Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin
- Thread starter erlrich
- Start date
Ron Earp
Administrator
Sure that wasn't ITS? I wrote that letter for classification and that 3.4L V6 sure as hell doesn't belong in R.
could a ITAC member provide background on why the 1.25 factor applies to this Honda 12V and not others?
or does this make all of them 1.25? honestly, i have forgotten.
thanks.
erlrich
Super Moderator
Sorry, you're correct sir - I was mixing that with the ITR Moostang.
mossaidis
New member
Thanks Earl.
I see STAC cleared up the STCS rules regarding aero devices, which was part of my request, including definition for splitters. Awesome.
Question for the ITAC, I asked for an IT rules intrepration as well and all I got was "Thank you for your letter. The rule is correct as written." I am really confused since I was being as specific as i could with my question(s), or so I thought.
I see STAC cleared up the STCS rules regarding aero devices, which was part of my request, including definition for splitters. Awesome.
Question for the ITAC, I asked for an IT rules intrepration as well and all I got was "Thank you for your letter. The rule is correct as written." I am really confused since I was being as specific as i could with my question(s), or so I thought.
Last edited:
ITA Escort stays in ITA. Can't say I agree. Same motor in ITB already. If the process works, it should be an ITB or ITA car at different weights. Can't get to the ITA weight so it should be in B. Seemed like a simple request. Does mean it keeps 7" rims, which are easier to find. Maybe a more detailed request. One I wrote was simple, thought that'd be enough.
erlrich
Super Moderator
Yeah, which is kinda funny, as the response to my request was more verbose than I would have expected. Not that I'm complaining mind you (although I did think the reply made it sound like I was asking them to class MY car in STL...), but just seemed a little out of character.
You're welcome... 
We thought it was a reasonable request that deserved an explanation. So you got one.
Generally speaking about interpretations, there's disagreements as to whether we should use the committees, CRB, and Fastrack for rules clarifications/interpretations. Some say we should use the GCR-defined process, others counter that process is for trying to gain first-mover advantage on a competitive idea/interpretation. I infer that the current hierarchy leans toward "give 'em a reasonable answer, unless it appears someone's trying to twist a rule around and get us to effectively change a reg".
We thought it was a reasonable request that deserved an explanation. So you got one.
Generally speaking about interpretations, there's disagreements as to whether we should use the committees, CRB, and Fastrack for rules clarifications/interpretations. Some say we should use the GCR-defined process, others counter that process is for trying to gain first-mover advantage on a competitive idea/interpretation. I infer that the current hierarchy leans toward "give 'em a reasonable answer, unless it appears someone's trying to twist a rule around and get us to effectively change a reg".
Last edited:
ajmr2
New member
erlrich
Super Moderator
I'm almost speechless. Waiting for official Fastrack.
I can't wait to see that first MR2 taking a victory lap!
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Care to share your letter here?
I'm not copying Mickey's letter from the board, but he effectively asked the same question regarding mounting / under car components that went unanswered by the COA in the moser splitter protest, coupled with a request for a general rewrite to clarify air dam / splitter mounting rules. the committee felt that this was partially a request for a ruling of legality, which ad hoc committees don't do, and partially a request to rewrite a long-standing rule. the committee members were split in our interpretations of current the rule's allowances and requirements, and it predating all of us (I think), chose to not attempt to clarify/modify and in so doing, make some portion of the cars out there illegal or codify a specifically more open rule, depending on your point of view on the matter. in the end, we decided to let the protest / appeals process iron it out.
I appologize for the terse response. the letter's point is valid, the request is for clarification of a gray area, and I would love to see a ruling made. unfortunately, the ITAC is not the place for such a thing.
if you want to submit a legality ruling, there is a procedure for doing so in the GCR, and I do think it's a valid question.
Mickey, the STAC never got a letter from you regarding splitters...were you asking for splitter clarifications in IT? We had requested that the definition of a splitter be placed in the GCR Technical Glossary but the CRB decided to keep it in the STCS for now. - GA
Edit:
A Pandora's Box in Improved Touring.
Splitters are not explicitly allowed in Improved Touring. However, the verbiage for airdams in the ITCS - which have been around for decades - are nebulous enough to where competitors have leveraged them to create splitters and undertrays. It's a long-standing argument, debated ad nausea on this forum over the years. First time I saw one I thought it was cheating, until I opened up the rulebook and read the words. Then I was convinced that while it may not be in the spirit/intent of the original rules, it was certainly within the letter.
