HP vs. Torque and the System

[Knestis]

I dunno, Bill - from a purely academic point of view, since the point is well and truly moot now. I just think it's edumacational for its potential contribution to future rules-writing.

The rule expressly prohibited modifications to the stock wiring harness and its connector, right? MY POINT (perhaps lost in all of this) is that had the rule stopped short of prohibiting ANYTHING, instead describing as specifically as possible, in as few words as practical, what was allowed, it would take my argument - specious as some of you may think it to be - completely off the table.

At that point, it's about enforcement - under the current process via a protest, stewards' findings, and appeal. And regarding enforcement...

...I believe you should have submitted it to a higher power than "the brightest minds" in your region. I think you either a) shouldn't have done it, or submitted it to national fo a ruling. Pushing the rules into a grey area (in my opinion, a clearly illegal area) while makking the rules isn't OK in my book. Someone operating in your capacity needs to meet higher standards of conduct.[/b]

There is no practical, functional "higher power." We can wish all we want but submitting a request to SCCA World HQ for an opinion yields nothing that is binding in any fashion. Even if the vacuum line it question had been through the protest AND APPEAL process, the finding wouldn't "prove" anything valuable, toward establishing anything like case law or precedent.

Since Andy's competitors are the ones who'd be required to initiate an action against him, they would be exactly the right people to ask. That's the kind of spirit that's behind the open-hood suggestion.

And last I checked, the ITAC doesn't make any rules. They issues recommendations. Even if we accept that they have some real influence over the RULES-MAKING process, they aren't as a group in the business of enforcement - of making binding interpretations of what's OK and what's not. They have exactly the same power to enforce our rules - as individual racers - as any of us.

It is not fair to ask advisory board members to stop being racers, or to adhere to some different standard just because of their position. We all have our own morals vis a vis these rules issues and Andy is fully allowed to establish his and develop his car to the nth degree, if he so chooses. A different ITAC member might make a different decision, just like any two racers in any class in any paddock might.

K

EDIT - BTW, I think that any language like "for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage" should be struck out of the rules, too. Write all of the rules presuming that because we are engaged in competition, it is safe to assume that everything any racer, car builder, or mechanic does is for that purpose. Done. At that point, things are either legal or illegal (again, through the protest process) and intent has nothing to do with it. Having that in there merely muddies the water: "Oh, yeah - I did that but I didn't do it to gain any competitive advantage. I did it to make the car safer, cheaper, and easier to work on..."

[pfcs49]

The rule specifies that all modifications be done WITHIN the OEM stock housing.
My stand is that running a vacuum circuit IN TO the housing is a modification to the OUTSIDE and not legal.
Having been in this club since first racing with it in 1971, and being an agressive rules interpreter and an avid observer of Appeals Court decisions that long, I would lay long odds that Andy's ECM would be found illegal under the current ruleset. Of course, thats just my opinion. Phil

And PS: I think it's reasonable to hold officials/advisory rulesmakers to a high standard. If not, then we're in trouble.......maybe we ARE in trouble.

[shwah]

On the topic of culture and protests. I feel pretty comfortable bringing something I find questionable up to a competitor directly. Most of the time it is an honest mistake of not knowing the rule, and that is what I assume going in. IMO this is always the best first step, then if the problem persists, I would write paper (which I have never done).

Maybe this is unique to CenDiv ITB, but I think the vast majority of my competitors are comfortable taking this approach as well. Unfortunately building an environment like this is about as easy as telling two kids to be friends. It is hard to make happen, it just does so organically. I don't know what the solution is....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Still waiting for an answer to this one Andy.

I'll give you one thing, you're sounding more and more like a politician as this thread goes on. [/b]

Bill,

I an not going to keep typing everything multiple times. I (and others) have laid out why I think it's legal. You (and others) have laid out why you think it isn't. I respect most of the thought processes. Don't take my future non-posting to your demands as a white flag. It's moot now.

[lateapex911]

So, babes of SCCA affairs, this is how the "process" works. And this is how it worked vis a vis the ECM rule. One thing's for sure, if Andy was losing any sleep about the legality of his ECM then, he ain't now. I find it impeachable that someone who is cause in the matter of liberalizing a ruleset have such a blatant conflict of interst regarding that very ruleset. Sorry to post this, Andy, but it seems truthful to me. Phil [/b]

Maybe I'm missing your point, but how is this and example of how the "Process" works in SCCA affairs????

