How common is cheating?

[ddewhurst]

Folks, there is a rule "GCR 13.9 Rules Interpretation" which will get you an answer to any item you have a question with. $250 gets you an answer I would presume in writting.

Have Fun
David

[apr67]

David.

As far as I know, the SCCA COA (Which is what this process uses, right) does not establish precedence. So just because the 2004 COA said it was legal, who's to say the 2005 COA is going to say its legal.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by apr67:
David.

As far as I know, the SCCA COA (Which is what this process uses, right) does not establish precedence. So just because the 2004 COA said it was legal, who's to say the 2005 COA is going to say its legal.

Yet another example of how broken this system is! But, there are cases where you can get answers w/o spending money. Case in point, on the Prod site, there was a question as to the legality of read disc brakes on limited-prep cars that came stock w/ rear drum brakes. For those that don't know, the PCS says that cars that came w/ rear drum brakes may convert to rear discs, w/ some restrictions.

Many people argued on both sides of the issue. Finally, the CRB released something in FasTrack clarifying the rule, and stating that in fact, the l-p cars could convert to rear discs. Nobody had to spend a dime on that one. And while I haven't checked the '05 PCS yet, I beleive that it made it in.

I realize that this is an example of a general issue and not a specific one, but nonetheless, it was still a ruling.

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

[Knestis]

It's a narrow distinction but I think Bill is referring to a "clarification" of a rule, that makes it into the code, rather than a case-specific "finding" based on the rules. Stephen was asking about the latter, specific to his air intake design.

The problem with adding clarifications is that we just make an already thick book thicker, as language gets piled on. There's also the now-popular tendency to start listing what CAN'T be done, rather than what can - my biggest complaint about the rules as published.

I think that the publication of a COA finding in FasTrack makes for case law but again, unless the facts of a specific penalty are identical, it may well not truly set a precedent.

K

[ddewhurst]

apr67,

"The Chairman of the Stewards Program will then convene a first court. The decision will then be reviewed by the Court of Appeals."

I would like to think their response would be in writting & would be good to go. I would think a rule change could have impact but with no rule change how can the response change.

Have Fun
David

[apr67]

If the clearification doesn't make it into next years GCR it is no longer vaild.

[bldn10]

I mentioned the interpretation process in the "who to go to" thread but apparently people preferred to just argue as if there was no such thing.

"As far as I know, the SCCA COA (Which is what this process uses, right) does not establish precedence. So just because the 2004 COA said it was legal, who's to say the 2005 COA is going to say its legal."

It is worse than that. Although I have not found where it says this in the GCR and I haven't seen the operations manual, the COA does not treat its prior rulings as precedential in the least. In other words, they can rule differently on identical or similar issues, and we do not establish a body of "law" that can help determine future issues and give us guidance on how the COA might rule on a given issue. They do not even refer to prior rulings for guidance. That is why you all the time see side by side rulings in the very same Fastrack that are contradictory. COA rulings should be binding precedent and should be available to all parties.

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

[miketrier]

One question that comes to mind is the definition of cheating. If a car being non-compliant is cheating than I suspect that nearly every IT car is cheating. With issues like window washer bottles and heater hoses and the like illustrate the point. I believe that significant performance enhancing cheating is far less common in IT than mere non-compliance with the outdated "philosophy of the class" rules. I don't see how it could possibly be any fun at all to win if you knew that you had to cheat to win. That would make you one of the biggest losers and frauds of all time. Someone would have to have a pretty odd ego to get satisfaction from cheating to win. I don't think most racers are that odd.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by miketrier:
Someone would have to have a pretty odd ego to get satisfaction from cheating to win. I don't think most racers are that odd.

Most aren't. But some are. More than should be. The number of serious violations (maliscious attempts) that surface when a car is sold and bought, as well as the number of protests that hit paydirt are just too great to think otherwise...


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

[Jon Nelson]

Not to bring this rather unpleasant thread back from the dead, but there is a ITA CRX "With SCCA log book" for sale in the classifieds section.

It is advertised as having "10 pounds liberated from the flywheel" and a "modified throttle body".

Uhuh. Whatever. Make your own judgement, but if you're dumb enough to have a lightened flywheel, I guess you're dumb enough to advertise it as a selling feature!!!

Oh well.

[Knestis]

Go look in the thread about blowed-up Mopar engines and formulate your own opinions about what some people seem to think is appropriate re: swapping engine internals around. This kind of thing is a little frustrating.

