Rules nerds wanted

[Andy Bettencourt]

All I care about is that washer bottle!!!







:P

[Doc Bro]

Wow,

I just plugged through this debate. Veeeeerry interesting and intense.

I learned one thing:

Clinton really did believe he...."didn't have sexual relations with that girl......."

This interpretation thing is CRAZZZZY!!

IMO

R

ps. I'm scared of the new Greg.....

[planet6racing]

Andy,

Don't forget about the ECU and the SIR. Oh, and the rear wiper on an Integra!

[Knestis]

Sorry kids. When you say, "Material may be added or removed...", I can do any damn thing I want - as long as it "facilitates" my installation of my strut plates.

The "old school" Trans Am (not really old, the '70s-80s version) discovered that "lighten and reinforce" extended logically to "lighten completely away and build from scratch." The only thing that kept me from having more fun with this is that I was still a NERD when I sent the new car off for paint.

Did I mention, WHEE?

K

[RacerBill]

I'm still waiting for a definition of what a 'total opening' is... not a total of two openings but 'two total openings'!

Andy: I'll show you my water bottle if you show me your's!!!

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

What is your obsession with how well I know Stu Brumer? What does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Once again (why do I have to keep repeating myself to you?) I mentioned that I know him and raced against him to show that my opinion on the legality of the camber plate install was in no way an attempt to throw him, or his company under the bus. So again, instead of trying to belittle me as to my relationships with car builders in the Southeast, try sticking to the subject at hand. If you are so worried that I "overstated" my relationship with him, get your own facts straight, and get a life. As for the Topeka comment, it is still my opinion that that modification is illegal as the rule is written. How do I know that they haven't seen it, and deemed it legal, how do you know they have? Pure conjecture on both our parts. My feeling is that if they had seen the same pics that we have, there probably would have been a clarification in how the rule is written.
Since this thread has seemed to deteriorate into a discusion of how well I know Stu, and your insistance that I am now "backpedaling", I'm bored and must go to work.
Have fun!
Mark Larson
CFR #164010
[/b]

Mark,

I'm not trying to belittle you at all, but don't get pissed when you shoot your mouth off, and someone calls you on it. And please tell me what facts I need to get straight. You're the one that said that the people in Topeka haven't seen the pictures. I never said they did or they didn't. Since you claimed to be friends (and competitors) w/ one of the well known providers of the items in question, I figured that you had a way to get some of this cleared up. So, I haven't conjectured anything. BTW, for someone that said that this wasn't a personal thing, you sure do like to get personal about it.

Bill (Denton),

We're certainly in agreement that the SCCA does a poor job of writing rules. Do I think this rule is poorly written? You better believe I do. But, given that's what the rule is, like Kirk, Greg, and others have said, it's up to the competitor to squeeze everything out of it they can, while remaining legal.

And how am I being inconsistent w.r.t. travel? The rule says that you can decamber cars by means of sloted plates at the top of the strut tower. To the best of my knowledge, none of the cars eligible for IT come w/ those stock. Therefore, the stock upper travel limit is zero, as you can't make camber adjustments at the top of the strut tower. When you're given the allowance to make adjustments at the top, via camber plates, there is no limit on how much you can adjust them. So, if I want my camber plates to give me -10* of camber, I can remove material from the top of the strut tower to facilitate the installation of a plate that gives me that much travel.

I also agree that you can only remove or add material to the top of the strut tower, and not down the sides.

[JLawton]

I gotta agree with Rob, you guys are taking this waaay to seriously.

So you have different opinions. No need to get testy...............

[bldn10]

I noticed that in my previous post I said "former" when I meant "latter" - I apologize and hope you caught it.

K, I assume you are being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I appreciate the sarcasm, but some people reading this may not realize you aren't really serious. If you are serious, then to those people I implore: pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! You cannot by any stretch of the imagination use Trans Am or any pro series as a precedent or example for interpreting SCCA amateur rules, especially in a class like IT in which limited prep is the stated philosophy. As I clearly stated back then, I think the SB solution was a huge error and a bastardization of our rules, and I do not think it should be used as precedent. Rather, I think it should stand in testimony of what we DO NOT want. The fact that you are taking it and running w/ it is exactly why it was wrong. Let's try to keep the wrongs at a minimum.

Bill (Miller), excuse me if I misunderstood but I thought the reference to "travel" meant vertical travel not horizontal. I.e. raising the pivot point would give you more suspension travel (bump) and, thus, is an illegal function w/ regard to material added or removed solely to facilitate a camber plate. I agree w/ you that there is no express restriction on the amount of decambering. However, staying consistent, and acknowledging the subjective element, I would say that if you created a plate ostensibly to allow 10 deg. of decambering - more than you would ever want to use - and it reinforced the chassis or raised the pivot point, or did something else illegal, I would view the decamber purpose as a subterfuge and conclude that the illegal function outweighs the theoretical legal purpose, and the installation is illegal. Using a previous hypothetical, I suppose you could make a plate that would allow so much caster adjustment that the plate would indeed extend all the way to the firewall. Clearly illegal although no express prohibition of it. Same thing w/ your 10 deg.

