Rules nerds wanted

[ryotko]

The bottom line for me as the rule is written, is that you are only allowed to remove enough material as to "facillitate the installation of the camber plates.. conversely, you are only allowed to "add" material to fascillitate the installation also, (IE add a tab so the bolt holes line up). The example shown was way beyond how the rule is written in its present form.
[/b]

Take a look at the images below. The first is of a non nodified (other than being cut out of the car) VW A2 strut tower. The second is a tower that has had material removed to facillitate installation of a camber plate. The picture in the auction listing looks to be that material was added to put the plate at the same level as the upper most part of the stock tower. How is this illegal? Forget about opinions for a minute and take a look at all 3 images.

Stock strut tower...


Modifird tower...


I do think it kind of sucks that a car that's at auction is being dragged though the mud.

-Bob

[Bill Miller]

Boy, do some people get testy when another OPINION gets voiced!
Bill Miller, I have no clue who you are either, but your "walk thru the paddock so you can find cars to protest" quote is priceless! When you don't have a logical, intelligent argument to present, lets try to attack the others with (lame) attempts to make him look bad. I personally used to love it when people protested me, so I could prove them wrong (you could ask Fowler from OPM, or Stu from BSI about those days.. hell, back then people from Denver would come and do random checks on the top four in each class..Funny how about 60% of us ALWAYS passed thru the teardowns, while many an illegal part went home to Denver). So, to respond to your comment about several cars with the same plate set up, please see my comment about "just because everyone else is doing it, does not make it legal!!" So yes, I would spend my $25 to see what Topeka has to say about it. We can all take words out of context to try to prove our point.
Jake, my apologies for calling you an "official". I just knew that there was more going on than I was aware of, and didn't want this discussion, to get personal. The bottom line for me as the rule is written, is that you are only allowed to remove enough material as to "facillitate the installation of the camber plates.. conversely, you are only allowed to "add" material to fascillitate the installation also, (IE add a tab so the bolt holes line up). The example shown was way beyond how the rule is written in its present form.
I've made my last points, but I'll monitor this thread for the humor and sarcasm factors.
Again there are more personal issues going on here that I know (or care to know about) , so I don't want to get dragged into.
I haven't taken any of this personally, just stated my opinion, but if you want to make it personal, feel free to PM me.. I'm not hard to find.
Evan, how was Sebring last weekend..Good turnout??

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010
[/b]

Who's getting testy Mark? You state that what you view as 'creative interpretation' is giving IT a bad rep. You further go on to say that you'd protest the car in question (but only if it beat you), and are sure that it would get tossed. I simply suggested that if you were so anxious to stop 'creative interpretation' from giving IT a bad rap, and were willing to protest someone, that you'd get plenty of opportunity to do it, from a simple stroll through the paddock. I don't see how I'm attacking you, or trying to make you look bad. I just suggested that if you're that passionate about it, and it appears that you are from your statement, that there will be lots of opportunity to try and validate your position. I really fail to see how that's trying to make you look bad. However, if you're so concerned about how 'creative interpretation' gives IT a bad rep., why wouldn't you protest an illegal car, regardless of where it finished, relative to your position? Being illegal only matters if they finish ahead of you? BTW, $25 doesn't get you a Topeka ruling, either $250 does, or going through the whole protest/appeal process does.

Bob,

Thanks for posting those images, I hope it clears things up for a lot of people in this thread.

David,

I could care less who's plates those are, BSI's or anybody else's. I am not making a case for their legaility because they're Stu's plates, I'm making a case for their legality because I believe the design to be w/in the limits of the rules. And Andy's right, you weld it to the fire wall, and you've refinforced the chassis.

[gprodracer]

Bob,UHHH, again, you're joking right??

If the new camber plate was bolted directly to the top of the strut tower, I could see (partially) your point of view. Since I looked at the photos again,please do the same and explain to me how the top of the camber plate is now even with the top of the fender.. Is the plate 2" thick?, or did they add extra (read: unecessary) material that is entirely structural reinforcement for the strut tower? The word "facillitate" means to make easier, not re-design, and entirely rebuild. I know that I am slightly "old school" but the original intent of IT was to slightly modify street cars to make them safer, and yet more "racy" than SS classes. They used to have to be street legal as well.
Back to all my original point, you might want to look at the photo of the car in question with the view from under the strut.. it shows that the entire top of the strut tower has been removed, unlike your photo that shows the correct amount of material that should have been removed to legally install a camber plate. If they wanted to keep the same height of the crown of the strut mounting point, I would think that a plate about 1" in diameter would have been sufficient, not 4" larger all the way around.
As for "leaving opinions out". The original post asked for them.
BTW, No one is dragging the car thru the mud, the post had questions about it's legality, the rest of us just answered the questions. The builders are friends, and fellow competitors of mine, and I have never had any issues with them in the 14 years I have competed with them. This isn't that complicated, this is a chat board of opinions. Sorry to have ruffled any feathers!

