> From: Jay Mitchell <jemitchell@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: sp changes in fast track
>
> Eric Linnhoff wrote:
>
> > Apparently there actually were enough sour grapes over the "unrestricted
> > fuel lines" that some were using at the Nats last year that the SEB felt it
> > necessary to enact a change in the wording of the SP rules.
>
> Obviously, you didn't read the thread on this subject last fall. There
> have been SP cars using the SAME type of de-embolizing device trophying
> at Nationals since 1983. 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.
> WRONG! Even SEB members will tell you they have no idea of the original
> intent of many of the rules. The only POSSIBLE interpretation has to be
> that the rules mean what they say, LITERALLY.
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. See the
beginning of the Stock rules for an example of this approach: "Cars
must be run as delivered...." IMHO the overlooking of this
approach to the rules (remember Prussian versus Bohemian, or whatever
it was?) is the cause of most supposed "rule reading problems".
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--by people who want
to implement a particular modification, and look hard at each word
trying to make a case for its legality. 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". What you have to do is to take
the entire rule in context with those around it. Why would the
book allow unrestricted fuel lines and pumps? Well, it allows a
conversion from carburetion to FI, and that conversion is probably
going to require a fuel pump change and maybe different lines and
the routing thereof, and maybe you'll need to add a return line
where there wasn't one before. 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? No. Does
it say you can insert a reservoir into a fuel line? No.
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". 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". 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. If you think
these "de-embolizers" should be legal, write in an suggest that
the rules be changed to explicitly allow them.
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. Some
cars just come with tanks you can run really low, some don't.
Flame away.
KCB
|