So where is the pivot point on that VW?

[Bill Miller]

Bill (Denton),

We're pretty much on the same page. The top pivot point of the strut is about where the top of that hat is. There's a bearing that's part of the upper mount, that is inside that hat.

[Geo]

Bill. there IS a limit to how much material you can add - you can only add enough to be able to properly install a plate.
[/b]

Please quote this from the ITCS.

...the restriction is on the necessity to add or remove in order to facilitate installation of the plate![/b]

Again, please quote this from the ITCS.


I'm a firm believer in "if it doesn't say you can, you can't."

But....

I'm the one who coined the expression "if is says you can, you bloody well can." It's simply a corollary of the first expression (if it doesn't say you can.....).

If it says you can and doesn't place restrictions on how, well, you figure it out.

[Knestis]

...K, I assume you are being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I appreciate the sarcasm, but some people reading this may not realize you aren't really serious. If you are serious, then to those people I implore: pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! You cannot by any stretch of the imagination use Trans Am or any pro series as a precedent or example for interpreting SCCA amateur rules, especially in a class like IT in which limited prep is the stated philosophy. As I clearly stated back then, I think the SB solution was a huge error and a bastardization of our rules, and I do not think it should be used as precedent. Rather, I think it should stand in testimony of what we DO NOT want. The fact that you are taking it and running w/ it is exactly why it was wrong. Let's try to keep the wrongs at a minimum. ...[/b]

I'm not kidding in the least but understand WHAT I am saying.

I'm not suggesting that a wildly liberal interpretation SHOULD be applied. I've spent years (like 20 of them) arguing a pretty strict, conservative view of what is allowed by the ITCS. I'm merely suggesting that this is where the tide seems to be taking us and, having tired myself out trying to fight what seems to be the dominant paradigm, I've quit swimming against it.

The strut tower example parallels almost perfectly the TransAm suspension arm historical precedent. It's not the word of the rules that activates the policies that they represent: it is their interpretation and enforcement. The trend in the last year has been clearly toward pushing the envelope and the examples pictured there are all entirely within the letter of the rule. They are NOT within a conservative interpretation of that rule and are equally not a true pushing of the limits of the letter of the rule.

Seriously. It is not a stretch to picture some really outstanding changes in that area. And others.

K

[bldn10]

"there IS a limit to how much material you can add - you can only add enough to be able to properly install a plate."

"Please quote this from the ITCS."

"...the restriction is on the necessity to add or remove in order to facilitate installation of the plate!"

"Again, please quote this from the ITCS."

George, I'm not going to waste a lot of your and my time on the principles of construction of statutory/ contractual/rule language because it is not something most people give a hoot about. They'd rather just (either superficially or tortuously, whichever is more expedient) read into the language what they want it to mean and that's it. There are plenty of legal treatises on the topic as well as hundreds of reported decisions. As I have already stated, and you evidently ignored or reject, you have to read the rule in its entirety and the interpretation needs to be internally consistent and avoid absurdities or the omission of any language.

17.1.4.D.5.d.1 states that

1. "cars equipped with McPherson strut suspension may decamber wheels by the use of ...
2. slotted adjusting plates at the top mounting point ...
3. located on existing chassis structure
4. and may not serve as a reinforcement for that structure."

So, right there you have the basic principle of the rule: you can install a camber plate but it cannot reinforce the chassis structure. [To the extent that ANY plate installation might provide SOME reinforcement, the rule is not absolute.] It is just common sense that the rule encompasses the plate as installed.

5. "Material may be added or removed from the top of the stut tower TO FACILITATE INSTALLATION of the adjuster plate." (emphasis added)

Thus, the sole legal purpose of adding or removing material is to facilitate installation of the plate. If you can properly and easily install the plate w/o any addition or removal, you can't add or remove any. Do you at least agree so far? The corollary to that is that you can only add or remove so much as is necessary to facilitate installation of the plate. Anything more is not done "to facilitate installation of the adjuster plate" - it is done for some other reason. As an example, you can modify (remove material) from the dash board "to provide for roll cage installation," so, if you have to notch it out a bit for the front down tubes, does that mean that the amount of modification you can then make is unlimited? Of course not. I think that answers both your questions.

I suppose you interpret the rule as follows: "You can install a camber plate and if you can do so w/o adding or removing any material, the plate may not serve as chassis reinforcement. However, if you have a plate that arguably requires that some material be added or removed, the amount of material added or removed is unrestricted and material may be added for the purpose of chassis reinforcement." Does that make sense to anyone? Is that a reasonable interpretation of the Rule? Is it not diametrically opposed to the clear intent of the Rule? It is w/o doubt an absurdity.

I hate to break this news but you simply cannot interpret a rule by picking it apart line by line, word by word, and applying a strictly literal construction. Life would be much simpler for all of us but it just ain't that way. If you think the GCR or the IRS Code is too long now, think of what it would be if every sentence or phrase had to contain every restriction or limitation contained in every other sentence or phrase.

"I'm a firm believer in "if it doesn't say you can, you can't. But.... I'm the one who coined the expression 'if is says you can, you bloody well can.' It's simply a corollary of the first expression (if it doesn't say you can.....)."

