Rules NERDs - RIP

[Knestis]

I'm afraid that the tide of opinion has well and truly turned in the last few weeks. We conservative rules literalists - Rules NERDs - are pretty much extinct. Our propositions seem no longer valid in the current context - that (1) the framers of the IT rules would have expressly included allowances had they wanted them included (typically inaccurately invoked in arguments as "intent"), that (2), the letter of the rule trumps interpretation of the rule, and (3) that changes in technology or other influences should be allowed to influence the rules, their interpretation, and enforcement thereof only grudgingly.

These realizations have been growing out of a couple of things that my equally endangered Neanderthal NERD buddy Greg A. hinted at recently, that were bouncing around in my head yesterday as we got the shop ready for the shell to come back from the painter:

First, the emerging T3/T4 cars represent the "New IT." Yeah, the lifespan rule makes initial purchases more expensive and we all have some idea of what it takes to build (or cheat up) a "stock" drivetrain but philosophically, the idea of bolting some suspension pieces on a car is where IT started, even if most current drivers can conceive of that only in abstract terms typically reserved for telegraph communication, steam locomotives, and the War of Northern Agression.*

Second, "you don't want" guys like Greg building IT cars applying the loosey-goosey interpretations that so many seem to have such fun with. Convince him to come to the Dark Side and you won't know creep until y'all done got creeped, big-time. The post hoc allowance of changes is only going to encourage clever, liberal-thinking, interpretationists, and the cat seems utterly out of that bag at this point.

It's ironic that most IT guys/gals will tell you, without recognizing the irony, that Production is out of control. This, even as most of them seem all too willing to tear - well, creep - along in exactly the same direction with their category. At this point, I have little choice but to concede that this dynamic is an inevitable function of our culture and that the only solution is to ride a category along as it evolves, until it turns into something one no longer wants to do. It's now 2006:

** The small GT classes are on life support
** Production is where the GT (Sedan) was in 1980
** IT is where Production was in 1975
** Touring is where IT was in 1985

The constipation that plagued the IT rules for a couple of decades has been cured but a couple of codified creeps in the last FasTrack have convinced me that, along with relief from our discomfort, we can't avoid a big, smelly pile of poop.

I'm officially old. I'm losing enthusiasm for fighting to keep people from helping to make a mistake that they collectively just have to make. You all think I'm a crotchety old bahstahd for suggesting that a spot weld holding a spherical bearing in an A arm spells doom for the category. You don't get it, you won't get it, I can't help you get it, and sadly - ONCE YOU DO GET IT - it will be too late. If you stay in this category long enough, each of you will reach a tipping point where all of a sudden, you don't recognize the cars you are racing against.

You will want to become a rules NERD, and you may. Because I'm turning in my card.

K

* I've been in North Carolina for a while now

[Bill Miller]

Wow Kirk, that was a bit of a shock. Although, I can't say as I blame you. But, to me, it's a sad day when you admit that this has worn you down to a point where you don't want to fight for it anymore. I have to agree w/ you though, the tack weld thing really shocked the crap out of me. I think IT is now firmly entrenched in the rules creep process.

It's kind of like skiing (slippery slope reference). When you first start out from the top of the hill, you're not going that fast, and you actually have the option of stopping and making your way back up to the top of the hill. However, once you've gone not all that far down the hill, you will pick up speed, and be pretty much committed to going to the bottom of the hill (although you could get back to the top through an aduous (sp?) climb that will probably wear you out to the point that you don't have the energy to do anything but find the easiest way down, and call it a day.

When looked at in a somewhat macro way, the guys in Production are much closer to the bottom of the hill, in so much as there's not a whole lot left to do to the cars. You've got specs on brake size, wheel size, engine size, and weight. Everything else is pretty much open. Limited-prep was supposed to stop that kind of hemoraging (sp?), but it has been sufficiently corrupted at this point, that it's only a matter of time (and probably not all that long of one at that) before the distinction between limited-prep and full-prep is completely lost. The precedent has already been set for a full-prep car w/ only a limited-prep lump. The requests are already in for more of the same, with different cars (note: it remains to be seen if it will be extended to all cars, or only used as a tool to preserve 40+ y/o british car's positions at the top of the heap).