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010

[Bill Miller]

Bob,UHHH, again, you're joking right??

If the new camber plate was bolted directly to the top of the strut tower, I could see (partially) your point of view. Since I looked at the photos again,please do the same and explain to me how the top of the camber plate is now even with the top of the fender.. Is the plate 2" thick?, or did they add extra (read: unecessary) material that is entirely structural reinforcement for the strut tower? The word "facillitate" means to make easier, not re-design, and entirely rebuild. I know that I am slightly "old school" but the original intent of IT was to slightly modify street cars to make them safer, and yet more "racy" than SS classes. They used to have to be street legal as well.
Back to all my original point, you might want to look at the photo of the car in question with the view from under the strut.. it shows that the entire top of the strut tower has been removed, unlike your photo that shows the correct amount of material that should have been removed to legally install a camber plate. If they wanted to keep the same height of the crown of the strut mounting point, I would think that a plate about 1" in diameter would have been sufficient, not 4" larger all the way around.
As for "leaving opinions out". The original post asked for them.
BTW, No one is dragging the car thru the mud, the post had questions about it's legality, the rest of us just answered the questions. The builders are friends, and fellow competitors of mine, and I have never had any issues with them in the 14 years I have competed with them. This isn't that complicated, this is a chat board of opinions. Sorry to have ruffled any feathers!

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010
[/b]

Mark, now you're just being silly. A 1" diameter camber plate? Yeah, that MIGHT be big enough to hold the upper bearing, but you sure wouldn't have any adjustment. Since Stu's a friend of yours, why don't you ask him how many people w/ his camber plates have been protested for them, and how many of those have been found illegal? You've staed a couple of times that you're not up on the current IT rules. Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch for you to state so matter-of-factly that something's illegal, when you yourself admit that you're not up on the current state of the rules?

[ryotko]

...and explain to me how the top of the camber plate is now even with the top of the fender.. Is the plate 2" thick?
[/b]

Mark,

The below photo clearly illustrates that on a stock A2 VW the top of the strut tower, at centerline, is level with the top of the fender flange. Same as the car that's for sale.

Now how is laying the CP on top of the stock tower and adding material between the plate and the lower portion of the tower illegal?

As for opening up the hole, who determines what the correct amount to remove is? The rules don't.

-Bob

[backformore]

Since I started this thread, I'll make one more post. First, thank you to the people who provided their intelligent and considered opinions. I wish someone had posted the pictures of the A1 strut tower earlier. It helps to explain (to me) why the camber plates were done the way they were.

For the record, I was not trying to drag anything through anything, I just wanted to know where people stood before I spent my money. I happen to live in a region with pretty strict interpretation of the rules.

It's a moot point to me at this point. Someone else bought the car. Congrats to the seller and the buyer. I hope they enjoy it.

[gprodracer]

Bill,

Since my comments were directed to Bob, Your reply was uhhh...not asked for?? Since you needed to reply,
I stand corrected, as my typo stated that a 1" plate was acceptable. I meant that a plate 1" larger than the
stock strut opening would have been adaquate to install a slotted camber plate. As for the "how many times have they been protested" question... does that make them legal since they haven't been protested?? And yes, I have only protested someone "officially" once when they kicked my ass with a monster cam, that allowed them to have a 8500 rpm redline, and cost me a SEDIV championship. If their illegal mods don't cost me points towards a championship that I'm competing for' then the other times I have seen blatently illegal mods, a simple chat with the competitor has resolved the problem.
Moving on... I have only stated that " in my opinion" the mods to the strut towers were illegal.. Stop putting words in my mouth to prove your point please. I am passionate about our club, and the direction that it takes on certain issues. We are all members, and all of our votes on these issues count equally on how we should approach our "HOBBY".
I love this sport, and if I get my ass kicked by a better driver, then I will try to become a better driver! If I get beat by someone who can interpret the rules and get the court to agree with him, I will accept that too, but I will feel good that I drove my best, and the rules were decided by the people that protest the loudest!
Good Luck, and good racing in all that you do!!

