IT Piston Rules - Overbore

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 11:42 AM
What's a red herring here, is you using issues that are already addressed in the GCR.  Do I think spherical bearings constitute bushings?  Hell no, but that's already been ruled on.  I don't agree w/ the decision, but it's been made.  Same goes w/ MoTeC et. al.  I don't agree w/ it, but the ruling has been made. 

[snapback]66172[/snapback]​

Ah... but..... (and NOT taking sides - I'm on the fence)

Like in the US courts, the court may rule on the law as it exists (excluding constitutionality which for which there is no real equivilent here), but law makers can certainly change the laws to refine them.

But your point is of course correct, rulings in the above cases have already been made, but in the current case none have. Very good points Bill.

 

[Geo]

Interesting discussion and since it has gone beyond practical, I'll throw a few things into the mix.

1) The FSM is worthless in most cases to establish correct piston specs. The factory doesn't need to. They already know them. Things like dish volume, ring spacing, and God forbid, weight, are simply not going to be there. So, that leaves acquiring a sample and assuming that example of one is OK if we allow some arbitrarily arrived at (and immediately, not through rules making) allowances for deviation from the factory. It only gets uglier from there.

2) I am not a lawyer (I know we have some here), but somewhere in the cobwebs of my brain I think there is something somewhere in US law (just for a basis, not that US law applies here) that says if there is some common interpretation of a law in general acceptance it effectively becomes the standard to be applied. Perhaps this isn't true, but I have some vauge recollection of something like this. How does this apply you might ask? Well if it indeed exists and we apply the same sort of thinking, if people have accepted 0.040" overbore pistons for years regardless of availablility of OEM replacements, then it would in fact become law.

Any lawyers able to confirm or send me down in flames?......

 

[RSTPerformance]

Just an FYI:

When the SOM review a protest they look at that individual protest, we may or may not take into consideration a prior ruling (to keep consistancy within a region/track/group/scca/etc.), however in most cases we have no actual knowledge of any prior protests and we do not base any of our decision on what someone might say was a prior ruling. Each determination is strictly OUR interpretation of the GCR. If you want something that is "grey" to be black and white then get it made black or white and file a 13.9 in the GCR and get a ruling from Topika.

I am not sure why people don't understand this, but prior determinations hold absolutely no bearing... As with drivers sometimes stewards don't agree, and it is the SOM of each event that will make thier independent determination.

Raymond "good luck" Blethen

PS: also on an "accepted practice" argument might work wiith some, but I can guarentee that it wont work for others... for me (If i agree from a drivers standpoint on it), it might help make the penalty less harsh for being illigal, but it wont make something illigal legal.

 

[Super7]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Nov 23 2005, 05:33 AM
I am not sure why people don't understand this, but prior determinations hold absolutely no bearing...  As with drivers sometimes stewards don't agree, and it is the SOM of each event that will make thier independent determination.

IIRC, this was an issue that the COA ruled on a few (many) years back, and it didn't result in a rule change, so the ruling is moot in the case of a new protest.

COA rulings only set precedence for this year, (or so I've been told) and if the rules don't change as a rusult of the COA decision, then at the end of the year, thats the end of it. The COA may rule differently in following years on the exact same protest. Like the Supreme Court, the membership of the COA does change over time.

Now, about the question asked:

IIRC, in the past, the COA has ruled that if the factory only provided pistons that were .010 and .020 over, than that was it, .040 was not allowed by any tortured reading of the rules. I remember reading the COA letter that we get for the protest. (We (actually, my better half) get copies of all the COA rullings that deal with any NEDIV drivers. We have for the last 12 or so years.)

Use that as a data point, not as the rule, as future COA rulings may reverse that decision.

(Side note: They also ruled on tortured reading of the rules, in one case of a driver claiming that a lead plug with a tiny hole drilled in it was a "bushing", and since in his class bushings were free, it was allowed. That falicy cost him about $500 and a podium at the Runoffs, IIRC. Or the driver who used a window net that was solid, and claimed it was a mirror. Or any of the other drivers who claimed things like that a 20 foot long wire was a resistor. The COA doen't put up with many silly arguments. )

 

[Knestis]

Just for giggles, here's the parallel rule for NASA Honda Challenge. The HC rules were originally a direct derivative of the ITCS, with fixes where the inventors thought they were necessary:

7.1 c) Factory replacement pistons or the exact equivalent shall be used. Exact equivalent shall be defined as the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, weight, ring thickness and location, and pin location as the OEM replacement piston. Wrist pins and method of retention must also conform to OEM specifications. In the event that a .040 factory replacement piston/wrist pin is not available, the oversize pistons/wrist pins shall not weigh any less than the largest size OEM piston for that engine. d) Piston rings are unrestricted but must be of proper OEM ring thickness. (Emphasis mine)

K

 

[bldn10]

"COA rulings only set precedence for this year, (or so I've been told) and if the rules don't change as a rusult of the COA decision, then at the end of the year, thats the end of it. The COA may rule differently in following years on the exact same protest."

