On Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003, at 18:04 US/Pacific, Tibbals, Paul wrote:
> Hi all, if this mail goes through I'm stepping out the lurker shadows.
>
> re: KeS' comment regarding sportsmanship vs. disconnecting the ABS.
> How many ways can I _degrade_ the performance of my car before I get
> protested?
That's not a very good question, because you can be protested without
regard to any rules violations. If you really want an answer, restate
and I'll try to answer it.
> Let's say
> -a Mustang spins its wheels under normal acceleration but the fuel
> filter is clogged so it stays hooked up, at the one place on the
> course where that will improve its time?
If you're asking if you could be successfully protested for a clogged
fuel filter, indirectly you could, yes. It would have to be presented
as a flow rate out of spec for either the filter itself or the
pressure/rate at the injectors, something like that. Would it be
practical to raise such a protest? Maybe - cars have been DQed at
Nationals for out-of-spec injectors, I believe.
> -I was getting too much rear-end lockup but those old worn factory
> pads barely grip any more so I left it that way.
Brake pads of any material or make are specifically allowed in Stock
classes, 13.6.A.
> -Let's say I think there's better feel through the power steering if I
> let it run without fluid? (a.k.a. "Armstrong steering" ;)
> I just don't see that it would be a worthwhile protest to say that you
> must replace the fusible link to the ABS system, in the case where I
> might have held the opinion that I was faster without ABS.
I don't understand what you mean by "worthwhile" protest. If you mean
"likely to be successful", I think it would be highly likely to be
successful. If you mean "sportsmanlike and legitimate", of course that
is a matter of opinion. However, the point of Stock class is that the
car be stock - as orderable from the factory, with wear limits within
service margins.
- There are certainly cars that perform better with ABS disabled, so
the possibility of improvement is certainly there.
- The rules say: "Except for modification authorized below, Stock
Category cars must be run as specified by the factory...". It is very
clear that disabling ABS by pulling a fuse is not a factory-specified
condition. If there's a button to turn it off or on, that would be a
clear indication that it WAS a factory-specified condition.
- There is a specific allowance in the Street Prepared rules to
disable, but not remove, ABS systems. Since the SP rules provide
ADDITIONAL allowances beyond Stock rules, it is a legitimate inference
that disabling ABS systems in Stock is NOT permitted.
> On many vehicles, especially in years past, ABS was optional. So if I
> had two cars of that model, one with and one without, and switched
> between them depending on whether it was raining, which rule was I
> breaking again?
None, except for some rules about changing cars during a competition,
but those may just be National supps. However, note the Stock class
rules again: "Option package conversions may be performed between
specific vehicles of a particular make and model, but only between
configurations from within a particular model year. Such conversions
must be totally complete and the resultant car must meet all
requirements of this Section."
> This is not strictly academic because I had a broken ABS hydraulic
> module thingie in my car last year for a substantial period of time
> before I chose to spend the big bux to get it replaced. "Normal"
> braking was unaffected. I got it replaced as soon as practicable, as
> I don't think that the ABS is a detriment. When it's working I don't
> slide off the course in a straight line when I overcook the corner, at
> least I'm turning a LITTLE bit. I honestly do not think that it was
> an advantage to be running without ABS.
You seem to be confused by the notion that how you feel about a
particular modification somehow affects its objective legality. It
doesn't work that way, it doesn't matter whether you think it's better
or worse, or even whether other people do. It isn't that your feelings
aren't important, they are simply not relevant to the issue.
> I don't have a problem with the idea of discouraging the disabling of
> safety equipment. This is likely the reasoning behind the rule
> against removing airbags.
I prefer not to speculate about the intent of preparation rules. It
always seems to get people in trouble.
> But I was well within the Stock rules to remove or reduce my front
> sway bar size.
There is a specific rule which allows any front sway bar to be used.
> Safety issue?
Not relevant.
> The factory didn't intend for me to limit my wheelspin by putting
> the spaghetti-sized wagon front bar in there.
"EXCEPT FOR MODIFICATIONS AUTHORIZED BELOW, Stock Category cars must be
run as specified by the factory..." (emphasis mine).
> I have read that insurance losses from rear-end collisions have not
> dropped noticeably despite many more cars having ABS. So is it a
> safety feature, really?
Not relevant.
> Some of the new Audis have a program "feature" that if you try to
> left foot brake while the gas is on, it cuts the power way back for
> several seconds.
A very significant point in my choice of autocross vehicles, as a
matter of fact. I'm waiting to see if that "feature" is implemented on
the new S4 V8.
> And wait, the manufacturer never intended for you to yank up that
> handbrake to enhance your autocrossing performance, that's outside of
> factory specs! Unsportsmanlike?
You are confusing vehicle operation with vehicle preparation. The
handbrake needs to be present and functional within service limits.
You couldn't, for example, adjust it out of factory specs to make it
more or less powerful. But if it used its own brake pads you could
change those!
Sportsmanship, in the context I used it originally, relates to
deliberately competing in a vehicle that is known to be prepared
outside the rules. The situation I was referring to was disabling ABS,
which is clearly illegal per the points above. Certainly there are
illegal preparations that might be clearly non-performance affecting -
say the retractor on a rear seat belt is broken. The protest process
provides for a range of penalties which includes "none".
I'll offer up my mea culpa here - I've deliberately competed in an
illegal Stock class car. The earlier C4 Corvettes had a plastic
throttle stop which was prone to disintegrating at awkward times and
disabling the car. After mine broke (on the street), I replaced it
with a machined aluminum one. I then printed up a number of protest
sheets describing the violation and attached them to the car whenever I
ran, in case someone chose to use one. If I'd gone to a National level
event in that car I'd have replaced it with a new plastic one for that
event, though. That's not a justification, just an explanation of what
I would anticipate the level of scrutiny to be.
> Because of the difficulty of policing it, SCCA had a rule that an
> electrical limited slip unit can't just have the fuse pulled, so the
> model with that feature can't be in STS. (Seems that maybe they
> dropped that line from the 2003 rules, but it was there last year.)
> But that is a clear situation of a performance enhancer, whereas ABS
> is a mixed bag depending on the car, situation, and driver.
This is the core problem with adopting a loose attitude towards the
rules. It endorses the notion that it's ok to break the rules as long
as you aren't likely to be caught. Ensuite the argument is put that
unenforceable rules should not be written, and ultimately everyone is
penalized. I disagree entirely with that principle, in autocross and
in life. The major constraint on rules violation must be the
individual. If you don't require people to be self-policing, no set of
rules will be effective. To say that ECUs should be legal in Stock
because ECU reprogramming can't be detected does a huge disservice to
those who wish to compete legally in unmodified cars. Make the rule,
and require people to honor it. Then test randomly, and when you find
violators, gut them like perch.
KeS
|