Mark P. Larson
#83 G Prod. #164010

[gprodracer]

O K, Thank you for a photo that has made me re-consider my position on this subject without attacking my intelligence. Again, I have never had a problem with someones forward thinking ideas, just the tortured stretching of the written word. I will contemplate your ideas, and discuss their merits soon.
Thanks for your fresh imput!!
Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010

[ddewhurst]

***The rule was grey and the CRB told us what the intent was***

Andy, some people may buy this ^ $hit but not me. Intent today or intent when the rule was written.

Please name the person who is on the CRB who said the intent is or please name the person who back tracked to find someone who was on the CRB when the rule was originally written for the true meaning of the rule.

I may be old but I sure as hell ain't grey & as I talk the talk I also walk the walk. Or I dig out the facts so that I may walk the walk. The word intent makes me sick because it's a cover all for those who maybe don't have the facts.

All said with

[lateapex911]

Better be careful Andy, or you'll get accused of drinking the same juice that Dewhurst has accused myself, and Miller of..

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me rephrase then. We went to the CRB and asked them what they wanted the rule to be. They said SB's are allowed as bushings. We rewrote the rule for their consideration to clear things up. They accepted it.

Case closed.



AB

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

Since my comments were directed to Bob, Your reply was uhhh...not asked for?? Since you needed to reply,
I stand corrected, as my typo stated that a 1" plate was acceptable. I meant that a 1" plate larger than the
stock strut opening would have been adaquate to install a slotted camber plate. As for the "how many times have they been protested" question... does that make them legal since they haven't been protested??
Moving on... I have only stated that " in my opinion" the mods to the strut towers were illegal.. Stop putting words in my mouth to prove your point please. I am passionate about our club, and the direction that it takes on certain issues. We are all members, and all of our votes on these issues count equally on how we should approach our "HOBBY".
I love this sport, and if I get my ass kicked by abetter driver, then I will try to become a better driver! If I get beat by someone who can interpret the rules and get the court to agree with him, i will accept that too, but I will feel good that I drove my best, and the rules were decided by the people that protest the loudest!
Good Luck, and good racing in all that you do!!

Mark P. Larson
#83 G Prod. #164010
[/b]

Mark,

This is an open message forum, you post something here, it's open for comments for anyone else that is allowed to post here. If you don't want unsolicited comments, perhaps you shouldn't post here? If you look at the pictures Bob put up (thanks again Bob), and look at the picture of the car's camber plate, you'll see that the camber plate is ~1" larger than the opening in the strut tower after you cut the bell off the top.

And talk about putting words in somebody's mouth! I didn't say that they were legal if they weren't protested. What I said was, how many had been protested and found illegal. I asked that because you said you were friends w/ Stu, someone that's sold who knows how many sets of plates like that. I think it's a safe bet that if people had used them, been protested, and found non-compliant, not only would he (Stu) have heard about them, but so would the rest of the IT community. I was only suggesting that you go to a good source for some information on the subject.

[ddewhurst]

Thank you Andy, I kind of figured your drink was from a different bottle.

[ddewhurst]

***you weld it to the fire wall, and you've refinforced the chassis.***

Bill, I really like your situational interpretation of the the rule to suit yourself.

"If sloted plates are used, they shall be located on the existing structure and may not serve as a reinforcement for that structure."

So from your interpretation of the rule my welding to the firewall has reinforced the chassis but your weldment for the suposed camber plate does "not serve as a reinforcement for that structure". For that sttructure, for that structure, for that structure.....................

What part of the bottom of the bottle don't you understand ? Oh, Im sorry. What part of the rule don't you understand ?

Nuff said by me.

[gprodracer]

Bill,

Well, we must agree to disagree. Please read my post slowly, so there is no confusion on my statements. I never said that Stu's plates were illegal by SCCA standards (other than stating that they are "in MY OPINION"), I said that just because there are many others like them out there, doesn't make them legal, just that the officials in Topeka have not seen the pictures, and have not made a ruling on that specific "interpretation" of the rule as it is currently written. One last suggestion to think about... Look at the picture with the crown cut off the top of the tower, and the outline of the camber plate is traced out on top. My interpretation is that they have removed all the material they needed to at that point, to "facillitate" (make easier) the installation of the plate. Lay the plate flat on the top of the tower, drill thru both to match up the bolts, and bolt it all together! BTW, where does it state that you can weld the plate in place? The mod in question has removed the entire top of the strut tower, not just the bell as you have stated. Lastly, you keep bringing up the fact that i caled Stu a "friend". The statement was "friend and fellow competitor". We have raced together for many years, and he has kicked my ass many times, but I have beat him a few times as well. I would loan him anything I had on my trailer to keep his car running, and he would do the same for me, but we don't exchange Christmas cards. My statements were purely to show that I have no axe to grind against him, or his operation.
OK, I have stated my position on this matter too many times
This has gone from a legality question to questioning everyones personal motivation about their opinions.
I will continue to state my opinions for the good of OUR CLUB!
Mark Larson
#83 G Production
Member #164010