And before someone throws back "how do you know what the intent was" argument, remember I was in IT back in the mid-80s when it was new, and I remember how cars used to look back when those regs were written...
If the ITAC were to decide to pursue a clarification on this allowing splitters, I recommend looking at the verbiage the STAC just proposed for 2013. I stole a lot of the ITCS verbiage for that change, detailing how an airdam, undertray, and splitter are to be done. The ITCS could use the same verbiage, changing only the allowance to extend 2" outside the bodyline and adjusting the ride height limit.
However, note that the reason we decided to allow STL to go 2" outside the body outline was because there are numerous cars that, because of the front end design, cannot have any splitter at all. We decided it was more equitable to allow all competitors at least a 2" splitter (splitters gain most of their value at 2"-3", from there the advantages drop off sharply.)
Please note that if anyone ever sends in requests that are intended for more than one committee (e.g., Super Touring and Improved Touring) it's best to breka them out into two different requests. The STAC never saw Mickey's letter; the regs we published for ST were purely and completely coincidental...
Last edited:
ITB 1.8L protege has an FP-DE motor, ITA 1.8L protege is BP-DE, just liek the Escort GT/LXE. we looked at weight in both classes, power potential, and got input form a member of the committee who owns and races an ITA Escort GT and the sum of that data said to leave it in ITA. I'd agree it's not a likely podium topper, but we feel it's still too much for ITB.
The ITAC can't make interpretations. Heck - they can't even make rules. They make recommendations, the CRB makes the rules, and the appeals process makes the interpretations.
Think "branches of government."
K
mossaidis
New member
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Robert Moser vs. First Review Rules Interpretation, COA ref. No. 09-RI-02
June 25, 2009
FACTS IN BRIEF
On January 1, 2009, Robert Moser submitted a request for Rules Interpretation asking for a ruling on the compliance of the spoiler/air dam on his 1988 Honda CRX Si ITA relative to GCR 9.1.3.D.8.b. Pursuant to GCR 8.1.4., Ken Patterson, Chairman of the Stewards’ Program, appointed a Review Committee of Rick Mitchell, Bob Eddy, and Tom Brown, Chairman, who met, reviewed Mr. Moser’s submissions and documentation, and spoke with Mr. Moser on several occasions. They concluded that the spoiler is non-compliant because the spoiler/air dam is not mounted onto the body of the car, as mandated by 9.1.3.D.8.b. Mr. Moser is appealing that decision to the Court.
DATES OF THE COURT
The Court of Appeals (COA) Dick Templeton, David Nokes, and Robert Horansky, Chairman, met on June 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2009 to
hear, review, and render a decision on the request.
DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED
1. Letter and supporting documentation from Mr. Moser requesting a Rules Interpretation, dated January 1, 2009.
2. Review Committee decision, dated May 18, 2009.
3. Appeal letter from Mr. Moser, dated May 28, 2009.
4. Appeal Notification, dated May 29, 2009.
5. Email statements from Bob Dowie, Club Racing Board Chairman, dated June 14 and June 24, 2009.
FINDINGS
In the original request, Mr. Moser sought “guidance regarding whether a ‘splitter’ design using two or more panels that attach to the integrated bumper, the radiator support panel and inner fender liners, and that has openings in the horizontal plane between the integrated bumper and vertical face of the splitter with free flow of air behind the face of the integrated bumper is legal on an IT car under 9.1.3.D.8.b.”Multiple components may be joined to create an air dam, whose shape is unrestricted - thus allowing a “splitter” lip which must not protrude beyond the body when viewed from above. The panel must be attached to the body or bumper cover (if the car is so equipped), but no support may extend aft of the forward-most part of the front fender wheel opening. However, there may be no openings in the horizontal plane between the integrated bumper and vertical face of the air dam (splitter) that allow the free flow of air. Any openings in the air dam must be ducted to either the brakes or the oil cooler. Mr. Moser’s design incorporates unducted openings, and is therefore non-compliant.
DECISION
The Court of Appeals upholds the determination of the Review Committee that the design is non-compliant; however, the basis for the non-compliance is not the attachment design, but rather the presence of the unducted openings. The Court of Appeals finds that Mr. Moser’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee, less the amount retained by SCCA, will be returned.
1) Thank you for time given to me and my request by the ITAC, much appreciated, honestly.
2) What has changed since 2009 which allows Mr. Moser to place a rules interpretation with SCCA, I assume, through the CRB/ITAC (www.crbscca.com) and I can't? What are we missing besides ad nausea on this topic?
