March FasTrack is up!

Originally posted by grjones1:
...the ITCS is clearly saying an "instrument" is more than a "gauge" (it is also a switch) as defined by Our Instumentation guru.
Click to expand...

Ahem...

GRJ, please quote the ITCS where it clearly (italics mine) says an instrument is more than a gauge, and bonus points if it clearly says it includes a switch.

I couldn't care less what our instrument guru said. What matters is what the GCR/ITCS says.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Fastfred92:
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
I don't think anyone would use an issue like this to win a race. I can tell you I would give the competitor a chance to make the car meet the rules first. If somebody chooses to ignore the rule then a protest would be in order. It shouldn't matter if its a stalk,water bottle or a camshaft. should it?
Click to expand...
No I guess in the perfect world it should not matter but I see alot of discussion about things on this forum that seem, well trivial. I have been racing for 20 years and I know I have been beat by illegal cams, comp ratios, etc. etc. ( afterall I have raced showroom stock ) but I dont think I have ever been beat by turn signal stalks, washer bottles or lack of, or as in another current topic tubular gussets. Perhaps we should consider "performance enhancement" in our protest in a effort to eliminate frivolous protest???
Click to expand...

I know this stuff looks like trivial bickering, and for the most part it is. But I also think it's two other things. The first is someone testing an interpretation (nothing wrong with that). The other is peer pressure to produce a legal car and I'm all for that.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Spring Fever is getting too close.

Removing the stalk is perfectly legal.

When one removes an item, such as a gauge or instrument, one presumably removes that item's activating device. The oil pressure sender would be removed and the opening plugged along with the removal of the guage. Same with an instrument. Note that the latter removal is outside the limits of the Dashboard or panel. As an instrument is defined as an indicator or readout, is not the turn signal light and high beam indicator one of these? It certainly "contains information about some aspect of car operation for driver reference".

Who wants to be embarassed by driving a race with their turn signal blinking left for a right hand corner? Be rid of it!

Dave (smiling) Zaslow
thinking about the emergency flasher and relay as well............
 
Originally posted by Geo:
Hehe. Well, someone posted something about this sort of thing on the Rennlist (Porsche) racing forum. I of course posted Bill's fine video AND his emergency steering kit.

But, I got trumped by someone who posted a video of a guy in a Spec Pinata at Laguna Seca that not only got the wheel back on, but he NEVER lifted!
eek.gif



Click to expand...

If the alignment had been better and wasn't already steering for the wall, I would have tried to put it back on. Not sure if I could have done it without lifting, though!

I'd love to see that video!!

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
 
Ok, so if someone replaced the radiator in their ITC New Beetle, and the replacement radiator didn't need a reservoir, could you use the reservoir as your windshield washer bottle, removing the washer bottle by forcibly prying with your switch stalks, then use the broken switch (uh, sorry GAUGE) parts as gussets in your rollcage (making sure they meet the minimum diameter) then fabricate an intake restrictor from the leftover material (verifying you go UP TO but not less than), all the while ducting "under hood air" to the modified ECU (but not the wiring harness) and using the MoTec system to control your turn signals (which will be turned off anyway so as not to be functional), simultaneously grinding your G camshaft to fit into a Nissan 510 and possibly breaking the passenger side door glass, would you actually be cheating or simply interpreting the intent of what your mother told you when you were a small and impressionable child without a threaded shock body?

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited February 15, 2005).]
 
Fellows, I'm inclined to agree with Matt (zooracer), particularily in light of David's comment directly above as in "who's turn is it to put the smack down on the latest post?"

These sorts of threads read like a "Whack A Mole" game.

New guy says "What about XXXXXXXX?"

Old guy says "You can't do XXXXXXXX."

New guy pops up with new "idea/concept/rule/addition/change", old guy uses "GCR/rule/intent/philosophy/hearsay/experience/bias" to beat it back down, waits for next new guy to raise his ugly head.

Change is not always bad, IMHO. But from reading and participating in a few of these threads over the last few months I get the impression in the SCCA that CHANGE = BAD. Still a great group and lots of fun so far but these sorts of impressions are lingering in the back of my mind.

