January 2009 Fastrack is out..

[JoshS]

Did everyone see the story about the rear spoiler protest on an ITA RX-7?

I've seen this car many times, but it never occurred to me to comment on the spoiler.

The owner, Chuck Koos, used the GCR section 9.1.3.8.b as justification for the spoiler. I can see why, although generally, it seems to be more about FRONT spoilers than rear.

Do you all think that there is an intent to allow aftermarket rear spoilers in IT? Does that allowance need to be clarified?

[Greg Amy]

Do you all think that there is an intent to allow aftermarket rear spoilers in IT?

No.

Does that allowance need to be clarified?

No: he was found non-compliant. The process worked, right?

What I found far more troubling is what in the hell is K.P. Jones' problem with Mike Tearney? Someone wake up on the grumpy side of the bed...?

Link to Jan Fastrack:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-jan.pdf

Josh, I hope you don't mind, I edited the topic name to be more generic so we can use this topic for all Fastrack discussions... - Greg

[JoshS]

No.

No: he was found non-compliant. The process worked, right?

Well, does the end justify the means?

He was found non-compliant not because he had a rear spoiler. He was found non-compliant because his rear spoiler was a dealer-installed or limited production part. Had he fabbed the thing up himself, it looks to me like the appeals committee wouldn't have had a problem with it.

[Greg Amy]

Had he fabbed the thing up himself, it looks to me like the appeals committee wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Not true: IIDSYCYC, right? Where does the ITCS allow a fabbed up rear spoiler? Or any rear spoiler for that matter, other than one that's original equipment (see last weekend's discussion over "optional" versus "standard" equipment)?

The guy's base reasoning was flawed, he was protested, and the rear spoiler was found non-compliant. How he got to that conclusion is irrelevant, right?

[Greg Amy]

Am I reading correctly that rebuilding to service specs will be allowed in the Wreck Pinata next year? That's probably a good idea, recognizing the reality of the situation.

Loved the Beetle comment: "ITB – Move the Beetle to ITB (Conover). ITC is still alive."

"Classify the 70-72 Porsche 914-6 in ITA." Wow. A nice mid-engine 2-liter 6-banger in ITA at 2095 pounds...maybe Blake will rethink that ITB project...

Looks like Touring is going the way of Improved Touring 20 years ago, with removal of interiors...the creep was inevitable...

[JoshS]

Not true: IIDSYCYC, right? Where does the ITCS allow a fabbed up rear spoiler? Or any rear spoiler for that matter, other than one that's original equipment (see last weekend's discussion over "optional" versus "standard" equipment)?

The guy's base reasoning was flawed, he was protested, and the rear spoiler was found non-compliant. How he got to that conclusion is irrelevant, right?

You're not wrong, and I generally agree that more words aren't good, but in this case I'll suggest we should REMOVE some words. Namely, these:

"Dealer installed, or limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams/wings are prohibited."

First of all, why are we talking about rear spoilers in the front spoiler section?

Second of all, why do we have to say that something is prohibited? IIDSYCYC, right?

It appears that the driver thought his rear spoiler was okay because it says that some rear spoilers are prohibited -- therefore, others must be okay, right? And it almost appears that the court of appeals agreed.

[JeffYoung]

Josh, just me, but I don't see an issue here.

1. Guy claimed this was part of a Mazda offered "IMSA Performance Package." CoA determined it was limited production and disallowed it. The right call.

2. Even if the driver tried to argue it was legal via negative implication -- limited production spoilers are disallowed -- he'd still lose because of, as Greg indicates, "if it doesn't say you can." No rule allows him to fab up a spoiler.

[Greg Amy]

Very good points, all, Josh.

I would suggest that in reading the minimal info that the appeal provided, that the protestee thought that his Mazda RX-7 aero kit was a legal option from the factory. This is terribly ironic, given that I mentioned this particular aero kit this very past weekend in that other thread (and I knew NOTHING of this protest/appeal, honest), and I'm almost 100% certain that this kit was THE reason for the verbiage in the ITCS you list above.

Always remember the base premise for I.T. is IIDSYCTYC. The inclusion of the verbiage is, at best, another example of words that should not be in there (we don't NEED to state what *isn't* allowed); at worst it's a poorly-placed declaration that could lead people in the Kirk ITCS Logic Fallacy: reading about something that is "not allowed" and therefore - sometimes reasonably - concluding that since XX is also not listed as "not allowed" then it must be allowed (e.g., splitters are legal because air dams are free and there's no further restriction within the physical spaces given).

But, to your point, in the case of this aero kit there's nothing in the rules that allow it, thus no reason for that verbiage to limit it.

I think the process worked this time, and it's awful tough to get me to agree to a rule change where the worst case to a poorly-worded rule wasn't realized (same as AB's discussion on the "snake" CAI and the word "primary".)

However, if one is to consider a "removal clarification" of a long-standing rule, one has to consider if it redundant or violates IIDSYCTYC. IOW, is it telling you cannot do something that is otherwise not allowed? I'd suggest that ANY rule stating you "can't" do something is redundant to IIDSYCTYC except in the context of a rule that says you "can" (e.g., we decide to ban spoilers within the context of airdam allowances). And, of course, it's important to vet that carefully, lest you end up allowing something that is currently not allowed.

Again, I believe the process worked this time, but I see your point. I'd want to think about it further, but I'd agree with you that this rule clarifies nothing, that its value was likely historical in context, and that its removal may serve no ulterior motives...but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I've thought through all the possiblities...

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is one of the 'dis-allowances' that I think has to stay...unless you add in a specific allowance that states that 'only standard production front and rear spoilers are allowed'. Is it easier to then clarify what isn't allowed - or define what 'standard production' is?