The discussion regarding the volvo running on an aftermarket computer was originally about how the sky won't fall if we allow everyone to do what a few could and did do. It migrated into a discussion about whether the particular example met the letter of the rules, or not. which is fine, although it didn't affect the point of the comment in any way.

Now we learn...me too, btw, that another competitor has run an non stock vac line to his ECU...

Are you saying there's a connection?? If so, there's not....Andy was running his sytem before the other became public. He made his call and designed his system onhis own, after consulting with his competitors. Which didn't include me, LOL.

Further, how does Andy's racing activity create a conflict of interest in his ECU call? He's been very open about every nut, bolt and vac line on his car...anyone who asks gets a full tour. If he felt it was not cool, which is what I think your are insinuating by the conflict comment (he knows he's illegal so he's liberizing the rules to make his stuff legal)... would he be giving red carpet tours of his setup??.

Not to mention a zillion other reasons to not cheat...not the least of which is his integrity, which he values mightily.

As for MY involvement, and my "opinionated support" of the concept, think for a second about what I drive. The only computer in MY old carbed car is a laptop I plop on the rooof from time to time. It's a car that slips further down the results sheets every year, and will only slip further if my support of this rule change helps everyone acheive what only a few have been able to. In short, I'm am supporting rules change that can only hurt me.

In my opinion, we need MORE people in postions of influence who are willing to hurt their own position for the betterment of others. Forgive me for that comment if it comes across as bragging or pompous.

Now, you have your opinion, and that is fine. Others, (well respected here and not dull) have their opinion too, and it varies from yours. While you may disagree, you have to admit, it's something that reasonable men are differing about.

There is no smoking gun, no internal wrong doing here.

[dickita15]

I dunno, Bill - from a purely academic point of view, since the point is well and truly moot now. I just think it's edumacational for its potential contribution to future rules-writing.

[/b]

That is a great point.
Nascar has a long tradition of hiring tech inspectors with a history of, uh pushing grey areas rather than those who are pure as the driven snow.

This modification certainly has brought up a perfect example of why rules in general should not say what you cannot do. If it says you cannot do X it is easy to say you must be able to do Y or the rule makes would have said so.

[Bill Miller]

I'm NOT arguing this because I think it's an example of how things should be but...
...which restricts only the wiring. It says zilch about vacuum lines and frankly, since additional wiring is specifically prohibited, one can *reasonably* infer that HAD the rules-makers wanted to restrict vacuum or other connections, they would have said that.

The production car reverse issue is a great example, and Bill makes a very illustrative point about the rules changing the following year. Our system reacts to cheats by dinking with the written rules, rather than by enforcing the ones we have. Someone has to be the grown-up and just say no but because we rely on hundreds of random volunteers spread out around the nation, who don't receive the same training or information, to enforce what's written, we are in a bind. Add to that (again, influenced by the volunteer dynamic) the fact that the stewards and tech folks are more than happy to defer the initiation of action to the competitors, and the system truly binds up.
We can write paper NOW if we want but for the most part, we don't. A parc expose would NOT be intended to be an opportunity to find things to protest. Instead, it would be a different approach that encourages discussion - it's the concept of daylighting: Putting things out in the open so folks feel more involved, rumors can get quashed with actual facts, and people could come to consensus re: some of the illegalities that fall through cracks now. Peer pressure.

We can't - even with the ITAC's efforts to root out issues - fix enforcement problems by changing the book. Create a tech inspectors' and stewards' website with binding interpretations. Make appeals precedential. Chuck that system altogether. Who knows but it's about enforcement.

K
[/b]

Kirk,

It would be equally valid to say that no mention of vacuum or other connections were mentioned as the rule makers consider this an electronic device, and did not consider mechanical connections. I'm curious as to just how many cars listed in the ITCS have vacuum lines connected to their ECUs, as stock equipment.

As far as the functional reverse gear issue, it is my understanding, after having spoken w/ someone involved, that even though most people understood what 'functional reverse gear' meant, they had to get even more explicit because some old boys felt that it was open enough to give one of their own a pass. To me, it's not a matter of dinking w/ the rules rather than enforcing them, it's dinking w/ the rules because people wouldn't enforce them. Subtle, but critical difference that I am sure did not escape you.

[Knestis]

Both good points, Bill.

The first gets at one cause of our creep issues - unanticipated evolutions (thinking out of the box) that the rules never considered, so might either implicitly ALLOW or DISALLOW depending on individual intentions.

