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..."