Wheel diameter rule change Poll

This is another case where the evidentiary burden is on the entrant submitting the request ... and he has to prove a negative.

It is easy to prove that aliens (or Iraqi WMDs) exist - if you can find one - but there is NO evidence that can be trotted out to prove that they don't, as long as someone wants to believ that they do.

Likewise, it is impossible to prove that 14x7 alloys are for all practical purposes extinct. This assumes that the CB members are philosophically inclined to even consider larger diameter wheels. It would be interesting to get a response to that and then ask what threshold - or standard of law - would be required to convince them. One manufacturer? None?

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
This is another case where the evidentiary burden is on the entrant submitting the request ... and he has to prove a negative.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to WHY supplying information to back your request is "proving a negative?"

Is it really too much to ask that, if you have information pertaining to your case, you provide it to help support your request? It's very likely that YOU may know more about the subject than I do, and your information proves most helpful in directing further investigation into such issues...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Geo:
sometimes it takes hearing it from several sources to really believe something may be a problem. This is human nature and we're dealing with humans.
Click to expand...

As can be seen in this thread, what you need to do is provide enough information to override someone elses EXPERIENCES... It's happened here... people claim that, in their experience, these wheels are a piece of cake to find... Others have found just the opposite.

We need to get information together that QUANTIFIES the problem as much as possible, because it's hard to argue that there is <whatever>, when there is data to the contrary...

Belief structures are tough to change, and many believe that things are a certain way. If you want them to believe otherwise, you'll have to be more convincing than all their former experiences...

So, a safe bet... GET REAL DATA...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
My comment wasn't directed at you, Darin. My point was simply that proving that 14x7 wheels are NLA is a lot like proving that a particular car is not competitive, and we know how hard that is.

K
 
I'm curious as to WHY supplying information to back your request is "proving a negative?"
Click to expand...

C'mon Darin, are you just doing this to be argumentative? I gave you more cedit than that. What Kirk is saying (if I may) is that traditionally, to have an alternate part(s) approved for something, proof that the original part(s) are NLA is required. In the case of factory parts, that's usually easy, as they can provide you w/ documentation that the part(s) are NLA, or superceded. When you have something that's as open (in terms of vendors/suppliers) as wheels, it's much harder.

The point being you have to prove that the part(s) are NO longer available. That's proving a negative. You're a technical guy, I'm sure you took at least one statistics course along the way. Think about the Null hypothesis.

Let's go back to availability. There's a section of the ITCS (D.7.a.1) that speask to allowable wheel alternates (12's may use 13's, 365's may use 14's, 390's may use 15's, etc.). I'm sure that clause was put in there due to either lack of availabilty of the wheels or the tires. If anybody's looking to get the current wheel rule changed, I'd try and find out what was required, who was involved, etc. in that decision.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
C'mon Darin, are you just doing this to be argumentative?
Click to expand...

No... I was just asking a question... Drumming up conversation. Would have come across that way in person... I knew that Kirk wasn't directing his comments to me, but I wanted to get further discussion going on the topic...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...to have an alternate part(s) approved for something, proof that the original part(s) are NLA is required.  In the case of factory parts, that's usually easy, as they can provide you w/ documentation that the part(s) are NLA, or superceded.</font>
Click to expand...

You have NO idea just how much experience I've had with this one lately... and I'm still fighting it. It's NOT EASY even with an entire CD full of official documentation, reasoning, precendent, and data. The CRB still rejected allowing the 510 to use the Nissan replacement part number... even though the evidence clearly shows that the original parts are NLA, and that the piece in question is the replacement part.

That's what's fueling my point here... WE are going to have to REALLY prove our cases with as much information as we can provide if we are going to change things. This isn't just for the general racer, but it's true for us on the ITAC as well. And even when we DO provide this information, it's still an uphill battle. However, I sincerely believe that if we get this thing organized, and go about things in a more methodical way in the future, we can get some things done.

Maybe I'm naive still, or maybe I just see the potential for this club to shine again, but either way, I'm not going to quite until someone boots me out or the club goes under, because I think it's worth the effort.




