ITCS overrule the general rules??

RSTPerformance

RSTPerformance

New member
In the GCR you have the General Competion Rules listed at the front of the GCR then it goes into specific catagories such as ITCS. Do the ITCS rules override the general rules or is it the other way around??

Thanks
Stephen Blethen


PS: I will explain later I jsut wnat the feedback on this question before everyone gets worked up on my next question.
 
The Category Specs supercede the GCR where there are differences.

For example, the GCR requires fire systems, whereas the ITCS allows hand-held extinguishers.

K
 
***For example, the GCR requires fire systems, whereas the ITCS allows hand-held extinguishers.***

Not true K.
biggrin.gif


Have Fun
wink.gif

David

ps: Pleae see GCR rule 17.22.
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:


Bring on the question.

AB
Click to expand...

OK, OK

In the ITCS 10.h Page ITCS - 20 it says....
"Towing eyes per GCR section 17., may be fitted."

I know that originally in section 17 it sayed all cars except IT, SS, and T cars but then a fasttrack came out in febuary and said that all cars need to have one.

If the ITCS say that I MAY have one not that I SHALL have one is it then still my choice?? It seems to me that if the ITCS overrule the GCR then I can do it if I want to as long as I follow the rules for Tow hooks set forth in section 17, but If I don't want to I don't have to.

Don't get me wrong I do want one I am just worried about the time to get it on for my first race. I am not looking for a debate just some honest feedback on how the rules work.

thanks
Stephen Blethen
 
"May" is an allowance; "shall" is a requirement (GCR 1.2.4).

ITCS trumps the GCR; Fastrack amends them both (GCR 1.2.4).

Bottom line: you need to have tow hooks, front and rear.
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
"May" is an allowance; "shall" is a requirement (GCR 1.2.4).

ITCS trumps the GCR; Fastrack amends them both (GCR 1.2.4).

Bottom line: you need to have tow hooks, front and rear.
Click to expand...

Greg,

Fast track only amended section 17 of the GCR not the ITCS which say I may have tow hooks not that I shall have tow hooks.
(Just trying to make sure you understand what I wrote and why I had the question... not being a PITA like others are sometimes
smile.gif
)
 
What Greg is saying is that the Fastrack amended the confusion. There was another thread about this (actually, I think Greg pointed it out first) issue.

The bottom line on the clarification? IT cars must now have tow hooks per the new rule.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Stephen, the amendment in Fastrack (March 2005, p F-34) removes the sentence that read "Showroom Stock, Touring and
Improved Touring cars are not required to install towing eyes but it is highly recommended." Thus, according to the GCR, tow hooks are manadatory for these classes.

ITCS D.10.h (p20) in regards to tow hooks is an allowance ("Towing eyes per GCR Section 17., may be fitted.")

If the ITCS had read "Towing eyes per GCR Section 17 are not required" then you'd have a point; however, a GCR mandate trumps an ITCS allowance any time. - GA
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
a GCR mandate trumps an ITCS allowance any time. - GA
Click to expand...

OK cool! That's what I needed to know. Thanks. I got some ideas I just need to start welding
smile.gif


Thanks for the quick clarifications

Stephen
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
... Pleae see GCR rule 17.22.
Click to expand...

DD is right: Read the book, guys - don't ask me. We all know that I don't know squat about fire systems.
smile.gif


K



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited April 22, 2005).]
 
While I agree w/ Andy, Greg et al that the intent was to make them mandatory, and I have no doubt that that is what a SOM or COA would rule, IMO Stephen's interpretation is technically correct.

GCR 1.2.4 states: "The word 'shall' ... is mandatory. The word 'may' is permissive. If there is a conflict between the GCR and a Specification Book (...ITCS...) the Specification Book has precedence over the GCR."

No where does it say that a stronger or more specific term in the GCR is an exception to the rule of precedence; all that is required for the rule to come into play is a conflict between the GCR and the spec book. While it could be argued that "shall" and "may" do not a conflict make, I find it interesting and perhaps beyond coincidence that the rule of precedence immediately follows the contrasting definitions of those terms. I think they do conflict, the rule of precedence is applicable, and the ITCS rules the issue.

I have said here before and the same to the CRB that there are plenty of lawyers in the Club who would be happy to provide pro bono review of proposed rules for clarity and internal consistency, but they don't seem to be interested.

That and $2 might buy you a cup of coffee. But not a gallon of gas.



------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis
 
A friend of mine showed me a NASCAR rulebook from the late '50s early '60s - about 25 pages long!

BTW, I still want to know what a 'total opening' is!!!! (GCR 17.1.4.D.8.B)

------------------
Bill Stevens
Mbr 103106
BnS Racing
83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger
 
***BTW, I still want to know what a 'total opening' is!!!! (GCR 17.1.4.D.8.B)***

Bill, did you realy mean ITCS 17.1.4.d.8.B.?

& are you refering to "two total openings"?

Reading from the second Paragraph about openings IMHJ you can cut a total of two different holes with each hole being 5 inches x 7 inches. An air DUCT would be attached to the material around the 5 x 7 holes & a 3 inch air HOSE would be attached to each air duct with the air hose traveling to each front brake disk.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
I wrote an email to the CRB requesting an errors and omissions to clarify this point. Jeremy Thoennes replied to me saying, "...this was clarified in the June FasTrack."

June Fastrack is not yet downloadable. - GA
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
June Fastrack is not yet downloadable. - GA
Click to expand...

It is now. It looks like you missed it by about 5 mintues.

Does this mean we are going to have another 300 response debate on June's issue?
smile.gif


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top