[Greg Amy]

Let me rephrase then. We went to the CRB and asked them what they wanted the rule to be...[/b]

That I will accept, as opposed to "this was the intent of the rule all along since 1984 when the rule was written, especially given the original codified 'dual-purpose capable of being registered' philosophy' and we just changed the wording of the rules to reflect that". So then we agree: while it may have not been the original intent of the suspension bushings rule, it is the desire of the current CRB for this to be legal, thus the rule was changed, both de facto and de jure.

Fine. Case closed.

So, how does this now go to the discussion at hand, in regards to VW upper strut towers? Simply put: whereas the original intent of the camber plate rule may not have encompassed such additions of material as is described by the illustrations above, the letter of the rule certainly does. Further, given that the letter of rules has, both in practice and in code, taken precedence over the intent (original or current desires) it is incumbent upon the competitiors to stretch the letter of the rules to the breaking point, until such time that one is protested or specifically dis/allowed via rule change. This is the process by which spherical bearings (along with many other items over the last few years) have become legal.

If I read the letter of the rules and partner it to the new over-riding philosophy of "if it says you can, you bloody well can" then it is patently obvious that the allowance on these mounts supercedes any nebulous restriction and the plates are legal. The only way I can find these illegal is if I went to the (now) "old school Greg" idea that the root philosophy of the class trumps any tortured interpretation of the letter of the rules (an archaic rule that has never been challenged, let alone upheld.)

Bottom line: the letter of the rules counts, not the philosophy. If you don't like the letter of the rules, too bad; take your best shot at getting them changed. Witness the 15" wheels fiasco among many others in these last three years...

By the way, folks have been doing this to IT Volkswagens for literally decades now. I saw the first one way back in the mid-1980's... - GA

[ggnagy]

I don't know VW suspesions from adam, but I am looking at that picture in the ad, and comparing it to the stock strut on the top of page three here. Is it the photograph angle, or is the top of the strut further aft of that bracket than on the "stock" strut tower? If it is, I would think the pickup relocation to change caster would be the nit to pick.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

Well, we must agree to disagree. Please read my post slowly, so there is no confusion on my statements. I never said that Stu's plates were illegal by SCCA standards (other than stating that they are "in MY OPINION"), I said that just because there are many others like them out there, doesn't make them legal, just that the officials in Topeka have not seen the pictures, and have not made a ruling on that specific "interpretation" of the rule as it is currently written. One last suggestion to think about... Look at the picture with the crown cut off the top of the tower, and the outline of the camber plate is traced out on top. My interpretation is that they have removed all the material they needed to at that point, to "facillitate" (make easier) the installation of the plate. Lay the plate flat on the top of the tower, drill thru both to match up the bolts, and bolt it all together! BTW, where does it state that you can weld the plate in place? The mod in question has removed the entire top of the strut tower, not just the bell as you have stated. Lastly, you keep bringing up the fact that i caled Stu a "friend". The statement was "friend and fellow competitor". We have raced together for many years, and he has kicked my ass many times, but I have beat him a few times as well. I would loan him anything I had on my trailer to keep his car running, and he would do the same for me, but we don't exchange Christmas cards. My statements were purely to show that I have no axe to grind against him, or his operation.
OK, I have stated my position on this matter too many times
This has gone from a legality question to questioning everyones personal motivation about their opinions.
I will continue to state my opinions for the good of OUR CLUB!
Mark Larson
#83 G Production
Member #164010
[/b]

Mark,

Back pedal all you want. You talked about 'creative interpretation' giving the club a bad rep. Then you state matter-of-factly that you're confident that that design (which just happens to be a set of Stu's plates) would get tossed. And how do you know that nobody in Topeka has seen pictures of that design? That's one of the reasons why I suggested that you speak w/ Stu.

Let's talk about your suggestion to just bolt the plate to the top of the strut tower. If you do that, you actually change the mounting point of the strut by lowering it. But, that's not the real issue. The rule says that not only are you allowed to removed material, you're allowed to add it as well. If that's what it takes to get the camber plate back to the original location of the strut mounting point, then you're certainly allowed to do it, the way the rule is currently written. And where does it say that you can weld it? Right there where it says that you can add material. You are allowed to add material, the method of attachment is not specified, which means that it's left up to the builder to decide how they want to. You can bolt it or weld it, your choice. Hell, you can use duct tape and chewing gum if you want! That's the beauty of a specific allowance, once it says you can do something, and doesn't put any further restrictions on how you do it, you get to make your own choices.

