I intend for this to be my final post on the subject - as tired as y'all are of
reading them, I'm twice as tired of writing them. There are those who seem to
feel that Team.net is some sort of high school debate club, that they must
persue a "side", once taken, to the bitter end, or somehow be judged a 'loser".
I am not one of them. I prefer (despite all evidence to the contrary) to believe
that this forum can somehow work to _resolve_ problems on occasion, not just
drag them screaming into the light.
I also believe that the SEB does not pull rules out of their asses. If a rule is
made, there must be a reason for it. I also choose to ignore the black
helecopters circling my house, and to believe that the SEB really does try and
do the "right thing" for the Club membership and doesn't run according to
internal agendas or predjudices.
So, we have a situation where the SEB has made a ruling on turbo
update/backdate. The rule change must be evaluated as follows:
1. Is there really a problem, or a potential problem with a high probablity of
becoming a real problem?
2. Does the proposed rule solve the problem?
3. Does it do so with the minimum impact on ALL Club members?
Let's examine, as open-mindedly as possible, all three evaluation criteria.
1) Is there a problem? Having talked to GH this weekend, the answer seems to be
"not yet". The SEB is concerned that, if you allow update/backdate of turbos,
that someone may figure out how to get a turbo onto a non-turbocharged,
large-displacement engine in an ostensibly legal way. Doing so would be _very_
difficult (drilling holes for oil lines, rerouting coolant lines, etc appears to
me to be illegal under existing rules) but there's no explicit proof in the
rules against a well motivated, well researched competitor finding a way to
accomplish this, either now, or in the future. If it were to happen, the
potential is enormous - imagine a turbocharged 4.8l Mustang R!
I agree with the SEB that this cannot be allowed to happen. Not only does it
contain the potential to drastically alter the SP landscape
competitiveness-wise, but it runs counter to the spirit of the rules.
Furthermore, I agree that a turbo cannot be considered "an intake part", "an
exhaust part", or "both" as that would be open season on aftermarket
turbochargers - another Very Bad Thing for the same reasons.
However, there is a segment of the Club population where turbocharger
update/backdate is _entirely_ within the spirit of the rules, and does not pose
a dire threat to SP As We Know it. A subset of this segment has already
performed this modification, and has shown that turbocharger update/backdate is
possible and even desirable within certain narrow parameters.
2) Does the proposed rule solve the problem? Yes. I don't see that there's any
debate needed on this.
3) Does it do so with minimum impact? No. Those who had already performed the
modification are affected, and there are a fair number of them out there.
Furthermore, all of the "prominent" (read: those who compete at Nationals)
members made the effort to contact the National Office and get what they
felt/believed was an authoritative ruling on the matter on at least four
separate occasions. In all of them, the respondant (Howard Duncan) confirmed
that the update/backdate was legal. Wiether or not Howard is authorized to make
these rulings or not is a question for another day; the point remains that the
permission was granted, and was done so not once, not twice, but _four times_ -
so there is precident here.
So it seems to me that what is required is a revised rule that protects the Club
against the real problem the SEB intended the rule to counter, but reducing the
impact to the Membership.
Incidently, there is a very real, VERY LARGE, public relations problem with the
SCCA and the turbocharged population at large. Real or imagined, a lot of people
believe that the SCCA has a politically motivated anti-turbo bias, and this
proposed rule further feeds the flame. This is an opportunity for the SEB to
demonstrate that it listens to the membership and that this supposed bias does
not really exist.
Here's what is needed:
1) Cars with motors that were not available with turbochargers from the factory
should never have turbochargers added.
2) In the case where multiple motors, all turbocharged, were factory available,
no turbocharger-motor combination not available from the factory should be
allowed; ie, the turbo from the 2.0l I4 should not be allowed on the 3l V6 or
vice versa.
3) Twin turbo units should not be broken up or separated.
Rules written to these points would only allow update/backdate of turbos between
engines of the exact same displacement and configuration, where both engines
were factory turbocharged. This greatly limits the Club's exposure, but yet
allows for commonplace swaps of this type.
The SEB accomplishes what they have to, and the DSM guys don't get screwed.
Everybody wins.
Here's my proposed wording:
- Turbocharger units may not ported, clipped, or otherwise modified from stock.
- Turbochargers may be updated/backdated, provided that:
- the donator and target car were both turbocharged
- the displacement of the engine in both donor and target are exactly the
same
- the configuration and number of cylinders of the engine in both donor and
target are exactly the same
- that oil and coolant lines use the stock source and/or return points
- Twin turbocharger units and their associated control hardware must be
updated/backdated as a complete unit; Individual turbochargers may not be
separated out, nor may single turbochargers be combined to provide a twin
turbocharger configuration.
GH, how does this look to you?
DG
|