An ITCS Re-Write

[Andy Bettencourt]

So to follow up on Greg's 'How to write a rule' thread, I am a firm believer in the concept of relying 100% on the 'if it doesn't say you can, then you can't' philosophy of the GCR. A brief looksie shows that it won't be hard to remove all of the "you can't do this" wording while still maintaining the integrity of the rule - as long as you live and die by the IIDSYCTYC foundation, which would be clearly spelled out in the intent section.

My question for you all lies in the Glossary. The shifter lever/knob debate brings me here. If a rule points to a 'part' (like a shift lever, or shift knob) should it be a requirment that that 'part' be defined in the glossary? It would to be a logical yes...but we don't want to GROW the GCR, we want to simplfy it - and hopefully shrink it. I think we can be the model ruleset for all of the SCCA. At what point do we rely on industry accepted terminology - if at all? Should the ITCS have it's own specific sub-glossary?

Comments are welcome on any and all points of this post. This whole thing may be a dumb idea - just provide some feedback.

[Greg Amy]

Obviously, you won't get any objections from me on this idea. However, you do bring up a very valid point about "common acceptance" of terms. In order for IIDSYCTYC to work it has to be coupled to a CULTURE where "weenie" or "clever" interpretations are not tolerated and common sense rules. We have to be willing to tell someone that their "clever" interpretations of the rules are not acceptable.

Splitters as air dams? Air as an acceptable material for suspension bushings? Levers and trusses as shift knobs? These are but a few examples. We love to love guys who come up with this clever wordsmithing, and we even admire it to a certain degree, but unless and until we stop tolerating it as acceptable practice then no amount of rules can ever stop it.

Unless we create an underlying culture that says "this is not right and we will not tolerate it" we are doomed to constantly re-writing rules to block (or, in many cases accommodate) this practice.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

So far we are traveling down the same road. What is the 'answer' to the latter issue? Does it all have to do with self-policing or can we write in into the rulebook?

[Greg Amy]

You cannot write culture into a rulebook; it has to come from various aspects of leadership, peer review/pressure, and community.

Is it possible to accomplish? Of course. Likely? Probably not. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. When you see something that you believe does not meet the spirit of the rules, bring it up. If the person rebuffs you, you should be willing to ante up and protest. Otherwise, you are tacitly "approving" that activity and way of thinking.

In the end, it may not be attainable, short of some kind of benevolent dictator (e.g., John Bishop and IMSA) and/or rigid intolerance and enforcement from the organization's hierarchy. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

When you see something that you believe does not meet the spirit of the rules, bring it up. If the person rebuffs you, you should be willing to ante up and protest. Otherwise, you are tacitly "approving" that activity and way of thinking.
[/b]

And you as well (or better) than anyone should know that the 'spirit' of the rules doesn't really apply in the tech shed. So what is the blue-sky solution to our problem if we can't bank on intent or the spirit?

Better rules. But can we do it without a rulebook 1 foot thick...I think we can. I HOPE we can.

[wbp]

It seems to me that IIDSYCTYC can provide the basis for a stable, reasonably brief ruleset. Stability of rules helps make strong racing. I would like to see the IT rules based so strongly upon that principle that no detailed "shall nots" would be required. The effort needs to be made to make IIDSYCTYC so very clear that no racer, Scruitneer nor Steward can misunderstand the principle.
Glossary: I like them for any wording that may not be definative. Gearshift lever is definative and knob is close to definative. In IT we all have to have a shop manual available. It will help with some part definations and most would likely allow us to identify what is a gearshift lever. (American definations maybe not always useable on a British car manual though.) How about: If a part isn't in the shop manual, and it isn't in a part book, then it can't be on the car unless the rules say it can.
If it's rewritten, I would like to see Simple given a try. I would hope to see IT never get into the "It will make my car faster so make it legal" deal like Production tried. It ran me out of Production racing years ago, and it is hurting the efforts to keep it alive today.
Thanks for giving it a try. I do appreciate all the hard work that goes into our rulemaking.

[JohnRW]

The effort needs to be made to make IIDSYCTYC so very clear that no racer, Scruitneer nor Steward can misunderstand the principle[/b]

Old adage in my business: "Just when you thought you've made everything idiot-proof, somebody invents a better idiot."