George, the construction you put on this Rule IS NOT an application of your corollary! What you are really saying is "if it doesn't say you can't, you can." The Rule in question only says that you can add or remove material to facilitate installation of the plate. It does NOT say that you can do it to reinforce the chassis or for any other reason. But you are saying that, because it does not expressly state that you cannot add or remove to reinforce, you can. I have figured it out - based on 3 years of study and 16 years of practice. How 'bout you? My construction is the way a court of law would look at it and I hope the SCCA COA would look at it the same way.

[Bill Miller]

5. "Material may be added or removed from the top of the stut tower TO FACILITATE INSTALLATION of the adjuster plate." (emphasis added)

Thus, the sole legal purpose of adding or removing material is to facilitate installation of the plate. If you can properly and easily install the plate w/o any addition or removal, you can't add or remove any. [/b]

Sorry Bill, but that's not what the rule says.

From Webster's

Facilitate (v) To make easier.

There's nothing in the rule that says you can only remove or add material if you have to. It says you can do it to make the installation easier. That leaves it up to a pretty subjective interpretation.

[Knestis]

I'd like to add, for Bill D. - I am totally sympathetic to your position. I've spent a lot of time and burned up a bunch of bandwidth making what I thought were well-considered arguments, that moved forward from the same propositions as yours. For what it might be worth.

K

[CDS]

Sorry Bill, but that's not what the rule says.

From Webster's

Facilitate (v) To make easier.

There's nothing in the rule that says you can only remove or add material if you have to. It says you can do it to make the installation easier. That leaves it up to a pretty subjective interpretation.
[/b]

I mainly just lurk here, but I feel compelled to weigh in on this. Surely you are not serious with this interpretation. If you are, then I submit it would make it easier for my camber plate installation to remove every bit of material attached to the top of my strut tower and replace it with a BMW 325. Your interpretation gives the phrase "to facilitate installation of the adjuster plate" no meaning, and you could just end the sentence with "material may be added or removed from the top of the strut tower." However, as Bill D. pointed out, a basic legal principle of statutory or contract interpretation is to give meaning to all words. Therefore you have to read the "facilitation" phrase as a limitation on the ability to add or remove material. If not, then what do these words mean and why were they made a part of the rule?

[gprodracer]

CDS,

Sadly, that is the type of interpretation that seems to be going on. As you have read, this has been going on
for days. My disconnect for this would be: for all the people arguing the "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" or the "if it says you can, then you can" positions... It doesn't say you can..anywhere in the rule, so in my opinion, you can't.. period. For the "if it says you can" crowd...it doesn't say you can either..period. Either that, or I'm replcing my Nissan strut tower with an Audi LMP...
Sitting back now to watch the replies fly!
Mark

[Geo]

George, the construction you put on this Rule IS NOT an application of your corollary! What you are really saying is "if it doesn't say you can't, you can." The Rule in question only says that you can add or remove material to facilitate installation of the plate. It does NOT say that you can do it to reinforce the chassis or for any other reason. But you are saying that, because it does not expressly state that you cannot add or remove to reinforce, you can. I have figured it out - based on 3 years of study and 16 years of practice. How 'bout you? My construction is the way a court of law would look at it and I hope the SCCA COA would look at it the same way.
[/b]

We'll have to disagree. And quite frankly, I'm glad I don't have to bring a lawyer to go racing. Sorry.

The book says I can. I can.

I don't see how the camber plate in question reinforces anything or performs any otherwise illegal function.

[Bill Miller]

Craig and Mark,

That's where the whole "strained and tortured interpretation" clause comes in.

[Knestis]

...but until the limit is defined by enforcement through the protest/appeal process, there is no limit. Nothing is strained until the COA says it's strained but it rarely even gets to the point where they are put on the spot to answer the question.

K

[bldn10]

"I don't see how the camber plate in question reinforces anything or performs any otherwise illegal function."

Well George, I think everyone here except you thinks that it DOES reinforce the strut tower - the issue is whether it does it illegally. However, if you will review one of my previous posts I said that if the stock pivot point is at the top of the "hat," and Bill (Miller) says that it is (and I, unlike you, defer to others in their areas of expertise), then building a support for the plate at the top is legal because you are entitled (if not required) to maintain the stock attachment point. They may have gone beyond what was absolutely necessary but, just looking at the photos, I cannot say that for sure.

K, re the COA, the problem is that COA opinions are NOT precedential - so, strictly speaking, even a decision in a particular appeal would not definitively resolve the question. Frankly, I think this Rule is not badly written and I have no problem at all reaching the interpretation I have. I don't think it needs clarification - I just think we need for people to stop w/ all this pseudo-clever, devil's-advocate, spurious interpretation and seek the intent of any rule in the context of the IT philosophy. The former is a fun intellectual endeavor but it should not be confused w/ REAL rules construction. Some of you seem to think that if you can come up w/ ANY argument based on the language of the rule, that means that the rule is unclear and cannot be used against you. That is B.S. There are people sitting in jail cells today who tried to educate judges w/ clever, facially logical arguments why no one HAS to pay federal income taxes.