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Darin,

I think that maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say, or maybe I'm not understanding your reply.

I am not asking that the CRB do any extra work than what they do, except expand on their response as to how they got to that conclusion. If someone writes to them sayong "I can't find any wheels, could you change the rule to make it easier and cheaper to find them? Here's the data of availability of those wheels, etc..." and the response from the CRB is "there are adequate supplies", well, I think that maybe they could tell us or at least that person, what other information they have, other than what the requestor sent, to conclude something different than the requestor. If they have other sources, perhaps they could mention them, etc.

Simply stating, "there are adequate sources", is like saying "You'll take what we give you and you'll like it!".

I understand that the CRB sees tons of letters, etc. I assume that when they respond to one of them in Fastrack, it is because they have analyzed it, done whatever research they feel necessary and arrived at a conclusion. Well, they should expand a little more on how they got to that last sentence.

Anyway, it's just something that gets me sometimes. It just doesn't read right on Fastrack when "the law" delivers the one liner deny.
 
You have NO idea just how much experience I've had with this one lately... and I'm still fighting it. It's NOT EASY even with an entire CD full of official documentation, reasoning, precendent, and data. The CRB still rejected allowing the 510 to use the Nissan replacement part number... even though the evidence clearly shows that the original parts are NLA, and that the piece in question is the replacement part.
Click to expand...

That, in a word, is BULLSHIT! There's no provision in the ITCS for the CRB to turn down the use of a legit replacement/supercede part. It says plain as day that they are permitted. Says nothing about needing approval. Provide the appropriate documentation, and the p/n's should be listed on the spec line of the car(s) in question. No room for interpretation, end of story. This is not SS, it's IT.

And since you're so closely involved w/ this one Darin, can you share w/ us the reason(s) why this was shot down by the CRB? Is this going to be Story #17?


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
That, in a word, is BULLSHIT! There's no provision in the ITCS for the CRB to turn down the use of a legit replacement/supercede part. It says plain as day that they are permitted. Says nothing about needing approval. Provide the appropriate documentation, and the p/n's should be listed on the spec line of the car(s) in question. No room for interpretation, end of story. This is not SS, it's IT.
Click to expand...

Bill... On this, you and I couldn't AGREE MORE! That's exactly what I was saying! Yet, even WITH all the documentation, it was rejected (..what was actually rejected was the request to list the part number on the spec line... If you read the rules VERY carefully, the only parts actually REQUIRED to be listed, per the ITCS wording, are "superceded" pieces, as the word "replacement" isn't used in the second sentance of that rule... so I'm not completely convinced, were it me, that I'd worry about this so long as I had all the documentation to prove my case in the event of a protest...
wink.gif
) I'm still working on setting this one straight.

As for why... there is a question as to whether the documentation provided can be considered a "manufacturers parts guide", as required by the rules. The requestor is working on getting the latest copy of this piece now, so hopefully we can put this to a positive rest soon.

To address what Ony posted... I can give you an example that works against what you are saying...

A request came in last year asking for alternate rotors for a particular car due to the dealer no longer carrying the factory pieces or them being otherwise NLA. However, when the I looked into it and made a few phone calls, I found that there was an abundant supply of these rotors from just about every auto parts supplier and aftermarket supplier. Since there is no requirement that these pieces be factory part numbers, there was obviously a very adequate supply. Basically, the requestor supplied the data, but we found data to the contrary.

I agree that the explanations could be more verbose, but I don't think that alone really is going to solve anything.

To respond to Jake... I consider DATA to be anything that isn't just opinion, that has a chance in heck of changing the thinking of the traditional culture of the SCCA! We need to work together to get the rules to make more sense.

So, to everyone who has responded here... Please read this as a note from someone amongst you, because I'm in agreeance with you on most of these points... I just choose to go about this with something other than insults and needless anger, because in the end, that gets us nowhere. Focus your rage on proving your case, and I believe we'll get more done.


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 10, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Jake:
<---- convinced that Darin can't read my posts
Click to expand...

