Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

Mickey
GCR 8.1.4 spells out "compliance review."

the downside is that it costs $300. I'm betting a fundraiser could be started to gather that as there is sufficent interest in a ruling.

IF the thing under review is found compliant, you get a letter saying so and the result is not published in order to maintain the benefit of an innovation. If the review is found non compliant, it will appear with a full finding in the COA briefs in Fastrack for all to see.

I agree that the court failed us in the moser case as there were too many aspects to consider and they failed the whole device on some of the less gray points, namely unducted openings between the air dam and body work. the undertray, aft-of body mounting (using the GCR definition of body), etc.. remain unanswered and "gray".

a ruling can give the rule direction, and if desired, members can petition for revisions based on that. that would be somethign the ITAC and CRB can actually work with.

NOT ITAC/OFFICIAL RESPONSE:
I personally feel the rule allows a full undertray splitter provided that the entirety of the thing remain forward of the front fender opening leading edge, within the overhead or plan-view of the body including integrated bumpers, and the body and air dam are sealed to one another so as not to create unducted openings or oepnings ducted in ways not allowed by the rules, such as in the moser example. I think the structural mounting or supports may be behind the body, such as OEM tie down attaching points on the bumper horns as are often used, and I think the COA agrees with me based on the moser findings (though it's not explicit).

others feel that an undertray is legal, but all mounting and support bust be to the body, NOT structural points of the car interior to the body, making the strength and thus the usefullness of an undertray low in most cases. still others think a splitter in any form is not allowed and therefore illegal.
 
Last edited:
Chip, thank you for your official and non-official responses. I will read 8.1.4 in detail tonight and decide how to proceed.
 
Looks like the CRX moved to B as well.

Improved Touring
ITA
1. #9410 (SCCA Staff) Re-Classify the Honda CRX 1.5L (standard) (88-91) to ITB
Reclassify the ITA Honda CRX 1.5L (standard) (88-91) to ITB as classified in ITA with the following
exceptions:
Weight: 2000 2110
Gear Ratios: 3.25, 1.65, 1.03, 0.82 or 3.25, 1.89, 1.26, 0.94, 0.77
 
So this was the August 2009 moser inquiry?

. COURT OF APPEALS
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 sub- missions 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 inte- grated 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 open- ings 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.
Click to expand...
 
erlrich said:
Minutes are here
Tech bulletin is here

Of note in IT:

  • CRX 1.5 (88-91) moved to ITB
  • '86 Mustang GT in ITR
  • ITB MR2 loses 100 lbs - Yea!!
  • ITB Accord loses 100 lbs
  • 4th gen Camaro 3.4L in ITS
Click to expand...

Production here I come. I will race some B next year to get seat time, but as far as I am concerned you have succeeded in pushing the original "bogey" car for the ITB process out of the class.
 
Last edited:
This is a very unofficial "I'm not on the STAC and this is my opinion" post...

Chip42 said:
GCR 8.1.4 spells out "compliance review."
Click to expand...
Chip, back in '07/08 or so, AJ Nealey and Gregg Ginsberg used the GCR process to get clarification on the intake on a competitor's ITA car. Along with their response to that process, they got a STERN rebuke about using this GCR process as a way to "clarify" a reg. My inference from the reply was that using this process to do ANYTHING but clarify something presented as a **NEW** competitive advantage was a waste of the process' time and an abomination of mankind (it was, IMO, a rude and inappropriate reply).

What you are suggesting is, based on that experience, a direct contravening of the GCR. And, I suggest, if a reg is not clear, and is in reality possibly being applied in direct conflict with the intent of the regs, it is decisively within the committee's responsibility to "clarify" that interpretation and/or correct the verbiage in the regs.

I do not think it proper to ask a competitor to develop a whole farcical protest to "test" validity of an application of a reg, nor do I think it proper to use that GCR clarification process to have the CRB - and by extension, the ITAC - make a formal decision as to the application of a rule. If there's any question - and by your direct reply above, there is decisive and well-known debate within the ITAC - as to how well or not a reg is being applied, it is within your authority - within your responsibility - to clarify it by interpretation and/or adjustment in the verbiage of the regs.

My 2 cents.

GA

P.S., please read my sig....
 
At best I think we had a split decision in the above. One group said it was illegal because of the mounting method and the next review said that the mounting method was okay and it was the openings that were illegal.

But my personal opinion is much like what Chip described.
 
shwah said:
Production here I come. I will race some B nex year to get seat time, but as far as I am concerned you have succeeded in pushing the original "bogey" car for theiTB process out of the class.
Click to expand...

Man I hate to hear this. and I think ITB is pretty healthy, even with these changes and additions.
 