I am unaware of any provision in the GCR or elsewhere that makes ANY ruling by ANY body in the SCCA precedential. COA opinions are not searchable or even archived to my knowledge. IMO COA opinions should be precedential and, w/ today's technology, a searchable database of opinions is not impracticable. W/ precedential opinions we would reduce the amount of diametrically inconsistent outcomes and over time add some clarity to many of our rules that are so vague as to be practically worthless. Such as the passing rules.

 

[RSTPerformance]

"I am unaware of any provision in the GCR or elsewhere that makes ANY ruling by ANY body in the SCCA precedential. COA opinions are not searchable or even archived to my knowledge."

Correct.

"IMO COA opinions should be precedential and, w/ today's technology, a searchable database of opinions is not impracticable. W/ precedential opinions we would reduce the amount of diametrically inconsistent outcomes and over time add some clarity to many of our rules that are so vague as to be practically worthless. Such as the passing rules."

A ) How would this archived data be accessable to the SOMs at each event? Will laptops be supplied with the data in a searchable format?

B ) Multiple events per weekend could have the same protest across the country. Does the first completed protest hold the precedence? What if both rulings are different?

C ) Do you really think that all the SOM's and compeditors whom are protested should set our rules??? These interpretations I think can be made poorly and many times go undisputed just caused some people are here for fun and don't find it worth the argument. I know for sure, I DON'T want the SOMs to have this power (and I am one sometimes!!!).

I do however think that all protest and thier rulings should be made viewable to ALL memebers, and should be a reference for use in any future protest (protested or protester should supply the reference). Prior rulings are and should be more important. The decisions are made most of the time by people who are knowledgable and who are trying to enforce an fun and even playing field. I can't stress enough though that I think T\the rulings should not be precedent setting and should be a reference only for the SOMs. This would help educate some SOMs who might not have the knowledge (sometimes these things can be difficult to understand) and it may also help in a needed attemp of consistancy accross the country.

Raymond "I had forgoten about this fun thread" Blethen

 

[Knestis]

A ) How would this archived data be accessable to the SOMs at each event? Will laptops be supplied with the data in a searchable format?

Write the policy so that the COA precedent database is effective for any given race weekend at 8:00am on the Thursday before that event. Use XML to provide printer-friendly versions of the cumulative dataset and stipulate that it be the responsibility of the tech shed boss to have a copy of that week's version on hand at the track.

B ) Multiple events per weekend could have the same protest across the country. Does the first completed protest hold the precedence? What if both rulings are different?

But the COA doesn't meet every weekend. I don't think the suggestion here is that individual stewards' rulings, at events, would set precedent. Instead, Court of Appeals findings would do so. Totally workable since they are a body unto themselves.

C ) Do you really think that all the SOM's and compeditors whom are protested should set our rules??? These interpretations I think can be made poorly and many times go undisputed just caused some people are here for fun and don't find it worth the argument. I know for sure, I DON'T want the SOMs to have this power (and I am one sometimes!!!).

We don't have any choice in the matter - protests and appeals are real-world applicaitons of the rules, so it makes complete sense that they should be part of the process, rather than randomly reactive to it. The COA is SCCA's judicial, to the CRB which is our legislative branch.

I do however think that all protest and thier rulings should be made viewable to ALL memebers, and should be a reference for use in any future protest (protested or protester should supply the reference). Prior rulings are and should be more important.

Making them "more important" without carrying the weight of policy is just asking for more trouble, in my opinion. It would give everyone ammo to support whatever position they want to get behind, without any expectation that they do so consistently or fairly. I totally agree that all protests should be available for review however, for the purpose of education that you describe, and to make it clear how wacky things might look when viewed from beyond a regional level.[/quote]

Back to our regularly scheduled topic.

