January 2009 Fastrack is out..

[bamfp]

The transmission is unique to the 914-6. It has a completely different rear transmission housing and it is not like the tail shifter or side shifter transmissions. It also has a bracket on the bellhousing that is not on the 4 cylinder trans.

 

[ChuckKoos]

This is one of the 'dis-allowances' that I think has to stay...unless you add in a specific allowance that states that 'only standard production front and rear spoilers are allowed'. Is it easier to then clarify what isn't allowed - or define what 'standard production' is?

So we can eliminate the disallowance but we need to add something somewhere to clarify. This RX-7 guy may have bought that car new and remembered thinking it was a Mazda option or whatever.

There seems to be a considerable amount of conjecture about what I was thinking so let me help set the record straight. I'm sure it won't do any good but I'll feel better.

It's not a question about whether or not this was a Mazda option, there's very clear evidence that it was. Please refer to section 5180A-1 of the 81-83 Mazda parts manual and you will see this spoiler, part # FA16-51-960B. It's also in the 84-85 manual. The question is, are optional parts that aren't explicitly spelled out in the GCR allowed on our cars? (For those in a hurry, based on the COA, the answer is no)

Here's the background. About four years ago in the CalClub region some RX7 drivers in the Pro7 class (which uses IT rules plus some restrictions) decided to put the factory spoiler on their car. It was protested and the drivers presented basically the same information I did, I.E. copies of the 81-83 and 84-84 parts manual showing the spoiler. Additionally a copy of a Mazda sales brochure with a picture of the car with an installed spoiler was provided. The SCCA Chief of Tech found the spoiler to be legal. A couple years later a Spec-RX7 driver went through the same process and Jo Ann Jensen of the Arizona region also deemed the spoiler to be legal. Given this precedent I felt confident in installing the spoiler on my ITA RX7.

As stated above, the Chief of Tech was "alerted" to the fact that my car had a spoiler. Please note that this is the very same Chief of Tech who found the spoiler legal a few years ago. He told me I had to remove it because it was a limited production spoiler. I argued that limited production means that a finite number of something is produced and once these are made, no more are available. Because the spoiler was in the Mazda parts manual for 1981, 82, 83, 84 and 1985 and available over the parts counter of any Mazda dealer up until a few years ago it didn't seem to meet any reasonable definition of the term limited production that I could understand. He disagreed and said that if the spoiler wasn't installed on every RX7 made it was a limited production item. This sounded like an option to me, not a limited production piece.

A protest was filed by another driver. The officials decided that it was NOT a limited production spoiler but that it WAS a dealer installed option. HUH? I filed an appeal because no one from the SCCA side was able to provide me with a definition of the terms "limited production" or "dealer installed". So as you have read, the COA did another 180 and have disagreed with the CalClub stewards and now say the spoiler was a limited production unit because it was part of the IMSA package. Yes it was, but it was also available outside of the IMSA package.

Anyway, I took the spoiler off and went half a second faster so what do I have to complain about?

I don't think you can remove the rule because if the intent is to not allow optional equipment, you have to say that. And BTW, there are lots of IT cars out there with optional spoilers on them.

But I think if what the SCCA wants to say is no optional spoilers, then please say that, because even after this whole process I still don't know what these terms mean.

Go ahead, someone give me a definitive definition of "dealer installed" that everyone agrees with.

So it appears that the answer is, no optional rear spoilers. All you 2nd gen RX7 drivers out there taking note?

 

[JoshS]

Hi Chuck, thanks for clarifying. It was nice meeting you when you came up north this year.

I think the rule is very confusing myself. There appear to be three different issues at play, and they have all combined to confuse both competitors and officials:

1) Optional equipment: my personal belief is that the intent is that any FACTORY-INSTALLED options are allowed, anywhere on the car. Other optional equipment sold through the dealer network doesn't qualify in my opinion. However, I think your evidence is faulty -- just because an item is in the parts books doesn't mean that it was ever factory-installed. I can show lots of BMW parts in the official document that was sold ONLY through the dealer parts counters and never installed from the factory. So from this point of view, I don't think you and the other RX-7s had a leg to stand on, and that the officials who allowed them in the past were fleeced by all of that extra wording about limited production and whatnot.

2) Front-end equipment vs. rear-end equipment: the whole rule in question is about front spoilers. Why there is any mention of rear spoilers in that paragraph is beyond me. It further confused the officials. If the words "rear spoiler" weren't there I think they would have looked at the whole case differently.

