> clear distinction between a fuel line and a reservoir for Solo II
> purposes, given the very small amount of fuel needed to complete
> a run. This is what I've been trying to get across w/r/t the
> futility of the effort.
And you may be correct, so perhaps it's more realistic to simply
write an allowance, rather than a prohibition. Go for it.
> outlaw a one-off unit. I'd very much like to see clearer wording
> in this area.
How can there be? You say that there's a one-quart OEM filter
unit on a VW. That seems just plain huge, and would no doubt
offer sufficient capacity to serve as the desired reservoir.
But how could it be illegal on a Jetta when it's OEM? And if
a Jetta can use one, why can't an RX-3? What more definitive
wording could there be that would be reasonable? Sometimes you
can't have "crystal clear" and "fair" together, so you choose
as best as you can. You may not like it, but that's just the
way the realities of language sometimes fall. You either screw
the Jetta, or let 'em all have the same thing.
> What exactly is wrong or illegal about "clever?" You're not
By "non-clever" I naturally meant "non-stretched-interpretational".
And did you mean to dodge the question about a reasonable amount?
> I don't perceive any equivalency between true creativity in car
> preparation and cheating.
There definitely is a line between creativity and cheating; it's
determining the location of that line which is the challenge.
Your location is obviously more liberal than mine. And mine is,
frankly, less likely to land someone in the Protest area at
Topeka. That's why I observe it, and preach it. Being protested
over an interpretational ("clever") item, when you're convinced
you've done nothing wrong, can be excruciatingly unpleasant. Got
the T-shirt.
> But he was doing so as part of a good-faith effort to comply with
> the rules.
No doubt. As were many before him. Their good faith didn't
keep someone else from disagreeing and putting up the protest fee.
> Can I save a copy of this email and use it as a defense in a
> future protest? If not, then I'd prefer the rules be worded so as
> not to require this sort of judgement call.
You're asking for something that can't be given, in many instances.
Again, if the laws of our country, states, and cities can't "not
require this sort of judgement call" in the hands of professionals,
is it reasonable to expect it within the realm of an amateur
sport administered by volunteers? You keep acting as if the
wording is easy, yet you haven't offered any.
> So, as several of us have pointed out before, there remain
> perfectly legal means for accomplishing the same end. Result:
I never said there weren't. I could also get the same HP in
my SP Elan from a set of cams as I could from a Motec engine
management system. The latter would be perfectly legal; should
we then allow the former? I could achieve the same camber
adjustment via A-arms with rod ends as I could via the OEM
A-arms with offset bushings; do we then allow the rod-ends?
> Inconvenient, perhaps, but no net change other than cosmetic. Is
> that all we've been arguing about?
When it comes right down to it, pretty much so. A big Jetta
filter (bonus points if it says VW on it), some fat lines, and
you're done. :-)
> Not every consequence is envisioned. That's no argument that it's
> not allowed, however.
IF IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN, THEN YOU CAN'T. If a Torsen couldn't
be described as a limited-slip differential, then there would
have to have been a rule wording addition to permit it.
KCB
|