Rules and old dirt

#1

Catchy title, eh?

Before I’m blasted for a dumb idea, do a forum search for “Contingency Crash fund” and you’ll see some dirt and not so pleasant discussion. So, be nice. Here is the idea:

Allow the rules comittee the right to allow a “Grandfather Clause(GFC)” to a rule or racer.

This should make for some lively discussion. Steve Devinney, do the Miata guys have something like this?

Before the discussion takes off, please understand that I’m not on the rules comittee, nor have they asked me to post said idea. But, as a racer if I had installed or purchased a big ticket item (example billet rocker arms) only to find that it was no longer allowed, well I’d be a little upset. Upon due consideration of rules group, if an item was eliminated (again, think rocker arms), but it did NOT give a performance advantage, should the racer be able to keep the item. (No Jim Robinson did not ask me to post either. His was just a good example)

The GFC would allow a racer caught in a pinch to continue without change until such time that he could make a change to the newly implemented and, in all cases thus far, cost effective rules change.It allows the one-off/difficult rule to be implemented without a racer backlash saving the rules guys untold grief.

Discuss…in a civil manner

Regards, Robert (racer’s advocate dude) Patton

#2

There should still be a time limit of some sort IMHO.

#3

JP, maybe yes, maybe no. That’s the beauty of a subjective rule and a good rules comittee that has seen it all, knows what works, has common sense and acts in a benevolent manner.

And all decisions are final…

Regards, Robert Patton

Seriously, do other series have such a wiggle-room rule and does it work?, Or just a big can-o-worms?

#4

I ‘think’ depending on how you read some of the CCR this is already there.

My understanding is this would count as a ‘non performance’ infraction and is to be noted in the log book and fixed (if I recall) by the next event?

From my perspective the billet rocker arms do suck, but I was aware that this could happen when I made the ‘investment’. I also got burned on the Fuel Pressure Regulator but that was more for the enduros.

If you want to build to the extent of the rules you’re going to have that. I made my peace with that awhile ago.

What is frustrating is to see things that are known issues with these cars not being adequately addressed by the rules with necessary freedom (my opinion only). But that is for a different thread.

#5

Jim, I’m with you on the log book/next event concept.

However, my thinking with a GFC is it is noted and
a) never has to be fixed
b) fixed on transfer of sale
c) such a can-o-worms it would only cause hard feelings rather than harmony.

Robert Patton

#6

Does it really matter since there is no real rules enforcement anyway?

#7

Patton wrote:

Yes and no.

In my time (2005-present), I have seen several items made illegal by the rules whether by clarification (no special edition strut tower braces were allowed even though some cars came that way from the factory and the rules didn’t permit its removal) or by outright change in allowed components (e.g. Racer X pressure plates).

In the latter scenario, a sunset period is pretty common. The more performance-enhancing and/or the cheaper to fix, the shorter the time to comply.

My personal view is that the rules should be written to close all the loopholes we can foresee by looking at similar series. I know it will never be an IROC-tight spec, but I think damn near every part should be spec’d.

I still don’t understand why you can build a 020-over motor, but can’t swap plastic and metal bumpers.

I submitted a bunch of requested clarifications to Carter and he graciously accepted them. Benevolently. :wink:

Steve D.

#8

155MPH wrote:

JP, it is a new year and we’ll hope for the best. To clarify,I thought things in the SE ran exceptionally well, or did I miss something while playing lead instructor dude? Send a PM if you like.

Regards, Robert

#9

In my very humble opinion, if for whatever reason you can’t keep up with the rule changes, you are not a bad person and you can race, but you should be disqualified.

[quote]However, my thinking with a GFC is it is noted and
a) never has to be fixed
b) fixed on transfer of sale
c) such a can-o-worms it would only cause hard feelings rather than harmony.[/quote]
I agree with point c :wink:

#10

Patton wrote:

[quote]155MPH wrote:

JP, it is a new year and we’ll hope for the best. To clarify,I thought things in the SE ran exceptionally well, or did I miss something while playing lead instructor dude? Send a PM if you like.

Regards, Robert[/quote]

You didn’t miss anything because there was nothing to miss. There is no real rules enforcement in my opinion either.

#11

allenr wrote:

[quote]In my very humble opinion, if for whatever reason you can’t keep up with the rule changes, you are not a bad person and you can race, but you should be disqualified.

[quote]However, my thinking with a GFC is it is noted and
a) never has to be fixed
b) fixed on transfer of sale
c) such a can-o-worms it would only cause hard feelings rather than harmony.[/quote]
I agree with point c ;)[/quote]

I agree with R. Allen as well. If you are not in compliance you are DQed period. Next race it better be fixed. Harsh but the way it should be in my opinion.

#12

Agree on DQing. None of us should have to ask for enforcement so as to be sure “c” doesn’t present itself.

#13

Well I think that sounds good in principal, but what I think Robert is speaking about is non-performance type items.

For example:
Lowered steering columns?
Non OEM shiftknobs, etc.

Of course that gets to be a fuzzy line, I say billet rockers aren’t performance enhancing someone else says they are, etc.

#14

And little ole ladies riding in the back not looking like ballast? :wink:

#15

Rules enforcement?? I think the way it is supposed to work is you file a protest. Or the offender is confronted about the infraction. If there is something that bugs you about a competitors car, go talk to them with the Spec e30 Dude or a Nasa official.

Why do people ellude to illegal stuff on the net? I know some of it is not serious but what do people on the sidelines think?

Al

#16

Good point Al. It is easy to hide behide the bravado of the internet but I wonder what the motivation was for starting this thread in the first place.

It is very uncomfortable to protest someone you hope to be a friend with. I don’t want to do it and wish we were not in that position. I would love to see a rules committee take us out of that position.

#17

Gasman wrote:

[quote]Good point Al. It is easy to hide behide the bravado of the internet but I wonder what the motivation was for starting this thread in the first place.

It is very uncomfortable to protest someone you hope to be a friend with. I don’t want to do it and wish we were not in that position. I would love to see a rules committee take us out of that position.[/quote]

Well, Gasman, you have correctly seen thru this thin veil as I attempted to skirt the rules for 2009. As you correctly posted earlier, the 8 pound passenger ballast that was previously in the rear passenger area of the 241 Atlanta Checker Cab will be removed.I would not have given it a second thought, glad you mentioned it.I hope my sponsor doesn’t have a fit. Can a HPDE or PTE driver give the ole gal a ride?

The 241 car is now up to date.

The 911 has the new spec exhaust installed and it has the stock airbox reinstalled.

Regards, Robert Patton

#18

Gasman,the answer to your wondering about the motivation:

“It allows the one-off/difficult rule to be implemented without a racer backlash saving the rules guys untold grief.”
“Discuss…in a civil manner.”

Looks like answer c) is the best. It does not look that anything productive for racers or rules guys will be forthcomming in this thread.

Regards, Robert Patton

#19

Patton wrote:

[quote]Looks like answer c) is the best. It does not look that anything productive for racers or rules guys will be forthcomming in this thread.

Regards, Robert Patton[/quote]

I’m not even racing yet and I could have told you that. Lots of different views on things out of this group for sure.

John

#20

FARTBREF wrote:

[quote]Rules enforcement?? I think the way it is supposed to work is you file a protest. Or the offender is confronted about the infraction. If there is something that bugs you about a competitors car, go talk to them with the Spec e30 Dude or a Nasa official.

Why do people ellude to illegal stuff on the net? I know some of it is not serious but what do people on the sidelines think?

Al[/quote]

View form the side lines? Here are my opinions from a back marker with a very tight budget perspective.

a) Rules enforcement - I think every car in the top five should be closley inspected, weighed, and dynoed (assuming a mobile dyno is available) immediately following every race. Period. Most of the rules issues have to do with HP/weight anyway.

b) I think forcing low budget backmarkers like me to spend hundreds of dollars on a previously painfully legal car to buy spec parts just so I can show up is ludicrous.

c) Plastic bumpers on a pre 89 car? Whether the heater core is still there? Removing the previously golden headlight back covers?..Telling a guy with a 318, 325e, or pre-87 car that is otherwise safe and prepped per the rules that he is not welcome…What’s up with that?

d) If a car is presented in such a way that it is safe, legal weight, and built to the obvious intent of of complying with the rules they should be allowed to compete. If they happen to finish in the top 5, refer to point a above.

e) He who opens the proverbial can of worms should be force to eat a can of worms at the next event. :cheer:

Don