Eric Linnhoff wrote:
> Apparently there actually were enough sour grapes over the "unrestricted
> fuel lines" that some were using at the Nats last year that the SEB felt it
> necessary to enact a change in the wording of the SP rules.
Obviously, you didn't read the thread on this subject last fall. There
have been SP cars using the SAME type of de-embolizing device trophying
at Nationals since 1983. The device was ruled legal in writing by Jim
Leithauser when he was Technical Director for Solo II, and the car that
was protested had won the year before (in DSP) with the identical device
in place. Apparently, the DSP guys are better sports.
> This is exactly
> why they were elected to their positions, to reflect the opinions and wishes
> of the Solo community as a whole.
And there's not the slightest evidence that the rewording reflects the
"opinions and wishes" of anyone but the SEB. However, I do agree that
they have full authority to recommend rules changes to the BOD for
approval. If all they changed was the fuel line section, however, they
have NOT made it illegal to accomplish the function.
> There is a common interpretation of the rules that 99.9% of the SCCA members
> can agree upon as being the "intent" of the written rules and there is that
> other 0.1% of the membership who have to push the envelope and explore the
> gray areas of the written and commonly understood rules.
WRONG! Even SEB members will tell you they have no idea of the original
intent of many of the rules. The only POSSIBLE interpretation has to be
that the rules mean what they say, LITERALLY. You are in no position
whatever to claim to know what "99.9%" of the SCCA may or may not
believe.
> Last year they got
> away with it, eventually, after a final ruling by the nationals protest
> committee.
See above. The type of device in question has appeared in a number of
different Nationally-competitive SP cars for more than a decade. This is
most certainly NOT "getting away" with anything. It's reading the rules
for what they SAY rather than what you might WANT them to say. There's a
difference in the two.
> This year those same rule benders, note I didn't say breakers, will just
> have a much harder time finding a "gray area' to exploit in the wording of
> the rules in this particular area.
Nope. Unless the SP allowances for fuel filters and induction systems
have been thoroughly rewritten, it's a no-brainer to use perfectly legal
means - even with restrictions on what fuel "lines" can do - to provide
a fuel reservoir sufficient for a Solo II run.
>Deal with it.
Maybe it's YOU who should learn to "deal with" the fact that you aren't
aware of all the implications here.
<snip a bunch of other unrelated stuff>
This isn't about cheating, and it's not about "bending" rules. It's
about very literal, reasonable readings of ALL the SP rules - not just
the section on fuel lines - and a common conclusion by lots of respected
competitors that this has been perfectly legal all along. Trying to
outlaw the function served by the device is futile, IMHO, without some
major restrictions to other presently-allowed mods.
Jay "don't need one of these on my car anyway" Mitchell
|