITCS overrule the general rules??

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    NH, US
    Posts
    3,821

    Default ITCS overrule the general rules??

    In the GCR you have the General Competion Rules listed at the front of the GCR then it goes into specific catagories such as ITCS. Do the ITCS rules override the general rules or is it the other way around??

    Thanks
    Stephen Blethen


    PS: I will explain later I jsut wnat the feedback on this question before everyone gets worked up on my next question.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    The Category Specs supercede the GCR where there are differences.

    For example, the GCR requires fire systems, whereas the ITCS allows hand-held extinguishers.

    K

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Wauwatosa, WI, USA
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    ***For example, the GCR requires fire systems, whereas the ITCS allows hand-held extinguishers.***

    Not true K.

    Have Fun
    David

    ps: Pleae see GCR rule 17.22.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Regardless of Kirk's example, he is correct in theory. The ITCS supeceeds.

    Bring on the question.

    AB

    ------------------
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region, R188967
    www.flatout-motorsports.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    NH, US
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:


    Bring on the question.

    AB

    OK, OK

    In the ITCS 10.h Page ITCS - 20 it says....
    "Towing eyes per GCR section 17., may be fitted."

    I know that originally in section 17 it sayed all cars except IT, SS, and T cars but then a fasttrack came out in febuary and said that all cars need to have one.

    If the ITCS say that I MAY have one not that I SHALL have one is it then still my choice?? It seems to me that if the ITCS overrule the GCR then I can do it if I want to as long as I follow the rules for Tow hooks set forth in section 17, but If I don't want to I don't have to.

    Don't get me wrong I do want one I am just worried about the time to get it on for my first race. I am not looking for a debate just some honest feedback on how the rules work.

    thanks
    Stephen Blethen

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    "May" is an allowance; "shall" is a requirement (GCR 1.2.4).

    ITCS trumps the GCR; Fastrack amends them both (GCR 1.2.4).

    Bottom line: you need to have tow hooks, front and rear.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    NH, US
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Originally posted by GregAmy:
    "May" is an allowance; "shall" is a requirement (GCR 1.2.4).

    ITCS trumps the GCR; Fastrack amends them both (GCR 1.2.4).

    Bottom line: you need to have tow hooks, front and rear.
    Greg,

    Fast track only amended section 17 of the GCR not the ITCS which say I may have tow hooks not that I shall have tow hooks.
    (Just trying to make sure you understand what I wrote and why I had the question... not being a PITA like others are sometimes )

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    What Greg is saying is that the Fastrack amended the confusion. There was another thread about this (actually, I think Greg pointed it out first) issue.

    The bottom line on the clarification? IT cars must now have tow hooks per the new rule.

    AB

    ------------------
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region, R188967
    www.flatout-motorsports.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Stephen, the amendment in Fastrack (March 2005, p F-34) removes the sentence that read "Showroom Stock, Touring and
    Improved Touring cars are not required to install towing eyes but it is highly recommended." Thus, according to the GCR, tow hooks are manadatory for these classes.

    ITCS D.10.h (p20) in regards to tow hooks is an allowance ("Towing eyes per GCR Section 17., may be fitted.")

    If the ITCS had read "Towing eyes per GCR Section 17 are not required" then you'd have a point; however, a GCR mandate trumps an ITCS allowance any time. - GA

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    NH, US
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Originally posted by GregAmy:
    a GCR mandate trumps an ITCS allowance any time. - GA
    OK cool! That's what I needed to know. Thanks. I got some ideas I just need to start welding

    Thanks for the quick clarifications

    Stephen

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Originally posted by ddewhurst:
    ... Pleae see GCR rule 17.22.
    DD is right: Read the book, guys - don't ask me. We all know that I don't know squat about fire systems.

    K



    [This message has been edited by Knestis (edited April 22, 2005).]

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Wauwatosa, WI, USA
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    K,

    Andy

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default



    AB

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Memphis, TN, USA
    Posts
    688

    Default

    While I agree w/ Andy, Greg et al that the intent was to make them mandatory, and I have no doubt that that is what a SOM or COA would rule, IMO Stephen's interpretation is technically correct.

    GCR 1.2.4 states: "The word 'shall' ... is mandatory. The word 'may' is permissive. If there is a conflict between the GCR and a Specification Book (...ITCS...) the Specification Book has precedence over the GCR."

    No where does it say that a stronger or more specific term in the GCR is an exception to the rule of precedence; all that is required for the rule to come into play is a conflict between the GCR and the spec book. While it could be argued that "shall" and "may" do not a conflict make, I find it interesting and perhaps beyond coincidence that the rule of precedence immediately follows the contrasting definitions of those terms. I think they do conflict, the rule of precedence is applicable, and the ITCS rules the issue.

    I have said here before and the same to the CRB that there are plenty of lawyers in the Club who would be happy to provide pro bono review of proposed rules for clarity and internal consistency, but they don't seem to be interested.

    That and $2 might buy you a cup of coffee. But not a gallon of gas.



    ------------------
    Bill Denton
    87/89 ITS RX-7
    02 Audi TT225QC
    95 Tahoe
    Memphis

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Locust Grove, VA, USA
    Posts
    528

    Default

    Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:


    AB
    And then there are the "Supplemental Rules" on the Registration forms to be considered.
    GRJ


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Grove City, OH, USA
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    A friend of mine showed me a NASCAR rulebook from the late '50s early '60s - about 25 pages long!

    BTW, I still want to know what a 'total opening' is!!!! (GCR 17.1.4.D.8.

    ------------------
    Bill Stevens
    Mbr 103106
    BnS Racing
    83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Wauwatosa, WI, USA
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    ***BTW, I still want to know what a 'total opening' is!!!! (GCR 17.1.4.D.8.***

    Bill, did you realy mean ITCS 17.1.4.d.8.B.?

    & are you refering to "two total openings"?

    Reading from the second Paragraph about openings IMHJ you can cut a total of two different holes with each hole being 5 inches x 7 inches. An air DUCT would be attached to the material around the 5 x 7 holes & a 3 inch air HOSE would be attached to each air duct with the air hose traveling to each front brake disk.

    Have Fun
    David



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    I wrote an email to the CRB requesting an errors and omissions to clarify this point. Jeremy Thoennes replied to me saying, "...this was clarified in the June FasTrack."

    June Fastrack is not yet downloadable. - GA

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Enfield, CT, USA
    Posts
    488

    Default

    Originally posted by GregAmy:
    June Fastrack is not yet downloadable. - GA
    It is now. It looks like you missed it by about 5 mintues.

    Does this mean we are going to have another 300 response debate on June's issue?

    ------------------
    ~Matt Rowe
    ITA Shelby Charger
    MARRS #96

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    http://www.scca.org/_Filelibrary/File/05-0...06-fastrack.pdf

    Moot thread now. Tow hooks manditory.

    AB

    ------------------
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region, R188967
    www.flatout-motorsports.com

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •