September 2011 Fastrack

[Chip42]

What's frustrating - beyond creep, from which I've tried to separate myself - is that just for the sake of this conversation, everyone is looking at the magician's waving right hand (the pulley) while the real issue is in his left hand going to his pocket (the pump).

not everyone

Someone - ANYONE - forget the silly damned pulleys for a second and tell us what rule allows someone to make the power steering system stop working the way it was designed to by the manufacturer.

someopne else covered this, but we are allowed to modify it from the manufacturer by underdriving it. we are not allowed to disable it or underdrive to zero, which accomplishes the same thing.

As a culture we get so "gee whiz" about the clever cheats, and so caught up in the paddock lawyer (again, sorry Jeff) word games, that we forget about the bigger picture. And it ultimately concerns me that the ITAC seems as susceptible to this as the rest of the IT membership.

And to Tim's suggestion - that scares me. A lot. The answer at this point MIGHT just be, "Well that's awfully complicated. Let's just let everyone loop the hoses."

1 - I think you are reading too much into it. there's some people here, myself included, wheo are bandying about silly ideas for overcomplicated devices that meet the actual rules as bearing pulleys seem to have been pretty well debunked. I don't think anyone has stated outright that they think such a device is within the intent of the current rule. you should be happy, by the way, that anyone, particularly ad hoc members, are "caught up" in this discussion, as it will lead to a better vetting of what the rule as written could be interpereted to mean by the cleverest among us. there's no indication that I've seen that anyone on any comittee is encouraging these, though some do believe them to be legal. if you know a way to write rules to be water tight, let me know. my gut says clarify the intent section and cut the extrapolation and restrictions where possible.

2- I doubt you would get that reply. I can't and won't speak for the itac at large, but I know that I am not looking to change the rule, but am willing to hear a good argument to do so. I haven't seen one yet. larger than that are the implications on classifications and the process, so the inertia of it all will tend to try and keep things as-is.

[JeffYoung]

For what it is worth, at least for me, Chip is right. I think this is an unintended consequence of the alternate pulley rule, which was intended to allow underdriving (or overdriving).

BUT, it sure is a fine line isn't it? Between JUST turning that pump shaft and not at all......