Results 1 to 20 of 359

Thread: Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sunnyside, NY
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    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 submissions 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 integrated 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 openings 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.



    1) Thank you for time given to me and my request by the ITAC, much appreciated, honestly.
    2) What has changed since 2009 which allows Mr. Moser to place a rules interpretation with SCCA, I assume, through the CRB/ITAC (www.crbscca.com) and I can't? What are we missing besides ad nausea on this topic?
    3) After my NHMS incidents, I would like to re-install aeros devices on my car before spring. I submitted evidence to the ITAC/CRB that this is a grey area where I selfishly require clarification before I invest more money in my car and unselfishly give enough notice to both those with or without splitters time to act accordingly.
    4) If you leave it the judicial arm of the SCCA, you are forcing me to protest one of friends in IT that runs a splitter to get a "clear" answer, which would probably vary by region... yeah, not very clear.
    5) The final response of the Court Of Appeals on Moser request is VERY SINFUL in my opinion. "With all due respect" to the governing SCCA body, let's man up and let's make a decision. I hope the timing of my request is just "off" and if so, I will make 2 rules change request to the ITAC in the coming months.

    Unapologetically and appreciatively, Mickey
    Last edited by mossaidis; 10-16-2012 at 05:39 PM.
    Demetrius Mossaidis aka 'Mickey' #12 ITA NESCCA
    '92 Honda Civic Si
    STFU and "Then write a letter. www.crbscca.com"
    2013 ITA NARRC Champion and I have not raced since.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •