To look at it another way, rules interpretation has a significant effect on
preparation levels. I ran against a Mustang with a three point brace with
bolts removed at a National Tour event. He had been told by an SCCA
official that configuration was "ok". Having read the rulebook, it never
would have occurred to me to even *try* to get by with such an arrangement.
I was irked, not because I felt the Mustang was getting significant
advantage from the unbolted firewall strut (though the "compression" point
is valid), but because I had put off adding a strut brace to my car for over
a year because only three point braces were available!
To take another example - if it were ruled legal to cut holes to access
shock settings in Stock class, then "the" brand of shock to have could
change significantly from one which has adjustment accessable without
cutting holes, but is otherwise less effective. That's potentially
thousands of dollars and months of setup time.
*THAT's* why some of this picayune stuff gets argued seriously and
intensely.
KeS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
[mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Donald R McKenna
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 16:35
To: Keith Hearn; Scot Zediker
Cc: Nandaholz@aol.com; info@scca-susq.com; miata@realbig.com;
ba-autox@autox.team.net; khearn@Legato.COM
Subject: Re: oh man this thing is beautiful - SCCA rules
Keith Hearn Wrote in reference to the questionable legality of a tower brace
with firewall bolts removed:
>Actually, thinking some more about it since my last post, I think if I
> was judging the protest, I'd have to rule against the brace. Even if
> you remove the bolts, it can still press against the firewall and
> provide some bracing. If it was hanging a half an inch from the
> firewall when unbolted it might go either way, but if it's touching
> the firewall, it's providing bracing, even without the bolts.
I think you probably have the correct interpretation here. If there is a
chance, during driving, for the brace to come in contact with the firewall,
and through some imagined or real leverage, increase the chassis stiffness,
disqualification would likely be the case.
>But they're only an issue if you get protested, which isn't likely to
> happen at a local event, unless you start showing up a lot and
> placing well.
I also think you have a reasonable position as far as most local events and
competitors are concerned. However, keep in mind that many competitors have
big, bigger and biggest sizes of egos. The larger the ego, the easier it is
to rationalize, for a person being beaten, that the faster person "must be
cheating". And, a visually questionable item just feeds that
rationalization. That's what prompts many (of the few we have locally)
protests. Philosophically, having competed locally against a few cars over
the years that have had obviously illegal modifications, I've, in recent
years, concentrated on how to improve my performance rather than by
expending psysic energy on the negative. To spend time fretting over
another's indescretion, whether it be equipment or their protestable
behavior, is self-defeating for me. I'm better off focussing on improving my
performance on the course. Easy to say, somtimes hard to do, though.
Now go to another locale, such as another Region's Divisional, a National
Tour, a Pro Solo or the National run-offs and you should expect, if you're
fast, to really be given some critical attention. If even the slightest
questional item is visually obvious, the chances of being protested, and the
hassel that goes with a protest, go up dramatically.
Don
|