For those of you that don't see the similarities between the preferential treatment that the E36 got, initially w/ the FPR, and subsequently w/ the SIR, to what's happened in Prod to maintain those 40+ y/o british cars at the top of the food chain, Kirk's right, you won't "get it" until it's too late. As an extension to Kirk's earlier comment about rules enforcement and cheating, I'll add that inconsistent and subjective application of our rules not only facilitates and enables rules creep, it actually encourages it.

It's well and truly a shame, that such quantum steeps to correct some of the past problems w/ IT have to be associated w/ things that really don't bode well for the future of the cateegory, as it's defined by today's PP&I.

[Marcus Miller]

I hear performance touring is the in thing.


marcus :P

[racer14itc]

Kirk,

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

There are three type of people in the world: the ones that make things happen, the ones that watch things happen and the rest who wonder WHAT happened. The GTL guys (the 5 of them that are left) are standing around wondering what the hell happened to their class. The answer: they got exactly what they wanted. Over the years, the rules were opened up more and more, liberalized in the name of "cheaper/better/easier to enforce" racing. And now the ones that are left are stuck with very expensive paper weights that they cannot give away.

Production is also in this predicament, although to a lesser extent. There is at least a faction of the group who are royal pains in the ass when it comes to holding/drawing the lines in the sand but the inevitable pressure from those folks, usually newer prod members who KNOW BETTER than the old guard, is moving the limited preparation rules right down the same path of destruction that caused the creation of the limited preparation rules in the first place. We'll see what happens there.

Even the Spec Miata crowd isn't immune to this. With air intakes of the week, $1,100 clutches, $7,000 pro-built motors, etc., the cost of a nationally competitive SM is now well north of $30K.

Kirk, if you ever want to come over to the dark side of Prod, I will be the first to recruit you back into the Knights of the Rules table. We'll lift our silver goblets of grog and toast the King of the Rules Nerds.

MC

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, I too am sorry to hear Kirk's thoughts. I have spoken with him (and Bill Miller and Greg A.) on the phone and respect his historical perspective as well as the analytical nature of his positions. I know that this won't make ANYONE happy but I think my stances bridge the two camps.

I really try and read the literal word. THAT is where the grey-area-operators work. While I don't build in the grey, some do, and rules need to be examined with that in mind. I try and support rules that support the written and the intent.

Let's take the two latest issues:

I was against SB's and .040 pistons for everyone because I didn't feel the written rule allowed them. 2 distinct sides gave their opinions and there was no consensus. Same dynamic happened on the ITAC con-call when these issues were on the agenda. What did we do? We looked to the CRB for INTENT, then committed to write the rules so that we turned grey into black and white.

The SB's do exhibit some creep IMHO in that an allowance was added that wasn't there to begin with (tack-welding). I explained why this was allowed in the SB thread. IF you are going to specifically allow something, it doesn't make much sense to make it unnecessarily cost-prohibitive (maybe ECU's will follow or get cut at the knees).

The current ITAC is very aware of creep. It would seem we allow it where it makes sense and we feverishly protect against it when there is no benefit. If the CRB had come back to us and told us that SB's were never intended to be used as bushings, we would have written language that specifically prohibited them. Same with the .040 deal. Times change, and we have to go with the flow WHILE AT THE SAME TIME knowing our history and staying grounded. Lots of things have been done in the past they we don't agree with, and the same will be said for what we have done by future groups. We can only hope to do our best.

I really think that IT has never been a better place to race.

Maybe a new thread on what rules are still grey or open or just plain suck...and we can work on them in 06 for 07. Having said that, don't ask for something to be clarified/closed up unless you are prepared for it to go against your current thought process...

AB

[lateapex911]

I agree with Andy...I am in both camps.

THe SB thing though is troubling to me because it is considered "creep"...