Take care,
Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
http://www.gt40s.com
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited February 15, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Ok, so if someone replaced the radiator in their ITC New Beetle, and the replacement radiator didn't need a reservoir, could you use the reservoir as your windshield washer bottle, removing the washer bottle by forcibly prying with your switch stalks, then use the broken switch (uh, sorry GAUGE) parts as gussets in your rollcage (making sure they meet the minimum diameter) then fabricate an intake restictor from the leftover material (verifying you go UP TO but not less than), all the while ducting "under hood air" to the modified ECU (but not the wiring harness) and using the MoTec system to control your turn signals (which will be turned off anyway so as not to be functional), simultaneously grinding your G camshaft to fit into a Nissan 510 and possibly breaking the pasenger side door glass, would you actually be cheating or simply interpreting the intent of what your mother told you when you were a small and impressionble child wihout a threaded shock body...
Click to expand...

biggrin.gif


...said child being strapped into a child seat equipped with a single-point release harness?

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
 
Yes, I've been heavily involved with forums in mountain biking for nearly 7 years and can say that it's easy to misinterpret what is typed on here from how it would come across in person.
My guess is their is great times at the track in person. Nothing like what it seems here on the forum.
Probably because when we are out doing something we love (like racing) we tend to forget about a lot of petty disagreements and such.
I personally think change is good also.
But, I limit this change to things that are either cheap or cost nothing.
If I had been around for the ECU change I would certainly have written some letters to discourage it.
Along with the optional final drives and absolutely NO engine modifications. Even stock headers, but say a straight pipe from there back.
Think about how cheap and easy it would be to get into this class if we were more like a showroom stock class for older cars.
I would say that in the future, no modifications that cost anything, or present a REAL performance advantage should be allowed, EVER.
matt
 
Originally posted by Geo:
Ahem...

GRJ, please quote the ITCS where it clearly (italics mine) says an instrument is more than a gauge, and bonus points if it clearly says it includes a switch.

I couldn't care less what our instrument guru said. What matters is what the GCR/ITCS says.
Click to expand...

George & Jake,
As I remember the Beetle "discussion" the comments were pretty nasty on both sides of the dead horse. Shall we let it lie in peace?

And if Joe's comments pointed out additional evidence I thought supported my argument and I appeared to shift my argument accordingly, I think that's within the rules of debate. New evidence often "shifts" a presentation.

Anyway, for those of us in the professional writing world (believe it or not) when you use a compound (gauges and instruments) you are adding information , not repeating the same information, i.e., "instruments" should be taken to mean something beyond what gauges means. And if "instrument" is defined by an authoritative source such as the ISA as a switch, then we can logically be assured that the writer meant to say that gauges and switches (controls) may be etc.
And if the ITCS definition takes precedence over the GCR Glossary definition, we are correct.

That's the basis for my and others interpretation.

Again it bothers me (and I think others) that when in considering these rules we don't consider authoritative sources outside our own experience.

And I must add, without attempting to stir up another diatribe, that I find the problem with Jake and Amy is that they feel they can say anything they wish and not expect retaliation. If I have offended I hope it was only in defense of having been offended.

GRJ
smile.gif

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 15, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 15, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 15, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by zooracer:
Think about how cheap and easy it would be to get into this class if we were more like a showroom stock class for older cars.
Click to expand...

There is a whole lot more cheating in showroom stock vs. IT..... go to a national SS race and spot the legal cars!
 
Originally posted by grjones1:
And if the ITCS definition takes precedence over the GCR Glossary definition, we are correct.

That's the basis for my and others interpretation.
GRJ
smile.gif

Click to expand...

GRJ,

My issue is that there is no definition in the ITCS. The ITCS uses the word in the context of the rules. The GCR Glossery is where the term is defined. Right?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
...so if the point is that the Glossary definition needs to be changed to reflect what the rest of the world thinks, make that proposal to the powers that be.

Arguing that it should be ignored because it's "wrong" is going to gain as little traction as would arguing that a rule can be ignored because people are ignoring it.

K
 
My issue is that there is no definition in the ITCS. The ITCS uses the word in the context of the rules. The GCR Glossery is where the term is defined. Right?
AB
[/B][/QUOTE]
Andy,
I understand your point (and it's a good one). However, it's just that the use of the word (instrument) in context (of the ITCS) does define it. (Let me add that if you ever taught English, you would know that using a word in context goes further towards defining that word for a student than even Webster's formal definition.) Otherwise, every term used in the Specifications would have to be defined and that's certainly not the case (e.g., "switch" is not defined). And beyond that, again take a look at "Instrument Panel" in the Glossary and see if even that does not expand the concept of "instrument."