Jake, I read your posts just fine... What you have done is fine... I don't recall ever seeing this before, but what you have sent is good.

As I've indicated before, I've looked into this issue and can assure you that I'm all for allowing wheel diameter changes to the rules. It's NOT me you have to convince. All I can do is give my recommendation to the CRB and it's up to them from there.

My guess would be that this data wasn't even considered by them. SUCKS, right!? I agree. So, what we do is get a LOT MORE of this same kind of thing... to the point where it can't be ignored because the answer is so obvious. Then when decisions get made to the contrary, we have some information to show this and then hope that someone in a position to make some changes is willing to help correct the issues...

I don't see any other way to get this ship to stop listing. The culture runs too deep and it's going to take more than just rhetoric to get things to change.

I know that sucks, but from where I sit, that's just how I see it. No one is more frustrated with the current state of affairs than me, but I'm willing to work on trying to fix it, and am asking you all to be willing to help us...

I'll keep this wheel data on the ITAC site and go back to look to see if I missed it in your original request... Doesn't matter for my recommendation, however, as I was with George on this issue and would like to see the wheel rules opened up. Modernized a bit, if you will...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
As for why... there is a question as to whether the documentation provided can be considered a "manufacturers parts guide", as required by the rules. The requestor is working on getting the latest copy of this piece now, so hopefully we can put this to a positive rest soon.
Click to expand...

Ok Darin, which is it? Is it 'official documentation' or isn't it? I don't see how a reasonable person could dispute 'official documentation' as being a legit. mfg's parts guide (unless of course, it's not "official" [sig]). You've been rather casual w/ your use of words in the past, I'm wondering if this is another case of that?

BTW, and not to stir up anything else, I figure that you've mentioned the fact that the ITC Rabbit G-grind cam p/n isn't listed on the spec line. What was the response to that?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Only tangentially related to the original topic but I guess that I'm confused on one point: It was my understanding that this was covered by the clause in C. SPECIFICATIONS, that says, "Parts or assemblies which the manufacturer lists in factory service manuals or parts guides for a particular model which supersede or replace original parts or assemblies are permitted."

The G-grind cam is a supersede part - evidence provided by factory documentation - so it is legal. This does NOT have to be spelled out by the ITCS line for the car, precedent being set by the protest process.

The whole point of this rule would seem to be to allow the manufacturers to make de facto decisions about what parts are acceptable on their cars, without the Comp Board having to manage every part number change that comes down the road.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
This does NOT have to be spelled out by the ITCS line for the car, precedent being set by the protest process.
Click to expand...

Kirk, you need to read the follow-on sentence...

ITCS 17.1.4.C
Documentation of the superseding parts or assemblies must be supplied to the Club Racing Department and the appropriate part numbers listed on that particular model's specification line.
Click to expand...

And, to answer Bill's question... there has been no official comment on the G-Grind cam, and YES, it was extensively discussed and questioned. I'm not going to attempt to rehash the history of the reasoning why everyone seems to "believe" that this cam is legal, but I've asked for the documentation and no one seems to be able to provide it. There are those out there who know more of the story than I, so perhaps they'd be willing to go back over it for you.

The one fact I do know is that the cam is NOT listed on the spec line, and is therefore, NOT legal for ITC VWs unless it was actually something that they came with as available in the United States market. No one seems to have any evidence of that either.

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 11, 2004).]
 
Darin,

As far as the G-grind goes in the ITC VWs, I'm only going on what I've been told. I've never actually seen documentation that supports it as a superceding part. I don't even know when it became 'legal'. I did do some research, and call a couple of VW dealers looking for the part, and got everything from the p/n for the cam from a Golf 1.8 hydraulic lifter motor to NLA. Didn't dig any deeper than that. I do have a friend that works as a parts mgr. for a large dealership, and I'll ask him.

On a side note, several years ago (mid-late 90's), I was at an EMRA race, and I recall one of the tech guys talking about how the G-grind was legal in the ITB Rabbits. Keep in mind that I believe this was when the Rabbit GTI was still in ITA, and the Rabbit 1.6 was legal in ITB (to place this in time, the 1st gen RX7 was also still in ITS).