And now I see you're back peddaling about your relationship w/ Stu. YOU said he was a friend of yours. You also said he was a fellow competitor. I'm not sure why you bring up the issue of Christmas cards, as it is certainly not germane to the discussion. As an aside, I have several friends that I don't exchange Christmas cards with. From your subsequent comments, the only conclusion that I can draw is that have somewhat over-stated your relationship w/ Stu. No big deal, doesn't really make a bit of difference to me.

David,

As I said earlier, unless you use a camber plate that's the same gauge metal as the OEM strut tower top, you're strengthing the strut tower top. Is adding the additional vertical material to support the plate a 'reinforcement'? That's really hard to say. I can see where people could make an arguement both ways. Certainly would seem to create issues w/ the internal consistency of the rule. But, that's never happened before! The rule says you're allowed to add a plate. It also says that the plate may not serve as a reinforcement for the chassis. It also says that you can remove as well as add material, to facilitate the installation of the plate. This is clearly a case where you can have different interpretations, and that reasonable people can disagree. Has nothing to do w/ kool-aid.

[gprodracer]

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

[bldn10]

"There's no restriction on the amount of material you can remove from, or add to the top of the strut tower to facilitate the installation of the plate. You use a subjective clause in your arguement 'significantly raised the tower'. Nothing in the rules that addresses it. If it says you can add or remove material from the top of the strut tower, you damn well can."

Bill (Miller), did I not say that the amount that could be added or removed could be a little or a lot? Yes, I did - there is no express, quantitative amount - the restriction is on the necessity to add or remove in order to facilitate installation of the plate! I.e. if your tower is of such configuration that the only way you can install a plate is to cut the top off, or add 5 pounds of steel, it is legal to do so. On the other hand, if you only need to level off the top but you go beyond that and essentially rebuild the tower, it is illegal.

Yes, there is some subjectivity to it and that cannot be avoided; if you can't accept that then you are always going to have trouble w/ interpretation of rules (and not just these rules). The way you deal w/ the subjective element is by establishing principles for interpretation and then applying those principles consistently. The SCCA has done a poor job of that - too much ad hoc tampering - and that is why I advocate that COA opinions be precedential - so we can establish such principles of interpretation. One principle is that you have to read ALL of the rule together so that it is internally consistent. Your notion that because the sentence dealing w/ added or removed material does not contain the express prohibition on chassis reinforcement as does the preceding sentence, means that that prohibition does not apply to the added or removed material, is, w/ all due respect, utterly wrong because it sets up an absurdity. Let's take the extreme situation for sake of discussion where the tower is completely level and all you have to do is drill 4 holes and bolt it on. Do you still say you can add or remove material? I suspect not. Why not? Because no material needs to be added or removed to facilitate installation of the plate. Stepping back a notch, what if all you have to do is cut a 1/4" collar off [as is the case w/ the 2nd gen. RX-7] - do you really think that opens the door to cutting the top of the tower off and welding on a new one? Surely not. But, if you are going to be consistent in your argument, you would have to take that position.

My characterization of the pictured installation as having "significantly raised the tower" was simply to make this not a close case for purposes of discussion. By "significant" I mean clearly more than that absolutely necessary to install the plate. There is no inconsistency in the way I have analyzed this.

" Now, you're allowed to remove material from the top of the strut tower, which you would have to do if you wanted to get the travel needed to adjust the camber of the strut, via the plate."

Now you are being inconsistent. Where does it say anything about changing the amount of travel? My opinion is that the attachment point has to be in the same plane as stock plus the thickness of the plate.

Looking at the stock tower I now see the dilemma presented by this car. One thing we still need to know is where is the pivot point - at the top of the collar or the top of the tower? If the former, you can cut the collar off but then have you have lowered the attachment point and lost stock travel. In that case I think clearly a plate on top of the collar is legal - the attachment point would be in the stock plane plus plate. But then you have the "high centered" situation. Obviously, you would have to do something to establish a flat plane at the level of the collar to bolt the plate to. Or, alternatively, you could build a "foundation" around the top of the tower to the level of the collar and attach a plate to it. Apparently that is what they did. If that is all they did, I think it is legal. But if they unnecessarily cut the collar or entire top off, or extended the "foundation" further down the sides than necessary, or raised the plate above the stock level, I think there is a problem. On the other hand, if the pivot point is below the collar at the level of the top of the tower, then I think Mark is right and cutting the collar off and bolting (or welding) on your plate is all that is necessary and, thus, all that is allowed.