Jay said:
> with a description on the back of each one saying what each one
> is," i.e., provide great detail, you're not guaranteed that a
> ruling by the SEB will be definitive. So you can, as we have
Yep; if someone comes up with better/alternative/conflicting
information, would you want the SEB to stand by a ruling which
in reality permits a configuration which is actually illegal?
It's the competitor/requestor's job to provide definitive
data to back up their request. If they don't, the SEB may rule
based on what they get but the strength of the ruling is based
on the strength of the submitted information.
> it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?
The bottom line should be, is the car legal? Not what the intent
was (doesn't everyone say "I didn't mean to cheat..."?), or what
the mis-reading of the rule may have yielded, but simply is the
car legal based on the best information available? Would you want
a car which had just been proven conclusively illegal--as opposed
to via a matter of interpretation--to take a National win
away from someone else in an ostensibly legal car, just because
the driver of the first one thought his car was okay based on a
preliminary ruling with its roots in erroneous information? Isn't
that kind of like letting a murderer off on a technicality, even
when you have witnesses and a recording of the deed?
> "Fuel lines and pumps are unrestricted AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT
> POSE A SAFETY HAZARD." (emphasis mine). If additional
Yes. FUEL LINES. Not reservoirs, de-embolizers, etc. FUEL LINES.
A fuel line is a conduit through which fuel moves on its way from
one place to another. To interpret "fuel line" as inclusive of
"reservoir" when the latter is a separate, distinct component
seems farfetched to me. Do we have to define simple terms to
keep them from being extrapolated? What's next, shock absorber?
Spring? Brake pad? Wheel?
> as to whether that was the case - then they should have been
> explicitly stated. There are the general rules such as "No
That would mean every rule has to say what you CAN'T do. And
cover all possible mis-readings and weird interpretations. This
is impractical from a size-of-the-book standpoint. People don't
bother to read it now; how bad would it be if it were several
volumes? :-)
> authorized modifications..." (14.1.A) to prevent one, for
> example, from using large-diameter mild steel tubing for a "fuel
> line" and rigidly attaching it to the body to provide structural
> enhancement. The way I read that section, it is ALSO illegal to
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". If a fuel line is not
stated as allowed to serve as a structural enhancement, then it
can ONLY serve as a fuel line. Because the book doesn't say it
can serve as something else. I suppose you could take the tack
that it only means "may serve no other purpose" when it explicitly
says so, but I'd find that pretty adventurous.
> 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.
> Again, you're trying to state that your interpretation is the
> definitive one, and I'm the one who's declining to interpret. If
I don't think so. I'm merely applying the "IF IT DOESN'T SAY
YOU CAN, THEN YOU CAN'T" thinking which is stated in various
locations in the book. Telling me a "fuel line" is unrestricted
means that as long as it really is functioning as a fuel line, then
it's okay. When it becomes something else, it's not.
> there really IS a gray area, and your idea of "over the top" is
> likely not to coincide with that of others.
If people are looking to "get away" with whatever they can,
you're probably right. I always recommend the conservative
approach ("IF IT DOESN'T SAY...").
> Admit it - the wording in the rulebook is often convoluted, vague
> and self-contradictory. Attempts to clean it up have often made
Maybe. Get specific and write up some examples. 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.
Except Phil Ethier and the spelling of Sonnet.
> competitor's favor - and you can't deny that other folks every
> bit as reasonable as yourself are in disagreement with you on the
> issue.
I don't; it seems the "kinder and gentler" approach to accept the
competitor's strained but perhaps credible contentions regarding the
wording. As an occasional Appeals Committee member I can see how
that would be somewhat reasonable. I also am glad they have
tried to preclude something they feel is perhaps credible, but
not really correct.
> I claim that that justification is not needed at all for the
> device we're debating.
And I disagree ("IF IT DOESN'T SAY...") but I think we've established
that this is one of those times the fence is between us. Okey dokey.
> > What you have to do is to take
> >the entire rule in context with those around it.
>
> I.e., interpret the rules. And your interpretation of what the
NO. "Take the entire rule in context" is not the same as "interpret".
What people should do: Read the whole thing. Use your brain.
Have a little tiny bit of common sense. Don't try to beat the system
and get an edge. Build an honest car and win by driving.
> And why would you think it allows that? Aftermarket EFI wasn't
> even AVAILABLE when the induction rules were written. Does the
The term "induction" is pretty reasonable to accept as covering
fuel injection. The term "fuel line" doesn't quite seem to
encompass "reservoir" in the same way.
> 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.
> And where, pray tell, would that return line go? You can't modify
> the tank to accommodate it.
You're definitely correct there. They need to fix that.
> filter, and float bowl (or fuel rail for EFI), even with its tank
> EMPTY. Now, are you saying that there is some implicit limit on
> how far it should be able to go like this? If so, precisely what
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.
> 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, but from experience we knew that this was
the lower limit and generally stayed above it.
> 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. Its purpose is not to hold fuel, but to
route it when it's moving.
> for an upper limit. What do you propose?
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.
> >making a case for their reading of the rule based on words like
> >"any" and "unrestricted".
>
> Again, you're the one trying to parse meanings here. Legal is
> legal. Illegal is illegal. Black isn't white. If the SEB did NOT
Really? Then why do we need judges, lawyers, juries, the Supreme
Court, etc. How is pornography defended via Freedom of Speech?
There's no such thing as perfect language. Even NO and YES can
be mis-interpreted.
> from overcoming fuel pickup problems, you're gonna have to place
> some specific limit on the fuel system capacity downstream of the
> tank. Otherwise, there'll always be a legal way to accomplish the
> same goal.
Maybe they should just allow pickup changes? Fuel cells? Anybody
want to write a proposal?
> Yeah, and you were in a Lotus, too. Everybody KNOWS you don't
> have to do anything to them or even drive well to win in one of
> those. ;<)
Oh yea, I forgot. It was absolutely box stock with big wheels and
tires thrown on. Silly me. :-)
KCB
|