Is this airdam legal for IT?

[Greg Amy]

Really Greg? Honestly the last person here that I thought would ever stretch the rules this far.

"Stretching the rules"? Really? "Stretching the rules"? Are you feakin' kidding me?!?

- Given the old rules for suspension bushings - before the CRB unilaterally changed the rule to match what people were doing - how in the hell did we come up with spherical bearings in control arms?

- Given the old rules for ECUs - before the ITAC/CRB changed the rules to match what people were doing - how in the hell did we come up with adding additional sensors, such as a MAP sensors, in these "factory housing" ECUs and added vacuum lines from the intake manifold, into the car, and through screw holes in the case to feed this newly-installed sensor?

- And, given the current rules for "air dams and splitters" - which, as of this point have not yet been changed to match what people are doing - how in the hell did we come up with aerodynamic splitters and undertrays?

And you accuse *me* of stretching the rules on freaking mounting brackets?!?!?

These are but three examples of the hypocrisy being displayed in this thread and others like it. Words mean things, and if rules are to be "interpreted" - instead of simply read - for what they were intended to be, then that must apply across the board, not just against what you like and what you don't like. Just because YOU didn't read the rules for what they say, not with using your pre-conceived assumptions to read what you THINK they say, don't accuse me of stretching the rules.

It's historically been made patently clear by the Improved Touring racing community - and codified by the ITAC and CRB in subsequent rules changes to reflect reality - that these rules are to be read for what they SAY and not for what they may possibly have MEANT when written. "Intention" is not part of the rules, nor is it even available to the competitor to disseminate; words are.

"Stretching the rules"? Hardly.

GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I will agree with one main point Greg makes. He isn't 'stretching' per se, he is applying what he thinks he is reading. Some read it different.

 

[lateapex911]

It's the old "Perceived intent" vs "strict reading of the actual words" debate.

It says, the Airdam shall be attached to the body.

It could also say, the airdam shall only be attached to the body.

But it doesn't.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's the old "Perceived intent" vs "strict reading of the actual words" debate.

It says, the Airdam shall be attached to the body.

It could also say, the airdam shall only be attached to the body.

But it doesn't.

And to me, it doesn't have to. If the word was 'may' then I would agree.

#1 The airdam may be attached to the body.
#2 The airdam may only be attached to the body.

'The airdam shall be attached to the body' is #2 the way I read it.

So now what will happen is that someone will ask for a clarification (as what happened with SB as bushings). What SHOULD happen is that the CRB would review their intent when the rule was written and adjust accordingly. Could be as simple as the addition of the word 'only'.

Now if they cave in (like they did with SB's) and clarify the rule to anything other than the original intent......

 

[lateapex911]

And to me, it doesn't have to. If the word was 'may' then I would agree.

#1 The airdam may be attached to the body.
#2 The airdam may only be attached to the body.

'The airdam shall be attached to the body' is #2 the way I read it.

So now what will happen is that someone will ask for a clarification (as what happened with SB as bushings). What SHOULD happen is that the CRB would review their intent when the rule was written and adjust accordingly. Could be as simple as the addition of the word 'only'.

Now if they cave in (like they did with SB's) and clarify the rule to anything other than the original intent......

yea, but is there anyone ON the CRB that was around when the rule was originally drafted? That wording hasn't been changed for a long time, if memory serves. Not that there are notes or documentation to check.....

For the ITAC/CRB it will boil down to:
-Do we do what we think/guess/ thought the intent was, or
-Do we support it as written because that's what people have been building to for what, 10 or 15 years??

From OUR point of view, it's "tough crap if you built to the rules, Undo your work and do it this way" if the former is chosen. Unless you were conservative and built to your perception of the intent.

I see Greg's oint here. The rule ALLOWS an airdam that fits in this XYZ envelope of dimensional requirements, and allows it to be attached, obviously. It goes on to state that ONE attachment SHALL be to the body, and there is no upward limit. And there are no other limits placed. Roffe Corollary, Classic example.

 

[Greg Amy]

If the word was 'may' then I would agree.

Well, if it had the word "may", as in "the airdam 'may' be attached to the body..." then there would be ZERO requirement to even TOUCH the body of the car. The key here, the whole reason most people are unconcerned about this bracketry, is a lack of the word "only".