First, lets establish that the rule represents no change in performance than when it was originally written. Why??? Because it was possible, even using a very restrictive "material" only definition of the rule, to create the type of suspension control that equals SBs. I hunk of Delrin, a lathe, and some creativity can yeild some offset, ball in sleeve bushings that are effective at both controlling the suspension, and emptying your pocket.

So the performance, the and the action are readliy available using the "old" definition, even being a strict "materialist". How do I know? Look around. Heck, look at my car, and I'll show you Delrin. (Not offset though)

So the allowance of SBs, which BTW the CRB has considered perfectly legal from day 1, doesn't represent a bit of creep.

There are those that say, "Sure, but most guys can't cut their own Delrin bushings"...and I agree. But a few could and did. And trust me, it wasn't the isolated and extreme example...they, or their equivilents, (Not including SBs) are fairly common. Others might say, "But now that SBs are allowed [sic], EVERYONE has to have them"....moot point I say...only those who think they are important...just as before!

Now personally, I liked the "no alteration" rule, and kind of dug the challenge of fitting things without altering....but, again, that means that the guys who are brighter engineers, guys who have lathes, or the money to pay for the work can acheive things that others can't.

So, in the big picture, the "new rule" brings the available performance, which has always been there, down to a simpler, easier to use level, and really closes the gap for the "Haves" and the "Have nots".

It's possible to ague that making an allowable mod easier for the masses IS what IT is all about.

[Knestis]

Don't get me wrong, guys - this isn't just about the spherical bearing question and it SURE isn't just about the ITAC. It's the whole way that the winds look like they are blowing, at least to the degree that this site is a barometer. (Sorry - mixed metaphor there.)

K

[Doc Bro]

So, in the big picture, the "new rule" brings the available performance, which has always been there, down to a simpler, easier to use level, and really closes the gap for the "Haves" and the "Have nots".

It's possible to ague that making an allowable mod easier for the masses IS what IT is all about.
[/b]

Jake,

With all do respect....HUH????

How does this close the gap???? I TOTALLY DISAGREE. What closes the gap is the dissallowance of SB's. That would make the "haves" equal to the "have nots" not the other way around.

SO you take a guy with delrin or stock rubber (the Horror) and you sort of "force" him into SB's. In an unspoken sense.

If IT is not "entry level" then please tell me what class is? Certainly NOT SS where every part must come from the ""stealer. It looks like F500 to me?!?!?!

I said it in my other post- this is seagull management....Fly in, sh!t all over everything, and fly out. Someone else will be forced to clean it up....just like you guys had to with the new classing process.

Let's just see how this get's twisted in the future. While I agree clarity of the rules is important, evolving the classes in a way that benefits few and hurts more is not the right direction. An open definition of a tack welding is bad for IT (or GT or Prod for that matter).

I'm with my buddy Greg Amy let's just leave the rules alone!!!

R

(SB's, "tack welds", MOTEC, and we argue over our washer bottles and signal stalks!!!!!!!! This makes little if any sense to me)

[lateapex911]

Jake,

....How does this close the gap???? I TOTALLY DISAGREE. What closes the gap is the dissallowance of SB's. That would make the "haves" equal to the "have nots" not the other way around.

SO you take a guy with delrin or stock rubber (the Horror) and you sort of "force" him into SB's. In an unspoken sense......

[/b]

Rob, I think that sometimes the "common" definition, or the "popular conception" gets confused with what is really happening out there.

(And this ignores the CRBs contention that SBs were fine from the 'git go&#39

Delrin or urethane bushings can be purchased for a lot of cars off the shelf. But not all. They fit in a conventional way. And they work...sort of. They can be a massive pain to install, and they can highlight minor misalignments. And they will wear and squeak and get loose if everything isn't perfect. (Urethane more than Delrin). That's the "entry level" bushing, so to speak.

But that's not what is actually being run! There are setups that are multi peice affairs that replicate the function of a SB. The resulting suspension control is extremely similar to what a SB set up will yield, but the expense and hassle is much higher. But if it's possible, someone will do it, and then another.... and so on.

So, the level of performance already exists.

By clarifying the legality of SBs, and allowing a simple installation, it eliminates the need to get all crazy with cassettes, heated/cooled never to come apart again istallations and so on. I agree that the lack of a "tack weld" guideline or definition makes me uneasy. On one hand, common sense would be nice, but on the other, we need to define the "line".

It doesn't "force" anyone to do anything. But it makes it easier for the guys who wanted to get set up, but couldn't because of the exorbinant expense, or the required engineering, or hassle or all three.

In short, even with out using SBs, the performance levels were already there. By opening the rule, it makes it easier for more people to acheive them. But they don't have to, just as before.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,

I am ging to disagree with you because the premise of your position is based on SB's NOT being legal now. I am betting 75% + of the members think that they are. A check with the CRB and BINGO - they were meant to be legal. This just clarifies a rule already in place.

It allows those who have them to be 100% sure and it allows those who want them a very economical way to go that route should they choose too. Looking at the SB thread, who had NOT done it because they thought it illegal? Seemingly just Greg.

AB

[Doc Bro]

Seemingly just Greg.

AB
[/quote]



Poor Greg!!!!!

GA I'm still your friend!!

I respect both of you guys very much (Jake and A.

My stance is that IT can or should be compared to a bell curve. Don't worry about the bottom and don't cater to the top. I still don't agree with SB's at this level of my knowledge and I certainly don't believe in MOTEC for IT. I understand and respect the points raised but I hold my original contention.....where is or what is the entry level SCCA class?? I THOUGHT it was IT.... am I wrong??? Is there NO entry level class??? Are we all that successful (or just snooty)??? Please let's not forget the children!!


I believe the children are the future....teach them well and let them lead the way............... (that sounds sooo familiar)

R

[lateapex911]

Your question gets philosophical, but needs definition..

What is "entry"????

Is it just cheap and easy?

Is it super simple?

Is it the least expensive, but has a chance to win?

Is it safe? Or is it open wheel?

I think that IT has levels..and the lower levels ARE great entry levels. Remember, a built C or B car can be had for less than the sorted stuff you need to get the car to the track!

Back in the day (LOL) the racing society had no problem with driving your car to the track. Wives grumbled a bit, but went along. But now, look around...club racing paddocks are full of motorhomes! BIG ones too! Lots of people have big rigs and long enclosed trailers. As a nation, we have become more demanding and more expectant. Air bags and DVD players in our cars. We used to toss the kids in the back of the Corvette and think nothing of it!

Where am I going with this? Well, so many racers think nothing of getting the best. What was unthinkable in '84 is common now. The result is that is makes it harder to just jump in and expect to be in the hunt. Not just in IT, but any class.

But, even with all that, you can buy well built, fast, examples of ITC and ITB cars for less than the rig and the trailer, and if you forgo the luxury of those, it's as "entry" (and winning capable) as it gets.


Re: Motec, etc, times change and things have to looked at pragmatically. Sometimes we need to do things nobody wants to do...trust me, the entire ECU thing didn't hlep MY competiveness, and if I was thinking only of myself, they'd go away in a heartbeat. But i know thats not the right answer. What IS the right answer?

Can we prohibit spending? (Thats what the Motec complaint is, right? Spending time and money...
Is it more pragmatic to just admit that we can make thes changes very hard, but that just means that those who CAN, Will.....
Or do we open it up so that the masses have a chance too? Does that make it less "entry level"

Look atthe grid at Lime Rock Rob.....the front of ITA...how many "budget efforts" are there even 12 cars back??? It's not just "catering to the top", when the front half of the field is running the same gear.

Listen, I agree with your angle...I was a guy who drove to the track my first season, and didn't drive home three times, LOL. But at the same time, pragmatic approaches are needed.

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm afraid that the tide of opinion has well and truly turned in the last few weeks. We conservative rules literalists - Rules NERDs - are pretty much extinct. Our propositions seem no longer valid in the current context - that (1) the framers of the IT rules would have expressly included allowances had they wanted them included (typically inaccurately invoked in arguments as "intent"), that (2), the letter of the rule trumps interpretation of the rule, and (3) that changes in technology or other influences should be allowed to influence the rules, their interpretation, and enforcement thereof only grudgingly.

These realizations have been growing out of a couple of things that my equally endangered Neanderthal NERD buddy Greg A. hinted at recently, that were bouncing around in my head yesterday as we got the shop ready for the shell to come back from the painter:

First, the emerging T3/T4 cars represent the "New IT." Yeah, the lifespan rule makes initial purchases more expensive and we all have some idea of what it takes to build (or cheat up) a "stock" drivetrain but philosophically, the idea of bolting some suspension pieces on a car is where IT started, even if most current drivers can conceive of that only in abstract terms typically reserved for telegraph communication, steam locomotives, and the War of Northern Agression.*

Second, "you don't want" guys like Greg building IT cars applying the loosey-goosey interpretations that so many seem to have such fun with. Convince him to come to the Dark Side and you won't know creep until y'all done got creeped, big-time. The post hoc allowance of changes is only going to encourage clever, liberal-thinking, interpretationists, and the cat seems utterly out of that bag at this point.

It's ironic that most IT guys/gals will tell you, without recognizing the irony, that Production is out of control. This, even as most of them seem all too willing to tear - well, creep - along in exactly the same direction with their category. At this point, I have little choice but to concede that this dynamic is an inevitable function of our culture and that the only solution is to ride a category along as it evolves, until it turns into something one no longer wants to do. It's now 2006:

** The small GT classes are on life support
** Production is where the GT (Sedan) was in 1980
** IT is where Production was in 1975
** Touring is where IT was in 1985

The constipation that plagued the IT rules for a couple of decades has been cured but a couple of codified creeps in the last FasTrack have convinced me that, along with relief from our discomfort, we can't avoid a big, smelly pile of poop.

I'm officially old. I'm losing enthusiasm for fighting to keep people from helping to make a mistake that they collectively just have to make. You all think I'm a crotchety old bahstahd for suggesting that a spot weld holding a spherical bearing in an A arm spells doom for the category. You don't get it, you won't get it, I can't help you get it, and sadly - ONCE YOU DO GET IT - it will be too late. If you stay in this category long enough, each of you will reach a tipping point where all of a sudden, you don't recognize the cars you are racing against.

You will want to become a rules NERD, and you may. Because I'm turning in my card.

K

* I've been in North Carolina for a while now
[/b]

Kurt,

I find it sad that you're giving up on IT at point sad

There's still lots of differences between IT and Prod even with these current events, what some would call rules creep. Cam's, Open flywheels/multiplate clutches, alternate transmissions, completely gutted bodies, and the elimination of VIN #'s are but a few diffences that I noted on a quick tour of the Prod rules. These factors make a Production racer much more development intensive to make, and contribute to the fact that 45 year old car is competitive national champ.

Secondly, unless IT specified what springs/dampers could be run at some time in the past, Touring and IT have their diffences too. I realize that IT used to require the stock interiors, but specifyed trunk kits are more like spec miata.

Finally, IT will have to change to adapt to and over come new technology designed to save the lowest common denominator from their own stupidity or the environment. Active door lock, anti-lock brakes linked with stablity control, throttle by wire, eventually even throttle with out a throttle body, but by cam timing, these are major changes in what's required to prep for a race car. What about hybrid drive systems? How would one of these be fixed into a race car? Hang in there Kurt, IT is a great class to start racing in, lots of choices, it gives each a chance to express our individuality in what race car we choose.

Rob,

I am ging to disagree with you because the premise of your position is based on SB's NOT being legal now. I am betting 75% + of the members think that they are. A check with the CRB and BINGO - they were meant to be legal. This just clarifies a rule already in place.

It allows those who have them to be 100% sure and it allows those who want them a very economical way to go that route should they choose too. Looking at the SB thread, who had NOT done it because they thought it illegal? Seemingly just Greg.

AB
[/b]

I always thought hardend steel and greese were "materials" too, but that was IMHO untill it was clarified.

James

[Z3_GoCar]

Seemingly just Greg.

