Diff. cooler pump

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by bldn10@Jan 25 2006, 09:50 AM
"That's not the way I understand it Bill. The 13.9 is essentially a CoA ruling on rule. If you are protested, and the SOM hears the protest, and in spite of your 13.9, finds you non-compliant, winning the appeal will be a slam dunk. In addition, I would think the SOM would be admonished for disregarding an official rule interpretation.

On further examination it looks like I overlooked the words "penalties:" "Penalties or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling" So, the local SOM can uphold a protest; they just can't take any action against you. However, the 13.9 would not have the same effect for, say, you buddy who made the same changes you did based on your 13.9. He is screwed because any previous Rule interpretation by a COA is NOT binding on any subsequent one. This is the reason, once again, I advocate making COA opinions precedential. They should be archived and searchable. What is legal for one should be legal for all. And vice versa.

[snapback]72102[/snapback]

Bill, I agree about precedence except I have actually seen where the COA got it wrong in my opinion. The got it wrong on well crafted language and having no one to argue against that information. The 13.9 protest does not have both side of the issue properly represented. I believe that the 13.9 rule needs to be changed to have a committee formed that would argue the other side of the issue. Then I could see a precedence set from the ruling.

[MMiskoe]

Bill (Denton):

This is the sort of response I was looking for. Nothing more than well thought out rebuttal to me being devils advocate. That's how you learn what others are thinking & interperting.

Do I think a diff cooler is legal? Not really. Do I think it fits w/in the spirit of IT? Yes, the rest of the rules allow for changes to help longevity, otherwise oil coolers, windage trays & accusumps wouldn’t be allowed. Would I protest the guy? No. Would I be brave enough to fit one? Not after seeing that the general IT public disagrees with me. Should something be proposed for a change? Sure. Is it rules creep? Yes, but so are intake restrictors & alternate crank pulleys and those seem to have been well received.

I think you’re wrong about toe settings, I have yet to see a FSM that doesn’t define the alignment settings for the car. Tire pressures are a bit more subjective since they are usually noted as a “recommended” setting. But they are defined, therefore they can be measured, therefore the argument that they are free is wrong. Do I plan on protesting anyone about it? No. It just points out the inconsistencies in the system.

Should the rule book be tortured? Hell yes! If it wasn’t expected to be stretched, then those who wrote it were short sighted. Anyone trying to put together a competitive car will look in every direction for an edge & the rule book is the best place to start. I’m amazed that people don’t look at it this way. You can’t expect to build a car to the full extent of the class if you don’t push the limit of what the class allows. You don’t drive at 9 tenths do you?

Matt

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by bldn10@Jan 25 2006, 10:50 AM
"That's not the way I understand it Bill. The 13.9 is essentially a CoA ruling on rule. If you are protested, and the SOM hears the protest, and in spite of your 13.9, finds you non-compliant, winning the appeal will be a slam dunk. In addition, I would think the SOM would be admonished for disregarding an official rule interpretation.

On further examination it looks like I overlooked the words "penalties:" "Penalties or penalty points will not be assessed in the event of a negative ruling" So, the local SOM can uphold a protest; they just can't take any action against you. However, the 13.9 would not have the same effect for, say, you buddy who made the same changes you did based on your 13.9. He is screwed because any previous Rule interpretation by a COA is NOT binding on any subsequent one. This is the reason, once again, I advocate making COA opinions precedential. They should be archived and searchable. What is legal for one should be legal for all. And vice versa.

[snapback]72102[/snapback]

Bill,

The way I read that, is that you can't have any penalties assess against you in the event of a negative ruling on a 13.9. I'm not so sure that you're correct about the 13.9 not being applicable to anyone else. It's an interpretation of a rule, and should impact any test of that rule. And where did you find the language that says prior rules interpretations are not binding on subsequent ones?

[bldn10]

"The way I read that, is that you can't have any penalties assess against you in the event of a negative ruling on a 13.9. I'm not so sure that you're correct about the 13.9 not being applicable to anyone else. It's an interpretation of a rule, and should impact any test of that rule. And where did you find the language that says prior rules interpretations are not binding on subsequent ones?"

The way it is written it can certainly be read that way. I just thought that surely that's not what they meant because why would anyone think that you would be assessed penalty points simply for asking a hypothetical question? Moreover, the immunity from penalties would furnish the return for your $250; otherwise, why bother? So, using established techniques for interpretation of ambiguous language, I am confident that a 13.9 in your favor allows you to make the mod you asked about w/o fear of being penalized for it.

As to who it applies to, first of all I was told that by the steward I referred to earlier. Also notice that it says that a compliant ruling will not even be published - no one else would even know about it so how could they take advantage of it? The local SOM would not even know about it!

There is no language dealing w/ the precedential effect of COA opinions. And, in the absence of such, the default is that there is none. It would take affirmative language to make it so, or the COA could adopt an internal rule that it would follow precedent. Cite me one COA opinion that referred back to a prededing one (other than an identical protest at the same event). I have seen 2 opinions in the same issue of Fastrack w/ contrary outcomes from different COAs on very similar issues. As far as I know, there is no indexed library of COA opinions so there is no way at present for the COA to even research issues that may have been previously decided. If anyone knows anything different, please speak up.

As I have argued before, there is zero consistency in interpretation of the passing rules, which are so vague as to be practically useless. If we had precedential rulings we could establish a body of interpretation over time that would supplement the rules and give us a much better idea of what is expected of us. (FWIW I e-mailed Randy Pobst and he completely agrees w/ me on the uselessness of our rules and the inconsistent interpretations of them.)