And, of course, even with the word "only" in there it can still be done, with just a little more work and just a little more "cleverly".

'The airdam shall be attached to the body' is #2 the way I read it.

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."

What SHOULD happen is that the CRB would review their intent when the rule was written and adjust accordingly.

So, let's go there. Let's not forget that within the framework of 1984 - and, remember, I was racing I.T. back then - the "intent" of the original rules would not include splitters and undertrays; those items were SO far out of the realm of thought in amateur racing as to never be considered. Nope, within the context of 1984 "airdams" and "spoilers" were simply two different ways of describing downward/vertical extensions of the front of the car, intended solely to divert air around to the sides of the car.

You want help in writing a rule to restrict this situation solely to the context of 1984, you let me know. I can probably do it in a couple of sentences. Maybe three.

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.

GA

*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

 

[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

 

[Ron Earp]

Radiator support, frame, etc explicitly not allowed as they are not 'licked by the airstream'. Don't see how you win that protest.

Define "licked by airstream".

I submit that if you hang a standard aero streamer off the inside fender and monitor the action with a video camera while at speed you will indeed find it moved by the airstream. The streamer will also be moved if mounted to the inside of the fender, the edge of the fender, the lip of the fender, off the front of the car, off the bumper, and so on.

I might "know what they mean" when they wrote the definition, but if the definition of "the body" is the part that isn't the floor pan and is "licked by the airstream", well.......that is fairly WFO.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Dog. It's sleeping. Let it lie.

GA

On edit: James, all my cars use a center-dump downward-pointing exhaust, roughly mid-chassis, center of car, behind driver, pointing down. It's common.

Greg,

So does mine. My point is that by this rule the underbody is still considered the body.

 

[tderonne]

I need to look a bit more. Was this proposed change in the December FasTrack adopted?

The existing glossary definitions related to bodywork do not apply well in all car categories. The proposed changes
applied to all cars. [The FF bodywork revisions below depend on these glossary entries.]
Item 11. Effective 1/1/10: Change Glossary B entries as follows:
Body: All parts of the car licked by the air stream and situated above the belly-pan/floor with exception of the roll bar or cage.
For Formula and Sports Racing cars, further exceptions are those units definitely associated with the function of the engine or
transmission.See Bodywork.
Body Panel: A replaceable section of the body.
Bodywork: See Body All external panels that encase the frame, driver, engine, transmission, radiators, suspension pickup points,
etc. Bodywork includes panels below the floor pan, and the bottoms of any side pods.

(Strikethrough font didn't work, the underlined portions replace the strikethrough)

Answering my own post. If I am reading the huge December FasTrack correctly, Item 11 was withdrawn. Adopted or not, it suggests the CRB doesn't like the current definition of body. I wouldn't be surprised to see another attempt at a new definition.

 

[jimmyc]

Yes, Special Projects splitters/air-dams are IT/HC legal. They are within the vertical body line of the car, do not go below the wheel rim, and only go back as far as the fender opening; the three things needed to be legal. That's what they were designed for.

I wouldn't be so sure.

The EG kit was designed for a car that runs 17" wheels and a 235/45/17.

You put that kit on a EG with 15" or 14 or 13" wheels and its LOW.

How do i know.. i attempted to put the kit on my car, at a high ride height it was still stupid low.

He was supposed to be coming out with a new version, but.... I wouldn't wait. Shit takes him FOREVER.

Add to that the kit is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, quick release for the EG. It's a BTCH to even install.

 

[mossaidis]

I wouldn't be so sure.

The EG kit was designed for a car that runs 17" wheels and a 235/45/17.

You put that kit on a EG with 15" or 14 or 13" wheels and its LOW.

How do i know.. i attempted to put the kit on my car, at a high ride height it was still stupid low.

He was supposed to be coming out with a new version, but.... I wouldn't wait. Shit takes him FOREVER.

Add to that the kit is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, quick release for the EG. It's a BTCH to even install.

THANK YOU! we need to chat off line....

 

[jimmyc]

sure shoot me an email

jimmysc13 gmail

Fill in the blanks...