3) Limited-production: I believe the intent is to allow aftermarket front spoilers (or, see #1 above, any factory-installed equipment.) Why a factory-installed limited-production front spoiler would be disallowed when an aftermarket copy of it would be fine doesn't make any sense. Yet more words that should be removed.

Bummer about the DQ. I think ultimately the right call was made (because I have yet to see evidence that your rear spoiler was ever factory-installed equipment), but the decision was reached for all of the wrong reasons.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chuck,

Thanks again for the comment. I do not think the spoiler is legal. Is there any documentatition you have that shows it as part of a FACTORY model or package? Could you order it new and have it delivered from Japan like you were running it?

All of the 2nd gen spoilers you see on track were STANDARD as part of models like the GTU, GXL, Sport, GTUs etc.

Dealer installed options are just that. Installed at the dealer and not legal. The latest thing to do in the industry is 'port' installation. Part of a FACTORY order that is installed in transit for economies of scale. I don't hesitate to say that the IMSA package (or whatever the details are) was not part of a model you could order.

Just because its in a parts manual doesn't make it a standard or factory option. There are PLENTY of cool things that Mazda offers today for the RX-8 that fall under the same umbrella. Carbon fiber interior bits, Drift-style rear wings, MAZDASPEED front bumper covers, etc. These are all in parts books...but are not available on the RX-8 from the factory. They are dealer installed options.

My litmus test is finding original documentation of one on a model you could order and have delivered to your dealer.

Here is a pic of the MAZDASPEED front bumper cover. Specifically legal in Grand Am cup. A dealer installed option (or seperate part you can order from Mazda) but something the was NEVER available on a production car. Under your theory, I would think you would think this was legal to run in IT?

 

[Knestis]

FWIW, my take on all of this is that it only reinforces the first principle that the protest-appeal process, difficult as it may be, is the only way we enforce the rules. They are the Judiciary to the ITAC/Board's Legislative branch.

Until the US Supreme Court makes a ruling on something, a law can be interpreted differently. Until the COA decides - ditto. If I based a business or legal action in WV on a state court ruling in Maine, I'd run the risk of falling afoul of the local law.

Now, internal inconsistencies by individuals is what we call in my office a "management issue" - not one of policy or procedure.

K

 

[GKR_17]

-- just because an item is in the parts books doesn't mean that it was ever factory-installed. I can show lots of BMW parts in the official document that was sold ONLY through the dealer parts counters and never installed from the factory.

Just think of all the fun Dinan goodies you could run...

 

[tderonne]

FWIW, my take on all of this is that it only reinforces the first principle that the protest-appeal process, difficult as it may be, is the only way we enforce the rules. They are the Judiciary to the ITAC/Board's Legislative branch.

Until the US Supreme Court makes a ruling on something, a law can be interpreted differently. Until the COA decides - ditto. If I based a business or legal action in WV on a state court ruling in Maine, I'd run the risk of falling afoul of the local law.

Now, internal inconsistencies by individuals is what we call in my office a "management issue" - not one of policy or procedure.

K

But you're back to square one when the new GCR comes out. The US Supreme Court analogy would only apply if they rewrote the Constitution every year.

Page III of the GCR:
"Effective January 1st, of each year, all editions of the SCCA General Competition Rules and all Court of Appeals rulings are superseded by the following SCCA General Competition Rules."

 

[Dave Gomberg]

But you're back to square one when the new GCR comes out. The US Supreme Court analogy would only apply if they rewrote the Constitution every year.

Page III of the GCR:
"Effective January 1st, of each year, all editions of the SCCA General Competition Rules and all Court of Appeals rulings are superseded by the following SCCA General Competition Rules."

While that is true on its face, in practice the CoA asks for CRB input on technical matters these days. Once their decision is made, the CRB looks at whether a change to the rules is necessary or desirable.

Dave

 

[Knestis]

But you're back to square one when the new GCR comes out. The US Supreme Court analogy would only apply if they rewrote the Constitution every year.

Page III of the GCR:
"Effective January 1st, of each year, all editions of the SCCA General Competition Rules and all Court of Appeals rulings are superseded by the following SCCA General Competition Rules."

...and I used to think that was absolutely awful but the more I noodle over it, the more I understand why that's the case. While at face value, two protests going to appeal might seem similar (say, about rear spoilers) but the details of each case may be quite different, supported by unique evidence. I don't necessarily think it's right [EDIT - that particular clause of the GCR] how it is but I can understand the rationale.

K