September 2011 Fastrack

When I look at debates like the PS pulley and there is a question of doing something funky (like a pulley that free wheels on the pump) I look at the "intent" of the rule. I don't think the intent of the rules is to come up with a way around the situation. I agree with Andy. Not legal.

Not that I would give a sh*t if I had seen someone do it............
 
Thanks, letter 6008 sent. Basically in support of deactivation of the PS system or removal of the pump and lines.

Ooops, looks like I sent 6007 too, the same letter. My browser came back with a 404 so I figured the letter didn't make it and re-sent it.
 
Last edited:
lateapex911 said:
9.1.3.D.3.e

Took me 38 seconds Rallo!
:shrug::)
Click to expand...


oh... Silly me for thinking that wouldn't be under engine cooling! Still... no allowance for using a shorter accessory drive belt. If we are going to strictly interpret the rules, than we need to at least be consistant!
 
CRallo said:
Still... no allowance for using a shorter accessory drive belt.
Click to expand...

So, TO ME, this falls under the 'if it says you can, then you bloody well can' theory. If it is specifically allowed to use a pully of alternate diameter, then you can OBVIOUSLY use (out of neccessity) a different belt.
 
How about a 12 month moratorium on any rules changes?

I'm about 50% serious. Would allow the rules to settle some, and would also allow us to focus on the ITB and ITC "issues."
 
Greg Amy said:
...but, are you REQUIRED to? "Can" I run a smaller pulley, then not change the belt...?

;)
Click to expand...

we can use alternate size belts since it is implied because we can use larger pulleys.

i was envisioning using a very tiny pulley and having the belt not contact it. would not always work but for some cars, you could "miss" the pulley.....
 
JeffYoung said:
How about a 12 month moratorium on any rules changes?

I'm about 50% serious. Would allow the rules to settle some, and would also allow us to focus on the ITB and ITC "issues."
Click to expand...

Whether to recommend a change is up to the ITAC. A moratorium on changes makes as much sense as artificial budget caps and deficit ceilings when spending can be controlled in the first place by the decisions made by the body charged with doing so.

The ITAC should have deliberated the PS issue, come to a decision, and given this an "up or down" recommendation to the CRB, rather than putting it out for comment. Deferring this to the membership will get a (uneven) view of individuals' interests that may or may not be in line with the greater interest of the category. And if it's too evenly split among ITAC members - change or don't change - that's a powerful argument for leaving it alone. There should ALWAYS be a truly compelling reason to mess with the ITCS knowing the power of unintended consequences and creep.

If we wanted an initiative vote process for rule changes, I figure we'd have one. And kicking the decision on this down the road is *not* going to make it a less time-consuming deal for the Committee - quite the opposite, in fact.

K
 
tom91ita said:
we can use alternate size belts since it is implied because we can use larger pulleys.

i was envisioning using a very tiny pulley and having the belt not contact it. would not always work but for some cars, you could "miss" the pulley.....
Click to expand...

Sorry, but crap like this is really tiresome.

Paddock lawyer (sorry, Jeff) wordplay games are not good for the collective health of the category. There is no provision in the rules to render the functionality of the PS pump ineffective.

And caving to those word games by throwing up our arms and letting in new allowances is equally detrimental.

K
 
In my life, when all the facts are known as they are now, procrastination has not been a reasonable method of decision making. Chuck
 
Disagree (respectfully). Beating a dead horse, but to me this is a non-core IT issue. Member asked for it, we debated it, and wanted to know what membership thought about it. I am very comfortable with this side of things and do think member input (even as flawed as it may be) is better than no member input at all.


Knestis said:
Whether to recommend a change is up to the ITAC. A moratorium on changes makes as much sense as artificial budget caps and deficit ceilings when spending can be controlled in the first place by the decisions made by the body charged with doing so.

The ITAC should have deliberated the PS issue, come to a decision, and given this an "up or down" recommendation to the CRB, rather than putting it out for comment. Deferring this to the membership will get a (uneven) view of individuals' interests that may or may not be in line with the greater interest of the category. And if it's too evenly split among ITAC members - change or don't change - that's a powerful argument for leaving it alone. There should ALWAYS be a truly compelling reason to mess with the ITCS knowing the power of unintended consequences and creep.

If we wanted an initiative vote process for rule changes, I figure we'd have one. And kicking the decision on this down the road is *not* going to make it a less time-consuming deal for the Committee - quite the opposite, in fact.

K
Click to expand...
 
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I have to point to the reality.

The rules allow it. People do it. So how do we respond is the real question?



Knestis said:
Sorry, but crap like this is really tiresome.

Paddock lawyer (sorry, Jeff) wordplay games are not good for the collective health of the category. There is no provision in the rules to render the functionality of the PS pump ineffective.

And caving to those word games by throwing up our arms and letting in new allowances is equally detrimental.

K
Click to expand...
 
How does one deal with potential problems of the PS system? I haven't ever run one before but the stories I hear (and they might just be stories) regarding overheating and spilling of fluid don't sound all that rosy to me.

For sure I'll be looping lines or just taking the damn thing off completely if that happens. There are no rules allowing coolers or larger reservoirs, so either I cheat by adding those items, or cheat by taking the PS system off. Either way I'm cheating.

Maybe I'll see no issues whatsoever and my discussion is mote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top