[Greg Amy]

And you as well (or better) than anyone should know that the 'spirit' of the rules doesn't really apply in the tech shed.[/b]

BRAACK! Wrong answer. The reason "the spirit doesn't work in the Tech shed" is because we have a culture of tolerance for creative interpretation of the rules. We are significantly more apt to lean towards letting someone get away with such actions - at least initially - versus telling them to pack up their shit and go home.

In other words, we "approve" such action.

Culture cannot be legislated. It's not unlike the culture of a major corporation, such as Enron, tacitly allowing activities that may be somewhat justifiable by twisting the rules, but are clearly out of bounds of society. If the leadership condones such twisting, the minions will follow.

Better rules. But can we do it without a rulebook 1 foot thick...I think we can. I HOPE we can.[/b]

Wrong answer, Part Deaux.

Attitudes and culture cannot be legislated. Period.

[Andy Bettencourt]

BRAACK! Wrong answer. The reason "the spirit doesn't work in the Tech shed" is because we have a culture of tolerance for creative interpretation of the rules. We are significantly more apt to lean towards letting someone get away with such actions - at least initially - versus telling them to pack up their shit and go home.

In other words, we "approve" such action.

Culture cannot be legislated. It's not unlike the culture of a major corporation, such as Enron, tacitly allowing activities that may be somewhat justifiable by twisting the rules, but are clearly out of bounds of society. If the leadership condones such twisting, the minions will follow.


Wrong answer, Part Deaux.

Attitudes and culture cannot be legislated. Period.
[/b]

But you can't tell someone to pack up and go home when the rulebook 'says' something they can do and they do it - unless you are a singular judge and jury like you said in your 2nd post. Without common interpretations accross the Nation, we can't even get to a starting point.

I agree we need to discourage the actions - but without a common set of interpretations, I fail to see how it can happen. And that is where the rulebook needs to get a LOT better.

I hear you loud and clear, just trying to determine if the effort is futile or not....

[Greg Amy]

But you can't tell someone to pack up and go home when the rulebook 'says' something they can do and they do it...[/b]

That - right there - is why we are where we are. YES YOU CAN tell someone to pack up and go home when they show up with a cantilevered bar acting as a shift knob, and air acting as material for suspension bushings, and a splitter acting as an airdam, just as you can when they show up with high-compression pistons and illegal camshafts. You most CERTAINLY can. BUT, you are consciously choosing not to, in order to foster a sense of "community", "caring", "understanding", and/or "inclusion".

There are distinct differences between "misunderstanding" and conscious manipulation of the letter of the rules. Problem is, we lump both of those into the "inclusion" part. You've got to understand that with human nature there will always be the former, and that there will always be the latter. There is no real good way to compromise between the two, so either one has to suffer: either the "misunderstanders" have to be told to go home and fix their cars in order to exclude the "manipulators", or the manipulators have to be tolerated in order to include the misunderstanders.

We've actively and consciously chosen the latter tact. Are we willing to change that?

When I wrote the MT2 rules many moons ago (available here: http://www.it2.evaluand.com/mtcs.pdf) I specifically addressed that issue with the following verbiage:

These rules were written with clear intent and no hidden agenda, and the organizers Modified Touring 2 rules committee will not tolerate “creative interpretation” of the rules. A web site with specific competitors’ questions will be maintained; if any competitor has any question about what is and is not allowed, these should be directed to the rules committee for formal interpretation and publication. “Creative interpreters” run significant risk of having their modifications nullified without prior notification.

And, I meant it. I was fully prepared to tell a competitor to pack their stuff if they came up with some goofball "interpretation" of what the rules states. No weird-ass "shift knobs", no air as a material, none of that.

So, I ask again: are we willing to do that? If not, then I suggest nothing will change and in the end it will be incumbent upon you (both "Andy" you and other rulesmakers) to continually monitor the modifications that people are doing to their cars and continually "modify" the rules to address original intent.

Such as re-writing the shift knob rule so that people truly replace it with a shift knob.

Capiche?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Again, I am fully on board. What you have is a singular group of 2-3 'King's' of like mind who developed the rules - and are willing to enforce them. That fifedom does not exist in the SCCA. The enforcers did not write the rules, have different interpretations of what is legal and they number in the hundreds.

I love the wording for SURE...I wonder if we can adapt it into the ITCS in order to discourage - and then really hammer our local guys to get with the program...

[Knestis]

What Greg said.

We wouldn't be in this bind if the tech shed culture were such that the answer was, "I know damned well that ain't no shift knob, and you know damned well it ain't a shift knob. It IS clever but you've just lost your finishing position and points. Next."

