Remote Shifter

[bldn10]

The kind of logic that finds that shifter legal is the root of many if not all of our rules issues. It is simply wrong because it ignores the fact that undefined terms have their general meanings. You cannot say that because there is no GCR definition then it can be anything you want it to be. That is total crap. We all know what a shift knob/handle is and that ain't one.

But, playing along, I'd say that the pivot point that is attached to the tunnel (how many shift knobs attach to the car in more than one place?) kills even that argument. If the shaft simply made 2 right angle turns w/o attaching or articulating I think it would be legal.

 

[lateapex911]

What's saddest about this, is the writers conclusion of, "If you won't let me do it my way, I'll go elsewhere."....when the real issue here....the we want to race issue...is long lost in the noise.

Nope, the sit is with in 1 or 2 inches of stock. The Mustang has a poor at best shifter design. The shifter is basicly under the dash. O'well I guess I will build the car's for NASA. Now I remember why I quit IT after one year back in 1996.

Cheyne [/b]

Do you want to race a Borgward in ITR against some great competition? The shifter places the knob in an uncomfortable location for your arm?? Then chose another car with a more comfy shift action/lever, or bend the darn lever and put an effective knob on it, and go racing. If you don't want to build a car that way, and want to change the rules, or torture the term "Knob" and have it bolted to the tunnel with brackets and plates, and that's your idea of racing, then fine, as someone else stated, IT isn't the best match for your personality.

But really, that decision seems to lose sight of the forest for the trees, but to each his own, and have fun.

As to the legality, many points have been made here and those who noticed modifications to the tunnel and those who called out the complete BS of the "there is no definition of knob" logic are on the money.

The definitions book never thought that the term "shift knob" needed clarification and definition. (Clearly an ooversight!) If you asked 100 people to draw one, you'd get 100 drawings of round knobs, oblong knobs, "T" knobs, and so on, all having a threaded opening at their base. None would have linkages and attachments to the floor! Pullleeeeze!

But hey, if we need to define what a shift knob is, fine, we'll do it. But lets not then turn around and blame the organization for "changing the rules" and take our ball elsewhere, eh?

 

[esuvee]

Point 2 - Rules say (in so many words) shift knobs are free.
[/b]

I couldn't find so many words in the rules. I found "any shift knob may be used." This is significantly different from "A shift knob may be anything you want it to be."

If it's to be interpreted the second way I'm just going to call my whole car an 'exterior mirror' and show up in a Ferrari.

I'm not saying the definition needs to be the 'common sense' one, that puts too much pressure on the individual tech inspector. I'm saying there is already a definition of 'shift knob' in the English language regardless of if it is actually written down in the ITCS. If we need to define shift knob in the ITCS I also need to know what the definition of 'is' is before I can move forward with the construction of my Ferrari

No single document can stand entirely on it's own, it must be based on the language in which it's written.

Alex

 

[Greg Amy]

I couldn't find so many words in the rules. I found "any shift knob may be used." This is significantly different from "A shift knob may be anything you want it to be."[/b]

OK, then explain to us what the design limitations are on a shift knob. Using the rules carefully, describe what limits what a shift knob can be.

Remember, it's all a new paradigm and culture (see other thread in that regard).

Good luck, you'll be graded on your answer.

GA

 

[JeffYoung]

There isn't one, other than the can't use an approved function to perform an unapproved function rule. I suppose you couldn't have a 100 lb shift knob as ballast, or use it to add cage attachment points for example. But beyond that, the rules say it is free, so a crazy bent tortured shift knob like the one that started this thread is, I think, legal.

P.S. -- my shifter is stock, the knob is nice and leathery aftermarket piece though.

 

[Matt Rowe]

Jeff,

It's interesting that you bring up the illegal function clause as the sihfter in question modifies the mechanical linkage and changes the motion ratios of the shifter. I believe that constitutes an illegal function.

 

[Greg Amy]

...and changes the motion ratios of the shifter.[/b]

So does bending the shift lever. Ergo, an allowed function.

To use the Prof's expression: Whee!!!

 

[Matt Rowe]

Okay Greg, I give up! You've finally convinced me . . . .

. . . convinced me that you are now suffering from dimensia!

So if changing the motion ratio is allowed, remind me again why we can't just lop a couple inches of a shifter? I know, my shift knob is made of anti matter.

Hmm, this whole thing IS fun.

 

[esuvee]

OK, then explain to us what the design limitations are on a shift knob. Using the rules carefully, describe what limits what a shift knob can be.
[/b]

I did that farther down in my earlier post but I'll try to be more specific. However, as I mentioned previously, I will use the rules PLUS the language they are written in. I think this has been done before based on the 'rounded protuberance' references earlier in the thread but how about one more time?

Shifter Knob, first lets break it down:

Shifter - whatever that thing is I'm sure it could be considered a 'shifter.' He's OK on this part of the definition.

Knob - Pronunciation: \näb\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English knobbe; akin to Middle Low German knubbe knob
Date: 14th century
1 a: a rounded protuberance 1 b: a small rounded ornament or handle

That thing is most certainly not A rounded protuberance or A small rounded ornament or handle. You might argue it is made up of many rounded protuberance/ornaments/handles but the rules don't say you can have more than one knob, that would be any shift knobs.

By definition this is clearly not a knob, shifter or otherwise. It may include a knob but it is definitely not a knob as a whole (which it has to be to be legal).

Second, let's look at common usage; after all, this is how they arrive at many definitions. OK, I'm not going to do this much work but I'm pretty confident what the result would be.

Once again, no single document can stand entirely on its own; it must be based on the language in which it's written.

Alex

BTW, I agree that motion ratio changes are OK if you bend a loop in the lever to shorten it.

 

[Greg Amy]

...let's look at common usage...[/b]

Let's just go here:

"Common usage" is, has, and probably always will be totally irrelevant to "interpretations" of SCCA rules. Doesn't exist. Doesn't matter.

In the current culture of SCCA (and most other sanctioning bodies, apparently) if someone can show reasonable logic behind the "interpretation" of a rule to suit their purpose, it's accepted. That's happened time, and time, and time again in protest and appeal situations.

For example, I seem to recall there was a guy protested for a National solo win because he didn't have a horn mounted in his car as the rules required (I think this was Street Prepared?). He appealed, showing them a small "clicker", used for herding dogs, that he kept in his pocket. Seems the rule at the time was something like "horn that can be heard over the engine". To prove his case the guy walks to his car (not running), holds the clicker above the hood, and clicks it. It's above the engine, it can be heard. Thus, he won his appeal.

I got into an interesting debate at the ARRC with a fellow asking me about replacement batteries in Improved Touring. Contrary to my (prior) expectation of what the rule says, it actually says the battery must be "similar" or something like that. Someone want to define the word "similar"? You can imagine where that conversation led...

Bottom line, guys, you're missing the whole point of this exercise. It's NOT about whether that shifter is legal or not; it's NOT about if a splitter is an airdam, or if air is a material. And, it's actually been settled by rule change that interpretations of the word "suspension bushings" includes the use full-range spherical bearings, and soon to be shown that stuffing a full-blown MoTec engine management system into a stock ECU housing is within the spirit of the rules.

Nope, what it *IS* all about is culture and acceptance of common sense rules reading versus twisted interpretations. And the current culture says twisting words is not only accepted, it's eventually rewarded.

So, no matter how hard you try - and I get the distinct impression you're gonna keep trying - you will *NOT* convince me that this shifter design is illegal to the current rules and culture of the SCCA. No way, no how.

Yer wastin' yer breath trying. But, feel free to keep trying if it makes you feel better... - GA

 

[Knestis]

...the point being, we can play all kinds of word games but what's okay is defined by we are collectively willing to accept. Yup. "I've seen the enemy and it is us."

If your region is short entries and afraid to piss off a paying customer by actually issuing consequences, you get the system you want.

If you're willing to push interpretations where they suit YOUR needs, you get the system you want - even if you decry others' efforts to do the same thing.

And so it goes.

If you actually THINK that Greg really wants you to believe that this contraption is a "knob," then you need to delve into the history documented at this site. He (like yours truly) had historically been one of the staunchest voices for conservative interpretations and the purity of IT as envisioned by our fore bearers, but (again, like me) has caved to the brave new world of IT.

Search, "be careful what you wish for" and you'll find his turning point.

K

 

[RFloyd]

Problem with your logic is that it's not taking into account what the rule actually says.

..

Since shift knobs are free, show me where it cannot be mounted to the tunnel, assuming no mods are made to the tunnel to accommodate it (because the rules decisively do not allow mods to the tunnel). Or the roof. Or the tail light. - GA
[/b]

Not So Fast My Friend!!! /Lee Corso Voice

Is drilling mounting holes in the tunnel to accomodate the fasteners not consideredMODIFYING????

If drilling holes for ANY reason is not considered a modification to a part, getting my drill and not modifying the nose of my car right in front of the air cleaner.....

 

[ScotMac]

I got into an interesting debate at the ARRC with a fellow asking me about replacement batteries in Improved Touring. Contrary to my (prior) expectation of what the rule says, it actually says the battery must be "similar" or something like that. Someone want to define the word "similar"? You can imagine where that conversation led...

[/b]

I was also thinking about the battery rule. What it actually says is it must be "similar amp-hour capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location". Interesting. Both "similar" and "standard" are open to interpretation, obviously "similar" MORE so. So, if i can prove the stock battery is around 50lbs, and my replacement is 40lbs, is that "similar"? 30lbs? Probably not 20lbs. Yes, this VERY MUCH needs to solidified. I posit it be changed from:

Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are of similar amp-hour capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location.

To:

Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are of within ??10?? amp-hours of stock capacity (20 hour rate) and within 5lbs of stock battery weight and are fitted within the 5 inches of the stock location.

The "stock" battery would be determined by what it says in the "service manual", which we are all required to have. However, most "Service Manual's" don't have amp hours *NOR* battery weight. Hmmmmm. Guess we could instead go with:

Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are between 50-100 (??) amp-hours (20 hour rate), are between 40-80lbs and are fitted within the 5 inches of the stock location.

 

[esuvee]

"Common usage" is, has, and probably always will be totally irrelevant to "interpretations" of SCCA rules. Doesn't exist. Doesn't matter.[/b]

So this time you read the last part of my post but not the first, nice.

Again, when cars costing $40K+ start filling the entire 1st half of the field we've got a problem, until then this shifter rule, the bushing rule and the ECU rule work fine for me. (i.e. the shifter's illegal and the other stuff is not unreasonably out of ‘the class-concept’ expensive) If you actually buy a Motec and can't point out how it's multiple thousands of dollars and thousands of seconds better than the cheaper stand alone ECU options you're an idiot. We can all spend money for no reason, rules changes won’t stop that and don’t need to. Keep in mind I've tuned and used a Motec, Halltech and the homebuilt syle.

It comes down to the fact that with these huge rules 'flaws' (not in my opinion but seemingly the popular belief here) I can build a $40K+ marginally legal IT car (with a motec, threaded body Ohlins, a relocated shifter, a small battery and air/metal in every bushing) as quickly as the next guy. However, (aside from more $$ for testing time) it's not going to be any faster than a well built, very-much-closer-to-legal, budget car (Budget, not cheap).

There is no rules disaster looming

Alex - It's a slow week at work so...


Alex