3) After my NHMS incidents, I would like to re-install aeros devices on my car before spring. I submitted evidence to the ITAC/CRB that this is a grey area where I selfishly require clarification before I invest more money in my car and unselfishly give enough notice to both those with or without splitters time to act accordingly.
4) If you leave it the judicial arm of the SCCA, you are forcing me to protest one of friends in IT that runs a splitter to get a "clear" answer, which would probably vary by region... yeah, not very clear.
5) The final response of the Court Of Appeals on Moser request is VERY SINFUL in my opinion. "With all due respect" to the governing SCCA body, let's man up and let's make a decision. I hope the timing of my request is just "off" and if so, I will make 2 rules change request to the ITAC in the coming months.
Unapologetically and appreciatively, Mickey
Robert Moser vs. First Review Rules Interpretation, COA ref. No. 09-RI-02
June 25, 2009
FACTS IN BRIEF
On January 1, 2009, Robert Moser submitted a request for Rules Interpretation asking for a ruling on the compliance of the spoiler/air dam on his 1988 Honda CRX Si ITA relative to GCR 9.1.3.D.8.b. Pursuant to GCR 8.1.4., Ken Patterson, Chairman of the Stewards’ Program, appointed a Review Committee of Rick Mitchell, Bob Eddy, and Tom Brown, Chairman, who met, reviewed Mr. Moser’s submissions and documentation, and spoke with Mr. Moser on several occasions. They concluded that the spoiler is non-compliant because the spoiler/air dam is not mounted onto the body of the car, as mandated by 9.1.3.D.8.b. Mr. Moser is appealing that decision to the Court.
DATES OF THE COURT
The Court of Appeals (COA) Dick Templeton, David Nokes, and Robert Horansky, Chairman, met on June 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2009 to
hear, review, and render a decision on the request.
DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED
1. Letter and supporting documentation from Mr. Moser requesting a Rules Interpretation, dated January 1, 2009.
2. Review Committee decision, dated May 18, 2009.
3. Appeal letter from Mr. Moser, dated May 28, 2009.
4. Appeal Notification, dated May 29, 2009.
5. Email statements from Bob Dowie, Club Racing Board Chairman, dated June 14 and June 24, 2009.
FINDINGS
In the original request, Mr. Moser sought “guidance regarding whether a ‘splitter’ design using two or more panels that attach to the integrated bumper, the radiator support panel and inner fender liners, and that has openings in the horizontal plane between the integrated bumper and vertical face of the splitter with free flow of air behind the face of the integrated bumper is legal on an IT car under 9.1.3.D.8.b.”Multiple components may be joined to create an air dam, whose shape is unrestricted - thus allowing a “splitter” lip which must not protrude beyond the body when viewed from above. The panel must be attached to the body or bumper cover (if the car is so equipped), but no support may extend aft of the forward-most part of the front fender wheel opening. However, there may be no openings in the horizontal plane between the integrated bumper and vertical face of the air dam (splitter) that allow the free flow of air. Any openings in the air dam must be ducted to either the brakes or the oil cooler. Mr. Moser’s design incorporates unducted openings, and is therefore non-compliant.
DECISION
The Court of Appeals upholds the determination of the Review Committee that the design is non-compliant; however, the basis for the non-compliance is not the attachment design, but rather the presence of the unducted openings. The Court of Appeals finds that Mr. Moser’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee, less the amount retained by SCCA, will be returned.
1) Thank you for time given to me and my request by the ITAC, much appreciated, honestly.
2) What has changed since 2009 which allows Mr. Moser to place a rules interpretation with SCCA, I assume, through the CRB/ITAC (www.crbscca.com) and I can't? What are we missing besides ad nausea on this topic?
3) After my NHMS incidents, I would like to re-install aeros devices on my car before spring. I submitted evidence to the ITAC/CRB that this is a grey area where I selfishly require clarification before I invest more money in my car and unselfishly give enough notice to both those with or without splitters time to act accordingly.
4) If you leave it the judicial arm of the SCCA, you are forcing me to protest one of friends in IT that runs a splitter to get a "clear" answer, which would probably vary by region... yeah, not very clear.
5) The final response of the Court Of Appeals on Moser request is VERY SINFUL in my opinion. "With all due respect" to the governing SCCA body, let's man up and let's make a decision. I hope the timing of my request is just "off" and if so, I will make 2 rules change request to the ITAC in the coming months.
Unapologetically and appreciatively, Mickey
Last edited: