Rules NERDs - RIP

[ddewhurst]

***CRB made the SB decision based only on political expedience***

Stephen, I was only refering to the contex on how the SB decision/CRB Fastrack response was generated. Sorry if the post was received another way.

***This shit is supposed to be for fun.***

I agree with ^ therefore I will ask Jarrod (or anyone else with an ITA Miata or Spec Miata) a Spec Miata question. Jarrod, do your roll cage side hoop pass THROGH your Miata instrument panel & if so how close are your roll cage side hoops to the A pillar ? Keep in mind this is a FUN question.

Just so that everone knows why I am asking the question please understand that if anyone has a desire to have the roll cage side hoop path THROUGH the instrument panel be within 1/2 inch of the A pillar there is a bunch of questionalbe altering/modifying one MUST do to items that are to my understanding of the rules not allowed.

[JIgou]

I agree with ^ therefore I will ask Jarrod (or anyone else with an ITA Miata or Spec Miata) a Spec Miata question. Jarrod, do your roll cage side hoop pass THROGH your Miata instrument panel & if so how close are your roll cage side hoops to the A pillar ? Keep in mind this is a FUN question.
[/b]

Nope.

I smell your cookin', though.....



Jarrod

[ddewhurst]

Jarrod, ya have a good nose.

[flaboy]

well i may only race in itc....but i'm in it just fr fun...yes i want to be cpmpettive...but we are all here to just have fun


isn't that why we are all hear!!


ok let the name calling and bad mouthing begin!! i can handle it.

[ddewhurst]

***well i may only race in itc....but i'm in it just fr fun...yes i want to be cpmpettive...but we are all here to just have fun

isn't that why we are all hear!!

ok let the name calling and bad mouthing begin!! i can handle it.***

flaboy, first you need to make a point.

I don't giva a hoot which car or class you race we all race for fun & we all do the site for fun. We may argue a rule point now & then just for grins.

[Greg Amy]

Frustrated by the same sentiments that Kirk describes in post #1, I logged off the IT board about a month ago. After this hiatus, I felt cleansed and invigorated, ready to go racing in 2006. I thought I'd simply ignore the last four months and prep the car to what the rules are supposed to be. Then I log back on this morning to see we're all still pissing back and forth about rules minutiae, still pushing the envelope.

But I've had an epiphany, which is what motivated my logging back on to this board test the winds for emotional guidance. Last night during the Speed broadcast of the F1 Malaysia practice, the commentators (Bob Varsha, David Hobbs, and Steve Matchett) got into a discussion about pushing the rules (primarily about potential wing violations.) Steve, a guy whose technical knowledge and experience I have a lot of respect, put it succinctly (I paraphrase):

"The rules are published for all to read. It is the responsibility of the team to exploit those rules to their fullest extent. If the governing/enforcing body (i.e. Charlie Whiting and company) does not deem those actions against the rules, they are, in fact, legitimate."

So, I have a new perspective on life now. I am reading the IT rulebook in a whole 'nother light. Whereas before I saw limitations with allowances (as per the stated philosophy) I now see allowances with limitations (as per recent rules intepretations and ajudications.) With those blinders off, the opportunities are, well, nearly limitless and I will be 'exploiting those rules to their fullest extent.' The mind boggles at the possibilities once you pick up the rules and re-read them with this new mindset; with the 'enforcing body' being fellow competitors - who have continually demonstrated a loathing for throwing paper - the opportunities ARE truly limitless.

So, welcome to The New Greg (hopefully with better success than The New Coke). You're not going to find me out-and-out cheating, what you will find is a lot of creative interpretations that will twist your titties, cause you to REALLY THINK about what we've done these last five years, and will likely make the ITAC and CRB completely re-write the ITCS (to which we begin anew). I wholly encourage any and all persons to stop by my pit space at any time; anyone is always welcome to look in, on, or under my car, as long as you don't get in the way.

Bring your own copy of the GCR.

Signing off yet again... - GA

[Doc Bro]

See that folks....too much TV is not a bad thing after all!!

Greg,
I look forward to the education.

R

[benspeed]

That's the way to do it, Greg!

Just don't go as far as Chad Knaus - he sorta lost his wits at Daytona and stepped over the line.

[bldn10]

CAUTION: EDITORIAL CONTENT

It goes w/o saying that there are mammoth differences between the situation in F1 and amateur club racing so I wouldn't take too many cues from them. First, F1 is and always has been considered the absolute pinnacle of a cutting edge, technology-driven series, and pushing the envelope is inherent in the series philosophy. Absolutely the opposite in club racing, expecially IT, which has a stated philosophy that is essentially anti-technology - pro-affordability. Those guys are paid for what they do and millions of dollars are at stake. We race for fun, pieces of wood, and bragging rights. F1 has a huge, highly-educated and trained technical staff while SCCA relies mostly on volunteers. It is unfair to the Club in general and stewards, tech officials, staff, COA, et al. to be constantly testing them w/ wacky modifications beased on flimsy rule interpretations. If everyone did that, we'd never get out of Tech. On the other hand, F1 cars are inspected rigorously before competing, while we rely on superficial annual tech inspections, impound inspections, and self-policing via protests. F1 engineers have virtually immediate official feedback on mods they make, so they can take chances and rely on tech inspectors to weed out obviously illegal mods that might result in DQ or big fines. An SCCA competitor can effect a cheat and get away w/ it for an indefinite time simply because it may never be checked. So it is incumbent upon us, and I believe implicit in our rules, that we exercise self-restraint in the interest of a fair playing field and affordable racing. I have no problem w/ taking advantage of loopholes in the rules but many of the interpretations I've seen here have been are patently absurd. If interpretations get too out of hand, and the efficient conduct of events starts to get bogged down thereby, I for one will advocate much harsher penalties for rule violations. In any event I agree we need a rules re-write.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I think Greg's point is that they have already gotten out of hand.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Funny that I appreciate Greg's position and Bill's position equally. Action item for me?

Have protest paperwork on file in my trailer, an eye on everyone assuming they are pushing the rules and a renewed commitment to all my fellow drivers that I will police my patch with a vengence. Some will consider that harsh but the net/net will be that ITA in NER will be known as a place for legal cars to play because at least one guy will be ready to erradicate the cheaters and manipulators. Protests don't cost squat if you are right.

AB

[turboICE]

Welcome to the LIGHT, Greg!

The result of competiveness in interpretation and preparation only means I will get my clock cleaned more as both my driving and preparation ability are tested - but my nature is that only thorough competitiveness is rewarding.

Which would by no means ever extend into any justification for intentionally cheating.

essentially anti-technology - pro-affordability[/b]

Those are incompatible as illustrated by the ECU rules. The position against technology makes it unaffordable. Technology and affordability should not be viewed as mutually exclusive especially once the technology has become a commodity which by definition is affordable on a relative basis.

We race for fun, pieces of wood, and bragging rights.[/b]

Part of the fun is from competing, and preparation is as much part of competition as driving. Isn't the view that no one should expect to win if they don't fully prepare their vehicle? If that isn't the case we should get off the E36 drivers' backs about winning in half prepared cars and let them run as they had been when originally classed. Whether preparing for a pine wood derby or F1, preparation is an optimization under the ruleset. If the membership were not to have the competitive nature to optimize as much as possible under the ruleset would it be as much fun?

Have protest paperwork on file in my trailer, an eye on everyone assuming they are pushing the rules and a renewed commitment to all my fellow drivers that I will police my patch with a vengence. Some will consider that harsh but the net/net will be that ITA in NER will be known as a place for legal cars to play because at least one guy will be ready to erradicate the cheaters and manipulators. Protests don't cost squat if you are right.

AB
[/b]

As it should be and no one should feel negative about it. If they are right, that is vindication enough. If they are wrong, well then they shouldn't harbour anything against anyone else for being so.

[Knestis]

Greg is one of us now. Greg has been assimilated.

... So it is incumbent upon us, and I believe implicit in our rules, that we exercise self-restraint in the interest of a fair playing field and affordable racing. I have no problem w/ taking advantage of loopholes in the rules but many of the interpretations I've seen here have been are patently absurd. ... [/b]

Six weeks ago, I would have agreed with you but I'm happier now, having accepted the dominant paradigm despite having not helped create it. Can't beat 'em, join 'em.

However, I'm leaning toward a different approach than Greg - going back to the strategy we used in the '80s, when we kept everything under wraps. For example, we used to keep a towel on the rear wing of the SuperVee/FAtlantic Ralt and whip it off last thing, as the grid cleared. Y'all will never know if we really have anything to hide, but it's sure a hell of a lot of fun to watch people twitch about things that they imagine rather than see. It's hard to watch both of the magician's hands...



K

[bldn10]

Ed, my anti-technology/pro-affordability premise is not rebutted by the ECU situation because I am confident that it was never contemplated that people would stuff engine management computers into the stock box. True, once that got started, the observation that the rule actually ADDED to cost because it was cheaper to accomplish the same thing outside the box, was validly made. The situation IS antithetical to the pro-affordability but the mistake was inserting the words "or replace" in the ECU rule - not in the underlying philosophy. It is another example of poor implementation of a valid policy. And another example why I think the rules should be drafted by people who are trained and experienced at doing it. The solution there IMO was not to open up the rule even further but retract it as soon as it became obvious what the implication of "or replace" was. The error was compounded by letting it get past the point of no return, and now we are faced w/ a legitimate argument to go way further than was ever dreamed. This is not rules creep - it is [NEW TERM COMING] rules leap!

