In a message dated 6/16/99 1:30:02 PM EST, hillman@planet-torque.com writes:
> So, to sum up, the SEB had no evidence of a problem, but it went ahead
> and wrote a rule aimed at one car that will *hassle* a bunch of members,
> based on the suspicions of their competitors, which in the end, helps no
> one.
The SEB did not write a rule aimed at one car. The SEB did not write a
new rule at all, period. It added a sentence to an existing rule already in
the rulebook. It did not add this sentence to "hassle" a bunch of members,
and it was not added based on the suspicions of other competitors. It was
added because, in the judgment of the members of the SEB,
a turbocharger is NOT a separate component that can be updated or
backdated separately under the Street Prepared rules. The engine and
turbo must be updated/backdated as a unit. The SEB has not ruled on this
previously because no one specifically asked the SEB whether it could be
done or not.
"But we asked Denver and they said it was OK," you say. When you call
Denver to ask a rulebook question, they do their best to accurately and
honestly answer it, but they also (AFAIK) tell the questioner that to get an
official answer they should send a letter or e-mail to the Solo Events Board
if they want to be certain they're receiving correct information. That's
because the SEB, overseen by the SCCA Board of Directors, is charged
with making and interpreting the rules in the Solo II Rulebook, not the
Rally/Solo Department.
Is every caller given this caveat? I can't know for sure, but I'd bet the
vast
majority of them are. Do some people conveniently forget this caveat if
they have already heard the answer they want to hear? Perhaps. Is this
a perfect way to handle rules questions? Heck no, but with a volunteer
board it's likely the best we can come up with. Why do you think the
answer given in this forum to so many questions is "Write a letter"?
The truth is that most of the questions get answered correctly over the
phone this way. If there's any doubt about the answer, the process takes
more time. It's just the way our system works.
> What was wrong with reclassing the DSMs to another Street Prepared
> class, if they are *so* much faster than ESP? Or leaving them alone until
> the results, instead of insecurity, indicate a problem?
Why should we re-class them when no one yet knows what their true
potential is against the other cars in the class at the National level?
> I'm honestly not trying to harrass folks who do a good job classing
> cars, just trying to understand this seemingly goofy rule.
Lots of rules in the rulebook seem goofy to people, it usually depends on
your perspective (and often on what you're driving at the time).
GH Sharp
|