Is this airdam legal for IT?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chief Steward: "Mr. Amy, the rules state the airdam "shall" be attached to the body of the car. Is it so on your car?"
Mr. Amy: "Yes, sir, it is most definitely attached to the body of the car. You can clearly see it over there (pointing toward car)."
Chief Steward: "Mr. Bettencourt believes it can ONLY be attached to the body of the car."
Mr. Amy: "Yes, sir, that may very well be his belief, but the rules don't stipulate that."

Simply your opinion Greg. I believe, as do a few on here, that SHALL is a fine word to describe a singular allowance. Our debate is in the meaning of the word shall, and I believe the definition supports my assessment. It would be up to the CS to agree or disagree. There is certainly room for debate.

But really, when it comes down to it who really the F cares if someone is using brackets to hold up the undertray?? Who got this burr up under their saddle? Why do we even care? I can tell you why *I* am arguing it: it's been proven time and time again that debates such as this suddenly and auto-magically* end up with rules changes to match what Those in Power wish it to be. So while that possibility may changed given recent events, I want those reading this to clearly understand where we are, how we got here, and what they'll be doing to reality if they try that again.

Nobody. But when you trot your interpretation out as law, it's fair to take on the debate.

*One example: a few years ago there was a similar spirited argument in regard to the use of spherical cassettes/bearings being used as "alternate material bushings" in suspensions. I strongly felt that this not only violated the letter of the rules, but clearly the spirit as well. As a result, I organized, co-wrote, and collected funds for the issue to be submitted to the SCCA for technical review under the "Compliance Review" process, GCR 8.1.4 in the current GCR, the proper way for issues such as this to be resolved per our Club charter and regulations.

After spending much of my time on this issue, just as I was about to submit this for a formal and public review, I received a call from someone "in the know" telling me that I would be wasting my time, that the CRB had auto-magically and suddenly decided at their last meeting to formally re-write the suspension bushings rule to explicitly allow spherical bearings as suspension bushings in Improved Touring. This rule change - oops, sorry, clarification - was put through Fastrack with no user feedback, as a Technical Bulletin; it's what we have today.

Imagine that; what a really strange coincidence!

Ever since then I've accepted that this is now how "we" do business, and acted accordingly. - ga

You will remember that I was with you 100% on your interpretation of that rule. While you were doing that 'work', someone wrote in and asked for a clarification. The CRB asked the ITAC our opinion. What we did was ask THEM what the original intent was so we could help them write a better rule. Amazingly, the CRB said that yes, they didn't care what suspension bushings were made of. I found it hard to believe that was true, but we clarified it per their 'intent'.

Could happen here too. The point is if you want to leave something the way it is, don't poke it. It may not end up the way you want. We all know that.

[Greg Amy]

...SHALL is a fine word to describe a singular allowance. Our debate is in the meaning of the word shall

No need to debate the word; read GCR 1.2.3. Show me this "singular allowance".

And the procedures that the CRB took in attempting to "clarify" the suspension bushings rule - asking the ITAC for their interpretations, unilaterally changing the rule to fit their own desires, and doing so without membership feedback and BoD approval - are all clear violations of the GCR.

GA