Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[Chip42]

This is a very unofficial "I'm not on the STAC and this is my opinion" post...


Chip, back in '07/08 or so, AJ Nealey and Gregg Ginsberg used the GCR process to get clarification on the intake on a competitor's ITA car. Along with their response to that process, they got a STERN rebuke about using this GCR process as a way to "clarify" a reg. My inference from the reply was that using this process to do ANYTHING but clarify something presented as a **NEW** competitive advantage was a waste of the process' time and an abomination of mankind (it was, IMO, a rude and inappropriate reply).

What you are suggesting is, based on that experience, a direct contravening of the GCR. And, I suggest, if a reg is not clear, and is in reality possibly being applied in direct conflict with the intent of the regs, it is decisively within the committee's responsibility to "clarify" that interpretation and/or correct the verbiage in the regs.

I do not think it proper to ask a competitor to develop a whole farcical protest to "test" validity of an application of a reg, nor do I think it proper to use that GCR clarification process to have the CRB - and by extension, the ITAC - make a formal decision as to the application of a rule. If there's any question - and by your direct reply above, there is decisive and well-known debate within the ITAC - as to how well or not a reg is being applied, it is within your authority - within your responsibility - to clarify it by interpretation and/or adjustment in the verbiage of the regs.

My 2 cents.

GA

P.S., please read my sig....

GA, my reply is based as much on what I've seen here and at the track as what was discussed on the ITAC. the splitter / air dam debate is well known.

the ITAC does not provide legality rulings, only recommendations and clarifications. from the Advisory Committee Manual

Clarifications—While the Club Racing Board, when they write a rule, understand it totally and there is no doubt in the Board of Directors minds when they approved it, sometimes a few competitors will interpret it in a completely different manner. Thus a clarification is born. A clarification cannot result in a substantive alteration of a rule, merely an expression of its original intent. If it appears that a clarification will result in a totally new meaning, then it becomes in effect a rule change.

The ITAC did not agree on the intent, so any decision would have been effectively a rule change, and we felt the letter was more of a request for a ruling of legality and that the pot was better unstirred.

I did not know about the CRB/COA reply to Gregg and AJ. that's interesting, and a shame. one would figure that the PTB would relish the chance to do what they do on a volunteer level for a $300 fee to the club, particularly when it is a process spelled out in the GCR.

[Greg Amy]

The thing here, Chip, is that we know there's a regs conflict, and we are choosing not to resolve it proactively. I don't think that's right. When the ITAC (and by extension, the STAC and all other "ACs") consciously choose to not address the conflict with verbiage updates, I think we're doing a disservice to the organization.

Said differently, I don't think it's right to recognize there's a conflict and choosing to respond with "rules are correct as written". By your own admission, they most assuredly are not!

But I see the issue here: you change the regs in one direction to make it explicitly compliant and suddenly a lot more people are doing it, or you change the regs in the other direction to make it explicitly non-compliant and suddenly a lot of people are illegal. Well, guess what? By ignoring the situation we are doing a great disservice to both camps.

And, as a great philosopher once said, "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

And there's certainly precedent: spherical bearings. Many moons ago (seems like forever), we had a spirited debate on this forum when I learned that some folks were using sphericals. As with the first time I saw a splitter, I saw those as contrary to the regulations (and, IMO, the spirit). However, unlike with a splitter, I looked at the regs and found nothing where they met the letter of the regs; after all, how in the hell is a bearing a bushing?? After more spirited debate - which ultimately led to my being "Earp'd" with a "Screw you, I'm running them, if you don't like it protest me" I decided to use the GCR process to get a "clarification". I put together what I thought was a well-written, well-researched, well-presented letter and I had the money in hand to get spherical bearings "clarified" in Improved Touring.

The day before I was to send the request - and I mean the very afternoon before that letter was to hit the post office - word came down that a "clarification" of the rules was going to be in the next Fastrack, making sphericals explicitly compliant. The ITAC/CRB was changing the words in the ITCS to specifically call out sphericals as allowed.

The inference was clear: sphericals were a tortured interpretation of the regs and not compliant to the letter (and by extension, the spirit). However the CRB decided that the "horse was out of the barn" and did not want to make a bunch of competitors change their cars back to bushings. So they changed the regs to match what people were actually doing.