I'm sure there are a few people out there that were around when this was done, and may be able to provide more info. Stu Brummer, Dick Shine, Sam Moore, and the Pucketts are people that jump to mind right away.

And which is it Darin (before I jump up the CB's butt for throwing the rule book out the window again)? Was the Datsun paperwork 'official', and provided by Nissan? You're not telling the whole story here.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm only going on what I've been told. I've never actually seen documentation that supports it as a superceding part. I don't even know when it became 'legal'.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are alone... Ask just about anyone who believes this part is "legal"... they believe it because that's what someone else "told" them...

And, if it is a "legal" superseding part... why isn't it listed on the spec line as per the ITCS 17.1.4.C???

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Was the Datsun paperwork 'official', and provided by Nissan?  You're not telling the whole story here.</font>
Click to expand...

An Official factory parts guide from Nissan (albiet from 1974... which is the last one available apparently). An official letter describing the situation from a Nissan dealership. Official catalog pages from Nissan parts catalogs showing the current listings. Numerous other supporting documentation. AND, my unofficial experience going to three different dealerships and confirming that this information is accurate.

There was also an "official" letter from a pretty disgruntled head of the Nissan Motorsports division that is no longer in the service of Nissan, who, while officially stating that the cam WAS the replacement piece, decided that he knew our rules better than we did and stated that he would NOT recommend this piece as a replacement because he believed that doing so was against the "intent of IT"... Who is HE to decide that??? Yet, I believe this letter had the most influence of all...

The last piece of information that is being sought by the requestor is a CURRENT parts guide showing the application and part numbers. I'm not sure how far back the Nissan parts computers go, but I'm told it's only back to 1978.

Further, the case was shown that the cam in question has nearly the exact same profile as the camshaft that was available in the 1973 510, having the same lift, but having 8 degrees more duration.

I'm not trying to keep anything from you here, guys, I just only have so much time to sit here and type. I wouldn't be here in public stating this case if I wasn't thoroughly convinced that the case should be made. I'd gladly post the information I have, but it was such a large volume that Jeremy had to send it to the ITAC on a burned CD because it was too large to e-mail!

Funny, because as far as I'm concerned, and as far as the rules require, all that is really necessary to prove this case is a factory parts guide listing the appropriate parts numbers for the application. We have that, but it's from 1974. If the requestor is able to get a more recent parts guide page, I would expect that this would be resolved. However, for some reason I still think there is going to be a fight involved.

Were it me, I'd go a different route... I'd run the damn cam, and keep EVERY piece of supporting documentation that I have to prove it's legal in my tool box, to be used in the event of a protest, along with a highlighted copy of ITCS 17.1.4.C, because this part is NOT STATED to be a "superseding" part, but rather shown as a replacement, and replacement pieces AREN'T officially listed in the ITCS as needing to be on the spec line... I'd make someone protest me to prove it's NOT legal... Come to think of it... I might even protest the VWs to make them prove they ARE legal...

But that's just me...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Ooh, I sure do need to keep reading - don't I?
redface.gif
My bad.
K
Click to expand...

Kirk,
I wonder it that's not the case with some on the CRB as well... I have to give them the benefit of the doubt on some of these issues, because they are no different than most of us and can't possibly be aware of EVERY rule or combination of rules that are out there.

Like with the Neon reclassification request... Their response to that, in my opinion, reflects that they either weren't aware that the GCR allows a window of specification adjustments for up to one year after a car is reclassified, or they just interpret that section differently than I do... That's why, instead of going competely off the handle on these issues (and yes, I did spend my time pissed off about the situation and the whole ITAC was informed about it, much to my self-embarrasment), I try to real myself in and keep the dialog going to try to rectify the situation...

Of course, only time will tell if that approach will work...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Darin,

Who the heck is the ex-Nissan guy to be setting IT policy??

And, not to hijack this thread anymore, but can you give me some insight into the fate of my reclassification requests?


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top