I'd argue that, where the second is concerned, it doesn't matter a *whole* lot whether "failure to enforce" is a bunch of stewards not wanting to piss off their old guard buddy when asked to hear a protest, or a bunch of us regular Regional dorks, not wanting to piss off the guys we have to be on the track with by not filing the protest in the first place.

Regardless, more good opportunities to understand how we might avoid future issues.

K

[Bill Miller]

I'll add another example of additional language that was added (not really a rule change, per se, but more of clarification) because there were people that questioned the legality of something. It's from the PCS, but it's the example that's important. Last year, additional language was added to limited-prep cars, explicitly stating that they were allowed to convert rear drums to rear discs. It was already covered elsewhere in the PCS, but some felt that it was not clear, so additional language was added to remove the confusion.

To me, that's not dinking w/ the rules, that's refining the rules to help clarify things and eliminate gray areas. I think that's a good thing.

I wanted to make a couple of comments on one of your earlier posts.

Here you say:

There is no practical, functional "higher power." We can wish all we want but submitting a request to SCCA World HQ for an opinion yields nothing that is binding in any fashion. Even if the vacuum line it question had been through the protest AND APPEAL process, the finding wouldn't "prove" anything valuable, toward establishing anything like case law or precedent.
[/b]

And later in the same post you say:

At that point, things are either legal or illegal (again, through the protest process) and intent has nothing to do with it.[/b]

In the first passage, you seem to be saying that the protest and appeal process doesn't really establish anything, and in the second passage, you say that leglity is determined through the protest and appeal process.

Also, I disagree that a question that goes through the official clarification process (protest/appeal) yields nothing that is binding. It is my understanding that, at the very least, it is binding and establishes precedent until the next issue of the GCR comes out. If it's truly meaningless, what's the point of even having the process, much less charging people money for it? I also think you would hard pressed to get a counter ruling in the case of a subsequent protest, given an established official position from Topeka.


As far as the issue w/ Andy's ECU being a moot point, to some degree it is, as per the new rule, it will all be legal in a couple of weeks. What really gets at me, is that I've heard Andy and others argue that the new rule doesn't allow anything new that wasn't legal under the old (current) rule. Andy uses his case as an example, and justification, even though its legality has never been established. There are certainly enough people here that disagree that you can't say that a CoA would rule one way or the other.

What that is, is a textbook case of rules creep, and how it makes its way into the system. Drivers push the envelope, in terms of what may or may not be legal (and yes, that's what drivers do). Something gets implemented that reasonable people disagree, as to its legality, and then it gets held up as justification for changing the rules, because "it's already legal to do X". That logic fails, as it moves forward from an invalid assumption (that X really is legal). But once it's codified, how it got there no longer matters, and gets lost in the noise. THAT is rules creep. What makes it worse, is when you've got someone who's supposed to be guiding the ship, involved in pushing that envelope.

Some have said that folks on the ITAC shouldn't be held to a higher standard. I disagree. I think that comes w/ the job. It's no different than those that argue that because people volunteer for something there are different standards that govern their actions than would be the case if they were actually being paid for what they were doing. There are standards for a given job, it doesn't matter if you are paid to do it, or if you volunteer. If you don't want to adhere to the standards, don't volunteer for the job.

Any time you are in a position to influence policy, it's always better to take the conservative approach when it comes to areas where a potential conflict of interest may arise. It's all about people's perception. Why even put yourself in a position where someone can raise the question?

I am one of the Scoutmasters for my son's Boy Scout troop. We have a policy known as Two-up leadership. It says that you can never have just one leader alone w/ the boys. Is that because all of the leaders can't be trusted w/ the boys by themselves? No, it's to help eliminate any claims of impropriety. It's a conservative approach, but one that we never even think about not conforming to. Again, it's all about perception (some people use the phrase that perception is reality).

Andy has said that he ran the idea by 'some of the best and the brightest' (or something to that effect). Did he run it by the entire ITAC? Did he run it by Jeremy T.? Did he run it by the CRB? While running it by other racers will probably give you a good Kentucky windage, I would think that if you really wanted to reduce the chance of someone crying foul, that you would want to run it by people that were responsible for advising on, and setting policy.

Kinda of like a kid asking his older brother and sister if he can do something, rather thank asking mom or dad.