Greg Amy said:
This is a very unofficial "I'm not on the STAC and this is my opinion" post...


Chip, back in '07/08 or so, AJ Nealey and Gregg Ginsberg used the GCR process to get clarification on the intake on a competitor's ITA car. Along with their response to that process, they got a STERN rebuke about using this GCR process as a way to "clarify" a reg. My inference from the reply was that using this process to do ANYTHING but clarify something presented as a **NEW** competitive advantage was a waste of the process' time and an abomination of mankind (it was, IMO, a rude and inappropriate reply).

What you are suggesting is, based on that experience, a direct contravening of the GCR. And, I suggest, if a reg is not clear, and is in reality possibly being applied in direct conflict with the intent of the regs, it is decisively within the committee's responsibility to "clarify" that interpretation and/or correct the verbiage in the regs.

I do not think it proper to ask a competitor to develop a whole farcical protest to "test" validity of an application of a reg, nor do I think it proper to use that GCR clarification process to have the CRB - and by extension, the ITAC - make a formal decision as to the application of a rule. If there's any question - and by your direct reply above, there is decisive and well-known debate within the ITAC - as to how well or not a reg is being applied, it is within your authority - within your responsibility - to clarify it by interpretation and/or adjustment in the verbiage of the regs.

My 2 cents.

GA

P.S., please read my sig....
Click to expand...

GA, my reply is based as much on what I've seen here and at the track as what was discussed on the ITAC. the splitter / air dam debate is well known.

the ITAC does not provide legality rulings, only recommendations and clarifications. from the Advisory Committee Manual
Clarifications—While the Club Racing Board, when they write a rule, understand it totally and there is no doubt in the Board of Directors minds when they approved it, sometimes a few competitors will interpret it in a completely different manner. Thus a clarification is born. A clarification cannot result in a substantive alteration of a rule, merely an expression of its original intent. If it appears that a clarification will result in a totally new meaning, then it becomes in effect a rule change.
Click to expand...

The ITAC did not agree on the intent, so any decision would have been effectively a rule change, and we felt the letter was more of a request for a ruling of legality and that the pot was better unstirred.

I did not know about the CRB/COA reply to Gregg and AJ. that's interesting, and a shame. one would figure that the PTB would relish the chance to do what they do on a volunteer level for a $300 fee to the club, particularly when it is a process spelled out in the GCR.
 
The thing here, Chip, is that we know there's a regs conflict, and we are choosing not to resolve it proactively. I don't think that's right. When the ITAC (and by extension, the STAC and all other "ACs") consciously choose to not address the conflict with verbiage updates, I think we're doing a disservice to the organization.

Said differently, I don't think it's right to recognize there's a conflict and choosing to respond with "rules are correct as written". By your own admission, they most assuredly are not!

But I see the issue here: you change the regs in one direction to make it explicitly compliant and suddenly a lot more people are doing it, or you change the regs in the other direction to make it explicitly non-compliant and suddenly a lot of people are illegal. Well, guess what? By ignoring the situation we are doing a great disservice to both camps.

And, as a great philosopher once said, "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

And there's certainly precedent: spherical bearings. Many moons ago (seems like forever), we had a spirited debate on this forum when I learned that some folks were using sphericals. As with the first time I saw a splitter, I saw those as contrary to the regulations (and, IMO, the spirit). However, unlike with a splitter, I looked at the regs and found nothing where they met the letter of the regs; after all, how in the hell is a bearing a bushing?? After more spirited debate - which ultimately led to my being "Earp'd" with a "Screw you, I'm running them, if you don't like it protest me" I decided to use the GCR process to get a "clarification". I put together what I thought was a well-written, well-researched, well-presented letter and I had the money in hand to get spherical bearings "clarified" in Improved Touring.

The day before I was to send the request - and I mean the very afternoon before that letter was to hit the post office - word came down that a "clarification" of the rules was going to be in the next Fastrack, making sphericals explicitly compliant. The ITAC/CRB was changing the words in the ITCS to specifically call out sphericals as allowed.

The inference was clear: sphericals were a tortured interpretation of the regs and not compliant to the letter (and by extension, the spirit). However the CRB decided that the "horse was out of the barn" and did not want to make a bunch of competitors change their cars back to bushings. So they changed the regs to match what people were actually doing.

Same goes for splitters: not explicitly called out in the regs, and the mounting methods are questionable. Within the spirit? IMO, not within the spirit of 1985, but certainly within the spirit of 2012. So why not go ahead and change the regs to match what "everybody" is doing? All it would do is even the playing field so that those of us that are not nearly as "creative" in interpreting the regs will understand that these parts are allowed.

And I do believe that is within the authority and responsibility of the CRB/ITAC.

