IIDSYCYC

But you can't argue that you haven't gained a competitive advantage. You have removed something that the rules don't say you CAN and lightened your vehicle in the process. A lighter car IS a competitive advantage.

ITCS page 7, 2004 GCR

"D. The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifciations shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function."

This statement clearly shows 'modifications' are to the car, not components. After this statement, it would have to say that you COULD remove the item for it to be legal.

AB
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Because the rules move forward from an assumption that the cars are prepared to showroom stock rules - that everything is expected to be there as delivered from the factory unless otherwise specified.
Click to expand...

Kirk, all due respect, but I think you missed the mark.

While your history may be correct. How is one to make that "assumption"?

Mr. Newbie comes into SCCA racing. Memorizes the GCR and the ITCS. Keeps current in all the happenings in Fast Track. He even sends in his Rules Nerd annual membership dues. How is he to know what is understood or implied? When the condition "for the purpose of obtaining any competitve advantage" is applied you are open to disable, alter or remove a component IF no competitve advatage is gained. How do you argue that you can't?
 
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
But you can't argue that you haven't gained a competitive advantage. You have removed something that the rules don't say you CAN and lightened your vehicle in the process. A lighter car IS a competitive advantage.
AB
Click to expand...

Andy, lets say that I remove some widget that isn't mentioned in the good book. I replace this removed weight with an ISAAC system. What competitve advantage have I gained?
 
You are formulating to suit your needs. You CAN'T remove the widgit because it doesn't say you can as specified in the rule I quoted. If you want to ADD an Isaac system, you are more than welcome to.

If you could just start removing things, some cars would gain a competitive advantage. Let's say the RX-7 and the 240Z are being compared. The 240Z removes all that the rules allow. The RX-7 removes everything that you are implying you can remove, and then adds that weight back in real low and balances the weight distribution to a perfect 50-50 F/R and L/R. The RX-7 is now at minimum - competitive advantage or not?

The quote I posted above says it all. You can't do it unless it says you can. Period. You can argue the symantics of the Intent section but not the RULES section I quoted.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
You can argue the symantics of the Intent section but not the RULES section I quoted.

AB
Click to expand...


All due respect Andy, but isn't that just what we've been doing?


------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process
 
How is he to know? By precedent.

PLEASE - someone protest Mr. Quickshoe on this point early this season.

I cannot WAIT for the appeal after he is tossed: "But I didn't 'modify' my window glass. I removed it - so it's legal. There's no rule that says I can't take it out." Unfounded. Next?

I will freakin' bust a gut laughing. It's this kind of jailhouse lawyerin' that is largely responsible for the creeping that we have to deal with today but if nobody steps up to do something about it, it gets entrenched and becomes "accepted." Barf.

Or there's a chance that this obtuse argument is just being trotted out there to wind people up.

K
 
Originally posted by erlrich:

All due respect Andy, but isn't that just what we've been doing?
Click to expand...

Well Mr. Shoe was quoting sections from the rulebook in his first post, so my assumption was that he was arguing that it was LEGAL, not that the intent was confusing.

I could be wrong. Either way, I believe the RULES say you can't do what he proposes.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by Knestis:

Or there's a chance that this obtuse argument is just being trotted out there to wind people up.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet against it.

I'm just curious (and totally serious), has anyone ever been tossed for not having a washer bottle?



------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process
 
Has anyone ever been protested for not having a washer bottle? Different question...

K

EDIT - to clarify: It's not that I necessarily think that all of these rules are "good" or make sense but if they are dumb then they should be changed. If they don't get changed, we can't just individually redefine terms as suits our intentions and expect that the world will agree with us.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited January 26, 2004).]
 
Before you brand Daryl A as someone who just stirs the pot, Ill tell you thats BS, look back at his posts and youll agree. If he thinks something needs clarified it probly does. Disagree with him but dont demean him, there must be a point being missed here. people forget to show the same respect they would in person when using these forums.
 
"I don't have a dog in this fight. I like to think that I can read the rules, as written, and remain unemotional and logical about them.

If they don't want the components removed why not say: " end quote

"...can not be disabled, altered or removed."

Why did they add "...for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage" unless it was possible to do so without obtaining a competitive advantage?