And while you may have typed a bunch of things Andy, what you have not done is put forth anything that justifies modifying a stock vacuum connection by connecting it to a non-stock MAP sensor. And I still contend that the current rule does not permit the addition of new sensors, regardless of their location (inside or outside the stock ECU housing). I also think that one can make the case that your new MAP does not communicate to the ECU through the stock, unmodified connector. You can't use the argument that it's part of the ECU because it's not. It's a sensor that just so happens to be attached to the ECU. It is not required, or necessary for the ECU to function.

[JLawton]

This modification certainly has brought up a perfect example of why rules in general should not say what you cannot do. If it says you cannot do X it is easy to say you must be able to do Y or the rule makes would have said so.
[/b]

Agreed, to a point. I still have to go with the fact that just because it specifically mentions something you CAN'T do, doesn't mean you CAN do everything else. Every decision should be based on: "Unless it says you can, you can't do it". It doesn't say: "If it says we can't do something, we can do everything else".

Sorry Andy, I gotta bring this up. I find it hard to believe that the hole didn't have to be inlarged or have a rubber grommet in it to run the line through. I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of the set up and a picture of a stock Miata ECU.



Edit: I wouldn't bother protesting anyone for this.

[dickita15]

Edit: I wouldn't bother protesting anyone for this.
[/b]

Jeff, I have to ask why?
Is it because you would not protest a grey area where the owner has a reasonable argument why he thinks it is legal even if you don’t or some other reason.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Agreed, to a point. I still have to go with the fact that just because it specifically mentions something you CAN'T do, doesn't mean you CAN do everything else. Every decision should be based on: "Unless it says you can, you can't do it". It doesn't say: "If it says we can't do something, we can do everything else".

Sorry Andy, I gotta bring this up. I find it hard to believe that the hole didn't have to be inlarged or have a rubber grommet in it to run the line through. I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of the set up and a picture of a stock Miata ECU.



Edit: I wouldn't bother protesting anyone for this. [/b]

Jeff,

You can look at my ECU housing anytime. Totally unmodified. And if you think it is, you SHOULD protest!

Bill,

I ran it by the guys who WOULD BE protesting me. A guy who fancies himself a rules nerd who has some pretty ingenious stuff on his car. Same guy who won the ARRC in 2006. I think it's legal and wanted a proactive opinion from people whose rules reading I respect - and will be fighting with for a podium. Not someone 1200 miles away whose opinion doesn't hold any water with local PC's. Your anaology is totally wrong. Since my competitors are chartered with enforcement of my car, they WOULD be the ones to get buy in.

As far as the vacuum source, it comes from an unused nipple on the engine. If your definition of 'modified' is me just uncapping it to use, I dissagree 100%. I need vacuum to run my 'free' computer. Just like you need electricity to run other 'free' items allowed. The source is there and I used it unmodified.

I am done. Like minds disagree. And TRUST ME, other than this sheit-storm, my car is built WELL to the left of grey. It HAS to be legal. And I believe it to be 100%. My car IS the higher standard you speak of. I have a ton of time and money ito it to make sure it is.

[Knestis]

...Last year, additional language was added to limited-prep cars, explicitly stating that they were allowed to convert rear drums to rear discs. It was already covered elsewhere in the PCS, but some felt that it was not clear, so additional language was added to remove the confusion. [/b]

Oh, absolutely a good idea! Language explicitly defining what IS allowed - not picking out something and prohibiting it. If it were merely "implied" or "understood" that disc conversions were allowed, it's wobbly. Now, I don't know that ruleset at all but if the intent is to allow converting to rear discs off of the same make/model/year, I'd expect the rule to say that. If they want it to be wide open, the language should be a specific as possible to say that instead.

...In the first passage, you seem to be saying that the protest and appeal process doesn't really establish anything, and in the second passage, you say that leglity is determined through the protest and appeal process.[/b]

I think both statements are accurate, as I understand things. Some clarification by someone more conversant on the topic might be in order but my PERCEPTION is that there's been a real reluctance in Club Racing to any system of precedent. One CoA can return a finding that might be completely contrary (or appear so) to a previous CoA finding, because they are each considered "on their own merit" - or some such language.

I think we could use a better system, particularly given the power of the interweb to shrink distance and time.

Finally, I coached girls gymnastics for years. You don't have to make a case to me about perceptions. Been there, done that, dodged the bullets.

However, regarding...