Food for thought.

GA
 
changing the rule is absolutely within an AC's mission and "powers" but we chose not to. this rule has been this way for a LOOOOONG time, and it's not hurting anything staying as is. I've never seen or heard of a real "splitter" protest, just ones like moser (in part with added openings) and hines (grafted seamlessly into the bumper cover) and other than these online discussions, I've never seen or heard a spirited debate about them. so its not obvious to me that the rule NEEDS changing. yeah, it'd be nice for the sake of clarity, but there are bigger fish to fry and people are upset enough with rules creep/changes. the greater disservice would be to alienate one portion of the paddock or another with a clarification that they are currently living peacefully without.
 
l
Greg Amy said:
After more spirited debate - which ultimately led to my being "Earp'd" with a "Screw you, I'm running them, if you don't like it protest me"
Click to expand...

Hold now, not to derail the discussion but I protest my name being used in the context of performing an illegal modification. While I mentioned running NACA ducts in my rear windows and would like to do it, after the discussion around them I'm coming around to them being illegal. And, regardless of the discussion, I never performed the modification. On the IT cars I build and tend to I have never carried out any modifications which I thought were illegal, were explicitly illegal, or that the general consensus was that the modification was illegal. So keep Earp out of it.

The splitter debate is important to me. We've not yet built splitters for the Mustangs and I sure don't want to run afoul of the rules, or spend a lot of time engineering a great splitter only to have it deemed illegal. Are there any pictures of this Mosler CRX splitter so one can visualize the shape of the device and the areas deemed illegal?
 
Last edited:
Ron

I don't believe the mosers had any illegal splitters. It was an alternate design they were considering that did not get approved.
 
I just love it. The Accord is set to a weight, it gets reviewed last year and its determined that the weight was in fact too low. The weight gets adjusted. Now some how it gets reduced? Wtf. What new evidence was provided to make this change again? Will other cars with similar engines get the reduction? This is pretty silly.

I'm with you Chris. I've really started losing interest in IT. These changes sure do see odd and can't help think about what politics were involved to push through.
 
Another data point.

My memory on this specific point is fuzzy, so it could be inaccurate (and AJ and Gregg can confirm/deny) but I seem to recall that they tried to use the protest process to get a clarification on a similar item on the same ITA competitor (same as the one they did the GCR process on). And, as I recall, they were also rebuked (by the local stewards?) for trying to use the protest process for clarification when they're supposed to use the GCR process.

Damned if you do this, damned if you do that.

So based on what we're reading, here's the options and possible results:

Use the protest process

- Friend A protests Friend B on the splitter/mounting ($25). Local stewards find it compliant/non-compliant. "Loser" appeals to Topeka ($25?) and Court of Appeals is formed. CRB and ITAC review the regs and decide what best meets the philosophy of the class. Interpretation is delivered back down. Regs are changed to meet the results.

Use the GCR process

- Friend A sends a GCR clarification request to Topeka ($300). Court of Appeals is formed. CRB and ITAC review the regs and decide what best meets the philosophy of the class. Interpretation is delivered back down. Regs are changed to meet the results.

ITAC/CRB take the proactive steps to clarify/change regs

CRB and ITAC review the regs ($0) and decide what best meets the philosophy of the class. Interpretation is delivered back down. Regs are changed to meet the results.

Seems to be a common theme here....

Or, continue the status quo

No one knows for sure what is compliant and/or not compliant; everybody takes a different interpretation and thus the regs are not applied equitably. Confusion, uncertainty, and general overall dissatisfaction with the process.

But, I suppose there's a third tactic...

Since the ITAC contends it cannot "interpret" a reg, then someone - and please decide one person, so the committee is not inundated - sends a specific request to the CRB to explicitly allow splitters and undertrays in Improved Touring that do not extend outside the body outline of the car, do not go farther back than the wheel opening, and are no lower than the bottom of the wheel, and to explicitly define the "body" in terms of where the pieces/parts can mount. This will result in one of a few possibilities:

- Response is "not within the philosophy of the class" thus clarifying the situation (win), or;
- Regs are changed to explicitly describe what can and cannot be done (win) thus clarifying the situation;
- "Rules are correct as written". Fale. We all agree they are not.

GA
 
gran racing said:
I just love it. The Accord is set to a weight, it gets reviewed last year and its determined that the weight was in fact too low. The weight gets adjusted. Now some how it gets reduced? Wtf. What new evidence was provided to make this change again? Will other cars with similar engines get the reduction? This is pretty silly.