AB
Poor Greg!!!!!

GA I'm still your friend!!

I respect both of you guys very much (Jake and A.

My stance is that IT can or should be compared to a bell curve. Don't worry about the bottom and don't cater to the top. I still don't agree with SB's at this level of my knowledge and I certainly don't believe in MOTEC for IT. I understand and respect the points raised but I hold my original contention.....where is or what is the entry level SCCA class?? I THOUGHT it was IT.... am I wrong??? Is there NO entry level class??? Are we all that successful (or just snooty)??? Please let's not forget the children!!
I believe the children are the future....teach them well and let them lead the way............... (that sounds sooo familiar)

R
[/b]

Rob,

Had any luck finding something other than the Dinan? The Z3 practically cries out for some sort of open ecu rule, actually most OBD II cars need somthing to break the control strangle hold imposed by EPA/CARB. BTW, I've found an aftermarket source for exhaust headers for the Z3, although on examining our stock header any gain would be minimal compaired to removing the cat and replacing with an expansion chaimber.

I'll see your Houston and raise you a Nuggent

I got you in a strangle hold baby, now get out-a tha way..... :^)

James

[JLawton]

I tend to stay out of the "what's legal, what's not" arguments. Usually good arguments on both sides. What really bothers me lately are the personal attacks. It seems to be happening more and more over the last couple of months. This site, more than all the others had good discussions without giving the low blows!! (where's the "kickem' in the crotch" smilie??) People are taking this way to serious. I know I'm not going to running any races this year, I'm just going out to have some fun........

[bldn10]

"I am ging to disagree with you because the premise of your position is based on SB's NOT being legal now. I am betting 75% + of the members think that they are. A check with the CRB and BINGO - they were meant to be legal. This just clarifies a rule already in place."

Andy, I don't often disagree w/ you but I have to here (even though I think you are mainly being defensive of the action taken because your opinion previously was that they were not legal). Most of the people I've spoken to (in other classes as well) have been utterly dumbfounded to hear that someone in Topeka opined that a SB was a "sleeve or tubular insert" and constituted nothing more than a change in bushing material. I think you have it backwards - only those guys who absolutely needed SBs to make their suspensions work (the 240SXs e.g.) and the ever clever ones who are always pushing the envelope, and a few others, thought they were legal.

Who the hell is the CRB? How many on the current Board were on it when these rules were put into place? If they were not then they have no more competency or authority to say what the original intent was than any of us here. If they were then they are the worst rules-drafters the world has ever seen. We've discussed this before, intent is determined by the language of the rules, and the language of these rules is clearly that all that was intended was a change in bushing material - not design. Since then the tide changed and it was decided that we wanted SBs to be legal. Although I disagree w/ that, I accept it if it is what the IT community wanted. But I think the way it was done was poor - why can't we just simply say that, whether SBs were legal before or not, we are now making them legal for sure, rather than perpetuating if not sanctioning bullshit interpretations of the rules by implying they were legal all along? You asked in another post why such interpretations exist and suggested it may be a lack of protests. It is not a lack of protests - it is the lack of balls in Topeka to reject BS interpretations. When the SCCA itself engages in them - through staff, stewards, and COAs - it is a signal to all that that is the way the rules are going to be interpreted. So, as long as you can come up w/ any argument at all, no matter how specious it may be, you have a shot and you have a defense to serious penalties.

"Looking at the SB thread, who had NOT done it because they thought it illegal? Seemingly just Greg."

So, Andy, you and Nick had the Flatout EP-only SBs on your cars?

I had not done it because I didn't know I needed it but I would not have anyway because I thought it was illegal and I try to avoid being hypocritical when I can. I guess I'll have to get them if all the other RX-7s do. Great.

[cherokee]

I agree that the rules are changing and they are pushing the cars in the direction that Prod was years back, but as long as we keep the engines the way they are, don’t start moving susp. Points I think we will come out ok. The trouble with the small GT class is the same problem with ITC the world is moving away from small low HP cars. I also think that the new touring classes are closer to SS then to IT, and there should be IT classes that when a touring car gets too old it can move to, if you run with ITE you run with some super fast cars already. SB’s ECU’s and the like I don’t have that big of a problem with (did I just say that). As long as we stay away from what I would call core Prod things (dry sumps, fiberglass, nutty engines, susp. Moving around, you get the idea) I think that IT will still be the best place to play.