...Andy has said that he ran the idea by 'some of the best and the brightest' (or something to that effect). Did he run it by the entire ITAC? Did he run it by Jeremy T.? Did he run it by the CRB? ...[/b]

My thinking (again, maybe not well explained) is that even if this particular technical question had been vetted by ALL of those entities, in writing, in triplicate, it would make no difference in terms of anything beyond the symbolic - perceptions. The ITAC could informally vote or come to consensus but as a body they can't "recommend" anything on the question. Jeremy T. (the focus of my "wish all we want" comment) can have all the opinions in the world, but they make zero difference in a protest or appeal - as far as I understand, anyway. The CRB won't, as a body, rule on something - they are our legislative branch, not the judiciary. (Again - if I'm off base on functions here, educate me. It's been a long time since I worried about stuff at that level.)

Now, any or all of those bodies might well LEARN from the inquiry, which might inform subsequent actions on the subject. Since they legislative (ITAC and CRB, anyway), their response will likely be to try to legislate around the problem (dinking). If their dinking makes the allowance more specific, that's arguably a good thing (per your example). If the response were, "You are specifically not allowed to put a MAP sensor in the ECU and run a vacuum line to it" (hyperbole alert!), they're going the wrong way in my little opinion.

Now, the more I mull over the point about nobody considering the possibility that an "ECU" - quotes to remind us that "E" stands for "electronic" - might include mechanical functions, the more that argument gains traction in my mind. But that would be for the judiciary to work out.

K

[Ron Earp]

What happened to horsepower, torque, and the system?

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

The modification I have referred to, is connecting that stock vacuum port to a non-stock sensor. And as I pointed out before, you've got a sensor that's talking to the ECU through something other than the stock connection.

Kirk,

I did not mean to suggest that any opinions from the ITAC/Jeremy T./CRB would be binding on anything. But, those people are directly involved in the rules making process, whereas the guys that you race with may not be (most aren't).

Greg made a very telling comment before. He stated that he did not feel that Andy's mod met the spirit of the rule. I would imagine that his feelings about this came up in his conversations w/ Andy. What kind of message does it send when you have the chair of the ITAC taking that kind of approach? That may in fact be a test, at least for ourselves, as to where does an interpretation cross the line and become strained and tortured. You have to ask yourself if, while legal w/in the letter of the rules (and I am NOT saying that Andy's mod is legal, even to the letter of the rule), does it meet what you believe is the intent of the rule. If your answer is no, that's probably a good indication that your interpretation is at the very least, in the gray.

To clarify the rear disc conversion thing, the PCS states that cars w/ rear drums may convert to rear discs, as long as they are no larger than the front discs. There were entries on the spec lines of the limited prep cars, under the Brakes heading, that said 'Factory spec at all 4 wheels'. Some took this to mean that you were not allowed to convert to rear discs. Yet, there were other cars that had the specific size brakes listed (not limited prep cars). Some of those cars had rear drums. The people that argued against the l-p cars being allowed to convert to rear discs did not feel that non-l/p cars that had rear drums listed on their spec line were subject to the same restriction. The language was added to further reinforce the fact that all cars, regardless of prep level, were allowed to convert to rear discs, under the published limitations (size, material, etc.).

[bldn10]

First off, let's not jump on Andy because he is one of the more straight-up guys here and I don't think he would ever knowingly cheat. His argument in favor of the vac line is way more legit than many that are bandied about here; I just don't happen to agree w/ it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the intent of the current rule was to allow you to "alter or replace the ... ECU" inside the box and nothing more: nothing can enter the box that did not enter it in its OEM state; all electrical connections must be via the OEM harness. I think it is important that it expressly states that legal mods done to the ECU DO NOT bootstrap "the addition of wiring, sensors ...." I.e. the fact that your new whatever-in-a-box has the capability of monitoring/controlling functions that the OEM ECU did not, does not mean that you can make other mods to enable same. In this context "sensors" means sending units or input devices and whatever means they use to transmit engine management info to the ECU. That obviously includes wires, but I would suggest also vac lines, fluid lines, mechanical connections like throttle cables, and anything else. Perhaps even radio waves if you could rig up a wireless system! Would anyone here seriously say that if my new ECU could control fuel pressure on the fly that I could run the fuel line through the ECU through existing holes?

Out of curiosity, are there any/many OEM ECUs that receive input other than via electrical wires?