"I'm leaning toward a different approach than Greg - going back to the strategy we used in the '80s, when we kept everything under wraps."

Conversely, would it help self-police (and perhaps even result in fewer protests) if there was a rule that all cars shall be available for "inspection" by other competitors? I.e. if you want to go by so-and-so's car and crawl underneath, you have the right to do so as long as you don't hinder another driver's prep. Just a thought.

[zracre]

Conversely, would it help self-police (and perhaps even result in fewer protests) if there was a rule that all cars shall be available for "inspection" by other competitors? I.e. if you want to go by so-and-so's car and crawl underneath, you have the right to do so as long as you don't hinder another driver's prep. Just a thought.
[/b]

You can...thats what impound is for! In the SM race in jan at Sebring they brought all of us in and made us open our hoods and doors for other competitors to look at and police. I crawled around many cars just to looksee...next race in impound (whether you made it there or not) snoop around the winners cars and ask questions. I do it just to see what people say! I have seen many a foot stuffed in a mouth from people talking in the post race babble.

[turboICE]

Bill, I agree the ECU rule either needs to be pulled back or pushed forward (I don't care which), its current state of implementation whether originally intended or not, I think is totally undesirable in IT. My guess is that over 90% of the EFI cars actually being fielded in IT currently have plug n play (stock plugs and harness) ECU replacement solutions, either they should be equally available for use or take away the box stuffing.

I just disagree that technology and affordability are incompatible. There is a point where technology reaches a critical point and affordability is best achieved via that technology widely available to the masses.

As another example - the old threaded body coil over restriction, for many years the GC and shop fabricated solutions were much more expensive than the available OTS solutions from multiple competing vendors. GC's recommended application for my car at the beginning of 2004 was north of $3250, the coil overs I went with at the beginning of 2005 was less than $1750 with more adjustability. I am very comfortable that what I am using would not be outperformed by the more expensive route required before 2005. And the affordable technology had been available since at least 2000.

I am not saying any ole technology that comes along should be adopted in IT just because it is there or that wide open fabrication should be allowed, but that technology and affordability are not mutually exclusive.

[lateapex911]

While I agree with Greg....and he's a sharp guy, it's hard not to agree with him in many cases, I do see a distinct difference between amatuer and professional racing.

The philosophy is different, as all pro organizations are policed by impartial tech staff, but amatuer organizations are self policing. If Charlie Whiting doesn't say your double frmaper valve is illegal it becomes legal. (Until he changes his mind, LOL) But in amatuer organizations if the same valve was run, there is no legality gained by it's mere existance. If a year later, a competitor protests it, and it's found illegal, it's out.

When I read a rule, I try to define each word in the rule, first by going to the GCR, then to the greater accepted definitions. I try to simplify the rule and remove the car component. It's easier to think openly if you remove the car specific parts and then analyze the rule. Sometimes the different viewpoint can yeild interesting results.

As long as the mod meets the rules, it's all good...the rules are written and give allowances. We should all find the true limits to those allowances. As the freat IT sage says, "If it says you can, you bloody well can". Good on ya.

But......we all owe to ourselves to put out foot down, and firmly, when we find that 'creative" interpretations are the use of improper pistons, or cams or valve springs or conn rods or whatever.

No whining if you don't do something about it, but by the same token, 'atta boys' are due to the guys who think creatively.....within the written boundries. Push all you want, but don't push through the barrier.

[Knestis]

From the GCR: Anti-Roll Bar (Sway bar) - A torsion control device connected to a car’s structure, and to moving portions of the suspension, which is intended to control body roll. (Some types of ARB may also serve as a suspension component.)

From the ITCS: 1. Any anti-roll bar(s) ... may be added or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose. The mounts for these devices may be welded or bolted to the structure of the vehicle. (Emphasis mine)

Picture the rear torsion beam of a VW Golf as you re-read the above. Whee!

K

[lateapex911]

As the great IT sage says, "If it says you can, you bloody well can". Good on ya.[/b]

Kirk, my thought is only, why hasn't anyone done it (I am assuming that you are refering to a wholesale replacement of the stock anti roll bar/beam that also serves as a suspension component) before?

[Eagle7]

From the GCR: Anti-Roll Bar (Sway bar) - A torsion control device connected to a car’s structure, and to moving portions of the suspension, which is intended to control body roll. (Some types of ARB may also serve as a suspension component.)

From the ITCS: 1. Any anti-roll bar(s) ... may be added or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose. The mounts for these devices may be welded or bolted to the structure of the vehicle. (Emphasis mine)

Picture the rear torsion beam of a VW Golf as you re-read the above. Whee!

K
[/b]