How To Write a Rule

[Andy Bettencourt]

1. I can replace the exhaust from the head back. Materials are "any material". I pick a straight pipe with a small muffler.

Next up, I have to pay attention to a, b and c.

a. Exit behind the driver. No problem.

b. Comply with noise. No problem.

c.......
1. Any high flow cat is allowed.
2. Multiple cats may be replaced by a single cat, and the location of that single cat is specified.
3. If it didn't come with one, I don't have to have one.

Bolding is mine. I don't see anything in there that says I need to keep a cat. I'm ALLOWED to have a high-flow cat - no requirements there. I'm ALLOWED to replace two factory cats with one, and if I do that I'm restricted on its location. Only requirement is location. If the car didn't come with one, I don't need to add one. Again, no requirements.

It may very well be the intent that a cat is required, but I would have NO problem showing up with no cat and pointing at this rule in support of that.

The key piece is #3. It specifies when you can NOT have one.

[ShelbyRacer]

The key piece is #3. It specifies when you can NOT have one.

Agreed, as that was my key issue.

But Jarrod, I'd agree that the rule could be much more clear. In the end, you could show up without one, and you could use that rule as a point of issue. But I also think if it came down to it, you'd lose in an official sense.

[JIgou]

Agreed, as that was my key issue.

But Jarrod, I'd agree that the rule could be much more clear. In the end, you could show up without one, and you could use that rule as a point of issue. But I also think if it came down to it, you'd lose in an official sense.

It could be a losing proposition. I've got no dog in the hunt as I'm not and don't plan on competing in rx world any time soon, but after a competitor pointed it out to me, I thought the rule was ripe for this thread as an example of what not to do.

I still maintain:

Telling me I can replace the exhaust with "any material" kicks open the door. My straightpipe with a Supertrapp for sound meets this perfectly.

The third part - "Vehicles not equipped with a catalytic converter as original equipment are not required to have one." - doesn't apply to me - my car came with one from the factory.

The other two allowances - the high flow cat and the "use one cat where there were two" allowance don't apply to me either - I've elected not to use one with my "any material" exhaust.

IIDSYCYC, correct.....but Roffe it up and I bloody well can, IMHO.

But that's enough - I'll close in saying that this is a PRIME example of what NOT to do when writing a rule.

[jumbojimbo]

Here is one of my favorites from the ITCS.

1. why are some pieces of this directly in the D. section and others split out into bullets 1, 2, and 3?

2. how are 1,2 and 3 sub-subjects of section d at all? they are sort of related to emissions but not related to the first line of d.

3. Bullets 2 and 3 are not completely inclusive of all situations. where does a vehicle fit which is not registered for the street but does not have polution control removed? Not covered by 2 and not covered by 3, so what kind of fuel is permitted/required? edit: the lesson is to avoid negative logic, especially when using "and".

4. Does bullet 3 remove the limits of bullet 2? IE, since my car is registered for the street (bullet 3) does that mean i can use pump gas meeting the workshop manual octane rating and I'm exempt from rule 9.3 Fuel?

d. Exhaust emission control air pumps, associated lines, nozzles, and electrical/mechanical EGR devices may be removed. If such items are not removed, they shall not be modified in any way. If EGR devices/nozzles are removed from a cylinder head or manifold, any holes remaining shall be completely plugged. Water to an intake manifold may be blocked or removed as part of the emission system.

1. If fitted, catalytic converter(s) may be removed.

2. Those vehicles which have emission control devices removed and which are not registered and licensed for street operation may use any gasoline meeting the requirements of GCR Section 9.3 Fuel.

3. Those vehicles registered and licensed for street use shall use the fuel specified by the workshop/owner’s manual.

[Greg Amy]

I had a spirited debate with someone recently regarding regs, letter of the regs, the spirit of the regs. It's something that we like to lean on when trying to "interpret" a reg, and I suspect our direction-of-leaning tends to change with whatever side of the argument we're on.

In my opinion, the responsibility of the "spirit of the regulations" lies solely on the shoulders of the writers of the regulations. It is purely the responsibility for they to, once they determine the "spirit", to codify that into the "letter". Any subsequent failures of the reader of the regs to read them - or to successfully "intorturate" them - into something that was not intended is purely a failure on the part of the rules writers.

This came to the fore in recent events. I write this post the week after the first F1 race in Austin, the race where Ferrari intentionally broke the FIA seal on Massa's transmission so that he would get a 5-place grid penalty. By doing this it allowed Massa's teammate, Alonso, who was fighting for the championship, to get moved over to the "clean" side of the track for the start (and they did it immediately prior to the start so that their main competitor, Red Bull, could not pull the same trick and move him back over). As I write, many are arguing that while this was within the "letter" of the regs, it was not within the "spirit" and thus warrants penalty.

"Poppycock".

Tony Dodgins wrote a good column on this issue recently in Autosport. He discussed this scenario and also compared it to the 1975 Glen race where Regazzoni - being lapped - blocked Fittipaldi so that Clay's teammate, Lauda, could gain an advantage (before Clay eventually got black-flagged) and subsequently allow Lauda to win the race. Dodgins noted that the argument about the "spirit" of the regs was brought up, that while Regazzoni broke no letter of the regs, he violated the spirit of the regs. Dodgins replies:

Rightly or wrongly, the fact is that anyone who believes in the 'spirit' of the F1 regulations is being naive. There are only the regulations. Period.

I concur with Dodgins. Remember what I wrote in prior posts about "failure [on the part] of the rulesmakers’ imaginations"? And the "you can't think of everything"? That's where these "spirit" arguments originate. No one person or group can beat the computing power of the masses, and no regulators can possibly figure out what all the masses can come up with. It's a Sysiphian task.

But that doesn't mean that regulators, due simply to their lack of foresight, should be intentionally made powerless to change the regs to meet the original intent ("spirit") and cover that new "intorturation". In fact, it is the duty of the regulators to re-think their "letter" positions and make a conscious choice to change the letter to meet that original intent; to do otherwise is an active allowance for the "spirit" to change and is a derelict of duty.

F1 regs were subsequently changed to ban Regazzoni's tactics; any driver that intentionally impedes the flow of another driver like Clay did in 1975 will not only get black-flagged but may get a significant start penalty in subsequent races -- or worse. And don't be surprised if a change to the "letter" of the regs about breaking seals on drivetrain components is forthcoming...

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Agreed 100%. While I believe 'gentleman' will build and race to the SPIRIT, I do not believe that any of us have the right to bitch about someone building and racing to the letter. The letter is all there for everyone to see.

[lawtonglenn]

"anyone who believes in the 'spirit' of the regulations is being naive. There are only the regulations. Period."

should be read before each ITAC or CRB vote