Karen wrote:
<quoting me>
>>The device was ruled legal in writing by Jim
>> Leithauser when he was Technical Director for Solo II, and the
car that
>
>That may have been done, but the authority for doing such a
thing really
>only rests with the SEB.
And rightly so. However, there has developed a very serious Catch
22 aspect to rules interpretations. You can write to the SEB
requesting a ruling. Even if you send in " 8 x 10 color glossies
with a description on the back of each one saying what each one
is," i.e., provide great detail, you're not guaranteed that a
ruling by the SEB will be definitive. So you can, as we have
seen, contact Denver in good faith, be told in writing that
something is legal, then be protested and disqualified later. Is
it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?
That said, Jim Leithauser was a valuable resource for competitors
contemplating a mod who weren't sure of the meaning of the rules,
and I believe that most of the folks involved, including members
of the SEB, give his opinions a very high degree of respect.
>The line between "reasonable" reading of the rules and "tortured
>interpretation" usually falls in the area where the caveat "IF
IT
>DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN, THEN YOU CAN'T" tends to apply.
"Fuel lines and pumps are unrestricted AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT
POSE A SAFETY HAZARD." (emphasis mine). If additional
restrictions were originally intended - and we can only speculate
as to whether that was the case - then they should have been
explicitly stated. There are the general rules such as "No
unauthorized modifications are permitted in order to accommodate
authorized modifications..." (14.1.A) to prevent one, for
example, from using large-diameter mild steel tubing for a "fuel
line" and rigidly attaching it to the body to provide structural
enhancement. The way I read that section, it is ALSO illegal to
drill any holes in bodywork in order to mount an allowed fuel
pump, fuel line, ignition module, etc. If you apply THAT concept
rigorously, I'd bet that there's lots of successful SP cars that
could become (decidedly weenie) protest bait.
>The use of words like "any" and "unrestricted" in occasional
rules
>tends to lead to a little stretching here and there--and taking
such
>words out of context is a popular way to do this
Again, you're trying to state that your interpretation is the
definitive one, and I'm the one who's declining to interpret. If
you don't really MEAN "unrestricted" - e.g., you have in mind
what YOU believe to be a reasonable upper limit on the i.d. of a
"genuine" fuel line - then that restriction should be stated
explicitly in the appropriate section of the rules. Otherwise,
there really IS a gray area, and your idea of "over the top" is
likely not to coincide with that of others.
>by people who want
>to implement a particular modification, and look hard at each
word
>trying to make a case for its legality.
Admit it - the wording in the rulebook is often convoluted, vague
and self-contradictory. Attempts to clean it up have often made
matters even worse - witness the Prepared section revision of a
few years ago. I have no objection whatever to revisions intended
to make the "true" intent (whatever that may be at a given time)
clearer - but the builder of the car in question had WRITTEN A
LETTER and had gotten a written response from Denver (in the form
of Leithauser) saying that, in his opinion, the device was legal.
Add to that the fact that the same car had won another class
previously, that other competitors in that class were well aware
of the presence of the device and themselves judged it legal, and
that, after everything was said and done, the SEB ruled in the
competitor's favor - and you can't deny that other folks every
bit as reasonable as yourself are in disagreement with you on the
issue.
> That approach tends to lead
>to the contention that an alteration should be legal because
"the
>book doesn't say I can't do that".
I claim that that justification is not needed at all for the
device we're debating.
> What you have to do is to take
>the entire rule in context with those around it.
I.e., interpret the rules. And your interpretation of what the
"context" implies is potentially very different from that of
someone else.
> Why would the
>book allow unrestricted fuel lines and pumps?
We can only speculate, since no Statement of Philosophy is
provided for that paragraph.
> Well, it allows a
>conversion from carburetion to FI,
And why would you think it allows that? Aftermarket EFI wasn't
even AVAILABLE when the induction rules were written. Does the
"unrestricted" wording REALLY mean that the rulesmakers
contemplated the installation of EFI systems on cars that
originally came with carbs? I've heard some pretty strenuous
statements by folks who were there at the time that this
possibility didn't enter their minds.
> and that conversion is probably
>going to require a fuel pump change
By far the most common fuel pump change at the time the SP rules
were written was from mechanical to electric, and on carbureted
cars. And the most common form of induction system change for
imported cars was to retrofit Webers. Been there, done that.
Don't have theT-shirt, however. ;<)
> and maybe different lines and
>the routing thereof, and maybe you'll need to add a return line
>where there wasn't one before.
And where, pray tell, would that return line go? You can't modify
the tank to accommodate it.
> That makes sense within the context
>of the SP rules overall. Does it say you can use a fuel line as
a
>reservoir to enable low main tank fuel levels to be used?
Please consider reality. Fuel lines DO hold fuel. Any car can run
for some period of time on only the fuel in the lines, pump,
filter, and float bowl (or fuel rail for EFI), even with its tank
EMPTY. Now, are you saying that there is some implicit limit on
how far it should be able to go like this? If so, precisely what
is that limit and how did you arrive at that figure? How far
would your Elan in SP trim have gone on just the fuel in the
Weber float bowls + lines + pump + filter? I'll bet it's further
than you'd be comfortable admitting.
> No. Does
>it say you can insert a reservoir into a fuel line?
Like it or not, and whether by design or not, a fuel line IS a
reservoir. You can't change that. You can't make its fuel
capacity zero. What we're arguing, apparently, is how MUCH
capacity it can have, and I haven't seen any specific proposals
for an upper limit. What do you propose?
>The appeal was probably won because the appellants did a good
job
>making a case for their reading of the rule based on words like
>"any" and "unrestricted".
And if restrictions are contemplated, the way to implement them
is to state them, not to presume that we all agree in advance
what they should be.
> That doesn't mean that what they did
>was really clearly permitted by the rules, just that they were
>able to convince the SEB that their conceptual extrapolation was
>not "tortured".
Again, you're the one trying to parse meanings here. Legal is
legal. Illegal is illegal. Black isn't white. If the SEB did NOT
believe the rules allowed this, I'd guess they would have upheld
the DSQ. Should have, anyway, IMHO.
> It is within the SEB's authority to fix the
>wording to say something that precludes a borderline or invalid
>interpretation, if and when they encounter one.
I take no issue with that. I have no objection to attempts to
clarify the wording of the rules. God knows there are sections
that sorely need it. OTOH, if you really want to prevent folks
from overcoming fuel pickup problems, you're gonna have to place
some specific limit on the fuel system capacity downstream of the
tank. Otherwise, there'll always be a legal way to accomplish the
same goal.
> If you think
>these "de-embolizers" should be legal, write in an suggest that
>the rules be changed to explicitly allow them.
I have no dog in the fight. My car runs great on fumes with no
such device in place, thank you. They're dirt cheap to implement
and don't upset the competitive balance in any SP class, IMO. I
can't see the slightest harm in their being legal.
>IMHO: when I was in SP we'd never have thought of trying such a
>thing. It didn't say we could, so we figured we couldn't.
Yeah, and you were in a Lotus, too. Everybody KNOWS you don't
have to do anything to them or even drive well to win in one of
those. ;<)
Jay
|