To my knowledge, there's never been a comprehensive effort to make Regional enforcement consistent across the nation. That's where the time/energy should be spent. I've forgotten now who to attribute it to but the excellent point was made here that it's the enforcement of rules that matters, not the wording.

...If a part isn't in the shop manual, and it isn't in a part book, then it can't be on the car unless the rules say it can. ...[/b]

I submit that this is exactly inside-out - or is maybe just half of the solution - since it doesn't promote IIDSYCYC. I should really be (or include)...

If a part is in the shop manual or a parts book, then it must be on the car unless the rules specifically says it can be removed.

That said, I COMPLETELY support Andy's effort to get rid of the "you can'ts" - it won't fix everything but it will head off one way that rules get subverted.

K

[bldn10]

I think one problem w/ the current ruleset is that many people, obviously including some in Topeka, think that modern auto technology and the wide availability of aftermarket parts & mods is out of sync w/ the Class Philosophy. So, instead of just changing the C.P. they come up w/ all kinds of B.S. interpretations of the rules. Therefore, I suggest that before writing a word of new rules, let's think hard what we want the C.P. to be. I.e. how do we balance simplicity and economy w/ evolving technology while keeping older cars competitive (if that's what we want to do)? There is always an inherent desire to make our cars faster (and more complex/expensive)across the board and the rules need to be somewhat of a check on that.

[Rabbit07]

I believe that a glossary is really all that would be needed. The rules are the rules, no need for more of them. With a glossary the definitions are there, no interpretations, just hard definitions. From there it is up to the competitors and the scrutineers to take care of the rest. There is plenty of blatant cheating at both the regional and national level. If you take issue with how someone runs their program, right paper on it! I see “what I consider” illegal stuff on competitors cars all the time. The truth is I really couldn’t care most of the time. I usually will mention to that competitor that I know about it. From there I would only act if I felt it provided them a leg up. I have gone as far as mentioning things to the chief steward which has ended up with multiple cars in tech. Even if it makes the other competitors nervous is enough for me. I think clear glossary definitions would help remove the “what I consider” part?

[spnkzss]

i can understand and agree with the concept of tech taking more control like that, but I really have a problem with somthing like tech making a decision based on opinion. Tech needs to be something cut and dry. The stewards are the only ones that I know of that can make a decision on opinion and I don't really agree with that, but you have to have some of that, I guess.

[Knestis]

...I have gone as far as mentioning things to the chief steward which has ended up with multiple cars in tech. ...[/b]

How in the hell does that system work?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

How in the hell does that system work?

K [/b]

"Hey Cheif of Tech", if you are deciding on anything to inspect in the IT classes today, I have heard a few guys grumbling about ballast placement on more than a few cars, you may check that out."

[Rabbit07]

I said Chief Steward, not Chief of Tech.

Other than that, Andy hit it on the head

On Edit: I don't want to wander off topic here, My point is just keep the ITCS the way it is, just clearly define the items it governs, ie glossary of terms.

[DavidM]

I don't think a rewrite would significantly improve the ruleset and, frankly, I'm opposed to large, wholesale, changes for a while. It seems to me that most of the rules "abuses" have been because of rules that weren't detailed enough. They allowed enough gray area for people to play in. I hate Motecs in the stock CPU box, but it's certainly legal based on how the rule was written. Now, if the rule had specifically stated that it only allowed reflashed stock chips or daughter chips then we wouldn't have a problem. I certainly don't want a 1 ft thick rule book, but, at the same time, rules need to be written in enough detail to say exactly what is allowed.

Leave the current rules alone, but make sure any new rules (or rule updates) have enough detail in them. The intent of a rule often comes up so I wonder if adding an "intent" descriptor to some of the rules would be beneficial. That way it at least gets written down and people aren't left speculating 10 years from now what the rules writers intended.

David

[ddewhurst]

9.1.3.D. Authorized Modifications

The following absolute written words of these absolute written rules authorized modification on all Improved Touring Catagory cars. Modifications SHALL not be made unless authorized within the absolute written words of the absolute written rules.

I could car less if the glossary gets to be one foot thick (or for additional, use Mr. Webster) but lets not continue to play with the existing rules that ain't broke.

Would someone like to take the above revised 9.1.3.D. Authorized Modification rule including Mr. Webster & use it to gauge the legality of the Mustang shift thing.

Have Fun
David