I'm with you Chris. I've really started losing interest in IT. These changes sure do see odd and can't help think about what politics were involved to push through.
Click to expand...

initial change was to bring it inline with other multivalve cars under then prevailing rules. It would have stayed there after the ops manual update, too, in the "lack of better information" category. dyno info was submitted (and more was solicited) showing only ~20% gains but inconclusive to the peak, so we reran it at 25%. A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY went in to making this right. the fact that there were 2 changes in ~1 year is unfortunate but we want cars to be run correctly Even though there are only 2 of these running currently that I'm aware of.

dave, we all know that prelude is effectively the same engine and should be treated the same way. write us a letter. or don't, if you are tired of seeing changes.

Splitter - someone write the letter tGA speaks of.
 
Here's a copy of letter. This has been and always will be a hot area since folks have bent the rules (creative interpretation) while others insist that it's airdam only for IT. Second, though I happy to see STAC getting splitter definition yet it TRULY belongs in the GCR glossary with measurement exceptions made under each class CS section.

Letter ID Number: #9062
Title: IT Rules Interpretation Request - Airdam/Spoiler topics
Class: IT
Request:
Dear SCCA CRB and ITAC,

This request may have come before yet debate continues in the IT forums and in my head when trying to make the next modification to IT car.

Two questions:

1) Many suppliers of airdams/spoilers including current IT racers are stating that radiator supports and front sub-frames are legitimate mounting points for otherwise legal spoiler/airdam kits. Suppliers of front aero devices to NASA drivers also want to provide their same products to SCCA IT drivers. Two, IT drivers designing their own front aero devices would like to make use of additional strong mounting points, allowing them to improve the functionality of their airdams/spoiler, i.e. easily adding splitters, stiffening points, etc. "Body" is defined in the GCR and integrated bumper covers are defined in 9.1.3.D.8.b and no where do I read that radiator supports or front sub-frames (as neither are considered part of the "body" or "bumper cover") are legitimate mounting points for an airdam/spoiler setup on an IT car. Could you please clarify? I submit 5 references.

a) 2 long threads in IT regarding the multiple view points on 9.1.3.D.8.b. I hope you find these threads interesting.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27331&highlight=splitter

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26420&highlight=splitter

b) 1 reference to the 2009 Aug Fasttrack regarding Moser's Appeal. As referenced in the above threads, the outcome of Moser's appeal simply caused more confusion and frustration regarding airdam/spoiler mounting points. Initially, the rules interpretation request found that Moser’s mounting points were illegal. Moser appealed the ruling and the appeal was denied not because of the mounting points but based openings in Moser’s setup were not used for brake ducts. So... are the mounting legal or NOT legal? The ruling did not clarify anything in that area. Very Sinful (on the part of the BoD)

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/Documents/Fastrack/09/08/09-fastrack-aug.pdf

c) product issued by special projects motorsports. This is example where a supplier is interpreting IT rules, suggesting splitter kits with rad mounting points are IT legal.

http://www.specialprojectsms.com/pe...ec-ground-effects/p1-spec-ek-civic-99-00.html

d) message from another supplier of airdams/spoilers to NASA and potentially IT community

"They (SCCA) pretty clearly define a 'box' we can play in. I already see a grey area that we could easily take advantage of. Most times in aerodynamic terms, words are inter-changeable. Do you know the email to the IT director or the director of you specific class? You could shoot them an email and get a definite answer but I'm going to say yes. The rules defining what we can do are almost identical to 944 Super Cup rules which I just made a splitter for a guy not too long ago. I can make something very similar to the picture you sent me in the link of XXXXX car. Send that to the director and make sure.

As for mounting, that’s not an issue. I worked in collision repair for 9 years. If you were to strip off all the bumpers, fenders, hood, doors, etc., you would be left with the unibody. The rad support and frame rails are part of that body. Again, I see this as just a word or phrase interchangeability issue."

2) The use of a splitter is more common in IT classes. Mounting points discuss aside, I believe the GCR may address the functional definition of a splitter under the "airdam" definition. What I find interesting is that under GTCS and STCS rules, one can find multiple references to "splitter" yet no definition in GCR. If there is one, I apologize and would welcome the reference. If there's not, I am requesting the CRB consider a separate "Splitter" definition in the Appendix F, revision to "airdam" definition in Appendix F to specifically mention/include "splitter" OR define splitter in the STCS and GTCS OR something better.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I welcome all discussion including over the phone and email conversations.

Best,

Demetrius Mossaidis #345562
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mossaidis said:
...undertray and splitter definitions they TRULY belong in the GCR glossary...
Click to expand...
"Airdam" and "undertray" are already in the GCR Technical Glossary; only "splitter" is missing. The STAC requested that our splitter definition be placed in the Technical Glossary but the CRB chose to move that into the STCS, likely to avoid any conflicts with existing regs in other classes. - GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top