Don’t give up your nerd hat just yet, you will be needed when someone wants to change cams when the stocker is NLA. I just don’t see the sky falling it is just a new day.

[Bill Miller]

"I am ging to disagree with you because the premise of your position is based on SB's NOT being legal now. I am betting 75% + of the members think that they are. A check with the CRB and BINGO - they were meant to be legal. This just clarifies a rule already in place."

Andy, I don't often disagree w/ you but I have to here (even though I think you are mainly being defensive of the action taken because your opinion previously was that they were not legal). Most of the people I've spoken to (in other classes as well) have been utterly dumbfounded to hear that someone in Topeka opined that a SB was a "sleeve or tubular insert" and constituted nothing more than a change in bushing material. I think you have it backwards - only those guys who absolutely needed SBs to make their suspensions work (the 240SXs e.g.) and the ever clever ones who are always pushing the envelope, and a few others, thought they were legal.

Who the hell is the CRB? How many on the current Board were on it when these rules were put into place? If they were not then they have no more competency or authority to say what the original intent was than any of us here. If they were then they are the worst rules-drafters the world has ever seen. We've discussed this before, intent is determined by the language of the rules, and the language of these rules is clearly that all that was intended was a change in bushing material - not design. Since then the tide changed and it was decided that we wanted SBs to be legal. Although I disagree w/ that, I accept it if it is what the IT community wanted. But I think the way it was done was poor - why can't we just simply say that, whether SBs were legal before or not, we are now making them legal for sure, rather than perpetuating if not sanctioning bullshit interpretations of the rules by implying they were legal all along? You asked in another post why such interpretations exist and suggested it may be a lack of protests. It is not a lack of protests - it is the lack of balls in Topeka to reject BS interpretations. When the SCCA itself engages in them - through staff, stewards, and COAs - it is a signal to all that that is the way the rules are going to be interpreted. So, as long as you can come up w/ any argument at all, no matter how specious it may be, you have a shot and you have a defense to serious penalties.

"Looking at the SB thread, who had NOT done it because they thought it illegal? Seemingly just Greg."

So, Andy, you and Nick had the Flatout EP-only SBs on your cars?

I had not done it because I didn't know I needed it but I would not have anyway because I thought it was illegal and I try to avoid being hypocritical when I can. I guess I'll have to get them if all the other RX-7s do. Great.
[/b]

Well said Bill, and for a textbook example of the section in bold, I'll refer you to the 'functional reverse gear' issue from, IIRC, the '02 Runoffs.

[Knestis]

... Don’t give up your nerd hat just yet, you will be needed when someone wants to change cams when the stocker is NLA. I just don’t see the sky falling it is just a new day.[/b]

That's been tried and - mostly - been beaten back but only because it was a creep ahead of its time. We're now a couple creeps closer to the point that the "next big thing" will be cam allowances, and you're on your own from here on out.

I'm not giving up on IT - just on trying to stem the tide.

K

[turboICE]

I thought SB's were allowed. I thought no modification to implement them wasn't.

I am glad for the clarification. I am surprised at the welding part - though I understand the explanations given.

However, if the explanations were to be universally applied there are a lot of areas that need the same reasoning applied. ECU hardware either need to be opened to the reasonable affordable (if it attaches to the OEM harness only its free) beginner also or hardware changes need to be eliminated from ECU rules completely. (While I have a preference for one, either result would be better than the current rule which is entirely undesirable as it currently exists.) The ECU rule as it currently stands would have suggested the CRB would not have considered the very explanation given for the tack weld rule. Its current standing is at complete odds with the explanation.

It costs a heck of a lot less to properly fit a suspension bushing/bearing/thingamajig without the need for a tack weld, than to put a stand alone system in an OEM box.