K

 

[RSTPerformance]

Kirk-

Agreed COA's should be presedent setting, afterall the COA rulings should be setting a standard across the country. COA rulings are generally at every race as they are in fast track (right?). I would think that someone at the track always has the fast tracks on hand. This year I will keep my electronic copy of the GCR along with my Fast Tracks with me at every event that I am an SOM I would also suggest that any compeditor have the fast tracks with them in case of a protest ruling that they might want to reference.

Taking it the further step that I mentioned, regular protest rulings from SOMs should be reference only. ALL should be in a database for reference to all members.

Raymond

 

[Greg Amy]

COA rulings are currently de facto precedent, in that:

- Most people interested in the process read them, including competitors and tech inspectors,
- Based on that reading, competiotrs and/or tech inspectors will probably act accordingly,
- Should a competitor get protested/bounced for the same infraction and choose to appeal, the result is expected to be the same.

True, these items may not make it into a subsequent GCR, but there's no indication that this result doesn't become a "de facto precedent". - GA

 

[Turfer]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 9 2005, 05:37 PM
Just for giggles, here's the parallel rule for NASA Honda Challenge. The HC rules were originally a direct derivative of the ITCS, with fixes where the inventors thought they were necessary:

7.1 c) Factory replacement pistons or the exact equivalent shall be used. Exact equivalent shall be defined as the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, weight, ring thickness and location, and pin location as the OEM replacement piston. Wrist pins and method of retention must also conform to OEM specifications. In the event that a .040 factory replacement piston/wrist pin is not available, the oversize pistons/wrist pins shall not weigh any less than the largest size OEM piston for that engine. d) Piston rings are unrestricted but must be of proper OEM ring thickness. (Emphasis mine)

K

[snapback]67778[/snapback]​

We did over 4 pages on the issue of oversize pistons and we can't get further comment based on Kirk's post (COA rulings precendent hijiack notwithstanding).

The wording of the rule needs to be changed to match the original intent. I am planning on submitting a change request that currently reads as follows:

Current GCR rule:

Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over
standard bore size. Factory oversize replacement pistons
or their exact equivalent shall be used. Cast or forged
equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve
relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height
relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory
replacement oversize pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.


Proposed change:

Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over
standard bore size, and oversize pistons may be used.
Cast or forged pistons are allowed but shall provide the same
dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing,
pin height relationship, minimum weight, and compression ratio as factory
OEM pistons. Piston rings are unrestricted.


Thoughts/comments?

Rick

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Dec 10 2005, 10:43 PM
I do however think that all protest and thier rulings should be made viewable to ALL memebers, and should be a reference for use in any future protest (protested or protester should supply the reference).  Prior rulings are and should be more important.  The decisions are made most of the time by people who are knowledgable and who are trying to enforce an fun and even playing field.  I can't stress enough though that I think T\the rulings should not be precedent setting and should be a reference only for the SOMs.  This would help educate some SOMs who might not have the knowledge (sometimes these things can be difficult to understand) and it may also help in a needed attemp of consistancy accross the country.

[snapback]67854[/snapback]​

Ah, I believe you are talking about a case book, something I brought up two or three years ago. I also think this would be valuable to anybody involved with having to interpret rules from the CAO to competitors. I'm surprised it doesn't already exist. It would be a lot of work of course and my plate is overflowing so I am not ready to volunteer. But it would be nice if the CRB or BOD found value in this and explored it. I think it would help guide a lot of people.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Turfer@Dec 11 2005, 10:47 AM
We did over 4 pages on the issue of oversize pistons and we can't get further comment based on Kirk's post (COA rulings precendent hijiack notwithstanding). 

The wording of the rule needs to be changed to match the original intent.  I am planning on submitting a change request that currently reads as follows:

[snapback]67874[/snapback]​

Rick, it's not my intention to be rude, but were you part of the team that wrote the original rule? If not, how can you determine what the original intent was?

Again, this is NOT ment to be rude, but reasonable people can disagree what the original intent was because it is not stated.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 11 2005, 07:10 AM
Write the policy so that the COA precedent database is effective for any given race weekend at 8:00am on the Thursday before that event. Use XML to provide printer-friendly versions of the cumulative dataset and stipulate that it be the responsibility of the tech shed boss to have a copy of that week's version on hand at the track.