K

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Go look in the thread about blowed-up Mopar engines and formulate your own opinions about what some people seem to think is appropriate re: swapping engine internals around. This kind of thing is a little frustrating.

K

And more common than we want to believe....



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

[Matt Rowe]

Yes, but the topic Kirk is referring to is all disucssion within the update/backdate rule as the rods/crank/block combinations in questions were a running mid model year change where multiple permutations left the factory. It would appear the guy is new to SCCA and might just need a little clarification on the rules.

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

[This message has been edited by Matt Rowe (edited May 11, 2005).]

[splats]

I'm the one with the Mopar link. How is using the same blocks (2.2/2.5) considered cheating? All that Mopar did was to drill oiling holes for the counter-balancers used in the 2.5 BUT NOT in the 2.2. All that I was asking was "Is it possible to plug them off & still have the oiling work?" I'm sorry if it came out wrong. As far as cheating, if I can't win within the rules then I don't need to win. I'm just trying to put together a durable & reliable motor. Other than the crank stroke & counter-balancers, the 2.2/2.5 motors share everything-else. The only thing that changes are when they were both changed due to year changes and the turbos. This info is from Mopar books. Am I wrong, maybe? I'm still trying to learn about them and that is why I was on here asking. Sorry if I ruffled any feathers, but I am NOT A CHEATER. I may however make mistakes.

[Ron Earp]

If the 2.5L block was never used in the 2.2L car that appears on the same IT spec line then you can't use it. I am in a similar situation with the JH - the 907 Lotus block/engine I am forced to use is not as good nor as strong as the 910 block that appeared a couple years later.

I'm not a rules nerd, but I'm not using a 910 block to be on the safe side. Heck, for me it doesn't matter - the car hasn't hit the track yet!!!!!!

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
White Jensen-Healey ITS
Silver "Skull" 260Z ITS

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited May 11, 2005).]

[Ron Earp]

double

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited May 11, 2005).]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe:
Yes, but the topic Kirk is referring to is all disucssion within the update/backdate rule as the rods/crank/block combinations in questions were a running mid model year change where multiple permutations left the factory. It would appear the guy is new to SCCA and might just need a little clarification on the rules.

As Ron correctly pointed out, you can't mix and match parts among engines, even if they are on the same spec line. If new guys don't understand rules like this, it's kind of up to those mentoring them - giving them advice about building engines - to help them understand. I didn't see anything of that nature in that strand.

K

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis:
As Ron correctly pointed out, you can't mix and match parts among engines, even if they are on the same spec line. If new guys don't understand rules like this, it's kind of up to those mentoring them - giving them advice about building engines - to help them understand. I didn't see anything of that nature in that strand.

K

As Kirk and others have mentioned, you have to update things as complete assemblies. It says that explicitly in the ITCS. If the 2.5 block you refer to never came in a 2.2 configuration, you can't build a 2.2 out of it, period (unless, it has the same MOPAR p/n as the 2.2 block).



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

[Matt Rowe]

Sorry Kirk, it appears we were all focused on solving the problem and no responded one way or the other about the comment early in the topic on making a combination that technically never left the factory. As there were variations within the same spec line that used a single block common to both the 2.2 and 2.5 it gets a little confusing as to exactly what he is trying to do. It took me 10 minutes of searching through my archives to find that specifying an 88 block makes it illegal. I actually expected you would be far more concerned about the removal of the balance shaft assembly which is part of the same statement that we all missed. Just for clarification that definitely wouldn't be allowed and even using a block with the oil passage factory drilled and then plugged wouldn't be legal.


Hmm, who would have thought you guys had so much free time to worry about Dodge engine combinations? That must be the advantage of running other cars that don't require as much work.



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

[Ron Earp]

Nope, I work on Brit cars - no free time to worry about Dodges!

It is just this point hit close to home since I went through this about 5 months ago. The 907 Lotus engine I have to use has well-known oiling problems. Some of the problems can be fixed by using a 910 block and with that comes improved webbing throughout for better strength. But, it is illegal to do the way I read it, thus I am forced to use a 907 block.

To me it looks like he is in the exact same situation and like me, probably the only person that would ever know he used a different block would be himself. I doubt with all the people at VIR last weekend I could have found a single person that could tell a 907/910 apart. But I would know, and that is enough.

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
White Jensen-Healey ITS
Silver "Skull" 260Z ITS