Karen responded:
<snip>
>That would mean every rule has to say what you CAN'T do.
No it doesn't, nor am I arguing for that. I AM saying that, if
you see fit to include words like "free," "open," or
unrestricted," you should be prepared for people to believe that
is what the rules allow. If there ARE restrictions, then don't
say exactly the opposite.
THIS is the crux of our disagreement. I am fully aware of the "as
specified by the manufacturer" and "any modification not
specifically authorized" verbiage. The problem is that the rule
in question here DOES (did) specifically state "unrestricted."
Now, that's not the justification I would have used for the
device. "Any fuel filter" is far more appropriate and defensible,
and that's in the rules too. Then you add in "carburetors, fuel
injection, ... are unrestricted" and I can see, along with a
number of other competitors, a clear allowance in the rules for
just such a device. It IS, after all, a fuel filter, as Paul
Brown pointed out. The fact that it filters out air rather than
sediment (or water, another possible function of a fuel filter)
doesn't change that.
>The concept of "tortured interpretation" shows up here (see the
>very front of the book), as does the common and reasonable
>premise of "may serve no other purpose".
Again, that's your premise, not a premise stated in the rules.
The fact that that phrase appears in specific sections rather
than as a general restriction is, to me, a very powerful argument
that it isn't generally operative. If that's not the "intent,"
then clarifying this will NOT add to the size of the rule book,
it will take a single sentence in the preamble to a the rules for
a Category.
>> rigorously, I'd bet that there's lots of successful SP cars
that
>> could become (decidedly weenie) protest bait.
>
>Possibly true. Perhaps the front of each section needs to
address
>normal, no-other-purpose installation methods.
Well, there's the interpretation thing again. On the one hand,
"if it doesn't say you can," but on the other hand, there's
"normal, no-other purpose installation methods." Seems like
you've made a lot of assumptions about implicit meanings here. It
appears to me that it is specifically verboten to make ANY mods,
including but not limited to the drilling of mounting holes, for
ANY allowed accessory unless those mods are specifically allowed.
Isn't that consistent with your philosophy.?
>Maybe. Get specific and write up some examples.
I've made some suggestions about removing ambiguities in the past
on team.net, some of which were eventually implemented - not
necessarily due to my statements. I don't have any specific
position about what SP should be, other than what is now allowed
should generally not be taken back. THAT's a good way to piss off
folks and run off competitors.
Here's one example:
14.10.N Used to read, in part, "Limited slip differentials are
permitted." Period. I once asked a Nationally-competitive ESP
driver if he ran a locked diff, and he said, "Yeah, but I dare
you to show me how I did it." "Locked" IS "limited slip" with the
limit set at zero. However, some person/people on the SEB
decided a couple years back that we shouldn't allow locked diffs.
The following was added, after the above sentence: "This DOES NOT
permit a locked differential, a welded differential, or the
adjustment of a limited-slip differential to the extent that it
becomes locked." It was apparent to any of us who had thought
about this for more than a nanosecond that it's impossible to
distinguish between .00001% slip and totally locked. Yet one was
clearly legal, and the other was not. I.E., a gray area was
created where none had previously existed. Funny how that works,
huh? NOW read the same section. The word "not" was removed from
the added sentence, and now, if you want to run a locked rear end
in SP, it's a whole lot less expensive to do so.
When the diff rules changed, a number of folks had to
remove their final drives and replace or modify them to bring
their cars into compliance. THEN, less than two years later, the
fallacy of the change has become apparent, and the rules are
changed BACK to the original, only with more explicit wording.
Not exactly in the interests of the membership to have made that
change. I claim that the possibility exists that the changes now
being contemplated may make no more sense.
> That's the way
>to get it cleaned up. I've been asking for help from Team.Net
>for a number of years to come up with rule book fixes, and
almost
>nobody has ever actually supplied a list of suggested things to
fix.
Well, prior to the recent fracas, I personally found no problem
with the wording of the various sections relating to fuel system
filtering/fuel transmission/induction. The way I read it was:
you can't screw with your fuel tank, because it DOESN'T SAY YOU
CAN (unless you comply with the Solo I safety regs in their
entirety and run a fuel cell), but you CAN run any fuel line of
any size, you CAN install any fuel filter(s) or fuel pump(s) you
want - the same as you can install any carburetor(s) with any
size float bowl(s) you want - and you can NOT drill holes
anywhere to install any of that stuff. Seemed clear to me, and it
also seemed not to impose any particular vehicle-selective cost
burden nor to upset the competitive balance in any class.
>I don't; it seems the "kinder and gentler" approach to accept
the
>competitor's strained but perhaps credible contentions regarding
the
>wording.
It hasn't just been the one competitor. Quite a number of folks
have been aware of this sort of device and believed in good faith
it to be fully within the letter AND spirit of the rules.
>NO. "Take the entire rule in context" is not the same as
"interpret".
>What people should do: Read the whole thing. Use your brain.
See above. that's just what I have been doing. And, after doing
that, I concluded that the rules allowed the device in question.
You believe otherwise.
>Have a little tiny bit of common sense. Don't try to beat the
system
>and get an edge.
If you honestly believe, as I do, that the "system" allows
something, then you're not trying to "beat" the system by
employing that something to your advantage.
> Build an honest car and win by driving.
The implication being that Tom's car wasn't honest and he did NOT
"win by driving?" If it were me, I'd be inclined to take offense
at that.
>> statements by folks who were there at the time that this
>> possibility didn't enter their minds.
>
>You may be correct. But SP was created in around 1983, and I
>think there were at least mechanical FI systems in existence
>then.
EFI systems were first used in production cars in 1968 (VW
Squareback/Fastback). But AFTERMARKET ones didn't show up 'til
the latter part of the '80s. I'll bet nobody was converting
carb'ed SP cars into FI ones in 1983, and I'll bet that most of
the rulesmakers weren't considering that possibility when the
Category was formed. I personally have no problem with such
conversions, and the wording of the rules clearly allows them,
but I don't think that was anticipated by the writers.
>Nope. But if you add 50 feet of 1" line coiled in your trunk,
>somebody would be justified in questioning whether it is being
>a fuel line or being something else.
OK, but what about a 6' run of 3/4" line completely contained
inside the engine compartment? I claim I can get there with even
less than that. Do you consider that protestable?
>> 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.
>
>I have no idea. We occasionally sputtered when there was less
>than 2" in the tank,
Ahh, but you don't know how far your car had gone after your fuel
pump started sucking air. It might be a lot further than you
think.
>> 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
>
>No, it's a conduit.
Semantics. It has nonzero fuel capacity, and the engine can
continue running on just that fuel. Call it a reservoir or not,
it can and does function as one. So does the fuel filter and the
carb float bowl and the EFI fuel rail. Can't I make my carbs'
float bowls as large as I want, or are there unwritten
"restrictions" in that "unrestricted" as well?
> Its purpose is not to hold fuel, but to
>route it when it's moving.
In "routing" said fuel, is it your contention that the fuel line
"holds" no fuel? And exactly how many fairies CAN dance on the
head of a pin?
>Dunno, my dog ain't in this fight either. The SPAC should
probably
>take a hard look at the possibility of some nit-picky wording.
Or go the other way entirely, recognizing the futility of trying
to enforce a ban on the function.
Jay
|