[/B][/QUOTE]


Seems rational and resonable, and he's right, when building my car the first thing I did was plan the cage to be able to toss 90% of the dash structure, is that fair?, rules say it is. I did it because the archaic rules said I could. all he is saying is reword certain phrases in the GCR so as to not create loopholes and debate and protest's and ruined weeekends at the track.
I bought Hiem joints for my EP car thinking after reading the PCS they were legal on my tie rod ends, so did Grayson Upchurch. P.S. anyone want to buy some rod ends?.



[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited January 26, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Does anyone else also get the impression the Miller actually HUNTS down my posts, just for the opportunity to take another poke???
rolleyes.gif


Click to expand...

Don't flatter yourself Darin. But, please do answer the question. Besides, w/ you, it's like shooting fish in a barrel (or bbl).
biggrin.gif


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
"'D. The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifciations shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function.'
This statement clearly shows 'modifications' are to the car, not components. After this statement, it would have to say that you COULD remove the item for it to be legal.
AB"

Andy,
I disagree with your interpretation that "This statement clearly shows 'modifications' are to the car, not components."

Logical argument premise 1:
GCR17.1.4.D
"The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited funtion"

Premise 2:
GCR 22.1 Glossary
"Modify - To change a component by reworking, but not by replacing"

Therefore:
You may change any component, as long as it does not perform a prohibited function.

However, I do agree with you that you can not remove a component and claim immunity under this statute. I do not see any rule that allows a general removal of "components", other than those otherwise authorized byt the GCR and the ITCS.

Christopher M Aylward
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Or there's a chance that this obtuse argument is just being trotted out there to wind people up.
Click to expand...

Oh, that wouldn't happen here would it?
wink.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
EDIT - to clarify: It's not that I necessarily think that all of these rules are "good" or make sense but if they are dumb then they should be changed. If they don't get changed, we can't just individually redefine terms as suits our intentions and expect that the world will agree with us.
Click to expand...

Damn Kirk. I couldn't agree more. And you probably thought at one time we couldn't agree on anything.

What's the world coming to?

Cats and dogs living together......
wink.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
...If they don't get changed, we can't just individually redefine terms as suits our intentions and expect that the world will agree with us.
Click to expand...

Round 12 is over, car's ready for tech.

Kirk,

I agree 100%. WE can't redefine terms to suit our intentions...

Andy,

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Even the rules section that you quote says "Modifications" back to the definition, per the GCR, of modify.

Daryl,

Thanks for the kind words while I was away wrenching. While it is not my normal style. I have been known to stir the pot once in a while to create discussion and thought. Fact is, all too often I see someone come up with the "IIDSYCYC", and I disagree. That isn't always the case.

The $100 helmet for the $100 head is another one that gets me. I spent a lot of money on my helmet, but I certainly think my heads worth a lot more. Many of you may disagree
wink.gif


And for anyone who wants to protest me for anything, feel free to do so. It won't hurt my feelings. It might even be a psychological advantage for me, when you find out you've been beat fair and square.

Too much time and position to be gained by out driving and out racing anyway. No need to get tossed because I left out my window glass, or washer bottle, or every other fastener on the body, or whatever.


Daryl DeArman

I don't always include my signature on my posts, apologies. Not trying to hide anything, just Kirk calling me Mr. Shoe brought it to my attention.
 
Originally posted by therooster:

Logical argument premise 1:
GCR17.1.4.D
"The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited funtion"

Premise 2:
GCR 22.1 Glossary
"Modify - To change a component by reworking, but not by replacing"

Therefore:
You may change any component, as long as it does not perform a prohibited function.

Christopher M Aylward
Click to expand...

GCR17.1.4.D
"The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein."

What this says is that you will find in the rules a list of modifications you can legally do. It does not say you can remove. It does not say you can change anything, it says you can MODIFY when told you can. It specifically states that you can't do ANYTHING unless it authorizes you to do so. How much clearer can that be?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com


[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited January 27, 2004).]
 
Geo, did ya read the response from Andy to therooster ?
wink.gif


[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited January 27, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Geo, did ya read the response from Andy to therooster ?
wink.gif


[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited January 27, 2004).]
Click to expand...

You mean the one just above your message?

Yeah. So?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top