Same goes for splitters: not explicitly called out in the regs, and the mounting methods are questionable. Within the spirit? IMO, not within the spirit of 1985, but certainly within the spirit of 2012. So why not go ahead and change the regs to match what "everybody" is doing? All it would do is even the playing field so that those of us that are not nearly as "creative" in interpreting the regs will understand that these parts are allowed.

And I do believe that is within the authority and responsibility of the CRB/ITAC.

Food for thought.

GA

[Chip42]

changing the rule is absolutely within an AC's mission and "powers" but we chose not to. this rule has been this way for a LOOOOONG time, and it's not hurting anything staying as is. I've never seen or heard of a real "splitter" protest, just ones like moser (in part with added openings) and hines (grafted seamlessly into the bumper cover) and other than these online discussions, I've never seen or heard a spirited debate about them. so its not obvious to me that the rule NEEDS changing. yeah, it'd be nice for the sake of clarity, but there are bigger fish to fry and people are upset enough with rules creep/changes. the greater disservice would be to alienate one portion of the paddock or another with a clarification that they are currently living peacefully without.

[Ron Earp]

l

After more spirited debate - which ultimately led to my being "Earp'd" with a "Screw you, I'm running them, if you don't like it protest me"

Hold now, not to derail the discussion but I protest my name being used in the context of performing an illegal modification. While I mentioned running NACA ducts in my rear windows and would like to do it, after the discussion around them I'm coming around to them being illegal. And, regardless of the discussion, I never performed the modification. On the IT cars I build and tend to I have never carried out any modifications which I thought were illegal, were explicitly illegal, or that the general consensus was that the modification was illegal. So keep Earp out of it.

The splitter debate is important to me. We've not yet built splitters for the Mustangs and I sure don't want to run afoul of the rules, or spend a lot of time engineering a great splitter only to have it deemed illegal. Are there any pictures of this Mosler CRX splitter so one can visualize the shape of the device and the areas deemed illegal?

[tom91ita]

Ron

I don't believe the mosers had any illegal splitters. It was an alternate design they were considering that did not get approved.

[Greg Amy]

l...I protest my name being used in the context of performing an illegal modification.

It was a joke.

Your protest was well-founded, and your fee is being returned to you.

[Greg Amy]

Another data point.

My memory on this specific point is fuzzy, so it could be inaccurate (and AJ and Gregg can confirm/deny) but I seem to recall that they tried to use the protest process to get a clarification on a similar item on the same ITA competitor (same as the one they did the GCR process on). And, as I recall, they were also rebuked (by the local stewards?) for trying to use the protest process for clarification when they're supposed to use the GCR process.

Damned if you do this, damned if you do that.

So based on what we're reading, here's the options and possible results:

Use the protest process

- Friend A protests Friend B on the splitter/mounting ($25). Local stewards find it compliant/non-compliant. "Loser" appeals to Topeka ($25?) and Court of Appeals is formed. CRB and ITAC review the regs and decide what best meets the philosophy of the class. Interpretation is delivered back down. Regs are changed to meet the results.

Use the GCR process

- Friend A sends a GCR clarification request to Topeka ($300). Court of Appeals is formed. CRB and ITAC review the regs and decide what best meets the philosophy of the class. Interpretation is delivered back down. Regs are changed to meet the results.

ITAC/CRB take the proactive steps to clarify/change regs

CRB and ITAC review the regs ($0) and decide what best meets the philosophy of the class. Interpretation is delivered back down. Regs are changed to meet the results.

Seems to be a common theme here....

Or, continue the status quo

No one knows for sure what is compliant and/or not compliant; everybody takes a different interpretation and thus the regs are not applied equitably. Confusion, uncertainty, and general overall dissatisfaction with the process.

But, I suppose there's a third tactic...

Since the ITAC contends it cannot "interpret" a reg, then someone - and please decide one person, so the committee is not inundated - sends a specific request to the CRB to explicitly allow splitters and undertrays in Improved Touring that do not extend outside the body outline of the car, do not go farther back than the wheel opening, and are no lower than the bottom of the wheel, and to explicitly define the "body" in terms of where the pieces/parts can mount. This will result in one of a few possibilities:

- Response is "not within the philosophy of the class" thus clarifying the situation (win), or;
- Regs are changed to explicitly describe what can and cannot be done (win) thus clarifying the situation;
- "Rules are correct as written". Fale. We all agree they are not.

GA