[pfcs49]

There are ECUs that have internal MAP sensors and external vacuum nipples to the vacuum (hose) source.
The only ones I know of are for cars that had original equiptment superchargers or turbochargers.
I wonder why they did it in that if the MAP sensor failed, you needed to replace the $$$ECM. (Audi 5000/100/200Turbo ^91, VW Corrado 89-91)
Many manufacturers have provided ignition "computers" that handled ignition strategy (timing), having built-in vacuum units and inputs for engine temp, etc. As far as I remember, they were always used in conjunction with Bosch CIS injection systems which also had a rudimentry ECM for fuel management. (Volvo 240 ^82, GTI ^87, etc.)
All of which has no relavence to this conversation-the elements of the (purported) illegality of the newly created vacuum circuit is prohibited in the intent paragraph on the first page of the IT rulebook. phil

[Bill Miller]

Fuel injected cars may alter or replace the engine management computer, or ECU, provided that all modifications are done within the original OEM ECU housing. Only the stock (unmodified) OEM ECU connection to the wiring harness may be used. The allowance to modify the ECU in no way permits the addition of wiring, sensors, or piggybacked computers outside of the OEM ECU housing. The stock (unmodified) wiring harness must be used. The installation of a resistor is allowed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. Adjustable fuel pressure regulators are permitted.[/b]

Look at it again Bill.

One question is, does the 'outside of the OEM ECU housing' modifier apply to only 'piggybacked computers' or does it modify all the items in the list? I think you can make the case that it only modifies 'piggybacked computers'. If that's the case, you can't add additional wiring or sensors, regardless of their location.

The other issue that I mentioned was that the MAP on Andy's new ECU doesn't connect to the ECU through the stock, unmodified connection.

Another statement to look at is the one that allows a resistor to be placed between the sensor and the OEM wiring harness. That statement implies that sensors must be connected to the OEM wiring harness. And don't even try and say that the ECU is the resistor between the MAP and the OEM wiring harness, because that doesn't fly.

And I'm not trying to pile on Andy. As I said before, I like him. I just think what he's done is not legal, and I'm disappointed that someone in his position (as chair of the ITAC) would push things so far into the gray and claim that they are legal, when in fact, they've never been put to the test.

And Jeff's comment is indicative of a the way a lot of people think. How many times have we heard "I wouldn't protest anyone for xxx"? How many people say they'll go talk to someone before they will file a protest? So, while I think it was a good thing that Andy ran the idea past people he races with, they're not the ones that determine legality.

[Knestis]

Kirk,

I did not mean to suggest that any opinions from the ITAC/Jeremy T./CRB would be binding on anything. But, those people are directly involved in the rules making process, whereas the guys that you race with may not be (most aren't). [/b]

...but that's precisely the conundrum: When we talk about whether something is "legal" or not, we aren't talking about the rules MAKING process - we're talking about the rules ENFORCEMENT process. The two are disconnected in our organization, which is arguably the very root of the challenges we face.

The folks who ultimately decide (again, the judicial branch) are left trying to figure out what the letter of the rules says, what the intent of the rule might have been, and even whether they should act on the letter OR the intent. Again, I don't LIKE IT ONE BIT but the current practice (i.e., for the last 20 years!) is that real-world judgments are based on the letter of the intent. This reinforces the "Hey, that's clever..." kind of enabling that Greg described.

I've used the example before but during the John Bishop era of IMSA, word was he'd literally look at something and say, "Nope - not what I had in mind. You're illegal." In our system, the guys we race with are pretty much the only ones responsible for initiating rules enforcement actions.

Again - I'm not at all concerned by the vacuum line question, really. If someone doesn't like it, they can protest it. I'm just interested in how it might inform future rules making and potential changes in rules-enforcement practice.

...and restated for the record: I would LOVE it if we could get back to generally conservative interpretations of intent. I've just come to understand that the tide has turned and the dominant paradigm is the one Greg's described - the Brave New World (aka "be careful what you ask for").

K

[JLawton]

Jeff, I have to ask why?
Is it because you would not protest a grey area where the owner has a reasonable argument why he thinks it is legal even if you don’t or some other reason.
[/b]

OK, ya got me on that one Dick!!

1) If a driver was beating me, it most likely isn't due to a modification like this one (small performance gains).
2) You have to pick your battles
3) Remember, I stuck my neck waaaaay out on a protest last year.
4) I'm about as far away from being a rules nerd as you can get, and wouldn't have the confidence that I was right.


Andy,
Let me rephrase my request cause I think it came out wrong. I don't want you to throw up pics so we can all judge you. Send me pics on e-mail. I am just curious to see if I was off base our not.


Yea, what about Torque vs HP and the system????