So we can eliminate the disallowance but we need to add something somewhere to clarify. This RX-7 guy may have bought that car new and remembered thinking it was a Mazda option or whatever.

[Z3_GoCar]

Did everyone see the story about the rear spoiler protest on an ITA RX-7?

I've seen this car many times, but it never occurred to me to comment on the spoiler.

The owner, Chuck Koos, used the GCR section 9.1.3.8.b as justification for the spoiler. I can see why, although generally, it seems to be more about FRONT spoilers than rear.

Do you all think that there is an intent to allow aftermarket rear spoilers in IT? Does that allowance need to be clarified?

I was there that day. Talking to Naji during my lunch break, he mentioned that he was going to protest Chuck, but that tech did it first. Personally, I wish they were allowed. But, I also understand the issues if this were to go through. Yeah, seperate the rear spoiler from the front and give it's own line.

[R2 Racing]

ITAC - nice work on changing the weight of the '88-91 DX in ITB and getting the ITS & ITR Prelude specs straightened out.


I find it interesting that they dropped the Acura Integra GSR from SSB to SSC. I also find it very interesting that they're going to allow T/SS cars to strip the interiors. That almost makes me want to go find a GSR. Almost.


edit - wait a minute, that allowance to strip your interior is only for T and not for SS, isn't it? Why would they do that?

[nj1266]

I was racing in ITA @ BW when all this happened. I alerted the officials to the illegal spoiler on the car after talking to many racers familiar with the RX-7. They told me that they have not seen an ITA RX-7 race with such a rear spoiler.

Before qualifying I alerted the chief tech official about the rule and spoiler and he agreed with me that it is indeed ilegal. After qualifying, the tech officials talked to Chuck Koos in my presence. He insisted that the rear spoiler is legal and that he will appeal the decision. His qualifying time was DQed.

Before the race I went to the SOM, paid $25 and filed a supporting protest and left. This was my first protest ever and I was not sure if the tech officials in the pits were going to followe through or not, so I filed my own. The next time I saw the SOM, he gave me my $25 and told me that Chuck will remove the spoiler and start from the tail end of the grid. It did not matter one bit, he still won the race. He was 3 seconds faster per lap than I was :eek:. He is a terrific driver with a far superior set-up to my SE-R.

About a week or two later, I got an e-mail from the COA notifying me of his protest. I, as well as the officials, expected him to lose the protest. The language of the rule is very clear.

I am glad that the COA gave him soem of his money back.

[nj1266]

I was there that day. Talking to Naji during my lunch break, he mentioned that he was going to protest Chuck, but that tech did it first. Personally, I wish they were allowed. But, I also understand the issues if this were to go through. Yeah, seperate the rear spoiler from the front and give it's own line.

Hi James. How is the BMW coming along? Will you be able to make it to Cal Speedway? I am having my suspension re-built and hope to get it back soon and get the car aligned before the race. Hope to see you there.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hi James. How is the BMW coming along? Will you be able to make it to Cal Speedway? I am having my suspension re-built and hope to get it back soon and get the car aligned before the race. Hope to see you there.

Hey Naji,

The motor's still in pieces, I think Cal Speedway is out. Even after I get the motor togeather I need to have the ECU retuned. I'm shooting for the end of Febrary to have it running again.

[chuck baader]

Greg, I know there are quite a few youngsters in IT that probably don't remember, but when I was in Germany, 69-71, the 914-6 had SIX cylinders. The 914-4 was the 4 cylinder car. Typo? Chuck

[Greg Amy]

G...the 914-6 had SIX cylinders. The 914-4 was the 4 cylinder car. Typo? Chuck

I'm not sure what you mean, Chuck: the 914-6 actually had a TWO LITER 6-cylinder engine (yup, dos litre)...as did the 911 of similar/earlier vintage (I think the 914-6 got the 911T engine?)...

This is one of the 'dis-allowances' that I think has to stay...unless you add in a specific allowance that states that 'only standard production front and rear spoilers are allowed'.

Andy, I'm not with you here. Are you trying to say that you believe removing this line would negate the ability to run "standard" and "optional" rear wings as per our thread of this past weekend? If so, I disagree: if we accept that standard and factory-option wings (and other equipment) are allowed, then this verbiage (that Josh references) above has no effect, and is redundant... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

If so, I disagree: if we accept that standard and factory-option wings (and other equipment) are allowed, then this verbiage (that Josh references) above has no effect, and is redundant... - GA

I think we are on the same page - but I think that SOMEPLACE, standard and optional has to be spelled out in order for us to use the laguage.

[Greg Amy]

...SOMEPLACE, standard and optional has to be spelled out in order for us to use the laguage.

I'm on record - and I truly believe - that rule changes for the sake of rule changes is, generally, counterproductive, disruptive, and can stir up the muck of possible unintended consequences. But, if you're willing to toss those suggestions up to the masses (at least here, and maybe the Sandbox) so that they be vetted, then I'm open-minded...

[Xian]

I'm not sure what you mean, Chuck: the 914-6 actually had a TWO LITER 6-cylinder engine (yup, dos litre)...as did the 911 of similar/earlier vintage (I think the 914-6 got the 911T engine?)...

I'm pretty sure Chuck was referring to how the new spec line for the 914-6 lists it as a 4cyl... on the Sandbox Jake already responded that it was a typo that was caught ahead of time but still managed to sneak thru.

[Greg Amy]

...the new spec line for the 914-6 lists it as a 4cyl...

Ding! missed that, thanks. - GA