[snapback]67861[/snapback]​

Actually, it's easier than that. If the club issued a case book, one could buy it as of the start of the current year. Updates could be on a subscription basis (and more money for the club, also making this pay for itself). Each month the rulings for the previous month could be placed on the club web site (with a required password such as a subscription number for access) and hard copy mailed to subscribers. The case law in place on a race weekend would be the current year case book plus all updates to date througout the year. Everybody is working from the same case law in that case.

I think this could work. Time to start working on a letter to the CRB/BOD/COA.

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 11 2005, 07:18 PM
Rick, it's not my intention to be rude, but were you part of the team that wrote the original rule?  If not, how can you determine what the original intent was?

Again, this is NOT ment to be rude, but reasonable people can disagree what the original intent was because it is not stated.

[snapback]67884[/snapback]​

Careful George, If you want to restrict the group that is allowed to comment on 'original intent' to those people that wrote the rules, you've made a pretty small list, and you've closed out some of your colleagues.

 

[Knestis]

It strikes me that Rick's rewrite is more accurately about "prevailing interpretation going back 20 years," rather than original intent necessarily. It is NOT a tortured interpretation to infer - absent Darin's excellent observation - that we have all been allowed to run +20 or +40 pistons. Since we are allowed to use aftermarket parts - forged or cast, and there's even stipulations applied to them - it has been REASONABLY interpreted by a lot of people, for a lont time, that we should be allowed to combine the two allowances.

Please don't resort to hyperbolic responses trying to poke holes in this by claiming that I'm suggesting that doing something illegal long enough should be an argument for allowing it. The test here, to my mind, is what have sensible, law-abiding racers been doing with this rule since it was written - absent any twisted effort to be clever with it.

K

 

[RSTPerformance]

If you are looking at original intent of the rule I would argue that the original intent was Factory available replacement pistons only. "made up" pistons can be big $$$, and in 1985 they were huge $$$. It could be argued that the original rules and ever rule since then was/is not created for "equal" competition, but in an effort to keep costs down while running in IT.

Just a thought. Feel free to change the rule (or for those who like to "push the limit" of the rules clarify it). I am fine with the rule how it is now, or if it were changed to allow "made up" replacement .040 pistons.

Raymond

 

[Bildon]

Soooo just to play highjacker for fun....
Why doesnt' the rule say that you can only bore .040" over?

Afterall if I want to choose between a +.040" cast piston and a +.040" forged piston and the forged piston expands 10x more than a similar cast piston, don't I now need a .045" overbore engine?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 11 2005, 05:34 PM
It strikes me that Rick's rewrite is more accurately about "prevailing interpretation going back 20 years," rather than original intent necessarily. It is NOT a tortured interpretation to infer - absent Darin's excellent observation - that we have all been allowed to run +20 or +40 pistons. Since we are allowed to use aftermarket parts - forged or cast, and there's even stipulations applied to them - it has been REASONABLY interpreted by a lot of people, for a lont time, that we should be allowed to combine the two allowances.

Please don't resort to hyperbolic responses trying to poke holes in this by claiming that I'm suggesting that doing something illegal long enough should be an argument for allowing it. The test here, to my mind, is what have sensible, law-abiding racers been doing with this rule since it was written - absent any twisted effort to be clever with it.

K

[snapback]67889[/snapback]​

Wow. Just in time for the Rules Creep thread. Some would argue that Raymond is right. Overbores were originally allowed to facilitate rebuilds and/or competition builds of used engines. Remember, no factory allowed overbore in SS or SM...

Factory replacement pistons may be used UP TO .040. CREEP FACT 1: Forged equivilants are now allowed. CREEP POTENTIAL 2: Larger custom (forged) pistons are allowed without a factory equivilant to measure against in some cases.

To me...if the wording by Rick below is approved by the CRB, it is a classic case of rules creep. CLASSIC. Having said that, I like the wording and will rely on input FROM the CRB on their thoughts before I vote.

Currently I concur with the way Darin spelled this out. If a .040 factory replacement piston is not offered for your car (like mine), it is not legal to have one of that size in your car.

AB

 

[Bildon]

>> Engines may be bored to a maximum of .040 inch over

Or do you mean to say: Engines may use .040" oversized pistons?
See my Forged comment above.

>> If a .040 factory replacement piston is not offered for your car (like mine), it is not legal to have one of that size in your car.

Since we're allowing other cars to make a piston that never existed (Forged +.040) don't you think this is unfair to the guys who happen to drive a certain model that doesn't have a cast .040" overbore factory replacement?

I think we make rules too difficult at times. Can't we simplify this? All engines can go +1mm in piston diameter.