Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[StephenB]

Looks like the CRX moved to B as well.

Improved Touring
ITA
1. #9410 (SCCA Staff) Re-Classify the Honda CRX 1.5L (standard) (88-91) to ITB
Reclassify the ITA Honda CRX 1.5L (standard) (88-91) to ITB as classified in ITA with the following
exceptions:
Weight: 2000 2110
Gear Ratios: 3.25, 1.65, 1.03, 0.82 or 3.25, 1.89, 1.26, 0.94, 0.77

[tom91ita]

So this was the August 2009 moser inquiry?

. COURT OF APPEALS
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Robert Moser vs. First Review Rules Interpretation, COA ref. No. 09-RI-02 June 25, 2009
FACTS IN BRIEF
On January 1, 2009, Robert Moser submitted a request for Rules Interpretation asking for a ruling on the compliance of the spoiler/air dam on his 1988 Honda CRX Si ITA relative to GCR 9.1.3.D.8.b. Pursuant to GCR 8.1.4., Ken Patterson, Chairman of the Stewards’ Program, appointed a Review Committee of Rick Mitchell, Bob Eddy, and Tom Brown, Chairman, who met, reviewed Mr. Moser’s sub- missions and documentation, and spoke with Mr. Moser on several occasions. They concluded that the spoiler is non-compliant because the spoiler/air dam is not mounted onto the body of the car, as mandated by 9.1.3.D.8.b.
Mr. Moser is appealing that decision to the Court.
DATES OF THE COURT
The Court of Appeals (COA) Dick Templeton, David Nokes, and Robert Horansky, Chairman, met on June 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2009 to hear, review, and render a decision on the request.
DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED
1. Letter and supporting documentation from Mr. Moser requesting a Rules Interpretation, dated January 1, 2009. 2. Review Committee decision, dated May 18, 2009.
3. Appeal letter from Mr. Moser, dated May 28, 2009.
4. Appeal Notification, dated May 29, 2009.
5. Email statements from Bob Dowie, Club Racing Board Chairman, dated June 14 and June 24, 2009.
FINDINGS
In the original request, Mr. Moser sought “guidance regarding whether a ‘splitter’ design using two or more panels that attach to the integrated bumper, the radiator support panel and inner fender liners, and that has openings in the horizontal plane between the inte- grated bumper and vertical face of the splitter with free flow of air behind the face of the integrated bumper is legal on an IT car under 9.1.3.D.8.b.”
Multiple components may be joined to create an air dam, whose shape is unrestricted - thus allowing a “splitter” lip which must not protrude beyond the body when viewed from above. The panel must be attached to the body or bumper cover (if the car is so equipped), but no support may extend aft of the forward-most part of the front fender wheel opening. However, there may be no open- ings in the horizontal plane between the integrated bumper and vertical face of the air dam (splitter) that allow the free flow of air. Any openings in the air dam must be ducted to either the brakes or the oil cooler.
Mr. Moser’s design incorporates unducted openings, and is therefore non-compliant.
DECISION
The Court of Appeals upholds the determination of the Review Committee that the design is non-compliant; however, the basis for the non-compliance is not the attachment design, but rather the presence of the unducted openings.
The Court of Appeals finds that Mr. Moser’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee, less the amount retained by SCCA, will be returned.