And again one does not logically use a word that means the same thing as the word beside it if one does not mean to bring more to the statement than the use of the first word (gauges) means. And I'm not trying to be pedantic here, I'm just trying to explain a rather difficult (for me) linguistic nuance to explain (evidently).

If you are suggesting the writer of the ITCS rule made a boo-boo, that holds no more credence than my saying the writer of the GCR definition made a boo-boo. OK?

And again, I think the ITCS rule was written long before the definition of "instrument" as it presently stands was written in the GCR. But I'm having trouble finding my old GCRs. But again this is moot because the ITCS takes precedence anyway.

I appreciate your continued pursuit of clarity,

GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 15, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 15, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
...so if the point is that the Glossary definition needs to be changed to reflect what the rest of the world thinks, make that proposal to the powers that be.

Arguing that it should be ignored because it's "wrong" is going to gain as little traction as would arguing that a rule can be ignored because people are ignoring it.

K
Click to expand...
K,
I'm arguing that "instruments" should be allowed to be added, removed, and replaced as I beleive the original writers intended (sorry George), not left in as those who view IT to be super SS believe it to be.

And people are not "ignoring the rule." They are interpreting it as they believe it was intended. Why do you continually replace "interpret" with "ignore"?

And I stated a long time ago that a good editorial board should revise the rules to rid them of as many existing contradictions as possible. But that's another story.

GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited February 15, 2005).]
 
Because (a) the rules-making process in this organization is incremental in nature, (like Greg's good trailer house analogy), and (B) the rules' thousands of authors were imprecise in their use of language in the first place.

The Glossary is a relatively late addition to the GCR and likely came about - again, in a piece-meal fashion - because the culture of SCCA club racing tolerates the ambiguity of piddling little additions to the rules more readily that it does any comprehensive change.

Back in IT's early days, someone suggested adding aftermarket "guages" and someone else was talking about "instruments." I'll bet you a beer that this allowance goes back to the very first ITCS (I wish I had kept mine) and I can picture the inclusion of both terms as being a way to come to consensus among members of the writing committee that created that document.

15 years on, someone else went through the book and defined terms for the Glossary - to avoid exactly the situation we have here!

You will get NO argument out of me that someone ought to go through the entire document (GCR writ large) and fix the language but I frankly doubt that it will make any difference to people who want a particular thing to be allowed and play word games to rationalize it.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 15, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Because (a) the rules-making process in this organization is incremental in nature, (like Greg's good trailer house analogy), and (B) the rules' thousands of authors were imprecise in their use of language in the first place.

The Glossary is a relatively late addition to the GCR and likely came about - again, in a piece-meal fashion - because the culture of SCCA club racing tolerates the ambiguity of piddling little additions to the rules more readily that it does any comprehensive change.

Back in IT's early days, someone suggested adding aftermarket "guages" and someone else was talking about "instruments." I'll bet you a beer that this allowance goes back to the very first ITCS (I wish I had kept mine) and I can picture the inclusion of both terms as being a way to come to consensus among members of the writing committee that created that document.

15 years on, someone else went through the book and defined terms for the Glossary - to avoid exactly the situation we have here!

You will get NO argument out of me that someone ought to go through the entire document (GCR writ large) and fix the language but I frankly doubt that it will make any difference to people who want a particular thing to be allowed and play word games to rationalize it.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited February 15, 2005).]
Click to expand...

K,
In the spirit of sportsmanship, I don't believe those of us who advocate rules that depart from a showroom stock mentailty play any more "word games" than those of you who wish to keep your IT racer in "street" condition.

But we are stuck with the rules as written and as I believe Mark Twain wrote, "the trouble with language is, it fails to communicate."

Good luck at VIR. I hope to see you there in the Spring.
GRJ
 
Originally posted by Fastfred92:
There is a whole lot more cheating in showroom stock vs. IT..... go to a national SS race and spot the legal cars!
Click to expand...

Whoa. Pretty broad brush that you're using there, Picasso.

Care to cite some evidence ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top